Skip to main content

They must be raising hell in Moscow today.

Topaz
(1969)

(SPOILERS) Torn Curtain was rocky going, a mostly-at-sea Hitchcock vehicle despite inhabiting the spy/thriller genre that made him famous. His follow up, Topaz, however, proved so deficient, it makes Torn Curtain resemble classic-era Hitch. An interminably dull thriller based around the Cuban Missile Crisis, it finding the director returning to a propaganda picture arena not really seen since his World War II features. The difference with Topaz being, it’s fairly difficult to feed audiences views if they’ve fallen asleep.

Deveraux: I’ve got to see what the Russians are up to in Cuba!

Hitchcock was adapting Leon Uris’ best-selling 1967 novel of the same name, so while both title and film are somewhat obscure now, Universal probably had good reason to think they were onto something lucrative; the author had also scored prior a hit with Exodus, turned into a reasonably successful film in 1960. It has been suggested the studio pushed the director into making Topaz. Certainly, the novel, initially adapted by Uris himself – part of his deal – before Samuel A Taylor (Vertigo) was brought in, works almost exclusively against the director’s strengths.

Labyrinthine of plot and extremely talky, there’s little opportunity for Hitch’s traditional visual flourish, less still his mordant sense of humour. The director then compounds the issue – possibly, as some have suggested, due to the unhappy experience of having Paul Newman and Julie Andrews foisted on him in Torn Curtain – by populating his picture with largely inconspicuous character actors. This has the terminal effect of understating the entire experience. A two-and-a-half (near enough) hour film – the director’s longest – feels more like it’s four-and-a-half. Indeed, other than a couple of sequences or shots, you’d be hard-pressed to discern this was a movie from the master of suspense. Much as he derided the responses of the disastrous test screenings, audiences were entirely right to be confused.

Leonard Maltin offers a cheerful defence of the picture in a DVD feature, although he ends up acknowledging many of the reasons it doesn’t work – “quiet, subtle, intelligent”, “European”, “personal” – and while one can put together a coherent argument for why Topaz was just too different, and “not a mainstream Hollywood slam dunk”, that doesn’t really address that, as an engaging piece of storytelling, it stinks. Some comparisons have been made between Uris’ tale and the work of John Le Carré, and I suspect Hitchcock would have been similarly at sea with the intricate demands of a Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Such dense narratives play against, rather than to, his strengths.

Pauline Kael spent most of her review addressing the foibles of auteur theory, but she was on point noting that allegiance can blind one to the true state of affairs: “The movie will probably be acclaimed as a masterpiece by those who think slow, awkwardly timed scenes and bad set ups are deliberately bad; Topaz is full of them”. Catty as her review is, even unabashed enthusiast Maltin accepts this failing, noting the profuse and unconvincing process shots the director had become dependent on – not being a great fan of location shoots – and how they increasingly identified him as out of touch with prevailing filmic trends. Further, there were those who claimed this as a conscious stylistic trait, one to be venerated (see Marnie’s artifice).

I’m genuinely doubtful a star player – Connery has been suggested as the director’s choice – would have done enough to liven up the stodgy structure, but it couldn’t have hurt. Frederick Stafford isn’t bad per se, but he’s stolid in a film that could use anything for a boost. Stafford had previously played OSS 117, and one can perhaps detect Jean Dujardin riffing on his inexpressive permanence in his own, humorous interpretation of the secret agent (however, it seems Dujardin was actually cast for his resemblance to Connery!)

Nordstrom: The way you’re going, you might find yourself on the steps of the Russian embassy tomorrow.

Topaz’s plot is vaguely based on an actual case of communist infiltration of the French government, but to get there we have to endure a massive detour to Cuba. There’s no doubting where Hitch’s – or rather, his masters’, as he absolutely couldn’t give a toss about such things – sympathies lie, since these Russians and Cubans are an invidious lot. Defector Boris Kusenov (Per-Axel Arosenius) takes great pleasure in spilling as few beans as possible to his American benefactors (headed up by John Forsythe’s Michael Nordstrom, looking every one of those fifteen years since he last worked with the director). So French agent André Deveraux (Stafford) is called upon to do what he can, confirming there are missiles in Cuba and then heading over to consort with his mistress Juanita (Karin Dor) and fall foul of Castro stand-in Parra (John Vernon). It’s only when he returns from red heaven that he learns of the Soviet spy ring – Topaz – operating within French Intelligence. Essentially there are two plots here, where one – the Cuban or the spy ring – would have more than sufficed.

Veron’s pretty good as a villainous Cuban, but Dor (SPECTRE agent Helga Brandt in You Only Live Twice) is less memorable, particular in contrast to Dany Robin as Deveraux’s cuckqueaned wife Nicole. They’re additionally encumbered by the inertia of the Cuban scenes. Much like the rest of the picture in that respect. But then, no one, not Connery (him again), not Soderbergh, seems able to make a decent Cuban movie. Michael Bay, I’ll grant you. And Thirteen Days is a decent Cuban missile crisis flick, but it doesn’t spend any time on the ground.

We get to witness what vicious, torture-fixated hounds the Cuban authorities are, so there’s that. And there’s the signature moment – not signature enough to justify 142 minutes of superfluous surrounding footage, mind – where Juanita is shot by Parra and her dress blossoms on the floor beneath her as she falls, like a pool of blood. But the best sequence relating to Cuban events occurs before we go there, as Deveraux employs the services of coolly confident contact Philippe Dubois (Roscoe Lee Browne) to bribe Parra’s secretary Uribe (Donald Randolph) so he can take the necessary photos of documents. Hitch traces out an effective line of tension as Dubois distracts Parra with balcony photos while Uribe removes the briefcase. On discovering it is missing, Parra and his men break into Uribe’s nearby hotel room mid-the spies taking photos, and Dubois quickly legs it out of the window, falling to an awning beneath and dashing off down the street, hotly pursued. It’s a brief glimmer of the director’s flair.

It’s also evidence that the best scenes in the picture are mostly those absent the lead character. A later meeting between the two French Intelligence double agents Granville (Michel Piccoli) and Jarré (Philippe Noiret) is commanding just for the presence of these two actors (an earlier gathering organised by Deveraux finds Noiret stealing the scene by eating throughout). There’s another with Noiret again – perhaps he should have been the lead – and Deveraux’s journalist son-in-law Picard (Michael Subor) where a discussion of terms ends abruptly with the arrival of agents to silence the former.

Hitch intended to finish the film with a duel between Devereaux and old friend, now antagonist, Granville (with whom Nicole has begun an affair), but it was entirely understandably laughed out of test screenings. It is indeed a risible idea to introduce something so flamboyant in a picture otherwise so determinedly devoid of frills and excess. According to Truffaut, Hitch blamed his audience, suggesting that “young Americans have become so materialistic and cynical that they could not accept the concept of chivalrous behaviour”. Not really, it’s simply that the sequence is a complete non sequitur to preceding events.

He also attempted to edit together an ending where it is evident Granville has topped himself. This was the one included in an initial release, along with twenty minutes hacked out of the film. The now accepted “official” version is the original, presumably on the basis that it’s most aligned to Hitch’s vision, although that clearly chopped and changed, but with a third ending. The director purportedly believed was the best of bad bunch, in which we see Granville boarding a plane heading for Soviet shores, waving ta-ta to Devereaux and a now reconciled Nicole as they board a flight to the US.

That ending is appropriately cynical and probably the most Hitch thing here as a result – that the whole spy game is just a game. It’s also a rare ray of humour in a largely dour, drudge of a film. Topaz as a title sounds as if it should be exotic – maybe a heist movie – but unfortunately, it’s far from a gem. It really does deserve its reputation as one of the few abject failures of its director’s career.


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

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

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.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

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