Skip to main content

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest
(1959)

(SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

Hitchcock would come up with ideas he wanted to include for Lehman’s “ultimate Hitchcock film” – a chase across Mount Rushmore, a deadly tornado (that morphed into a crop duster plane, given Lehmann needed some degree of logical progression) – and the screenwriter would weave them in. The everyman Hitch hero thrown into perilous circumstances was originally conceived as a James Stewart travelling salesman, but in the end, Lehman gave Cary Grant’s protagonist a job he’d had, that most unscrupulous of professions: an advertising executive. Who, yes, as per Mad Men, does get very, very drunk (though admittedly, against his will in this instance).

Vertigo has emerged as the most critically acclaimed Hitchcock in recent years, but North by Northwest is undoubtedly his peak as crowd-pleaser. Here, he positively revels in his established milieu of giving the audience a particular type of spy movie, but this time no holds barred. It’s one of his wittiest films, features some of his best gags, and boasts most audacious constructions in terms of suspense.

North by Northwest’s MacGuffin never really takes on more than the vaguest tangible importance (microfilm of government secrets), and the climax is of the sort that would be inconceivable today. Grant’s Roger Thornhill and Eve Marie Saint’s Eve Kendall are in peril on Mount Rushmore, Martin Landau’s sadistic Leonard about to do for them; suddenly, the latter is shot, by handy Leo G Carroll’s “Professor” and his park rangers – we also see that James Mason’s Phillip Vandamm is in custody – and Thornhill reaches to pull up Eve, who is dangling, dangling. Cut to them in an upper berth of a train which – fnar, fnar – enters a tunnel. It’s almost alarmingly economical – Hitchcock had unswerving trust in his audience – and extremely funny.

Grant complained to Hitchcock that the script was terrible (“We’ve already done a third of the picture and I still can’t make head or tail of it”), but it’s the great strength of his performance and Hitchcock’s direction that you don’t notice – or if you do, you don’t care – how it fails to function satisfyingly in terms of a classic spy yarn. It bears some similarities in its chase format to The 39 Steps, but it is even more obscure in purpose and objective. At one point, while Thornhill is up to his neck in it, the Professor is helpfully introduced to explain all the things our hero would usually have to work out for himself (that George Kaplan doesn’t exist, that they know Thornhill is an innocent, but that he’ll have to look out for himself as it wouldn’t serve their purposes to intervene). Later, when the Professor has to explain vital exposition to Thornhill, Hitch helpfully drowns him out with propeller noise.

Roger Thornhill: Kaplan has dandruff.
Mrs Thornhill: In that case, I think we should leave.

Hitchcock wastes no time throwing Thornhill into danger, but the weaving in and out of peril is most curious. Thornhill’s initially interrogated, and then, when his interrogators learn nothing, he has an auto accident arranged. Which he amusingly survives, completely blotto (one wonders why he wasn’t detained until he did talk). Then, it looks as if, for a brief spell, Thornhill will be conducting his investigations with his mother (Jessie Royce Landis, eight years older than Grant) along for the ride; she’s certainly more fun than Eve (“Gentlemen, you aren’t really trying to kill my son, are you?” she asks his pursuers in a lift; Thornhill having to explain “No mother, they didn’t give me a chaser” when he explains how came to be drunk under charge).

Eve: I’m a big girl.
Roger Thornhill: Yes, and in all the right places too.

Despite a very Hitchcock mother complex (see also his next movie) and a decidedly non-macho demeanour, debonair Grant is entirely proto-Bond in his unruffled smoothness. He may not entirely believe he is in mortal danger, but he’s full of droll quips to his kidnappers (“By the way, what are we having for dessert?”), not to mention put downs (asked by a nosy clerk if there’s something wrong with his eyes, the sunglasses-wearing Thornhill replies “Yes, they’re sensitive to questions”). His sex talk would make Roger Moore proud (“The moment I meet an attractive woman, I have to start pretending I have no desire to make love to her”; “I never discuss love on an empty stomach”; happening upon a female patient in bed, she commands him to stop, first in alarm and then because, well, he’s irresistible, isn’t he?)

Thornhill’s also highly inventive, as everymen tend to be in such plots. Perhaps the highlight of this is the auction scene, in which he proves so disruptive that he’s thrown out and thus eludes Vandamm’s men once again. He even uses the old “dollars rather than thousands of dollars” misunderstanding Mel would call upon in Lethal Weapon while trying to buy heroin. Hitchcock may structure the movie around these set pieces – the drunken car sequence; the murder at the UN building (the eye for the iconic frame, almost tableau, with Grant holding the knife in his hand); the long slow burn of pure cinema that leads to the crop duster sequence (Hitch talked to Truffaut about “moments when you have to stop time, to stretch it out”); and of course, Mount Rushmore – but you never feel as if you’re being prodded along artificially, such is his assuredness.

If North by Northwest is the epitome of Hitchcock’s American movies (as Truffaut suggested), it’s also the Grant role, his most Grant-like incarnation of himself, perma-tanned and defying the passage of time (mid-50s but comfortably a decade younger). And he’s ably supported by an actor who can match him in the suave stakes in the form of Mason. Mason makes even slightly mealy dialogue work (“With such expert play acting, you make this very room a theatre”). More importantly he’s every bit as funny as the lead, so makes the bad guy as enjoyable to watch, dryly asking why Thornhill’s shown up at the auction (“What possessed you to come blundering in here like this? Could it be an overpowering interest in art?”) Best of all, he’s entirely unruffled at being apprehended, and so makes a joke at his own expense, having previously been fooled by blanks (“That wasn’t very sporting, using real bullets” at the sight of Leonard being shot).

Eve Marie Saint is fine as the female lead, but suffers from being a post-Kelly blonde foil for Hitchcock. That and the plot requiring her to be unreadable means there’s only so much she can give. Landau is suitably sinister, offering a homoerotic undertone with his “woman’s intuition”. And Caroll, in his sixth and final teaming with Hitch, is like a comfortable old pair of slippers. Bernard Herrmann’s score is of course in a class of its own, along with Saul Bass’ estimable titles.

Various other thematic elements feed into North by Northwest too, of course. The director’s favourite paranoia of an innocent man wrongly accused. Inherent suspicion of women’s motives (not just mothers’). The elemental, no further questions needed, of countries at odds as a driving (and MacGuffin) force, a narrative end in itself. Being Hitchcock, there’s an innate scepticism; while the presence of Carroll is effective short hand that these are the good guys, they are quite willing to use Thornhill to achieve their ends, every bit as much as Mason. And there are the vestments of the more lightweight classic Hitchcock narrative, whereby however perplexing reality becomes, mettle, determination and perseverance – even from an adman – will see order restored. 

In a remark that would have made later purveyors of action cinema proud, the director commented, at the tail end of discussing the crop duster sequence “The fact is I practice absurdity quite religiously!” He went on to detail a scene he couldn’t squeeze into the film where Thornhill and a Ford auto assembly line worker are deep in discussion as they walk along, observing a car being put together and marvelling at it, only for a corpse to drop out when they open the door. Of his reason for not including it, Hitchcock said “Even a gratuitous scene must have some justification for being there, you know”. North by Northwest is a medley of gratuitous scenes, and the skill of it is that you watch spellbound, unmotivated to justify their inclusion.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.