The value in this doesn't come from the story, the acting or the intertitles. There's nothing exotic about the locales or the people; in fact, there seems to have been a deliberate use of a cast that precisely resembles the sort of audience that was expected to attend the movie.
Where the value lies is in the twisting effect that comes from the editing of the imagery that has us convinced of one thing, to the point of siding with the indignant mob within the film, only to have the rubber band harshly snapped at the precise climactic moment. Ideas that filmmakers -still try- to rearrange and perfect.
Along the way, we are treated to some uniquely cinematic ideas; partly the camera angles and the shot to shot edits that twist our perceptions. But note also the superposition of images to denote imagination and memory. What we have here is evidence of Hitchcock's early recognition of the power of the camera to tell the story in it's own unique and new language.
Where the value lies is in the twisting effect that comes from the editing of the imagery that has us convinced of one thing, to the point of siding with the indignant mob within the film, only to have the rubber band harshly snapped at the precise climactic moment. Ideas that filmmakers -still try- to rearrange and perfect.
Along the way, we are treated to some uniquely cinematic ideas; partly the camera angles and the shot to shot edits that twist our perceptions. But note also the superposition of images to denote imagination and memory. What we have here is evidence of Hitchcock's early recognition of the power of the camera to tell the story in it's own unique and new language.