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…

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.

What we sell are hidden truths. Our territory is the mind. Our merchandise is fear.

The Avengers 5.1: The Fear Merchants
The colour era doesn't get off to such a great start with The Fear Merchants, an Avengers episode content to provide unstinting averageness. About the most notable opinion you’re likely to come away with is that Patrick Cargill rocks some magnificent shades.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

Do not run a job in a job.

Ocean’s 8 (2018)
(SPOILERS) There’s nothing wrong with the gender-swapped property per se, any more than a reboot, remake or standard sequel exploiting an original’s commercial potential (read: milking it dry). As with those more common instances, however, unless it ekes out its own distinctive territory, gives itself a clear reason to be, it’s only ever going to be greeted with an air of cynicism (whatever the current fashion for proclaiming it valid simply because it's gender swapped may suggest to the contrary).  The Ocean's series was pretty cynical to start with, of course – Soderbergh wanted a sure-fire hit, the rest of the collected stars wanted the kudos of working with Soderbergh on a "classy" crowd pleaser, the whole concept of remaking the '60s movie was fairly lazy, and by the third one there was little reason to be other than smug self-satisfaction – so Ocean's 8 can’t be accused of letting any side down. It also gives itself distinctively – stereo…

There’s still one man out here some place.

Sole Survivor (1970)
(SPOILERS) I’m one for whom Sole Survivor remained a half-remembered, muddled dream of ‘70s television viewing. I see (from this site) the BBC showed it both in 1979 and 1981 but, like many it seems, in my veiled memory it was a black and white picture, probably made in the 1950s and probably turning up on a Saturday afternoon on BBC2. Since no other picture readily fits that bill, and my movie apparition shares the salient plot points, I’ve had to conclude Sole Survivor is indeed the hitherto nameless picture; a TV movie first broadcast by the ABC network in 1970 (a more famous ABC Movie of the Week was Spielberg’s Duel). Survivor may turn out to be no more than a classic of the mind, but it’s nevertheless an effective little piece, one that could quite happily function on the stage and which features several strong performances and a signature last scene that accounts for its haunting reputation.

Directed by TV guy Paul Stanley and written by Guerdon Trueblood (The…

It’s all Bertie Wooster’s fault!

Jeeves and Wooster 3.4: Right Ho, Jeeves  (aka Bertie Takes Gussie's Place at Deverill Hall)
A classic set-up of crossed identities as Bertie pretends to be Gussie and Gussie pretends to be Bertie. The only failing is that the actor pretending to be Gussie isn’t a patch on the original actor pretending to be Gussie. Although, the actress pretending to be Madeline is significantly superior than her predecessor(s).

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).