although i’ve only seen two other hitchcock films prior to this, i can still notice the difference among them and it’s evident that champagne is one of his earlier films; the narrative is somewhat weak and lacks the depth and complexity that can be seen in his later works. specifically, the main character, betty, is quite underdeveloped and her character arc of going from a spoiled rich girl to a grounded person is rather rushed and lacks any sort of emotional background which kind of dulls out the whole point of the story
it’s overall a very silly film though but the audience gets a hint of that within the opening sequence with a dizzying shot from a champagne glass setting a somewhat playful atmosphere. while it may not possess the taut suspense and tension that his later works do, it was still interesting to see one of his earlier pieces and see how he’s grown in terms of narrative depth and visual inventiveness
although i’ve only seen two other hitchcock films prior to this, i can still notice the difference among them and it’s evident that champagne is one of his earlier films; the narrative is somewhat weak and lacks the depth and complexity that can be seen in his later works. specifically, the main character, betty, is quite underdeveloped and her character arc of going from a spoiled rich girl to a grounded person is rather rushed and lacks any sort of emotional background which kind of dulls out the whole point of the story
it’s overall a very silly film though but the audience gets a hint of that within the opening sequence with a dizzying shot from a champagne glass setting a somewhat playful atmosphere. while it may not possess the taut suspense and tension that his later works do, it was still interesting to see one of his earlier pieces and see how he’s grown in terms of narrative depth and visual inventiveness
