Hitchcock: Reviews & Discussions

Hitchcockathon Film 9: Dial M for Murder



I first saw Dial M for Murder pretty early into my exploration of Alfred Hitchcock. Coming off full on masterpieces like Vertigo and Psycho, Dial M for Murder definitely felt like one of Hitchcock's more minor works. I've seen a lot more Hitchcock since and I know the gamut of quality runs a lot wider than I initially thought. So what once felt minor is probably closer to mid-tier at least. Plus, Dial M for Murder is fairly beloved in itself so I thought I owed it another shot.

Ultimately, I still feel this is probably third-tier Hitchcock, but I was reminded of the film's charms. Hitchcock makes strong use of the limited apartment and there are also some fun uses of colour. It's also really fun to watch this plot become more complex. I especially like the meeting between Tony and Swann. It starts as a seemingly innocent conversation, but it's quickly apparent something else is up and watching the details unfold is a real treat. The murder attempt is also a strong little set-piece and watching Tony try to salvage things after the fact is also pretty gripping.

Where the film drops the ball about is in it's final twenty minutes. This section just feels hokey and the resolution to the plot is very contrived. I think Hitchcock might have been better to commit to the darker ending. Even having the detective figure it out but lack the legal proof to really do anything about it would have been a lot more compelling. The other issue the film has is that it simply lives in the shadow of too many other Hitchcock films. Dial M for Murder isn't the only apartment set, murder obsessed thriller Hitch dropped in 1954 and for all of Dial M's strengths, the film can't compare to Rear Window. Beyond that, the obsession with the perfect murder is well tended ground in Hitchcock's work and I'm not sure Dial M for Murder adds much new to this. Still, it is a fun movie and this viewing did renew my appreciation for the film.

B

Hitchcockathon Film 12: Vertigo



I don't really have much to add to the discourse on Vertigo. I still think the film is really amazing and possibly the greatest film Alfred Hitchcock ever made. A lot of Hitchcock's best films dwell on themes of obsession, voyeurism, and male insecurity, but it is with Vertigo that he used these elements to tell a grand tragedy. Other Hitchcock protagonists may be plagued by obsession and weakness, but Scotty is the first of Hitchcock's protagonists to be utterly destroyed by these flaws. The second half in particular is less about thrills brought on by external forces, but about how the psychological hang-ups of the lead character lead to his ruin while also bringing misery to the women in his life. It's a fascinating character arc and also a remarkably critical look at relationships between men and women. I don't think anyone would describe Hitchcock as a feminist filmmaker, but he does seem to be exploring his own psychological issues with women and is especially critical of the male lead. There's also a meta-narrative to the whole thing given Scotty trying Judy in different clothes and hair styles trying to find his ideal look. It's rather similar to the role of a director, cycling through costumes, make-up, and hair-styles in order to match their vision.

These thematic musings were on my mind a lot the last time I watched Vertigo (which was tellingly a film class screening), but this time around I was also able to just appreciate the filmmaking on display. Hitchcock has many films with the utmost craftsmanship, but Vertigo sees every element executed perfectly and coalescing to form a greater whole. Hitchcock's main cinematographer Robert Burks goes above and beyond with some highly lush colour cinematography which adds to the film's haunting atmosphere and uses specific colours brilliantly. All of the movies Burks shot for Hitchcock look great, but Vertigo reaches even further, to the point of competing with the best of Powell and Pressburger's work. Speaking of Hitchcock collaborators, composer Bernard Herrmann delivers not only one of his best scores, but one of the greatest film scores of all-time. Herrmann's music really emphasizes the tragedy at the heart of Vertigo. The performances are also among the best in Hitchcock's career. Jimmy Stewart perfectly subverts his screen persona to say some rather troubling things about the everyman, while Kim Novak handles a challenging duel role perfectly. The central mystery is also highly engaging and unfolds in ways which are truly unpredictable on a first viewing. The twists may not have the shock value of something like Psycho, but the plot points themselves are debatably more creative.

I guess I had more to say about Vertigo than I thought. Over the years, I've really come around to seeing Vertigo as Hitchcock's masterpiece. I suppose it's possible that might still change over time, but Vertigo so perfectly combines Hitchcock's thematic obsessions with perfectly oiled filmmaking. It's a film that takes advantage of all of Hitchcock's storytelling strengths while also pushing his style in unique and exciting ways. A classic in every sense of the word.

A+


Hitchcockathon Film 13: North by Northwest



On paper, it would be easy to be cynical about North by Northwest. After the more personal and challenging Vertigo failed to catch on with critics and audiences, Hitchcock went back to familiar subject matter he know. And so we get a wrong-man thriller built on suspense, intrigue, adventure, and humour. I'm sure one could gleam interesting thematic insights if they really studied the film, but for all intents and purposes North by Northwest is meant as merely a fun surface adventure. The thing is, North by Northwest is really fucking fun. Hitchcock isn't just going back to the well, but going back to a type of film he used to make and executing on the template better than he ever did previously. Cary Grant is perfect as the film's lead, bringing just the right balance of vulnerability, humour, charm, and coolness necessary for the role. We worry about the guy, but we also marvel at his ingenuity and ability to escape danger by the skin of his teeth. People often point to the connection between North by Northwest and the James Bond series, but it's also clear that Spielberg took influence from Roger Thronhill when designing Indiana Jones as a protagonist.

The film delivers a lot of great suspenseful set-pieces, but what's really impressive is the scale of the action. The cropduster sequence is one of Hitchcock's most impressive moments and is generally just an amazing action scene. The finale on Mount Rushmore is also awesome and the smaller scale set-pieces like the UN murder are also great. Bernard Herrmann once again provides an iconic score and Saul Bass's opening titles are really damn cool. North by Northwest is an almost perfect adventure movie, but it does have a few missteps that make it less than perfect. The big issue for me is the villain, who is just kind of lame. It's a shame because James Mason is an amazing actor and I do think he and Martin Landau make the most out of their roles, but they aren't really given enough to do nor do they ever feel like substantial threats. Also, great as the finale is, the resolution is a cheat and while the final shot is a great joke, the way it cuts from the climax to the stinger is...odd. Still, it's hard not to just marvel at Hitchcock and his team's execution. The film is breathlessly entertaining and creates an infectious sense of fun.

A

Hitchcockathon Film 16: Marnie



Marnie is a movie which has slowly grown me over the years. I've frequently been kept at a distance by the film's sexual and gender politics of the central relationship, and while I still think there are some problematic aspects in this regard (especially the ending), I do think the "romance" is meant to be perverse and disturbed. In fact, this rewatch made it clear just how much of a companion piece Marnie is to Vertigo. Both films center on a man who obsesses over a woman, trapping her in a relationship so that he can manipulate and control her. Both also play with Hitchcock's thriller sensibilities. They are thrillers, yes, but the tension is more rooted in the psychological than any physical threat. Hell, both even use a colour motif to suggest a character's state of mind.

I certainly appreciate any effort to make something as thoughtful and challenging as Vertigo, and to be fair Marnie does a lot right. Marnie herself is a great character and Tippi Hedren gives an excellent performance in the titular role. It's really a shame she didn't get more recognition for this turn. Sean Connery is also very effective in his role. Where the film stumbles is in the narrative itself, which lags at points. The film has an excellent opening and some very strong scenes scattered, but there are also stretches where the narrative drags. Additionally, while the premise is interesting, the details of the storytelling just aren't as compelling as Vertigo. Too much of the film is lacking in tension and while the film eventually explores some very interesting psychological material in the climax, much of this isn't apparent or as engaging throughout the film.

Still, Marnie is an enjoyable film, and also an important one. The film really feels like the end of Hitchcock's golden era. This was his last film shot by Robert Burks, edited by George Tomasini, and scored by Bernard Herrmann, all of which made a substantial impact on Hitchcock's golden age. Burks' cinematography was crucial in creating the vivid and rich colours of Hitchcock classics like Rear Window and Veritgo. Editing is also a crucial component to the Hitchcock style and Tomasini really got Hitchcockian timing in terms of suspense, intrigue, and humour. And then of course there's Bernard Herrmann, whose collaborations with Hitchcock might well be the most harmonious marriage of director and composer in film history. All three men do great work with Marnie and while I don't see the film as a classic in and of itself, it does fit within Hitchcock's classic period perfectly.

Overall, I still don't quite love Marnie, but it does feel like an appropriate epilogue to Hitchcock's golden era.

B+

I had to talk about Hitchcock's harrassment of Hedren the week we taught Vertigo so I did get some indication of how today's youth would react.

Sorry. The students actually reacted really well. Several were uncomfortable by Hitchcock's real-life actions and by Vertigo, but most everyone realized the film was meant to make one uncomfortable and people genuinely liked the film. In fact several students said it was the best thing we've watched so far in the class, which I'd agree with (though Do the Right Thing is a very close second for me). I was sort of worried there'd be a bunch of students who would refuse to engage with the movie because of the more unsavory aspects of Hitchcock's personal life, but thankfully that really wasn't the case at all.

I have no control over the syllabus. I do get to show clips in my tutorial, however, which has included Jake La Motta screaming, "Your mother's ****", so that's always nice. I'll also be showing the video for "Closer" by Nine Inch Nails at least.

Hitchcockathon Film 17: Torn Curtain



I see Alfred Hitchcock's final four films as efforts to re-position himself in a changing film landscape; to figure out what a "modern" Hitchcock film might look like. Torn Curtain is the first of these attempts, pairing Hitch with many new collaborators and attempting to move his thriller into a more modern context. On paper it seems a noble effort. A story of spies coupled with deceit between lovers would seem ideal for Hitchcock's sensibilities and exploring tensions behind the Iron Curtain brings a relevance to the story. On screen however, the results are lacking. The cast, for example, seem ill-suited for their parts. Julie Andrews is not given much to do and while Paul Newman is one of my favourite actors, his subtle method acting does not really fit the theatrical artifice of Hitchcock's style. Neither character is particularly interesting and there also isn't much psychological depth to be found in their predicament.

However the greater problem here is that the surface story just isn't very interesting. Despite dealing in intense real-world politics, the stakes (political or personal) are never really felt. The film moves at a far too leisurely pace and generally lacks excitement. There is one really good scene though. A rough and awkward struggle in a farmhouse which ends in death. The whole scene is deliberately clumsy, the lack of music accentuates the reality of the scene, and Hitchcock's visual sensibilities are on-point. No other scene however really matches this level. There are decent scenes on a bus and in a theater later in the film, but these never feel as suspenseful as they should be.

Torn Curtain was also criticized on release for feeling old-fashioned. I don't necessarily share these complaints, but I certainly see where critics are coming from. Hitchcock's reliance on sets, matte paintings, and rear-screen projection do bring a feeling of artifice to the picture which isn't really bad on its own terms, but when considering some of the major films of 1966, I can definitely see where this felt tired. Overall, Torn Curtain is by no means a horrible film, but it is generally a very dull movie which only occasionally delivers.

D+

I've seen both before.

If Hitchcock hadn’t been a fat fuck he could have been the Brian de Palma of the 70’s.

Torn Curtain and Topaz were OK.

Hah, just kidding. I have no memory of either of them.

Bump