The subject of The Man Who Knew Too Much appealed so much to Hitchcock that he remade the film in 1956, with James Stewart and Doris Day in the lead roles. This American remake is certainly more polished than the 1934 original but lacks the frisson of danger and dark, expressionist tones of that earlier film. In the 1934 film, German actor Peter Lorre (the star of Fritz Lang's M) makes his debut in an English-speaking film role. In spite of the fact that he didn't speak a word of English at the time and had to learn his lines phonetically, Lorre is stunning as the film's principal baddy - a truly nasty piece of work, yet someone for whom you can't help having some sympathy. By contrast, the film's good guys are pretty bland - Bob Lawrence (played somewhat flatly by Leslie Banks) is pretty inept as both a father and a hero, and his accomplices and nowhere near as interesting as his opponents. For this film, Hitchcock also engaged another foreign actor, the Frenchman Pierre Fresnay, who was to become one of the leading lights of French cinema in the late 1930s and 1940s.
The two scenes which stick in the memory are the suspenseful assassination attempt at the Royal Albert Hall and the protracted street siege at the end of the film. The former is typical Hitchcock, with the director employing all his guile as he contrives to keep his audience on tenterhooks for as long as he can, the tension mounting to an unbearable crescendo as a dastardly scheme reaches its climax. The second is less characteristic but evokes certain themes which are noticeable in his later works - the brutality and futility of aggression, the idea that two equally matched opposing forces are inevitably drawn to a showdown of destructive attrition - mutual annihilation being preferable to the shame of submission. Hitchcock reveals far more cynicism about human nature here than we find in his later films, particularly his slicker Hollywood ventures. It would be stretching it to say that he intended The Man Who Knew Too Much to be an anti-war film, but political tensions at the time may have influenced the director, and maybe the film's bloody conclusion was partly meant to symbolise the impending global conflict as Hitchcock saw it.