Skip to main content

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie
(1964)

(SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

That didn’t matter so much with The Birds, because the title characters were everything. Here, the title character is woeful. Which isn’t to say Hedren isn’t a decent performer – although Hitch does his best to undermine her abilities at various points through doggedly emphasising incidents of terrible cheese – but that she doesn’t have that something that makes you want to watch her, to go on a journey with her. Particularly in a story like this one, that quality is crucial.

Hitch reserved his criticism for Hedren’s co-star (although interviewer Francois Truffaut was effusive about his qualities). His is a not dissimilar complaint to Ian Fleming’s initial one of the then-Bond actor: “…I wasn’t convinced that Sean Connery was a Philadelphia gentleman… In a story of this kind you need a real gentleman, a more elegant man than what we had”. Hitch isn’t wrong in his point, but he might have got his gentleman elsewhere and then found he had a less charged screen presence. As Truffaut says, “…he has a sort of animal-like quality that fits perfectly with the sex angle of the story… Only by watching his face very closely can one sense your intention to lead the script into a less conventional direction”. Connery, as one who refers to “arboreal predators of the Brazilian rainforest” – perhaps pre-empting Medicine Man – and studies The Sexual Aberrations of the Female, is definitely less the refined aesthete and more the swaggering jock on a bold adventure.

Of course, one might take issue with Truffaut’s assertion that Connery’s Mark Rutland “is presented to the viewer simply as a protective character”. He does, after all, rape Hedren’s Marnie after initially responding with understanding over her disinclination towards physical intimacy. As with the same year’s Woman of Straw, Connery is consciously playing against the Bond image while profiting from it to pick more varied roles. Now, one might suggest, given some of the actor’s remarks during that era, that he might have seen Rutland as something of a hero, but that seems unlikely. Jay Presson Allen’s screenplay – Joseph Stephano and then Evan Hunter first had a go, the latter objecting to the rape scene – may conclude with the implicit message that Rutland’s particular brand of rough psychology is a success, but his perverse obsession with her problem and attraction to the woman who robbed him but cannot bear to be with him elicits an “I’m sick? Well, take a look at yourself, old dear”. And “You don’t love me. You just think I’m some kind of animal you’ve trapped”. There can be little doubt the kind of man he is.

I tend to think Marnie brought out the worst in the director. Someone else might have relished its absurdity (I can just imagine Verhoeven let loose on it), but every decision Hitchcock makes feels heavy handed. Marnie’s thief is drearily fixated on approval/love from her mother (Louise Latham, heavily made up and acting like it; she was only eight years older than Hedren). She’s even jealous of the little girl who comes visiting. Every scene between them is crudely over directed and just waiting for the reveal of the dark secret at the heart of this mother-daughter relationship (courtesy of a flashback featuring Bruce Dern).

On top of which, Marnie’s literal seeing red is hilariously daft and overwrought; it would have been much more at home in Mel Brooks’ spoof High Anxiety and is tantamount to “Cleaning lady?!” in Dead Men Don’t War Plaid (when Marnie gets red ink on her blouse, the screen flashes apocalyptically red). I’m not sure Hitch is clever enough to deal with such psychological material, because his instinct is always to go for the jugular: whatever will create the most impact. Which isn’t to say Marnie is dramatic – for the most part it’s as meandering as Vertigo – but that when it comes to it, Hitch gets as leery as he possibly can with Marnie’s sexual distress.

He sort of sets up Marnie as a “What if?” his Psycho opening hadn’t been detoured. But instead of a rash deed, the perpetrator robs her company with her eyes wide open. And yet, after the opening, he drops the ball. Connery’s much better than his rather bland character, while Hedren simply makes Marnie as shrill and pierced as anyone playing her too literally would. A few incidents stand out, but not necessarily for good reasons. During Marnie’s extended (over-extended) “wooing” and “treatment”, we meet Diane Baker as Mark’s hanger-on ex-sister-in-law. She has a thing for him and offers a frisson of feline friction. Marnie’s love of horses also leads to a particularly overripe sequence in which she must put her injured nag out of its misery (some of Hitch’s backdrops are downright appalling, none more so than his attempts to convey Marnie riding in the studio). But there’s also an expertly managed vignette in which Marnie robs Mark’s place of work and attempts to tiptoe out to avoid a cleaner. She noisily drops her shoe, but fortunately the cleaner is deaf as a post

As I revisit Hitch’s last handful of pictures, I’m more than willing to give the ones I didn’t rate another chance, to discover hitherto unrecognised merits. But there’s something rather drab and beaten down about Marnie, for all the strident manner in which its lead sees red at intervals. It may go back to the issue I had with Vertigo, that I’m not really interested in any of the characters. Hitch pointed to a problem with the supporting parts, that “I had the feeling that I didn’t know these people, the family in the background”. But it’s more that his main ones are a cod-psychology diagnosis masquerading as a character, and James Bond attempting to fashion something out of nothing. And then there’s its sexual politics, which were rather reactionary even in 1964.

Pauline Kael dismissed Marnie as “Hitchcock scraping bottom”, although I assume that was prior to her seeing Topaz. Geoff Andrew called it “neither thriller nor psychodrama” in Time Out, but a “perverse romance”. However, he loses me completely when he goes on to describe it as “lush, cool and oddly moving”. I don’t think Kael’s quite right – I’d sooner eke out hidden nuggets in this than his The Man Who Knew Too Much remake – but we’re definitely straining for bona fide positives.





Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

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.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

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

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .