jacobs-greenwood Directed by Alfred Hitchcock, who along with his wife Alma Reville adapted the John Galsworthy play, the film's title (in lieu of its more modern definition) refers to something akin to "an eye for an eye" where everyone turns out blind in the end. In other words, no one has "clean hands", in the final accounting of this kind of grudge match.This average drama is not as bad as I was led to believe, and actually contains quite a good, early talkie performance by Edmund Gwenn, playing a character much different from the more gentle roles he would take later in his career. The titled "game" is between industrialist Hornblower (Gwenn), who wants to build factories on what has always been beautiful rolling hills in the name(s) of progress and profit, and the Hillcrist family, who owns (and has always owned) a country home in this idyllic setting. The film's sound quality, so poor during the auction sequence that one can't hear the reading of the land's particulars, improves as the story progresses.Squire (C.V. France) and Mrs. Hillcrist (Helen Haye) are informed by an old farmer (Herbert Ross) and his wife (Dora Gregory), the Jackmans, who have worked the land they've just sold for 30 years, that the new owner, Mr. Hornblower, is planning to build a factory complete with smokestacks on the property. The Hillcrists had a verbal agreement with Hornblower not to evict the Jackmans, but Hornblower explains that he hasn't been able to buy the land he'd intended, so he really has no choice. Gwenn delivers quite a capitalistic monologue, perhaps the film's best scene, as he alternately oozes charm and rigidity. The thought of a factory being built so close to their country home so horrifies the Hillcrists that they employ their lawyer Dawker (Edward Chapman) to find a way out.After unsuccessfully outbidding Hornblower at a land auction (Ronald Frankau plays the auctioneer), during which they'd shunned his daughter-in-law Chloe (Phyllis Konstam) out of spite, the Hillcrists learn from Dawker that Chloe has a sordid past. Konstam, foreshadowing Hitchcock's later use of sexy women, looks stunning; the director utilizing shadows to emphasize her (near hyperventilating) swelling breast. Mrs. Hillcrist is willing to exploit Chloe's past, while the Squire remains uninvolved, insisting their daughter Jill (Jill Esmond), who'd been "flirting" with the youngest Hornblower, Rolf (Frank Lawton), remain "in the dark".Chloe had been a correspondent, something of which her husband Charles (John Longden), Hornblower's eldest son and business partner, was unaware. Dawker uses another man (R.E. Jeffrey, in a leather coat), who'd been at the auction, to set Chloe on edge. When Hornblower finds out about his daughter-in-law's past, he's forced by Dawker and Mrs. Hillcrist to sell back the auction land at a huge loss (5,000 pounds). Dawker had utilized both the man in the leather coat and one of her past clients (George Bancroft) to make Chloe admit her scandalous past. Hornblower makes Dawker and Mrs. Hillcrist hold a bible while swearing to keep quiet about what they know regarding Chloe.The unscrupulous Dawker is unable to keep the secret from Charles, who was curious as to why his father no longer owned title to the auction land. He pursues her to the Hillcrist's home where she commits suicide upon hearing, from behind a curtain, of her husband's loss of any love for her (he'd learned the truth). After helping Rolf fish Chloe's body out of the Hillcrist's swimming pool, Hornblower admits to the Squire that he is beaten. The Squire laments the nature of a "skin game".

ConsistentlyFalconer This early talkie suffers from the fact Hitchcock was rather hemmed in by the John Galsworthy play it's adapted from. He wasn't allowed to influence the script it as much as he was later in his career, and so it's not quite as human as you'd expect. And of course some of the characters' attitudes (especially towards women) are very much of their time.As a grim drama, it's not bad at all. It's a decent story with a good old-fashioned moral at the end of it. Edmund Gwenn is an actor I would loved to have seen on stage in his heyday, and his performance is excellent here - it's just a shame it's all-but-ruined by his horrendous Generic Middle Class Industrialist Regional Accent, which seems to be half Yorkshire and half Brummie. There are a couple of interesting moments in terms of filmmaking - the hectic market scene; a cut from what we think is a view out of the window to a poster on a wall; and of course the rather daring (for the time) whip pans in the auction scene. Hitchcock also chooses to have several large chunks of dialogue delivered off screen, too, another in the long list of Voyeuristic Hitchcock Moments.Verdict: If you're looking for classic Hitchcock, look elsewhere. yetanotherfilmreviewblog.tumblr.com

Michael_Elliott Skin Game, The (1931) ** (out of 4)Melodrama from the early Hitchcock filmmography was adapted from a popular stage play, which had previously been filmed in 1921. The film tells the story of rival families who see different futures for their small community. One wants to use the land to move the poor people out so that they can build factories on their land. The other wants to keep the land free so that farmers can raise their families in peace. Hitchcock gave an interview later in his career where he pretty much turned his back on the film saying he forced into making it and there wasn't anything else to be said. That pretty much says all there is to know but old Hitch might have been a tad bit harsh as there are a couple good moments scattered around. There's one masterpiece sequence, which could rank right up there with various classic scenes that we'd get in his future films. Early on there's an auction for the land and this sequence lasts a pretty long time and we get to see various people bidding on it. All the people have their own plans for the land so this helps build some suspense because we know what's at stake. The way Hitchcock keeps the camera moving on the bids and the editing make this a very effective scenes. The rest of the movie is pretty bland as there's way too much talk and none of it is very interesting. The movie features a couple good performances but they can't keep the film afloat as it's rather clear the director wasn't cut out for the material.

federovsky For Hitchcock scholars only. Image quality is murky and the extremely poor sound makes it quite hard to hear what is being said. The acting is rather turgid. Characters don't quite seem able to attain anything recognisably human - perhaps because of the theatrical origins of the piece, but mainly because Hitchcock hadn't yet unpicked the psychological key to making films.The stand-out thing is the auction scene where whip-pans flash around the room and there is a nice twist at the end of the bidding - ah, so it is Hitchcock. The rest of the film - a battle of wills between some landed gentry and an encroaching industrialist - is static and dreary and the only point of interest is the array of fascinating English accents now all but extinct.