Juno and the Paycock (1930) watch online HD

Most people don't like this film, not realizing that a) it's one of Hitchcock's very first British films, on a low budget; and b) that it's not a thriller or suspense film, but based on a masterfully written comic tragedy by Irish playwright Sean O'Casey. Very faithful to the play, this film is fairly well acted, and fairly well cast. Though most seem to think Sara Allgood is the standout as Juno, I particularly like Sidney Morgan's wonderful portrayal as Joxer, and Edward Chapman's performance as Captain Boyle is also very good,

But writing and acting aside, this film is not without its flaws. Obviously on a tight and tiny budget, the quality of film and sound are fairly awful, and Hitchcock's direction and cinematography is less than stellar, with a rash of low shots and cut-off heads.

Still, the poor quality of film and filming can be excused for budgetary constraints, and the fact that this is such an early Hitchcock film. Definitely worth watching if you like the play, which I do, but don't expect and thrills or shocks; this is a talk-heavy play about Irish troubles during the uprising with some very sharp and wicked humour and some very tragic commentary. Not Hitchcock's best by a longshot, but severely underrated. 6/10.

Adapting a heavy-handed play into a successful film is a gamble which can produce a masterpiece, like O'Neill's A LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT, or a complete misfire such as in this case. O'Casey's JUNO AND THE PAYCOCK, considered one of his greatest works, could and should have been a better, more mobile dramatic film under the hand of Alfred Hitchcock who had already produced THE LODGER and BLACKMAIL -- early masterpieces of suspense -- but it seems as though the Director did not really know the material or did not know how to approach such a story in a visual way. There are times when the story becomes so still that it seems as though one is watching paint dry. What saves the film from total oblivion is the very theatrical performance of Sara Allgood as Juno Boyle: she carries the emotional weight of the drama that plays itself out, and her outcry at the end is very potent. Hitchcock would only direct another similarly themed movie called THE SKIN GAME two years later, but it's clear that at this point of his career he was experimenting with sound and would move on to much better films as the Thirties progressed.

Having been a Hitchcock fan for forty years I have not been able to see this until now, thanks to a very cheap and poor quality DVD.

This straightforward fill of Sean O'Casey's play turns out to be a powerful piece of admittedly primitive early film-making. This is from a time when sound editing was impossible - scenes had to be taken in long takes with four cameras and cut ins added in - very much like studio TV.

I am shocked that one reviewer refers to bad photography with heads cut off. That's the bad transfer on the disc which cuts quite a lot of the image, often cutting of heads. If we could see a good print this would be powerful stuff with, surprisingly, a lot of very strong Hitchcock moments - including a ma in atrench coat waiting in the street - to execute JOhnny who was betrayed his republican group. It's also an extraordinarily authentic picture of an intensely catholic world. Ireland is still suffering from internal fighting but the is celebrating independence - but at the same time these people suffer from extreme judgemental attitudes. The rejection of the pregnant daughter by her previous boyfriend is simple and chilling.

We desperately need restorations of Hitchcock's pre 1934 films. The silents are excellent when you see them pristine. The copies in circulation are only hints of what they are really like. In its way a key work in Hitchcock's oeuvre. He may have dismissed it in the TRuffaut interviews, but take that with a pinch of salt. He avoids any mention of Fritz Lang influence too - and yet if you see Spione, M, or the Mabuse films you see how much he owed to Lang.

Sean O'Casey's play does not translate to the screen very well. A bit talky, it may have worked fine on stage, but it is not movie material. Still Hitchcock has moments where he shows his genius as a filmmaker. There are camera shots and editing cuts that tell more of the story than any of O'Casey's dialog.

Still, I would not recommend this film for anyone who is new to the work of Alfred Hitchcock. Save this one for the advance class, and let the beginners view "The Secret Agent," "Shadow of a Doubt," "Vertigo," and "Psycho," just to name a few.

Extremely well-done film, crisp and merciless. The B/W despair of the Dublin slum, and Juno, the woman trying to cope with two adult children in a time of Civil War are presented sharply. The prospect of a small inheritance leads "Capt." Boyle into wild extravagance, shadowed by his hysterical son, who has lost an arm in the conflict, and is hiding, terrified, by the vigil light. The daughter Mary's innocent ambition to escape the tenement is betrayed twice. Two young men die in the embattled streets. The end is one great cry: "Take away our hearts o'stone and give us hearts o' flesh." (NB: If you're expecting a jolly Honeymooners sitcom, skip this!)

This is a work of socialist realism, showing the lives of the working-class from the worker's point of view. It is shocking and raw, but contains a great deal wit and humor. It is certainly a surprise to see Hitchcock handling such overtly political material.

He does it with a great deal of sensitivity. He allows Sean O'Casey's wonderful dialogue to carry the film and does not allow any cinematic tricks to get in the way.

This is a must-see film. For those who think that Hitchcock is all technique and no ideological substance, it will be a surprise and a revelation.

Only "The Skin Game" matches it for overtly Marxist political drama.

Yes, it's "talky." Possibly because it's a film version of Sean O'Casey's seminal stage play about poverty, class, betrayal and death in the slums of Dublin during the Irish Civil War." Dull?" This film is taut enough that a common votive light becomes as frightening as the appearance of a ghost. And a doomed young man's descent into paranoia and babbling fear fairly bursts on the screen.

The discerning viewer will not only be rewarded with a moving story; the Hitchcock touches are there as well. A young director already finding his voice while handling serious material. The dark humor (The Trouble with Harry), the suspense that builds in silence (Lifeboat), and the immediate presence of the camera in the midst of life (Rope). All there.

Studios often resort to misleading packaging in attempts to lure the unsuspecting into renting/seeing/buying a movie that would otherwise not attract them. Those who only like their Hitchcock with a boy in mama's dress or a bird on a wire WILL hate this gem. Their loss.

Juno and the Paycock is very much like Sean O'Casey's other filmed work, The Plough and the Stars. Both plays are centered on typical Irish families in Dublin trying to survive in times of strife. Plough and the Stars takes place during the Easter Rebellion and Juno and the Paycock takes place during the Civil War after the British leave everything but Ulster.

The Boyle family who are the protagonists are not the noblest clan ever put on film, but I think a lot of us would recognize ourselves more than we care to admit. Sara Allgood is mother Boyle, nicknamed Juno who bears all kinds of tribulations for the 90 minutes of the film. She has one useless husband who'd spend all his time in the pub if he could, a son who's an amputee lost in the fighting, and a daughter who gets taken in my an English solicitor who brings news of an inheritance and then takes advantage of the daughter.

Sean O'Casey got good and slammed after these two plays were produced, showing a side of Irish life that wasn't pleasant. Today they are masterpieces.

Juno and the Paycock could probably use a more modern production now. This was one of Alfred Hitchcock's earliest sound features, but it really is a photographed stage play for the most part. When John Ford did The Plough and the Stars he very cleverly cut in a lot of newsreel footage from the Easter Rebellion giving a real feeling for the times.

What Ford did and what Hitchcock didn't do was inject typical John Ford touches in the film so it is more Ford and O'Casey. Hitchcock was hardly as well known in 1930 as opposed to the reputation he later developed. The Hitchcock touches that we all later came to know are hardly present here. In fact this really isn't a Hitchcock kind of film at all. But he did it as a contractual obligation.

Because it wasn't his kind of film, Hitchcock dismissed it. But the film is definitely true to what O'Casey was trying to convey.

This is a very early sound movie; therefore, many of the technical aspects are very primitive, so you must use a bit of patience. But, some of the acting is top-notch, and of course, the play is a classic of the Irish stage. The two standouts as actors is the man who played the outlandish sponge and hanger-on, Jockster, and Sara Algood (sp?) always a dynamite character actor--as Juno, she shines. All in all, this Hitchcock adaption of the play is well done. "Juno and the Paycock" eventually goes in a direction that you would not expect, but in any event, the way in which it looks at Dublin's poor is rather unflinching.

The DVD I own of this film is of dire quality. It is, like other botched, cheapo versions of Hitchcock's early films, a disgraceful transfer from poor quality source. People's heads are cut off by the zoomed in picture, the foggy, grainy picture and awful sound quality detract greatly from viewing pleasure and yet I loved this film!

Bear in mind this is a very early talkie with the disadvantages all early talkies have (even famous classics such as Frankenstein etc) namely: 1. Very static, plain camera work due to huge, unwieldy camera/sound equipment (the master Hitchcock naturally does better than others with this but his genius camera-work IS hampered) 2. Slightly theatrical acting by some actors as they ARE theatrical actors, not used to screen acting which had previously been silent.

This is clearly a film of a play and therefore Hitchcock himself wasn't fond of it but he did a superb job as did most of the cast. It is amazingly hard-hitting, moving, emotionally involving and at the same time has gripping scenes of tension and classic Irish humour.

I am disappointed this is so little known and not appreciated. It is a truly excellent film within its limitations.

It is a disgrace that no company has released a restored version of this still!

Great film! Hitchcock's second sound feature is a well done film though it isn't Hitch's usual genre. Hitch points his religion (which was Catholic) out many times in this film that it almost becomes the central theme. All scenes are well done! Acting is great too! Joxer is by far the comic relief.

Good story, but poorly executed. Juno and the Paycock is another less than stellar early film from Alfred Hitchcock. The story is actually quite interesting, revolving around a poor Irish family who begin putting on airs when they think they are about to inherit a fortune. Comedy and drama blend nicely in this script, letting us get to know the characters in a lighthearted setting before descending into full fledged tragedy. Sara Allgood and Edward Chapman head up a good ensemble cast as the long suffering wife and lazy, drunkard husband, respectively. The film also has a rare edgy quality for its time, as the actors were able to get away with some swearing and irreverence. Sex, however, was still the one thing that could not be talked about. You have to figure out for yourself that the daughter has been knocked up by her boyfriend because they will never just say so. The downfall of the film is that Hitchcock seems to have been uninterested in his own subject. The film feels cheaply thrown together with none of the director's usual style or active storytelling. The spars camera work makes the movie seem like little more than a filmed recording of the stage play it was adapted from. With a little imagination this could have been much better.

A stagy, extremely talky and deadeningly dull early Hitchcock film. If you thought that this director was unable to make a film so dull that it's practically impossible to sit through, this one will force you to re-examine your opinion. This failure is forgivable, of course: Hitchcock was still very young, and he was working with unsuitable (for him) material, on a very low budget. But the picture is definitely not worth seeing, unless you're a Hitchcock completist.

Sean O'Casey's controversial stage play about a shanty Irish family caught up in the times of Ireland's fight for independence get's a rough going over in this Alfred Hitchcock screen adaptation. With it's primitive soundtrack O'Casey's eloquence and dark wit is often garbled and indecipherable. Master of suspense Hitchcock seems content to just film the stage play with about half a dozen set ups and few camera movements. Performance wise he enlists stage vets from The Vic and The Abbey who en masse chew the scenery to pieces. Trained to reach the audience in the rear of the balcony the players are ill suited to the nuance required in this new art form and they remain over the top from start to finish.

Hitch does display flashes of brilliance with the new medium of sound in a couple of scenes involving the informer family member wracked with guilt and paranoia but for the most part he plays it safe, allowing his thespians to recite O'Casey's lyrical dialogue which technical bugs trample.

Dated as it may be Juno and the Paycock performed on stage can be a powerful theatre going experience with its memorable characters and well balanced tragi-comic theme that rails against social hypocrisy. I'm not sure a "sophisticated" film version today would do the play the justice that it receives's within the intimacy of the stage where one gets the feeling your sitting in the Boyles parlor. Suffice to say the 1929 version leaves you in the basement looking for a light switch.

Juno and the Paycock isn't an easy film to watch. The long takes and drawn-out speeches (in which nothing is really said) test even the most sturdy attention span. And the silly beginning feels mismatched with the solemn ending. Maybe it works better on a stage, but this is far from Hitchcock's best work.

It is hard to believe that this is an Alfred Hitchcock film after all. The movie is based on Irish playwright Sean O'Casey's play of the same name about an Irish family named the Boyles. This is a faithful stage to screen adaptation with some minor changes. Still the cast are members of the Irish Abbey Theatre Company and have performed the play on stage together hundred times. The cast is first rate. Real life sisters Sara Allgood and Maire O'Neill are excellent especially O'Neill in an unforgettable performance. She was such a scene stealer. The family learns that their an inheritance only disappointment in the end. The film is unlike Hitchcock's other films but yet it is worth watching an early stage to screen adaptation with the original cast of players who originated their roles on stage. That is how to do a stage to screen adaptation with the original cast.

This is a film that is poorly edited, directed and captured on camera from shot to shot. However it is early in Hitchcock's career as it is also a film that plays out more like a play and/or sitcom then an actual film. The acting is okay, but what I do like about it is the fact that it has some very interesting concepts to think about. This film definitely has a lot of food for thought.

Furthermore I also like the fact that this film is completely different than anything Hitchcock would go on later to do as far as story and style wise in his films. I always respect the fact when a director can do something a little different or completely different then the style and (in David Lynch's case) story that they are known for. Early in Kubrick's career, Kubrick did some different styles than his usual signature stuff, and Hitchcock did something completely different than his norm with this film here.

Kudos for the effort. Most great directors usually have a few that are different than their norm, and that's a good thing because to be the best one needs to go through trial and error at times. Decent film here though, worth a look for the different style.

I can't believe I actually sat through this movie. I am watching all my Hitchcock DVDs from the Lodger (1927) to Family Plot (1976). Both the Lodger and the Farmer's Wife (1928) were really entertaining. This however the third in my marathon was spectacularly awful. It is the only Hitchcock movie I've seen that I can say is bad. Although the story tells a moral tale of how greed and apathy lead to bad consequences, the way Hitchcock goes about it is passive to say the least. For the most part the camera remains positioned in a room of characters giving sentimental drawn out pieces of irrelevant dialogue. Although being an early talkie this is understandable. The film is therefore drawn out and unbearable to modern audiences. Having spent almost the entire length of the film confined to the apartment of our protagonists the viewer is left we a sickening feeling of claustrophobia, allowing a cheer of joy when the film finally ends.

I give this film a 2/10 and not a 1 purely because it contains a moral importance. Nonetheless unless you're an absolute Hitchcock fanatic (like myself) I wouldn't dare tell anyone to watch this film. It is so bad its not even fit for use in torture methods!!!

I remember this sad hopeless play from college theatre classes. You start with a down and out family, throw in alcoholism and ennui and you have this story. The characters live under the black cloud that is Ireland at this time. They have a chance to get out (though it proves false) and instead of making sure of things they go on a binge and make their situation even worse. The movie has good performances and looks pretty good, but O'Casey has written such a downer, it's hard to enjoy it. Also, Hitchcock really didn't put a signature on it, other than the fact that it is well filmed. The oppressiveness of the dark shades of gray and the sunken eyes of the performers is pretty well presented. The play is plea to God to give them something for once, but it says that these people are incapable of receiving. It could use a ray of sunshine. The final scene makes a person want to cry because from what I've read, this was not atypical for these people at this time.

I rarely see movies before the 1950´s, but since in the last three weeks I´ve seen To Catch a Thief, 39 Steps, Sabotage and Number Seventeen, this movie sitting on the shelf was calling for a chance to get out of the store I rented it from (I wont say any names).

But, I have to say: I got bored. And I want my money back.

Maybe this feeling comes from a true disapointment, since the day before I saw Number Seventeen, which starts with an incredibly dull pace, and then turns into a quickly edited fast-paced ending.

I was expecting something like that.

Instead I got a short length movie that seems more a stage production than a film itself, but with a lack of charm, charisma or its director´s suspense trademark.

No to mention the annoying accent of the Paycock. (arghhhhh)

Anyway, if you´re a Hitch fan, better see this one. From there on, all of the other movies are better. Way better.

Juno and the Paycock is about a group of people in Dublin sometime during the Irish Civil War (1922-1923). Two of them are alcoholics who have grand goals and plans but never do anything to realize these dreams due to them being incredibly lazy. They are told that they are to receive a large sum of money from a dead relative so they go out and spend a lot of money to celebrate early. However, they spend it before they actually receive the money plus both sides in the Irish Civil War start to gain distrust for the group so who knows what could happen. Basically the film follows the plot of the 1924 play of the same name and the problem is that it doesn't work very well in a movie format. Almost the entire film takes place within a single room which can get incredibly boring and not very much really happens throughout the movie that is even mildly entertaining when it comes to the plot.

The acting in the film is abysmal. Edward Chapman plays Captain Boyle who is always grumpy and mean which makes him an incredibly unlikeable character. He isn't very well acted either because he comes off as more annoying to the viewer than anything. Maire O'Neill plays Maisie Madigan, another uninteresting character without any depth whatsoever. All other actors in the film are also pretty unspectacular and aren't entertaining in the slightest. The script doesn't allow for any characters to have any depth plus they are badly acted anyway.

When it comes down to the special effects I shall reiterate that the whole movie is pretty much in the same room so it's mostly just one set. And this set is a simple apartment without anything interesting or exciting. And there are no noticeable special effects throughout the movie. As for the musical score: it is lacking and really makes my ears bleed! The worst part with this would have to be the few sections in the film where characters attempt to sing which is truly some of the worst sounds that I have ever heard coming from anything at any time.

In conclusion, this is one of the worst films that I have ever seen in my entire life and there isn't a single redeemable quality in it. The storyline is incredibly boring and doesn't work well outside of being in a play, the acting is atrocious, there aren't any special effects, and the music makes me want to mute my television. Some movies are bad but have a cheesy factor to them which can make them entertaining when you are in the right mood. And some movies are so bad that it actually makes them entertaining, but this film is truly at the rock bottom of cinema. No matter what way you look at it there is no possible way to get any entertainment out of this movie. Avoid it at all costs. Score: 0/10

Gee, maybe that's not fair. Maybe it's just that the Irish have a better heritage of articulating hard times. "Juno and The Paycock" is the epitome of tales of woe and suffering from the Irish urban poor during The Troubles of the early 20th century. The family has all the stereotypical travails: Joblessness due to alcoholism, joblessness due to labor union strikes, involvement with the Republican Army, and all these problems fall across the shoulders of the long-suffering mother, Juno.

If such a thing can be imagined, it gets worse. The family believes they will fall into some money, so they (foolishly) run up debts. This begins the 'comic' part of the film's tragi-comedy structure. When hopes prove to be false the family is devastated.

A relentlessly downbeat story that sees an interlude of clearly false hopes followed by a tragic ending, is considered a chestnut of the Irish playwright Sean O'Casey. For viewers, anyone who can't understand the thick Irish brogues on the equipment used in an early talkie will have no chance to understand the dialogue.

Worst of all the nature of the story really doesn't suit the talents of even a young Alfred Hitchcock. Even by that point in his career, he had begun to make compelling suspense pictures and this film is not in his wheelhouse. Even taking exception for budget and circumstances that would have obligated him to take on this film as an early sound project, "Juno and The Paycock" does little to distinguish the work of Sean O'Casey and even less for Hitchcock. It should be avoided, even by Hitchcock completists.

Hitchcock later himself has refer to this particular film as 'photographs of people talking'. Although there are couple of nice moments, but overall 'Juno and the Paycock' is too static and somewhat uneven in tone. Lighthearted comedy changes into dark tragedy and then cheesy melodrama too suddenly. Plus, the film is simply boring. I don't mind talky films, and I really enjoy good dialogue that was occasionally present in this movie (He can't climb a ladder but he can skip into a bar.), but there were too many (and too long) empty pauses between.

You may want to watch 'Juno and the Paycock' only if you need to see all the Hitchcock's movies, or if you are interested how boring movie one of the most interesting directors managed to turn out.

This is a well done drama with lots of comedy in it as well. It is old and "old looking" but if you don't mind earlier films this is a decent Hitchcock effort. I can't believe how low it is rated here.

"Juno and the Paycock is available on at least six DVD labels plus a VHS tape. The best quality is provided by the tape which unfortunately is missing the conclusion of the final scene. Therefore I recommend the St Clair copy which chops off heads occasionally and has two or three poorly graded images at the beginning.

"Juno and the Peacock" (or Paycock) is not a movie that most Alfred Hitchcock fans will enjoy, being rather stagey, downbeat and slow- moving, but it does preserve the fine, stagey performances by Edward Chapman (as the Paycock, unrecognizable here in his film debut), Sidney Morgan (the Abbey player, NOT the director as IMDb once contended - I assume they have now corrected this error), Kathleen O'Regan, John Laurie (movie debut), and Sara Allgood.

Although filmed for the most part in long takes, Hitch has opened the play up a bit, which certainly helps the pace. And Jack Cox photographed in his usual all-gray, no-whites-no-blacks style, which certainly contributes to the downbeat air.