This is one of those episodes that defined "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." Hitchcock could make murder humorous. In this, the Laurence Harvey character enjoys his monologue with the audience as he brags about murdering an insufferable young woman who has used him as a fallback from failed relationships. The delightful part is that this man is fixated on chickens and the raising of them. He speaks with glee about the making of his own feed, using a device that he has invented. He relishes visitors in the style of Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart" and "The Black Cat." Hitchcock is in full tongue in cheek mode here, mugging and bragging his way into our hearts. This one is just plain fun.
10 Reviews
Hitch's salute to Crowsborough
theowinthrop11 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
In his career as a film director Alfred Hitchcock frequently turned to real life crime for his stories. The Crippen Case is suggested in REAR WINDOW, in the murder of Mrs. Thorwall by her husband, who claims his wife has gone on a trip. In the first version of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH he brings up the 1910 Siege of Sidney Street. In doing Joseph Conrad's THE SECRET AGENT as SABOTAGE Hitch is looking at the attempt (in 1894) of an anarchist to blow up the Greenwich Observatory. The same thing in this 1959 episode of Hitch's television series. It is a look at a crime (or presumed crime) of 1926, which is still a matter of debate to this day.
Lawrence Harvey was at the point in his career where his reputation was on the rise. In 1959 he made his best remembered film, ROOM AT THE TOP. He had made a version of ROMEO AND JULIET a few years earlier. The following year he would be sharing big billing with John Wayne and Richard Widmarck in THE ALAMO. But this was the only production directed by Alfred Hitchcock he ever appeared in.
SPOILER WARNING: Harvey is a farmer named Arthur, who is romancing Hazel Court. But Court's interests in him are slowly turning him off. She suspects he has met another woman, and goes to confront him. There is an argument, in the course of which Court is killed. Harvey has done this in a relatively isolated space, and considers his options. At the end of the episode, he is being visited by the police (Robert Douglas and Patrick Macnee) and they can find nothing to really bring up suspicions against him. They leave, and we see Harvey feeding his chickens. We now realize what has happened to the remains of Court.
It is a clever, ghoulish ending - typical of Hitchcock's warped sense of humor (and a type of variant to his most famous television directing stint: LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER).
It was all suggested by the Norman Thorne - Elsie Cameron tragedy at Crowsborough, in Sussex England, in 1926. Thorne, a chicken farmer, had a relationship with Cameron, but it was souring. She said she was going to see him to settle this, claiming that she was pregnant. She left for their meeting at his home, but nothing further was heard of her. Thorne actually sent her telegrams demanding to know why she had not come. The police visited Thorne, but he was plausible about not having any idea of what happened to Elsie. Then a local photographer took his picture on the farm, and he posed over a spot near the chicken coop.
Thorne might have gotten away with it, but for the return to Crowsborough of a neighbor. She had not been reading the newspapers much, but now she caught with the story. She went to the police and said she saw Elsie headed for Thorne's farm on the day she was last seen alive. Thorne was revisited by the police, who made a more thorough search. Someone recalled the posing for the picture, and found the spot. In digging they found the cut up remains of Elsie's body.
Thorne explained there had been an argument, and he left the shack he lived in while Elsie threatened suicide. When he returned he found her hanging. Thorne panicked and cut up the body to hide it. He stuck to this suicide story through the entire trial. The prosecution put the matter into the capable hands of Bernard Spilsbury. The forensic expert studied the remains and came to the conclusion that the body showed signs of shock, normally found in people who are hanged by other people - and not prepared for such a conclusion. But the defense put together ten experts, one of whom (Dr. Robert Bronte of Ireland) produced slides. These suggested certain markings on the neck that were more in line to a suicide theory. Spilsbury (who had a low view on Bronte's abilities) said that the slides were improperly made, and they showed a staining agent at work, not so-called markings.
Thorne's previous lies and his posing over the remains and Spilsbury's reputation convicted the chicken farmer. He was hanged later in 1926. But the matter of his real guilt or innocence remains.
Hitchcock allows Arthur to momentarily hide the traces of his victim's death - far more effectively than Thorne ever did. The episode is a nice example of Hitchcock's efficiency in handling dramatic material well, even in a short running time.
Lawrence Harvey was at the point in his career where his reputation was on the rise. In 1959 he made his best remembered film, ROOM AT THE TOP. He had made a version of ROMEO AND JULIET a few years earlier. The following year he would be sharing big billing with John Wayne and Richard Widmarck in THE ALAMO. But this was the only production directed by Alfred Hitchcock he ever appeared in.
SPOILER WARNING: Harvey is a farmer named Arthur, who is romancing Hazel Court. But Court's interests in him are slowly turning him off. She suspects he has met another woman, and goes to confront him. There is an argument, in the course of which Court is killed. Harvey has done this in a relatively isolated space, and considers his options. At the end of the episode, he is being visited by the police (Robert Douglas and Patrick Macnee) and they can find nothing to really bring up suspicions against him. They leave, and we see Harvey feeding his chickens. We now realize what has happened to the remains of Court.
It is a clever, ghoulish ending - typical of Hitchcock's warped sense of humor (and a type of variant to his most famous television directing stint: LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER).
It was all suggested by the Norman Thorne - Elsie Cameron tragedy at Crowsborough, in Sussex England, in 1926. Thorne, a chicken farmer, had a relationship with Cameron, but it was souring. She said she was going to see him to settle this, claiming that she was pregnant. She left for their meeting at his home, but nothing further was heard of her. Thorne actually sent her telegrams demanding to know why she had not come. The police visited Thorne, but he was plausible about not having any idea of what happened to Elsie. Then a local photographer took his picture on the farm, and he posed over a spot near the chicken coop.
Thorne might have gotten away with it, but for the return to Crowsborough of a neighbor. She had not been reading the newspapers much, but now she caught with the story. She went to the police and said she saw Elsie headed for Thorne's farm on the day she was last seen alive. Thorne was revisited by the police, who made a more thorough search. Someone recalled the posing for the picture, and found the spot. In digging they found the cut up remains of Elsie's body.
Thorne explained there had been an argument, and he left the shack he lived in while Elsie threatened suicide. When he returned he found her hanging. Thorne panicked and cut up the body to hide it. He stuck to this suicide story through the entire trial. The prosecution put the matter into the capable hands of Bernard Spilsbury. The forensic expert studied the remains and came to the conclusion that the body showed signs of shock, normally found in people who are hanged by other people - and not prepared for such a conclusion. But the defense put together ten experts, one of whom (Dr. Robert Bronte of Ireland) produced slides. These suggested certain markings on the neck that were more in line to a suicide theory. Spilsbury (who had a low view on Bronte's abilities) said that the slides were improperly made, and they showed a staining agent at work, not so-called markings.
Thorne's previous lies and his posing over the remains and Spilsbury's reputation convicted the chicken farmer. He was hanged later in 1926. But the matter of his real guilt or innocence remains.
Hitchcock allows Arthur to momentarily hide the traces of his victim's death - far more effectively than Thorne ever did. The episode is a nice example of Hitchcock's efficiency in handling dramatic material well, even in a short running time.
"Yes, that's right. I'm a murderer!"
classicsoncall10 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Make what you will of the opening scene, as the calculating monologue offered by Arthur Williams (Laurence Harvey) hints at his murderous intent as he chillingly chokes his chicken. His cynical outlook on relationships is given full sway here in this story when a former lover (Hazel Court) comes running back to him after her failed marriage to another suitor. Not exactly keen on having his orderly world as a poultry farmer disrupted, Arthur kindly obliges Helen Brathwaite (Hazel Court) when she states that she'd rather be dead than kicked out of his life. Knowing that the authorities would be sure to come calling upon the woman's disappearance, Arthur adopts a reassuring attitude, even willingly allowing the detectives who come calling to take a look at a suitcase Helen left behind in her haste to leave. I thought it somewhat goofy that Arthur would dismiss himself for three days by hiding in a furnished cave nearby, as that seemed well out of character for the would-be Colonel Sanders. After all, who would be around to feed the chickens?
In any event, Arthur returns to find his well tended operation completely overturned by authorities looking for clues to the missing woman's whereabouts. After a considerable amount of time they give up, as the unflappable Arthur offers his regards to the investigating officer by sending a pair of home grown cockerels as a Christmas dinner. It would seem that Arthur concocted the perfect crime with help from the secret ingredients he added to his super efficient chicken feed, but afterward, Hitchcock bursts the viewer's bubble by indicating that Mr. Williams fell victim to a flock of overgrown peckers.
In any event, Arthur returns to find his well tended operation completely overturned by authorities looking for clues to the missing woman's whereabouts. After a considerable amount of time they give up, as the unflappable Arthur offers his regards to the investigating officer by sending a pair of home grown cockerels as a Christmas dinner. It would seem that Arthur concocted the perfect crime with help from the secret ingredients he added to his super efficient chicken feed, but afterward, Hitchcock bursts the viewer's bubble by indicating that Mr. Williams fell victim to a flock of overgrown peckers.
Have Another Drumstick
dougdoepke24 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
One of the most talked-about of the Hitchcock entries. At the time (1959), Laurence Harvey was about to become a star in America after a career on British stage and screen. Here he gets to camp it up shamelessly as the unlikely proprietor of a one-man chicken farm-- it's automated, you see. He walks around in a white lab coat, conversing with the camera as he explains the plot to us. The problem is that he's got this on-again off-again romance with the delectably ripened Hazel Court. At present it's off-again and in an outrage against lovers of voluptuous women everywhere, he confuses her with a chicken by wringing her neck. E-gad!
There's some suspense and an amusing climax, but the main draw (for me, at least) is watching the epicene Harvey obviously enjoying himself in the role. Likely he and Hitch enjoyed a claret or two along with some of the feathered props after a short day of shooting. Too bad Harvey died young. Probably no one could be more cold-heartedly nasty on screen than he.
There's some suspense and an amusing climax, but the main draw (for me, at least) is watching the epicene Harvey obviously enjoying himself in the role. Likely he and Hitch enjoyed a claret or two along with some of the feathered props after a short day of shooting. Too bad Harvey died young. Probably no one could be more cold-heartedly nasty on screen than he.
Superb, but too posh for some?
midbrowcontrarian18 February 2021
The late fifties/early sixties are a bit before my time so AHP is new to me. I'm watching them in declining order of ratings and have clocked up the hundred most popular episodes. Half a dozen are about a man either killing his wife, plotting to kill her, or is suspected of doing so. HOOKED is very good but some others are humdrum and forgettable.
ARTHUR concerns Arthur's relationship with flighty ex girlfriend Helen (Hazel Court), so can be included in this well explored theme. At the time of writing it languishes a third of the way down the list at 93, far lower than it deserves. It's excellence is mainly due to the superbly misanthropic performance of Laurence Harvey. I wonder if the indifferent ranking is due to prejudice against the rather refined English accents of the three main characters?
One detail didn't quite ring true. Would such a well groomed beauty as Helen be slovenly enough to leave the washing up to the next day? And given her compensating attributes, wouldn't Arthur have found it in his somewhat frigid heart to put up with it? Perhaps not.
ARTHUR concerns Arthur's relationship with flighty ex girlfriend Helen (Hazel Court), so can be included in this well explored theme. At the time of writing it languishes a third of the way down the list at 93, far lower than it deserves. It's excellence is mainly due to the superbly misanthropic performance of Laurence Harvey. I wonder if the indifferent ranking is due to prejudice against the rather refined English accents of the three main characters?
One detail didn't quite ring true. Would such a well groomed beauty as Helen be slovenly enough to leave the washing up to the next day? And given her compensating attributes, wouldn't Arthur have found it in his somewhat frigid heart to put up with it? Perhaps not.
A lot of fun
TheLittleSongbird21 April 2024
'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' "Arthur" (1959)
Opening thoughts: Alfred Hitchcock is one of my favourite directors of all time and the 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' series is a mostly fascinating and well done if inconsistent series. With his seventeen episodes, some are better than others but a vast majority of them are at least watchable. Of the previous outings of his, "Wet Saturday" is to me the one misfire, though even that had a few merits, and "Breakdown" and "Lamb to the Slaughter" are two of the series' classics.
Was personally not sure prior to watching as to whether Season 5's premiere "Arthur" would be good or not. Due to reading beforehand that it was a tongue in cheek treatment of a dark subject, which is not always in good taste when done. "Arthur" turned out to be very well done and entertaining, not coming over as tasteless or trivialising at all. It is a strong Season 5 opener and is a very good representation of the series while not being one of Hitchcock's best episodes.
Bad things: It isn't perfect, for my tastes the opening was a little too over-explanatory.
Good things: Other than that, "Arthur" is very well done. Laurence Harvey is terrific in the lead role, intensely charismatic while not being over-serious and is not wooden. The acting overall in fact is without issue and can't fault the character chemistry, which had wit and intensity. Hitchcock directs adroitly, with the right amount of suspense while clearly having fun with the material.
His bookending is drolly ironic as usual, while the production values are suitably moody and the main theme haunts as ever.
Found little to complain about the writing too, which was wonderfully tongue in cheek in many places and darkly warped in an amusing way in others. The episode never felt dull and is a rare example of how to make such a dark subject funny without veering into distaste. The ending is suspenseful, clever and a complete surprise as well as surprisingly amusing.
Closing thoughts: In conclusion, liked it very much and surprisingly so.
8/10.
Opening thoughts: Alfred Hitchcock is one of my favourite directors of all time and the 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' series is a mostly fascinating and well done if inconsistent series. With his seventeen episodes, some are better than others but a vast majority of them are at least watchable. Of the previous outings of his, "Wet Saturday" is to me the one misfire, though even that had a few merits, and "Breakdown" and "Lamb to the Slaughter" are two of the series' classics.
Was personally not sure prior to watching as to whether Season 5's premiere "Arthur" would be good or not. Due to reading beforehand that it was a tongue in cheek treatment of a dark subject, which is not always in good taste when done. "Arthur" turned out to be very well done and entertaining, not coming over as tasteless or trivialising at all. It is a strong Season 5 opener and is a very good representation of the series while not being one of Hitchcock's best episodes.
Bad things: It isn't perfect, for my tastes the opening was a little too over-explanatory.
Good things: Other than that, "Arthur" is very well done. Laurence Harvey is terrific in the lead role, intensely charismatic while not being over-serious and is not wooden. The acting overall in fact is without issue and can't fault the character chemistry, which had wit and intensity. Hitchcock directs adroitly, with the right amount of suspense while clearly having fun with the material.
His bookending is drolly ironic as usual, while the production values are suitably moody and the main theme haunts as ever.
Found little to complain about the writing too, which was wonderfully tongue in cheek in many places and darkly warped in an amusing way in others. The episode never felt dull and is a rare example of how to make such a dark subject funny without veering into distaste. The ending is suspenseful, clever and a complete surprise as well as surprisingly amusing.
Closing thoughts: In conclusion, liked it very much and surprisingly so.
8/10.
Don't call him chicken
sol121829 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** New Zealand chicken farmer Arthur Williams, Laurence Harvey, prides himself on his ability to be completely isolated from society and at the same time very happy and serene in not having anything to do with anybody. Anybody but his chickens who are the healthiest and most tasty in the entire country.
It was in a rare moment that Arthur dropped his guard and agreed to marry Helen, Hazel Court, that his perfect world suddenly became unglued. Luckily for Arthur Helen soon left him for rich famous refined and outgoing Stanley Brathwrite which was the best thing she could have done for him. That's until a year later after Stanley threw Helen out of his mansion and left her out in the cold without a place to stay. Coming back hat in hand begging Arthur to take her back was about the worst thing that Helen could have done for herself. Arthur now happily free of Helen wants nothing at all to do with her and the more she kept nagging him, and well as crashing in his place, the more angry he became. Angry enough to do her in like he does his chickens when it comes to put them away, in cold storage, and sell them to the public: By strangling them!
***SPOILERS*** We already know before the film started who killed Helen Brathwaite in Arthur giving us a blow by blow description in how he murdered her. It was what Arthur did with Helen's body that mystified us watching as well as the police investigating Helen's disappearance. Arthur for his part is as cool as a cucumber or one of his frozen chickens when interrogated by the police in what he knows about Helen's disappearance; since he was the last person to see her alive or dead!
Arthur did in fact get away with murder and he did it in a most unusual way. A way that the evidence of her being murdered had been scattered to the four winds. It's a deep dark secret that only Arthur knows as well as his chickens who ended up helping him destroy the evidence of his crime!
P.S "The Master" Alfred Hitchcock in his closing comments was very shook up over what later happened to Arthur after the show was over. With tears streaming down his cheeks Hitchock tells us that Arthur met a fate later in life that was too blood curdling and shocking for even him him to tell us. And what that fate was that eventually did Arthur in had something to do with his chickens!
It was in a rare moment that Arthur dropped his guard and agreed to marry Helen, Hazel Court, that his perfect world suddenly became unglued. Luckily for Arthur Helen soon left him for rich famous refined and outgoing Stanley Brathwrite which was the best thing she could have done for him. That's until a year later after Stanley threw Helen out of his mansion and left her out in the cold without a place to stay. Coming back hat in hand begging Arthur to take her back was about the worst thing that Helen could have done for herself. Arthur now happily free of Helen wants nothing at all to do with her and the more she kept nagging him, and well as crashing in his place, the more angry he became. Angry enough to do her in like he does his chickens when it comes to put them away, in cold storage, and sell them to the public: By strangling them!
***SPOILERS*** We already know before the film started who killed Helen Brathwaite in Arthur giving us a blow by blow description in how he murdered her. It was what Arthur did with Helen's body that mystified us watching as well as the police investigating Helen's disappearance. Arthur for his part is as cool as a cucumber or one of his frozen chickens when interrogated by the police in what he knows about Helen's disappearance; since he was the last person to see her alive or dead!
Arthur did in fact get away with murder and he did it in a most unusual way. A way that the evidence of her being murdered had been scattered to the four winds. It's a deep dark secret that only Arthur knows as well as his chickens who ended up helping him destroy the evidence of his crime!
P.S "The Master" Alfred Hitchcock in his closing comments was very shook up over what later happened to Arthur after the show was over. With tears streaming down his cheeks Hitchock tells us that Arthur met a fate later in life that was too blood curdling and shocking for even him him to tell us. And what that fate was that eventually did Arthur in had something to do with his chickens!
Just dessert
rgxdzrybr16 November 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Take it how you want it. Did Helen get just desserts or did Arthur in the end as Hitchcock tells us in his closing narration ?
There is no real mystery but it's the audacity of Arthur and Hitchcock himself that makes you pay attention.
The manner in which Arthur disposes of Helen is particularly grisly and how he shares is stomach churning . I don't find it as shocking from Hitchcock as I do from the network and sponsors of the time. I have suspected that had something to do with Arthur getting his just desserts in the end .
I don't think it's one of my favorites but it's memorable no question.
There is no real mystery but it's the audacity of Arthur and Hitchcock himself that makes you pay attention.
The manner in which Arthur disposes of Helen is particularly grisly and how he shares is stomach churning . I don't find it as shocking from Hitchcock as I do from the network and sponsors of the time. I have suspected that had something to do with Arthur getting his just desserts in the end .
I don't think it's one of my favorites but it's memorable no question.
Harvey was great....the episode wasn't.
planktonrules5 April 2021
Season five of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" begins differently than the previous four seasons. The theme has been retooled and the show was no longer filmed at Republic Studios but now at Universal.
The very beginning is quite new with this first episode of season five but the story itself is also very new. The star of the episode, Arthur (Laurence Harvey) begins talking to the audience about his chicken farm in New Zealand....then he begins talking about murder! Soon the episode flashes back. Arthur is engaged to Helen but she unexpectedly dumps him. However, a short time later, she returns....as if nothing happened between them! Instead of questioning her about her abrupt change, Arthur responds by strangling her.
After the murder, the local police are obviously suspicious of him. They visit him and keep an eye on him...but nothing more. But Arthur is very cool about all this, as he's completely sure he's committed the perfect crime with no obvious evidence.
The best thing about this episode is Harvey and his cocky but cool delivery...which was perfect for the show. Unfortunately, while he was terrific, the story itself offered nothing in the way of a surprise or twist...none.
The very beginning is quite new with this first episode of season five but the story itself is also very new. The star of the episode, Arthur (Laurence Harvey) begins talking to the audience about his chicken farm in New Zealand....then he begins talking about murder! Soon the episode flashes back. Arthur is engaged to Helen but she unexpectedly dumps him. However, a short time later, she returns....as if nothing happened between them! Instead of questioning her about her abrupt change, Arthur responds by strangling her.
After the murder, the local police are obviously suspicious of him. They visit him and keep an eye on him...but nothing more. But Arthur is very cool about all this, as he's completely sure he's committed the perfect crime with no obvious evidence.
The best thing about this episode is Harvey and his cocky but cool delivery...which was perfect for the show. Unfortunately, while he was terrific, the story itself offered nothing in the way of a surprise or twist...none.
Laurence Harvey and Patrick Macnee
marthawilcox183129 July 2014
Laurence Harvey plays a despicable character who speaks into camera and murders Helen Braithwaite just like he strangles chickens. If it wasn't for Patrick Macnee's appearance in this episode I would have switched off. Here we see Macnee before he went on to appear in 'The Avengers'. It shows how Brits do well in America, sometimes before they do well in Britain. Another addition to this episode is Robert Douglas from 'Ivanhoe' and 'The Prisoner of Zenda'. Both Macnee and Douglas draw attention away from Harvey's character and make this episode tolerable. It is a lesson in scriptwriting that if you're going to have a despicable character as a lead you need to surround them with either engaging characters, or good actors that we know and trust.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
