Hitchcock Film By Film Thread

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by MLutthans, Aug 6, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

  1. I'd agree. Sure Hitchcock created his films to be "unreal" in many respects (consider the key sequences in "Vertigo" and even "Rear Window" for example) BUT I don't think Hitchcock would have settled for the really bad (by 1960's standards even!) rear projection and riding shots either.


    Like "Topaz" the film is a disaster in my mind. There is one captivating moment in "Topaz"--when the heroine is killed as she falls the way her red dress flows and settles around her is a startling image. It's the one truly successful moment in the film and the most "Hitchcockian".
     
  2. benjaminhuf

    benjaminhuf Forum Resident

    Yes, Selznick really did ruin Paradine. Of course the source material was, I think, quite difficult to begin with. I'm one of the few that thinks Selznick actually contributed in a quite good way to Rebecca and even Spellbound, but by Paradine he'd totally lost it.

    And *yes*--if in Suspicion they'd gone with the he did it ending it would have been a fine film, and maybe even one of Grant's greatest. Now that I think of it, the original ending (as I understand it) which had Grant's character mailing a letter by Fontaine that revealed he was the murderer just after he had committed the crime would have been just the kind of thing that was done on a few episodes of AH Presents. It would have been great. But, that's getting way ahead of ourselves....
     
  3. Turnaround

    Turnaround Senior Member

    Location:
    -
    Hitchcock loved using the God's eye view (i.e., overhead shot) to punctuate a scene. "Topaz" features a famous overhead shot of a woman collapsing in death, her green dress flowing out like a pool of blood as she falls.

    Brian De Palma would use the overhead shot for death scenes, too, but replace Hitch's subtlety in "Topaz" with bright red blood gushing out of the victim. Example: "The Untouchables," De Niro's baseball bat scene.

    I think "Topaz" is where Hitch started to do extreme close-ups of actor's faces (where the top and bottom of their faces are cut off in the frame). These type of shots are also in "Frenzy" and "Family Plot". Tony Scott and Brian De Palma also like to use extreme close-ups of faces in their films, but use them more liberally than Hitch did.

    De Palma borrows from or quotes Hitchcock's spy/espionage films in "Mission Impossible" -- especially "Foreign Correspondent" (for later in this thread).
     
  4. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff Thread Starter

    There's no accounting for taste, I guess. Here's a review from combustiblecelluloid.com:


    <<A lengthy espionage thriller with no American stars, Topaz nevertheless shows Hitchcock in peak form. A French intelligence agent works with an American one to figure out what the Russians are doing in Cuba. The great French star Michel Piccoli (The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Contempt) appears as a bad guy. This disc contains an outstanding documentary hosted by critic Leonard Maltin in which he explains that even just a "good" Hitchcock film is better than most people's "great" films.>>
     
  5. albert_m

    albert_m Forum Resident

    Location:
    Atl., Ga, USA
    That's a moment I had in mind when I made my comment. It's very "Hitchcockian" and the dress falls around her like blood. Very unique and very unsettling in a "graceful" way.
     
  6. I like many of the films he made for Selznick but they really are as much Selznick's films as they are Hitchcock's since he would often generate pages and pages of notes and contribute (often uncredited) to the screenplays.

    They have a distinctive, different flavor to the films he made at other studios although there is the strong flavor of Hitchcock's style and approach in the material but I think that Selznick's voice is just as strong as Hitchcock's in those films he made directly for him.

    Reportedly Hitchcock had a somewhat stormy relationship at times with Selznick. It didn't help that Myron David's brother represented Hitchcock and Hitch felt that Myron didn't represent his best interests when it came to some issues in his contracts. Still, he didn't change agents and stayed with Myron until his unexpected death in the 40's.
     
  7. Turnaround

    Turnaround Senior Member

    Location:
    -
    [deleted by poster]
     
  8. benjaminhuf

    benjaminhuf Forum Resident

    Yes, as you say, it was a very difficult relationship.

    I've heard that Hitch took his revenge in a strange way. If it's uploaded, there's a picture of Selznick from c.1945. Now Rear Window is from 1954, and by that time Selznick had gray hair and looked rather like the way Raymond Burr is made up to look like as the murderous Thorwald...
     

    Attached Files:

  9. benjaminhuf

    benjaminhuf Forum Resident

    or maybe this image works
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Johnny66

    Johnny66 Laird of Boleskine

    Location:
    Australia.
    Well, given that Hitchcock was under contract, Selznick could technically 'loan' him out for a fee to other studios (as he did) and pocket the difference. This would have understandably strained any relationship.
     
  11. albert_m

    albert_m Forum Resident

    Location:
    Atl., Ga, USA
    A point that I forgot to add earlier - I think that Topaz might appreciated more if it were viewed as a Cold War film instead of a Hitchcock one. As someone who interested in those types of stories, I have no problem getting sucked into a slow moving one. To me, it was still interesting, but I can see why many wouldn't care much for it.
     
  12. Happy Birthday Hitch! August 13!
     
  13. Slokes

    Slokes Cruel But Fair

    Location:
    Greenwich, CT USA
    Topaz seems to be Hitchcock doing a James Bond-style film on a low budget, not really investing in top-price actors. The movie hops around a lot, so much it actually has three different McGuffins, that being the memorandum of understanding between Cuba and the U.S.S.R, the missiles, and the identity of Topaz.

    For me, the lead performance by Frederick Stafford is the least distinguished since Leon Lion's in Number Seventeen, though in a completely different direction (sleepwalking instead of overacting). The plot point of a French intelligence agent being drafted to do a favor by CIA honcho John Forsythe is too weird by half, especially when Forsythe tells him he's on his own if caught. The movie is way too long, and Hitchcock could apparently never decide on an ending. They all were equally bad.

    But what's good here are some sweet set-pieces, like the scene where a vital piece of info is smuggled out of a Harlem hotel and an opening defection scene. Roscoe Lee Browne and Per-Axel Arosenius are spot-on in their minor roles, and John Vernon (Dean Wormer!) is a hoot as Fidel Castro's right-hand man, who seems to be simultaneously sending up Castro.

    It's better to me than some Hitchcock films, like Paradine Case, Jamaica Inn, and Torn Curtain, and on par with Marnie, I Confess, Spellbound, and The Wrong Man. The spectacle and constant shifting is fun if you don't try to pay too much attention. I'd give it 5/10.
     
  14. CusBlues

    CusBlues Fort Wayne’s Favorite Retired Son

    I'm confused. Is the Topaz I have in The Masterpiece Collection the original shown in theaters or a version with inserted deleted scenes and an alternate ending? I realize there is an alternate ending extra, but what version of the movie is included? Thanks for any help.
     
  15. Hitchcock mentioned in interviews he did in the 60's that he did indeed intend this. He thought it was rather humorous that he dd this.
     
  16. It's the theatrical version with the alternate endings included as part of the package. They haven't altered the film in any way TTBMK.
     

  17. You make a good point. Interestingly, I think the same can be said some what about the next film as well (being a cold war thriller as well). Hitchcock when he watched the helicopter scene in a Bond movie thought he was being ripped off (although it wasn't quite as well directed his "North by Northwest").
    If the Bond producers had been wise they would have hired Hitchc although I suspect if he did take the job he'd want to take the character in a very different direction since he felt that Bond was little more than cold war cliche as a spy.
     
  18. Slokes

    Slokes Cruel But Fair

    Location:
    Greenwich, CT USA
    You have the third version, according to Wiki. Spoilers below:
    S
    P
    O
    I
    L
    E
    R
    S
    Version 1 (Original) - Jacques (aka Topaz) has a duel with Andre, the main protagonist

    Version 2 (After bad preview reaction, and today's default ending) - Jacques shoots himself. There was no coverage for this so Hitch used a piece of film showing Jacques going inside his house, then had a shot ring out.

    Version 3 (Alternate ending, not used except as a DVD extra) - Jacques is found out and sent to the Soviet Union as a prisoner exchange. Wiki says Jacques "escapes", but I don't remember it that way.
    S
    P
    O
    I
    L
    E
    R
    S
     
  19. BradF

    BradF Senior Member

    Location:
    SW Ontario
    Topaz. The R1 DVD edition is an extended cut, ~140 minutes, and features the farewell ending at the airport. The theatrical cut is ~20 minutes shorter and features the suicide ending -- only the R2 German DVD presents it this way, the best cut imo, albeit in full-frame.
     
  20. Well you can tell I haven't watched it in a while...it's in my set but to be honest after watching it once (and I had seen as part of a retrospective way back when prior to that) I wasn't drawn back to it again.

    It is pretty fascinating from the perspective that it's one of the few Hitchcock films that was second-guessed AND the alternate endings/versions exist.

    That's a rarity from that perspective it is interesting.
     
  21. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff Thread Starter

    Thanks to forum member TURNAROUND for the reminder that, as NBC news might say, "If it's Sunday, it's time for a new Hitchcock flick." I had two weddings to attend this weekend, and I apologize for the delay.

    1966's TORN CURTAIN is another one (like Topaz) that just is missing something. For one thing, it's missing a Bernard Hermann score (!) although one was created and refused by the good folks at MCA.

    I personally don't care for the casting of this film, and again (like with Topaz), I feel the flow is just all over the map, kind of like Hitch just wasn't that into it.

    But, alas, I'll save all that nitpicky stuff for the good contributors to this fine thread. Comment away!

    Here's the wikipedia link, for those who wish to study in advance:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torn_Curtain
     
  22. Slokes

    Slokes Cruel But Fair

    Location:
    Greenwich, CT USA
    Torn Curtain was Hitchcock discovering himself out of sorts and out of step with the Hollywood mainstream for the first time in his life. First, he didn't like having to hire Paul Newman and Julie Andrews, especially Andrews, who didn't fit in with his leading-lady type. Second, the fees demanded by Newman and Andrews were higher than Hitchcock liked to pay. Third, Paul Newman was a modern actor whose "method" style clashed with Hitchcock's approach.

    Add to that the bitter fallout with Bernard Herrmann, and a script that never seemed to garner Hitchcock's interest, and you have a very bad recipe. I think Hitchcock was suffering from age here, though he may have been externally no less vigorous, internally he seemed to falling into a despair-like trace. Marnie for me exhibits much of this ennui, but its supposed to be dark. This film isn't, so much, but it shows signs of total detachment. Newman is stiff and inert throughout the film, and Andrews cloying. A supporting performance by Lila Kedrova as a former Polish noblewoman is unbelieveably excessive, the sort of thing Hitchcock would have intervened to prevent. Long sections of the film just drag.

    You can even say that of the one scene from the film people talk about, where Newman's character finally takes on his minder. It's a great scene, but hardly something I'd watch again. "I wanted to show how difficult it is to really kill a man", is the way I think Hitch put it. But the rest of the film was already leaden enough.

    John Addison's film score is the worst I've noticed in a Hitchcock film; he even did a cutesy reference to the "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" theme music when Hitch makes his cameo. Addison ironically made one of my favorite film scores ever, for A Bridge Too Far; he wasn't untalented.

    There's really nothing to see here, in my view. This was the worst film he did since Paradine Case, and one of the worst of his I've seen, along with Paradine Case, Jamaica Inn, Number Seventeen, Rich And Strange, and The Farmer's Wife.
     
  23. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden MichiGort Staff

    Location:
    Livonia, MI
    Gromek's killing and the "bus chase".
     
  24. Agreed. These were the two scenes that most captivated Hitchcock when he became increasingly discouraged with the film as it went along. He invested a lot of time and energy in these scenes.

    Hitchcock and Paul Newman just really never connected two very different type of people but illustrated by a story of Newman going to Hitchcock's for a formal dinner where Hitchcock was serving a variety of fine wines. Newman opted for beer.

    There are some nice sequences in the film even though it was primarily studio bound (more location shooting probably would have helped). The script went through numerous rewrites if I recall correctly.

    Designed as a Cold War thriller much as "Topaz" was this is--despite its flaws--the better of the two films. The two sequences that Ken refers to make this above average but it still isn't a great Hitchcock film.

    Hitchcock was struggling to find a leading man and woman that he could connect with much the same way he did with Grant and Stewart both much too old for the role in his opinion (but that didn't prevent him from periodically trying to coax Grant back for "Marnie" our next film for the role that ultimately went to Sean Connery).
     
  25. Slokes

    Slokes Cruel But Fair

    Location:
    Greenwich, CT USA
    The former is a good set piece sequence, I'll give you that, even with my objection stated earlier. The bus chase is rather less compelling: bad process shots and hammy acting galore.

    I can't really agree. Topaz is inane, but it moves. Torn Curtain is slightly less inane, but it's stiff as a board.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine