What I'm watching

#478/#29 Hitchcock

The supposed real life behind the scenes story of Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and his wife Alma Reville’s (Helen Mirren) struggle to get Psycho made and distributed.

I wanted to like this more than I actually did. The film looked to be an interesting insight into the master of suspense and could have maybe given us a peek behind his public facade but, sadly, that never really materialises. You’d think there would be a greater focus on his interactions with his leading ladies, and his supposed stalkerish tendencies towards them, or a more in depth study of his relationship with his wife, and her massive contribution to his work, but both of these elements, while present, are largely glossed over for some odd Dexter-like ghost conversations with the murderer that inspired Psycho and a fabricated almost affair. It was adding intrigue to an already interesting starting point and subsequently didn’t leave enough time to delve into the real elements which made it interesting in the first place. It just seemed like a massively wasted opportunity with this good of a cast.

From said cast, Hopkins and Mirren are both in fine form, making each of their parts memorable while maintaining an easy chemistry together. Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Biel, playing Janet Leigh and Vera Miles respectively, don’t get a lot to do but they play their roles well and Toni Collette is really good as Hitchcock’s assistant. Lastly, James D’Arcy is pitch perfect as Anthony Perkins. He’s also not in it a lot but he just has the mannerisms and vocal patterns down pat.

The film was also a little too clean, if you can follow my logic. It’s all very bright and shiny, with perfect 50’s cars, hair, make-up and costumes, making everything look really fake as a result of this. There needed to be a little bit more grime to the whole endeavour to make it feel real. It didn’t need to be as murky as some of the Hitchcock films can be but it did need to retain some of their down and dirty feel.

It’s entirely watchable and does drawn attention to Alma Reville, whom I wasn’t aware of, but there is a more interesting Hitchcock film out there still waiting to be made. 2.5/5

#260 Marnie

Upon discovering he has a compulsive liar, man-hater and thief working for him, Mark Rutland (Sean Connery) blackmails the young woman Marnie (Tippi Hedren) into becoming his wife in order to try and cure her. Not wishing to go to jail, Marnie agrees but attempts to stymie Mark at ever opportunity. Will he be able to break her or will she eventually escape his clutches?

Perhaps it’s because I haven’t watched a Hitchcock film for a while but I just could not get into this one at all. It’s as well shot and as well acted as always (Hedren especially shining in the title role) but something about it just did not resonate with me.

I think the main thing I just couldn’t get behind was the misogynistic feel of the entire film. Often with films from the 60’s (Marnie being released in ‘64) you can forgive this purely as a byproduct of the time. In this film however, it’s just so ever present it leaves a bad taste behind. Mark’s urge to cure Marnie’s psychosis is one thing but the way he goes about doing it, his secondary motives for doing it and his attitude as he goes about doing it, coupled with events of the movie, all paint a horribly sexist picture of his character which I don’t think was the intend message of the filmmakers. Additionally, Marnie’s character flip-flops from a strong female character (something I feel Hitchcock is usually very good at creating) to a weak willed individual as the scene demands it entirely so it suits the story or Mark’s position.

Other than the misogynistic overtones, Connery performance also doesn’t lend itself to an enjoyable viewing experience. He’s pretty much still playing James Bond, which without the gravity of the mission or the stature of his position means Mark comes off as a cocky self righteous prick with control issues and some deep seated emotional problems of his own. I don’t relate to his character, if anything I find him the villain of the entire piece psychologically torturing and abusing this non-sexual/possibly lesbian woman into the mould of a proper 60’s housewife.

Despite everything I’ve said here I still found the idea of someone trying to unravel why a compulsive liar and thief is the way they are a good enough concept that I can see the merit of this piece. I just wish it had focused entirely on that rather than also re-establishing the gender roles of the era. I would quite like to see a remake of this film done more in the vein of the former 2/5

#246 High Anxiety

A Mel Brooks film designed as a set up to all the thriller films of Alfred Hitchcock.

I look at films like these and then at the horrible schlock being made by the ‘movie’ movie guys and I have to ask what went so wrong in such a short amount of time for the spoof movie genre?

While this is probably one of the more middling films from Mel Brooks career it still has at least 4 or 5 laugh out loud moments within it to make it worth a watch. Recurring Brooks’ film favorites like Madeline Kahn, Harvey Korman and Brooks himself are all in rare form, each having at least one scene in which they really shine.

Some of the Hitchcock parodies are really good (like the Psycho one) and some are kind of a miss (like the birds one) but overall it does have a definite Hitchcock thriller feel to it while still being its own film (something Brooks has always been very good at).

While I’m not as likely to want to rewatch it every couple of years as the likes of Young Frankenstein or Blazing Saddles it is a film I would quite happily watch were I to come across it while flicking through the channels. 3/5

#145 Saboteur

After being wrongly accused of an act of sabotage at the airplane plant where he works, Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) has to go on the run to escape the police chasing him and attempt to track down the real culprit. Along the way he meets up the spirited Patrica Martin (Priscilla Lane) and together they attempt to uncover the network of spies attempting to subvert the USA’s war efforts.

This film was released 5 months after the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and as such it is very American, very gung-ho and now very cheesy.

This is an Alfred Hitchcock film following along the same basic premise as both the 39 steps and North by Northwest (both films I really enjoyed) but because of all the super pro-American mentality in the execution and the ludicrously out of place dialogue, this one is really quite dull to watch now. I’m sure at the time it was what was needed to rally the people to arms and unite the country under one banner, but now (and coming from a European perspective) it’s the worst Hitchcock film I’ve seen so far. All the actors are fine but there’s just no life to it and the central romance just isn’t there this time.

I’m sure Braveheart and the Dam Busters aren’t as stirring to the Americans as they are to me, so I’m going to chock the reverse up for this one. 1/5

#133 Rope

Two men (John Dall and Farley Granger) kill their friend and place his body in an old antique crate in the middle of a room. They then proceed to hold a dinner party for the man’s father (Cedric Hardwicke), aunt (Constance Collier), girlfriend (Joan Chandler), best friend (Douglas Dick) and his and their former dorm master from university (Jimmy Stewart). While the other guest become worried about the man’s absence from the party, the dorm master begins a cat and mouse game with the two other men. Will they be able to fool everyone or will the murder be uncovered before the night is over?

This is an Alfred Hitchcock film which I had heard nothing about before viewing. The only reason I did so is it was listed near the bottom of the IMDB 250 greatest films list and I’m rather glad I did.

While not as good as his more famous works, Rope does have a certain tension to it which only Hitchcock can seem to inspire. It’s feel is somewhat similar to Dial M for Murder, in that the real intrigue comes from the audience knowing what is going on but the characters all remaining somewhat ignorant.

Stewart is in fine form, but he doesn’t really do anything major enough to merit particular praise. The same can be said for the rest of the cast. They’re all good in their roles but no one really out shines the other.

After the tension, the style of filming is where the real interest in this film lies. It’s all shot on one stage but moving to different angles throughout the room during the performance. It was an interesting technique used to achieve it and I’ve never seen anything used quite like it since.

As I said, it’s not quite on par with the rest of his more famous films but a shorter enjoyable film to watch all the same. 3.5/5

#91 To Catch A Thief

After a number of people have their jewelry stolen on the French Rivera, the police immediately suspect famous WWII resistance fighter and cat burglar John Robie (Cary Grant). Having gone straight long ago, Robie has to attempt to catch this new thief and clear his name. In order to do so he befriends the wealthy woman (Jessie Royce Landis) and her attractive daughter (Grace Kelly) which he thinks will be the next robbed. Soon feelings for the daughter being to complicate matters however.

This film didn’t hold my attention as much as most of the other Hitchcock films I’ve seen did. The plot took a little while to build up and, as such, it came off as a little slow. Once it did get started however, the remainder of the film was thoroughly enjoyable.

I’ve come to the realisation that Hitchcock just knew how to direct women really well. A lot of other films at the time tended to push women into the background or only consider them as an after thought. In Hitchcock films however, they are nearly always as well developed and important as the men in the films.

Grace Kelly was really good in this and had an easily acceptable chemistry with Grant almost immediately. The best part of the film was definitely the interactions between the two lead actors. Grant was just Grant, nothing all that new but likeable all the same. Hey, If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

The intrigue over who the burglar actually was held your interest enough that when the final reveal/rooftop chase came you were significantly invested to find out who it was and why they were doing it. It wasn’t that hard to figure out who it was going to be but I’m blaming years of watching and reading crime thriller for this rather than a poor set up.

I’d say it was a fairly average Hitchcock flick, with a slow start, but even then it was still enjoyable enough to recommend others watch it and decide for themselves. 3/5

#54 Rear Window

A professional photographer (Jimmy Stewart) is laid up in his apartment with a broken leg. In an effort to stave of boredom he takes to spying on his neighbours through the rear windows. Initially it appears they are all doing fairly mundane things but soon he’s convinced one of the neighbours has committed a murder.

Another strong entry by Alfred Hitchcock. This film is a clear indicator of why he was known as the master of suspense. The beginning of this film sets up all the characters we identify with and along the way makes us more and more invested in solving this mystery (despite however many red herrings are thrown at us). Finally the tension is just too much and the climax arrives in spectacular fashion.

Jimmy Stewart is great as the photographer. He has to remain seated for the entire film and yet still manages to portray all the emotions he has to largely through only his facial movements and dialogue. Not everyone would have been able to pull it off as well as he did.

Grace Kelly is also fantastic as Stewart’s girlfriend. You like her instantly and wish Stewart’s character would just get over himself and see she truly loves him. Later when she is in peril, the tension is almost palpable as we watch on, as helpless as Stewart, just hoping someone will get to her in time.

Finally, Raymond Barr is good as the neighbour. He always seems like he could be a killer or he could just be a normal guy and that’s what makes it so interesting to watch. We want that moment when he finally reveals if he is truly someone to fear or just an regular guy being viewed out of context.

Great film but North By Northwest still holds the top spot for me 5/5

#49 North By Northwest

Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) a Manhattan advertiser, is mistaken for American spy named George Kaplin. He spends the remainder of the film trying to track down the real Kaplin so that he can clear his name while both avoiding the police, who now think he’s committed a murder, and those that want to kill him because they think he’s Kaplin.

I’m a fan of most Alfred Hitchcock films and this one is no different. In fact I might go so far as to say this is my new favourite Hitchcock film (although Strangers on a Train is up there as well).

From the very beginning and right up until the very end, this film is full of suspense in the way only these types of films can be. The style, direction and locations are all fantastic leading to many of the scenes becoming infamous in their own right i.e. the biplane chasing down a man in the middle of some fields or the fight atop Mount Rushmore. The story, while containing some plot holes, is also very good.

Cary Grant is just superb as Thornhill. In the beginning he reacts in the way most of us would when presented with that situation. As the story progress however, he begins to adapt as the situation requires it. This seems like a natural arc for this character and, despite the oddity of the situations, always seems like the correct approach to take. He’s also a really likeable character and funny with a lot of good/snarky lines all the way through.

Eva Marie Saint plays Eva Kendall, the love interest/femme fatale, and she is magnificent in the role. I’ve heard the term sultry used before but I’ve never seen it done as well as she does. She just radiates sex appeal while always keeping our hero in check with her quick wit and charm. There’s just something about actresses from the 50’s and 60’s that just makes them so much more elegant that today’s actresses.

The only thing I would really criticise about this film is the very end of it. The suspense is so high throughout that you’re really looking for a good payoff and the one we get almost feels like they ran out of time and had to finish right there and then. It’s where I wanted the film to end but it’s just really rushed.

Despite this however, it’s still a great film and I recommend it to anyone 5/5

Also I found out that on the merit of this film Hitchcock was all set to direct the James Bond film Thunderball but decided to make Psycho instead. Both turned out to be great films but can you imagine if we’d gotten a Hitchcock directed Bond film with Sean Connery still playing 007? That would have been awesome.

#16 The 39 Steps

Richard Hannay (Robert Donat) is swept up into a world of spies and murder when a lady he takes home is stabbed in the night. Hannay has to flee when police start hunting him for the women’s murder but, recalling her cryptic musings about the 39 steps and a small town in Scotland, he embarks on a journey to unravel the mystery. Time is of the essence however, as he must unravel it before the spies get vital information about British defencive measures out of the country while also trying to clear his name.

This is a solid entry by Alfred Hitchcock from fairly early in his career. It has some good stunts (for its time), the story was engaging, the leads were likeable and it had a nice little twist at the end when you finally find out what the 39 steps actually are. There are also some humorous scenes between Donat and his costar Madeleine Carroll and what I imagine were some rather risque shots for the time period when they have to stop at an inn for the night.

A really enjoyable older mystery film that everyone should take a look at 4/5