While attending a medical conference in Paris, American physician Dr. Ben McKenna, his wife, retired musical theater actress and singer Jo McKenna née Conway, and their adolescent son Hank McKenna decide to take a side trip to among other places Marrekesh, French Morocco. With a knife plunged into his back, Frenchman Louis Bernard, who the family met earlier in their bus ride into Marrakesh and who is now masquerading as an Arab, approaches Ben, cryptically whispering into Ben's ears that there will be an attempted assassination in London of a statesman, this news whispered just before Bernard dies. Ben is reluctant to provide any information of this news to the authorities because concurrently Hank is kidnapped by British couple, Edward and Lucy Drayton, who also befriended the McKennas in Marrakesh and who probably have taken Hank out of the country back to England. Whoever the unknown people the Draytons are working for have threatened to kill Hank if Ben divulges any information ... Written by
The movie was originally to be produced by Paramount Pictures and Patron, a company to be jointly owned by James Stewart, Doris Day and Alfred Hitchcock. When the film finally went before the cameras, the production company was Filwite Productions, Inc., co-owned by Hitchcock and Stewart. The reason Day was not included in the final production deal has not been publicly disclosed. However, it may have had something to do with Day's husband and manager at the time, Martin Melcher, a man absolutely despised and considered shady by many in Hollywood. See more »
When the McKennas are riding in the back of the bus the boy spots a camel out of the side window; when they then look at it out the back of the bus there is no camel to be seen. See more »
A man... a statesman... is to be killed... assassinated in London. Soon... very soon. Tell them in London... tell them to try Ambrose Chapel...
See more »
Opening credits prologue: A single crash of Cymbals and how it rocked the lives of an American family. See more »
the famous twelve-minute sequence at the Albert Hall alone is enough to demand an audience for this richly entertaining thriller
In 1956, Alfred Hitchcock owed a film to Paramount Studios and was given the task of remaking not just any film, but one of his own. That film was his 1934 movie "The Man Who Knew Too Much" which starred Leslie Banks and Edna Best as vacationing parents who unwillingly become involved in an international espionage involving an assassination plot. In order to keep their mouths shut, foreign spies kidnap their daughter and hold her hostage. Hitchcock was in no particular hurry to tell the same story again, but he did owe Paramount a movie and proceeded to do it again. But like a professional, he did not simply tell the same story. He used the same plot and circumstances, but generated a newer, better film with a fresher story from his 1934 hit. This time casting the always competent James Stewart and the lovely Doris Day as the vacationing parents and having a son not daughter being kidnapped, Hitchcock created one of his most underrated films that I think deserves to be placed alongside his lists of masterpieces.
This was the third of the four movies that Hitchcock made with James Stewart and this is the one that is the least dark and the most free-spirited. It is not a dark, twisted movie like "Vertigo" or "Rear Window" nor is it as good as the said features, but it's one of the director's most thoroughly enjoyable movies. It takes a serious tone, but also has carefully placed moments of comedy that do generate laughs. Hitchcock was a gifted and versatile filmmaker who has entries in his filmography that should accommodate for all mainstreams in the audience. And for those who just want Hitchcock as an exciting, adventurous level, this is the movie I recommend.
Part of the reason why I enjoy this more than the original is that I like the parents in the movie more. We get more three-dimensional development from them this time and we sense the struggle to find their son and possibly save a diplomat's life if they can. The movie is held up by the performances by James Stewart and Doris Day. This is the least dark Stewart was in the four movies he had with Hitchcock and it's probably the most conventional performances he did for the Master of Suspense, but nevertheless a very good one. He is totally believably and competent as the frantic, but cool-headed father in love with his family. But what shocks me so much is that in reviews, people oftentimes overlook Doris Day, who I think is just as good as Jimmy Stewart. I'm enthralled by the enthusiasm and the energy that she puts behind her performance. Yes, Day is beautiful, but she's also a more than competent actress who carries out her scenes, especially her emotionally and distressful ones with absolute perfection.
If there is a weakness in the movie, it does relate to the villains whom we don't see very often, but that's part of what makes this movie work. Because we don't see the villains often, we sympathize and follow the parents played by Stewart and Day better than if we toggled frequently between both sides. Hitchcock always liked to play against conventions and it shows here. That's another one of the minor differences this has from the original, which did jump between parties more often.
And if you're seeking Alfred Hitchcock performing his art of suspense you will find it here, never you fear. Hitchcock believed in a theory called pure cinema, in which you did not need sound or dialogue, merely images to generate any emotion. And there is one very famous scene in this movie taking place at the Royal Albert Hall in London, which proves this theory. Hitchcock tells us what to look for but not the protagonists and this builds up tension that can go on for as long as he wants to. The scene goes on for twelve minutes twelve minutes and every moment of it is sheer suspense coupled with powerful emotion. And there's no dialogue. The sound is dominated by the music. It's very much like watching a silent movie. And it's the most powerful scene in the picture.
The original "The Man With No Name" is one of the most interesting examples of Hitchcock's career as an amateur, but the remake, done by a professional, is vastly superior and infinitely entertaining. If I do have a complaint, it's the last thirty seconds of the movie which wrap up a little suddenly, but the previous two hours were so much fun I easily forgive that and enthusiastically shell out my highest rating. "The Man With No Name" is one of Alfred Hitchcock's most entertaining pictures.
15 of 20 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?