Number 17 (1932)

A gang of thieves gather at a safe house following a robbery, but a detective is on their trail.

Director:

Alfred Hitchcock

Writers:

Joseph Jefferson Farjeon (as J. Jefferson Farjeon), Joseph Jefferson Farjeon (play) (as J. Jefferson Farjeon)

Stars:

Leon M. Lion, Anne Grey, John Stuart

Cast

Complete credited cast:
Leon M. Lion	...	Ben
Anne Grey	...	Nora Brant - the Girl
John Stuart	...	Barton - the Detective
Donald Calthrop	...	Brant - Nora's Escort
Barry Jones	...	Henry Doyle
Ann Casson	...	Rose Ackroyd
Henry Caine	...	Mr. Ackroyd
Garry Marsh	...	Sheldrake

Storyline

Detective Gilbert is searching for a necklace robbed by a gang of thieves. In the beginning, the gang is in a house in London, then they are running away from police. It will not be easy for the detective to recover the jewel.

---

Plot Keywords:

based on play | based on novel | number in title | pretending to be deaf | drinking from a bottle | 

---

Genres:

Crime | Mystery | Thriller

---

Certificate:

TV-PG

Details

Country:

UK

Language:

English

Release Date:

7 November 1932 (UK)

Also Known As:

Number 17

Filming Locations:

Elstree, Hertfordshire, England, UK

Company Credits

Production Co:

British International Pictures (BIP)

Technical Specs

Runtime:

66 min

Sound Mix:

Mono

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.20 : 1

Did You Know?

Trivia

Although this film was a box-office failure in 1932, it later had admirers. One of them was the movie historian William K. Everson. In an Everson and Sir Alfred Hitchcock interview in 1972, Everson showed his admiration for this movie, and also praised the bus and train chase scene. Hitchcock was delighted by Everson's enthusiasm, and went on to explain how one of the sequences in the bus and train chase scene was shot.

---

Goofs

Barton is shot in his right wrist early in the film, and his wrist is bandaged. The bandage is visible for most of the movie, but when Barton jumps in the water to save Nora, we don't see the bandage any longer. Barton is able to pull Nora to safety with his right arm, and afterwards when he is talking to Doyle, we still don't see the bandage, and Barton puts his right hand in his pocket repeatedly, not showing any sign of injury.

---

Quotes

[first lines]
Ben: Oh! Oh, Gawd! Oh, Gawd! Oh, Gawd! Oh!
Fordyce/Barton: How do you feel? Now, where's that candle? Here, have some of this.

---

Connections

Remade as ITV Play of the Week: No. 17 (1958)

---

Soundtracks

I Don't Need a Television
(uncredited)
Music by Harry Shalson
Lyrics by John Malvern

User Reviews

Number Seventeen

For starters, I think the proper context for evaluating this film would be: 1932 thrillers. And judged against its competition, this film ain't so bad. Hitchcock overdoes the mood, and there were times when I was tired of the frightening shadows cast upon walls by unexplained light sources. Characters holding candles, for instance, would throw full-body shadows upon walls, and the movements of those shadows would be exploited for mood effect.

But the movie isn't as terrible as its cruelest critics suggest. The early thirties in England blurred distinctions between stage and screen, and the stage qualities of the film are quite strong. You have to imagine that you're watching a play, perhaps in the West End, with a cast of aging Victorian and Edwardian actors, in order to get the full context of this film.

If you are only capable of watching modern Hollywood movies, or if you can only evaluate film in the context of E.T. and MTV, then by all means stay away from this film. On the other hand, if you like early films, black and white film, silent movies, and moody thrillers from the 20s and 30s, then this film is quite good. There are unexplained details, yes, but watch the film nonetheless. It won't damage you, as other viewers have suggested. The hour of your life will not be wasted: you will have gained an understanding of the important link between film and theatre, between screen-acting and stage-acting, and you will have a more full understanding of Hitchcock's background.

Besides, I dare you not to be drawn into the plot near the middle of the film. Halfway through, you realize: Not a single one of the characters has been contextualized properly, and any one of them could be lying about their identities and reason for being in the empty house. Some have faulted this as a "problem" in storytelling -- but I would suggest that it's what creates the suspense. You are interested in the story because of the unexplained. Stop complaining, eh?