Easy Virtue (1927) User Reviews

Sowing the seeds of later Hitchcock masterpieces

[JuguAbraham · 5/10 · 27 March 2006]

While many have dismissed this silent film of Hitchcock as an insignificant work, I found this film anticipates the virtues of the later works of the director. Hitchcock often relied on strong stories/scripts/plays whether it was du Maurier or Ernest Lehman or Ben Hecht or Anthony Shaffer to make his cinema tick. In this film it was the brilliant playwright Noel Coward. Just as "Frenzy" (script of Shaffer) ends with the words "…you are missing your tie," the final words of "Easy Virtue" are the explosive "Shoot! There is nothing left to kill." The word "shoot" refers to the cameras of the paparazzi not guns.

Visually, Hitchcock would revert to the same scene in "Notorious", in "Torn Curtain" and even as a weapon of defense in "Rear Window." The underscoring of the irony of final scenes of Hitchcock films are interesting to note. Coward and Hitchcock were really sensitizing the viewer on the social perceptions of marriage and divorce. Coward and Hitchcock seem to ask us the connection between slandered reputation and "easy virtue." In "Blackmail" the jester (the painting) seemed to scoff at the so-called justice meted out by the law keepers in final sequence.

Visually the most poignant shot (repeated twice) in the film is the shot of the judge's wig from above his head as he looks up. The interiors of the sets seem remarkably similar to scenes from Russian (Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible") and German expressionist cinema. Who should be credited more for what the film offers—Coward or Hitchcock. Probably both, in equal measure.

A little dry and dull

[dfranzen70 · 5/10 · 31 March 2015]

In Alfred Hitchcock's Easy Virtue, a woman has some explaining to do when the family of her second husband finds out there was a first husband. That's because back in the day, divorced women were considered damaged goods, and upstanding families would steer well clear of such flighty harlots. Easy Virtue's tagline asks "Can she be blamed for a past she didn't create?" And the answer is yes, because she did create her past when she started making eyes at the man painting her portrait. But perhaps I am getting a little ahead of myself.

Larita Filton (Isabel Jeans) is married to an unnamed guy. Well, he probably has a name, but the movie doesn't tell us. Anyway, they're rich, and she's having her portrait done by a professional artist. One day the artist notices marks on Larita's wrist, and she mentions that her husband sometimes drinks too much. Thus a relationship is born, at least as far as they went in the 1920s, which meant it's possible Larita and the artist smooched once. Anyway, one fine day the husband comes home to find the two of them in an embrace. A gun is presented, and a shot is fired, and the artist dies. This is all told to us in flashback at the divorce trial, where the jury quite naturally finds in favor of the husband. Larita is shamed and shunned.

She finds herself chillaxing on the Mediterranean, and a chance encounter with a tennis ball leads Larita to meet John Whittaker (Robin Irvine), who's from a well-to-do family himself. They romance, yadda yadda, and soon they're wed. He brings her home to meet his parents and his two sisters for dinner. The stern matriarch is fairly sure she recognizes Larita, and eventually she pieces it together. Haughty hilarity ensues.

This is a silent film, obviously very early in The Master's career, and much more of a melodrama than a thriller with a twist. There's no twist, and because there are few sight gags one must rely on the intermittent title cards to follow the mouthed dialog. That's all well and good, but there was just too much predictability afoot, and the quality of the print did the movie no favors, either. That all makes Easy Virtue a curio in Hitch's long, long career, and little more.

Hitchcock Makes a Coward Play

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 23 August 2009]

"Virtue is its own reward," they say - but "Easy Virtue" is society's reward for a slandered reputation. In the prologue, director Alfred Hitchcock crosscuts courtroom drama with flashbacks... Attractive Isabel Jeans (as Larita) is in divorce court, after a scandalous incident results in the death of a painter for whom she was sitting. Her drunken husband interrupted artist Eric Bransby Williams (as Claude Robson) as he was making play for the modeling Ms. Jeans. The painter wounded brutish rival Franklin Dyall (as Aubrey Filton), before killing himself. Jeans gains nothing but her freedom at trial. But, she was named in the dead painter's will.

Notorious, Jeans goes for a vacation on the Mediterranean, intending to relax and stay away from men. Instead, she finds the latter when well-heeled bachelor Robin Irvine (as John Whittaker) hits her in the head with his ball while playing tennis. After apologizing, Mr. Irvine begins courting Jeans. "It was like a cool breeze sweeping away the ugly memories of the past." The two whirlwind themselves into man and wife. Then, Irvine brings Jeans home to live in the family mansion. There, matriarchal Violet Farebrother senses something lurid in her daughter-in-law's past. Will Jeans' sordid history ruin her chances for happiness?

But, of course.

"Easy Virtue" may be considered rather ordinary, albeit a Noel Coward play directed to film by Alfred Hitchcock. But, as a silent melodrama, it's not only above average, but a little innovative. The location and settings are very nice. Most of the featured players are held over Hitchcock's previous "Downhill" (1927). "Mother-in-law" Farebrother makes the bulk of the film interesting, as she endeavors to rid her son of his bride. Their witty exchanges were written by Eliot Stannard, not Mr. Coward, by the way. Farebrother has a pleasantly sharp tongue, asking, "John, who is this woman you have pitchforked into the family?" She shoots to kill.

****** Easy Virtue (3/5/28) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Isabel Jeans, Robin Irvine, Violet Farebrother, Ian Hunter

Gets Decent Mileage Out of a Simple Story

[Snow Leopard · 23 January 2002]

This silent Alfred Hitchcock drama gets decent mileage out of a rather simple story. Isabel Jeans stars as a young woman who, because of a messy divorce in her past, is unfairly considered a woman of "Easy Virtue", and she must struggle constantly against the ways that her past affects how she is perceived by others. This kind of drama was probably more popular and more familiar in previous eras, and many stories of the kind don't hold up very well now. This one does often show some signs of age, but it also has some of Hitchcock's creative touches that move it along and make it worth watching. One of the best is Hitchcock's treatment of Jeans responding to a marriage proposal - it's quite innovative, and a nice way to avoid the often banal treatments of romantic scenes.

This is nothing like the movies for which Hitchcock is usually remembered, and it's really not even among his best silent work. But it's not bad, and if not always compelling, it is sometimes interesting in its look at the characters' social attitudes and perspectives.

1920s divorce scandal haunts Larita

[netwallah · 6/10 · 25 January 2006]

One of Hitchcock's English silent films, based on a Noel Coward play, this demonstrates the difficulty of making a full-length complex-plotted film without dialogue. Sometimes it almost seems like a sequence of charades, with projections of character and scenery and reactions. Larita (Isabel Jeans), unhappily married to a smug brute, is having her portrait painted by a handsome artist, who falls for her, and though she doesn't succumb, the husband catches them in what appears to be a compromising position and threatens the artist who wounds him with a pistol. A divorce trial ensues in pantomime, with a woman on the jury taking notes, and the judgment goes against her. Larita escapes from scandal in the south of France, where she is courted by a young man who says he doesn't need to know about her past. She marries him and goes home to Moat House, Pevil, where her mother-in-law glares at her. After her past re-emerges, the husband takes it badly, and Larita leaves, allowing him to divorce her as she sits in the balcony in tears. Scandal bad. One piece of ingenious narrative takes place earlier when she talks to her husband-to-be about his marriage proposal on the hotel telephone—the operator (Benita Hume) sits at the console spellbound, surprise, apprehension, romantic tension, and delight succeeding each other on her pretty, expressive face. Unlike Hitchcock's later work, this is not a mystery but a melodrama, and must be judged according to standards of that genre. Beautiful photography, by the way.

A powerful movie made during a time when divorce wasn't discussed

[iamacollegecutie · 7/10 · 3 May 2006]

I will admit that at times this movie seems slow. However, if you take a look deeper at the time frame in which this movie was presented you can easily see the risk that Hitchcock took. In the movie the main character is divorced and disgraced by her horrible husband. When she tries to regain some normalcy by marrying again, the ghosts of her past come to prevent any happiness in her future. Once again she is shamed, disgraced, and helpless prey for the photographers and newspapers who use her high social standing and demise to sell their goods.

A very compelling look into hypocrisy and judgment in a time when both were at their highest peak.

"Virtue is its own reward they say - but 'easy virtue' is society's reward for a slandered reputation"

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 12 December 2013]

Easy Virtue is one of Hitchcock's interesting but not great films, that is neither among his best or worst. Not a terrible one but this is really not the master of suspense at his best. When it comes to his silent films, Easy Virtue is perhaps one of his weaker ones, with his best being The Lodger and his weakest being Champagne. It has a lot of good things. There are some very clever shots and Hitchcockian touches like in the opening courtroom scene with everything being shot like from the perspective of the judge through his monocle and the proposal over the phone showing only the reactions of the telephone operator. Hitchcock directs very well, though there is understandably the sense that he was still finding and developing his own style. The sets and costumes are lovely to watch, while Violet Farebrother plays her role with tremendous gusto and Isabel Jeans brings a lot of charm to hers. Robin Irvine is very bland though and the rest of the acting can feel rather overheated and exaggerated even with a silent melodrama. The characters do come across as stock and somewhat cardboard, there's little dimension to them and you don't really care for them either. The story is a let down, it begins brilliant and ends just as satisfyingly but there's half-an-hour at least of tedious melodrama and staid storytelling, the romance also lacks passion and you don't ever really feel the love between them. And some have made a good point about the benefits of having dialogue instead here, I have great appreciation for silent films but Easy Virtue was the sort of film being a comedy-social drama where dialogue would have helped it come alive. Overall, not terrible, not great, mixed view here if anything. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Not bad silent

[ajbakeresq · 7/10 · 19 February 2007]

A very little seen Hitchcock, and a decent British silent film, from a Noel Coward play. It's surprisingly visual for a stage play, with titles kept to a minimum. As with a lot of early HItchcock the copies circulating are pretty bad. It must have looked good when it was new.

The courtroom sequence has some typical Hitchcock touches - views through the judge's monocle. The strangest link with later films is an odd prophecy of Marnie. The blonde wife with a mysterious past is brought home to the country house, with crusty colonel father in law and brunette sister in law meeting her. A bit later on you expect to see Strutt turn up at a party to identify her. Almost the same thing happens and at the final party Isobel Jeans glams herself up and makes a grand entrance down the staircase.

I am developing a theory that the things Hitchcock says nothing about in the Truffaut book are the important ones! Isobel Jeans reappeared in Suspicion 13 years later. Is she the original Hitchcock blonde? If only (BFI please note) there were proper bright restorations of these early Hitchcocks. The only one I've seen looking good is The Lodger. It makes a huge difference.

Not much suspense

[cricketbat · 4/10 · 31 December 2018]

I think Easy Virtue would have worked better if we wouldn't have known Larita's background until John's family discovered it. Seeing it all laid out at the beginning of the movie removes much of the suspense. And even at only 80 minutes, the simple story feels too drawn-out.

"Shoot! There's nothing left to kill."

[ackstasis · 6/10 · 22 October 2007]

Throughout the 1920s and the early 1930s, it's obvious that the Master of Suspense was still finding his feet. 'The Lodger (1927)' was Hitchcock's first sign of future promise, a truly effective silent thriller, and many of the film-making techniques he experimented with would later form an integral part of his many masterpieces. We are all aware, of course, that the director's specialty always lay in suspense, coupled with his audacious brand of dark humour. Perhaps, at this time, he was still unsure of which direction he wanted to head, or maybe he simply tried his hands at anything in order to maintain an income. Either way, 'Easy Virtue' – his eighth film – is a rare opportunity to see Hitchcock attempt a melodrama, and the results are interestingly mixed. The story was based on a Noel Coward play, a medium upon which the director would rely heavily for many of his later films.'Easy Virtue' starred British actress Isabel Jeans, who had previously appeared in Hitchcock's 'Downhill (1927)' and would later return in 'Suspicion (1941).'

The story concerns a young lady named Larita Filton (Isabel Jeans), who had experienced a difficult and much-publicised divorce when her infidelity with an artist led to her husband being wounded and the artist's suicide. Frustrated by the constant pursual of photographers, Larita takes a peaceful holiday to France, where she meets a kind and gentle man named John Whittaker (Robin Irvine), whom she soon marries, much to the surprise of the man's family. While John's father (Frank Elliott) and his former sweetheart Sarah (Enid Stamp-Taylor) do their best to accept this new addition to the family, John's stern and suspicious mother (Violet Farebrother) does her best to destroy their relationship. The acting all-round is quite good, particularly Farebrother, whose character immediately evokes an intense feeling of dislike. Jeans is something of a two-sided character; we understand her plight for happiness, and yet she's got such a sense of arrogance about her that we're much more sympathetic towards her conflicted husband.

At just 60 minutes in length, 'Easy Virtue' outstays its welcome by a good quarter of an hour. The centre section of the film drags on without really going anywhere, but is partially made up for by an interesting beginning and end. The court trial in the film's opening was quite brilliant, with Hitchcock displaying the technical imagination that would ultimately make him great. His use of match cuts to lead into the flashbacks – such as the judge's swinging spectacles and the grandfather clock, and the focus on the drinks pitcher – demonstrate a keen eye for the editing technique, and I would have been happier had more of the film been dedicated exclusively to the trial. The ending is also noteworthy, with the film denying us the usual happy ending, offering us a full serving of bitter pessimism; Larita emerges from the court room, completely beaten, and accepts that her life will never be the same again.

Rather dull

[malcolmgsw · 4/10 · 31 July 2018]

I occasionally watch a silent film.I do find it very frustrating when actors are mouthing words and we are expected to know what they are saying without benefit of intertwines. Byou far the best part of the film is the opening trial scene.After that it is all downhill and rather silly at that.Hitchin was capable of making stinkers egg Under Capricorn,and this was clearly one of them

Hitchcock excels in cracking silent about divorce

[Michael-110 · 8/10 · 15 March 2002]

"Easy Virtue" is an early and impressive Hitchcock in which the master displays a range of innovative filmic devices (such as the way we learn about a marriage proposal by watching the eavesdropping hotel switchboard operator rather than by seeing the man or woman talking on the phone).

The story is based on a play by Noel Coward and (contrary to the other posted IMDB comment on the film) I believe the movie is excellent. The solo organ score on the videotape I watched was absolutely stunning.

The film tackles a range of issues relating to divorce that would become taboo after adoption of the Production Code in 1934. Our heroine Larita is married to a drunken brute. After he catches her almost (but not quite) being seduced by the artist who has been painting her picture, he brings suit for divorce. Adultery is the only ground for divorce in England at this time and we see a gripping trial scene in which the jury has to decide whether to believe Larita's denials. Of course, the jury can't see beyond its Victorian preconceptions (if she's alone with him all day, of course they've slept together) and it finds her guilty.

Now a disgraced woman of "easy virtue," Larita takes to the Riviera where she ensnares a rich young suitor (after he hits her in the eye with a tennis ball). Unfortunately, she doesn't tell him about her checkered past and naturally Larita's family hates her on sight.

This story takes on a range of highly relevant divorce issues. The film skillfully lampoons the absurdity of fault divorce and the need to try questions of adultery to a jury. It takes quite seriously the way that society treated a divorced woman as damaged goods. It attacks the sexual double standard with zeal and skewers the stuffy English aristocracy to great effect. After 1934, divorce didn't exist in the movies (except in comedies where the spouses remarry in the end) and the important legal and social issues raised by divorce and female sexuality were erased from the screen by the censors. Very few early films (silent or sound) ever dealt so candidly with the harsh realities of divorce; "Easy Virtue" compares favorably to the outstanding "One More River" (1934) in its straightforward and quite moving treatment of the issues.

Silent Hitchcock

[kairingler · 6/10 · 22 October 2007]

This is my first Hitchcock silent film. this film grew on me as i watched it, i thought it started out slow . but slowly developed into something very interesting. i was upset that i missed Hitch's cameo.. he's a sneaky one. this is my 4th silent film that i have watched, and this one compares almost to the other ones, but the others are classics.. phantom, Dr Jekyll, and hunchback. so this one kinda had some unfair competition. like i said before it started slow, but it quickly engrossed me after the part where she goes to his parents house to meet the family.. i thought her character was unfairly judged by his family to the point where i was glad she didn't marry him, i admired her character for standing up to the mother in that one,, what s really awful mother in law. without ruining the ending for those who haven't seen this early Hitchcock gem,, i loved the ending.

Only of interest to fans of Hitchcock and film historians

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 21 August 2006]

If this film had not been directed by Alfred Hitchcock, no one would remember it or even want to remember it! It is obvious that this film was just a chance for the director to work his craft until he ultimately made a dandy film a year later (THE LODGER). You will also not see very much of the "Hitchcock style" in this film, as the movie is not a suspense film or mystery and in places, his quality as a director was very suspect. It is just amazing how quickly he went from this sorry film to great films.

When I say badly directed, I know some die-hard fans will no doubt have an apoplexy. I have long ago noticed that die-hard fans rarely can allow criticism of their idols, so I know I'll have a few people rate this review as "not helpful", but it simply was botched by him in places. In particular, the beginning of the film is a histrionic mess! While it is untrue that MOST silent films are overacted and have exaggerated action (this is really only something you see in very, very early films), this film looks like a throwback to bygone days during the confrontation between the evil drunken husband and the painter. Such overacting and hysterics are pretty much laughable. I also loved how the husband did such a rotten job "hitting" the other man with his cane--he pulled the blows so obviously that it just looked like it came from a high school play! Well, I must admit that the rest of the film DID feature better acting and it seemed that if Hitchcock made this movie linearly (from start to finish), then you can see how his direction improved as the film unfolded. But, unfortunately, the script is so preachy and obvious that it hardly seems worth watching. About the only positive that I really liked was the very end--the lack of a happy or clichéd ending actually helped make the movie a little more palatable. Still, all-in-all, a pretty forgettable and unimpressive film in almost every aspect.

Laborious to view

[perfectbond · 6/10 · 26 April 2004]

I usually don't watch silent films but because I am a devoted Hitchcock fan I decided to give this silent film a try (it was on a DVD with another of his classics, the first English 'talkie,' Blackmail). Considering the era's technical limitations I suppose this was a decent effort. But I am spoiled and have seen much more moving films on this subject matter that frankly it was an arduous labor to sit through Easy Virtue till the end. I just wasn't interested in the performers or the characters and what appeared to be their ridiculous mime acting (characteristic of the silent era). If you are a buff of silent films, you'll probably be interested in this. It might also appeal to cinema historians but I couldn't wait for it to end and I was watching it at 2X the normal speed. 3/10.

Not without virtue!

[A_Kind_Of_CineMagic · 7/10 · 7 April 2009]

I am a HUGE Hitchcock fan and have every DVD currently available. The version I have of Easy Virtue is very poor. It is an exceptionally poor picture with a zoomed in shot which chops off parts of the picture! The silent Hitchcocks which have been restored/well mastered onto DVD are hugely more enjoyable so I sincerely hope someone gives Easy Virtue a restored DVD release soon. The poor DVD quality detracts from my enjoyment of the film and may cause my appreciation to be less than fair but so far I would say Easy Virtue is my least favourite of his films I have seen.

The film has some great shots and some fine moments but overall it has too many parts which lack interest or drama. That is mainly due to it being a silent film of a Noel Coward play. Imagine seeing a Coward play on the stage where the actors do not speak! The highlight of Coward's work is the dialogue so apart from lines like "Shoot! There's nothing left to kill!" (which may be from the play and is a good line) the sharp, witty dialogue is a real loss to the story's presentation. Even the young, great Hitchcock cannot quite keep a comedy drama of social morals interesting enough when the vital dialogue is removed. It is far from a disaster, I would rate it a very good 7/10, but for Hitchcock it is below his extremely high standards.

Easy Virture is one of Alfred Hitchcock's very lesser works

[tavm · 1/10 · 17 July 2007]

Don't expect typical Hitchcock touches in this early silent of his called Easy Virture since this isn't even a suspense film but more of a melodrama about a divorced woman who can't escape her past, a past in which her then-husband discovered her painter's infatuation with her, which he mistakes for an affair, and gets shot by him but survives though the painter later commits suicide (which I wouldn't have known about if I hadn't read the synopsis on the DVD case back). Shamed by the courts, she flees to France where she falls in love again, marries, and returns to England where her mother-in-law automatically gets suspicious of her. What I just described is something (at least the mother-in-law part) that I've seen on many TV shows and movies that usually ends with the woman winning everyone-or almost everyone-over. Not this time. Personally, I found this mostly boring and some scenes (like the about-to-be-ex-husband "hitting" the painter with his cane that looked so fake) so ludicrous. The only interesting camera angle I saw here was when it cut to the top of the judge's wig before he looked up and his face came in close-up. This happened twice. It probably didn't help that there were no music or sound effects on the DVD I got. So if you're an Alfred Hitchcock completist, by all means see this. Otherwise, worth avoiding.

"Jesus, this is like a Noel Coward play, one of us should go and make some martinis." - Woody Allen in Manhattan

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 16 May 2016]

The premise of the story is that a woman, the gorgeous Larita, is caught in a scandal when she is divorced from her husband (he was a drunk louse, and the 'Easy Virtue' name comes from the sort of scandal at the time: she went into another man's arms, an artist who cared for her, and then he got into a big fight that ended with a gun going off).

In other words, she was found guilty and found a "Correspondent" or whatever that means, so she decides to high tail it to the Mediterranean/South of France and happens to meet a nice young man, John, who just falls head over heels for her... except he doesn't know about her past, and doesn't care to ask even when she asks why he lovers her without knowing about her. Then it's time for a 'Meet the Parents' scenario. You can see where this might go.

At first I thought this might be somewhat of an unintentional trial run for Hitchcock for Rebecca, also about the terrors that come to a woman when she is brought home by her new beau to the family and the mother doesn't take a liking to her in the slightest. But this isn't Gothic melodrama, this is more about morality and class mores. There's a on one hand on the other hand with this scenario: on the one hand, it's now 2016, and divorce, though not something that's very pleasant and often can end acrimoniously and Ireland only allowed it as a thing 20 years ago and so on, is something that is a societal norm. So in 1928 it was not at all normal and, on the contrary, if one became a scandalous figure for it (for, GASP, possibly favoring another man over a drunken brute!), it could be seen as something unfavorable.

But on the other hand, to the stories credit, the way the story ends up rolling out not all sides see this past of Larita's omething that's even they're business, when it does surface (at first her face is a 'you remind me of someone' thing, but it can't be placed until it's seen in a newspaper, somehow the medium change makes it clear which is a clever touch by the way). I liked the moments where John's father takes Larita aside and says 'do right by my boy, I don't care about what you did before.' It's a mature moment, just as when she tells them all when the big revelation comes out, 'it's my business, I have to live with it, not you' to that extent.

So there's some drama to unpack here, but I think for the most part Hitchcock finds a way to navigate this story with entertaining direction and moments that really make you keep attention. He can't help that some of its contrived to the point that one might see in a modern romantic comedy or drama - i.e. if the main couple just sat down and had a damn conversation it'd be the end of it, and the "I love you without knowing you" seems a little weak, albeit it does end up being part of the commentary on how flawed John is when he is in one place like the South of France vs with his family - but there's many moments for terrific acting Isabel Jeans as Larita and the mother played by Violet Farebrother.

I think one can pick apart this movie and see the holes in it, or how the ending is a bit rushed, and at the end of it all its still a credit to how sharp Hitchcock's craft was by 1928, near the tail-end of his work in silent productions, that he could make the camera dynamic (watch for those shots in the courtroom early on that make things seem bent out of shape, the way those views-through-the-monocle for the judge gives an entrapping quality, at least it did for me), and probably puts in some comedy where I can't see it being in the play.

A highlight is when John and Larita are in a horse-drawn carriage and it's a moment where love is professed though he doesn't care about her past (at that moment)... and then Hitchcock cuts to a wide shot and shows that the carriage driver has dozed off (!) and the horse has stopped in order to, yes, have the equivalent of making out with another horse in front of him, or her (!!) It's genuine laughs to be had there, and it's all from staging and timing (I can't picture that happening on a stage unless it was with horse costumes or something), not to mention the comedic highlight with a telephone-switchboard operator (Benita Hume is the actress) eavesdropping on a call between the two love-birds and just how her face and eyes change in one minute is uproariously funny. Hell, even a shot showing the full dining room for the Whittaker family, with Christian saints hanging large and looming on the walls, is amusing.

Jeans has some glamorous moments and times to shine, and the acting across the board is solid. It's dated in certain significant ways, and predictable in some others (i.e. the 'other' girl who could've been John's who is always on the sidelines like the platonic woman or something), and not least of which the ending. Yet at least it's a story that, for the time, attempts to wag a finger at people who think Divorce = Bad, and Hitchcock tries to overcome the lack of what would usually be necessary in adapting a Noel Coward play, like *dialog*, and can still make some interesting cinema out of it.

Interesting For Hitch Fans...And That's It

[slokes · 4/10 · 8 June 2013]

The sad plight of a twice-wronged woman - first by her husband, then society - gets the silent treatment from Alfred Hitchcock in this early melodrama. Many of the themes of later Hitch classics come up, and in sometimes arresting ways, but the overall impact is a thud.

Larita Filton (Isabel Jeans) finds herself ruined when her brutal husband catches her with a lovestruck artist. Not guilty, but too easily believed to be, she winds up divorced but well-off enough to take her broken heart to a French resort town on the Mediterranean. There she captures the fancy of a young man named Whittaker (Robin Irvine) who insists on knowing nothing of her past. Unluckily for her, his family is not as swept off their feet. Trouble ensues when he introduces her to them as his new wife, her secret unknown but festering all the same.

Hitchcock's silent films are fascinating to watch even when they aren't all that good. For one thing, he had quite a stock company going by this time: Jeans, Irvine, Violet Farebrother (who plays Whittaker's disapproving mother), and Ian Hunter (who plays the attorney who handles the case against Mrs. Filton) all appear in "Downhill," a film Hitchcock directed the year before.

Also, Hitch silents often reveal the unique nature of his approach to cinema in embryonic form. Here, he demonstrates a stylistic acclivity for quick cuts and arresting camera set-ups. Thematically, the sun- drenched French scenes remind you of "To Catch A Thief," while the Whittaker's stuffy estate, "Moat House," conjures up "Rebecca." Farebrother gives off the nasty vibe of every Hitchcock unfair mother to come in his oeuvre. Jeans likewise personifies every sexy-but-troubled blonde Hitchcock would find such reward in making suffer.

What the film doesn't have is an engaging story. Larita is too passive a character, and her romance with Whittaker is so bloodless it's hard to understand. The acting is borderline, with both Jeans and Farebrother especially problematic. Both have good scenes, but also too many overheated moments they play too much with their eyes, which tend to roll like storm-tossed eggs. Finally, this is one time the silent medium really under-serves the story, as many scenes play out in long talky pantomimes with minimal dialogue cards.

You really get the feeling Hitchcock wanted to explore his growing bag of tricks at the expense of intelligent exposition. One early example features Hunter holding a decanter as a key piece of evidence in Larita's divorce trial. This allows for a cut to the same decanter in a scene with the drunken Mr. Filton, but one is left to wonder: What's the point bringing the decanter into the courtroom? It plays no role in the actual climax with the artist. It's just there for the cut.

There's perhaps a more interesting film at work in the corners of the frame. One aspect touched on in ackstasis's October 2007 review is Larita's unsympathetic character once imprisoned in Moat House. She smokes like a chimney, blowing her exhaust in the faces of Whittaker's troublesome sisters. It's perhaps a sign of her liberation, except you wonder before the roof caves in why she doesn't cool it a bit. Given a chance to explain herself to the mother-in-law, she waves her off with a snooty line: "I'm sure the names of my friends would convey nothing to you." If she isn't a Scarlet Woman, and we know she isn't, she acts more than a bit like one.

This might have been better explored if the Moat House scenes were played for more subtlety. Jeans bears a strong resemblance to Helen Mirren, and brings some of Mirren's wounded charm to her role. Alas, the melodrama takes over too quickly. Irvine just seems lost in his key role. I stopped caring early, and just watched for the tricks and the echoes of things to come.

You get plenty of those, anyway. Hitchcock is one of those major figures you want to see even when he's not at his best. That's the only kind of recommendation I can offer for this weak-tea soap opera.

Worth watching

[lucy-19 · 6/10 · 2 May 2006]

This movie is worth watching. You soon get used to the silent film conventions. Film buffs can probably spot techniques that Hitch carried on using into the sound era - he was always a visual director.

And the story is good, as others have pointed out. It highlights the clumsy and humiliating divorce proceedings of the time, which were treated as a sideshow by the public. The woman taking notes in court is a journalist, not a juror, though, complete with masculine clothes and hat as befits someone making their way in a man's job.

And John's family are not exactly aristocrats. His parents are Mr and Mrs. They obviously have money, though, and a social position to "keep up". This involves all living together in a large country house. It must have been like living in a hotel and none of the family members have much privacy. The unmarried daughters' lives are pretty much dictated by their parents. I don't think we need envy them!

EASY VIRTUE (Alfred Hitchcock, 1928) **

[Bunuel1976 · 4/10 · 17 November 2006]

This sophisticated melodrama from a Noel Coward play is clearly unsuited to Hitchcock's particular talents: the initial court-room sequence is the best, allowing the director to experiment with camera technique (especially his creative use of the dissolve to jump from the present into the past and back again); the rest is a succession of clichéd situations, making it a rather tedious whole. The most notable cast member is Ian Hunter, though leading lady Isabel Jeans did go on to play prominent roles in GIGI (1958) and HEAVENS ABOVE! (1963). With this, I've only 3 more extant Hitchcock Silents left to watch - THE PLEASURE GARDEN (1925), DOWNHILL (1927) and CHAMPAGNE (1928); his second film, THE MOUNTAIN EAGLE (1926), is believed lost.

One of Alfred Hitchcock's best films and an underrated classic of the silent era!

[knoll360 · 9/10 · 19 February 2011]

Easy Virtue is one of Alfred Hitchcock's best films. It follows Larita Filton who at first is married to a drunk but starts to fall for a painter. When they get filed for divorce her husband brings her to court for adultery, believing that she was cheating on him with the painter. She eventually goes to France and marries a man named John Whittaker but she also attempts to hide her past from him. But when John's family starts to find out a few things about Larita's past her relationship with her new husband starts to become strained. Does her relationship survive? So basically I find it a very interesting and entertaining plot which keeps the viewer entertained all the way until the end where the film seems to end very abruptly. This makes me wish that the film had a little bit better closure and had gone on for just a little bit longer.

All of the actors in the movie do a great job with Isabel Jeans playing Larita with true excellence. She seems to act very naturally instead of the typical exaggerated expressions that you see in most silent films. John's disapproving and unhappy mother is played very well by Violet Farebrother who gets her anger and disapproval across very well. Robin Irvine manages to do a nearly perfect job as John so basically all of the actors are great including minor ones.

Each and every one of the sets in this film are great and the only noteworthy special effects shot, a man firing a gun, is done very well for the time. The soundtrack for the film fits it very well even if some of it has already been used in earlier Hitchcock films.

This is a movie that really caught me off guard with its high level of quality and entertainment value. The plot is based off of a 1925 play and it ends up working very well here in the movie, the film is a pretty good length although it could have used a little bit more footage at the end, the acting is stupendous, the music is great and fits the movie well, and finally the special effects are great. So this is an excellent film from the silent era and a classic that should be watched and enjoyed by everyone. Score: 9/10

Irresistible Isabel Jeans & Hitchcock!

[Sylviastel · 7/10 · 1 September 2013]

Isabel Jeans was a well known British actress of stage and screen. In Sir Alfred Hitchcock's silent screen adaptation of Sir Noel Coward's play, "Easy Virtue." Isabel Jeans plays a woman with easy virtue which is explained in the beginning of the film. Jeans is perfectly cast as Larita Filton, a British divorcée. The film begins with divorce proceedings. The press and the judicial system have harshly judged the beautiful woman who testifies and defends her honor but fails to do in the courts and the public. She escapes to the South of France where she meets and falls in love with John. She doesn't tell him about her past. Isabel Jeans would have won awards for her performance. This film is an early indication of Hitchcock's vision and genius about film making process as well.

You Need to Know the Times

[Hitchcoc · 5/10 · 10 September 2008]

The spoils of a male dominated society, as Britain was at this time. The main character is caught in a no win situation. Divorce, for whatever reason, was always put at the foot of the woman. She was the one disgraced. Abuse was accepted as the lot of many women because the husband was simply enforcing his rights. This is no great film. The hope that she could escape her past is certainly not a realistic one. She tries to start a new life with an anchor around one leg. Romance doesn't work out for her because she latches on to an innocent and so her doom is sealed. The family is unrelenting in its treatment of her and, of course, a news story surfaces. The performances are pretty ordinary. Hitchcock plays with the camera and one can pull some pretty neat scenes that probably were used again. I especially like the beginning scene where we focus on the judge's wig, soon revealing his stony presence. See this as a curiosity. It's by no means a masterwork.