Hitchcock MIA in TCM series - Psycho (1960) Discussion

[–] swanstep (2624) 6 years ago

Particularly given some flexibility about what constitutes an ending (the final few shots, the final couple of minutes, the final act/twist), it's hard not to conclude that almost *every* superior film has a pretty great ending, or, put the other way around, which great films flub their endings (Hitch arguably has a few: Rebecca, Suspicion, Strangers On A Train)?

So, maybe TCM's problem is just that their official topic is in practice so broad that only a small part of it could ever be covered (and end-masters like Hitch and Wilder and Lubitsch at their peaks would use up most of the available real estate by themselves if they were in the mix).

Better, narrower topics include: Best final lines of dialogue, films most radically improved by their final shots, and so on. On the later front there have been some biggies lately: the best thing by miles in the recent Call Me By Your Name is its final shot, and James Gray's The Immigrant from a few years ago is a solid 8/10-type film until its dazzling final shot makes it a film-o'-the-year contender.

reply

[–] movieghoul (213) 6 years ago

Best final lines of dialogue, indeed. A couple of HItchcock gems:

"They'll watch and say why she wouldn't even harm a fly'"

"Sorry, folks. We had to pick up Hal."

Some of the TCM choices weere based on final shots: 2001, The Third Man, Citizen Kane (actually, next to final shot) some on entire scenes, like Diabolique, Bonnie and Clyde, and Casablanca

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Best final lines of dialogue, indeed. A couple of HItchcock gems:

"They'll watch and say why she wouldn't even harm a fly'"

"Sorry, folks. We had to pick up Hal."

----

And I would add: "Mr. Rusk...you're not wearing your tie."

---

A final exchange I've always liked " in context" is when Grant magically lifts Saint from Mount Rushmore to their sleeping car berth at the end of North by Northwest:

Eve: Roger, this is silly.
Roger: I know, but I'm sentimental.

These lines are rather flanked by Herrmann's spectacular music (which lulls for a moment for the lines to be said) and Hitchcock's power dynamics of final action -- but I like them. Eve is STILL chiding Roger for his devil may care ways, and Roger's liking of "the sentimental" could be applied to many things: going back to New York on a train together(as he promised on Rushmore, along with marriage), riding on a train instead of flying back more quickly; and perhaps the entire "old-fashioned comedy romance spy chase thriller" that North by Northwest so spectacularly is. HITCHCOCK is being sentimental, and given how rough his movies ahead will be (Psycho, The Birds, Torn Curtain, Frenzy)...those final lines are rather wistful heard today.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Particularly given some flexibility about what constitutes an ending (the final few shots, the final couple of minutes, the final act/twist),

---

That's a great point...and it certainly applies to the great Hitchcock films.

Consider North by Northwest: The "ending" is the Mount Rushmore chase and cliffhanger, but that ending INCLUDES the final scene in the honeymoon sleeping car. In some ways BOTH scenes are part of "the ending." In the alternative, Rushmore is "the climax" and the train car scene is 'the final scene"(or the "tag.") But I tend to see them as all of a piece -- particularly given how Hitchcock grafts Rushmore INTO the sleeping car scene by having Grant pull Saint from one local to the other.

The ending of Vertigo is similar. The final shot of Scottie stepping out onto the rooftop is the "final shot" -- but the final SCENE is the long confrontation between Scottie and Judy as he drags her up to the top of the bell tower. Here, the rooftop shot is the "climax of the climax."

In contrast: David Thomson made the grumpy point that unlike the endings of Vertigo and North by Northwest..in which the climax takes us through the final shot of the film, Psycho hits its highest peak with "the climax"(the movie theater scream-a-thon that was the fruit cellar climax in 1960) and then dribbles away for seven minutes with the psychiatrist scene "explanation tag." Well, we sure have discussed that scene here a lot. But we also know that the shrink scene segues into possibly the greatest of all Hitchcock final scenes: Norman in the cell/Marion in the swamp. Thus: Psycho may not end in a rush as Vertigo and North by Northwest does, but it pretty much ends better than either of them(and with more chilling dark power than with the symbolic and technically amazing final shot of The Birds dead ahead.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

, it's hard not to conclude that almost *every* superior film has a pretty great ending,

---

Very true. I will relate to a statement I quoted in another post:

Two filmmakers, , William Goldman and Paul Newman, each said that "The ending is the most important part of the film."

Some acknowledged classics with great endings include(whaddya know?) Citizen Kane, Casablanca, GWTW, The Wizard of Oz

---

or, put the other way around, which great films flub their endings (Hitch arguably has a few: Rebecca, Suspicion, Strangers On A Train)?

---

Here, the Goldman/Newman rule finds its use as a weapon: Suspicion and Strangers on a Train(and Rebecca, I guess, I can't quite remember the ending) fall short of greatness because they end weakly.

A slight reversal on this can also be noted: Frenzy ends with a perfect final line("Mr. Rusk, you're not wearing your tie") but neither than line nor the grisly perfection of its final scene(Three Men and a Naked Corpse) have endeared the MOVIE to generations. Frenzy is not much remembered, even with its perfect curtain line.

So, maybe TCM's problem is just that their official topic is in practice so broad that only a small part of it could ever be covered (and end-masters like Hitch and Wilder and Lubitsch at their peaks would use up most of the available real estate by themselves if they were in the mix).

Better, narrower topics include: Best final lines of dialogue, films most radically improved by their final shots, and so on. On the later front there have been some biggies lately: the best thing by miles in the recent Call Me By Your Name is its final shot, and James Gray's The Immigrant from a few years ago is a solid 8/10-type film until its dazzling final shot makes it a film-o'-the-year contender.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

So, maybe TCM's problem is just that their official topic is in practice so broad that only a small part of it could ever be covered (and end-masters like Hitch and Wilder and Lubitsch at their peaks would use up most of the available real estate by themselves if they were in the mix).

---

That's a great point -- those guys pretty much delivered great endings about 90% of the time.

I'm not familiar with Lubitsch, but I know that Billy Wilder got a two-in-a-grow great curtain lines in 1959 and 1960:

1959:

"Nobody's perfect" -- Some Like It Hot

1960:

"Shut up and deal" -- The Apartment

Of course, one needs the context of the final scenes of the films to fully understand the impact of those lines( Hays-Code busting and funny in the first case; loving in the second)...but: what great lines!

---

Better, narrower topics include: Best final lines of dialogue,

---

As above

---

films most radically improved by their final shots,

---

I'd like to hear some of those. The "Goldman/Newman" rule("The most important part of a movie is its ending") might well have found a number of mediocre films that sent the audience out happy because the final shot was so great.

I have a candidate of sorts: "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" (the early, 1974 version with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, not the remake with Denzel and Travolta) was a good, solid thriller, not a bad movie at all -- but its final shot was perfection. People may not remember the movie, but they remember the final shot.

--

On the later front there have been some biggies lately: the best thing by miles in the recent Call Me By Your Name is its final shot,

---

That's heartening to know. 2017/2018 and we can STILL get great final shots.

---

James Gray's The Immigrant from a few years ago is a solid 8/10-type film until its dazzling final shot makes it a film-o'-the-year contender

---

And that was my point above. Otherwise put: can a final shot lift a film to classic status?

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

"Lady from Shaqhai" is laborious.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

TCM is running a week long series on great movie endings, and in the suspense genre included Lady from Shanghai, DIabolique, and THe THird Man ... but no Hitchcock! Surprising given that of his dozen or so best films, they all have great endings. Certainly an egregious omission!

---

Indeed. I've been following this series, tuning in off and on to the movie presented, but I had no idea they would skip the best Hitchcock endings.

And he pulled off four in a row, you ask me:

Vertigo: Judy falls, Scottie steps out to the edge of the roof -- he CAN look straight down, he MIGHT jump...but the woman is dead. Again.

NXNW: A man strains to pull a woman to safety from Mount Rushmore...and pulls her up into the upper berth of their honeymoon train sleeping compartment with the words "C'mon, Mrs Thornhill." She's rescued, they're married and going back to New York via train...a phallic train that plunges into a vagina-like tunnel, to represent the marital consummation dead ahead.

Psycho: A lone young man speaking in stream of consciousness in the voice of his dead mother, from within a jail cell. He leers up to look deep into our eyes, to smile at us in a rictus grin and -- the monster he has always been is fully revealed to us, THIS is the face of the monster who slashed two people to pieces earlier in the film. And soon his mother's dead skull face morphs onto his face and we dissolve to the swamp giving us back Marion Crane, and the forty thousand dollars(actually now 39,300) that seemed so important at one time but that now doesen't matter at all. There are two final chills here: Norman's horrific monster's face, and our fear that the trunk may pop open to reveal Marion's slashed and water-swollen corpse. One is shown, one is not.

(Note: with all three VISUAL endings above, Herrmann's spectacular MUSIC takes every great ending higher into the stratosphere.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The Birds. They have taken over in a final expression of nature's dominance over man, AND of Hitchcock's technical dominance over all his fellow filmmakers(something like 150 separate pieces of film placed into one shot), AND of Hitchcock's still-dominant sense of the landmark and the outrageous (no happy ending here, the birds are not defeated, and will likely take over the world.) You can say that this is a "non-ending" to meet the outrage of the famous "Sopranos" cop-out, but I feel we have been given a very final statement: man can't win. Nature is taking back the planet.

The films on either side of that "Big Four" are more problematic in their endings. "The Wrong Man" tacks on a long shot of body doubles to tell us the story ended happily, after all; "Marnie" chooses to fixate its final image on a matte painting of a ship parked near a Baltimore neighborhood and thereby ends in falsehood.

Its like Hitchcock only really hit the heights with those "Big Four in a row," but he had some other home runs:

Frenzy: "Mr. Rusk, you're not wearing your tie." (Hero, villain, and cop come together for the first time in the movie - joined by a naked, strangled, head-beaten female corpse. )

Rear Window: A reverse mirror-image of the opening camera movement: the stories of all the apartments across the courtyard are wrapped up...as is the story of James Stewart's Jeff Jeffries: TWO broken legs now(and he deserves them), his woman by his side(marriage is inevitable, GOT him!)

The Man Who Knew Too Much: The spectacular adventure over, a family returns with their rescued kidnapped son to wake up the sleeping guests waiting for them: " Sorry we're late, we had to pick up Hank!")

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

The weak endings: The Wrong Man, Marnie, and as swanstep has noted, Strangers on a Train(two endings were shot, both can be seen, both are underwhelming), and Suspicion. Possibly the worst ending is to Topaz: three endings were shot, all three can be seen, all three are underwhelming, each one being unsatisfying in a different way.

At least two film people -- screenwriter William Goldman and actor/director Paul Newman -- are on record as saying "the ending is the most important part of any movie." (And the ending has helped sell many a screenplay.)

Hitchcock and his writers certainly got that ending right more than they got it wrong (and let's include Barbara Harris' final wink at the end of Family Plot -- which is Hitchcock winking at the end of his career.)

And I will remain contemptuous for the rest of my life for what the creator of The Sopranos so cowardly did at the end of his great series -- and worse, for his disparaging attacks on his own fans for criticizing that ending.

reply

[–] movieghoul (213) 6 years ago

Ah, right, it's Hank, not Hal. But speaking of the hotel room scene in Man WHo Knew Too Much, it never ceases to amaze me how Hitchcock could take an extremely suspenseful situation and layer in humor where the British guests conclude they're the victims of some obscure American practical joke.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Hank, Hal, its all the same to me...hah.

The Man Who Knew Too Much '56 has one of the greatest endings in all of Hitchcock because he pulled that damn ending off. From the peaks of assassination and child kidnapping to a one-liner which, in its own way, both restores "the normalcy of family" and makes an ironic comment on the adventure we just saw.

I suppose its a little bit like this exchange in NXNW, on Mount Rushmore as they hang for their lives:

Roger: My wives divorced me.
Eve: Why?
Roger: I think they said I lived too dull a life.

Another Hitchcock ending I like is the ending that appears only in the end title:

"The Trouble With Harry is Over."

Hah. Boy, Hitchcock movies were fun to experience.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

Hi ecarle. I've read with interest many of your posts over the years.

I'm aware that 'Marnie' isn't among your favorite of Hitchcock films. I remember telling you I always liked it. But...to each, his own.

One thing I'd like to mention here is your statement that the film ends thusly: "Marnie" chooses to fixate its final image on a matte painting of a ship parked near a Baltimore neighborhood and thereby ends in falsehood."

My intention isn't to be critical, but I'd like to point out one thing about the ending. That (horrible) matte painting of the ship at the end of the street had always indicated that the street was a dead-end. But in the final shot, as the car pulls away, it reaches the end and turns a corner, out of sight. We never knew it wasn't a dead-end until then. To me, it kind of says 'Things are not always as they seem, and there's a way out.'

reply

[–] swanstep (2624) 6 years ago

But in the final shot, as the car pulls away, it reaches the end and turns a corner, out of sight. We never knew it wasn't a dead-end until then. To me, it kind of says 'Things are not always as they seem, and there's a way out.'

Nice! I like it. I'll try to keep this point in mind next time I rewatch Marnie. I have't seen it through for at least a decade so I'm due!

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

Hey, swanstep. If you do watch it again, there's another theory I have about its denouement that you might find interesting and may find interesting to discuss.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Hey, swanstep. If you do watch it again, there's another theory I have about its denouement that you might find interesting and may find interesting to discuss.

---

Not to crowd swanstep's turf, but I for one would like to hear that other theory.

-- Ecarle.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

Hi ecarle. We're all good for discussions here. At least, I believe so.

In addition to what I mentioned above (that we find out at the end that it's NOT a dead end street), I've always felt that the 'climax' of the film comes AFTER Marnie's recollection of what happened to her as a child. And it seems such a small thing.

After her recollection, she lays her head in her mother's lap. Her mother starts to reach out and touch it, but pulls her hand back and says, 'Marnie, mind my leg.' Her mother still can't display any physical affection, even though she's just told her, 'Why, you're the only thing in this world I ever did love.'

Marnie stands up, and her hair is hanging in front of her face. Mark reaches out and tenderly tucks it behind her ears and neck, says 'There. That's better.' And she just accepts it.

To me, even more than the flashback, this is the moment the entire film has been working towards. Rather than recoil from him, as she would have previously, she just accepts this gesture of physical kindness from a man. Probably for the first time.

I disagree with those who think that Marnie remembering what happened to her as a child supposedly 'cured' her. She's not cured, she's just freed from a past and still has a way to go. When she says to Mark, 'Oh, Mark, I don't want to go to jail. I'd rather stay with you.', it's only about a new beginning.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

In addition to what I mentioned above (that we find out at the end that it's NOT a dead end street),

---

Which is a cool observation and -- you can't just "throw that in there" if you are Hitchcock; the set has to be designed to reveal that, he WANTED that.

---

I've always felt that the 'climax' of the film comes AFTER Marnie's recollection of what happened to her as a child. And it seems such a small thing.

After her recollection, she lays her head in her mother's lap. Her mother starts to reach out and touch it, but pulls her hand back and says, 'Marnie, mind my leg.' Her mother still can't display any physical affection, even though she's just told her, 'Why, you're the only thing in this world I ever did love.'

---

I have reservations about Marnie -- it is my least favorite of his films after Psycho even as others rank Torn Curtain, Topaz, and sometimes Family Plot lower -- but I must say the ending scene is perhaps the only Hitchcock scene to ever move me to tears. One or two times when I watched it. The mother's confession of love IS indeed followed by a return to physical rejection and we come to realize that this woman is warped for life. How interesting, I suppose, that a sexual life(first with the boy whose letter sweater the mother coveted, and whose sexual appetite gave birth to Marnie; then as a hooker who brought sailors home) eventually destroyed the mother for sex, or love. Sex with men, love for with Marnie. Marnie will likely get better -- the mother, not necessarily.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Marnie stands up, and her hair is hanging in front of her face. Mark reaches out and tenderly tucks it behind her ears and neck, says 'There. That's better.' And she just accepts it.

To me, even more than the flashback, this is the moment the entire film has been working towards. Rather than recoil from him, as she would have previously, she just accepts this gesture of physical kindness from a man. Probably for the first time.

---

Yes, that's true. Rather as with Scottie being able to "look down" at the end of Vertigo(but under far more tragic circumstances), now Marnie can accept a man's love. Or at least kindness.

And of course, Marnie is about MARK(Connery) too. Just like Vertigo is about both Scottie and Judy.
Mark is a pretty twisted fellow -- there are intimations that his wealth, his own dead mother, and his dead-too-young wife have further warped him -- and he goes after Marnie with a bullying cruelty for much of the film, refusing to engage his own capacity for love until the big breakthrough at the end.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I disagree with those who think that Marnie remembering what happened to her as a child supposedly 'cured' her. She's not cured, she's just freed from a past and still has a way to go.

---

Agreed. This is not a movie with a magical ending. One pictures Mark and Marnie having some difficult days ahead.

But someday...loving, consensual sex.

Which reminds me: Marnie is kinda famous for Mark's "marital rape" of Marnie and yet Hitchcock manages to maneuver Mark into the loving hero position at the end of the film. I'm not sure whether to defend or condemn that, I expect Hitchcock would say: "It is what it is. Human beings are complex. Love and hate are intertwined."

---

When she says to Mark, 'Oh, Mark, I don't want to go to jail. I'd rather stay with you.', it's only about a new beginning

---

Yes, though I gotta tell you -- that line got laughs in some public screenings I attended. OF COURSE she'd rather stay with her rich husband than go to jail. I'm not so sure this wasn't a bit of puckish Hitchcock humor after all the trauma, though.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

My beefs with Marnie:

Though this movie is perhaps even more "thematically connected" to Psycho than The Birds before it, the screenplay leaves a lot to be desired. To me, eventually the film is back-to-back-to-back scenes of Mark interrogating, catching in lies, and threatening Marnie(its like the Norman/Arbogast interrogation over and over and over, but with less charm and wit.) The Universal production values are poor.

And I don't much like the COLOR of the film. Splashes of red are dominant for plot reasons, but much of the film seems to take place in "sickly yellow rooms" to me. The gorgeous color schemes of To Catch a Thief, Vertigo, and NXNW seem absent.

Still, there's a lot to like in Marnie. A few good set-pieces(the silent robbery with the high heel in the purse; the runaway horse and his death -- another tearjerker). And one sees Hitchcock advancing on the sexual front here as he did on the violence front with Psycho.

Its just not a movie I can warm to. At least Torn Curtain and Topaz have that "spy story intrigue" to keep them in the standard tradition. And Family Plot, while perhaps less thematically dense than Marnie and less well made -- is faster and funnier.

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

Another thing to like:::Diane Baker at absolute prime. In that Geisha outfit she is simply sublime.

Dum-Dum will be baby sitting "Marnie" the rest of her life.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

Yes, though I gotta tell you -- that line got laughs in some public screenings I attended. OF COURSE she'd rather stay with her rich husband than go to jail. I'm not so sure this wasn't a bit of puckish Hitchcock humor after all the trauma, though.
----------
Although I definitely see humor in that line now, I never took it as such before. I always tied it to part of the conversation they had while still in her mother's house.

After Mark smooths Marnie's hair back, she says, 'Mark, what's going to happen? Will I go to jail?'

He replies, 'No. Not after what I have to tell them.'

So I always thought when she said, 'I'd rather stay with you.', that was just an indication that she trusted him (a man) for the first time.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

And of course, Marnie is about MARK(Connery) too. Just like Vertigo is about both Scottie and Judy.
Mark is a pretty twisted fellow
---------
I remember reading an excerpt from a Hitchcock interview where he said, 'Mark is as sick as Marnie is. What he really wants is to catch her in the act of thieving and rape her on the spot.'

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

Which is a cool observation and -- you can't just "throw that in there" if you are Hitchcock; the set has to be designed to reveal that, he WANTED that.
---------
I always believed that Hitchcock did that deliberately. As you said, he'd never just 'throw that in there'. Everything with him was so planned.
---------
How interesting, I suppose, that a sexual life(first with the boy whose letter sweater the mother coveted, and whose sexual appetite gave birth to Marnie; then as a hooker who brought sailors home)
---------
I read a book too many years ago to mention, when I was very young. I've been a fan of Hitchcock since I can remember. I don't remember the name of the book or who the author was. I think you probably would.

In this book, he explained his take on several of Hitchcock's films. One of them was Marnie. The only others I remember were Psycho, The Birds, NxNW, and maybe Rear Window.

He had an interesting theory of Marnie's kleptomania and her mother's prostitution.

-She would alter her appearance, getting a job for a new man.
-She would use a pseudonym.
-She would impress the man with her excellent job performance.
-When she had satisfied the man with her performance and gain his trust, she would take his money and disappear.
-Then she'd alter her appearance, change her name again, and get a new job working for a new man, then take HIS money. Repeatedly.
-What does that sound like?

I'm not saying I buy it, but I always thought it was an interesting theory. The similarities.

He also had an interesting theory about Marnie's reaction to the color red, but I won't go into that now.

I've only seen Torn Curtain and Topaz once, many years ago, so I have very little recall of them.

The only things I remember about Torn Curtain are the murder of Gromek(?), and the scene where the buses are getting closer and closer together. I remember feeling suspense at that scene.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

And the only scene I recall from Topaz is when two guys are talking, walking back and forth in front of a building. You see them talking, but you don't hear any dialogue. I thought that scene was excellent.

I've looked on Amazon, and Torn Curtain is for rent, but Topaz is not. And the DVD is expensive. I've rented Torn Curtain and will watch it today.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Torn Curtain and Topaz follow Marnie, and if I like them better than Marnie, it is likely for three reasons:

ONE: I generally like the spy stuff in those movies better than the melodrama of Marnie(which is GOOD Hitchcockian melodrama, with a bow to the Tennesee Williams movies that were popular in the 50s and 60s, but melodrama nonetheless).

TWO: I generally find the color scheme of Marnie to be less engaging than those of Torn Curtain(with its experimental gray photography) and Topaz(very vibrant colors -- a movie with sequences in Paris and Copenhagen on location, and a well-faked Cuba.)

THREE: I like the scripts for both Torn Curtain and Topaz better than that for Marnie, which seems very redundant and static(too much Connery bullying Hedren.)

All three films are considered "films of decline" after Psycho and The Birds, but I think there is something to like in all three of them. I just like the spy films better than Marnie-- even though they don't come close at all to the gigantic and wonderful spy thriller "North by Northwest" that closed out the fifties for Hitch. As he got older in the 60's, he dialed down the action and dialed up the talk and drama in his spy movies. I think his health wasn't up to big action, anymore.

Torn Curtain has that grueling murder of Gromek; the bus sequence(indeed very suspenseful), Newman's "chalkboard duel" with the German professor, and the finale at the ballet to keep it going.

Topaz has the opening defection and escape in Copenhagen; the great suspense sequence in Harlem at the Hotel Theresa(Roscoe Lee Browne is a delight as the puckish spy DuBois); the beautiful death of Juanita De Cordoba in Cuba, and some really great shots in the Paris sequence. Unfortunately, it doesn't have an ending -- two were filmed, a third was cobbled together from existing footage, different endings went out to different screenings. All were bad.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I am glad that you are renting Torn Curtain, MizhuB, but I can only halfway recommend it. It ain't North by Northwest!

Still as many a critic said of Torn Curtain AND Topaz, "they aren't his best, but Hitchcock at less than his best is still better than about 90% of everybody else."

And I think it IS significant to see two major stars -- Paul Newman and Julie Andrews -- working for Hitchcock, the last time that he managed to land big stars for his movies. They were, at the time, two of the biggest and they help keep Torn Curtain interesting to watch. Especially Newman.

PS. Though Bernard Herrmann was fired off of Torn Curtain by Hitchcock -- Hitch's most horrible act, I think -- I must admit that Herrmann's replacement, John Addison, came up with an exciting title overture that plays again with great excitement during the bus sequence. I like THAT about Torn Curtain, too.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

ecarle. Well, I watched it, and you're right. It ain't North by Northwest. I have mixed feelings about it. I didn't dislike it, but to me, it was a constant roller coaster of interesting parts, then boring, then interesting, then boring.

As it went on, I found I was remembering scenes even though, as I said, I'd only seen it once. And since I saw it so long ago, I thought it kind of significant that things were coming back to me. Such as the Countess' offer to help them in exchange for an American sponsorship. And I remembered that she wouldn't get it after all.

That part was played by Lila Kadrova, beautifully. She played basically the same part in Polanski's 'The Tenant' (a movie I like, despite the fact that I don't understand the ending at all. But I don't care. ;))

In fact I thought all the acting, including supporting characters, to be very good to excellent. Except for one. Here's where we differ. I thought Paul Newman was terrible. I never cared for him as an actor. I always thought Paul Newman played Paul Newman in every role, and this was no exception. I've read that much of the public disliked Julie Andrews' performance, but I differ there also. It wasn't much of a role, but given what she had to work with, I thought she did an excellent job.

I didn't like John Addison's overture during the opening credits, but I did like its use again over the bus sequence. Actually, I thought most of his background music was fine but I couldn't help but wonder how much better Bernie's would have been.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

ecarle. Well, I watched it, and you're right. It ain't North by Northwest.

---

What could be? After North by Northwest and Psycho, Hitchcock had a hard time matching those films, let alone topping them. They were "summits" of action and horror, respectively. I think The Birds came the closest to matching them as a classic of size and "dazzle"(the effects.) Frenzy is, in many ways, just as great as critics said it was -- but it never really commanded large audiences who could LOVE it, as with NXNW and Psycho. It was just too sexually repellent, I think, in its one crucial scene.

--

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I have mixed feelings about it. I didn't dislike it, but to me, it was a constant roller coaster of interesting parts, then boring, then interesting, then boring.

---

That's a good way to put it. The story never really catches fire; the big scenes are "intermittent," even though it is yet another model of Hitchcock construction.

As Hitch himself said, the movie is pretty much two parts:

Newman tries to pull off his "defection deception," but Gromek figures it out and must be killed. The story turns into an escape from the hell of the Iron Curtain. (And yet, "Part One" continues in Part Two..as Newman manages to complete his mission SECONDS before fleeing East Germany. And note: Without Julie's help in charming the Professor, Newman would NOT have completed his mission. She was not welcome on the trip, but she saves the day.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

As it went on, I found I was remembering scenes even though, as I said, I'd only seen it once. And since I saw it so long ago, I thought it kind of significant that things were coming back to me. Such as the Countess' offer to help them in exchange for an American sponsorship. And I remembered that she wouldn't get it after all.

---

A sad coda to her scene, yes? Hitchcock didn't always go for the crowd pleasing moment. In fact, it has been said that Newman and Andrews leave a lot of human wreckage in their wake: Gromek(killed), the Countess(abandoned after she helped them), the fake bus passengers(on the run), "the farmer and the farmer's wife"(also on the run.) Everything wrecked.

----

That part was played by Lila Kadrova, beautifully. She played basically the same part in Polanski's 'The Tenant' (a movie I like, despite the fact that I don't understand the ending at all. But I don't care. ;))

---

I have not seen The Tenant; it goes on my list. Hitch got Kedrova for Torn Curtain two years after she won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for 1964(Zorba the Greek). Kedrova awared the Best Supporting ACTOR award for 1965 to...Martin Balsam(Arbogast) for A Thousand Clowns. Hitchcock hired top quality support, yes?

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

In fact I thought all the acting, including supporting characters, to be very good to excellent. Except for one. Here's where we differ. I thought Paul Newman was terrible. I never cared for him as an actor. I always thought Paul Newman played Paul Newman in every role, and this was no exception.

---

Hitchcock said the same thing after Newman demanded "motivation" on his character(Hitchcock told a colleague, "What does it matter? He just plays Paul Newman.)

Newman gets smacked about for his Method work in Torn Curtain, but I found him handsome and starry and I think it was helpful how grim the movie was in forcing him to be a little different than usual. For comparision, check out Newman in "The Prize"(1963) which was written by Ernest Lehman, who wrote NXNW -- The Prize has many NXNW "borrow scenes". Newman plays THAT role way over the top for goofy comedy. At least Hitchcock made him act more serious in Torn Curtain.

---

Ive read that much of the public disliked Julie Andrews' performance, but I differ there also. It wasn't much of a role, but given what she had to work with, I thought she did an excellent job.

---

She's surpisingly sexy, and I do like the scene where she just can't join Newman in telling the East Germans secrets: "YOU tell them! YOU tell them!" She chooses country over man...and the man tells her (in private): don't worry, I'm not really defecting. Its a nice romantic moment, followed by a fine Hitchcock kiss.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I didn't like John Addison's overture during the opening credits, but I did like its use again over the bus sequence.

---

Hmm...I liked it both places. But much of the rest of the Addision score was too "peppy" for my taste. Universal pressured Hitchcock to fire Herrmann and wanted some "pop music" for the film, but the love music is rather sickly sweet, I thought. Addison really only works well in this score when he's doing suspense.

By the way, me liking the score on the credits and you not liking it is...the way of the world.

I think when I watch Torn Curtain, I cling DESPERATELY to whatever works for me in the film: the overture and credits; the killing of Gromek; the chalkboard duel; the final ballet escape(with the freeze-frame ballerina.)

---

Actually, I thought most of his background music was fine but I couldn't help but wonder how much better Bernie's would have been.

---

I don't know if its there now, but a fair amount of Herrmann's score for Torn Curtain could be found on YouTube; its also an extra on the DVD. Herrman wrote his own credit overture(its not as fast as NXNW, it rather "churns like a locomotive" down a track into Hell) and about 1/2 of the movie. Herrmann wrote music for the Gromek murder(as did Addison later), but Hitchcock did the scene without music -- made it more realistic, more brutal.

I've always pointed out that Herrmann died(rather young) at the end of 1975; he COULD have scored all the Hitchcock movies after Marnie, right through Family Plot. But it was not to be.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

ONE: I generally like the spy stuff in those movies better than the melodrama of Marnie(which is GOOD Hitchcockian melodrama, with a bow to the Tennesee Williams movies that were popular in the 50s and 60s, but melodrama nonetheless).
---------
I agree that Marnie IS very melodramatic. At times it is overwrought. The reason I like it is because I tend to be drawn to movies with a psychological bent to them, even if Marnie is armchair Psyche-101.
---------
TWO: I generally find the color scheme of Marnie to be less engaging than those of Torn Curtain(with its experimental gray photography)...
---------
I have two thoughts about this. First, I find the color scheme of Marnie to be much more engaging, whereas the gray photography of Torn Curtain to be noticeably bland. And while I'm at it, I saw in Torn Curtain the same cheap Universal production qualities that you observed in Marnie. Which surprised me. Most of the sets were obvious, and the rear-projections were so inferior that they were worse than those in Marnie.
----------
THREE: I like the scripts for both Torn Curtain and Topaz better than that for Marnie, which seems very redundant and static(too much Connery bullying Hedren.)
----------
I 100% agree that Marnie is too talky. And I understand what you mean about so many of those scenes involve Connery's bullying of Hedren, over and over. But I don't MIND those scenes.

I've read that Evan Hunter was to write the script, but he refused to include the marital rape of Marnie. Jay Pressen Allen was hired. So she's responsible for the talkiness (and Hitchcock for filming it). I think Hunter could've provided a better script. Saying the same things with less words.

I'm amused by your description of the 'chalkboard duel' between Newman and the scientist, because that's the exact phrase I thought of before I also remembered that scene.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

I can't comment on Topaz, since as I've said I only saw it once, years ago, and only remember the one scene. I do remember that Roscoe Lee Brown was very good.

So I guess my post-The Birds films in order of worst to best would be:

Torn Curtain
Family Plot
Marnie
Frenzy

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I can't comment on Topaz, since as I've said I only saw it once, years ago, and only remember the one scene. I do remember that Roscoe Lee Brown was very good.

So I guess my post-The Birds films in order of worst to best would be:

Torn Curtain
Family Plot
Marnie
Frenzy

---

That's probably about right. When Hitchcock's career was over, the critics seemed to agree that Marnie and Frenzy were the best of the bunch after Psycho. Frenzy was a bit better "put together,"(its a Universal release, but Hitch filmed it at Pinewood in England) but very cold an brutal; Marnie had a heart. Francois Truffaut wrote "I much prefer Marnie to Frenzy."

Marnie is also the last time "the gang's all here." After Marnie, Herrman would be fired, and two key collaborators would die: cinematographer Robert Burks(not even invited on Torn Curtain, he died after it was made in a house fire); and editor George Tomasini(heart attack on a camping trip.)

If I rank Marnie lower than the spy films, its really just a matter of personal taste. In my heart, I know that Marnie has more "auteur" vision and -- again - heart - than the spy flicks.

Family Plot is almost a parlor game by comparison -- characters with little depth enacting a delicious suspense comedy ABOUT plot, about structure, bringing two stories together as one. I like Family Plot better than Marnie, but it lacks the depth of the earlier picture. And the Family Plot script is weak in a different way -- too slow a first hour -- things pick up in the second hour.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

ONE: I generally like the spy stuff in those movies better than the melodrama of Marnie(which is GOOD Hitchcockian melodrama, with a bow to the Tennesee Williams movies that were popular in the 50s and 60s, but melodrama nonetheless).
---------
I agree that Marnie IS very melodramatic. At times it is overwrought. The reason I like it is because I tend to be drawn to movies with a psychological bent to them, even if Marnie is armchair Psyche-101.
---------

It was pointed out at the time that if one followed from The Wrong Man(shrink talks about Vera Miles) to Vertigo(shrink talks about James Stewart) to Psycho(shrink talks about Anthony Perkins) you get three strong "Freudian" pictures out of Hitchcock, fairly close together. AND THEN: The Birds and Marnie don't have psychiatrists in them, but the first film is a study in family dysfunction and the second film has MARK psychoanalyzing Marnie. All five films are deeply "Psychological" films. (Only NXNW doesn't get into psychology, save maybe the Mother Thornhill stuff and Leonard's gay jealousy.)

Hitchcock then ditched psychology for two spy films and then came roaring BACK to psychology with Frenzy, which gets into the psychology of the sexual psychopath.

Then, Family Plot...nada.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

TWO: I generally find the color scheme of Marnie to be less engaging than those of Torn Curtain(with its experimental gray photography)...
---------
I have two thoughts about this. First, I find the color scheme of Marnie to be much more engaging, whereas the gray photography of Torn Curtain to be noticeably bland.

---

Well..to each our own. Something about the yellow in Marnie bother me -- like in the office at the beginning(here's our chance to imagine the real estate office in Psycho...in color...and it just didn't work for me.)

The gray photography of Torn Curtain was on purpose...once our couple goes behind the Iron Curtain, it is MEANT to be gray and grim. And Hitchcock had his cinematographer experiment with "natural lighting."

The next film , Topaz, has a LOT of color. As surprisingly, does Frenzy(Bob Rusk sporting a big purple tie walking along side Babs Milligan in her bright orange suitdress -- its like a plum stalking an orange.)

---

And while I'm at it, I saw in Torn Curtain the same cheap Universal production qualities that you observed in Marnie. Which surprised me. Most of the sets were obvious, and the rear-projections were so inferior that they were worse than those in Marnie.
----------

Oh, I agree here, and I hope I didn't indicate otherwise. Marnie got bad marks for that ship painting and the rear projection, but Torn Curtain has even MORE bad paintings and obvious matte shots. That said, an overhead view of the bell tower in Vertigo and an exterior of Vandamm's Rushmore house in NXNW are pretty cheesy matte shots, too. Just in classic films.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

THREE: I like the scripts for both Torn Curtain and Topaz better than that for Marnie, which seems very redundant and static(too much Connery bullying Hedren.)
----------
I 100% agree that Marnie is too talky. And I understand what you mean about so many of those scenes involve Connery's bullying of Hedren, over and over. But I don't MIND those scenes.

---

Well, they are involving scenes about a very perverse relationship -- Mark loves Marnie BECAUSE she's a thief, and he takes a sadistic delight in trapping her over it. Meanwhile -- almost as a gag -- here's James Bond himself confronted with a woman who WON'T LET HIM TOUCH HER -- its the matador's cape.

But..I just think there are too many of them -- including one bizarrely set in a Howard Johnson's restaurant.

---

I've read that Evan Hunter was to write the script, but he refused to include the marital rape of Marnie. Jay Pressen Allen was hired. So she's responsible for the talkiness (and Hitchcock for filming it). I think Hunter could've provided a better script. Saying the same things with less words.

---

Probably. Allen herself disliked her own script, saying "its probably in Hitchcock's bottom third." I think she just didn't know how to beat the exposition. She said she had no problem writing the marital rape -- because neither she nor Hitchcock discussed it as BEING a rape. Hmmm...

And about that rape. Consider: Marnie doesn't want to marry Mark at all. But he FORCES her to marry him (threat if she doesn't: jail). So now, married when she doesn't want to be to a man she doesn't love, she is subjected to rape "because the man is her husband." That's a pretty bad indictment of Mark...and yet he ends the film a hero. Of sorts.

---

I'm amused by your description of the 'chalkboard duel' between Newman and the scientist, because that's the exact phrase I thought of before I also remembered that scene.

---

Thanks. Sometimes I come up with quick phrases and they "lock in" for my posts.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

One thing I'd like to mention here is your statement that the film ends thusly: "Marnie" chooses to fixate its final image on a matte painting of a ship parked near a Baltimore neighborhood and thereby ends in falsehood."

My intention isn't to be critical, but I'd like to point out one thing about the ending. That (horrible) matte painting of the ship at the end of the street had always indicated that the street was a dead-end. But in the final shot, as the car pulls away, it reaches the end and turns a corner, out of sight. We never knew it wasn't a dead-end until then. To me, it kind of says 'Things are not always as they seem, and there's a way out.'

--

I'm sorry, MizhuB, I missed this thoughtful reply before. That's a great concept, and I like it, and I recall being a bit surprised when that car turned the corner. The shot is also a bit of a match for the final seconds of The Birds, when the Brenner car finally leaves the screen filled with birds to make its own "escape" with a sudden turn of the corner and off the screen.

"Things are not always as they seem, and there's a way out" is a marvelously hopeful way to end a movie. I've always seen Marnie as "Vertigo with a happy ending." Both films feature a man at once loving and bullying his woman -- but whereas the woman dies at the end of Vertigo, the woman lives at the end of Marnie and is at once "cured" of her trauma and perhaps saved from responsibility for her crimes(as likely would not have happened with Judy.)

reply

[–] movieghoul (213) 6 years ago

THe question of whether Marnie is cured may have an answer in the nursery rhyme chanted by the children on the street ("Doctor, doctor, I am ill", etc) when Marnie and Mark leave the house. THe last verse goes like this:

"Mumps" said the doctor
"Measles" said the nurse
"Nothing" said the lady with the alligator purse

ANd just who is the lady with the alligator purse? Marnie herself, as shown in the film's first shot!

reply

[–] Underdog_73 (759) 6 years ago

It's always been my opinion that Hitchcocks biggest weakness was endings. He wasn't that good at them. He's had some great movies, but even his best only had "good" endings. Many of his others had horrible endings. He was a good director who couldn't quite capture the art of the finish.

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

This.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

I always thought most of his endings were very succinct. Which I like. You've told the story, now wrap it up.

I have little tolerance for endings that go on for 10 minutes or so as a showdown between the protagonists. Back in the day, they could be suspenseful, but now they're just formulaic.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 6 years ago

completely disagree.

reply

[–] MizhuB (165) 6 years ago

That's fine. Isn't that what movie message boards are for? Discussions, including differences of opinion?

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

It's always been my opinion that Hitchcocks biggest weakness was endings. He wasn't that good at them. He's had some great movies, but even his best only had "good" endings. Many of his others had horrible endings. He was a good director who couldn't quite capture the art of the finish.

--

I know this is just "argument for argument's sake," but I don't know how you do a better ending than the ones for North by Northwest and Psycho. Vertigo's is pretty great, too. And all three of these visual endings are matched by the greatness of Herrmann's music "at the end."

Other great endings: The Birds. Rear Window(including the curtain closing on the window). Frenzy.

That said, yeah, he missed the boat a few times. Topaz. Strangers on a Train. Suspicion. The Wrong Man.

But those other endings I note above are great, not just good. IMHO.

I'd say Hitchcock delivered some of the greatest endings of all time(Rear Window, Vertigo, NXNW, Psycho, The Birds, Frenzy). And some good endings(The Man Who Knew Too Much '56; To Catch a Thief.) And some misfires.

reply

[–] Underdog_73 (759) 6 years ago

I know this is just "argument for argument's sake,"...

You're right.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I know this is just "argument for argument's sake,"...

You're right.

---

Ha. Well I return to clarify my terms a bit.

To me, "argument for argument's sake" is as follows:

ARGUMENT ONE: Hitchcock was terrible at endings.

ARGUMENT TWO: Hitchcock was great at endings.

You can't win. Unless you go to a third party to decide for you.

That said, I have a few witnesses for my side.

Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman said that North by Northwest had one of the greatest endings of all time BECAUSE:

Multiple plot points:

Martin Landau is killed.
James Mason is captured by the Professor and the rangers.
The microfilm is saved.
Cary Grant rescues Eva Marie Saint and himself.
Grant and Saint get married.
Grant and Saint take a honeymoon train back to New York City...

...are solved in 45 SECONDS.

The line "C'mon, Mrs. Thornhill"(and wedding rings) covers the marriage.

The shot of Mason and the Professor and the rangers("Not quite sporting, using real bullets") covers his capture.

Etc.

---

To be fair, in the same essay, Goldman wrote that "Psycho" -- his favorite and the greatest of all Hitchcock films, in his opinion..."has a horrible ending."

But Goldman got that wrong. He claims the shrink scene for the ending. The REAL ending -- Norman as Mother in the cell and the dissolve to the swamp" -- IS a great ending. The shrink scene is "intermediary."

A critic named Richard Corliss wrote how gobsmacked he was at "the perfection of the ending of The Birds."

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

And a critic who did NOT like Frenzy, noted that it was sub-par "except for a good curtain line"(ie. the end: "Mr. Rusk, you're not wearing your tie.")

By the way, that IS a great ending to Frenzy -- droll, quick and properly "framed" : Killer, Wrong Man, and Cop are all together for the first time, with a naked woman's corpse there for the "R' rating.

But I've always felt the ending lacks something -- Blaney beating the holy hell out of the evil, sadistic, woman-hurting Rusk. With that tire iron. Maybe not fatally, but certainly to the kneecaps and the groin area.

reply

[–] Underdog_73 (759) 6 years ago

Right. I got it. I agreed with you. It's simply opinion. There is no right or wrong answer, so a debate can't be decided. Even with a third party.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Well, I agree with you agreeing with me.

I suppose everything is "argument for argument's sake" around here.

And even when a judge decides...you can always appeal.

Cheers

PS. The psychiatrist scene in Psycho just could be the greatest "argument for argument's sake" scene in film history. Matched by The Sopranos ending on cable.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 6 years ago

I can't believe this! When you say suspense, you think Hitchcock! His endings were great! Who is running things at TCM these days?

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

Tiffany Vasquez.

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

No, seriously, since Osborne died it's different. It's seems harried now, there's no anchor. Mankiewicz (sp) tries, but, he rushes now, feeling the pressure and it makes the viewer uncomfortable.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 6 years ago

I confess that we haven't had cable in a number of years. Giving up TCM was probably my one regret in giving up the cable, but I survived. It was a waste of money and we get everything we want and more, by streaming.
When I heard about Robert Osbourne's passing, it made me feel very sad.... the end of an era. I got to thinking that things would probably change on TCM.
Tiffany obviously needs to learn a thing or two about classic movies. They don't call Hitchcock the Master of Suspense for nothing!

Please don't tell me they have commercial breaks during the movies now. That would be a sin.

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

No, they haven't taken that step yet. I remember when AMC did that. Bob Dorian and commercials. It was incomprehensible at the time. The almost simultaneous appearance of TCM saved us there.

MMC, it's ironic that you mention your "one regret in giving up the cable, but I survived." I've fought this same battle for almost 10 years now (when money first became tight). (((Only))) TCM keeps me from cutting that cable. 1 damn channel.

I need it though. I have to have it. I'm not fooling anyone especially myself in portending I can "survive." When I look thru that TCM lineup far in advance, it is strangely not as effective as it is when the lineup comes within 12-24 hour view. "I didn't notice that yesterday." I say aloud to myself.

And I would not dare to confess my love for TCM to the staff at my Cable store. No way. I've tried to lower my bill without mentioning my TCM love affair. They'd take advantage if they knew. I won't sully the name nor bargain with them over TCM.

I've never uttered "TCM" to them & I never will.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 6 years ago

LOL! 🍺Cheers🍺 to a True Blue Classic Movie Fan!
Mums the word at the cable company......

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

MMC, it's ironic that you mention your "one regret in giving up the cable, but I survived." I've fought this same battle for almost 10 years now (when money first became tight). (((Only))) TCM keeps me from cutting that cable. 1 damn channel.

---

I been there, too. Exactly as you state it above. I'll bet someone in cableland has done some polling and found that TCM has a whole buncha addicts...of a certain age.

Its the first channel that comes on, on my TV. The "default." And even if I don't like the movie, I often like "the filler."

One of the best fillers was film composer David Raksin(Laura), ripping Hitchcock a new one over Hitchcock's treatment of Raksin's friend and fellow composer, Bernard Herrmann. (Famously, Hitch fired Herrmann off of Torn Curtain.) Said Raksin in the clip, "Herrmann gave Hitchcock everything -- and Hitchcock had the loyalty of an eel....nobody liked Hitchcock in those days, he had the charm of a bump on a log, and it was clear he was in decline. Everybody knew it."

Ouch. But...a good friend.

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

Me too, carl, it's my default channel! & you're right again, "the filler" is terrific. Those remembrances about an actor by an actor are awesome. Elizabeth Taylor talking about Hudson. She's breaking down the entire time. Fonda's kids talking about him. It's just incredible.

T C M

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Elizabeth Taylor talking about Hudson. She's breaking down the entire time. Fonda's kids talking about him. It's just incredible.

--

Yep. And Paul Newman talking about Liz Taylor...his Cat on a Hot Tin Roof co-star.

What's moving about a lot of these "filler" pieces is that folks like Newman and Taylor were alive when they were first done...and now they're not. So they are doubly moving.

Cary Grant's so cool he got TWO other stars to narrate his pieces:

Tony Curtis talks about seeing Grant in Operation Pacific -- a submarine movie that pushed Curtis to enlist in the Naval submarine service. Then, years later, Curtis got to co-star WITH Grant in a movie set...on a naval submarine! (Operation Petticoat.) Curtis found that to be a miracle, with Grant peering through the periscope in both films.

Michael Caine in his piece on Grant has a funny anecdote. Caine and Grant were standing on a corner in Beverly Hills. A woman walked up. She recognized Caine..but not Grant. She said to Caine "I"ve been in Hollywood a week, and you're the first movie star I've seen. The only one! Isn't that amazing?" And Cary Grant said to the woman, "Yes, it is." Ha.

I'm not sure that they make so many of these "star on star" fillers anymore. I seem to keep seeing the old ones. But I love the old ones!

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

"What's moving about a lot of these "filler" pieces is that folks like Newman and Taylor were alive when they were first done...and now they're not. So they are doubly moving."

Yes, it is surreal.

reply

[–] swanstep (2624) 6 years ago

I been there, too. Exactly as you state it above. I'll bet someone in cableland has done some polling and found that TCM has a whole buncha addicts...of a certain age.

My sense is that there's a much larger tranche of people who continue with Cable just to get sports/ESPN. In this way much of the business model for Cable kind of hangs by a thread, but it's a different thread for different sectors.

Anyhow, in the US at least there do seem to be pretty excellent streaming services now, so its goodnight cable for movie-buffs. E.g. filmstruck.com seems to have deals with both TCM and Criterion, and they give you good options like being able to listen to directors' commentary tracks. Filmbuffs outside the US typically have to fend for themselves in the web darklands!

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

My sense is that there's a much larger tranche of people who continue with Cable just to get sports/ESPN. In this way much of the business model for Cable kind of hangs by a thread, but it's a different thread for different sectors.

---

I would agree that sports drives a lot of this; despite some ratings losses for ESPN, sports just drives huge numbers. TCM is, indeed, a "niche," but a great niche. (The only thing close to it on cable are those Encore networks, but for those channels, 1980 is old, nothing older. Sometimes.)

----

Anyhow, in the US at least there do seem to be pretty excellent streaming services now, so its goodnight cable for movie-buffs.

---

They are dependent on luddite laymen like me. I do have access now to computer savvy teens and I am going to nail one of them down on how to do this.

---

E.g. filmstruck.com seems to have deals with both TCM and Criterion, and they give you good options like being able to listen to directors' commentary tracks.

---

Can one get the entire "TCM experience" on streaming? The hosts? the "filler pieces"?

---

Filmbuffs outside the US typically have to fend for themselves in the web darklands!

---

Sorry about that...but YOU know where to find everything , don't you swanstep? You have your ways!

reply

[–] swanstep (2624) 6 years ago

Can one get the entire "TCM experience" on streaming? The hosts? the "filler pieces"?

Probably not. Their basic blurb is as follows:

"CLASSICS FROM TCM SELECT
TCM Select is a constantly refreshed, exclusive collection of iconic movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood, supplemented with introductions from Ben Mankiewicz, as well as rare archival TCM content and bonus materials."

which could mean practically the whole TCM experience but could also mean a whole lot less. I'd suggest, however, that the best thing to do is to accept their 14 days free sample offer to just *see* how much of TCM you get and whether a regular subscription ($6.99 and $10.99 per month seem to be the basic tiers) would be worth it.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

No, they haven't taken that step yet. I remember when AMC did that. Bob Dorian and commercials. It was incomprehensible at the time. The almost simultaneous appearance of TCM saved us there.

---

For awhile, there was only American Movie Classics(it wasn't called AMC yet.) No commercials. Then TCM showed up and the two channels competed -- with no commercials. I recall that Universal -- fighting Ted Turner no doubt -- sold their Hitchcock Universal/Paramount package to American Movie Classics. No commercials yet, and Sharon Stone -- a Hitchcock blonde of sorts -- hosted the package. Over clips of Novak, Leigh, Hedren and Leigh-Hunt being attacked, Stone deadpanned: "Couldn't he have picked on a redhead once?" (He did. Babs. Frenzy.)

But soon new owners took over American Movie Classics, added commercials, bought non-classic pretty crummy movies(sometimes) and became "AMC."

I remember the worst thing about a good movie on AMC was that they would cut to commercial when a movie had about two minutes left. NXNW wasn't shown, but if it had been, you could bet we'd get 5 minutes of commercials right when Grant held Saint by the dangling hand...

And then...AMC got "saved" -- and relevant -- by three shows. Mad Men(the classiest). Breaking Bad(a little less classy, better ratings.) The Walking Dead(less classy still -- better ratings still.)

None of which has much relevance anymore to good ol' TCM.

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 6 years ago

Outstanding information, carl!

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Thank you

reply

[–] movieghoul (213) 6 years ago

Back in the day, you could only see MGM/WB films on TCM and Paramount/Universal/RKO on AMC. So neither channel could do anything like a complete retrospective on a single star, like Fred Astaire.

SO I kind of prefer the TCM monopoly setup. And I'm not particularly worried about TCM going anywhere, as long as cable companies continue to poll subscribers asking what single channel is the biggest reason they still have cable, and TCM always tops the list.

reply

[–] jay440 (107) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] movieghoul (213) 6 years ago

I wasn't really complaining about TCM shunning Hitchcock, they show his films liberally, a few months back that featured about 40 Hitchcocks in a single month. Just a bit surprised he didn't show up in the "best endings" category.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I wasn't really complaining about TCM shunning Hitchcock, they show his films liberally,

---

But look at the discussion you started! Interesting to see all the various opinions on his skill with endings ...or not. (Both, says I...though he had more luck with good endings than most directors, that's how he lasted.)

---

a few months back that featured about 40 Hitchcocks in a single month.

---

Yeah, TCM goes nuts some times. They always had the Warners/MGM package:

Rope
Under Capricorn
Stage Fright
Strangers on a Train
I Confess
Dial M
The Wrong Man

NXNW(MGM)

and then they rented the Universal/Paramount package(we know THAT one, yes?)

Plus they get the Selznicks and the British stuff and...ta da!

---

Just a bit surprised he didn't show up in the "best endings" category

--

Me, too. NXNW, Psycho, Vertigo and Rear Window shoulda been included (pretty much in that order of great endings.) They usually show Frenzy in the wee hours, but it rates on a great ending too(Frenzy is in some ways now the "verboten" Hitchcock; unlike Psycho it is shown infrequently and very late at night, always.)

Perhaps they burned out their rental with that heavy month before....

....and meanwhile, Encore has been running the Universal/Paramount package for a few months now.

reply

[–] movieghoul (213) 6 years ago

It's my impression that TCM is catering more to hard core film buffs (like us!) who think we've seen everything worth seeing by trotting out some fairy obscure stuff in primetime, films that previously would have been relegated to weekday mornings at 10.

Case in point last weekend: Friday was a trio of Randolph Scott westerns, Saturday a 1933 WWI aviation film starring Frederic March and Cary Grant (no way I would have thought these two ever shared screen time), and Sunday, a delightful 50s English comedy The Smallest Show on Earth with one of Peter Sellers's earliest roles.

ANd last evening a 1957 vampire movie with Dana Andrews!

Keep em coming, TCM!

reply

[–] movieghoul (213) 6 years ago

Caught up over the weekend with Curse of the Demon via TCM On Demand, the aforementioned horror film (not a vampire though). This was a well made British film directed by Jacques TOurneur of Cat People fame, and he homages himself in a scene where someone is menaced by a large cat.

Andrews gamely gets through the film repeating variations of "That's unbelievable","That can't happen", etc. Funny, he was never a truly major star but did interesting work in the mid 50s here, as well as in two nifty Fritz Lang noirs, Beyond a Reasonable DOubt and WHile the City Sleeps. He had the earnest stolidness of a Gregory Peck, but without that great face and voice.

AN interesting factoid from the closing remarks: COTD was scripted by CHarles Bennett who wrote 39 Steps and 5 other early Hitchcocks.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

No, seriously, since Osborne died it's different. It's seems harried now, there's no anchor. Mankiewicz (sp) tries, but, he rushes now, feeling the pressure and it makes the viewer uncomfortable.

----

Jumping in here to note that, the other night on TCM Mank(I can't spell it either) co-hosted four William Holden films with Stefanie Powers, who was Holden's companion for about the last ten years of his life.

Mank confessed to concern about how to describe the relationship: "Should I call you his romantic partner?" Powers replied nicely, "I think, life partner."

They showed Sunset Boulevard, Stalag 17, River Kwai...and one I forget(it came on later.) Holden is the "star of the month" so I expect The Wild Bunch and Network will turn up later, maybe even Holden's final film, SOB.

I sampled the end of Stalag 17 and about half of River Kwai. In between, I watched Powers speak very lovingly of Holden. Its pretty clear they had a deep bond, and I've read -- Powers didn't discuss it on TCM while I've watched -- that Powers put up with Holden's intense drinking through almost all of their relationship. They were not totally broken up when Holden died at 63 from a drunken fall that cut his head open on a night table edge. No one else was around, Holden bled to death.

It seems rude to discuss Holden's ill-fated alcoholic's death, but on the other hand, it seems most of his star years he was dogged by drinking. He was hospitalilzed during the making of "Paris When It Sizzles" for alcohol poisoning; he was in a car crash that killed someone(but found blameless.) Guilt and drinking and shyness about being a movie star dogged him his whole career. It was his life. (Though one of his sons once said, "He drank all the time, but he was actually a very pleasant man when he was drunk. He was better.")

Well, it was his OFF-SCREEN life. Stalag 17 and River Kwai showed off his movie star skills.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Of the fifties, William Holden is my favorite behind Cary Grant -- they both competed for the role of "the American" in River Kwai...Holden had a clear edge.

Holden's interesting in River Kwai. He has a tragic trajectory: the American who escapes the deadly Japanese POW camp only to be "nicely forced" into having to go back there to help blow up the famous Bridge. He's also an early version of Don Draper(Mad Men): like Draper, Holden has borrowed the identity of an dead officer(for better treatment in war and as a POW.) Which allows stiff upper lip Brit Jack Hawkins to force Holden on the commando mission and to have to go back to the hell he escaped. (Will he escape a second time? The classic climax tells all.)

I watched one scene among the commandos in the jungle -- its Jack Hawkins doing almost all the talking(exposition), young actor Geoffrey Horne also talking -- and Bill Holden BARELY talking.

Holden's dialogue is: "Right...right...yes....very good...Ok...right." Its almost funny how little he says and yet -- he's the STAR. You can't really look anywhere else he's so handsome and amiable and commanding.

And this: once Holden is on that commando mission that takes him back to hell..he's totally fine with it. A good soldier for the most part(though as I recall, he blows up at Hawkins eventually.) Still, in the scenes I saw...Holden is a really good guy. The hero. The ill-fated hero(as Bill Holden was so often.)

I missed Sunset Boulevard that night, but just seeing Holden in his youthful prime in Stalag 17 and Kwai was a reminder of why he was such a top star at the time. Handsome, yes. A great torso, yes. But he also had a great mix of the amiable and the cynical that just FIT. What was sadly ahead -- again thanks to the alcoholism -- was a ravaged face that made the handsome golden boy look Old Before His Time, a little bit in The Wild Bunch, a LOT in Network(horrible bags under his eyes.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

And yet all the way up to the end, William Holden had it. The face was craggy, but still handsome. The voice, still commanding. And in the good roles he got at the end (The Wild Bunch and Network definitely, but also The Towering Inferno and SOB), Holden added a toughness that made his heroism all the more heroic(even playing bad guys in The Wild Bunch and Inferno.)

Bill Murray said admiringly of Holden's performance in Network(baggy eyes and all): "He was such a STUD in that role." Murray didn't elaborate, but I think how Holden stands up to corporate jackals(at the cost of his job) and beds Faye Dunaway....yeah, a stud.

SOB was a rather too broad Hollywood satire from Blake Edwards which -- almost like The Shootist for John Wayne -- fit being Holden's final film to a t. Holden plays an aging producer who still scores young women and lives hard. He tells his suicidal director friend, "We're ALL committing suicide...just in slow motion: women, booze, cigarattes, drugs..."

And Holden died the same year.

PS. Holden was high on Hitchcock's list as "one who got away." Hitch offered him Strangers on a Train and The Trouble With Harry. Probably would have gotten him if he offered him The Man Who Knew Too Much or Rear Window. Or To Catch a Thief. Or North by Northwest. Tough choices.

reply