Synopsis:
Jack “One Round” Sander (Carl Brisson, The Manxman) is a carny boxer who is trying to save up money to marry his girlfriend (Lillian Hall-Davis, The Farmer’s Wife). Things get complicated when the romantic pair meet boxing champion Bob Corby (Ian Hunter, Strange Cargo), who offers Jack the chance to fight professionally.
Reaction & Thoughts:
“The trouble is that he’s a champion, and you’re not… yet!”
This is Alfred Hitchcock’s sixth film, but the director insisted that The Ring was his second movie (the first one being The Lodger). Hitchcock’s pronouncement reflected the pride he felt over having total creative control for the second time in his career; Hitch selected the story, the cast, and even wrote the screenplay himself. That’s why the film is every bit as personal as Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958) and/or Marnie (1964).
Because he is known as a director of thrillers, it’s interesting to see how emotionally invested Hitchcock is in what constitutes an old-fashioned love triangle with a sports background. At first glance, The Ring is closer to Rocky (1976) than to Psycho (1960), but if you analyze the director’s oeuvre, Hitchcock was always as interested in love as he was in murder — in his movies, romantic liaisons are filled with mystery.
The title refers to both a boxing ring and a wedding band. A beautiful bracelet is another piece of jewelry that figures prominently in the storyline. This is a particularly intriguing item. It’s a serpent, an obvious reference to the original sin. Hitchcock liked his biblical allegories and here, although not all that subtle, the reference is an effective way of keeping the topic of forbidden sexual desire in the audience’s mind.
In addition, the bracelet emphasizes the cyclical nature of life. The Ring ends exactly the way it began, with things returning to the way they were. This is an idea that Hitchcock loved to explore. For example, in movies like The 39 Steps (1935), Rear Window (1954), Trouble with Harry (1955), etc., characters and situations come full circle. It’s about the journey, not the destination, Hitchcock insisted.
The Ring demonstrates that Hitchcock was a very smart and inventive filmmaker from the outset. There are many visual innovations throughout the entire film, so one has to pay careful attention in order to notice them. Some touches are so subtle — the flat champagne is one of them — that you’ll probably miss them.
I was also greatly surprised by how well Hitchcock shot the boxing matches. It’s not Raging Bull-good, but the action in the ring is pretty great (for an old silent movie). John Cox, the director’s cameraman for most of his pre-Hollywood career, is able to achieve a nice level of realism. The editing is fantastic too.
Conclusions & Final Thoughts:
The Ring is one of Alfred Hitchcock’s most satisfying non-suspense films. It serves to remind viewers that Hitchcock was not just the Master of Suspense; he was a storyteller of the first order. There are, unfortunately, some racist elements that age the film badly — the n-word is casually used throughout the movie — but overall, this is Hitchcock at his very best! Highly recommended! B&W, 80 minutes, Not Rated.
Diary of A Movie Maniac 