Skip to main content

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

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

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for