Champagne (1928)

Synopsis:

A spoiled champagne heiress (Betty Balfour, Croquette) is tricked by her own father (Gordon Harker, The Ring and The Farmer’s Wife) into believing that she’s no longer rich. The socialite’s father hopes that she learns a much-needed lesson in humility, but the girl instead becomes bitterly disillusioned with her new blue-collar lifestyle.

Reaction & Thoughts:

“We’re only interested in legs here.”

Champagne was born out of Alfred Hitchcock’s newly discovered obsession: champagne! I’m not kidding you. Hitchcock became enamored with the beverage and in a moment of silliness agreed to make a movie about his favorite beverage.

 Hitchcock originally intended the story to be a bit more complex; a bittersweet tale about a working class woman who works at a champagne company. Hitchcock, for reasons unclear to me, changed the structure of the story and lived to regret it. For decades, Hitchcock shrugged at the mere mention of the movie, calling it “the lowest ebb in my output,” but I truly think that this admittedly superfluous morality tale is filled with many interesting ideas that deserve some analysis.

Even in a silly movie like Champagne, Hitchcock’s anxieties show up strongly. Adults living under the thumb of a controlling parent is something that reappears again and again throughout the director’s filmography. Notorious (1946), Strangers on a Train (1951), and more notably Psycho (1960) and The Birds (1963), all deal with the idea of parents enacting unhealthy control over their adult children.

There is also the very Hitchcockian idea of “wisdom-through-suffering.” The heroine faces constant humiliations and endless obstacles, even sexual harassment, before she realizes what’s important in her life.

Champagne is really a comedy with a few dramatic moments, not the other way around. The gags are pretty inventive. There is a scene with a drunken man stumbling through the corridors of a ship when the sea is calm, and walks straight when the ship encounters bad weather. There is also a hilarious sequence with the heiress and her boyfriend fighting in a restaurant to the astonishment of a group of happy couples. It’s funny because of the juxtaposition of feelings within a single frame.

The acting is pretty good too. Betty Balfour, who looks like Mary Pickford, is delightful as the girl. Gordon Harker is hilarious as the girl’s cantankerous father. The cast also includes Ferdinand von Alten (The Student of Prague), Jean Bradin (A Modern Dubarry) and Clifford Heatherley (The Rise of Catherine the Great). Film debut of Claude Hulbert (Disney’s Alice in Wonderland)

Conclusions & Final Thoughts:

Champagne is like the title implies; a bubbly, thinly written story that’s both silly and amusing. But as a training camp for Hitch to flex his cinematic muscles and experiment with certain ideas that preoccupied him, this is an important movie in the development of a brand. Future director Michael Powell (Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes) worked on the film as a set designer. B&W, 85 minutes, Not Rated.

2 responses to “Champagne (1928)

Leave a Reply to Cindy Bruchman Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s