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.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It’ll be like living in the top drawer of a glass box.

Someone’s Watching Me! (1978) (SPOILERS) The first of a pair of TV movies John Carpenter directed in the 1970s, but Someone’s Watching Me! is more affiliated, in genre terms, to his breakout hit ( Halloween ) and reasonably successful writing job ( The Eyes of Laura Mars ) of the same year than the also-small-screen Elvis . Carpenter wrote a slew of gun-for-hire scripts during this period – some of which went on to see the twilight of day during the 1990s – so directing Someone’s Watching Me! was not a given. It’s well-enough made and has its moments of suspense, but you sorely miss a signature Carpenter theme – it was by Harry Sukman, his penultimate work, the final being Salem’s Lot – and it really does feel very TV movie-ish.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

By whom will this be rectified? Your ridiculously ineffectual assassins?

The X-Files 3.2: Paperclip Paperclip recovers ground after The Blessing Way stumbled slightly in its detour, and does so with some of the series’ most compelling dramatics so far. As well as more of Albert performing prayer rituals for the sick (perhaps we could spend some time with the poor guy over breakfast, or going to the movies? No, all he’s allowed is stock Native American mysticism).

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

That’s what it’s all about. Interrupting someone’s life.

Following (1998) (SPOILERS) The Nolanverse begins here. And for someone now delivering the highest-powered movie juggernauts globally – that are not superhero or James Cameron movies – and ones intrinsically linked with the “art” of predictive programming, it’s interesting to note familiar themes of identity and limited perception of reality in this low-key, low-budget and low-running time (we won’t see much of the latter again) debut. And, naturally, non-linear storytelling. Oh, and that cool, impersonal – some might say clinical – approach to character, subject and story is also present and correct.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008) (SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanley was well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley , our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“ too syrupy ”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog.  Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has c