Skip to main content

I must be soft in the head, letting a suspected strangler put his arms around me.

Frenzy
(1972)

(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s penultimate film isn’t quite a return to form – it can’t quite get past an unengaging protagonist and shifting perspectives that, in contrast to stablemate Psycho, fail to coalesce into more than the sum of its parts – but after two decidedly broke-backed pictures, Frenzy is demonstrable evidence he still had what it took. If Torn Curtain, aside from that scene, saw Hitch struggling to remain relevant in the 1960s, Frenzy feels like a film of the 1970s, as much as it owes its homeland flavour to the 1930s works that established the director as such a force to be reckoned with.

It’s also very nasty. The title evokes something from a later generation, the likes of Brian De Palma or David Cronenberg, and if Hitch had previously shocked with the “explicitness” of Psycho, Frenzy finds him fully on board with testing the new-found permissiveness towards sex and violence. In that respect, Frenzy’s a rather sobering wake up call, recognition of the idea that the director’s creativity inventiveness may have been most spurred, hitherto, by what he could only suggest. The protracted rape and murder of Brenda (Barbara Leigh-Hunt) seems designed to do for such material the very thing Torn Curtain delivered in the difficulty of killing a man. Hitch is unflinching and ruthless in his focus as Brenda comes to realise Bob’s intentions. And you have to wonder at the sadist at play in a director not once but twice “artfully” arranging Bob’s victims with their tongues hanging out, in equal parts designed to disturb and ridicule their fate.

Bob Rusk (Barry Foster) is an evident throwback to the socially-mobile murderers of Strangers on a Train and Shadow of a Doubt, only more so; he’s a regular Jack the Lad, popular around the markets and cheerful and chipper to all. It’s easy to see why, reputedly, the part was offered to Michael Caine. Who considered it disgusting and turned it down (Dressed to Kill and The Hand were presumably more to his tastes). Foster, about to make a name for himself on TV as Van Der Valk, wears something of Caine’s cheerful informality, along with a passing resemblance to a young Jon Pertwee (well, more Sean, to be honest) by way of Jimmy Savile (his “lovely… lovely… lovely…” as he climaxes is as unsettling as anything in that rape-murder scene, and Bob too is very devoted to his old mum).

One can’t help but notice that, in trying to remain relevant in his return to serial-killer fare, Hitchcock borrows key cast member Anna Massey from Michael Powell’s career-stranding Peeping Tom (“I’m Helen Stephens, and I’m having a party…”). Although, Powell spares Helen, while Hitch delights in defiling Babs. Not in an on-screen murderous act, but through throwing her about as a cadaverous sack of potatoes in a lorry filled with sacks of potatoes during a bravura sequence in which the murderer attempts to recover a vital tie pin (it’s Strangers on a Train’s lighter revisited). Helen Mirren turned the part down. Notably, and creditably given the lingering previously, Hitch abstains from showing Babs’ death (although there’s a flashback), instead pulling back from the doorway and across the street as Bob and Babs enter. He’s telling us he doesn’t need to show the same horrors twice. We’re sure to have got the message first time.

Anthony Schaffer adapted Frenzy from the post-WWII setting of Arthur Le Berns’ 1966 novel Goodbye Piccadilly, Farewell Leicester Square (the start of something of a trio of successes for Schaffer, followed as it was by Sleuth the same year and The Wicker Man the year after). Some of the forensic psychoanalysis is on the dry side, tending a little too much towards Psycho for my tastes – it’s this element that most dates the content and director’s mindset – but the actually interaction between Inspector Oxford (Alec McCowan) and his wife (Vivien Merchant) is a stroke of genius and as memorable as anything in the picture. She continually serves her husband revolting gourmet dishes as he discusses the progress of his case. In response, she offers sharp intuitive advice that invariably proves correct (such as why Jon Finch’s ex-husband Dick cannot be the murderer of Brenda).

This kind of black humour continues elsewhere, some of it way beyond the bounds of acceptable black humour today (“Well, I suppose it’s nice to know every cloud has a silver lining” Gerald Sim’s solicitor cheerfully replies to the bar lady who has noted the way the murderer “Rapes them first, doesn’t he?”) The cynicism is readily recognisable too: “Well, we haven’t had a good juicy series of sex murders since Christie, and they’re so good for the tourist trade.” One also has to wonder if it was an intentional slight that Frenzy begins with an ecology-minded political speech, swiftly forgotten when a body is seen floating in the Thames.

As impressive as Foster is, the supporting cast are also keenly chosen. Bernard Cribbins is suitably arsey as Babs’ publican boss (and Dick’s ex-boss). Leigh-Hunt is very good as is the innately sympathetic Massey. Billie Whitelaw is memorably merciless when it comes to Dick protesting his innocence (and her husband Clive Swift resoundingly feeble in defending him). Jean Marsh plays against type as Brenda’s shrewish secretary. Elsie Randolph, who worked with the director forty years earlier in Rich and Strange, also has a small role.

However, Truffaut is right about Jon Finch’s “self-centred sullenness” as protagonist Dick Blaney (I disagree that Foster is “too lightweight to inspire the viewers with fear”, though, even assuming inspiring fear is even the point). There’s an imbalance here that often afflicted the director’s leading men when they weren’t Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant, and Finch is much too earnest and serious in his performance to be winning or even engaging.

The consequence is that Dick’s incarceration, successfully stitched up by mate Bob, is far less interesting than the classic Hitch manoeuvre of investing us in the villain’s evasion of justice when Bob ends up in the back of a truck trying to recover vital evidence. Doubtless recalling what he saw as a mistake in the hero’s absence from the climax in the original The Man Who Knew Too Much, Hitch has Dick make an unlikely prison break so he can be at the scene when Bob is finally caught (actually, this might have worked if the way things initially look – Oxford walking in on Bob standing over the latest victim – had been the ending of the picture. Instead, Bob staggers in with a trunk moments later). Nevertheless, Oxford’s “Mr Rusk, you’re not wearing your tie is a classic final line”.

Hitch’s choice to shoot on location pays off in terms of verisimilitude, as does the cast of mostly contemporary performers. They curb his old-school tendencies as much as the opportunity for graphic visuals. There’s only the occasional process shot, so the commonplace artifice of Torn Curtain is mercifully absent. Ron Goodwin has written some fine scores, but his work here tends a bit too much to “prestige British stodge” (I’d have been interested to hear Henry Mancini’s rejected ideas). Frenzy is a strong picture in many respects, but it lacks that extra something to push into the realm of one of his greats; there isn’t a sufficiently striking character to anchor the proceedings – Foster is very good, but we’re never with him quite long enough – and the plot lacks a sufficiently distinctive hook. Instead it’s claim to fame is Hitchcock uncensored, and that could never been enough in and of itself.


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

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.