Movie Special: Bawden and Bearer Loving the (Hitch)Cock

Title: North by Northwest
Rating: 4.5/5
Genre: Mystery, Thriller
Starring: Cary Grant, James Mason, Eva Marie Saint
Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Indeed, "Bawden" and I have evil in our minds for tackling such a name, "Alfred Hitchcock". As I had always wanted to see "North by Northwest", I felt this would make a suitable timing. "Hitchcock" takes us through a voyage of espionage, deceit, and mistaken identities through the tale of "Roger O. Thornhill" (Grant), a New-York executive who is mistaken to be a secret agent. This confusion of identity introduces us to one of "Hitchcock's" most stylish thrillers and one of his most entertaining ones as well. While it is not rooted in human psychology and symbolism as we are used to in many other "Hitchcock" films, the film still delivers a great allegory about the "Cold War" and the relative morals behind it, while also maintaining a lighter touch that will keep this experience an amusing one as well.

"Ernest Lehman's" script was perfect for "Hitchcock". "Lehman" delivered a clever script, filled with intelligent and mischievous dialogues while providing many twists and turns that assure us overall satisfaction. This is one of the best written films in his catalogue. As with many of his films, we notice a brilliant rely on the soundtrack to stir the movement of the film. For that, the great "Bernard Herrmann", who is also known for his collaborations with "Hitchcock", composed fast paced score that accompanies splendidly the film, reflecting fluidly its moods and twists. But all these elements would have been ruined if it wasn't for a mastermind to coordinate all. It's his uncanny ability to monitor even the tiniest details that adds to his repertoire as a great director.

There is a reason for the persistence on the choice "Cary Grant" for the title role. He didn't seem to be acting; on the contrary, the role fell naturally upon him. He has a charming charisma that made him the star he is, ""Roger O. Thornhill" of "North by Northwest". And as in every thriller, there must be a villain. "Mason" was just mischievous in every way. While this is not the first time I review "Mason", refer to my review of "Julius Caesar", while not being impressed much there, I thoroughly enjoyed him here. He way he sits, moves, talks, he sparkles mischief through his eyes. Third of all, we have "Eva Marie Saint", the femme fatale of this flick."Mr. Hitchcock" sure does choose his leading ladies well. In a film where nothing is what it seems, when we stare into her eyes we cannot help but wonder "Is she?" or "Isn't she?"

All the elements mentioned above are the foundation to many spy films after, notably the "James Bond" series. The shadow is casted. We see Hitchcock in one of his magnum opuses. A master of suspense and action building up, it's hard to feel bored while watching such a film. Having giving us numerous iconic scenes, such as the air-plain scene and the chase scene on "Mount. Rushmore", not to forget his trademarks notable to those well enough familiar with his style, we see how can a director can assert himself as a central figure in film industry, especially that centering around building thrills and offerings us entertainment, yet at the same time going beyond such simplicity with themes and motives not to be taken lightly.

Without a doubt, this is recommended to all. It captures the spirit of excitement when going to the theater, sitting there, beholding the silver screen and waiting for all to unfold even if you are watching the film from your home. We are attached to the screen as we see all unfolding. The suspense is there, and with "Hitchcock" monitoring, plotting, and commanding, a simple scene turns a matter much more than what it seems, and what better makes the whole confusion and deceit more inter-connected? I have seen many of his films, and so far I have never been disappointed. A master of suspense, "Hitchcock" did not receive all those accolades for nothing; every one of them is earned. And to those new to him, this is a great start. It captures the spirit of suspense and thrill, yet at the same time isn't too heavy and confusing in nature while being extremely clever in context. The only reason for me not dubbing this one here "perfect" is because I have seen all these elements mentioned above taken a higher level of craftsmanship, which proves again the magnitude of "Alfred Hitchcock".

- D. Bearer

Title: Strangers on a Train
Rating: 3.5/5
Genre: Crime, Film-Noir, Thriller
Starring: Farley Granger, Robert Walker
Director: Alfred Hitchcock

It would appear as though I am committing some form of critic’s blasphemy, starting my first foray into the work of one of the most celebrated directors of all time – with one of his most renowned films no less – and the result is one of mild bewilderment. If this is what can be expected of his greatest accomplishments, then I dread to think what one of his worst films would have presented me for whilst certainly not a dire effort by any stretch of the imagination, it would appear his reputation as a master of cinema comes as more than a little unfounded.

With a superb script formed from a novel by “Patricia Highsmith,” the simplicity of the proceedings proves to be its greatest strength; following the two lead roles from the first meeting all the way to the bitter end, it is the crazy idea of one Bruno Anthony (Walker) – a man desperately looking for a way to end the life of his father – to trade murders with another so as to give no motive connecting them to the crimes. Dismissed out of hand by the tennis star Guy Haines (Granger), he humours the mans ridiculous notion of killing his troublesome wife in return and returns to his illegitimate lover only to quickly discover that Bruno has already carried out his portion of the plan. Failing to turn to the police for fear of being convicted he begins to wrestle with his conscience, all the time under mental attack by the ever more aggravated Bruno demanding his recompense.

The popular opinion of Walker’s prowess is in this case no hyperbole brought on after his untimely death just a few months after this films release but a fully justified criticism, as this isn’t some overplayed obvious character; there isn’t a single dimension to his personality

which makes him appear to be the ruthless, cold and calculating man presented, but rather something far more subtle that makes him all the more dangerous. It’s as though there is a veil of deception to his actions that only the audience – learning his capabilities early on – are capable of seeing through, the ever broadening cracks giving glimpses of the methodical and sadistic character that lies beneath, and this altogether realistic and frighteningly believable character is the linchpin by with this film is held.

It’s hence unfortunate that the rest of the cast failed to meet the bar already set, with Granger’s performance failing to demonstrate any real form of emotion with his rigid posture and wooden facial expressions. The rest of the supporting cast do little to assist in the matter either, often acting as though mere puppets with Hitchcock pulling the strings, forcing them into rigid and unnatural positions so as to follow the script as opposed to allowing the natural physicality of the character already developed to flourish. The scenes with Walker’s absence as a result often descend into an exercise in tediousness, the tennis scene in particular placed in a position where a slow build to the denouement should be taking place yet instead brings down the entire film with an example of an unnecessarily long passage, and it’s only with a strong reliance on the dialogue – and more specifically what as opposed to how it is said – that the film manages to function and flow continuously.

The finalé too was something of a disappointment, the ease at which people seem to be deluded into mistaking brilliance for special effects work as rife here as it still is today. Now don’t mistake me for knocking the effects themselves; in a time well before CGI when everything had to be performed mechanically, the manner things was handled and performed shows nothing if not a willing to push the limits of what was feasible, but it was the actual script itself that proved

the problem, seeming to be more interested in the style over the substance. The fact that the police killed an innocent man by shooting wildly into a crowd, a fact which was then promptly ignored as though nobody cared for his tragic loss of life, heavily detracting from what would have otherwise been a fitting end.

Perhaps slightly oddly, despite my disappointment here, it hasn’t dented by expectations of this director’s other work. There are after all many elements that go into creating an effective piece of cinema and the actual direction; the manner scenes were shot and pieced together to provide a mood, a constant atmospheric tension looming over and slowly rising with each carefully calculated scene, it all shows a level of competency few are capable of demonstrating. The end result is simply an uphill battle against the apathetic and at times melodramatic cast, and is sadly this films Achilles heel.

- T. Bawden

I dont like Hitchcock.