Technical crudities, print/sound deficiencies and dated acting styles taken into consideration, "Skin Game" still has innovative (for the time) camera techniques and thematic ambiguity (who is right and who is wrong? Who are the true villains of the story?) and is generally better than other, more "typical" Hitchcock films of the period, like "Murder!" from 1930.Edmund Gwenn is terrific and Phyllis Constam is quite sexy. (**1/2)

This old Alfred Hitchcock film is extremely tough to watch, as the film (even by 1931 standards) has very poor sound and the print is pretty bad as well. Being a public domain film, it's been pretty much neglected. On top of this, the film's style is very old fashioned compared to products made by Hollywood at this same time. The simple fact is that the United States was leading the world in film technology at this point and other countries' films lacked clear and effective sound. Interestingly enough, the UK was pretty advanced in this area, as in some counties (such as Japan and China),silent films would be made well through the 1930s. However, despite this and despite the film starting very slowly, it's well worth seeing--but you need to be patient.

The film begins with two rich families--the Hillcrists and the Hornblowers. The Hillcrists are "old money"--a bit snobbish and clinging to their ideals of class. The Hornblowers are "new money"--newly rich, not particularly sophisticated and angry that the old money treat them like riff-raff. In fact, the head of the family (Edmund Gwen) seems determined to teach the Hillcrists a lesson by buying up the land around their estate and turning it into factories and cheap housing! The Hillcrists, in a desperate move, send out investigators to see if there is any dirt they can use to stop the Hornblowers. Unfortunately, the Hillcrests ARE able to find some lovely dirt but despite this, the film ends in unexpected tragedy.

The film, despite having terrible cinematography (the zooming shots are just horrible, heads cut off in many scenes and a jerky camera) and dull pacing, the film has such a strong story that it's well worth seeing. This is especially true since the film ends so well--leaving the viewer amazed at how well all the story elements work together. Sadly, this film could really use a remake--it's just too well written to be forgotten.

The Skin Game is one of Hitchcock's lowest rated films here, and has been met with indifference or dislike among the other Hitchcock fans I know. While it is understandable why people wouldn't be crazy about The Skin Game and it has a lot that is not so great about it, personally it is better than it's given credit for. It's not Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, Rebecca, Strangers on a Train or The Lady Vanishes but it is far better than Juno and the Paycock(his worst),Champagne, Number Seventeen, Jamaica Inn, Under Capricorn and Topaz. The camera work is very scrappy and unfocused, the script is often too talky and exposition-heavy, the story has moments but can feel a little too leisurely and stage-bound complete with a melodramatic and abrupt ending and CV France is over-theatrical at times. However, while The Skin Game is not Hitchcock all over there is much more of his style than there was in Juno and the Paycock(also based on a play) with some irony and suspense and the auction scene is masterful(the film's best photography is in this scene, its cleverness adds to the intrigue). The script has have some nice ironic humour and heartfelt pathos. While the story doesn't quite come off as well as it could have done it does have some good ideas that are identifiable and has its heart in the right place. As an adaptation of the play it's good, as a Hitchcock film while a big improvement on Juno and the Paycock it does fall short. The acting is much more subtle and the chemistry between the actors is more apparent. Edmund Gwenn has a ball as a very arrogant character, Helen Haye is aristocratic and dominant and in a commanding way without falling into over-theatricality-land and Phyllis Konstam is appropriately sympathetic. All in all, nowhere near Hitchcock's best but also nowhere near his worst, ranking it it would be around low-middle, a similar position to Rich and Strange. 6/10 Bethany Cox