Juno and the Paycock (1929) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
50 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Highly underrated and misunderstood Hitchcock film.
kergillian1 June 2002
Most people don't like this film, not realizing that a) it's one of Hitchcock's very first British films, on a low budget; and b) that it's not a thriller or suspense film, but based on a masterfully written comic tragedy by Irish playwright Sean O'Casey. Very faithful to the play, this film is fairly well acted, and fairly well cast. Though most seem to think Sara Allgood is the standout as Juno, I particularly like Sidney Morgan's wonderful portrayal as Joxer, and Edward Chapman's performance as Captain Boyle is also very good,

But writing and acting aside, this film is not without its flaws. Obviously on a tight and tiny budget, the quality of film and sound are fairly awful, and Hitchcock's direction and cinematography is less than stellar, with a rash of low shots and cut-off heads.

Still, the poor quality of film and filming can be excused for budgetary constraints, and the fact that this is such an early Hitchcock film. Definitely worth watching if you like the play, which I do, but don't expect and thrills or shocks; this is a talk-heavy play about Irish troubles during the uprising with some very sharp and wicked humour and some very tragic commentary. Not Hitchcock's best by a longshot, but severely underrated. 6/10.
51 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Hitchcock Meets O'Casey: Not a Good Match.
nycritic30 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Adapting a heavy-handed play into a successful film is a gamble which can produce a masterpiece, like O'Neill's A LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT, or a complete misfire such as in this case. O'Casey's JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK, considered one of his greatest works, could and should have been a better, more mobile dramatic film under the hand of Alfred Hitchcock who had already produced THE LODGER and BLACKMAIL -- early masterpieces of suspense -- but it seems as though the Director did not really know the material or did not know how to approach such a story in a visual way. There are times when the story becomes so still that it seems as though one is watching paint dry. What saves the film from total oblivion is the very theatrical performance of Sara Allgood as Juno Boyle: she carries the emotional weight of the drama that plays itself out, and her outcry at the end is very potent. Hitchcock would only direct another similarly themed movie called THE SKIN GAME two years later, but it's clear that at this point of his career he was experimenting with sound and would move on to much better films as the Thirties progressed.
29 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
For Hitchcock Students Only
michaelf30 January 2002
Sean O'Casey's play does not translate to the screen very well. A bit talky, it may have worked fine on stage, but it is not movie material. Still Hitchcock has moments where he shows his genius as a filmmaker. There are camera shots and editing cuts that tell more of the story than any of O'Casey's dialog.

Still, I would not recommend this film for anyone who is new to the work of Alfred Hitchcock. Save this one for the advance class, and let the beginners view "The Secret Agent," "Shadow of a Doubt," "Vertigo," and "Psycho," just to name a few.
24 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Hitchcock made a bunch of bad decisions here
AlsExGal29 January 2023
After filming a few bits on the revue musical Elstree Calling, Alfred Hitchcock's next full feature directing job was on this terrible adaptation of Sean O'Casey's popular play. A long-suffering Irish family struggles to get by during the Irish Civil War. Matriarch "Juno" (Sara Allgood, who had played the role on the stage as well) tries to get layabout drunk husband Captain Boyle (Edward Chapman), whom she refers to as the "Paycock" (peacock) due to his strutting vanity, to find work to help support the family, which includes daughter Mary (Kathleen O'Regan), a worker on strike, and son Johnny (John Laurie), a former IRA fighter left bitter and resentful after an injury resulted in the loss of an arm. When the Captain learns that he's come into a generous inheritance, the family thinks that their fortunes may have finally brightened, only for tragedy to occur. Also featuring Marie O'Neill, Sidney Morgan, Dave Morris, and John Longden (the policeman boyfriend from Blackmail).

I'm not familiar with O'Casey's play, but if this film is an indication, it's awful. Hitchcock made the conscious decision to abstain from any cinematic style, and attempted to present this as a largely static filmed play, rendering the already-tedious proceedings even more unbearable. Allgood isn't bad, but the rest of the cast is forgettable at best. The original play had starred Barry Fitzgerald as the Captain, and he makes his film debut here as a speech-making rabble-rouser at the movie's start. Perhaps Hitchcock thought that Barry's Nosferatu-with-a-bad-wig look wasn't camera-friendly enough to reprise his lead role. This is definitely my least favorite Hitchcock film.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't fall for the video box (like poor gridoon)!
The Quiet Man18 May 2001
Yes, it's "talky." Possibly because it's a film version of Sean O'Casey's seminal stage play about poverty, class, betrayal and death in the slums of Dublin during the Irish Civil War." Dull?" This film is taut enough that a common votive light becomes as frightening as the appearance of a ghost. And a doomed young man's descent into paranoia and babbling fear fairly bursts on the screen.

The discerning viewer will not only be rewarded with a moving story; the Hitchcock touches are there as well. A young director already finding his voice while handling serious material. The dark humor (The Trouble with Harry), the suspense that builds in silence (Lifeboat), and the immediate presence of the camera in the midst of life (Rope). All there.

Studios often resort to misleading packaging in attempts to lure the unsuspecting into renting/seeing/buying a movie that would otherwise not attract them. Those who only like their Hitchcock with a boy in mama's dress or a bird on a wire WILL hate this gem. Their loss.
28 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
That's Peacock to all of us non-gaelics
bkoganbing7 November 2005
Juno and the Paycock is very much like Sean O'Casey's other filmed work, The Plough and the Stars. Both plays are centered on typical Irish families in Dublin trying to survive in times of strife. Plough and the Stars takes place during the Easter Rebellion and Juno and the Paycock takes place during the Civil War after the British leave everything but Ulster.

The Boyle family who are the protagonists are not the noblest clan ever put on film, but I think a lot of us would recognize ourselves more than we care to admit. Sara Allgood is mother Boyle, nicknamed Juno who bears all kinds of tribulations for the 90 minutes of the film. She has one useless husband who'd spend all his time in the pub if he could, a son who's an amputee lost in the fighting, and a daughter who gets taken in my an English solicitor who brings news of an inheritance and then takes advantage of the daughter.

Sean O'Casey got good and slammed after these two plays were produced, showing a side of Irish life that wasn't pleasant. Today they are masterpieces.

Juno and the Paycock could probably use a more modern production now. This was one of Alfred Hitchcock's earliest sound features, but it really is a photographed stage play for the most part. When John Ford did The Plough and the Stars he very cleverly cut in a lot of newsreel footage from the Easter Rebellion giving a real feeling for the times.

What Ford did and what Hitchcock didn't do was inject typical John Ford touches in the film so it is more Ford and O'Casey. Hitchcock was hardly as well known in 1930 as opposed to the reputation he later developed. The Hitchcock touches that we all later came to know are hardly present here. In fact this really isn't a Hitchcock kind of film at all. But he did it as a contractual obligation.

Because it wasn't his kind of film, Hitchcock dismissed it. But the film is definitely true to what O'Casey was trying to convey.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good story, but poorly executed
km_dickson7 August 2005
Good story, but poorly executed. Juno and the Paycock is another less than stellar early film from Alfred Hitchcock. The story is actually quite interesting, revolving around a poor Irish family who begin putting on airs when they think they are about to inherit a fortune. Comedy and drama blend nicely in this script, letting us get to know the characters in a lighthearted setting before descending into full fledged tragedy. Sara Allgood and Edward Chapman head up a good ensemble cast as the long suffering wife and lazy, drunkard husband, respectively. The film also has a rare edgy quality for its time, as the actors were able to get away with some swearing and irreverence. Sex, however, was still the one thing that could not be talked about. You have to figure out for yourself that the daughter has been knocked up by her boyfriend because they will never just say so. The downfall of the film is that Hitchcock seems to have been uninterested in his own subject. The film feels cheaply thrown together with none of the director's usual style or active storytelling. The spars camera work makes the movie seem like little more than a filmed recording of the stage play it was adapted from. With a little imagination this could have been much better.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Stage to early sound film transfers poorly.
st-shot8 December 2008
Sean O'Casey's controversial stage play about a shanty Irish family caught up in the times of Ireland's fight for independence get's a rough going over in this Alfred Hitchcock screen adaptation. With it's primitive soundtrack O'Casey's eloquence and dark wit is often garbled and indecipherable. Master of suspense Hitchcock seems content to just film the stage play with about half a dozen set ups and few camera movements. Performance wise he enlists stage vets from The Vic and The Abbey who en masse chew the scenery to pieces. Trained to reach the audience in the rear of the balcony the players are ill suited to the nuance required in this new art form and they remain over the top from start to finish.

Hitch does display flashes of brilliance with the new medium of sound in a couple of scenes involving the informer family member wracked with guilt and paranoia but for the most part he plays it safe, allowing his thespians to recite O'Casey's lyrical dialogue which technical bugs trample.

Dated as it may be Juno and the Paycock performed on stage can be a powerful theatre going experience with its memorable characters and well balanced tragi-comic theme that rails against social hypocrisy. I'm not sure a "sophisticated" film version today would do the play the justice that it receives's within the intimacy of the stage where one gets the feeling your sitting in the Boyles parlor. Suffice to say the 1929 version leaves you in the basement looking for a light switch.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A series of long, drawn-out speeches
cricketbat31 December 2018
Juno and the Paycock isn't an easy film to watch. The long takes and drawn-out speeches (in which nothing is really said) test even the most sturdy attention span. And the silly beginning feels mismatched with the solemn ending. Maybe it works better on a stage, but this is far from Hitchcock's best work.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Poor family in 1920's Ireland and their fraud of a father. .
irvingwarner27 January 2010
This is a very early sound movie; therefore, many of the technical aspects are very primitive, so you must use a bit of patience. But, some of the acting is top-notch, and of course, the play is a classic of the Irish stage. The two standouts as actors is the man who played the outlandish sponge and hanger-on, Jockster, and Sara Algood (sp?) always a dynamite character actor--as Juno, she shines. All in all, this Hitchcock adaption of the play is well done. "Juno and the Paycock" eventually goes in a direction that you would not expect, but in any event, the way in which it looks at Dublin's poor is rather unflinching.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A real dud from Hitchcock.
gridoon24 December 1999
A stagy, extremely talky and deadeningly dull early Hitchcock film. If you thought that this director was unable to make a film so dull that it's practically impossible to sit through, this one will force you to re-examine your opinion. This failure is forgivable, of course: Hitchcock was still very young, and he was working with unsuitable (for him) material, on a very low budget. But the picture is definitely not worth seeing, unless you're a Hitchcock completist.
12 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fascinating early sound film
ajbakeresq17 February 2007
Having been a Hitchcock fan for forty years I have not been able to see this until now, thanks to a very cheap and poor quality DVD.

This straightforward fill of Sean O'Casey's play turns out to be a powerful piece of admittedly primitive early film-making. This is from a time when sound editing was impossible - scenes had to be taken in long takes with four cameras and cut ins added in - very much like studio TV.

I am shocked that one reviewer refers to bad photography with heads cut off. That's the bad transfer on the disc which cuts quite a lot of the image, often cutting of heads. If we could see a good print this would be powerful stuff with, surprisingly, a lot of very strong Hitchcock moments - including a ma in atrench coat waiting in the street - to execute JOhnny who was betrayed his republican group. It's also an extraordinarily authentic picture of an intensely catholic world. Ireland is still suffering from internal fighting but the is celebrating independence - but at the same time these people suffer from extreme judgemental attitudes. The rejection of the pregnant daughter by her previous boyfriend is simple and chilling.

We desperately need restorations of Hitchcock's pre 1934 films. The silents are excellent when you see them pristine. The copies in circulation are only hints of what they are really like. In its way a key work in Hitchcock's oeuvre. He may have dismissed it in the TRuffaut interviews, but take that with a pinch of salt. He avoids any mention of Fritz Lang influence too - and yet if you see Spione, M, or the Mabuse films you see how much he owed to Lang.
20 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's still a Hitchcock film!
Sylviastel14 September 2013
It is hard to believe that this is an Alfred Hitchcock film after all. The movie is based on Irish playwright Sean O'Casey's play of the same name about an Irish family named the Boyles. This is a faithful stage to screen adaptation with some minor changes. Still the cast are members of the Irish Abbey Theatre Company and have performed the play on stage together hundred times. The cast is first rate. Real life sisters Sara Allgood and Maire O'Neill are excellent especially O'Neill in an unforgettable performance. She was such a scene stealer. The family learns that their an inheritance only disappointment in the end. The film is unlike Hitchcock's other films but yet it is worth watching an early stage to screen adaptation with the original cast of players who originated their roles on stage. That is how to do a stage to screen adaptation with the original cast.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A Dry Film - Love It Or Hate It, It's Still Hitchcock
Rainey-Dawn6 May 2016
The film is about as dry as stale bread. It does hold my interest to a degree but it's not the greatest film nor the worst film that Hitchcock has made (in my opinion). From what I've read, not even Alfred wanted liked this film - he didn't even want to make it but he did.

It's not an unwatchable film but it is not a good movie. It's more of an interest to Hitchcock fans and maybe some film students - that's about it. There might be another small crowd interested in this one, those that are interested in all things Irish.

IDK what this film is missing really, maybe a bit more comedy to make it "spicy" or entertaining. A bit quicker pace couldn't hurt either.

Not bad but not good - It's in the middle ground for me.

Note: IMDb has this film listed as 1929 while most other sources have this film listed as 1930.

3/10
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
great film!
NPG21 September 2000
Great film! Hitchcock's second sound feature is a well done film though it isn't Hitch's usual genre. Hitch points his religion (which was Catholic) out many times in this film that it almost becomes the central theme. All scenes are well done! Acting is great too! Joxer is by far the comic relief.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Quick! Film a Play!
davidmvining18 May 2020
This has to be Hitchcock's least cinematic film he ever made. It's a filmed play with almost nothing cinematic to add to the mix. It's a miscalculation of the early sound era that equated theater and film because they shared a lot of the same parts. There are actors, sets, lights, and dialogue, and yet the mediums are actually really different because of the camera and the edit inherent in film.

The story itself is nothing that special. It's the counterfeit rise and then real fall of a poor Irish family in the early 20th century. The titular Juno is the female head of a small household of four with two adult children, and the paycock is the male head. Juno's level-headed while her husband, Jack, spends as much of his time drinking in a bar as possible. The girl, Mary, is courting a young man while the boy, Johnny, lost his arm in the Irish Civil War while fighting with the IRA. There's a good amount of time trying to set up all four characters, but most of the time is really dedicated to Jack, the vessel through which most of the exposition flows.

The story turns when they discover a relative has died and left them several thousand pounds. Their hardscrabble life is over. Jack's drinking away all of their extra money is done. Immediately Juno goes out and starts taking out large loans for furniture and other items around the house. Mary gets the attention of a new beau who whisks her away from her current beau, Jack feels like a big man around town, and Johnny stays remote and hidden in the background, consumed about news that started the movie of one of his friends from the IRA having gotten killed. The treatment of Johnny is the only real cinematic touch in the entire film. As conversation goes on around him, the camera pushes in to watch him at key points of the film. It's probably the only way to highlight him since he's so quiet through much of the story anyway.

The predictable thing happens and the money from the relative doesn't come through. Seriously, the second I saw Juno in the furniture shop taking on the debt, I knew there wasn't going to be any actual money for the family. The family then gets brought low. They have to sell everything from the new furniture to the old to settle their debts. Mary's new beau disappears after he impregnates her, leaving her a ruined woman in 1924 Ireland and disowned by her father. Johnny gets carried away as an informer by other members of the IRA. Jack takes the last of his money from his shoe and goes off to have a drink. Juno's left alone in the empty apartment, wailing about the fate of her family.

Now, the weirdest part of the ending is that, at least the way the film presents it, it feels like the movie itself agrees with Juno's assertion is that Jack is the source of their financial woes, but it wasn't Jack who went and took out massive loans. She was the cause of the family's newly destitute state. Jack just drank, like he always did. If the moment is supposed to be ironic, that depends on the execution of the individual performance, and I don't think the movie captures that feeling.

Anyway, in terms of the story itself, it's fine. It's not great, but it's fine. In terms of its cinematic execution, it's boring. It's a series of long, static shots that never look in the direction of the fourth wall in any of the limited environments. It's quite literally a filmed play, and I think it suffers for it.

Blackmail was in production when The Jazz Singer came out and they retooled it for sound. It was already effectively one picture that got sound added. Juno and the Paycock feels like a studio not quite sure what to do with sound finding one of the more obvious choices (a play) and just handing the assignment to one of their contract directors. I get the sense that it was filmed really quickly, possibly in less than a week, and then quickly assembled for release. This feels like chasing a fad more than compelling storytelling.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Worst Hitchcock Film
harrisoncohen16 January 2007
I can't believe I actually sat through this movie. I am watching all my Hitchcock DVDs from the Lodger (1927) to Family Plot (1976). Both the Lodger and the Farmer's Wife (1928) were really entertaining. This however the third in my marathon was spectacularly awful. It is the only Hitchcock movie I've seen that I can say is bad. Although the story tells a moral tale of how greed and apathy lead to bad consequences, the way Hitchcock goes about it is passive to say the least. For the most part the camera remains positioned in a room of characters giving sentimental drawn out pieces of irrelevant dialogue. Although being an early talkie this is understandable. The film is therefore drawn out and unbearable to modern audiences. Having spent almost the entire length of the film confined to the apartment of our protagonists the viewer is left we a sickening feeling of claustrophobia, allowing a cheer of joy when the film finally ends.

I give this film a 2/10 and not a 1 purely because it contains a moral importance. Nonetheless unless you're an absolute Hitchcock fanatic (like myself) I wouldn't dare tell anyone to watch this film. It is so bad its not even fit for use in torture methods!!!
9 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Bleak
Hitchcoc16 September 2008
I remember this sad hopeless play from college theatre classes. You start with a down and out family, throw in alcoholism and ennui and you have this story. The characters live under the black cloud that is Ireland at this time. They have a chance to get out (though it proves false) and instead of making sure of things they go on a binge and make their situation even worse. The movie has good performances and looks pretty good, but O'Casey has written such a downer, it's hard to enjoy it. Also, Hitchcock really didn't put a signature on it, other than the fact that it is well filmed. The oppressiveness of the dark shades of gray and the sunken eyes of the performers is pretty well presented. The play is plea to God to give them something for once, but it says that these people are incapable of receiving. It could use a ray of sunshine. The final scene makes a person want to cry because from what I've read, this was not atypical for these people at this time.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
maybe from a good play ...
happytrigger-64-39051717 November 2019
... but Hitchcock was ashamed of his direction. In his book by Truffaut, he declared he couldn't be inspired by this good play. So if you want to see an early inspired Hitchcock, jump on "Blackmail" and forget that one, I recognized only two pure Hitchcock shots, that's very light.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Hitchcock's all-time worst?
gridoon20244 December 2020
"Juno And The Paycock" is the lowest-rated film or TV episode directed by Alfred Hitchcock on IMDb, and although I have yet to see several of his films, this is probably accurate. However, the 4.8 rating still seems way too generous; the film is absolutely unwatchable - and unlistenable: approximately 80% of the dialogue is indecipherable. The play itself will not mean anything to anyone who is not a) Irish and b) born before 1880, but the moviemaking is deadening as well: there are no traces of Hitchcock's personality whatsoever. Sorry but I've got to give this a 0 out of 4, as I can't think of a single reason for someone to watch it.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Downbeat, but worth watching!
JohnHowardReid30 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"Juno and the Paycock is available on at least six DVD labels plus a VHS tape. The best quality is provided by the tape which unfortunately is missing the conclusion of the final scene. Therefore I recommend the St Clair copy which chops off heads occasionally and has two or three poorly graded images at the beginning.

"Juno and the Peacock" (or Paycock) is not a movie that most Alfred Hitchcock fans will enjoy, being rather stagey, downbeat and slow- moving, but it does preserve the fine, stagey performances by Edward Chapman (as the Paycock, unrecognizable here in his film debut), Sidney Morgan (the Abbey player, NOT the director as IMDb once contended - I assume they have now corrected this error), Kathleen O'Regan, John Laurie (movie debut), and Sara Allgood.

Although filmed for the most part in long takes, Hitch has opened the play up a bit, which certainly helps the pace. And Jack Cox photographed in his usual all-gray, no-whites-no-blacks style, which certainly contributes to the downbeat air.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
There's no poor and miserable like Irish poor and miserable
75groucho24 February 2009
Gee, maybe that's not fair. Maybe it's just that the Irish have a better heritage of articulating hard times. "Juno and The Paycock" is the epitome of tales of woe and suffering from the Irish urban poor during The Troubles of the early 20th century. The family has all the stereotypical travails: Joblessness due to alcoholism, joblessness due to labor union strikes, involvement with the Republican Army, and all these problems fall across the shoulders of the long-suffering mother, Juno.

If such a thing can be imagined, it gets worse. The family believes they will fall into some money, so they (foolishly) run up debts. This begins the 'comic' part of the film's tragi-comedy structure. When hopes prove to be false the family is devastated.

A relentlessly downbeat story that sees an interlude of clearly false hopes followed by a tragic ending, is considered a chestnut of the Irish playwright Sean O'Casey. For viewers, anyone who can't understand the thick Irish brogues on the equipment used in an early talkie will have no chance to understand the dialogue.

Worst of all the nature of the story really doesn't suit the talents of even a young Alfred Hitchcock. Even by that point in his career, he had begun to make compelling suspense pictures and this film is not in his wheelhouse. Even taking exception for budget and circumstances that would have obligated him to take on this film as an early sound project, "Juno and The Paycock" does little to distinguish the work of Sean O'Casey and even less for Hitchcock. It should be avoided, even by Hitchcock completists.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"What is the stars"
KathleenGriffin5 February 2005
Extremely well-done film, crisp and merciless. The B/W despair of the Dublin slum, and Juno, the woman trying to cope with two adult children in a time of Civil War are presented sharply. The prospect of a small inheritance leads "Capt." Boyle into wild extravagance, shadowed by his hysterical son, who has lost an arm in the conflict, and is hiding, terrified, by the vigil light. The daughter Mary's innocent ambition to escape the tenement is betrayed twice. Two young men die in the embattled streets. The end is one great cry: "Take away our hearts o'stone and give us hearts o' flesh." (NB: If you're expecting a jolly Honeymooners sitcom, skip this!)
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The (Bad) Luck of the Irish...
ElMaruecan828 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Juno and the Paycock" is not a Hitchcock film, this is a film that 'happens to be' directed by Hitchcock. The difference is simple: the film is such a faithful adaptation of Sean O'Casey's successful play of the same title that he can stand as the film's honorific director. This is not to discount Hitchcock's contribution but the Master had his three-decade streak coming so this can be seen as an early warm-up with the then-rising sound technology, but the film is as close to Hitch' universe as Walt Disney is to Russ Meyer.

The story is about a dysfunctional family, the Boyles, the father is a loafer who spends time drinking with his friend (and efficient comic-relief) Joxer and talking about his 'glorious' naval past (he's nicknamed Captain, but his tendency to exaggerate his stories doesn't fool anyone). And there's Juno, the responsible and mature housewife, played by Sara Allgood, she was the matriarch in "How Green Was my Valley" but this is where the comparison ends. While John Ford's nostalgic journey in the Welsh country was painted with the beatifying light of nostalgia, "Juno and the Paycock" is a challenge to all the stereotypes about the Irish Family that movies have been nurturing for years, no kids that can be counted by the dozen, no Catholic overzealous devotion, no noble-hearted poor and no men of virtue.

For some strange reason, we tend to idealize the past, confident that it was a time where men were men, and women women, time where people fulfilled their duties. We also tend to idealize the spirit of poor people, as if the lack of money was compensated by the gold in their heart. Rubbish, mediocrity is timeless and has no social barriers, the poorer, the more bitter these people get. And the least Captain Boyle works the least he wants to work again and only counts on his woman to carry the house. Sean O'Casey makes a play of high sociological value, setting the story in one of these brownish tenements our memories usually borrow from Jim Sheridan's movie or sketches about Irish community. And the dysfunctional aspect of the family, that slap in the face, also extends to the Irish context.

The film is set in the midst of the Civil War and it's not just a colorful detail as it opens with a long oration from Barry Fitzgerald praising the people's courage. This is where Hitchcock's sense of humor shows its head, the many close-ups on the ugly mugs shows a funny contrast between the speech and the reality, and then the reaction from the gunfights says a lot about these men's spirit. The opening sets the tone: this is a film set in a world where men have ceased to prove their value and woman carries the cross. The only seemingly positive male character is Johnny; the son who just lost his arm in a fight yet seems to hide a more painful wound. Another man is courting Mary, the daughter, but she's in love with a young solicitor named Bentham and he's got good news for the Boyles.

The second act deals with the inheritance, a cousin leaves his fortune to Boyle whose reflex is to immediately snub his buddy, if money can't buy love, it can't bring much dignity. The Boyles start buying fancy furniture, show off their fortune, enjoys the music from their gramophone and while a funeral procession pass near their house, even Juno can't empathize with a mother mourning her son, also killed in the war. It says a lot about the way wealth conditions our behavior and clouds our empathy. The Boyles discuss with Bentham matters of religion, wondering what can exactly fascinate people in this. For all the Catholic faith we supposed Irish people are impregnated with, here is an Irish playwright giving us a glimpse of how malleable their faith are, like everyone's.

Even while recalling his pasts on the boat, Boyle remembers the question he used to ask himself "what brings the stars?" God doesn't strike as an obvious answer, a loser is likely to lose his faith … and loses it more when luck strikes. Naturally, the third act will change everything, a mistake from Bentham will prevent them from getting the money, out of shame, he'll leave Mary pregnant, as for Johnny, he'll be taken away for reasons explaining his torment all through the film. Boyle is treated like dirt by the tailor and the female neighbor, both come to take the stuff he bought by credit, and when he goes to buy his last drink with Joxer, as if nothing happened, only Juno stays with Mary, instead of one father, she'll have two mothers, and this is one of the greatest quotes I've ever heard in a film.

The film ends on the poignant eulogy of faith, in an empty room emphasizing the isolation of men when adversity becomes too hard to handle, and this is the irony of faith, too much troubles make us question it, and sometimes, we're so desperate, we need something to hook on, not to drown in an ocean of desperateness. Mary doesn't believe in God, but Juno has a good answer "what can God do with men's stupidity?" one might think if God is so powerful, he should prevent it, but even Einstein had a few wise words about the unlimited aspect of men's stupidity.

"Juno and the Paycock" was a revelation to me, a real slap in the face. It has nothing to do with Hitch' canon yet the fact that it is associated with Hitchcock's name is the film's ironic blessing because this is exactly why most movie buffs will be curious enough to discover one of 'Hitchcock's earlier films, so maybe apart from Irish or British people, thanks to Hitchcock, the work of Sean O'Casey will never totally sink into oblivion.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The rock bottom of cinema and the definition of Hitchcock's shame
knoll36023 February 2011
Juno and the Paycock is about a group of people in Dublin sometime during the Irish Civil War (1922-1923). Two of them are alcoholics who have grand goals and plans but never do anything to realize these dreams due to them being incredibly lazy. They are told that they are to receive a large sum of money from a dead relative so they go out and spend a lot of money to celebrate early. However, they spend it before they actually receive the money plus both sides in the Irish Civil War start to gain distrust for the group so who knows what could happen. Basically the film follows the plot of the 1924 play of the same name and the problem is that it doesn't work very well in a movie format. Almost the entire film takes place within a single room which can get incredibly boring and not very much really happens throughout the movie that is even mildly entertaining when it comes to the plot.

The acting in the film is abysmal. Edward Chapman plays Captain Boyle who is always grumpy and mean which makes him an incredibly unlikeable character. He isn't very well acted either because he comes off as more annoying to the viewer than anything. Maire O'Neill plays Maisie Madigan, another uninteresting character without any depth whatsoever. All other actors in the film are also pretty unspectacular and aren't entertaining in the slightest. The script doesn't allow for any characters to have any depth plus they are badly acted anyway.

When it comes down to the special effects I shall reiterate that the whole movie is pretty much in the same room so it's mostly just one set. And this set is a simple apartment without anything interesting or exciting. And there are no noticeable special effects throughout the movie. As for the musical score: it is lacking and really makes my ears bleed! The worst part with this would have to be the few sections in the film where characters attempt to sing which is truly some of the worst sounds that I have ever heard coming from anything at any time.

In conclusion, this is one of the worst films that I have ever seen in my entire life and there isn't a single redeemable quality in it. The storyline is incredibly boring and doesn't work well outside of being in a play, the acting is atrocious, there aren't any special effects, and the music makes me want to mute my television. Some movies are bad but have a cheesy factor to them which can make them entertaining when you are in the right mood. And some movies are so bad that it actually makes them entertaining, but this film is truly at the rock bottom of cinema. No matter what way you look at it there is no possible way to get any entertainment out of this movie. Avoid it at all costs. Score: 0/10
5 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed