The Alfred Hitchcock Filmography - A Chronological viewing (9 Viewers)

[Nelson Au]

Matt, I would also guess that with the huge success of Psycho, Universal was very willing to fund The Birds with the hope that another horror film from Hitchcock would be as big a hit!

I forgot to mention above, one aspect of the film that I never questioned was why do the birds attack? I like that he struggled to answer that, but left it unexplained. I thought there was little tidbits of ideas as to why the birds attack. I used to think it was because of Melanie. She brought the attacks to Bodega Bay. Was it because she brought the love birds who were caged by the humans? Was she being punished for something she did? Or is it nature against man for the bad things that man has done. I’m beginning to feel that is the reason because the entire town is attacked. But the birds do get their licks in on Melanie.

I’m glad the next film, Marnie is a return to earlier Hitchcock territory.

 

[Cineman]

...
I forgot to mention above, one aspect of the film that I never questioned was why do the birds attack? I like that he struggled to answer that, but left it unexplained. I thought there was little tidbits of ideas as to why the birds attack. I used to think it was because of Melanie. She brought the attacks to Bodega Bay. Was it because she brought the love birds who were caged by the humans? Was she being punished for something she did? Or is it nature against man for the bad things that man has done. I’m beginning to feel that is the reason because the entire town is attacked. But the birds do get their licks in on Melanie.
...

Figuring out and debating the meaning of the bird attacks is one of the pleasures of this movie. I believe Hitchcock encourages a discussion and debate on them with that scene in the diner and the open ended final shot. Of course, he could not provide a "technical" explanation for the attacks like nuclear fallout over the Pacific or some kind of witch's curse the way a typical horror or sci-fi film might without losing the juicy connection between the attacks and the interpersonal relationships of our main characters. So he leaves it unanswered.

But in terms of what the attacks "mean" with regard to the entire rest of the movie that is devoted to the Melanie/Mitch/Lydia/Annie/Cathy relationships, I will side with the concept that the attacks are a physical manifestation of the kind of emotional chaos that can occur when love and affection are played for humor, as a joke or a game, instead of sincere expressions of human need.

I know that sounds lofty. But early dialogue is devoted to the idea that Mitch wants to buy love birds for his little sister, Cathy, that aren't "too demonstrative", apparently love birds who do not openly show "love" for each other. The little game Mitch and Melanie play in the pet shop clearly shows they are attracted to each other but "pretend" not to. That whole round-about, complicated, complex pathway getting our two "love bird" human characters together is nothing more than a game of love, not a direct pronouncement of it.

And what happens at the very instant our two lovers are finally smiling, happy to see each other, happy to know they both like each other very much in reality? Melanie cuts the engine of her little row boat, a big smile on her face, Mitch is waiting at the dock with a big smile on his face...then Melanie changes her expression from an honest smile to that smug, smart aleck smirk where she is about to say something "pretend insulting" to him and BAM!, that is the very first bird attack in the movie. And it draws blood. It is as though the birds are punishing her for that smirk, for being dishonest about her feelings toward Mitch.

Contrast that to the way Cathy behaves. When Cathy first meets Melanie, knowing she was the one who brought her the love birds, the only thing Cathy asks and needs to know is if she is indeed Miss Daniels. The instant she knows it is, she runs to her and throws her arms around her. No games. No pretending. No complications. Her's is an honest and direct expression of affection. Therefore, it is notable that in a movie where so much blood is drawn from at least three of the main characters and there are so many attacks on children where Cathy is present, her blood is never drawn by a bird attack. Relatively speaking, she has been spared from physical damage by the birds. Not so with Melanie, Mitch and, most unfortunate of all, Annie.

Anyway, I think there are elements of this direct and honest vs indirect and dishonest love/affection connection with the bird attacks concept weaved throughout the movie, between and among the characters. I think there is a swift and clever element of it in the very opening shots of the movie before Melanie even enters the pet shop , the first bird attack on Melanie in the motor boat and it crops up again with the second bird "attack", when the lone bird slams into Annie's front door where Annie lives alone, unable to leave town because of her lingering love for Mitch yet also unable to fully express her love for him due to Lydia's fear of being abandoned and left alone, too.

 

[Osato]

I like the birds more than psycho.

I’m enjoying your run through the films Nelson!!!

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks Osato, glad these posts are of interest.

 

[Nelson Au]

David, your posts are interesting in that you bring a very different interpretation to each film! So when the characters are not being honest, the birds attack them. Interesting take on the film! Next time I watch The Birds, I’ll keep that in mind.

 

[Cineman]

David, your posts are interesting in that you bring a very different interpretation to each film! So when the characters are not being honest, the birds attack them. Interesting take on the film! Next time I watch The Birds, I’ll keep that in mind.

Thank you, Nelson. But I wouldn't say the attacks only happen for that reason, of course, just that the attacks are in some way related to unexpressed or unresolved love/affection. After all, the kids at the birthday party and at the school haven't done or said anything about love and affection, haven't pretended that love relationships don't really matter and can be the toyed with or trivialized the way Mitch and Melanie played and pretended in the beginning or felt abandoned and left alone as does Annie and Lydia. Same with the other towns people for the most part.

However, the premise must expand beyond just the main characters. I mean, we go to these kind of movies to see all hell break loose with the attacks. And in that way, THE BIRDS delivers. It can't just be about those 5 people, even though it is made clear that this bird attack phenomenon is confined to the small town where those 5 characters are at the time. We hear a passing mention of it happening in Bodega Bay on the radio and then the news moves on to other things. This is not a movie about an apocalyptic end of the world.

I believe the attacks on the children and other adults of this small town are Hitchcock's way of saying children and society in general can be negatively affected, victimized if you will, by the kind of behavior I mentioned above. The first attack on children is at Cathy's birthday party, which immediately follows the private conversation between Mitch and Melanie where Melanie reveals the heartache of being abandoned by her mother at age 11. She is so unaccustomed to feeling a mother's love, she misreads Mitch's reply about "knowing a mother's love." Compared to the relationship Melanie must have had with her mother (or lack of one), Mitch really does know a mother's love. Consequently, the bird attack on children at a party quite literally commemorating the day a mother gave birth to a baby girl is loaded with significance.

Which then also brings a depth of meaning as deep as an ocean to the scene where Mitch leaves Melanie and Lydia alone together after Lydia had discovered the dead Dan Fawcett in his farmhouse and Lydia talks about her love for her children and how much she misses her husband, Frank (having just seen a lone, Dan Fawcett, laying dead in his bedroom, mind you. Again, with a lone dead bird, bloody and stuck in the broken window). Jessica Tandy, as Lydia, has almost all the lines. And she is a great actress. But I must say Tippi Hedren's reaction shots in that scene are immensely moving and effective, as subtle and "guarded" as a character like Melanie would be in the presence of her (now) boyfriend's mother, the one she is trying to comfort. Yet you can see every hurt she talked about with Mitch in the earlier scene in her eyes and face as she listens to Lydia's raw and honest feelings about the two most important men in her life.

Tippi Hedren is not often praised for her acting in this movie. But I will surely go on record saying that scene is about as fine an example of a film actress listening and reacting, showing all of it in her eyes and face, not too much for the camera and not too little, as any I have ever seen. I think just about anyone who watches those two scenes back-to-back, the one where she and Rod Taylor talk on the hill right before the bird attack at the birthday party and the one between Hedren and Tandy where Melanie brings Lydia tea and tries to comfort her, will see what I mean.

 

[Nelson Au]

Marnie
1964
130 minutes 1.85:1 Color
Cast:
Tippi Hedren as Margaret "Marnie" Edgar
Sean Connery as Mark Rutland
Diane Baker as Lil Mainwaring, Mark's former sister-in-law
Martin Gabel as Sidney Strutt, Marnie's ex-boss
Louise Latham as Bernice Edgar, Marnie's mother
Bob Sweeney as Mark's Cousin Bob
Alan Napier as Mr. Rutland, Mark's father
Mariette Hartley as Susan Clabon, Marnie's co-worker
Bruce Dern as the sailor from Marnie's childhood
Meg Wyllie as Mrs. Turpin
Kimberly Beck as Jessica "Jessie" Cotton, whom Bernice babysits (uncredited)
Melody Thomas Scott as Young Marnie (uncredited)
Based on the novel Marnie, by Winston Graham
Screenplay by: Jay Presson Allen
Score by: Bernard Herrmann
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Universal Pictures
Viewed 11/02/19

Alfred Hitchcock The Masterpiece Collection Blu Ray box set, Universal, 2012

Synopsis

Marnie Edgar is a thief who gains the confidence of her employers and robs them. She had used her looks as one way to trick her male employers and after the robbery, she changes her appearance by coloring her hair and hairstyle. For her next job, she targets Mark Rutland and easily gains a position at his book publishing company. Unknown to her, the manager has strong doubts about hiring her as she has no good references or experience, but Mark recognizes her from her last job, where Mark’s company had done business. He overrides his colleague and tells him to hire her so he can watch her.

Marnie’s only form of happiness seems when she can go ride her horse. But she has a complicated relationship with her mother.

Impressions

I’d seen Marnie many times over the years yet it’s been a few years since I last watched it. In the early days of seeing this film, it was always a bit of an anomaly for me. I never really understood it until I was older and got the idea about Marnie’s traumatic childhood experience of a man who attack’s Marnie’s mother after she tries stopping him as he tries to comfort Marnie from the lightening.

So this is a psychological thriller and somewhat back to form after Psycho and The Birds. Though it’s different in the psychological subject matter. On this viewing, since I’d not seen it in some time, it was refreshing. I enjoyed it a lot more this time. It was engaging to watch Marnie change her identity and move from one persona to another. And the way that the relationship develops between Mark and Marnie was interesting to see. I also have a much better sense of who Lil is. That was a sort of mystery to me before as I never picked up that she is Mark’s sister-in-law.

Then the whole marriage business was interesting as Mark caught Marnie and then blackmails her into the marriage, but it was his interest to try to help her and fix her. Like Gracie was attracted to John Robie the cat burglar, Mark seems attracted to Marnie, the serial thief.

The whole business of Marnie being frigid seems like such an old fashioned concept. Up until now, the typical Hitchcock leading lady is a cool blonde. Cool on the outside, but inside was another matter. In the case of Marnie, she really is a cool blonde. And Sean Connery could not melt her until he was able to figure out her past. She is one mixed up character. I had not remembered that Mark went to considerable effort to track her past down and find out about all the business with the sailor. The film ends in a much more upbeat way then I remembered for such a dark film.

This film marked the last Hitchcock film of the 1950’s era dream team he worked with. His editor George Tomasini died a year after Marnie was completed and cinematographer, Robert Burks who died in 1968. And this film is the last to have a Bernard Herrmann score. It really feels like the end of one era and the start of another.

I thought the film has another great cast. Sean Connery wanted to expand beyond James Bond even though he’d only done two Bond films at that time. So it’s interesting to see him in his prime in another role. Tippi Hedren plays Marnie very well. It would have been interesting had Grace Kelly really been able to do the role, but I think Tippi really made it her own. I always liked Diane Baker in this film. On this viewing, I really thought that there was a similar kind of role like Suzanne Pleshette in The Birds, the brunette who longs for the male lead, but is passed over for the blonde. And Louise Latham as Marnie’s mother really makes the role hers as well. She and Hedren were great in their scenes together.

There are some really cool matte paintings too that I think of when I see this film, such as the painting of the ship docked near Marnie’s mothers house. Such a cool view.


Then there is the painting of the Rutland building.


This is a really dark film, it’s not a favorite. But it is interesting to see from time to time. Overall, it’s a very polished film too.

 

[TJPC]

I really enjoy Bernard Herrman’s music for this film. My LP of the soundtrack was pressed on red vinyl.

 

[Nelson Au]

Terry, that’s interesting about the soundtrack, it’s called the Super Deluxe Edition. I wasn’t aware of that. The score for Marnie is not one I’m that familiar with. I’ll have to check it out!

 

[Matt Hough]

I've always had a tough time with Marnie. I like it despite thinking it's too long (seeing it first in the theater as a kid, it really seemed endless), but the praise that is now heaped on it as a masterpiece I still don't understand. (Robin Wood, esteemed Hitchcock film enthusiast, is one of its greatest cheerleaders.) I think it has effective scenes in the tried-and-true Hitchcock tradition, but I have never been able to get past the "like" stage with this one. Oh, and those mattes that Hitchcock used especially in the street scenes at the end look VERY fake on the big screen. Even great supporters of this movie usually comment on Hitch's use of these old-fashioned techniques when critiquing the movie today.

Ironically, Torn Curtain, which comes next, I am a HUGE admirer of, and it gets mostly negative reactions from most Hitchcock aficionados.

 

[Nelson Au]

Matt, interesting about Robin Wood, I don’t know about him so I tried to find some information. What I found instead was a review on a website called Alfredhitchcockgeek.com where there is a review of a book called Hitchcock and the Making of Marnie.

it appears to cover many subjects in the making of the film. Including allegations made by Hedren that Hitchcock became obsessed with her. Allegations I won’t get more into here on this thread, though I’d heard about.

One aspect that many feel is a detriment to the film was the special effects, shooting with so much rear projection in a studio rather then going on location. In particular, the sequence when Marnie’s horse goes out of control. I just accepted it, as it is what it is. It did allow Hitchcock to do what he likes, which is to get particularly shots of the reactions of Marnie. The horse jumping the wall was certainly fake looking, but I found myself doing what Hitchcock wanted, which was to be emotionally involved in the sequence.

For the huge matte pairings of the ship docked near Marnie’s mother’s house, I always liked that shot and the shots when Marnie is getting out of the cab and when Mark drives them there. It looks unreal. It’s expressionistic. I think that’s why I like the shots. They create a mood.
As you know Albert Whitlock created pairings of Bodega Bay and Mitch’s house across the waterway in The Birds. Those are much more realistic looking. But in Marnie, I like the falseness of the imagery. Same with the shot of the Rutland building. It forces your eye to the building.

This is how I react to the film anyway.

I can see how it this film is not to everyone’s tastes. That review of that Making if Marnie book seems to think Hitchcock had much higher critical reaction in mind then it received. Makes me think he wanted another Vertigo.

 

[Matt Hough]

I think Wood's famous critical evaluation of the director is Hitchcock's Films. I have the second edition which tacked on evaluations and discussions of the last three or four films. I haven't taken it off the shelf in many years as I've read other (later) books on the director's work by Donald Spotto and others. All are worth reading if you're a Hitchcock fan which I most assuredly am.

 

[Cineman]

I love MARNIE and am one of those who feels the artificial looking backdrops enhance rather than distract or detract from my emotional response to it. I very much side with Robin Wood's view of it and many other Hitchcock's movies. I feel it is among Hitchcock's half-dozen greatest movies. I've read both of Donald Spoto's books on Hitchcock and the fact that his first book, "The Art of Alfred Hitchcock", praised his work on MARNIE while his second book on Hitchcock, "The Dark Side of Genius", retracts much of his high praise for it for various reasons, including what he felt was the harassment and abuse of Tippi Hedren during the making of it, does not make me happy in the least. However, it contributes to making it one of the most fascinating works of cinematic art by one of the most complex and deceptively passionate filmmakers of all time.

I have mentioned previously that I moved to Thailand several years ago and have enjoyed re-watching many of Hitchcock's films on my fairly decent 84" home theater system with Thai movie fans who for the most part were vaguely aware of Hitchcock but had not seen any of his greatest films in their entirety in anything like a presentable commercial/home theater set-up.

In the case of MARNIE, the Blu-ray of which I've watched a few times with different Thai friends in their late 20s and 30s over the past couple of years with Thai subtitles, I have to admit I was worried (but never said a word about it) that they would be distracted by, perhaps even laugh at the obviously painted backdrops in a CGI world, be bored by the somewhat "talkier" screenplay than most modern movies and so on.

My worries were totally unfounded. Frankly, I was surprised that MARNIE held their attention from start to finish more than any other Hitchcock film, including PSYCHO, VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and several of the other most highly regarded Hitchcock films with the possible exception of THE BIRDS. I'm not even sure how to explain that or what it even means. Seriously, I predicted in my mind that they would be reaching for their smartphones to check for social network message sometime before the first red "flash" sequence. Or the instant they saw Marnie riding a horse with the obvious rear projection effect behind her.

But that just wasn't the case. Nobody has flinched or turned away from this movie for so much as a moment when they were perfectly capable of doing so and did turn away a couple of times during his other, more "realistic" and arguably showier suspense movies. Not one scene in MARNIE has bored them. And not one person has mentioned being distracted by or taken out of the moment by those infamous painted backdrops and rear projections. I suppose I have to credit that response to Hitchcock's then and, in my mind, now "proven" understanding of what makes the art of pure cinema compelling vs mere photography. Imo, it is about the power of montage, of Hitchcock's often stated concept of pure cinema and not about making something look "real" in any conventional photographic way.

 

[Nelson Au]

Torn Curtain
1966
128 minutes 1.85:1 Color
Cast:
Paul Newman - Professor Michael Armstrong
Julie Andrews - Sarah Sherman
Lila Kedrova - Countess Kuchinska
Hansjörg Felmy - Heinrich Gerhard
Tamara Toumanova - Ballerina
Wolfgang Kieling - Hermann Gromek
Ludwig Donath - Professor Gustav Lindt
Günter Strack - Professor Karl Manfred
David Opatoshu - Mr Jakobi
Gisela Fischer - Doctor Koska
Mort Mills - Farmer
Carolyn Conwell - Farmer's Wife
Arthur Gould-Porter - Freddy
Gloria Gorvin - Fräulein
Written by: Willis Hall and Keith Waterhouse
Screenplay by: Brian Moore
Score by: John Addison after the score from Bernard Herrmann is rejected.
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Universal Studios
Viewed 11/09/19

Alfred Hitchcock The Masterpiece Collection Blu Ray box set, Universal, 2012

Synopsis

Michael Armstrong is an American rocket scientist and physicist on his way to Copenhagen with his fiancée Sarah Sherman to attend a convention. Michael is acting odd after they arrive and she is surprised to learn he has a sudden change of plans and goes off to East Germany.

Impressions

Torn Curtain is a political spy thriller and not something I was expecting. This is only the second time I’ve seen Torn Curtain. The first time was about 6 years ago. I don’t recall if I liked it then, but I liked it this time. Not having seen it so long and not recalling all the story points made for a more enjoyable viewing. There was plenty of suspense through out as we don’t know exactly what Michael is up to. Seeing how Sarah was reacting to the events in East Germany was heartbreaking for her. I liked how the film starts with Michael and Sarah as being very much in love. So it makes for a difficult time for Sarah as the plot unfolds. So liked how the initial schism between Michael and Sarah was quite nicely resolved by the shot on top of the hill.

With the discussion of Hitchcock still relying on the old fashioned techniques while making Marnie such as rear projection was a detriment for that film, I thought it more or less worked for Marnie. With Torn Curtain, the whole film felt very different, and it looked like for the most part, filmed on location. But then in the second half of the film, I thought that some shots had that Whitlock painting look. But I wasn’t sure if it was or not. But the sequence on the hill between Michael and Sarah was the most fake looking shot. I was surprised that looked so fake. But they make up for it with the revelation that Sarah has, and we don’t actually hear the conversation, works as we see Sarah now understands what is going on. I suspect that was all that Hitchcock cared about. Later during the escape sequences, it looked terribly studio bound and the rear projection was barely adequate on the bus. The film also has a cold look to it. perhaps on purpose. Not a lot of color.



The scenes in the theater was pretty interesting as the cutting of the shots of the ballerina were adding to the tension of the shot. I kept thinking she’s going to give Michael and Sarah away. The shots of the flames on the stage telegraphed to me what I thought would be the answer for how Michael and Sarah would be able to escape. But I was thinking more of North by Northwest as Roger created a scene, but the route that Michael used was deadly serious and not a comical scene.

Later on the ship, I really did not see it coming after the Ballerina calls out the baskets and I wasn’t expecting the twist. It was funny she kept getting upstaged by Michael, first at the Airport in East Germany and later at the end!

As a little kid, I happen to see some of this film on TV. Though I didn’t really know what the film was about, I mainly remember the scene in the farmhouse where Gromek and Armstrong and the farmer’s wife are fighting and the part with the oven. That stuck with me for a while. It was a really brutal sequence and seeing it this time was less about the oven, but more about the struggle. The things that the farmer’s wife was doing was really tough! Then the struggle to the oven. This has to be the iconic sequence from this film. And I’ve read after seeing the film it was a reaction to the Bond films to show how hard it is in a life and death fight. ( I thought the actress playing the farmer’s wife is Liv Ullmann. But it wasn’t. )

And I’ve read that the casting of Paul Newman and Julie Andrews was not the leads Hitchcock wanted. Newman is part of a new generation of actors and it must have been very frustrating for both the actor and Hitchcock who is used to doing things his way and not to have to deal with actors who have to understand the motivations of the character. And for me, the later 1960’s Hitchcock films are not ones I’m as familiar with so seeing these actors who are more known in other films took some adjusting to accept. (So used to actors like James Stewart and Cary Grant and Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman. But once the film got going, I could go with it. I had that sense too with Psycho, as it and Torn Curtain felt like a more modern film because of the new younger actors. But Marnie still had a feeling of the 1950’s visually.

The score for this film is not by Bernard Herrmann. I did not know that Herrmann started to record the score. I only knew Hitchcock wasn’t getting what he wanted from Herrmann so Hitchcock fires him. I thought the score by John Addison was OK. It’s not memorable, but it wasn’t bad either. So I was surprised to learn that parts of Herrmann’s score exists. And there are recordings available of it as a re-recording. I may check it out.

Interesting bit of trivia, the actor playing the cab driver is played by an actor who took the name Peter Lorre Jr. but in fact he is not Peter Lorre’s son. I couldn’t place him, I’d seen him before. Then I remembered he played a character on Get Smart.

Overall, I liked Torn Curtain, but its not top their Hitchcock for me. It was an interesting little spy thriller. It seems to suffer as it’s not the best looking film. But it has some strong sequences that hold your attention. I wonder if it would have been better with different leads. And I wonder if it would have benefitted with a stronger score.

 

[Nelson Au]

Hey David, interesting to read your insights about screening Marnie with your young Thai friends. It’s interesting that this film held their attention more then the earlier films. Hitchcock translated well in this case.

About the books on Hitchcock. I did buy the book called Alfred Hitchcock; A Life in Darkness and Light many years ago. I haven’t read it, I started it some years ago, but now that I’m nearly at the end of his filmography, I’ll try to read it. I’ll also look for the other books mentioned.

 

[Matt Hough]

Despite its pacing, Torn Curtain is one of my favorite Hitchcocks of his late period. In addition to the hut murder which is excruciatingly brutal and horrific for someone who has never killed before, I LOVE the bus pursuit sequence. I remember being on the edge of my seat in the theater, and it knots my stomach even now. Lila Kedrova is also very touching in her segment of the movie.

 

[JohnMor]

Despite its pacing, Torn Curtain is one of my favorite Hitchcocks of his late period. In addition to the hut murder which is excruciatingly brutal and horrific for someone who has never killed before, I LOVE the bus pursuit sequence. I remember being on the edge of my seat in the theater, and it knots my stomach even now. Lila Kedrova is also very touching in her segment of the movie.

I agree Matt. And I love the lighting in the film. The creation of diffusion that John Warren and Hitch created to mimic natural lighting works so well. And it gives a different feel to the film. And as Nelson pointed out, it helps lend a “filmed on location” feel to some scenes, particularly the shipboard cabin at the start of the film. The light in the Scandinavian and Baltic countries is different so the lighting they created really fits well with this film.

 

[Nelson Au]

Matt, I forgot to mention the scenes with Lila Kedrova. Yes, I agree her scenes were a stand out as well. I hope Michael and Sarah sponsored her.

John, I had not realized the lighting on the Scandinavian countries would be reflected in the film’s lighting. Of course! My coworker is from the Netherlands and she talked about how the lighting is different here in the US verse her home country.

 

[Nelson Au]

Topaz
1969
143 minutes ( US and UK longer cut) 1.85:1 Color
Cast:
Frederick Stafford as André Devereaux
Dany Robin as Nicole Devereaux
John Vernon as Rico Parra
Karin Dor as Juanita de Cordoba
Michel Piccoli as Jacques Granville
Philippe Noiret as Henri Jarré
Claude Jade as Michèle Picard
Michel Subor as Francois Picard
Roscoe Lee Browne as Philippe Dubois
Per-Axel Arosenius as Boris Kusenov
John Forsythe as Michael Nordstrom
Edmon Ryan as McKittreck
Sonja Kolthoff as Mrs. Kusenov
Tina Hedström as Tamara Kusenov (as Tina Hedstrom)
John Van Dreelen as Claude Martin
Donald Randolph as Luis Uribe (as Don Randolph)
Roberto Contreras as Muñoz
Carlos Rivas as Hernandez
Roger Til as Jean Chabrier
Lewis Charles as Pablo Mendoza
Sándor Szabó as Emile Redon (as Sandor Szabo)
Anna Navarro as Carlotta Mendoza
Lew Brown as American Official
John Roper as Thomas
George Skaff as René d'Arcy
Ann Doran as Mrs Foryth (uncredited)
Eva Wilma as Rosita Gomez (uncredited
Written by: Samual A. Taylor
Based on the novel, “Topaz” by: Leon Uris
Score by: Maurice Jarre
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Universal Studios
Viewed 11/16/19

Alfred Hitchcock The Masterpiece Collection Blu Ray box set, Universal, 2012

Synopsis

In 1962, a high ranking Russian official defects to the west and while being debriefed by American CIA agent Michael Nordstrom, learns of Russian missiles placements being set-up in Cuba. Nordstrom’s asks his friend and French intelligence agent Andre Devereaux to use his contacts to gather evidence in Cuba.

Impressions

Topaz was a big surprise to me. I’ve never seen it before and I had no idea what it was about. Add to that a main cast that is not known to a US audience, I can see why it’s not a very well known Hitchcock film. Add to the time that it is made, 1968-1969 as it has that feel of that era and the coming 1970’s. For me, Hitchcock films are of the golden era of Hollywood, 1940’s to the 1950’s. So the later 1960’s films are the ones that I knew the least and feels out of time.

I felt a little lost at the start of the film. The only face I could recognize was John Forsythe. But very quickly it was clear his character, while important to the story, is not the focus. Andre Devereaux played by Frederick Stafford is the main character and he is driving the story. Once I was over the differences of unfamiliar actors, I got into the story and I really liked where it was going. I was still a little confused by a few of the things going on, but at the end, I liked what was going on and the story and the resolution. I felt very involved in the story and could feel the suspense during many sequences, from the defection sequence, to the Cuban rebels who risked their lives to help Devereaux.

There is one very memorable visual that Hitchcock shot between Juanita and Rico when Rico learns the truth about Juanita. The overheard shot of that sequence as her dress spreads out on the floor is a nice way to show what is happening without showing it. If you know what I mean, didn’t want to spoil it.

Though at times the film felt a little like a Mission: Impossible story of that era. That was my impression because of two actors seen on many American TV shows at the time who likely were on Mission: Impossible; John Van Dreelen and John Vernon. Though this momentarily took me out of the story, it wasn’t detrimental. The other face I recognized is Roscoe Lee Browne. I read that Catherine Deneuve was considered for Devereaux’s wife. That would have been interesting. She could have been Hitchcock's next Grace Kelly. ( But I guess he was sort of done with Blondes after Marnie. If the stories are true.)

I read about and saw the documentary about the making of the film and it was interesting to learn of the problems with the original ending and the alternate ending that was shot as well as a third option that was cobbled together with existing footage. Differences between Hitchcock and the studio and of greater impact it seems was the test audience reaction that was not favorable of the pistol duel ending. I was Ok with either ending. The ending on the longer version at the airport works OK.

Overall, I liked this movie and in someways, I liked it more then Torn Curtain. Torn Curtain was fun as it has that feeling of the earlier Hitchcock’s, Topaz feels like a more realistic and modern film with Hitchcockian elements.

This ends the era of the 1960’s. This decade had a mix of success with the audiences. Starting with the smash hit Psycho and The Birds and Marnie, each successive film was less and less successful at the box office. But I felt the unfamiliar, to me, Torn Curtain and Topaz were really good stories that were real Hitchcock films.

I can’t believe I’m almost done seeing each film.

 

[Nelson Au]

Frenzy
1972
116 minutes 1.85:1 Color
Cast:
Jon Finch - Richard Blaney
Alec McCowen - Chief Insp. Oxford
Barry Foster - Robert Rusk
Billie Whitelaw - Hetty Porter
Anna Massey - Babs Milligan
Barbara Leigh-Hunt - Brenda Blaney
Bernard Cribbins - Felix Forsythe
Vivien Merchant - Mrs Oxford
Michael Bates - Sergeant Spearman
Jean Marsh - Monica Barling
Clive Swift - Johnny Porter
John Boxer - Sir George
Madge Ryan - Mrs Davison
George Tovey - Mr Salt
Elsie Randolph - Gladys
Jimmy Gardner - Hotel Porter
Noel Johnson - Doctor in Pub
Written by: Anthony Shaffer
Based on the novel by Arthur La Bern; Goodbye Piccadilly, Farewell Leicester Square
Score by: Ron Goodwin
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Universal Studios
Viewed 11/23/19

Alfred Hitchcock The Masterpiece Collection Blu Ray box set, Universal, 2012

Synopsis

There is a serial killer on the loose in London known as the necktie killer who rapes his female victims and then strangles them. Richard Blaney is a down on his luck ex-RAF flyer who looses his job at a pub and becomes the main suspect for the killer when he is seen leaving his ex-wife’s office who is discovered as the next necktie killer victim.

Impressions

I was very much in fear of seeing this film. I’ve not really seen this film, except I did see it on TV on late night on Creature Features. It was in the late 80’s and it was the era where broadcast TV was showing stuff in-cut. So it was a surprise. I mainly have vague recollections of the murder sequence and the potato truck sequence. I found it very hard to watch and I never saw it again so it was very much new to me on this viewing. I was afraid to see it again.

So I went into this viewing with some reticence. Hitchcock developed this story as one to be made in England, so it was all filmed there with British actors. The only actor I sort of recognized with Jean Marsh and I could not place her until I looked her up. I saw her in an episode of The Twilight Zone.

I liked Frenzy a lot more then I expected. The film quickly gets going and it was a fun return to known Hitchcock territory, the wrong man accused. So it became more about Blaney trying to avoid the police and get away until the real killer is found, but once he figured out who the killer is, he makes it his focus to find him and kill him for framing him for the murders.

My impression is that with each film, Hitchcock is trying to push the boundaries of how much he can get away with. This is his first R rated film and so I can see he wanted to make the murder sequence as visceral as he could. On the second murder, it was interesting that he didn’t show it as you know it’s going to happen. So instead, the camera floats backwards out of the Killer’s apartment staircase, down the stairs and out into the street where we see the regular daily activity. This felt like something DePalma stole.

But while the murders are more explicit in this film, it becomes more about the innocent man trying to clear himself. And it also has a great sequence that’s similar to Strangers on a Train where the killer has to retrieve a piece of evidence from the body. I found the sequence both hard to watch and very funny in that black comedy way that Hitchcock loves so much. This time I got it.

I really enjoyed the comedy with Chief Inspector Oxford and how he tolerated his wife’s experimental cooking exploits. He just could not get a decent meal! The scenes between Oxford and his wife were a great mix of comedy and showing that this inspector would share his days with with her, and she in return gives him her appraisal of the case. He turns out to be a good cop character after initially seeming like a 2 dimensional character. As the case seems to be closed and Blaney is convicted, Oxford realizes that he may have been wrong. And so he investigates further to find the truth and get proof. And so the ending is very satisfying. Oxford has a great final line!

I’d read that Michael Cain was in consideration for the role of Rusk and he turned it down as he found the character distasteful. I found that ironic as he appears in Dressed to Kill that is a very Hitchcockian film by Brian DePalma. And he plays a character whose kind of similar to Rusk.

I see there was some controversy that Hitchcock hired Henry Mancini to write the score. But the work was rejected and Ron Goodwin was brought in to compose a new score. I actually found the score quite good with some memorable bits.

Overall, this was a great start to the 1970’s era Hitchcock and I was surprised again by this film. I went in with a sort of preconceived impression from a viewing on TV when I was less sophisticated. This viewing was just much more interesting and with all the experience I have now from all the Hitchcock titles before it, I could really appreciate it.