Skip to main content

Waving the flag with one hand and picking pockets with the other, that's your "patriotism".

Review

Notorious 
(1946)

This is one of the very best Hitchcock films, thanks to the alchemy of a fine script from Ben Hecht (who had just worked with the director on the less enchanting Spellbound) and perfect casting in Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. It could so easily have been less auspicious as it was developed by David O. Selznick, whose approach had been one of interference on his previous collaborations with the British auteur.  Fortunately, the producer was in financial difficulties with Duel in the Sun so to ensure that project’s safety he sold the package of the Notorious script, director and Bergman to RKO.

The material was both risky and risqué, focusing on Bergman’s Alicia, the daughter of convicted war criminal. The film quickly establishes that she is repulsed by her father’s actions and in her attempt to forget him she has become something of a tramp and an alcoholic. Enter Grant's government agent (Devlin, who Hitchcock introduces silently in a prolonged scene with his back to the camera), who recruits her to spy on Nazi Alex Sebastian. Which essentially involves prostituting herself to him. Claude Rains plays Sebastian, a Selznick suggestion and, unlike his preferred Joseph Cotton for Devlin, a shrewd one.

Hitchcock embraces the sexual content (circumventing the censors’ requirement for brief kisses of with a long smoochingg scene sustained through breaking off then continuing of the love play). While this is ostensibly a spy thriller, the pulse is the love triangle between Devlin, Alicia and Sebastian, with Bergman's nuanced performance as Alicia at the centre.

If the approach to sex is daring, so is the depiction of an American government willing to send a woman into moral degradation for the good of the country. It’s testament to Hitchcock’s flair for casting against type that he was able to make this palatable, by having debonair Grant pulling the strings.

The film’s first third focuses on Grant and Bergman, as the stars exchange barbs while embarking on a clandestine affair. But once Alicia's assignment begins, Hitchcock ratchets up the tension as the stubbornness and jealousy between the two of them exacerbates the danger. Both characters have to work for audience sympathy, but the director’s reserves point-of-view for his female lead, first when Alicia is drunk then later as she is being poisoned.

Ben Hecht's story may have been born of his staunchly Zionist views, but Rains makes Sebastian a sympathetic figure even with his late stage resolve to remove his new wife from the picture. Certainly more relatable to than Grant's stand-offish good guy, who petulantly allows Bergman to become further embroiled. Grant deserves credit for his willingness to embrace such a frequently cold character, but he also wears his conflict well; Devlin's sarcasm towards his superiors’ belittling of Alicia elicits an amusing response.

Beardsley: Oh, I don’t think any of us have any illusions about her character. Have we Devlin?
Devlin: Not at all, not in the slightest. Miss Huberman is first, last, and always not a lady. She may be risking her life, but when it comes to being a lady, she doesn't hold a candle to your wife, sitting in Washington, playing bridge with three other ladies of great honor and virtue.
Beardsley: I think those remarks about my wife are uncalled for.

With secrets in cellars and the regular Hitchcock ingredient of over-bearing mothers (Leopoldine Konstantin, as a particularly Machiavellian incarnation, was only three years older than Rains) there's a slight sense of pre-figuring Psycho to this part of the film. Konstantin’s “I have expected it” on learning that Bergman has betrayed her son could have been uttered by the Emperor in the Star Wars saga, so confident and gloating is she. She also enjoys one of the best lines, noting that Sebastian’s colleagues will not suspect that he has messed up; “We are protected by the enormity of your stupidity, for a time”.

The "Nazis in South America" plot line (the story was devised in '44, the film release in '46) proved remarkably predictive. Later, of course, The Boys from Brazil would run with this idea about as far as it would stretch. The original idea had been to have German refugees training in secret camps in South America but, face with the problem of what to then do with this army, the MacGuffin of the uranium in wine bottles was devised instead.

The question of why the uranium samples were hidden in the bottles in the first place most probably would elicit the answer, “So Cary Grant can find them, of course.” The atomic theme was developed pre-detonation of the bomb and, while studios considered it ridiculous, the director’s fishing for confirmation that the plot device was valid resulted in the FBI placing Hitchcock under surveillance for three months. By the time it was released, real world events had overtaken the film but it shows that Hitch had his finger on the pulse. Particularly as it was an element that the director regarded as something of a throwaway (because it was only the MacGuffin, and the story was “of a man in love with a girl who, in the course of her official duties, had to go to bed with another man and even had to marry him”).

As with many of Hitchcock's constructions, if you stare at it too closely the plot starts to unravel. For all the trappings of spy lore, the meetings between Bergman and Grant seem remarkably careless.

And the superb central set piece involving the key to cellar is fairly shoddily thought out on the parts of the both of them (Bergman doesn't know that Rains elected not to give his guests any more wine, so why does she leave it until they've gone to bed to return the key to his chain?) This sequence includes the famous shot in which the camera moves from the upstairs balcony down across the hall to Bergman, and the key to the wine cellar she is holding. It’s a stunning moment, and a special rig had to be built to achieve it. The inclusion of Devlin at the party was another successful element that came at Selznick’s instigation; he considered the absence of the character for the majority of the last half of the film a problem. It wasn’t that the producer didn’t have useful input, but that he was as much of a control freak as Hitchcock.

The climactic scene is nigh on perfect, all the more satisfying in resolving itself through a game of wits rather than fireworks. Several different options were considered (including the death of Alicia), but the genius of the one chosen is that it plays like a chess match with Sebastian checkmated.

Hecht and Rains received Oscar nods, and deservedly so. If the stars are the triumvirate of Hitch, Grant and Bergman, they’d be at sea without the solid foundation of the script and the vital element of the likable villain who further muddies the waters of who we should relate to (for a time, at least). It’s the complexity of its characters that makes Notorious remain a very contemporary-feeling film, even 66 years after its release.

*****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams.

Ridley Scott Ridders Ranked
During the '80s, I anticipated few filmmakers' movies more than Ridley Scott's; those of his fellow xenomorph wrangler James Cameron, perhaps. In both cases, that eagerness for something equalling their early efforts receded as they studiously managed to avoid the heights they had once reached. Cameron's output dropped off a cliff after he won an Oscar. Contrastingly, Scott's surged like never before when his film took home gold. Which at least meant he occasionally delivered something interesting, but sadly, it was mostly quantity over quality. Here are the movies Scott has directed in his career thus far - and with his rate of  productivity, another 25 by the time he's 100 may well be feasible – ranked from worst to best.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.