Anyone feel this is Hitchcock's best?
Most people would say Vertigo, Psycho, or Rear Window, but I say this film! Anyone agree?
shareDepends . . . . . .
shareOn the IQ!
share
MovieChat Forums > North by Northwest (1959) Discussion > Anyone feel this is Hitchcock's best?
Its one of my favorites. Love it. I cant pick one that's my favorite. I have more than one.
shareI agree! This is my favorite Hitchcock film!
Prostitute: What the *beep* are you doing?
Johnny: I'm gonna kill a bunch of people.
In my book, only "Psycho" beats it, and its a virtual tie.
"North by Northwest" remains the biggest movie of Hitchcock's career, a matter of budget and clout.
A big star as the hero: Cary Grant
A big star as the villain: James Mason
A big enough star as the heroine: Eva Marie Saint
(Never before or after NBNW, could Hitchcock bill three stars over the title like that, unless one counts the less starry cast of The Paradine Case, I guess.)
A cast of "scores" in support, from top dogs Martin Landau(debuting), Leo G. Carroll and Jessie Royce Landis to practically every contract bit player in Hollywood(including Ed "Sorry About That Chief" Platt and the bartender from The Trouble With Tribbles on Star Trek.)
Technicolor. VistaVision.
Bernard Herrmann's most exciting action score(A "kaleidoscopic fandango") he called it.
Ernest Lehman's brilliantly structured(with Hitchcock), ultra-witty and sometimes downright hilarious script(with flashes of seriousness to keep the gravitas of the thriller in place.)
A "3,000 mile chase" from New York City to the faces of Mount Rushmore. (By contrast, "Rear Window" stays put in a Greenwich Village apartment complex.)
Three big action set-pieces(drunk drive, crop duster, Rushmore), the latter two of which are classics of all time.
The great UN murder scene.
The almost entirely verbal direct sexuality of the Grant-Saint seduction on the 20th Century Limited.
A screwball comedy-suspense auction scene.
"It all comes together here" wrote one critic, and "Psycho" a year later may have been scarier and more ground-breaking...but it wasn't BIGGER.
Nothing was, in Hitchocck, bigger than "North by Northwest." Its his epic and his most entertaining movie("The Wizard of Oz" for adults in theme and classic status)...and it launched plenty of movies after it: Goldfinger, Silver Streak, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Die Hard, The Matrix...all owe something to NBNW.
[deleted]
While it's my favorite Hitchcock movie to revisit over and over again, I think Vertigo, Shadow of a Doubt and The 39 Steps are better films.
shareEcarle seems to state it all . . . not much to add . . . my favorite? Well, I actually have one other of his works as my fav . . .
shareEcarle:
I can understand how someone could choose "Psycho" as his favorite Hitchcock film: it IS scary; Perkins in particular is wonderful; Herrmann's work is brilliant; Hitchcock toys with the audience hilariously in the car-sinking-in-the-swamp scene; the entire cop on the tail of Marion and the used car sequences are first-rate in both dialogue and editing; the shower scene is a masterpiece of composition and editing, deservedly one of the most famous scenes in film history; and the elimination of Leigh at that point in the film is the epitomy of audacity, an answer for all those who "knew" that Cary Grant could not be killed in the drunk on the winding road scene so early in "NNW." There are plenty of other nice touches all through the film.
I think the ensemble performances, Hermann's music, the overall editing are better in "NNW," but that's just a matter of taste.
To me, the decisive point, and one I'd like you to address, is the respective screenplays. In my book, the only original screenplay that can rival Lehman's in ingenious dialogue and structure is Chayefsky's "Network." I think the Lehman scenario here (at least in its final form, i.e. the continuity script) does not have a false note. Every single line is perfection. There are no wasted words. To quote the author of "The A-Z of Hitchcock," "every line...has clearly been considered and rolled over the tongue for ultimate amusement and impact." In contrast, I wouldn't call "Psycho" a perfect screenplay. The opening scene in the hotel is a bit dull, though necessary I suppose as a set-up. Cassidy's lines are a little over the top. It is by no means a poor or even mediocre script--it has a lot going for it, Perkins has some very cleverly written lines, but it isn't a "North By Northwest."
Ecarle:
---
Greetings!
---
I can understand how someone could choose "Psycho" as his favorite Hitchcock film: it IS scary; Perkins in particular is wonderful; Herrmann's work is brilliant; Hitchcock toys with the audience hilariously in the car-sinking-in-the-swamp scene; the entire cop on the tail of Marion and the used car sequences are first-rate in both dialogue and editing; the shower scene is a masterpiece of composition and editing, deservedly one of the most famous scenes in film history; and the elimination of Leigh at that point in the film is the epitomy of audacity, an answer for all those who "knew" that Cary Grant could not be killed in the drunk on the winding road scene so early in "NNW." There are plenty of other nice touches all through the film.
---
Oh, yes...and ALSO keep in mind that I simply love everything from when Arbogast enters "Psycho"(as a "big head" literally filling the screen in the hardware store) to when he leaves "Psycho"(as a big head slashed on a staircase)
And the parlor scene between Norman and Marion is one of the screen's great scenes -- a scene of literally mixed emotions(a "love scene"? a "connection scene"? A terror scene?)
And don't forget the effect of the final fruit cellar scene on screaming audiences:
OMG...look at Mother's skull face!
OMG...look at Norman dressed like Mother!
Plus the famous face-into-skull-into-swamp cell scene with Norman...
---
----
I think the ensemble performances, Hermann's music, the overall editing are better in "NNW," but that's just a matter of taste.
---
It seemed at the time that "North by Northwest" and "Psycho" were as far apart as two movies could be -- one expensive, gigantic, in Techniclor and VistaVision with a climax on Mount Rushmore, the other cheap, spare, in b/w and with a climax in a fruit cellar.
And yet...released barely a year apart(and BOTH as summer films)..."North by Northwest" and "Psycho" are Hitchcock's greatest entertainments, to my mind. "Vertigo" and "Rear Window" are more cloistered, with Deep Thoughts on their mind. "North by Northwest" and "Psycho" take us up, up, up and out of ourselves, the summit of screen excitement for their time.
Together, "North by Northwest" and "Psycho" pretty much set the pace for all thrillers after them, perhaps in surprising ways:
North by Northwest: The Bond series, Silver Streak, Raiders, Die Hard, The Matrix
Psycho: Cape Fear, The Manchurian Candidate, Wait Until Dark, Rosemary's Baby, Night of the Living Dead, Dirty Harry(yep), The Exorcist, Hallloween, Friday the 13th, Silence of the Lambs
And if you mix "North by Northwest" AND "Psycho" , I think you get: Jaws and Marathon Man, among others.
And again: released one after the other in the Hitchcock canon, virtually back-to-back. Amazing!
---
To me, the decisive point, and one I'd like you to address, is the respective screenplays. In my book, the only original screenplay that can rival Lehman's in ingenious dialogue and structure is Chayefsky's "Network." I think the Lehman scenario here (at least in its final form, i.e. the continuity script) does not have a false note. Every single line is perfection. There are no wasted words. To quote the author of "The A-Z of Hitchcock," "every line...has clearly been considered and rolled over the tongue for ultimate amusement and impact." In contrast, I wouldn't call "Psycho" a perfect screenplay. The opening scene in the hotel is a bit dull, though necessary I suppose as a set-up. Cassidy's lines are a little over the top. It is by no means a poor or even mediocre script--it has a lot going for it, Perkins has some very cleverly written lines, but it isn't a "North By Northwest."
---
Well, I think that they are BOTH perfect screenplays, but of decidedly different types.
The Lehman screenplay has great one-liners for Cary Grant, sexy lines for Eva Marie Saint, GREAT erudite speeches(AND one-liners) for James Mason...and good lines for everybody else. But this screenplay is rather in the "old Hollywood tradition." Mason's over-elegant speeches practically write themselves, for instance. Meanwhile, a few of Cary Grant's one liners fall flat for me: "Poured any good drunks lately?" is one. But the overall structure, flow, pace and wit of "North by Northwest" truly reflects a great screenplay.
Joseph Stefano was a much less seasoned screenwriter than the more expensive Ernest Lehman...but it is amazing how great the "Psycho" script is. Following the tight structure of Bloch's book -- but improving upon it in the plot twists -- Stefano's script is, to me, filled with a mordant, macabre wit that "North by Northwest" isn't quite allowed to have -- not to mention a few "horror lines" like "I'll replace that money with her fine soft flesh" and "It would be cold and damp like the grave."
I actually feel that "Psycho" has more famous lines than "North by Northwest": "A boy's best friend is his mother," "Mother's not quite herself today," "We're all caught in our private traps," "We all go a little mad sometimes.." "She may have fooled me, but she didn't fool my Mother..." "Why, she wouldn't harm a fly..."
The Sam-Marion dialogue in the hotel room is a LITTLE expository, but not nearly as bad as the first Scottie-Midge scene in Vertigo or several scenes in The Birds. One gets the plight of Marion romantically(with Sam) and professionally(at the real estate office) with a nice sense of minimal exposition that reflects Psycho itself.
The Marion/Norman and Arbogast/Norman dialogues are all-time greats to me.
And even the infamous shrink speech at the end seems rather brilliantly written to me, flowing along with backstory and new information and an explanation of "what happened" that seems right and real...even if a bit pompous, which is the point.
Nope...I'm afraid that not only do I think that both North by Northwest and Psycho have equally great screenplays...I think that they are pretty much a tie for the two GREATEST screenplays in the whole Hitchcock canon(the Vertigo screenplay, for instance, is often overwrought, and the Rear Window screenplay tends to bog down in clever chit-chat.)
---
Note in passing: how great is it taht James Mason so often gets to TOP Cary Grant's lines, like here:
Grant: I suppose the only role that will satisfy you is when I play dead.
Mason: Your very next performance. You'll be most convincing, I assure you.
Or here:
Grant: Supppose I told you that not only do I know your travel plans tomorrow night, but your rendevous point and your ultimate destination?
Mason: (Beat) You wouldn't care to carry my bags, would you?
Or topping the whole damn MOVIE:
Mason: Not quite sporting, using real bullets.
----
And I've always liked Cary Grant saying to Leo G. Carroll: "You and your dopey schemes...."
PS. As a purely personal matter, way back in 1967 when I was a kid, "North by Northwest" was easily viewed by the whole family on the CBS Friday Night movie. Meanwhile, "Psycho" had been cancelled the year before on the CBS Friday Night movie...and appeared in 1967 as a late-night local ABC affiliate special showing that most kids(me included) were forbidden to watch. The kids that DID get to watch...TOLD Psycho to the rest of us.
And so, as a "starting point," in 1967, North by Northwest was the greatest chase adventure movie I'd ever seen in my young life...but Psycho was deemed too horrible to even GET to see. It set the course for my whole life with those two movies.
Yes, you have pointed out some of the memorable dialogue scenes from "Psycho," but we've just scratched the surface of "North By Northwest":
The scene between Thornhill and Maggie, in which his character is smoothly and efficiently (and amusingly) revealed; the scene between Thornhill and Vandamm in the study; all the repartee between Thornhill and Mother (including the one-sided conversations at the police station and grand Central); the suspenseful scene at the U.N.; the tremendous scenes between Thornhill and Eve on the Twentieth Century Limited; the scene between Thornhill and the farmer (!); the scene between Thornhill and Eve in her Chicago hotel room; the auction scene (!); the police car scene; the Thornhill and Professor exchanges; the Thornhill and Vandamm scene in the gift shop; the forest scene; the hospital scene; the Vandamm and Leonard scene; the Thornhill and Eve dialogue on Mount Rushmore; and the final lines linking Mount Rushmore to the drawing-room on the train--that's right, I've just run through the entire film!!
that's right, I've just run through the entire film!!
---
Well, with the great screenplays -- and the great movies -- one pretty much CAN (or has to) run through the entire film! Every scene is great, every line is great, every character's acted reading OF the lines is great...
For many years, North by Northwest was my favorite movie of all time, with Psycho behind BECAUSE Psycho always seemed so spare and minimal compared to the "feast" of "North by Northwest." If "Psycho" has risen in my estimation, it is because what happens in THAT Hitchcock movie now turns out to be just about the most historic things to happen in movie history. Honestly. Looking back, its all there.
Some have noted that "North by Northwest" rather closes out Hitchcock's "Old Hollywood period" -- with a full-tilt big studio production with all the trimmings -- and "Psycho" rather begins Hitchcock's "New Hollywood period" -- a short period for HIM(The SciFi of The Birds, the sexual perversities of Marnie and Frenzy, the nuclear politics of his cold war films), but big for the movies(Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, etc).
I'm not comfortable pitting "North by Northwest" AGAINST "Psycho"(or their screenplays against each other) because to me they are perfect films, perfect adventures, perfect dreams(one exciting, one scary as hell.)
In fact, I'm a little regretful that I downgraded the scripts of "Vertigo" and "Rear Window" against "North by Northwest" and "Psycho."
That said, I DO think the "Vertigo" script is flawed in many places(Hitchcock's images and Herrmann's music and the weirdness of the film overcomes it), and "Rear Window" IS rather hamstrung by spending so much time stuck in Stewart's apartment with murder mystery exposition and cocktail wit in never-ending supply.
Versus "Vertigo" and "Rear Window," "North by Northwest" and "Psycho" are "journey films" -- road films - and they MOVE, and thus the scenes and lines are compartmentalized one after the other in memorable greatness.
BTW, of all the scenes you mentioned above from NBNW, rorysa, my favorite is "the scene between Thornhill and Vandamm in the study" -- an absolutely absorbing mix of great dialogue, great camera angles, great camera moves, with Mason's "Games? Must we?" and "With your expert play-acting, you make this very room a theater" rather launching the whole movie. What I like about this long set-up scene is how "civil" it is...even as it becomes nightmarishly clear to Cary Grant that he has been mistaken for a spy and will not survive the evening if Mason and his ominous crew have anything to do with it. Just a great scene.
I honestly do believe that Grant and Mason had a ball filming that study sequence . . . it's so well done . . . concise, poointed, and yes, mysterious . . . smooth and flawless . . . it's a delight to watch . . .
shareWhat's also great about the scene is you have two characters occupying the same space/time but otherwise in two separate realities, each totally confident of his own position but each totally clueless about the other.
shareJust fantastic: they both have mistaken identities--Vandamm thinks Thornhill is Kaplan, and Thornhill thinks Vandamm is Townsend; Vandamm lights the scene; Thornhill remains arrogant (he knows where he's going--to the Winter Garden Theater); Thornhill can't talk his way out of the situation, and the identification cards he (and we) all use in our daily lives are shrugged off. And, of course, my favorite Mason invention for the scene--after leaving the study and silently looking off to tell his henchmen to proceed with their dirty work, that cock of his head.
But as you know, I think ALL the scenes in this film are that fantastic.
Vandamm thinks Thornhill is Kaplan, and Thornhill thinks Vandamm is Townsend;
---
How brilliant is that, eh? Vandamm's wrong because his boys picked up the wrong package; Thornhill's wrong because he read a mail label on a tube to Townsend! It goes downhill from there.
--- Vandamm lights the scene;
This bit is great for so many reasons: first of all, its oddball reference to how Grace Kelly SEDUCTIVELY lit the lamps for James Stewart in Rear Window)thus giving this first meeting of Thornhill and Vandamm, yes, a rather romantic if not quite homoerotic charge; Vandamm closes the curtains and lights the room because it is dusk...and danger and night lie ahead for Thronhill(one film later in Psycho, Arbogast will visit Norman at dusk at the scene will aGAIN shift from light to dark ominously); and there is the sexual-but-funny matched circular "dance" of Vandamm and Thornhill via camera moves.
I don't meant to imply that Hitchcock is seeking to imply a DIRECT gay link twixt Thornhill and Vandamm -- but he DOES use romantic shots in this lamp lighting sequence in order to turn "the look of love" into something macho and sinister.
---
Thornhill remains arrogant (he knows where he's going--to the Winter Garden Theater);
---
The Winter Garden theater in 1958/58 was playing "West Side Story," soon to be a 1961 movie scripted by...Ernest Lehman!
---
Thornhill can't talk his way out of the situation, and the identification cards he (and we) all use in our daily lives are shrugged off.
---
"They provide you with such good ones." With one deft line, Martin Landau's Leonard renders useless the VERY items that we use EVERYWHERE to prove that "we are who we say we are." Again, brilliant.
---
And, of course, my favorite Mason invention for the scene--after leaving the study and silently looking off to tell his henchmen to proceed with their dirty work, that cock of his head.
---
Its all he needs to do..and Hitchcock noted that in an interview. He gave the plotting to Leonard and the killing to Valerian the Knifeman...Vandamm keeps his hands clean.
---
I rather love the shot where Hitchcock "travels the close-up" of Thornhill walking to the door to leave for the WinterGarten, and is blocked by Valerian when he opens the door, whereupon Thornhill turns into a medium close-up and expresses with oh-no-now-I-get it desperation: "Townsend, you're making a SERIOUS mistake!" A great powerful shot, filmed in the Hitchcock manner. (Thornhill's desperation sounds earlier when he says "I've never even BEEN in Pittsburgh."
And as I've noted before, I rewind and rewind again just to hear James Mason smoothly say:
"Rapid City, South Dakota."
---
But as you know, I think ALL the scenes in this film are that fantastic.
Me too -- but there is just something great about how rapidly the movie "launches" with two rather similar men(Dapper, fifty-something and British-gone-Yank Grant and Mason) facing off.
For what it is worth:
A new 2012 book on the making of Frenzy quotes Wall Street Journal critic Terry Teachout(near the end of the book, in a rumination on Hitchcock's whole career). In Teachout's article, "The Trouble With Alfred Hitchcock," he writes:
"Hitchcock, far from being a great creative artist, was actually a minor master who succeeded in creating only one fully realized masterpiece: North by Northwest."
Too bad I disagree with every thing up to the word "fully."
Hmm... I actually can agree with this. The modifier "great creative" tempers the "far from." His films are very good thrillers (before the descent into whatever you choose to call the 60's zeitgeist, as reflected in Psycho et. al.). North By Northwest is a fully realized masterpiece. So to each his/her own.
shareIt's a movie that can truly be analyzed endlessly--there is so much to it!
Vandamm enters cautious, curious . . . as an inquiring cat he slinks about the room turning on the lights (what is this?--an interrogation room? Exactly what it is!) . . . and carefully examines his prey . . . the prey seems a bit more sophisticated from previous candidates (or victims?--that guy that Leonard mentions) . . .
Grant's not applying for a job (he already has one in the "real" world--however the study scene takes us away from "reality," or whatever we call our daily esistence--and now we enter, shall we call it, an "alternative" world--which is exactly what this movie is all about!) . . . though the interview goes on, Thornhill's reluctant to enter this "other" domain . . . however, Vandamm seems confident of hinsels and reads Thornhill's future itinerary--which Thornhill dutifully follows!
And all of this is done superbly--smooth as silk . . . with nary a missed beat . . .
This critical study scene is Thornhill's entre into the "alternative" world, which he will now inhabit throuhout the rest of the film . . . as Vandamm blithely goes about his business . . . whatever that business is.
Excellently done . . . Hitchcock's grip is firm.
Ecarle mentions a homosexual slant--no, Vandamm and Thornhill are not! . . . however, Vandamm is a bit nasty here. . . he leaves Leonard to do the gay seducing (which, as we know, doesn't quite succeed--nor will it in future). (The scene where Roger is being held down by Vandamm's minions, and being forced fed the liquor could be construed as a gay seduction--which, ultimately, does not succeed--which Vandamm will learn about later--but, hey, try anything to succeed--one can never tell what might work.)
________________________________________
So many angles to this great film . . .
It's a movie that can truly be analyzed endlessly--there is so much to it!
---
This is true of so many Hitchcock pictures, but NBNW -- as the longest and most epic of Hitchcocks -- seems to have "so much more to cover." Consider the sheer number of characters in this study scene...and how important each will be in his own way as the film moves on.
"His" way, because intriguingly for a Hitchcock picture, this is a room full of MEN...except for "Mrs. Townsend" who pops in and surprises us by adding a matter-of-fact feminine hostess angle to the macho interrogation. And "Mrs. Townsend," importantly, will still be at the Townsend house,when Thornhill brings the cops(Valerian's the unnoticed gardener) thereby challenging his tale of kidnapping and attempted murder. Then, in a final note at the end, Vandamm reveals that "Mrs. Townsend" was really...HIS SISTER! (An "all in the family spy ring" -- the tough Valerian turns out to have Brunhilda the Housemaid as his wife.)
---
Vandamm enters cautious, curious . . . as an inquiring cat he slinks about the room turning on the lights (what is this?--an interrogation room? Exactly what it is!) . . . and carefully examines his prey . . .
---
Yes, in addition to the "romantic"(not quite homosexual) angle of Vandamm's circling advance, he is certainly MENACING and cat-like, and Thornhill is on guard -- so on guard, I might add, that the audience laughs a little, which is how NBNW stays humorous and suspenseful at the same time.
---
the prey seems a bit more sophisticated from previous candidates
---
"A bit taller than the others...a bit more polished." Vandamm's observation is ironic: it should tell him he HAS kidnapped the wrong guy: a rich New York smoothie, not a Washington DC bureaucrat. Leonard later compounds this "A well-tailored one." Thornhill is NOT a typical DC military-espionage-looking kind of man.
---
(or victims?--that guy that Leonard mentions) . . .
---
"since Jason....committed 'suicide.'" How Leonard tells us that Jason (first name or last? I guess last) "committed 'suicide'" -- tells us...he DIDN'T commit suicide. Vandamm's squad killed him.
"Or victims?" YES! One of the great points of "NBNW" to me is how Leo G. Carroll's callous CIA professor has evidently been sending man after man after Vandamm..and all of them get killed(The Professor mentions the OTHER victims in one of his speeches.) And Leo G. is in the process of sending Eve Kendall to her certain death(he wants her to fly to "the other side" with Vandamm and as Thornhill himself tells the Prof...she's likely to get killed...which turns out to be exactly her possible fate) before Thornhill rescues her. Insanity has been defined as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." This is what the Professor does. Irony: finally, it is the Professor who saves the lives of Eve and Thornhill(on Mount Rushmore), but only grudgingly, "because he has to."
---
Grant's not applying for a job (he already has one in the "real" world--however the study scene takes us away from "reality," or whatever we call our daily esistence--and now we enter, shall we call it, an "alternative" world--which is exactly what this movie is all about!)
--
Yep, I've always seen this study scene as "Thornhill through the Looking Glass." Vandamm is a rather more articulate and calm Mad Hatter -- thoroughly unwilling to listen to reason about Thornhill's real identity of the mistake of Vandamm's men(maybe this is an ego thing.)
---
. . . though the interview goes on, Thornhill's reluctant to enter this "other" domain . . . however, Vandamm seems confident of hinsels and reads Thornhill's future itinerary--which Thornhill dutifully follows!
---
Mason's reading of that itinerary is so great to listen to, a speech with rhythm and authroity and wit and that great "Rapid City" reading. With the capper "So there's no point in convincing us that you are deceiving us anymore than in your believing we are deceiving you." Or something like that.
And Mason is basically telling us WHERE THE MOVIE IS GOING TO GO. Thronhill follows the itinerary to try to find Kaplan, and ends up following Vandamm. (While Eve follows THORNHILL on Vandamm's orders!)
That itinerary forecasts the fate of each man in the room, BTW, those men are part of the adventure ahead: Licht(the bald henchman) will die in the crop-duster in Indiana. Valerian the Knife Man(so IDed when he peforms his United Nations assassination) will be thrown off of Mount Rushmore and Leonard will be shot off of it. Vandamm will be captured there("Not very sporting...") I do rather like the idea that every man in the room will be killed or captured because "Thronhill the amateur and wrong man" outwits or outfights(Valerian) them all.
---
And all of this is done superbly--smooth as silk . . . with nary a missed beat . . .
---
One of the myriad pleasures of North by Northwest is to listen to Cary Grant and James Mason trade lines in this scene...their GREAT smooth voices are like musical instruments in duet. But all the lines are good, the timing is great...and the CINEMATICS(use of darkness, use of light, camera angles, camera moves) is perfect, too.
James Mason told a funny story about how Martin Landau("New, young, hungry") told him how he was going to "build his performance" over the length of the study scene, building to menace slowly and staying in "Method" charaacter. What Landau didn't know, Mason said, was that Hitchcock was not going to shoot the study scene IN SEQUENCE. High angles came first, then low, then each actor doing his total lines in the scene alone, then all the two-shots, etc. Mason laughed recalling Landau's naivete.
---
This critical study scene is Thornhill's entre into the "alternative" world, which he will now inhabit throuhout the rest of the film . . . as Vandamm blithely goes about his business . . . whatever that business is.
---
"Importing exporting, perhaps. Government secrets, perhaps."
--
Excellently done . . . Hitchcock's grip is firm.
---
Hitchcock would lose that grip starting about at "The Birds"(old age, health, the changing times.) "NBNW" like Vertigo ahead of it and Psycho after it, reflects Hitchcock at the peak of his skills, and his Hollywood clout.
---
Ecarle mentions a homosexual slant--no, Vandamm and Thornhill are not! . . . however, Vandamm is a bit nasty here. . . he leaves Leonard to do the gay seducing (which, as we know, doesn't quite succeed--nor will it in future). (The scene where Roger is being held down by Vandamm's minions, and being forced fed the liquor could be construed as a gay seduction--which, ultimately, does not succeed--which Vandamm will learn about later--but, hey, try anything to succeed--one can never tell what might work.)
---
I want to make sure I don't suggest that Vandamm and Thornhill are homosexuals a courtin' each other. It is simply that by using the "Grace Kelly lights the lamps" scene from "Rear Window"(romantic) to bring Vandamm into the movie...Hitchcock is toying with MOOD. BTW, you might say that in "Rear Window," Kelly's lighting of the lamps is SINISTER. Certainly her first appearance as a big shadow looming onto the sleeping Stewart's face suggests a menacing killer. Its rather like Truffaut's too-glib statement: "Hitchcock shot his murder scenes like love scenes and his love scenes like murder scenes." More the latter than the former.
And as for "Vandamm lights the lamps" so borrowing from "Grace Kelly lights the lamps?" Well, as Hitchcock said "Self-plagarism is style."
---
________________________________________
So many angles to this great film . . .
---
Thematic angles, and camera angles. In the study, I love the low angle on Vandamm saying "Why don't you surprise us and say yes?" and the high angle on Thornhill saying "I'm telling you, I'm not George Kaplan, whoever he is..."
Hmm... I actually can agree with this.
--
Really? Hmmmm.
---
The modifier "great creative" tempers the "far from." His films are very good thrillers (before the descent into whatever you choose to call the 60's zeitgeist, as reflected in Psycho et. al.). North By Northwest is a fully realized masterpiece. So to each his/her own.
---
Well, indeed to each his/her own. International critics have named "Vertigo" his fully realized masterpiece, but I for one, much prefer the better structured and much more entertaining "NBNW" -- and indeed a few folks here have pointed out that "NBNW" is AS multi-levelled as "Vertigo"...just more fun, which is held against it by the critics.
That said, there are certainly some other candidates for "masterpieces" in the Hitchcock canon(Vertigo, Psycho, Rear Window, Notorious) and when one gets into "specialized tastes" movies as disparate as Rebecca and The 39 Steps qualify as masterpieces, too.
A level down FROM the Hitchcock masterpieces, all you get(I guess) is simply great films. I consider Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers on a Train, To Catch A Thief, The Wrong Man, The Birds, and the late-breaking Frenzy in this category.
I might add that in "the immediate vicinity" of "North by Northwest" it outdistances(to my mind) Vertigo, Psycho, and The Birds(all famous Hitchcock pictures) in its perfection of its structure, wit, and rhythm. Against "NBNW," Vertigo and The Birds are "too mopey." Even my favorite -- Psycho -- has the controversially expository Shrink Scene(which I love), John Gavin's limited acting, and the look(on purpose) of a very cheap TV series episode at times.
Thornhill is seduced!
He does follow Vandamm and company on their westward journey . . .
The famed itinerary which you love so much (so do I)---Ecarle now get this: not only is Thornhill following the itinerary as laid down by Vandamm---now this is a major masterstroke in filmmaking---so is the films own direcotr--Hitchcock! The movie is being filmed contemporaneously with its own story . . . hard to believe, but true . . .
The film began shooting in late summer (actually late August) in New York, and went onward (filming in Chicago was, I believe, the second week of September). Okay, there is one glitch to all this: the date on the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper--that doesn't quite jive with the season . . . otherwise the story is being filmed according to the Vandamm schedule (incredible!). . .
I've posted on this already, but I'll reiterate--I believe Thornhill did have some sort of intelligence background, possibly dating back to WWII, he's in advertising and, from my reading, the OSS (CIA, others) did a great deal of recruiting from that field (also from the Ivy League--of course, we're not sure what schooling Roger had--though he does look east coast), and he had the look of somebody who may have some experience in these matters . . . he is the right candidate . . .his protestations are false . . . he's dragging Vandamm out to get as much info out of him as he can (and he gets very little--Vandamm seens to be an expert interrogator). . . Roger's figuring it all out, that's why he goes back to the Plaza (after paying the two dollars)--a place he needn't have gone back to (a truly normal guy would've just gone back home with Mama!) . . . and onward to the UN---a place he has no business being . . . unless he's being run by someone . . .. who? He sure doesn't know what Vandamm's game is, but he's going to try and find out . . .
And yes, there is a lot of "following" in this film . . .
Ecarle, we could go on with this endlessly . . . this film is so much fun . . .
Yes, I too share your grief in the period following NxNW---but I blame Universal . . . they didn't know how to handle him . . .
Was Universal "handling" Hitchcock? Who? Lew Wasserman? His former agent?
shareWas Universal "handling" Hitchcock? Who? Lew Wasserman? His former agent?
---
Pretty much, yes. Wasserman.
I think it was McGilligan who wrote something like "Before Hitchcock went to Universal, Lew Wasserman worked for Alfred Hitchcock, as his agent. After Hitchcock went to Universal, Alfred Hitchcock worked for Lew Wasserman, studio boss.
And it bugged Hitchcock enormously once he figured that out.
Wasserman played love-hate games with Hitchocck. Made him very rich, but still "did things" to Hitchcock at Universal.
Though Wasserman gave Hitchcock the latitude to hire Tippi Hedren twice, after "Marnie," the leash came on. Wasserman pushed Hitchcock away from other projects and into Torn Curtain(hoping for NBNW, but giving Hitchcock no budget for same.) Wasserman said NO to two Hitchocck projects: the pet project "Mary Rose"(A Ghost Story By Alfred Hitchcock) and "The First Frenzy," a 1967 script about a New York City psycho. Hitchcock was shaken by how often Wasserman's heavy hand came down on him.
On the other hand, Wasserman kept Hitchcock on contract til Hitch had to retire for health reasons, and did allow the British "Frenzy" of 1972 to be made -- and a raw kettle of fish that one was.
---
Age, health and the sixties hit Hitchocck hard, but Wasserman didn't make it any easier. And yet, in 1974, Wasserman asked Hitchcock to give him his honorary Oscar on stage, and Hitchcock did it. They were, I guess, "frenemies."
My only issue with all this(known to many) is that I really like all the movies from Marnie to Family Plot. They are all flawed, but they are all Hitchocck and in many ways I respond to them better than his 30's and 40's work BECAUSE...they were made after Hitchcock had NBNW and Psycho and Vertigo under his belt...and they rather reflect those pictures in late-breaking ways. (Also because I actually saw them first-run in my happy-ish youth. They are good memories.)
Wasserman destroyed the Hitchcock we knew . . .
Yes, I too agree with you ecarle that the films are okay, I love watching Topaz--beautifully filmed . . . yet, they don't resonate, they don't lift, some are flatter than a pancake . . . as you've posted elsewhere, none equal North by Northwest--a film that has the Metro gloss . . . Sinatra said in a documentary, or something, you could always tell a Metro picture by its look--it's true . . . and Hitchcock only did the one film for them--and its great! None of the films he did for Univesal come anywhere close--if so, which one? None! (That great death scene in Topaz--Metro would've never let that one get away as Universal did. Metro would've filmed it for all time!)
Ecarle, though I hesitate, becomes I do so enjoy all your posts, I'm going to post this anyway, even though I don't want you disappointed--especially as it is so close to the holidays . . . I agree with Teachout . . . though, remember, NxNW does have that Metro gloss to it . . . still does after all these years . . . and yes, it's a movie that can be endlessly debated and analyzed . . . which is exactly what has been going on on this board here for years . . . and I still get all tangled up in it . . . shows you, its a great film . . .
(I hope to meet you under the other topic being discussed: What was our Mr. Thornhill's "real" background . . . I mean, before Long Island? Most intriguing all this . . . most intriguing.)
None of the films he did for Univesal come anywhere close--if so, which one?
---
In my estimation...two. But they don't necessarily "come close" to the Hitchcock pre-Universal(in look and tone and studio production style):
"The Birds": Alongside "North by Northwest" in general, the berserk carousel in "Strangers on a Train," and much of "Foreign Correspondent"(especially the plane crash into the sea), "The Birds" is Hitchcock's most astonishing and epci TECHNICAL acheievement. Two shots in particular -- the high shot of the birds circling over Bodega Bay before diving down to attack, and the final shot of "millions" of birds as far as the eye can see -- are among the greatest acheivements in Hitchcock's career(as are ALL the set-pieces in The Birds, which has the most set-pieces of any Hitchcock movie.)
"Frenzy": I might get a "loophole" out of your Wasserman theory in that Hitchcock did not make "Frenzy" AT Universal studios or using Universal sound effects or lab work -- he made it at Pinewood Studios near London as far away from Lew Wasserman as he could get. So "Frenzy" is really a British Pinewood picture.
It is also -- on its admittedly small scale -- a marvel of Hitchcockian organization, thematic cohesion, style(including the motifs of Covent Garden and food) -- and up-to-the-minute heartbreaking brutality(yep, heart-breaking -- that's why "Frenzy" has lasted.)
---
None! (That great death scene in Topaz--Metro would've never let that one get away as Universal did. Metro would've filmed it for all time!)
---
OK
---
Ecarle, though I hesitate, becomes I do so enjoy all your posts, I'm going to post this anyway, even though I don't want you disappointed--especially as it is so close to the holidays
---
I appreciate your politeness..and Happy Holidays...but the world it does keep churning(darkly, I might add) even as the holidays enwrap us...I can certainly take your views here
---
. . . I agree with Teachout . . .
---
Only one fully realized masterpiece and it is North by Northwest?
Well...I've often felt that a lot of Hitchcock fans really only REALLY like only one particular Hitchcock film...usually because of the type. If psychopaths aren't to one's taste, Hitchcock's psycho movies are not under consideration. For those who think Selznick overwhelmed Hitchcock, THOSE films aren't well thought of. Nobody but me likes "Marnie" through "Family Plot" with the affection that I do(flawed, yes, but I DONT CARE).
And one of my beefs with the otherwise great Rear Window and Vertigo is that James Stewart is their star and whaddya know after all these years I've decided: I don't ENJOY James Stewart as a movie star(too whiney, too fake-folksy, too neurotic, too weak on the one hand and too grumpy on the other -- and his looks don't do much for me as Cary Grant's, William Holden's, Paul Newman's, etc).
---
though, remember, NxNW does have that Metro gloss to it . . . still does after all these years . . .
---
Yes, though it was "late Metro, near the end of its power." But that's also the point. To obtain Hitchcock's services that one time, Metro pretty much gave him a budgetary blank check and thats why he could sign Grant, Mason AND Saint, and film all over the US, and build Mount Rushmore on a soundstage...
Universal never gave Hitchcock that kind of a budget -- though Hitchcock made fine movies "on the cheap" with "Psycho"(at Universal for Paramount) and "Frenzy" that rather belied the need for a big budget.
---
and yes, it's a movie that can be endlessly debated and analyzed . . . which is exactly what has been going on on this board here for years . . . and I still get all tangled up in it . . . shows you, its a great film . . .
--
Well, I sure think its a great film. I've followed it for decades now. I have two separate memories(from the pre-VHS days) of driving miles and miles to the homes of respective friends in other cities just to watch NBNW on TV with them when showings were announced. If "NBNW" came on(or, for that matter, "Psycho") I'd make long journies to watch them.
---
That said, I'm about to bring in a "contrary" view on NBNW because it rather irked me, and I figure it will really irk you. (Down-thread)
A new 2012 book on the making of Frenzy quotes Wall Street Journal critic Terry Teachout(near the end of the book, in a rumination on Hitchcock's whole career). In Teachout's article, "The Trouble With Alfred Hitchcock," he writes:
"Hitchcock, far from being a great creative artist, was actually a minor master who succeeded in creating only one fully realized masterpiece: North by Northwest."
---
I reprinted that because I have just discovered a contrary opinion in a reading from a blog by one David Brody in The New Yorker(November 19, 2012) on the movie "Hitchocck"(which Brody actually liked.)
Brody notes that the story-proper(if not the movie) opens with Hitchcock at the premiere of "North by Northwest" in 1959, and then Brody adds this:
"North by Northwest"(which I've always found among Hitchcock's weaker and stodgiest films)"
UH OH. Fighting words for this crowd! Let's all head over to David Brody's blog and file outraged comments!
---
I'm a bit astounded that ANYONE could count NBNW as "among Hitchcock's weaker and stodgiest films."
Stodgier films would certainly include(for my money) Stage Fright, Under Capricorn The Paradine Case, Dial M for Murder, The Man Who Knew Too Much '56. And I've seen the word "stodgy" affixed by a critic to my guilty pleasure, "Frenzy."
But "North by Northwest" MOVES. And its hip. And its witty. And it is brash.
---
And "weaker"? How could North by Northwest EVER be counted among the weaker Hitchocck's films? Its hugely entertaining, it was a big hit, it had a big budget and great stars.
---
To the extent "North by Northwest" seems to get downgraded in the Hitchcock canon by SOME critics, it isn't over its stodginess or weakness.
It is because, to those highbrow critics, Hitchcock was with "North by Northwest" so clearly "pandering to the audience" with an ultra-commercial entertainment after the darkness of "Vertigo" and "The Wrong Man"(Hitchcock himself knew he was doing this...to save his career after two box office disappointments, and get to make more movies.)
Also, some critics found NBNW to be too much of a "retread" of The 39 Steps and Saboteur -- fair enough criticism, except NBNW improved markedly on them both with its size and star power.
No matter. Hitchcock more than once "ran for cover" with a thriller meant to THRILL -- Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest, and Frenzy were all considered comeback films after more "stodgy" (ahem) box office lukewarms before them.
And in the case of "North by Northwest," the "run for cover" just happened to be with one of the greatest scripts, stories, casts and scores Hitchcock ever had.
I remember I once thought this was among Hitchcock's weakest, but not any longer. I can see why some do. It lacks several elements that made some of Hitchcock's earlier pictures so great.
And to answer the topic question: to me North by Northwest certainly belongs to the top ten, but it isn't my favourite. My favourite is Vertigo. I don't think Hitchcock ever went as deep in his personal philosophical interests. North by Northwest continues with some similar themes (identity, for example), but it doesn't attain similar depth. However, this is no insult. It's an amazing film. But for me it's Vertigo, Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt, The Wrong Man.
Well, I love it unreservedly.
For most of the other Hitchcock classics (Vertigo, Rear Window, Psycho, Rope, Strangers on a Train, The 39 Steps), there's something that holds me back from embracing it completely. For starters, I think Vertigo is horribly overrated. Which is not to say that it's not a good film, I just think the film is a bit too simple and depends far too much on some unrealistic plot points. I like Rear Window a lot but I think its scope is a bit less than North by Northwest. Psycho has a great opening act but the second half doesn't quite measure up. Rope is a great stage play that doesn't take advantage of the medium of film. The last two I mention above are both really good films that I just feel aren't up to the level of North by Northwest.
For one thing, Cary Grant is at his absolute best in North by Northwest. Second, Eva Marie Saint is a great contrast from the usual helpless victim that inhabits most thriller/suspense films. She is neither Janet Leigh's fallen woman nor the saint of Grace Kelly. James Mason is a fabulous villain. And the rest of the supporting cast is good, too.
And the cornfield scene is epic. It's up there with the chariot race in Ben Hur, the pod bay scene in 2001, Jack Torrance blasting through the door with his axe, etc.
i dont know if its Hitchcock best, but its definitely my favorite Hitchcock movie
shareI would rate this as Hitchcock's most ENJOYABLE film, if not his Best. It's absolutely great!
sharei dont know if its Hitchcock best, but its definitely my favorite Hitchcock movie
I feel the same way. I think Vertigo and Rear Window are artistically superior, but North By Northwest has a special place in my heart. share