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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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…

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.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism