MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Some Critics Who Thought Frenzy was Bett...

Some Critics Who Thought Frenzy was Better Than Psycho (and That Family Plot Was, Too)


I suppose this is under the heading of "there's always a contrarian," but I've always been intrigued by these little pieces of information.

When Frenzy came out in 1972, it was made with a surge of rave reviews(with such titles as "The Return of Alfred the Great; Return of the Master; Still the Master.") I remember the Newsweek rave best of all: "It seemed so simple: starting with The Birds and sliding down to Topaz, Alfred Hitchcock had given us a series of films of decline, authored by old age. Well, as usual, the Master has fooled us: Frenzy is one of his very best."

Was it? I'm never sure, myself, but I remember the smile I got when I read that review.

A few critics, bringing up the rear, elected to push back. The Washington Post critic wrote "I wish I could agree that Frenzy is a return to form. But it is not. It is somewhat better than his most recent films, but not significantly better."

Still, the reviews were roughly 90% pro Frenzy. Much better reviews than had first greeted Vertigo("A Hitchcock and Bull Story in which the issue isn't so much whodunit as who cares") or Psycho ("Third rate Hitchcock.") But those bad reviews were ON RELEASE.

No, the weird reviews about Frenzy versus Psycho in 1972 were the ones that found it better EVEN AS Psycho had been moved up to classic status.

I remember this one:

"Not only had the films from Marnie through Topaz been a letdown, but Psycho and The Birds would have been senseless studies in sadism without Hitchcock's embellishments. Before Frenzy, the last truly great Hitchcock was North by Northwest...and critics had begun to despair."

Hmm..THAT critic took down The Birds AND Psycho against Frenzy, but truth be told The Birds got knocked a lot in Frenzy reviews("starting with The Birds and sliding down to Topaz").

Still, you had to wonder what that critic was thinking. Let's leave the flawed Birds out of it -- PSYCHO was a "senseless exercise in sadism?" I think time has demonstrated that Psycho has a surprisingly compassionate view towards both the victims AND the killer, and a sense of the backstory in history to horrific murders today.

Meanwhile, Frenzy rather "upped the ante" on sadism by detailing(just once ,but it was enough) the sexual rage of Bob Rusk in a raping-killing mode.

I can't remember the name of the critic who made the "senseless exercise in sadism remark" but here is what another critic, Arthur Knight, wrote of Frenzy in 1972:

"The great thing is that everything works. Frenzy is , for me, Hitchcock's best picture and his most authentically Hitchcockian -- since North by Northwest, and North by Northwest I have always counted among my favorite Hitchcocks."

A third, rather grudging approval of Frenzy came from long-time Hitchocck foe Stanley Kauffman(New Republic) who hated Vertigo and NXNW and Psycho and The Birds, but wrote of Frenzy two things -- "Hitchcock finally has a good script and lo, the DIRECTOR has come back?" and this: "Frenzy is the best-acted Hitchcock since North by Northwest."

(Note how all three of these Frenzy raves harkened back to NXNW as kind of the "stopping point" in time where one again finds a great Hitchcock movie.)

I suppose there's not much point lingering on a mere three reviews that preferred Frenzy to Psycho but I think that Kauffman's gave us clues WHY: The acting(non-movie stars but trained British stage actors) and the script( by Anthony "Sleuth" Shaffer and possessed not only of wit, but of a certain down-and-dirty look at male-female relationships.)

On the acting front, we know that a lot of critics felt that the amateur Tippi Hedren rather wrecked her two Hitchcock films, and that John Gavin was terrible and wooden in Psycho(Vera Miles seems rather to have been ignored for HER acting.) But Frenzy has master thespians like Alec McCowen and Vivien Merhchant as "support leads" and Barry Foster(Rusk) was evidently quite the celebrated stage actor at the time. (Jon Finch had done Macbeth for Polanski, but also a Hammer Dracula movie....)

So I suppose a bit of "pro-British actor snobbery" might raise Frenzy above Psycho. And maybe something about the script seemed "better" than the repetitive little word games Joe Stefano wrote for Psycho("You make respectability sound...disrespectful" "I hate eating in an office, its just too officious.")



==

reply


Yes, I can go down this path of "understanding" how some could find Frenzy better than Psycho..right up until the point that I realize no...it CAN'T be.

For Psycho...not Frenzy..is found near the top of "greatest films of all time" lists and at Number One on the American Film Institute list of great thrillers(Frenzy isn't even ON that list.)

For Psycho...not Frenzy...was the biggest hit of Hitchcock's career and the most seen worldwide and over decades of re-releases and TV play(from broadcast to cable to VHS to DVD).

For Psycho..not Frenzy...on "actual evidence" makes audiences scream at the top of their lungs(Frenzy forces the viewet to stare on in discomfort as a female victim is slowly raped and strangled unto lifelessness.) I call this : the BOO! factor. Its FUN when Mother comes running out at Arbogast and we all leap out of our seats(I am speaking to 1960 releases and some thereafter, not necessarily to how Psycho plays now.)

For Psycho...not Frenzy...made its homicidal maniac protagonist an icon in film history. Everybody knows Norman Bates. Almost nobody knows Bob Rusk(which is too bad, he's really an interesting "extrovert" comparison to Norman, psycho-wise.)

For Psycho...not Frenzy...yielded three sequels, a remake, a busted broadcast TV pilot and a successful cable TV series.

"Senseless study in sadism?" I don't think so.

reply

Meanwhile, over at Family Plot.

Famously...Hitchcock's final film. Perhaps less famously..a return to the relatively non-violent and funny tone of North by Northwest after a series of films with brutal murders and bleak outlooks. And also: a film marked by the slowness and slackness(especially in the first hour) of being made by an ill old man.

And yet, a writer named Peter Ackroyd wrote a book not too many years ago about Hitchcock in which he found "Family Plot" -- wait for it -- to be "Hitchocck's best since North by Northwest" -- making the point that Ernest Lehman wrote BOTH "Family Plot" AND "North by Northwest" (I recall that being worrisome at the time -- could TWO old guys like Hitchcock and Lehman match their great collaboration of 1959?)

Most recently(and helping inspire this post), I read that a critic named Dave Kehr had ranked Family Plot as the best movie of 1976...over such bigger deals as Taxi Driver and Network. I don't have his words here, but I recall him saying that the film demonstrated a "depth and complexity unmatched by the other films of 1976."

And I have to admit: despite my misgivings about how Family Plot looked(like a Columbo TV episode) and played(too slow at times, too silly)....it DID -- CLEARLY -- reflect a complexity of plotting and themes that in 1976, perhaps only a true Master like Hitchcock COULD deliver. (By contrast, Network too often goes for wordy speeches and Taxi Driver gets improvisational and crude.)

--

reply

Reviewing Family Plot, Stanley Kauffman wrote "it does seem like, with Frenzy and Family Plot, Hitchcock has gotten a second wind after the disasters of Torn Curtain and Topaz." Even that old enemy of Hitchcock could yield that(I think he was tired of Francois Truffaut leading the charge "Stanley Kauffman has clearly lost in his attempt to belittle Hitchcock.)

I think with Frenzy and Family Plot, Hitchcock was being allowed to make movies without the pressure of studio interference, or big stars(Newman and Andrews) or big budgets(creating fear of box office loss) and somehow he ended up with two of his most "Hitchcockian" tales ever. And this: I think two of the greatest villains in Hitchcock history were his two last ones: Bob Rusk(Barry Foster with his Cockney charm and butterscotch-red hair and sideburns) and Arthur Adamson(William Devane, with his smooth voice , moustache and Jekyll/Hide personality.) These two villains were not played by stars(Michael Caine had turned down Rusk; Burt Reynolds had turned down Adamson) and thus left us with actors who played their villains with no preconceived notions.

And so...COULD Frenzy and Family Plot be "better" than Psycho? Well, everything's relative and "in the eye of the beholder" but pretty clearly Psycho had much more of a grip on the film-going public in 1960 and Frenzy(despite all those great reviews) wasn't a blockbuster(I found it at Number 15 on the 1972 grossing films; Psycho was Number Two of 1960.) The proof is in box office grosses, film history, and "Best of All Time" charts, and Psycho wins.

BUT...Frenzy got its own greatness(the sweet warm comeback) and Family Plot now seems like a bittersweet farewell: no more Hitchocck movies, what a shame.

I like Psycho best, but I sure like Frenzy. And Family Plot grew on me.


reply

PS. One more "out of left field." A reknowned critic named Manny Farber found Psycho to be worthless and contrived EXCEPT for the shower scene. Later, he reviewed Topaz as "never less than entertaining." So, though he made no DIRECT comparison, here's a critic who liked TOPAZ better than Psycho.

There's one in every crowd...

reply

Here's Dave Kehr's capsule review of Frenzy:

Alfred Hitchcock's 53rd and final film (1976) was greeted with affectionate condescension by most American critics, but there's no reason to apologize for this small masterpiece, one of Hitchcock's most adventurous and expressive experiments in narrative form. After the blind alley of the heroless Topaz, Hitchcock here returned to the dual plotting of Psycho, thinking it through again as a comedy in which the two compared/contrasted couples (Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris versus Karen Black and William Devane) do not meet until the final minutes. With Ed Lauter and Cathleen Nesbitt.

And here are some quotes from Kehr's book-chapter on Frenzy:
"There are things in 'Family Plot' that we haven't seen in an American film in a long time; things like care, precision, and detail. 'Family Plot' is probably the most beautifully crafted, thematically dense film that we're going to see this year."
'"Family Plot" is a movie filled with more incidental brilliancies than there's room to mention -- the kidnapping of a bishop before a church filled with penitents, a slow chase through the Mondrian pattern formed by the paths of a graveyard, etc., etc. At once, it's a film of remarkable richness and remarkable economy. Not a single detail -- a garden hose hung on a basement wall, for example -- is placed without significance. I doubt that a dozen viewings would reduce its fascination one bit. "Family Plot" is made in a style that many will find anomalous or old fashioned. But if the exercise of care and craftsmanship is out of style -- which it seems to be, judging from the reception that a mess like "Nashville" can get -- then that's our loss, not Hitchcock's.'

reply

Here's Dave Kehr's capsule review of Family Plot:

---

Thanks for this, swanstep. I've tried to get to a number of Kehr's reviews and they are always blocked for some reason...not paywall, either.

But this one on Family Plot is particularly a "find."

---
Alfred Hitchcock's 53rd and final film (1976) was greeted with affectionate condescension by most American critics, but there's no reason to apologize for this small masterpiece,

---

Small masterpiece! Well, its small, that's for sure. A masterpiece? I'd like to be convinced. I DO think that the film stands out in 1976 both as an expression of one "Old Master's" lingering auteurism(this is clearly a HITCHCOCK film), and as an expression of how "the plot can drive the movie." Family Plot is NOT as simple as Psycho or Frenzy, it has a lot of intricacy and mixes the past with the present.

---

one of Hitchcock's most adventurous and expressive experiments in narrative form. After the blind alley of the heroless Topaz, Hitchcock here returned to the dual plotting of Psycho, thinking it through again as a comedy

---

Aha! Like I've always said: Family Plot -- even more than Frenzy -- is a structural remake of Psycho. The key "match" is: Arbogast searching motels for Marion matched with Madame Blanche searching for "Arthur Adamson" from place to place.

---
in which the two compared/contrasted couples (Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris versus Karen Black and William Devane) do not meet until the final minutes.

---

...and before the COUPLES meet, Madame Blanche(Harris), all alone , meets Black and Devane in a dangerous -- and dangerously ironic -- great scene: She's there to tell Devane that he's rich via inheritance -- she finds out he's GETTING rich via kidnappings. The look on Devane's face as he realizes how rich he now is -- as long as Blanche doesn't figure out his villainy -- is priceless. And then, Harris DOES. figure it out..

---




reply

With Ed Lauter and Cathleen Nesbitt.



---

Hitchcock loved the rough Burt Reynolds prison football comedy "The Longest Yard"(1974) and that's where he got Ed Lauter from(Reynolds turned Adamson down.) As Family Plot scenarist Ernest Lehman said, both Hitchocck and Lehman wanted a "tough guy" to play Joe Maloney - they wanted a NEW kind of Hitchcock villain(or at least henchman): raw, mean, unkempt, bald, and Lauter was the guy. His indeterminate wise guy accent was good, too.

Ed Lauter later said that Hitchcock told him he wanted to use him in the unmade "Short Night" as that film's "mean spy villain." I've read "a" (if not "the")Short Night script, and that villain IS mean. Lauter could have done it -- but I believe Walter Matthau was tentatively on board, too.

We will never know.

As for Cathleen Nesbitt -- there's your "typical Hitchcock character"(regal old woman division) if maybe more from the TV series than from movies.

In the book, the Nesbitt character gets pushed down some stairs to her death in what would have made a classic Hitchcock staircase scene...but she survives the movie.

reply

And here are some quotes from Kehr's book-chapter on Family Plot:

---


"There are things in 'Family Plot' that we haven't seen in an American film in a long time; things like care, precision, and detail. 'Family Plot' is probably the most beautifully crafted, thematically dense film that we're going to see this year."

---

And I read that Kehr ended up choosing Family Plot as his favorite OF the year (1976.) It is my second favorite of the year(after The Shootist: John Wayne and Alfred Hitchcock made their final films in the same year.) I "accept" Network and Taxi Driver as more important films that year -- but they STILL don't have what Hitchcock could give you.

Actually, the 1976 movie that "shadowed" Family Plot in 1975 and 1976 was "All the President' Men" with Redford and Hoffman. They filmed at the same time in 1975 and were released the same day in 1976. Bruce Dern noted "Well, All the President's Men is an important film, but I'm getting to work with a master filmmaker who has history behind him.."

And later in 1976 came the much "bigger"(more expensive) thriller Marathon Man, with William Devane as the secondary villain (after Laurence Olivier) and Roy Scheider "as Marion Crane"( newly hot from Jaws and having also turned down Adamson in Family Plot.) Not to mention Dustin Hoffman in the lead. "Marathon Man" was a bigger movie to experience than the modest Family Plot -- but I can't say it was better...plotted.


reply

'"Family Plot" is a movie filled with more incidental brilliancies than there's room to mention -- the kidnapping of a bishop before a church filled with penitents, a slow chase through the Mondrian pattern formed by the paths of a graveyard, etc., etc. At once, it's a film of remarkable richness and remarkable economy. Not a single detail -- a garden hose hung on a basement wall, for example -- is placed without significance. I doubt that a dozen viewings would reduce its fascination one bit.

===

All true. Thank you, Mr. Kehr.

I like to note that one particular "stretch" of Family Plot delighted me on first viewing and stands to this day, in my book, as one of the greatest , most Hitchcockian stretches of ANY of his movies:

It starts with Devane and Black giving a knockout shot to the bishop in his darkened "cell." (They intend to drive him to be picked up for a ransom diamond.) A DOORBELL rings. We know who it is: BLANCHE! She's here with the right news(Devane's rich) at the wrong time(he's doing his "Kidnapping thing.")

Thereupon follows a series of comical mix-ups(with Devane getting very angry and Black getting very perplexed) that climaxes with Blanche blocking Devane's getaway car and ends with Devane using his garage door closer to entrap Blanche in his garage. Its a "bim-bam-BOOM" sequence of interconnected "moments" and wrote critic Andrew Sarris "All of Hitchcock's decades of storytelling prowess sound in the ringing of a doorbell." (As Doghouse knows, I saw Family Plot WITH Hitchcock at its premiere, and we all applauded loudly when that doorbell rang.)

---

reply

"Family Plot" is made in a style that many will find anomalous or old fashioned. But if the exercise of care and craftsmanship is out of style -- which it seems to be, judging from the reception that a mess like "Nashville" can get

---

Hmmm...Nashville as a "mess"? But Pauline Kael thought that would be the hit of the year -- in the year of Jaws.

Nashville was very well reviewed as Altman's "epic" and I think it made money -- but not really enough to matter. Its a good movie, not a great one. And it stars (among others) Karen Black and Barbara Harris(who steals the show at the end, thus setting up her star turn in Family Plot.)

---

-- then that's our loss, not Hitchcock's.'

---

Yes, OUR loss. Family Plot got some very mean pans -- one from Jay Cocks in Time, and a full-out attack by Richard Corliss(whose favorite film was Psycho.) Corliss wrote: "To honor a misfire like Family Plot is to dishonor a true classic like Vertigo"(Nah..they can both exist.) Plus, a true idiot of a critic named Stephen Farber said that NONE of Family Plot looked like a Hitchcock movie at all. That guy should have been fired.

At the same time, Family Plot got a rave in Newsweek(as Frenzy had) and Canby at the New York Times loved it(as he had Frenzy) and Charles Champlin at the LA Times liked it BETTER than Frenzy and noted that we should all be amazed that in 1976 Alfred Hitchcock was still making movies at all: a miracle. (Plus: "What we are enjoying here is a mastery of TONE.")

Personally, I've always thought that the plot of Family Plot was better than its execution, and that it maybe could use a remake with big modern stars and the best cinematography and effects available. Hitchcock had the makings of a major classic with Family Plot, but was too old to pull it off, and to get the budget and stars necessary to do so.

reply

I came on here to discuss Family Plot as I've seen it again for the second time. First time at a theater, but was too young to appreciate it. I have the DVD but have not seen it, but watched it on youtube with nice definition.

Yes, the plot is a double entendre, but makes for an interesting story. It's the money that motivates George and Blanche and the acting is top notch with all the subtle nuances of the characters. I won't get into what's to like with the story, characters, acting, and the way Hitchcock presents it, but bring up the weaknesses. I have a hard time believing Arthur Adamson and Fran continuing to be criminals if he's just inherited a fortune. It's never explained, but maybe he didn't believe it. Even then, I would think he would investigate. Were they still looking for his parents' murderer? I think he already got his inheritance from them with where he is living, but still wants more.

Also, I liked Karen Black's character becoming a "tall" woman. I recently had an confrontation with a tall blonde woman around 6' tall (I'm 5' 9") over my dog, so she stood out.

The other weakness I think is with George and Blanche continuing on if they were almost killed. Maloney seemed to lose his head after failing to see them die after their car runs away down that road. The chances were good that they die in a going off the side of the road accident. He could've just left. He didn't have to try to run them down as they would've been afraid to continue. It wasn't worth the money if their lives were at risk. For Maloney, he didn't have to get directly involved and cast more suspicion upon himself.

ETA: I might've missed it but was there a crystal ball in the story? I don't think Blanche used it in her ruse.

reply

BTW jewel and art theft continues to be very lucrative to this day even though one cannot sell it for what it's worth on the secondary market. A few unscrupulous collectors will still pay a hefty sum for an original even though it is hot.

Gold is easier to steal even if valuable and marked; It can be melted down.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2019/12/04/550203.htm

reply

I came on here to discuss Family Plot as I've seen it again for the second time. First time at a theater, but was too young to appreciate it. I have the DVD but have not seen it, but watched it on youtube with nice definition.

---

Well there you go, a second time...42 years later. Movies travel through time, as do we all...

Personally, while I feel that Frenzy before it was more professionally scripted, filmed and put together than Family Plot, I'm glad we have the rather "nice" Family Plot(with its "nice" happy ending and wink) as "the one Hitchcock went out on." It allowed him to take a friendly bow rather than leave us with the sexual horrors of Frenzy.

Not only ...and it does have some fans among critics who notice this -- the plotting , structure and themes of Family Plot definitely shout out "Hitchocck" even if the execution is lacking.

---



reply

Yes, the plot is a double entendre,

--

And a "double plot": the story of Blanche and George parallels the separate story of Fran and Adamson...but they slowly come together. (Not to mention: the remake of the Psycho plot that I've mentioned before.)

---

but makes for an interesting story.

---

It sure does. I still think that maybe this is one Hitchcock film that could use a modern remake -- to tell the story with more energy and a better budget. That said, bigger stars could be hired -- but not better actors. And today, Bruce Dern is kind of a legend. He wasn't in 1976. Family Plot got its biggest star...retroactively.

--

I won't get into what's to like with the story, characters, acting, and the way Hitchcock presents it, but bring up the weaknesses.

--

OK.

---

reply

I have a hard time believing Arthur Adamson and Fran continuing to be criminals if he's just inherited a fortune. It's never explained, but maybe he didn't believe it. Even then, I would think he would investigate. Were they still looking for his parents' murderer? I think he already got his inheritance from them with where he is living, but still wants more.

--

There isn't really time FOR Adamson to consider what to do ...he's stunned by the irony that all this time he's been kidnapping people to get rich...he's been rich all along.

Indeed - and the audience follows this -- if the bishop had NOT fallen out of the car, Adamson would have likely met with Blanche and Julia Rainbird to accept his inheritance -- figuring no one would KNOW he's the kidnapper.

But, alas, the bishop falls out of the car(when Fran opens the door slightly ) and...that's the end of that.

--

Or is it? As KIDNAPPERS, Adamson and Fran didn't kill anyone, so perhaps Adamson would still be entitled to the inheritance when he completed his jail time -- say, 20 years.

BUT, as you note, the authorities might do some digging about the death of the Shoebridges -- Mrs. Maloney might know -- and then Adamson/Shoebridge would be looking at a much longer sentence, and a much longer wait for that money. (Heck, Mrs. Rainbird might even REVOKE the inheritance, it was her money And she might revoke it just over the kidnappings.)

--

I suppose -- not unlike the more classic Psycho -- that Family Plot allows us to IMAGINE both the past(Eddie's childhood) AND the future(how a kidnapper/killer might or might not get to enjoy his inheritance.)

One things for sure: in his garage when Blanche gives him the good news...the irony is magnificent. And pure, pure Hitchcock.

reply

Also, I liked Karen Black's character becoming a "tall" woman.

---

Yes, Adamson points out that the tallness was "faked"; Fran is actually shorter. This helped fool the cops as much as the blonde wig.

---

I recently had an confrontation with a tall blonde woman around 6' tall (I'm 5' 9") over my dog, so she stood out.

--

In the news these days, wags are calling such women "Karens." (A pejorative term connotating an officious busybody of a woman -- sexist? I dunno.) Hmm...was Karen Black the ORIGINAL Karen?

---



reply

The other weakness I think is with George and Blanche continuing on if they were almost killed.

--

Well, they discuss that -- George warns Blanche "this guy Shoebridge doesn't want to be found." (Ala Norman and Mother.) But Blanche blindly goes forward to find Shoebridge alone. At least she leaves word where she can be found(in a great little scene where Blanche tells the doorman at the SF Fairmont hotel EXACTLY where she's going, and the doorman repeats EXACTLY what she says.)

I expect that George and Blanche may figure that with Maloney dead, their most dangerous antagonist is gone. They don't report their involvement in the accident to the police ("And lose the $10,000 dollars?" George notes)...they are still crooked if not full crooks. The money drives them on, along with a feeling that Shoebridge/ Adamson will be PLEASED to get the news. Also: George offers that maybe Maloney KILLED Shoebridge and if they find that out...they get the 10 grand.

---

Maloney seemed to lose his head after failing to see them die after their car runs away down that road.

---

Well, his job was to kill them.

Notice that -- the first time -- Maloney used his trade -- auto mechanic -- for murder. Hitchcock called this "use the means available." An auto mechanic here uses a car TO kill.

---

The chances were good that they die in a going off the side of the road accident. He could've just left.

---

I'm guessing he felt that he had to stick around to see the wreckage. Imagine his surprise when he found George and Blanche instead...alive.

---

reply

He didn't have to try to run them down as they would've been afraid to continue. It wasn't worth the money if their lives were at risk. For Maloney, he didn't have to get directly involved and cast more suspicion upon himself.

---

Well, Maloney was a pretty violent guy, I guess. He showed a switchblade knife to Adamson; we get the feeling he's used it before, and he was READY to use it on George and Blanche. (When he tried to get Blanche and George in the car, I wonder if he planned to somehow "knife them." Or if he had a gun. Hitch leaves that question open.)

Ernest Lehman, who wrote North by Northwest(an original screenplay) for Hitchcock, also wrote the lesser Family Plot(both men were a lot older by then) from a novel(The Rainbird Pattern) but Lehman invited some new characters for the "American transplant" of the British novel. One character he added was Maloney -- who "connects" the two stories early for suspense by reporting to Adamson about George asking questions.

Said Lehman in a seminar(that I attended personally): "I wanted for once to write a Hitchcock villain who was a lowlife -- rough and brutal and criminal -- that's Joe Maloney."

Rumor: The movie that Hitchcock tried to launch after Family Plot -- "The Short Night" was a spy thriller with a pretty mean spy villain. It is rumored that Hitchocck wanted Walter Matthau or Rod Steiger for the role...but also tentatively offered it to Ed Lauter(Maloney!)

reply

>>There isn't really time FOR Adamson to consider what to do ...he's stunned by the irony that all this time he's been kidnapping people to get rich...he's been rich all along.

Indeed - and the audience follows this -- if the bishop had NOT fallen out of the car, Adamson would have likely met with Blanche and Julia Rainbird to accept his inheritance -- figuring no one would KNOW he's the kidnapper.

But, alas, the bishop falls out of the car(when Fran opens the door slightly ) and...that's the end of that.

--

Or is it? As KIDNAPPERS, Adamson and Fran didn't kill anyone, so perhaps Adamson would still be entitled to the inheritance when he completed his jail time -- say, 20 years.

BUT, as you note, the authorities might do some digging about the death of the Shoebridges -- Mrs. Maloney might know -- and then Adamson/Shoebridge would be looking at a much longer sentence, and a much longer wait for that money. (Heck, Mrs. Rainbird might even REVOKE the inheritance, it was her money And she might revoke it just over the kidnappings.)<<

I thought Maloney would be the one who killed the parents. Yes, Mrs. Maloney probably knows and would be another loose end had Adamson gone for the inheritance. But you're right that I didn't think it through. If Adamson was caught, then it may be as you said. However, we don't have the code anymore, but the ratings system; PG for Family Plot. Thus, Adamson and Fran didn't have to be caught.

It sure was a coincidence that the bishop that Blanche and George were looking for was the same one kidnapped by Arthur and Fran. Usually with bad people, there are no coincidences but Arthur is not tying up loose ends. He was just looking for the jewel payoff. Blake and George were still looking for the heir and still hadn't connected Adamson with Maloney.

Neither would want the police to become involved if Adamson agreed to his inheritance. I think the movie alludes to it. Blanche has skipped past the Shoebridge's parents death. So even if Blanche saw the bishop, then she wouldn't have said anything like what are you doing? She didn't know anything about a reward.

reply

>>I suppose -- not unlike the more classic Psycho -- that Family Plot allows us to IMAGINE both the past(Eddie's childhood) AND the future(how a kidnapper/killer might or might not get to enjoy his inheritance.)

One things for sure: in his garage when Blanche gives him the good news...the irony is magnificent. And pure, pure Hitchcock.<<

I think you are right in that it's Hitchcock to make us use our imagination and play the what if game when discussing the movie afterward. Blanche and George would not want the police to get involved as George finds some dead people and Maloney tried to kill them.

Mrs. Maloney would be the only one who's a loose end, but she wants to avoid anything to link her being an accessory. Besides, she can't testify against her husband so I think she's safe.

I agree Blanche gives him the good news, but it's too much to digest and Adamson already wants both dead since Blanche knows about the bishop, so he did what he had to do.

I think that's what finally turned Blanche and George against Arthur and Fran. They would be killed if they didn't put a stop to both.

It's a pretty good movie to discuss afterward as it was made a light, fun movie despite having murder and kidnapping involved and two couples involved in criminal activity and out for money.

reply

>>Well, Maloney was a pretty violent guy, I guess. He showed a switchblade knife to Adamson; we get the feeling he's used it before, and he was READY to use it on George and Blanche. (When he tried to get Blanche and George in the car, I wonder if he planned to somehow "knife them." Or if he had a gun. Hitch leaves that question open.)

Ernest Lehman, who wrote North by Northwest(an original screenplay) for Hitchcock, also wrote the lesser Family Plot(both men were a lot older by then) from a novel(The Rainbird Pattern) but Lehman invited some new characters for the "American transplant" of the British novel. One character he added was Maloney -- who "connects" the two stories early for suspense by reporting to Adamson about George asking questions.

Said Lehman in a seminar(that I attended personally): "I wanted for once to write a Hitchcock villain who was a lowlife -- rough and brutal and criminal -- that's Joe Maloney."<<

That's interesting about Maloney. He's more subdued in Family Plot, but I suppose he could play a darker, meaner character. You're right in that he could've stabbed Blanche and George had they accepted a ride, but they were aware.

reply

That's interesting about Maloney. He's more subdued in Family Plot, but I suppose he could play a darker, meaner character.

---

Much as Ernest Lehman was looking to WRITE a more brutal Hitchcock henchman, Hitchcock had seen the actor he wanted for the role(Ed Lauter) in 1974 in the Robert Aldrich "violent comedy" The Longest Yard, a macho movie where convict NFL star Burt Reynolds leads a team of convicts against their prison guards in a football game. Hitchcock reportedly watched that movie over and over -- shows you that his tastes were different from what he made.

From "The Longest Yard," Hitchcock offered Burt Reynolds himself Adamson(but was turned down)...and cast Ed Lauter as Maloney and two other actors from The Longest Yard as the tombstone carver and the cemetary caretaker.

--

PS. Reportedly, other movies that Hitchcock watched over and over in his screening room in the 70s(he wasn't working much) included Animal House(he became pals with director John Landis), Smokey and the Bandit(no hard feelings, Burt)...and Benji(Hitchocck was an animal lover.) Evidently, Hitchcock wasn't keen on watching other people's thrillers, too competitive, I guess.

reply

You're right in that he could've stabbed Blanche and George had they accepted a ride, but they were aware.

--

Yes, they were aware. George made out pretty quickly that Maloney "broke the brakes" on the car and offers the rather witty turn-down to Maloney's offer of a ride: "No thanks, we don't ride in hearses."

Maloney showed Adamson a knife, but that might have been difficult to pull on George AND Blanche. I figure he also had a gun to use. Of course, knife or gun would have screwed up the original plan: make the deaths look like a car accident.

PS. Ed Lauter is dead now, but I read an interview he gave some years ago where he said that in that scene with Devane where Maloney shows the knife, Devane improvised the line "put that thing away" and it screwed up the scene Lauter expected to play. Lauter was mad at Devane in that interview. Just goes to show you "the things we don't know." Me, I LIKE how smoothly Devane says "put that thing away" in a light whisper as if talking to a child.

reply

There is also this: Robin Wood, who wrote a very praising chapter on Psycho in his first edition of "Hitchcock's Films" in the 60's, returned in a later revised edition to find ONLY "the first half of Psycho" to be truly great(Vertigo...all of it; Psycho, half.) And David Thomson in his book "The Moment of Psycho" pretty much said the same thing.

So perhaps some found Frenzy to be more satisfying "all the way through" versus Psycho...but I don't. Wood and Thomson never seemed to understand that as an AUDIENCE picture...almost ALL the big screams are AFTER the shower murder...the "plot" yields to terror about who's gonna get killed next and how...and there are screams when:

Arbogast gets killed
Norman comes up behind Sam at the office doorway("Looking for me?")
Lila sees herself in the reflection in the mirror in Mother's Room
the Fruit Cellar(thunderous screams building on TWO horrific reveals.)

reply

"Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough." - Noah Cross, Chinatown

Some of those 1972 reviews minimizing or even denigrating Psycho suggest how long it took the film, among critics at least, to achieve widespread respectability. For all their murder and mayhem, Hitchcock's pre-1960 entertainments had been safe and relatively harmless; dirty deeds the whole family could enjoy; thrills without threats. And suddenly, that benign, beloved and impish little Englishman was showing his audiences visual brutality to which he'd never before taken them. Looks like there were some who held their resentful grudges for quite some time.

Perhaps you could, ecarle, but I honestly couldn't say when Psycho achieved a consensus of classic status that surpassed its notoriety. But the fact that some of those critics cited it as a turning point in their reviews of Frenzy over a decade later says something. And after several years of graphic, slow-motion, blood-pack-spurting violence from directors like Sam Pekinpah, Hitchcock could hardly have been accused of violating norms or breaking barriers, as some did a dozen years earlier.

Neither one very successful upon release, it took both The Wizard Of OZ and It's A Wonderful Life nigh unto 20 years to achieve their "beloved classic" status, primarily through celebratory annual TV broadcasts (the latter aided by having fallen into the public domain).

At this late date, I suspect Frenzy has reached the zenith of what comprises its place in the Hitchcock canon and general cinematic landscape. And perhaps in its small-scale modesty, alongside the Strangers On A Trains, Rear Windows and North By Northwests, that's fair.

But it's got everything I need in a Hitchcock. I'll have to paraphrase, but he summed it up himself in the 1960s: "A quiet little murder here and there, a joke or two and some expert cutting."

Modestly put.

reply

"Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough." - Noah Cross, Chinatown

---

Now, THERE's a movie with a great script....and great dialogue.

Some of those 1972 reviews minimizing or even denigrating Psycho suggest how long it took the film, among critics at least, to achieve widespread respectability. For all their murder and mayhem, Hitchcock's pre-1960 entertainments had been safe and relatively harmless; dirty deeds the whole family could enjoy; thrills without threats. And suddenly, that benign, beloved and impish little Englishman was showing his audiences visual brutality to which he'd never before taken them. Looks like there were some who held their resentful grudges for quite some time.

--

Evidently so. I think even Hitchcock knew that he became, in the eyes of some Hollywood peers(Walt Disney, Jerry Lewis "on record") and some critics, some sort of really sick puppy when he made and released (or as swanstep recently said - unleashed) Psycho on "the movies." I recall the Time review: "...what could have been a passable creak-and-shriek thriller becomes instead a spectacle of stomach-churning horror, as we watch every twitch, gurgle and hemorrhage by which a living human being becomes a corpse."

Funny thing, though. Hitchcock would twice more(and NOT with Arbogast) show us every "twitch and gurgle"(if not every hemorrhage) that reduced both Hermann Gromek and Brenda Blaney from living human beings into corpses, but Psycho got there first and with truly historic shocking result.

And yet, Frenzy only had the ONE murder(the second was kept off-screen and immortally stylish), and it was "a return to London" with memories of Young Hitchcock, Boy Director, the Prodigal Son. And the classic wrong man gambit(for the first time, really, since North by Northwest --there's THAT one again.)






reply

Even that rape murder lacks the "stomach churning" impact of the puncturing of Janet Leigh's body(heard but not seen), spilling of blood, and eventual MOPPING of blood attendant to the shower killing. Brenda Blaney's murder is a matter of "cumulative impact" -- in three parts: (1) The long, long, LONG build-up to Rusk's attack; (2) the failed rape(filmed with no real detail less two shots that I once described and got "deleted by administrator" -- plus Brenda's Bible passage and Rusk's "Lovely") and (3) the strangling, which goes on much longer than any Hitchcock stranglings before it, but not FOREVER.

I suppose the fact that we actually see Rusk in the act -- his actions, his voice, his face -- give us a certain "depth of terror." No shadowy monster mother going "BOO!" Rusk is, horrifyingly, "the real deal" in sexual psychopaths and yet his one shown killing is stylized way far away from the graphic.

I dunno...I feel a bit tainted going on about the scene. Anyway in 1972, the critics dug it as "a return to form" and three of them found the movie better than Psycho, so evidently something about its plot, its British players, and its wit felt better than Psycho. To them.

reply

And leaving "that scene" alone, I personally after all these years believe that the REAL key to Frenzy's having resonance and depth and atmosphere IS...that Covent Garden setting. Whether it was "anachronistic" or not, Hitchcock created it as a self contained world of "worker bees in caps" pushing wheelbarrows and carts back and forth in the foreground and background, always flowing never at rest -- and the film went on to USE Covent Garden for many, many things: Rusk's friendly fruit stand(where cops come by to gossip); the Globe pub; the OTHER pub(where two lawyers talk out a "mini shrink scene" about sexual psychopaths0 how nobody can hear Babs scream over the worker bee worker's noises; how Babs herself ends up in a potato sack in a wheelbarrow pushed by Rusk in a worker's bee's cap and apron...and on and on -- not to mention the FOOD motif that Hitchcock had told Truffaut back in 1963 that he wanted ("I want to make a movie about food.")

Of course, Psycho had its OWN, rather "all American" atmosphere. The American Southwest(Phoenix, a city on the edge of a desert) and then a long drive west and northwest(?) to Northern California(the dusty, backwater farmland interior, not the Vertigo coast.) The motel AND the house, together and apart. Frenzy competes with that in Psycho...and I daresay Psycho wins...though Covent Garden remains a great place for a movie.

reply

Perhaps you could, ecarle, but I honestly couldn't say when Psycho achieved a consensus of classic status that surpassed its notoriety.

---

No, doghouse, I can't either....its odd, really -- I guess Psycho just sort of "snuck up" on its classic status. Hitchcock used it as an illustration of this quote of his: "My movies go from being failures to classics without ever being successes." He must have meant with the critics; Psycho was a BIG success at the box office.

Perhaps Psycho became a classic in the 70's -- it got annual TV play on broadcast stations across the US(and the world?) and the "copycats" started showing up -- DePalma with Sisters and Carrie(at Bates High School) and eventually Dressed to Kill(1980.) Spielberg with Duel and Jaws(hardly slasher movies but very much in the STYLE of Psycho); even Scorsese with Taxi Driver(Herrmann's last score, though released before Obsession, and ending with the "three notes of madness" that end Psycho.) Not to mention all those first slasher movies: Play Misty for Me, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Black Christmas...and Halloween.

For all those movies to exist and "hit" -- they all had to acknowledge Psycho as their mother.



reply

But the fact that some of those critics cited it as a turning point in their reviews of Frenzy over a decade later says something.

--

Yes...but WHAT, I wonder? Let's take Arthur Knight, saying its Hitchcock's most "Hitchcockian" movie since North by Northwest. Because of the wrong man plot perhaps? Or because of all the British characters(Arbogast , Sheriff Chambers, California Charlie, Cassidy and the cop were...hardly British.)

---
And after several years of graphic, slow-motion, blood-pack-spurting violence from directors like Sam Pekinpah, Hitchcock could hardly have been accused of violating norms or breaking barriers, as some did a dozen years earlier.

--

Absolutely..he was rather "bringing up the rear," this time, shooting for his first REAL "R" rating. Truth be told, Frenzy surely got a lot of reviews that said ITS brutal sexual violence was "not in the same good taste as the Psycho killings." David Thomson(not a fan of Frenzy; he gives it a page in his book The Moment of Psycho) wrote: "the violence in Frenzy isn't calculated down to the millimeter, as in Psycho."

In fact, I daresay ol' Hitch knew EXACTLY what he was doing with Frenzy. He was eschewing the bloody knife murders of the slasher picture, and the blood-bag-bursting bang-bang of The Wild Bunch and followers...to give us all a movie in which the violence was bloodless but brutal...and far too intimate(it was sexual...and strangling was tied in TO sex.)

Hitch in 1972 with Frenzy managed to get SOME of the same outrage he got over Psycho in 1960. And as he told one interviewer at the time about the rape-murder: "Ten years ago, i would not have been allowed to film that murder with the same detail and the audience would have lost something very important: they would not have gotten to see the killer at work."



--

reply

Neither one very successful upon release, it took both The Wizard Of OZ and It's A Wonderful Life nigh unto 20 years to achieve their "beloved classic" status, primarily through celebratory annual TV broadcasts (the latter aided by having fallen into the public domain).

---

I might add that while Psycho had its infamous "checkered past" on TV (cancelled by CBS, banished to local late night showings)...I've read that North by Northwest actually grew its cult in the 60s and 70s with CBS and then local showings. I know that's when I fell in love with it. The "only once a year" showing of NXNW on CBS and then locally to me was EQUAL to The Wizard of Oz showings, and indeed North by Northwest to me IS The Wizard of Oz for adults(Vandamm's Rushmore house and the monument are the Witch's Castle; Roger dodges a crop duster near cornfields like where the Scarecrow lives and Roger finds out "there's no place like home" at the end.

--



reply

At this late date, I suspect Frenzy has reached the zenith of what comprises its place in the Hitchcock canon and general cinematic landscape. And perhaps in its small-scale modesty, alongside the Strangers On A Trains, Rear Windows and North By Northwests, that's fair.

---

Well, in 1972, it was praised to the skies most places(honestly, I looked up reviews on microfiche and everyone from Rolling Stone to The New Yorker to the New York Times praised it...and usually the same way. Hitch lucked out with The New Yorker; Pauline Kael took the summer off, it was Penelope Gilliatt who praised it.) Over time, the film deflated and was devalued. And it ALWAYS drew feminist opposition -- even as I find it to be rather a feminist film(the women are the winners; the men , the losers.)

A book on the making of Frenzy points out that a Sight and Sound poll of film directors(including Scosese and Spielberg) of Hitchcock's Ten Best Films on his Centennial in 1999 HAD Frenzy on the list and DID NOT HAVE Rear Window on the list. Perhaps too many violent, perv directors in the mix?
But then, small or not, Frenzy's biggest role in the Hitchocck career is that it IS his R-rated movie, the one where he went "all the way" and joined the raunchy 70's. That makes it special -- and links it to Scorsese et al.

reply

But it's got everything I need in a Hitchcock. I'll have to paraphrase, but he summed it up himself in the 1960s: "A quiet little murder here and there, a joke or two and some expert cutting."

Modestly put.

--

Ha. Hitchcock's dry deadpan ..in his movie-making, in his TV intros, in his interviews -- really made the man and his universe, didn't it. Its why I'm not crazy about The Birds and Marnie -- they are too hysterical at times. Frenzy finds Hitch back at "cool" (except for Brenda's quite understandable screaming. Its truly a great moment when the women realizes that she is not facing only a garden variety rapist, but The Necktie Killer himself: "My God -- THE TIE!"

Speaking of some "expert cutting," it is surely on display in Frenzy -- THAT's what made it "the film of a young man." First and foremost -- the potato truck scene, a conglomeration of cuts and shots and angles that build to a peak of the macabre and the humorous. But Hitch also filmed that rape-murder with a precision of shots(I argue here with Thomson) and again proved his mettle in coming up with the shot succession, shooting the shots, and dictating the editing. (The Frenzy book notes that Hitchcock had a second moviola brought in each day of the three days of shooting this sequence to "compare shots" -- an old fashioned version of video cutting today.

With the potato truck scene, BTW, for a "horror scene" -- the colors sure are beautiful: dark blue night sky, Rusk's golden red hair, the yellow potatoes, all mixed together to please the eye even as the "content" of the scene is repulsive.

reply

Taking advantage of a Frenzy-ish post on the Psycho board(though Psycho surely is a subject, too), I will here report on some odd "Frenzy" connections:

ONE: The book on the making of Frenzy notes that Hitchcock had a visitor to his Hollywood office in January of 1972 -- director Sidney Lumet(who had Serpico, Murder on the Orient Express with Perkins and Balsam, and Network coming.) Lumet asked if he could see part or all of Frenzy. Hitchcock granted Lumet permission to watch ONLY the Brenda Blaney murder(which was evidently cut and ready in January though the movie didn't go out until June) and with NO ONE else there. One wonders what Mr. Lumet thought when he sat down to THAT sequence.

TWO: I remain very miffed that Hitchcock fired Henry Mancini off of Frenzy. Mancini's Frenzy overture(over the opening Thames footage) can be viewed on YouTube and dammit -- it had real STYLE -- it took Hitchcock's "stately royal overture" vision and invested it with chills and scariness and sadness(if maybe a bit too much "Phantom of the Opera" organ music, but that could have been fixed.)

Wel,l the other night I was watching a "modern oil well Western" with George C. Scott and Faye Dunaway from 1973(the year after Frenzy's 1972 of course). called "Oklahoma Crude" and there was Mancini putting up some surprisingly "macho Western" music for the overture as well as one of his sweet songs ("Send a Little Love My Way") and it rather MADE Oklahoma Crude, "sold" the action AND the romance. Mancini COULD have done that for Frenzy in a different way(with a thriller score like those he gave to Experiment in Terror and Wait Until Dark) but Hitchcock dumped him. I expect Hitchcock didn't want to make a Henry Mancini movie.



reply

And then I realized this. HAD Mancini scored Frenzy, its three major set-pieces HAVE NO MUSIC AT ALL: Brenda's murder; "Farewell to Babs (staircase), and The Potato Truck. Like Ron Goodwin who did the film, Mancini really only would have scored the overture and "connective tissue" like Rusk pushing the wheelbarrow across the street, which I guess is PART of the potato truck scene. Anyway, Frenzy with a Mancini score likely would have had too many "music-free" passages to let Mancini REALLY do his thing.

And that's it.

reply

Hitchcock could "compose" with sound effects, as he does in that "Farewell to Babs" sequence, which begins as Babs rushes out of the bar onto the sidewalk, and the bustling STREET NOISES quickly FADE OUT to SILENCE as the camera snap-zooms into a close-up of her troubled face. She then whips around to see Bob Rusk, and they start the walk (her last) to his apartment.

The scene ends in a aural reversal, where the eerie SILENCE of the staircase gradually FADES UP to the roar of STREET NOISES as the camera recedes out of the building, drowning out any possibility of anyone hearing her scream.

reply

Hitchcock could "compose" with sound effects,

---

Indeed, his movies were as much "aural masterpieces" as visual. 1940's critic Jame Agee(discussing Notorious) praised Hitchcock for his "air pockets of silence" -- and The Birds is ALL air pockets of silence(when the birds are not shrieking and flapping.)

Psycho had Marion imagining all those voices in her car(Cassidy, Lowery, Caroline, the cop, California Charlie.)

---

as he does in that "Farewell to Babs" sequence, which begins as Babs rushes out of the bar onto the sidewalk, and the bustling STREET NOISES quickly FADE OUT to SILENCE as the camera snap-zooms into a close-up of her troubled face. She then whips around to see Bob Rusk, and they start the walk (her last) to his apartment.

The scene ends in a aural reversal, where the eerie SILENCE of the staircase gradually FADES UP to the roar of STREET NOISES as the camera recedes out of the building, drowning out any possibility of anyone hearing her scream.

--

Indeed, at the beginning of the scene, the sound fades down to nothing("Got a place to stay?") and at the end the sound fades UP to a cacophony of Covent Garden workplace ("In Covent Garden, no one can hear you scream.")

The "Farewell to Babs" scene isn't "big action" like we find in Strangers on a Train and NXNW, nor even "big murder" like we find in Psycho. But everything about it screams "Hitchcock" and "cinema" and that was enough in 1972. Personally, I feel that in Frenzy AND Topaz AND Family Plot, Hitchcock made up for "no major stars" by playing all sorts of technical tricks(visual AND sound) so that HE became the star of these films.

reply

Rusk is, horrifyingly, "the real deal" in sexual psychopaths

There is a documentary mini-series currently screening on HBO, 'I'll Be Gone In The Dark", that *really* immerses you in the sicko details of a Rusk-like sexual psychopath, The Golden State Killer, formerly known as the (Sacramento) East Area Rapist & the (Santa Barbara) Original Night Stalker, or EARONS, as detectives named him when these cases were first connected. The details are staggeringly specific and seemingly improbable: The GSK/EARONS researched/prepared for his victims extensively (e.g., often breaking into houses ahead of time to plant items such as bindings to tie up victims, cutting phone lines, opening windows and doors, etc..). The GSK used creeks and other water features in both Sacramento and Santa Barbara to move around and to facilitate his selection and surveillance of victims. His targets (50+ rapes, 20+ murders) were almost always very attractive, young, successful, middle to upper middle class women & girls (who often live in gated communities) with, as an apparently conscious raising of stakes, their husbands or boyfriends to be bound and immobilised though the multi-hour long ordeals or killed. The case wasn't cracked until the 2010s via DNA database sleuthing, and the killer, now in his 70s I believe, was sentenced only last month.

Anyhow, the sickness & depravity of the killer comes through loud and clear. The series follows the journalist-investigator Michelle Macnamara (Patton Oswalt's wife) as she tries to solve/raises the profile of the case, and it's clear that it takes a huge toll on her & her marriage to inhabit the mind of the GSK for years on end.

Like a lot of HBO Documentary series IBGITD feels a little drawn out, but so far it's been worth watching. The GSK is terrifying and haunting & also pathetic in the way that Rusk, whom I believe was modeled on a couple of celebrated British cases, is in Frenzy.

reply

I suppose if you're a film critic, then Frenzy is better than Psycho. It has more the makings of the classic Hitchcock with the lead accused of a crime he didn't commit while Psycho is more the action adventure horror film like Jaws. I think Psycho was released as a summer blockbuster movie where people do not want to have to think too much after spending a day out in the hot sun. And I guess that is why they had the psychiatrist in the film at the end. A classic Psycho would probably have left him out and we may see Norman growing up more as a boy with his mother. We may even have the two girls who were killed.

I don't remember Frenzy as well as you do, so will have to watch it again in the near future.

reply

I suppose if you're a film critic, then Frenzy is better than Psycho. It has more the makings of the classic Hitchcock with the lead accused of a crime he didn't commit while Psycho is more the action adventure horror film like Jaws.

---

That's possible. Psycho was a very radical departure; Frenzy has a wrong man and all that British atmosphere. It was noted that if you took out the off-putting(but profound) rape-murder scene, Frenzy becomes a very "staid," almost old-fashioned type of "British Hitchcock movie." As one critic noted: "Frenzy in 1972 shows us what would have happened if Hitchcock had never left England for America and Hollywood. Its what the 1935 British Hitchcock would have made in 1972." And yes, Babs dead in the potato truck has its grisly and semi-nude moments, but with a few snips here and there -- you'd still end up with "deadpan British black comedy." The 1975 ABC network showing of Frenzy reduced the rape-murder to nothing(the rape became a struggle; the murder wasn't shown after Brenda's scream) and indeed...the snips(and more) were made to the potato truck scene...and turned Frenzy into a non-violent mild British mystery of sorts. (The entirely violence-free "Farewell to Babs" shot still had SOME power...but not as much with Brenda's murder gone.)



reply

There's this: Psycho famously cost only $800,000 in 1960 dollars(with Hitchcock working for free and his actors taking pay cuts.) Frenzy 12 years later cost $2.8 million(after Topaz overran to $4 million.) So is Frenzy a more "expensive looking" movie than Psycho? Oh, somewhat -- its in color (Rusk with his red-blonde hair is a very "Technicolor psycho") and all that London location work FEELS more expensive than Psycho. Still...they may well likely have been roughly the same "cheap movies." (Frenzy star Jon Finch said that Frenzy was pretty cheap to make ..."we had to drive our own cars to the studio; no drivers for us.")


reply

I think Psycho was released as a summer blockbuster movie where people do not want to have to think too much after spending a day out in the hot sun.

---

Ha...in 1960, movie theaters had air conditioners and a lot of houses did not. So it was "off to the movies" to literally chill out. You can find movie theater advertisements back then for the summer season with "white icicles hanging from the words" "AIR CONDITIONED."

That said, Frenzy was released in June 1972 just as Psycho was released in June 1960 -- but Frenzy sort of "rode out the summer" as the only thriller really available (except for the rat movie sequel "Ben," which was just silly.) A book on the making of Frenzy says the film broke house records at the Hollywood Cinerama Dome(where I first saw it) and in London and in Paris. And yet...it doesn't seem to have swept the world like Psycho. It wasn't "built" to.

--

And I guess that is why they had the psychiatrist in the film at the end.

--

Well, a lot of audience members needed some explanation..and as I've pointed out, the shrink tells us THREE NEW THINGS we never knew about Norman Bates.

Frenzy has no psychiatrist at the end, but it has some lawyers in the beginning, and a Scotland Yard cop later, "explaining the aggressive sexual psychopath." So Hitch just couldn't get that explainin' out of his system. (And in 1972, the "sex" part was more juicy for the old guy to talk about.)



---

A classic Psycho would probably have left him out and we may see Norman growing up more as a boy with his mother. We may even have the two girls who were killed.

---

Some of that ended up in "Psycho IV: The Beginning" -- with flashbacks to the murders of the two women(one is STRANGLED, ala Frenzy.)

reply

I don't remember Frenzy as well as you do, so will have to watch it again in the near future.

--

I write a lot about Frenzy. I've decided that even though movies like Rear Window and Strangers on a Train are more intricate and muscular in the making than Frenzy...I write about it more.

I like to hope its not because of the sex murder -- except honestly, Hitchcock said "that's the entire reason I made the picture."

Rather, I think my Frenzy love is threefold:

ONE: The utter complete shock in 1972 of all the rave reviews after years when it seemed that Hitchcock was "over." It was a minor miracle, I tell you, and it gave Frenzy its OWN legend (and unlike with Psycho in 1960, I was fully cognizant of what was going on.)

TWO: It remains, forever, the ONLY movie about a psycho that Hitchcock made AFTER Psycho, and therefore they must be viewed as a "pair." (Wrote NYT critic Vincent Canby, "Frenzy is the best movie about a sex murder since Psycho." )

THREE: It took some years and some aging to see it, but Frenzy really DOES have great merit as a Hitchcock film. The three big set-pieces, the Return to London; the use of Covent Garden, the return of a Great Hitchcock villain(The Birds, Marnie, Torn Curtain and Topaz didn't have one); The gorgeous location cinematography(really, compared to Family Plot, at least), the script(Anthony "Sleuth" Shaffer)...and a great ending after lesser ones like Topaz . ("Mr. Rusk, you're not wearing your tie.")

Rear Window and Strangers on a Train are bigger and better than Frenzy. But I LIVED Frenzy. And its a great memory.

reply

I meant if there was no psychiatrist scene, then Hitch would've probably plotted out a much different movie. Maybe more of a classic Hitchcock movie instead of what we get with Psycho. We may not have gotten the "Arbogast" saying sheriff scene.

Furthermore, you are right that have some kind of expert appear is what makes a film easier to explain for the more complex parts. In Jaws, we had the coroner who discussed it as a shark attack, marine biologist Richard Dreyfuss describing a very large shark, and Robert Shaw providing the first-hand experience and screechy fingernails on the blackboard.

Yes, the classic Psycho could have been extended out. I don't know all the background, but it was fortunate Hitchcock went for making the money. I think Psycho pre-dates Jaws in terms of starting the summer blockbuster even though Jaws is given credit for it in movie history.

reply

I meant if there was no psychiatrist scene, then Hitch would've probably plotted out a much different movie. Maybe more of a classic Hitchcock movie instead of what we get with Psycho. We may not have gotten the "Arbogast" saying sheriff scene.

---

Well, the sheriff does lay the groundwork for the psychiatrist scene by alluding to the murder suicide of Mrs. Bates and her lover(and then trying to suggest that maybe Mrs. Bates is alive after all - slight of hand.) The psychiatrist tells us the REAL story: NORMAN killed Mother the boyfriend with poison, and directly or indirectly framed his mother for the crime.

This is among the reasons that I always contend the psychiatrist did NOT tell us things we "already figured out."

---



Furthermore, you are right that have some kind of expert appear is what makes a film easier to explain for the more complex parts. In Jaws, we had the coroner who discussed it as a shark attack, marine biologist Richard Dreyfuss describing a very large shark, and Robert Shaw providing the first-hand experience and screechy fingernails on the blackboard.

---

And Shaw has his long "USS Indianapois speech" to give him backstory and to prepare us for his own demise.

Look, Hitchcock often complained about movies that were "photographs of people talking" -- but GOOD talk is movie-making too, whether dramatic dialogue (Marion/Norman and Arbogast/Norman) or exposition(Sheriff Chambers in his house, the psychiatrist scene) -- we need and want to hear this information.



reply

Yes, the classic Psycho could have been extended out. I don't know all the background, but it was fortunate Hitchcock went for making the money.

---

Hitchcock discussed "went for making the money" in a different way. He said he could have filmed Psycho as a "case history" -- a movie about what the psychiatrist says, just studying Norman talking to dead mother and committing the murders -- but opted for mystery, suspense about when the murders would occur, and the preservation of the twist ending so as to "play a game with the audience."

---

I think Psycho pre-dates Jaws in terms of starting the summer blockbuster even though Jaws is given credit for it in movie history.

---

Yep. Its "proven" (Psycho played in the US from June through August, 1960), thought so by me...and was written up in a Los Angeles Times article of 1990, I think(the 30th Anniversary of Psycho)

...and FRENZY was a summer movie(June 1972), but not a blockbuster. A hit, though.

It took to Jaws and then Star Wars to "lock in" the summer over Christmastime as "where the blockbusters were" and today summer and Xmas rather "split" (were not the Lord of the Rings films Thanksgiving/Xmas corridor films?)


reply

I didn't know Frenzy was a summer movie. I doubt people thought it would be a blockbuster. Too much thinking involved as to what happens to the characters. Would you recommend it to people looking for a summer movie today? I guess I would recommend it to people who liked Hitchcock as I did before, but I had kinda forgotten about how it played out. I remember the nice color from the opening scenes. The guy making himself tumble down the stairs seemed hard to do on the spot. There were some scenes that didn't seem right, but I liked all of the inspector scenes with his wife. Barry Foster sort of reminds me of Michael Caine who could've played the part if it were an American film. He did a good job playing a likeable killer until he actually rapes and kills. The potato truck scene was awesome.

reply

and today summer and Xmas rather "split" (were not the Lord of the Rings films Thanksgiving/Xmas corridor films?)
It's definitely 'split': Titanic, Avatar, Frozen, LOTR, Harry Potter, recent Star Wars have all been Xmas/pre-Xmas releases.

Summer has been such a write-off this year, Hollywood will be praying that something like a normal Xmas/pre-Xmas is going to be possible.

reply

>>t was noted that if you took out the off-putting(but profound) rape-murder scene, Frenzy becomes a very "staid," almost old-fashioned type of "British Hitchcock movie."<<

Okay, I think I've seen Frenzy three times now. Once in a theater, second time on DVD, and this time on youtube Creature Features with Misty Brew. Frenzy, an excellently directed and produced English film, has been relegated to Creature Feature status. What prevents me from wanting to watch it if comes on the tv is you already know who the killer is. With Psycho, we don't know until the psychiatrist explains it. Some people keep thinking it's Norman, but he's the "innocent" man in his case. He ends up being the wrong man because of Mother and maybe people do not understand the ending where the skeleton image is superimposed upon Norman's face. Norman isn't there anymore, remember?

Frenzy has nice definition and color to it. The story was set up very nicely by Hitchcock in the beginning I suppose for the British audience and the lead characters so that we can see what things are going to come. But we really don't know. Hitch has done it to us again. We think we know, but we don't. I mean the wrong man and the killer are revealed and we don't like the wrong man and liked the killer until his rape - murder scene. Still, Bob Rusk seems to play the more likeable character where the wrong man seems like an angry man who won't wear his face mask in today's pandemic.

The rape - murder scene was brutal, but also filled with the sound and dialog of sexuality and lust and a woman submitting to a man whom she has become familiar with. Maybe she is thinking this is her judgement for sending other women out with this man. Brenda doesn't yet know who he is either, but once she does, the horror comes out and she may realize she has sent women to their deaths but hadn't realized it from the news. Even her astute secretary hasn't figured this out.

reply

After watching Frenzy, we may think it was a bit contrived by Hitchcock, but the wrong man is still acting like a jerk and the right one continues to play his friend in need facade. We know how the wrong man was cleared. How else can he be the wrong man then, haha? Anyway, at the end you realize it is a well done killer mystery without the mystery. It's all explained to you as the movie goes on.

ETA: If you want a drinking movie where you take a drink when one of the characters drink, then Frenzy is most excellent for that over Psycho haha.

reply

Okay, I think I've seen Frenzy three times now. Once in a theater, second time on DVD, and this time on youtube Creature Features with Misty Brew. Frenzy, an excellently directed and produced English film, has been relegated to Creature Feature status.

---

That's interesting. Whereas Psycho DOES seem to qualify as a "creature feature" type movie(Mother when murdering "moves like a monster"; and there's her corpse and that house and that swamp)...Frenzy seems to flirt with being a "British crime drama"in which the killer is too banal to create a Creature Feature vibe.

---

What prevents me from wanting to watch it if comes on the tv is you already know who the killer is.

--

One critic wrote -- wrongly I think -- "because we know who the killer is from the start, there is no suspense." He was wrong. There was no MYSTERY. But there was plenty of suspense, because once we know Rusk is the killer, there is suspense as Blaney is framed for Rusk's crimes, and suspense as Rusk sidles up to new victim Babs("Got a place to stay?")

Now certainly, there are many movies with a different approach: cops keep finding horribly murdered victims, and we DON'T know who the killer is til the end (Se7en plays this way), And several Jack the Ripper movies play this way. And "Zodiac" played this way(and, horribly in tune with real life, never GAVE us a killer at the end.)

Unlike the frustrating "Zodiac" with several "false lead killers," Frenzy at least "comforts us" with clear knowledge who the Right Man is, from 30 minutes in(after suggesting Blaney to be the killer.) You might call Rusk's story "a week in the life of a psychopathic killer" as we watch him lure his victims, kill his victims, and dispose of the bodies of his victims(less Brenda, whom he rather perversely leaves "sitting" dead in a chair.)

reply

With Psycho, we don't know until the psychiatrist explains it.

--

Yep...well, we see Norman with the knife in the fruit cellar coming at Lila, but it DOES need some explaining, backwards in time(Norman killed his mother and snapped into a split personality), today (how the split works is explained) and the future("Norman is now his mother...probably for all time.")

---

Some people keep thinking it's Norman, but he's the "innocent" man in his case. He ends up being the wrong man because of Mother and maybe people do not understand the ending where the skeleton image is superimposed upon Norman's face. Norman isn't there anymore, remember?

---

Ah, the "great debate." Was MOTHER the killer, and NORMAN innocent? But Norman physically did the killings. It seems to me that Norman started out by blaming Mother for the killings, and ended as Mother blaming NORMAN for the killings. Norman is the "innocent" in the beginning; Mother is the "innocent" at the end.

reply

Frenzy has nice definition and color to it.

---

Color is kind of the key to Frenzy, I think. THESE psycho movies from earlier in Hitchcock's career were all in black and white:

Shadow of a Doubt
Strangers on a Train
Psycho

...and especially with the "modern" Psycho, the black and white felt like a "special affectation.

But finally with Frenzy we get a "Technicolor psycho movie" AND "Technicolor psycho" -- Barry Foster's Rusk with his weird hair(it seems to alternate from blond to red depending on the scene), and such bright primary colors as Rusk's purple tie(to kill Babs with) and Babs orange suit(which survives her as a character in the movie -- it becomes a clue.) The colors of the fruits and vegetables of Covent Garden are also important, as is the muted olive green of Brenda's outfit for her death scene. And blue figures prominently in the Brenda killing(the light blue of the glass door window in the office) and the potato truck scene(the slate night blue sky.)

---

The story was set up very nicely by Hitchcock in the beginning I suppose for the British audience and the lead characters so that we can see what things are going to come. But we really don't know. Hitch has done it to us again. We think we know, but we don't. I mean the wrong man and the killer are revealed and we don't like the wrong man and liked the killer until his rape - murder scene.

---

Its a fun little first half hour -- we are "trained" to dislike and distrust Blaney, and to like and trust Rusk. And it kind of hurts to find out that Rusk IS the killer -- he's such a nice guy, otherwise. I'd love to have a beer with him. Also in that first half hour(as Hitchcock said) we are seeing how Blaney is being "set up by circumstance" to be blamed for the murders.

---

reply

Still, Bob Rusk seems to play the more likeable character where the wrong man seems like an angry man who won't wear his face mask in today's pandemic.

---

Ha -- timely point about the face mask! But yes, even after Rusk is revealed as the killer(and a savage, sexual, cowardly killer at that)....we see him in scenes where we LIKE him (when he buys the potato seller a drink, when he defends Blaney against Forsythe -- when he offers Blaney shelter!)

When we watch a movie, we tend to "attach" to characters we like. There are almost NO characters to like in Frenzy(I'd say Babs is "it", Oxford is too arrogant in his wrongness)...so we keep attaching to Rusk against our better judgment.

reply

Brenda doesn't yet know who he is either, but once she does, the horror comes out and she may realize she has sent women to their deaths but hadn't realized it from the news. Even her astute secretary hasn't figured this out.

--

That's a great point -- and perhaps as Rusk comes at Brenda she is thinking about that. I have always thought it is weird enough -- and not well enough explored -- that not only was Rusk trying to use a dating service to meet women, he explicitly SAID(in words on paper or perhaps in reports from women) that he liked to HURT women. Not KILL them...HURT them. And Brenda has somehow figured this out("You prefer certain peculiarities and want women to submit to them") , was moving on getting rid of Rusk(or "Mr. Robinson" as he was known to her) ..and ends up his ultimate victim.

But again, its as if here , we are given rather tantalizing information about how Rusk "was hiding in plain sight" with his need for masochistic women -- but was never properly identified by Brenda as the killer he was(and perhaps BECAME..maybe he started with the rough sex and moved on to needing to kill.)

..and it is disturbing later on when Oxford finds out from the secretary that SHE knew Rusk was bad news from the start. We realize that these two women running a "marriage bureau" were exposing themselves and other women to men who weren't really interested in...marriage.

By the way, all this material helps keep Frenzy a few levels above Psycho in "adults only" status.

reply

ETA: If you want a drinking movie where you take a drink when one of the characters drink, then Frenzy is most excellent for that over Psycho haha.

---

Haha indeed. Often a drinking game is organized around a line ("Hi, Bob!") but in Frenzy, people drink a LOT. The film makes the point that pubs are rather central to urban London life(and usually only a block or so apart, one block after the other) and though the "main event" in Frenzy is FOOD, we sure get lots of shots of people drinking. In pubs, yes but also Oxford pouring himself one when he gets home from work; Rusk relaxing with a brandy -- after killing Babs; and Mrs. Oxford "poisoning herself" with an exotic Margarita ("Frenzy margarita mix" was sold to promote Frenzy, btw.)

reply

Rusk is, horrifyingly, "the real deal" in sexual psychopaths

---

There is a documentary mini-series currently screening on HBO, 'I'll Be Gone In The Dark", that *really* immerses you in the sicko details of a Rusk-like sexual psychopath, The Golden State Killer, formerly known as the (Sacramento) East Area Rapist & the (Santa Barbara) Original Night Stalker, or EARONS, as detectives named him when these cases were first connected.

---

Yep, that guy (who was first the East Area Rapist -- the EAR -- because he ONLY raped -- but eventually moved up to killing) is very much in the Rusk tradition. Though perhaps later on, Ted Bundy was moreso -- luring his female victims to death in broad daylight.

The EAR(as I'll call him) invaded homes in the dead of night; and put dishes on the men he tied up while he raped the women-- threatening that if the dishes fell off the men, he'd kill everybody.) Evidently the East Area Rapist DID eventually kill a couple in Sacramento -- and promptly moved to Southern California and kept killing -- rapes alone were no longer good enough. (This ties into Rusk, too -- we get the feeling that Rusk "moved up" from rough sex to murder, so as to cure his impotency.)

Once he moved south, EARS ended up with two new monickers -- Original Night Stalker(to avoid confusion with a LATER Night Stalker killer who was caught early on) and "the Golden State Killer(because of his crimes all over California.)








reply

The case wasn't cracked until the 2010s via DNA database sleuthing, and the killer, now in his 70s I believe, was sentenced only last month.

---

This is one of the great crime solving miracles of all time. His "reign of terror" was in the late 70's and 80's, and then he "disappeared"(evidently too old to lead cops on chases where he leaped over fences and into creeks.)

He was caught via DNA "out of nowhere," put in jail and -- here comes the best part.

He was indeed sentenced a couple of weeks ago, and you could watch the entire thing on TV, as DA reps from ALL the California counties where he committed crimes read detailed descriptions of his crimes(rape, murder) TO the old man, and he admitted "guilty" on each one(his plea deal to avoid the death penalty.)

And in a few weeks in August, during a two-day hearing to also be televised -- his victims(or their surviving family) will read out loud to this guy their personal "victim statements."
It should be compelling.

He is indeed an old man now ("Joseph DeAngelo") -- but a frighteningly big, bony and powerful looking one - he would not have been easy to fight in his prime. Sitting there "out in the open for study," he affects a dazed open-mouth expression -- as if he is too old to know what's happening, but the cops say that is an act. He's quite sharp, they say, "off screen."




reply

I personally in my California days "crossed paths" (sort of ) with the EAR while visiting friends in Sacramento.

One time, I was staying with friends and at night, one of the friends saw a figure in the back bedroom window and called 911 -- and within minutes, about 20 cops(in dark civilian clothes) poured into the house to check us out and run into the backyard(they never found whoever that was.)

Another time, a "platonic girlfriend" I was visiting with other friends asked me to spend the night in her house with the EAR about. I did it -- fairly brave, given that the EAR was big on tying up the men and threatening them with death. But I figured...what are the odds?

Well, they were close. EAR struck three doors down that night.

Still...this was before he became a killer, so the tension had some "relief" to it("He won't kill us, we can survive.")

I DID think about Psycho and Frenzy while I was living through the EAR reign of terror. Psycho I ruled out as a "real life example" -- THAT movie was about a "hidden killer" -- you had to go to HIM. But Frenzy was about a mystery killer terrorizing the town -- and my only solace on that one was that the Necktie Killer only accosted women. I realized that EAR was WORSE than the Necktie Killer. He targeted men and women in their beds, seeking to terrorize them at the same time -- and to humiliate the man for being unable to save his woman.

But I mainly remember this: it became a whole LOT worse to REALLY experience "killers at large" in real life versus watching them from the safety of a theater seat.

reply

After EAR came The Night Stalker, who committed horrific murders mainly in Southern California but terrorized the whole state. It was as if his terror was "superimposed" on that of the EAR -- these were tough years to live or even visit California. At least they caught him quick(neighbors chased him and beat him up.) The sickest thing: this guy got some "courtroom groupies" who were in love with him. Psychos come in all types..including fans.

reply

Anyhow, the sickness & depravity of the killer comes through loud and clear.

---

It remains a matter of great mathematical luck that REAL killers of the nature of Norman Bates and Bob Rusk only come around "one in a million or more." Whatever goes wrong seems to be something that doesn't happen a lot. But it DOES happen, and Hitchcock, with both Psycho and Frenzy....explored it without exploiting it. Rusk(in movies) and the EAR (in real life) took pleasure in terrifying the community at large and their individual victims. The sadism -- both sexual and murderous -- brooks no blockage from "decent impulses." The brain chemistry is all fouled up.

---

The series follows the journalist-investigator Michelle Macnamara (Patton Oswalt's wife) as she tries to solve/raises the profile of the case, and it's clear that it takes a huge toll on her & her marriage to inhabit the mind of the GSK for years on end.

---

I've been watching the show and I don't think it is a spoiler to note that Michelle DIED after completing a book about EAR. Underlying health issues AND medication...the usual "murky mix." Its good that Patton Oswalt spends the series extolling his wife's role in keeping the case alive -- EAR was caught AFTER she died -- but Mr. Oswalt married again very quickly and has simply said these things don't have time delay requirements. No comment.

Well...this one: the series DOES seem to spend a little TOO much time with Patton Oswalt and talking about his late wife. I think investigators had a lot to do with solving this.

---

reply

Like a lot of HBO Documentary series IBGITD feels a little drawn out, but so far it's been worth watching.
---

I'm watching it -- I kinda "lived it." I think you can see "Old Man GSK" 's sentencing on YouTube...you can see him and hear him. And it will only be more dramatic when all those survivors confront him directly in a few weeks -- though survivors SILENTLY stared at him during this sentencing hearing -- in huge auditorium to allow for social distancing.

---


The GSK is terrifying and haunting & also pathetic in the way that Rusk, whom I believe was modeled on a couple of celebrated British cases, is in Frenzy.

---

Yes, Rusk was modelled on two killers -- Neville Heath and John Christie. A movie about Christie came out in 1971, the year before Frenzy; 10 Rillington Place. Richard Attenborough as Christie -- bald, ugly, mousy -- was the exact opposite of flamboyant Bob Rusk.

The real "John Christie" at first so got away with his murders that a wrong man was HANGED for them -- Britain ended the death penalty after that happened.

But one thing that "10 Rillington Place" explained was what I always thought was a weakness in Frenzy: Blaney fingered Rusk -- but Oxford didn't follow that lead until AFTER Blaney was convicted. What we get in "10 Rillington Place" is basically "Rusk being interrogated during Blaney's trial as the possible killer...and being excused." John Christie was actually PUT ON THE STAND and questioned about the murders. And excused. THATS in "10 Rillington Place."

Meanwhile, Neville Heath was more of a "ladies man" killer and looked much like Barry Foster(or first choice Michael Caine.) In a weird crossover to Frenzy, Heath held himself out falsely as a "squadron leader." Sound familiar?


reply

>>The real "John Christie" at first so got away with his murders that a wrong man was HANGED for them -- Britain ended the death penalty after that happened.<<

I have to reply to this, too. It's really strange that there can be a wrong man, but these things just happen. With the Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez, there was another copy cat serial/rapist in the LA area of West Covina and not as well known as Ramirez or EARONS that you discussed. BTW, I'll have to watch that HBO special now, too.

Anyway, the police have a database of all these interest, motives, or evidence that they have gathered on various suspects. Some of the interests of these killers strangely overlap. It could be something that only a handful of people would have interest in. Yet, the police will end up with quite a few suspects matching them. Thus, it's a matter of whittling down the number of suspects. With the copy cat Night Stalker, they were able to narrow down the number to around five from 25 - 30. Can you figure out how they caught him? (Again, this isn't Ramirez (the 2nd Night Stalker (?)) but a copy cat who popped up after him where he used to live.)

reply

@J. In the EARONS case there was such an incredible trajectory of crimes first in Vesalia, then in Sacramento, then in Santa Barbara that you'd think that mining every public database for names from those three locales (places and times) would turn up very few common elements. That the case felt *so* objectively solvable makes up a lot of its allure for investigators. That said, my understanding is that the killer was finally found strictly through DNA (from crimes scenes + public dna databases for ancestry services, i.e., a relative of the killer had used the one of these services and police were then able to identify the killer as a suspect from that - police then grabbed the killer's dna from his trash to cinch an arrest). Again, as I understand it, neither the profiling and non-dna data-sleuthing nor any of the original police investigations had, with hindsight, the actual killer on any of their suspect lists.

reply

Do you mean his guilt through DNA? That is powerful evidence in court, but there must be other things before that would lead investigators to make an arrest. Especially, if the rapist or killer is of the serial kind. This brings publicity and public interest and I agree too much evidence makes it more difficult to narrow down the list of suspects.

Ah, I see. There was renewed interest in the case in 2016 and the FBI must've had new DNA evidence to link the cold cases.

What I was referring to was building a profile of the suspect in order to get a list of suspects. Law enforcement may find the actual suspect in their list, but it's too broad. If one can narrow it down to say, five for example, then they can do something. This takes work and some smarts.

I think this is what the police tried to do with EARONS (prior it was EAR and ONS were separate lol), but he was too smart for them with his canvassing the neighborhood and setting up a whole area and multiple houses for his crimes. Just watched the first episode last night. It's compelling for me now because I live in the area since the late 90s and may have talked with the man. I dunno. He looks familiar. Well, his older photos and sketches. Spokeo shows the cities where Joseph DeAngelo actually lived.

Do they discuss his psychological makeup since he's been caught, tried, and put into prison?

As for work, there is "underground" construction work industry here where I think you're paid cash for working at odd hours of the night. My neighbor does it. So, the guy could have been in construction based on what wikipedia has on him today. EARONS could've done it for many years and have no record.

reply

>>Meanwhile, Neville Heath was more of a "ladies man" killer and looked much like Barry Foster(or first choice Michael Caine.) In a weird crossover to Frenzy, Heath held himself out falsely as a "squadron leader." Sound familiar?<<

I'm two episodes in now and what hit me was the rapists group the woman psychiatrist ran at Vacaville prison during the 70s. I've been inside doing a tour with a few women during the 80s and they were told how to act and behave and not to believe what the male prisoners said to them. The guys in our group weren't told much. The one thing I got from the episode was they would not hesitate to kill in a heartbeat. That they were looking for justification to kill. Also, the GSK/EAR victims of that time thought he had full control of the situation. He had them afraid for their lives and willing to comply with his requests. GSW/EAR was well versed with putting fear in his victims with his words and actions. He may have had to tie his victims up very tightly while he didn't have any pants on and had an erection. It would look silly, but Norman looked a bit silly dressed up as Mother. We did get that in the brutal rape scene of Frenzy with Rusk.

reply

The real "John Christie" at first so got away with his murders that a wrong man was HANGED for them -- Britain ended the death penalty after that happened.
This is staggering isn't it? It sounds like the travesty of justice occurred not because of some devilishly clever piece of framing by Christie but more because the case was prosecuted with such police incompetence and malevolence , including extorting and/or beating a spurious confession out of Christie's tenant Evans. Christie testifying against his tenant at the hanging trial appears to have just fallen into Christie's lap.

Honestly, the more I read about the Christie case the more it felt like a complete Chernobyl for British police & justice not just for the Death Penalty.

reply

I personally in my California days "crossed paths" (sort of ) with the EAR while visiting friends in Sacramento.... EAR struck three doors down that night.

Holy cow!

You know one thing that IBGITD is reminding us of is that the post-'60s liberalization, '70s & '80s in particular were an unusually active era for serial criminals of various sorts. Sadistic predators who immisserated whole populations as well their actual victims were a *thing*. E.g., Early in IBGITD the police interviewed mention that at the time EAR emerged the quite small city of Sacramento nonetheless *already* had multiple serial rapists active.

From the late '80s onwards, computerization leading to improvements in record-keeping and communications & data analysis & finally DNA and other advanced evidence gathering including the modern cameras-everywhere surveillance state *did* put a sharp clamp on the incidence of this sort of criminal. Serial killers still exist today but they mostly get identified & caught a lot sooner. IBGITD proves the dark allure of '70s and '80s darkness, the time of the serial killer bubble and resolutely unsolvable crimes.

reply

I personally in my California days "crossed paths" (sort of ) with the EAR while visiting friends in Sacramento.... EAR struck three doors down that night.

Holy cow!

--

Oh, yeah. Absolutely a true story(both of them, I told.) California is a big state but a person can have reason to visit various cities (friends, family) and I found myself in Sacramento a lot in those years. The East Area Rapist(as we knew him) was doubly terrifying because Sacramento was a very SMALL city. There were only so many neighborhoods he could hit.

I recall a cheapjack "true story" serial killer movie that came out in 1977(when EAR was at large.) It starred Ben Johnson and it was called "The Town That Dreaded Sundown." Well...that was Sacramento. You could feel fear coming on as the sun went down. It didn't go away until daybreak.

But this: through the 70's and 80's, whether in northern California(SF, Sacramento) or South(Los Angeles and areas north and south of it)...serial killers were out and about and you just learned to live with it. You "bet the odds" -- kind of a "reverse lottery": one in a million wins the lottery, one in a million gets attacked.


reply

You know one thing that IBGITD is reminding us of is that the post-'60s liberalization, '70s & '80s in particular were an unusually active era for serial criminals of various sorts. Sadistic predators who immisserated whole populations as well their actual victims were a *thing*.

---

An interesting point. In the US, the population was growing and media was getting sexualized(the "R" rated movie, the growth of porn) and I won't profess to know if there was cause and effect, but there were certainly stimulations out there.

In Santa Cruz, psycho Ed Kemper preyed on pretty co-eds who would hitchhike and get in the car with him because that was "the hippie thing to do."

--

E.g., Early in IBGITD the police interviewed mention that at the time EAR emerged the quite small city of Sacramento nonetheless *already* had multiple serial rapists active.

--

Yikes.

---

From the late '80s onwards, computerization leading to improvements in record-keeping and communications & data analysis & finally DNA and other advanced evidence gathering including the modern cameras-everywhere surveillance state *did* put a sharp clamp on the incidence of this sort of criminal. Serial killers still exist today but they mostly get identified & caught a lot sooner.

---

IBGITD proves the dark allure of '70s and '80s darkness, the time of the serial killer bubble and resolutely unsolvable crimes.

---

Everybody's hoping they find the Zodiac now. Using DNA. Killer fewer people that the GSK, but got a movie about him.

When serial killers "stop" -- the guess is always three possibilities: (1) Dead(maybe by their own hand); (2) in prison for another crime and (3) just got too old to do it and lived a "regular" life. That is the GSK today. We can wonder which one is Zodiac's fate.

reply

As for work, there is "underground" construction work industry here where I think you're paid cash for working at odd hours of the night. My neighbor does it. So, the guy could have been in construction based on what wikipedia has on him today. EARONS could've done it for many years and have no record

--

I think EARONS(DeAngelo) worked with other people, as a vehicle mechanic at a Safeway store distribution HQ or something. "Nobody knew."

Though he had some nasty, tempermental outbursts against neighbors over the years.

reply

>>Unlike the frustrating "Zodiac" with several "false lead killers," Frenzy at least "comforts us" with clear knowledge who the Right Man is, from 30 minutes in(after suggesting Blaney to be the killer.) You might call Rusk's story "a week in the life of a psychopathic killer" as we watch him lure his victims, kill his victims, and dispose of the bodies of his victims(less Brenda, whom he rather perversely leaves "sitting" dead in a chair.)<<

Hm... Okay, I'm trying to figure out why I'm not as satisfied with Frenzy as I was with Psycho. You can see based on the number of re-watches. With Zodiac, we never do find out who the real killer is although dead. You have to do more detective work to find out or make your own conclusions. Is the movie right? That one is re-watchable, right?

Se7en is the same as we end up in Det. David Mills shoes. It's another critic fueled movie and this one is fiction, but we enjoy the dark style, brutality, and seven sins motive vs the brutal and wrong man/suspense/classic Hitchcock style/comediy Maybe this is where we diverge and you're enticed and attracted to the sadism. Do you think Rusk can keep getting away with it? Or does he want to be caught eventually as his guilt gets the best of him? Obviously, he thinks he can continue. That part seems wrong to me. Hitch seems to overplay his hand by having him kill again in that situation. Rusk has imprisoned the wrong man, but doesn't seem to get any glee or satisfaction from doing it. We don't really see any more complexity from Rusk. Instead, we see him continue his ways of eating an apple and then become sadistic and brutal with his tie, during the sex act. Maybe one has to harbor some darker feeling for the way Rusk does the sex act to be titillating watching it. I thought it could be aural. Anyway, at the end he seems to think that he could just carry on as before and it won't undo having the wrong man put away or the police getting closer.

reply

I didn't know Frenzy was a summer movie.

---

Yep. Summer of 1972 -- as with Psycho in 1960, it was a summer of politics -- the two national party conventions happened both in '60 and '72 and rather formed a "backdrop" to these two horrific tales. (Bosley Crowther of the NYC wrote a piece on Psycho in 1960 where he noted "The shower scene in Psycho is the biggest story of the summer apart from the political conventions.") Also, the Watergate break-in took place around the week of Frenzy's release.

---

I doubt people thought it would be a blockbuster.

---

Nope. It wasn't really promoted "big enough" to do that; the blockbuster of 1972 had already come out in March: The Godfather. And Frenzy simply didn't have what I call "the BOO!" factor -- screeching violins and shock jump cut stabbings to make everybody jump and scream. The horror in Frenzy was very "low key and interior" -- no music over the murders, more emphasis on British drama and British comedy. Frenzy WAS a big hit in film critics' columns as they heralded Hitchcock and his "return to London and return to relevancy."

---

reply

Would you recommend it to people looking for a summer movie today?

---

No, I would not. I expect Frenzy today("when the movies come back") would be a fall or early spring release. It wasn't built to compete with blockbusters. Funny thing -- neither was the cheapjack Psycho, but Psycho BECAME a blockbuster, on the strength of, yes, its "thrill ride" experience.

I'll note that in the summer of 1972, we had not only the R-rated Frenzy, but the R-rated Deliverance. Rape in both movies; of a woman in one, of a man(by a man) in the other. The whole CONCEPT of "the summer movie" ("for teens and kids; superheroes") had nothing to do with the adult concerns of Frenzy and Deliverance. Also scattered around in the summer of 1972 were "smallish" movies like Hannie Caulder; and superstars Steve McQueen and Clint Eastwood in very small scale movies (Junior Bonner and Joe Kidd, respectively.) The sequels were cheapjack, too: Shaft's Big Score and Ben(after Willard.)

The whiz kids who would re-invent Hollywood weren't quite ready to show yet, when they DID show up -- the special effects and teen-friendly movies hit big and hard and permanently.

reply

The real "John Christie" at first so got away with his murders that a wrong man was HANGED for them -- Britain ended the death penalty after that happened.<<

I have to reply to this, too. It's really strange that there can be a wrong man, but these things just happen. With the Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez, there was another copy cat serial/rapist in the LA area of West Covina and not as well known as Ramirez or EARONS that you discussed. BTW, I'll have to watch that HBO special now, too.

---

Interesting. a copycat isn't a Wrong Man so much as Another Man. And that can be scary, too.
William Goldman wrote a novel called "No Way to Treat a Lady" about TWO serial killers, one copying the other and making him jealous. It became a movie with only ONE serial killer(Rod Steiger) but that original book(which I've read OF) seems interesting in its idea of "two competing killers."

---

Can you figure out how they caught him? (Again, this isn't Ramirez (the 2nd Night Stalker (?)) but a copy cat who popped up after him where he used to live.)

--

I have no idea, but my guess is that all serial rapists or killers aren't alike. Some likely bumble the task in some way and get caught.

reply

The real "John Christie" at first so got away with his murders that a wrong man was HANGED for them -- Britain ended the death penalty after that happened.

This is staggering isn't it?

---

Yep. Avoiding this outcome is the argument (AN argument) for the discontinuation of the death penalty, but there remain that percentage of killers are clearly ARE the right man(especially today with DNA proof.) You might say that DNA "certainty" has knocked down an argument against "hanging the wrong man." And then the arguments shift elsewhere.

---

It sounds like the travesty of justice occurred not because of some devilishly clever piece of framing by Christie but more because the case was prosecuted with such police incompetence and malevolence , including extorting and/or beating a spurious confession out of Christie's tenant Evans. Christie testifying against his tenant at the hanging trial appears to have just fallen into Christie's lap.

Honestly, the more I read about the Christie case the more it felt like a complete Chernobyl for British police & justice not just for the Death Penalty

--

Though it is couched in humor, Frenzy DOES take up this subject in how certain Oxford is of Blaney's guilt -- even as MRS. BLANEY is certain that Blaney ISN'T the killer (no man rapes his ex-wife of 10 years, the sexual interest is gone....)

But on a more serious note, we watch as Oxford rejects all other possiblilities("There isn't even the complication of another suspect") even as Blaney sure does LOOK bad (Brenda's money on him; Babs clothes in his bag, etc.)

reply


Hm... Okay, I'm trying to figure out why I'm not as satisfied with Frenzy as I was with Psycho. You can see based on the number of re-watches. With Zodiac, we never do find out who the real killer is although dead. You have to do more detective work to find out or make your own conclusions. Is the movie right? That one is re-watchable, right?

Se7en is the same as we end up in Det. David Mills shoes.

---

Frenzy certainly isn't alone in the field of "serial killer movies." What's interesting, I think, is that Bob Rusk simply isn't famous like Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill and The Tooth Fairy and the "Seven Deadly Sins" killer....Norman Bates never really fit the "serial killer" model in that he didn't "terrorize a community." He was simply waiting by the side of the road for victims to come to HIM.

And thus, the question is begged: If Frenzy isn't really important as THE serial killer movie, its hard to say "what is."

Jack the Ripper as a topic was taken up in Hitchcock's own "The Lodger" but that wasn't really about the Ripper AS the Ripper. A 40's version of "The Lodger" was made that is a serial killer movie in its own Hays Code way. Hitchcock's own "Shadow of a Doubt" is certainly about a serial killer("The Merry Widow Killer") but he does no killing for the duration of the movie (he's done it, and he's stopped from doing it again.)

Another, bloodier Jack the Ripper film came out in the Psycho year of 1960; it was on TV a lot in the 60s.

We got the famous, clinical bio "The Boston Strangler" in 1968 (R-rated, with Mr. Marion Crane(ex) Tony Curtis as the strangler). In the same year, we got the little known serial strangler film "No Way to Treat a Lady"(with Rod Steiger as the killer.) These two films with their two stranglers are likely the most connected to "Frenzy," but Frenzy managed to be more graphic in its sex and its violence.


reply

I dunno, it does seem that Frenzy was celebrated more in "general" terms("Hitchcock returns to London and makes a great film again!") than in the specifics of "Bob Rusk, the Necktie Strangler." Rusk isn't really in the movie that much( which is exactly what Tony Perkins said about Norman Bates in Psycho, come to think of it.)

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here about Frenzy except maybe to say, it IS a serial killer movie -- but it never really managed to become a "famous" serial killer movie. Psycho(WITHOUT a psycho terrorizing a city) did; The Silence of the Lambs did; and Se7en did. Halloween and Friday the 13th are really both slasher films and monster movies. Freddy Krueger is practically supernatural. And then we got all those Living Dead movies, from Romero on.

I suppose the real difference about Frenzy as a serial killer movie is Hitchcock and his presence -- I mean, a major murder isn't even SHOWN(Babs), which would be malpractice for a REAL serial killer movie. (The tiny flash of flashback doesn't count.) And that potato truck scene is all unto itself and Hitchcockian(forbears: Bruno Anthony trying to retrieve that cigarette lighter, Norman Bates cleaning up Marion's body.)

reply

Se7en is the same as we end up in Det. David Mills shoes. It's another critic fueled movie and this one is fiction, but we enjoy the dark style, brutality, and seven sins motive vs the brutal and wrong man/suspense/classic Hitchcock style/comediy Maybe this is where we diverge and you're enticed and attracted to the sadism.

--

I'm not one for sadism. The Brenda Blaney killing disturbed me, and I felt punished by Se7en as it marched along to is so very downbeat conclusion. In both cases(and this is true with Tarantino, too), I rather "put up" with the sadism to get the better parts of the movie to enjoy.

---

Do you think Rusk can keep getting away with it? Or does he want to be caught eventually as his guilt gets the best of him? Obviously, he thinks he can continue.

--

In real life, SOME killers start doing things that suggest they want to get caught (even writing notes: "Stop me before I kill again.') Other explanations include that they get sloppy and out of control as "the disease takes over." So they get caught.

Rusk seemed out to keep pushing the envelope. Killing Brenda within her lunch hour in broad daylight was a risk. And once he killed both Blaney's ex-wife and current girlfriend, he ended his "random" murders and aligned himself with the Blaney investigation as a "collateral target." (In a great Hitchcock Moment, the second Blaney sees Babs orange suit in his bag -- which Rusk had in his possession -- Blaney GETS IT: "IT'S RUSK!!")

reply

Obviously, he thinks he can continue. That part seems wrong to me. Hitch seems to overplay his hand by having him kill again in that situation.

--

A BIG plot problem with Frenzy -- which alone knocks it down from Psycho level -- is how Rusk kills again AFTER Blaney is in prison. Hitchcock even had Blaney's old RAF buddy raise this plot point "When this fellow kills again and you're with us, you'll be off the hook", but abandons it

But I suppose Rusk just couldn't help himself. Maybe its a great irony: Blaney WOULD be released from prison as soon as the murders started again. But maybe not. Oxford might say "oh, we've just got somebody copycatting Blaney."

---

Rusk has imprisoned the wrong man, but doesn't seem to get any glee or satisfaction from doing it.

---

Oh, it was mainly just a "temporary diversion" from his getting caught. Though, we know he's a sadist, and how sadistic to watch your "best friend" get caught for your crimes by killing his women.

---

We don't really see any more complexity from Rusk.

---

Versus Norman Bates, Rusk isn't really very mysterious or deep at all, is he? But he really doesn't get the screen time to "explain himself" like Norman does. His ONE Norman moment is with Blaney , when he "accidentally lets the maniac speak":

"This man must be some sort of sexual maniac....(darkens, angry) mind you, some women deserve everything they GET!"..(back to normal) but YOU? --- don't make me laugh."

===
Anyway, at the end he seems to think that he could just carry on as before and it won't undo having the wrong man put away or the police getting closer.

---

Yeah, its kind of unbelievable. But as Oxford says "Discretion isn't the strong suit of the psychopath." In real life, the GSK quit. Rusk, cannot.

reply

Instead, we see him continue his ways of eating an apple

---

That bit ties in nicely to how "a Hitchcock story plays out." It fun and profound as narrative.

In the book from which Frenzy was drawn, Rusk pries a LATCHKEY, not a tiepin, from out of Bab's hand in the potato truck.

But Hitch had done a latchkey MacGuffin in "Dial M for Murder." So he made Rusk '"the necktie killer"(he isn't in the book; he uses his hands or a stocking) and made a TIEPIN the focus of the potato truck scene.

Thus, the tiepin is "played up" all through the movie. How he picks his teeth after eating the apple(which also ties into his fruit stand). How he plucks the tiepin loose from his tie to free the tie for murder(scaring his victim with the gesture.) How, in his flat, reaching for the tiepin to pick his teeth --its GONE. (And the potato truck scene begins.)

And then, AFTER the potato truck scene, while Rusk talks to Felix Forsythe -- he picks his teeth with the tiepin. "Full circle." Hitchcock at his best(via Anthony Shaffer?)

reply

>>Can you figure out how they caught him? (Again, this isn't Ramirez (the 2nd Night Stalker (?)) but a copy cat who popped up after him where he used to live.)

--

I have no idea, but my guess is that all serial rapists or killers aren't alike. Some likely bumble the task in some way and get caught.<<

Once the police were able to narrow down their suspects to five, then they followed each of them until the real one committed the crime. That's how they caught him in the act.

Things do not go this smoothly, but it goes to show that the building of the profile is helpful. However, the problem is you usually get too many suspects. With DNA or fingerprints, you can get a direct hit if you can find a match. I suppose facial recognition would be another way today. One of the difficulties of getting GSK/EARONS is he's off the grid. He's smart and knowledgeable about police techniques and is able to live alone. He's capable enough to kill people who recognize him right away.

Yes, I know he's been caught but before that I figure that's how he lived.

ETA: Wow. How wrong I was haha -- https://www.reddit.com/r/EARONS/comments/8g62pj/joseph_james_deangelo_golden_state_killer/ Guy had three kids and a wife.

reply

>>I'll note that in the summer of 1972, we had not only the R-rated Frenzy, but the R-rated Deliverance. Rape in both movies; of a woman in one, of a man(by a man) in the other. The whole CONCEPT of "the summer movie" ("for teens and kids; superheroes") had nothing to do with the adult concerns of Frenzy and Deliverance. Also scattered around in the summer of 1972 were "smallish" movies like Hannie Caulder; and superstars Steve McQueen and Clint Eastwood in very small scale movies (Junior Bonner and Joe Kidd, respectively.) The sequels were cheapjack, too: Shaft's Big Score and Ben(after Willard.)

The whiz kids who would re-invent Hollywood weren't quite ready to show yet, when they DID show up -- the special effects and teen-friendly movies hit big and hard and permanently.<<

We had no thrill ride experience in movies yet unless we count Psycho. Aside from that, I think there were shockers based on theme or scene in the movies which you mentioned. It was getting close though. The films were reflecting the sexual revolution and it pushed the bounds of sex as well as it's flip side -- violence. I think Deliverance was more popular than Frenzy, but dunno. I now see why Frenzy would've shattered people's mores of what they see on the screen, but thought Deliverance was the bigger shocker.After starting to watch IBGITD, I can see why you tied it to Frenzy as it captures the more factual details of rapists and murderers. They are two sides of the same coin which we don't always associate together. Is it the serial types who can go off like this with justifcation? GSK/EARONS seems to take more command and chances than Rusk would take. I thought Rusk would be moving on, but he found his friend to take the fall for him. That said, I thought it was one of the weaker parts of the movie as we see what the wrong man does (being in the wrong place at the wrong time) while we do not see what Rusk does. His movements and thoughts are off camera until the end.

reply

That said, I thought it was one of the weaker parts of the movie as we see what the wrong man does (being in the wrong place at the wrong time) while we do not see what Rusk does. His movements and thoughts are off camera until the end.

===

I suppose a problem with Frenzy is that it is mainly BLANEY'S story -- the wrong man story -- and though suspenseful enough, it is rather a boring story , too. I would guess that Jon Finch as Blaney gets more screen time than Barry Foster as Rusk, but Rusk gets the three "big scenes" in the movie: the Brenda murder; "Farewell to Babs"(staircase scene); and the potato truck sequence, and ends up much more memorable in the movie than Blaney.

Still...it means that we don't really "dig deep" into what makes Rusk tick -- and we can only guess at the perversity of his choosing to sexually attack and kill Blaney's women. Its a good guess, but just a guess. And it DOES put Rusk at risk -- Blaney figures out who The Necktie Strangler is.

This is interesting: Anthony Perkins -- Norman Bates himself -- once said of Norman in the 1960 original "Have you ever noticed how LITTLE Norman is in the movie?" Norman doesn't show up until the 30 minute mark, and is not in scenes set in Fairvale. (Not even the cell at the end is likely there; its likely in Redding, the county seat.)

So Norman isn't in a lot of "Psycho," and Rusk isn't in a lot of "Frenzy," but both psychos are who you remember the most!

reply

I feel the need to bring Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train" in here.

Certainaly SOAT is connected to Psycho. Like Anthony Perkins in 1960, Robert Walker in 1951 was not known for villainous roles, had a rather boyish face, and rather PLAYED boys (or very young men) in military comedies like "See Here Private Hargrove!" and military dramas like "The Clock" and "Since You Went Away."

So Hitchcock first did with Robert Walker in 1951 what he did with Anthony Perkins in 1960: switched a young actor's persona to the very dark side...and scored points accordingly (Norman, you actually LIKED; Bruno, you hated but he was the most interesting person in his movie.)

But numerous critics of 1972 and beyond found "Frenzy" to be much more connected to "Strangers on a Train" than to "Psycho," because here again, we had a story of two "doubled men"(not as young as Guy and Bruno, but not old, either) in which the "dark double" strangles the estranged/ex wife of the hero, turning the hero into the wrong man.

One wag wrote of Frenzy: "Jon Finch does alright matching up to Farley Granger, but Barry Foster can't match Robert Walker" and I say: yes, that's probably true. Unlike Rusk(or Norman), Bruno Anthony gets a lot of screen time in SOAT, and he's there from the very first scene, and he projects a certain "madness among us" that allows more "colors" to his performance than Barry Foster gets to project.

Still, I think Rusk has his own attributes. He's British, to start, which separates him from Bruno and Norman and Uncle Charlie for that matter. (Great Cockney accent, in the Michael Caine/Hitchcock tradition.) And unlike Bruno(whose craziness unnerves people on first meeting) or Norman(meek and withdrawn, lives in the backcountry with only his Mother), and Uncle Charlie(a pretty cold fish)..Rusk is "the life of the party." Cheery, funny and everybody's FRIEND. ("Bob's your uncle," he says.)

reply

But back to Bruno...and his movie.

Whereas "Frenzy,' made in 1972 when Hitchcock WAS 72(and often needing days off for recuperation while he made it) ended with a well scripted, nifty "little" climax(Three Men and a Body) -- Strangers on a Train, made in 1951 when Hitchcock was a much more energized 51, climaxes with ..one of the great action sequences of the Golden Era: the Fight on the Berserk Carousel -- hero and villain really duking it out(rare in Hitchcock) on a carousel spinning feverishly past its breaking point(and with cheering kids aboard.)

I do think that Frenzy looks more like "an old man's movie" when compared to the muscular flash of Strangers on a Train and its carousel climax.

But wait...the climax of "Frenzy" is NOT any smaller than the climaxes to Dial M for Murder, or The Trouble with Harry, or The Wrong Man, or Spellbound....by contrast the "big action climax" of Strangers on a Train is actually the exception, not the rule, in Hitchocck. Frenzy fits right in with Hitchcock movies made in the 30s, 40s and 50's in its smallness of climax(and, I'd say, with Marnie and Topaz and Family Plot too -- Torn Curtain has a relatively big opera house riot near its end.)

That carousel climax in SOAT is a bigger deal than you'd think -- TWO carousels were built on TWO soundstages -- so that Hitchcock could film action on one carousel while the other carousel was set up for shots. "Tilted" process screens were necessary and Farley Granger was rigged by his ankles to a wire that lifted his legs up in the air as he clung to the collapsing carousel. This was a BIG deal climax.

Frenzy can't compete with that, climax wise. But its right alongside Dial M and Marnie and The Trouble With Harry, climax wise.

reply

The "earlier" set-pieces in Strangers on a Train are pretty muscular , too:

Bruno's stalking and strangling of Miriam at the amusement park. The scene is evidently a mix of a REAL such park with additions by Hitch(the carousel.) And how about that "Island of Love" with the lake to cross in boats first...real, or studio? I don't know.

Later, the "cross-cut" of Guy playing a tennis match at top speed in broad daylight as Bruno reaches deep into the darkness to grab the cigarette lighter that will frame Guy -- a great, BIG sequence(much of which translated into the potato truck scene in Frenzy -- "retrieval of evidence at great pain to the villain -- audience identifies WITH villain."

The sheer volume of sets needing to be built and action needed to be staged for SOAT likely outdoes the set-pieces in Frenzy, which are dexterous( a LOT of shots, a LOT of editing -- plus all the work inside and outside on the staircase scene) but not quite "BIG."

Where Frenzy DOES best SOAT is what 20 more years and an R rating gets you -- more frankness about sexual matters, more realism to the characters(Bruno sometimes gets "too comical lines" like when he says he can smell flowers on the moon), a greater sense of "reality."


reply

As another comparison, let's look at the "matched" murder sequences in Strangers on a Train and Frenzy:

The strangulation of the hero's ex/estranged wife by the villain.

Its a very brutal bit of business in 1972...given that Rusk first rapes Brenda(though he isn't really successful) and then strangles her in a very lingering take on the crime.

But I'd say the 1951 killing is pretty vicious FOR ITS TIME. (Hays Code time.) And very sexual in ITS own way. Consider:

The victim, Miriam is:
The unfaithful wife of Guy Haines
Carrying another man's baby
While on a date with TWO young men at the fairgrounds, who
STILL ditches those men, flirts at a distance with Bruno(very sexual come hither stuff on both parts)
and yells out "let's go to the island of love" loud enough for Bruno to hear, follow, isolate and strangle her..

Evidently, the 1951 Hays Code could allow Miriam to be quite the (let's face it) slut -- as long as she died horribly (baby and all, though.) And though the strangling isn't as long and drawn out as Brenda's(the great "reflected glasses shot" covers it) the START of the strangling is quite brutal...and poignant. Miriam is first flirtatious with Bruno and then, as his gloved hands encircle and crush her throat, she sounds sad and hurt...almost like a little girl. We're reminded: she is a human being, she didn't derserve THIS. And we are educated: Bruno Anthony isn't so funny a guy, after all. He's a brutal, psychotic killer.

Noteable: whereas in SOAT, Miriam won't give Guy a divorce and is an evil, hateable shrew(but hey,, Guy wants to marry up to a Senator's daughter) Brenda in Frenzy is nothing worse than business-like , sorry to have had to divorce her husband but well rid of him. So the stranglings have different "tones": Miriam("The tramp gets what's coming to her?" Brenda(How horrible...she did NOTHING to deserve this.")


reply

As I've noted before, while both SOAT and Frenzy are about how the villain kills the hero's ex/estranged wife and the hero is blamed for it...the KEY difference is that Guy knows from the start that Bruno is the killer, and Blaney doesn't know til very near the end. Creates entirely different type of suspense -- MORE suspenseful with Blaney(we go nuts -- we WANT him to know), but complex with Bruno(he points out that he can't really go to the police...not yet...the frame is too tight.)

None other than director Oliver Stone hosted a showing of Strangers on a Train on cable one night and he made this comment: "I think Farley Granger has too many allies against Robert Walker...he should have been made more alone." Perhaps. In any event, because Blaney has few allies(one, Babs, is murdered, and the others, the RAF buddy and his wife, abandon him) and doesn't know Rusk is the killer...the suspense is pretty excruciating in Frenzy. (And thus, said Hitchcock, all the better for our nervous system to get much needed stimulation.)

Yes, "Frenzy" can be seen as much as an homage(or quasi-remake) of Strangers on a Train as Psycho -- but Psycho came between them and "upped the ante" both on violent murder and on the psyche of the homicidal.

The "other" Hitchcock psycho movie -- Shadow of a Doubt from the 40's -- certainly lays the groundwork for all the psychos to come later:

40's psycho: Uncle Charlie
50's psycho: Bruno Anthony
60's psycho: Norman Bates
70s psycho: Bob Rusk

...but Uncle Charlie and his movie don't really influence Frenzy as much as Strangers on a Train and Psycho do. There are no graphic murders in Shadow of a Doubt, no "doubled men" (though as in Psycho, there are doubled men and WOMEN: Uncle Charlie/Young Charlie ; Norman/Marion.)

reply

Uncle Charlie is perhaps most linked to Norman in that each of them get to give fairly long speeches about their hellish view of the world: "The world's a hell"(Uncle Charlie); "We're all caught in our own private traps"(Norman.)

I'm so enamored of my 40s psycho/50's psycho/60's psycho/70's psycho theorm that it is hard to confront the fact that there just might be two more psychos in Hitchcock: the two killers in Rope. Which means two -- no, THREE psychos in the 40s. In Rope one does the plotting, the other does the killing, they're a co-dependant "dyad" -- but, we have to figure that one, or both, of them are ..insane.

Its hard to explain otherwise...

reply

>>As I've noted before, while both SOAT and Frenzy are about how the villain kills the hero's ex/estranged wife and the hero is blamed for it...the KEY difference is that Guy knows from the start that Bruno is the killer, and Blaney doesn't know til very near the end. Creates entirely different type of suspense -- MORE suspenseful with Blaney(we go nuts -- we WANT him to know), but complex with Bruno(he points out that he can't really go to the police...not yet...the frame is too tight.)<<

Well, the suspect as the husband of the wife's killer (in Frenzy, the ex-husband) has always been hard to eliminate because he has the best motive. Probably it will have to be a good alibi. I knew of a SOAT story where Bruno the husband wants his wife killed, so he hires a unsuspecting stranger bad guy to put a poisonous snake in her mail box and gives him the key. He watches him do it and afterward tells him where he can pick up his $2000 and return the key. The other man does not know who the husband is as they never meet. Later, the husband goes to the neighborhood bar where he is seen by his pals there and the bartender who knows him. He knows his wife gets the mail around the time he is there and she is bitten by the poisonous snake. She is in shock and pain and tries to call 911, but they arrive too late to be able to save her. The husband is the main suspect despite his alibi because the police have no one else. They're about to clear the man, but the head detective says the snake couldn't have crawled into the box by itself. The couple's mailbox is higher up and not on the bottom row. Anyway, the husband gets away with it because he has an alibi and there are no other suspects. The hiring of a stranger to do the deed is a strong one. What happened in Frenzy with the circumstantial evidence is more due to luck with the wrong person being accused. That happens a lot. I'll pick SOAT over Frenzy haha.

reply

Anyway, the husband gets away with it because he has an alibi and there are no other suspects. The hiring of a stranger to do the deed is a strong one. What happened in Frenzy with the circumstantial evidence is more due to luck with the wrong person being accused. That happens a lot. I'll pick SOAT over Frenzy haha.

---

You mean the actual plotting so the husband "could get away" with the murder of the ex?

Of course, in Frenzy, Blaney doesn't wish THAT on his ex-wife, whereas in SOAT, Guy sort of DOES (she's NOT ex, for one thing, and won't give him a divorce so he can marry the Senator's daughter. 1951 divorce law was evidently pretty "entrapping" - you couldn't just GET one?)

For those who think that Psycho "explains too much"(the psychiatrist scene), it can be noted that Frenzy "explains too little" -- which seems to make that movie a bit too glib and superficial.

For instance, Frenzy begins with "another necktie murder!"(the body floating in the Thames), and the Neckie Killer seems to be one who chooses random victims.

And yet Rusk DECIDES to kill Blaney's ex-wife (and try to rape her first), which changes his random pattern. Blaney ends up "ready made for the frame," but Rusk ends up on Blaney's radar as the real killer. One has to wonder: WHY did Rusk choose Brenda for his next victim? And then Babs after that? Hatred/jealousy of Blaney, maybe? (after all, Blaney got Brenda to marry him, and has gotten Babs as a girlfriend.)

I suppose it would be "too much explanation," but I've always imagined a scene where Blaney talks with Rusk...Rusk behind bars in prison, and Rusk "explains" why he chose Blaney's women for death..maybe cruelly so. But its not really a scene that "fits" the story we see that ends so perfectly.



reply

>>You mean the actual plotting so the husband "could get away" with the murder of the ex?<<

Whether there is no plot in Frenzy or a plot (somewhat) in SOAT doesn't matter. The husband never is cleared exactly unless an air tight alibi or they catch the guilty party. I mean that's the way I would operate if investigating a murder like in Frenzy.

>>For those who think that Psycho "explains too much"(the psychiatrist scene), it can be noted that Frenzy "explains too little" -- which seems to make that movie a bit too glib and superficial.<<

No, it wasn't that; It's Blaney. He's too angry and complaining. He should've been more gentler and innocent like Guy type instead of a ladies man. It's too one sided of a battle because Rusk finds a victim to set up (?) when he goes for Brenda. Later, he does the same to Babs. You know he lets Babs know when it's happening and she screams the same. Not enough tit for tat between the two. I didn't notice the pattern change, but it's only so Rusk could destroy Blaney. I didn't get Blaney was destroyed exactly. He's just pissed even more. I still think the inspector would've been a better foil for Rusk and I agree Rusk is no Bruno.

Finally, did Rusk choose Blaney's women for death? Wasn't it a coincidence he went to his ex's matchmaking service and became a pest. He went there for personal services and nothing to do with Blaney. Blaney went there to borrow money b/c he wouldn't borrow from Babs. Otherwise, no coincidences.

Usually, when bad things happen there are no coincidences, but in this case it was. Their lives just happen to overlap and Rusk too advantage once he knew. Then there were no coincidences.

reply

>>You mean the actual plotting so the husband "could get away" with the murder of the ex?<<

Whether there is no plot in Frenzy or a plot (somewhat) in SOAT doesn't matter. The husband never is cleared exactly unless an air tight alibi or they catch the guilty party. I mean that's the way I would operate if investigating a murder like in Frenzy.

---

True. As I've noted elsewhere, Frenzy(and SOAT for that matter) at least "comfort us" with clear knowledge of EXACTLY who really committed the murder...which creates suspense as the cops zero in on the 'wrong man" who -- as the estranged/ex husband is surely a natural suspect (and both Guy AND Blaney exhibited public anger towards their exes -- Guy saying "I could strangle her" and grabbing her in the record booth; Blaney yelling so that the secretary could hear (at the office) and exploding at the "Women's Business club.)

In real life, the cops surely would have to clearly find the "right man" to stop watching the wrong man. And I think that poor Guy Haines might always be suspected of, at least "not minding" that Bruno killed the estranged wife who was poised to ruin everything. I see some residual troubles ahead for Guy Haines in DC.

While I'm on SOAT, I'll note something almost funny about it: Bruno's idea of "swapping murders" so that Guy's wife can be killed without Guy getting blamed, only works right IF Guy has an airtight alibi. But Guy does NOT have such an alibi, and comes under immediate suspicion. Its almost as if Bruno planned THAT.

Meanwhile, the "Strangers on a Train swapped murder plan" came back in the movie "Throw Momma From the Train" and a few TV crime show episodes(where people WATCHED Strangers on a Train and got the idea.)


reply

>For those who think that Psycho "explains too much"(the psychiatrist scene), it can be noted that Frenzy "explains too little" -- which seems to make that movie a bit too glib and superficial.<<

No, it wasn't that; It's Blaney. He's too angry and complaining. He should've been more gentler and innocent like Guy type instead of a ladies man. It's too one sided of a battle because Rusk finds a victim to set up (?) when he goes for Brenda. Later, he does the same to Babs.

---

Hitchcock noted that in the first half hour of Frenzy, the audience is somewhat being led to believe that Blaney IS the Necktie Killer, but also seeing how his behavior and circumstances peg him as the killer even when(we learn quickly) he is NOT.

Note in passing: Whereas Hitchcock wanted Michael Caine for Rusk(didn't get him; Barry Foster is "close") he also offered the role of Richard Blaney to Richard Burton(first) and Richard Harris(second.) With Burton or Harris in the part, perhaps Richard Blaney would have been more interesting --- more sympathetic on the basis of "star power." But it was not to be.

---

. I didn't notice the pattern change, but it's only so Rusk could destroy Blaney. I didn't get Blaney was destroyed exactly. He's just pissed even more. I still think the inspector would've been a better foil for Rusk

---

Hey, we could have even maybe had Inspector Oxford question Rusk at his fruit stand in a kind of British "Arbogast questions Norman scene" -- hell, maybe get Oxford killed(strangled? but not raped.)

--

reply

and I agree Rusk is no Bruno.

--

Well some key Hitchcock scholars seem to think that. Me, I concede that Robert Walker gives more of a full, movie-length performance in SOAT than Foster(a far less know actor than Walker was at the time), but there's just something about Bob Rusk that stands out "close to" Walker: His Technicolor qualities(that hair, those suits, that purple tie); his cheeriness; and ultimately the fact that we SEE Rusk do things we never really saw a Hitchcock killer do before. Not even Norman Bates.

One critic really hated Rusk for his sexual brutality and wrote -- in comparing him to Norman -- "Honestly, do we even really need to remember this character's NAME?"

Well, I do. Bob Rusk.

PS. Keep in mind that in Robert Bloch's novel, Norman Bates is specifically called(by Norman himself)...impotent. Bob Rusk is impotent. Both men substitute murder FOR potency. And Robin Wood called the shower murder "Norman's substitution for the rape he dare not commit."

reply

Finally, did Rusk choose Blaney's women for death? Wasn't it a coincidence he went to his ex's matchmaking service and became a pest. He went there for personal services and nothing to do with Blaney. Blaney went there to borrow money b/c he wouldn't borrow from Babs. Otherwise, no coincidences.

---

A great question. Rusk alludes to Blaney at his fruit stand, "Why don't you go and visit your ex, she's doing well" -- which suggests he knows(from Blaney himself) what Brenda does. And yet Rusk SOUGHT her service. One wonders(given the "gaps" in the script) if Rusk crazily wrote down what he wanted in a woman(masochism) rather than simply trying it on a date and it got back to Brenda. ("We cannot serve you...")

I expect that Rusk heard about Brenda's job from Blaney and sought her out to pursue his sexual pursuits(NOT marriage.) I also expect that Rusk's "disease"(as Oxford calls it) likely started without murder attached, but developed over time into murder. Like a lot of real life killers who "graduate" to murder.

--
Usually, when bad things happen there are no coincidences, but in this case it was. Their lives just happen to overlap and Rusk too advantage once he knew. Then there were no coincidences.

--

I'd agree with this. Here's Rusk undergoing his spree as "The Necktie Strangler," and here's Blaney with some women in his orbit that Rusk could target. We never really learn how Rusk got the other victims -- he's not necessarily like Jack the Ripper, grabbing hookers in alleys. Likely he charmed his victims into pick-ups, dates, and the like. Or(as with Brenda) came on to them and went berserk on rejection.

reply

...and one small thought about Bruno Anthony and his "murdering ways."

Bob Rusk...like Uncle Charlie...is a legitimate "serial killer." Multiple victims; a monicker (The Merry Widow Killer; The Necktie Killer.)

But sometimes I wonder if Miriam Haines was Bruno Anthony's FIRST kill. He certainly seems haunted and guilty AFTER he does it -- first at the fairgrounds(walking the blind man across the street) and later when he encounters Pat Hitchcock.

Perhaps Bruno Anthony had been feverishly plotting "fantasy plots" for years and finally acted on one, and felt horrible about it -- but also vengeful -- Guy MUST commit HIS murder(Bruno's father.)

reply

>>While I'm on SOAT, I'll note something almost funny about it: Bruno's idea of "swapping murders" so that Guy's wife can be killed without Guy getting blamed, only works right IF Guy has an airtight alibi. But Guy does NOT have such an alibi, and comes under immediate suspicion. Its almost as if Bruno planned THAT.

Meanwhile, the "Strangers on a Train swapped murder plan" came back in the movie "Throw Momma From the Train" and a few TV crime show episodes(where people WATCHED Strangers on a Train and got the idea.)<<

I admit I like the charm of traveling from DC to NY by train and the time it takes, but it's from a bygone era. It was the way for most people to do it in the 40s and 50s. I mean I like the comfort of being able to meet a stranger and then be able to discuss things in private while I don't think they could do that on early airplane travel even in first class. They would be overheard by the attendants and others and there would probably be too many interruptions. We even have the danger of train derailments vs an air crash. Even so, we can accept the setting of the era and get involved with what happens in SOAT. I guess that's the other thing. One can get away with murder on a train more readily than on an airplane or jet today. There's a certain charm to that :).

reply

Even so, we can accept the setting of the era and get involved with what happens in SOAT. I guess that's the other thing. One can get away with murder on a train more readily than on an airplane or jet today. There's a certain charm to that :).

--

Yes, from a bygone era. A whole little essay could be written about "great thriller scenes on trains." Sometimes parts of movies(Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest, The Manchurian Candidate) sometimes ENTIRE movies(The Lady Vanishes, Murder on the Orient Express..Silver Streak, Narrow Margin.)

North by Northwest in 1959 even "explained' why the lead goes on a train -- which was ALREADY "old fashioned." Grant tells his mother on the phone "How can I jump out of a plane if the police find me?" And later when kissing away with Eva Marie Saint in her train compartment, he says "Beats flying, doesn't it?"

Yes, it does.

reply

>>I suppose a problem with Frenzy is that it is mainly BLANEY'S story -- the wrong man story -- and though suspenseful enough, it is rather a boring story , too.<<

This could be it. Blaney isn't a likeable nor interesting character. If it was the chief inspector who got more screen time in putting together what happened as well as the comedic scenes, then it may have been better. Rusk is oblivious to the inspector until the end. Instead, it's Rusk setting up Blaney as the fall guy and it's no contest. Rusk vs the inspector would make Rusk think more and would put the protagonist and the antagonist on more even ground. One of things scary about EARONS is he was so good at being a hot prowl burglar and regular burglar, committing rape in the victim's house with the husband there, and killing people including shooting a couple in broad daylight and getting away with it.

>>One wag wrote of Frenzy: "Jon Finch does alright matching up to Farley Granger, but Barry Foster can't match Robert Walker" and I say: yes, that's probably true. Unlike Rusk(or Norman), Bruno Anthony gets a lot of screen time in SOAT, and he's there from the very first scene, and he projects a certain "madness among us" that allows more "colors" to his performance than Barry Foster gets to project.<<

That's right, but Bruno has an out and is the one who came up with it. Rusk found an out and took it with Blaney, but we do not see what his out will be when he commits another rape/murder. The final time his plan seems to be hiding his victim presumably where it can't be found for some time, but he doesn't know Blaney escaped nor the chief inspector is after him. Yet, you're right. Rusk doesn't think of an out before or at the time of the rape/murder. I think his facade allows him to get away with his crimes. People do not think he's such a sadist and murderer.

reply

>I suppose a problem with Frenzy is that it is mainly BLANEY'S story -- the wrong man story -- and though suspenseful enough, it is rather a boring story , too.<<

This could be it. Blaney isn't a likeable nor interesting character.

---

No. And it is as if Hitchcock in "Frenzy" is bound and determined to keep it that way -- to keep the audience from EVER warming up to Blaney beyond feeling bad for his plight.

I would like to note that Blaney isn't all THAT unlikeable, though -- his first conversations with Rusk are friendly(Rusk and Blaney unite in hatred for the bullying pub owner Felix Forsythe); Babs clearly loves him, and Blaney IS kind to her(and has sex with her.) BUT we keep getting these "eruptions" from Blaney(when he believes the bartender hasn't poured a double; with Brenda at her club, with his RAF friend) and we see that he is a basically decent man who is his own worst enemy.

There is this main thing , I think: Frenzy has three big set-pieces (the graphic murder of Brenda; the unseen murder of Babs; the potato truck scene) and RUSK -- not Blaney -- is the star of all of them. Blaney is left wandering around in scenes with NO action, just struggling with his plight.

Compare that to the three big set-pieces in North by Northwest(drunken drive, crop duster attack, Mount Rushmore finale). Hero Roger Thornhill(Cary Grant) is in ALL three of those set-pieces(with Eva Marie Saint along for Rushmore.)

Of compare that to SOAT: Bruno is in all three big set pieces(the fairgrounds murder; the tennis match-versus-sewer grab for the cigarette lighter; the berserk carousel) but GUY figures in two out of three of those.

Rusk's dominating all of the set-pieces in Frenzy is perhaps one reason why a feminist writer in the NYT said Hitchcock made Rusk "the hero" of Frenzy. Not so -- Rusk is the MAN OF ACTION. But they are all HORRIBLE actions.

reply

If it was the chief inspector who got more screen time in putting together what happened as well as the comedic scenes, then it may have been better. Rusk is oblivious to the inspector until the end.

---

That's true. Inspector Oxford enters the story a little late, and is consigned to the "Oxford dinner scenes" with his wife, for the most part. That said, I do like Oxford's breakfast in his office with his assistant(who says "I"m a Quaker Oats man, myself")Plus , Oxford is hellbent on Blaney as his suspect("There's not even the complication of anotehr suspect.") I suppose a "Frenzy' that removed Blaney's wrong man entirely and centered on the usual "cat and mouse" of cop versus killer (Oxford versus Rusk) in the Se7en tradition may have worked better. As it is, Frenzy has to service THREE main male characters(Blaney, Rusk, Oxford) and can never really give any one of them enough time.

---

One of things scary about EARONS is he was so good at being a hot prowl burglar and regular burglar, committing rape in the victim's house with the husband there, and killing people including shooting a couple in broad daylight and getting away with it.

--

Funny thing. I was sometimes in the city where this scary psycho got his start, and he was always and only known to me as "The East Area Rapist." As such, he was a mix of "pro and con." For awhile. Pro: he did not kill his victims. If he invaded your home, you would survive, and you could console yourself with that fact. Con: Nonetheless, it would be a horrible, life-scarring experience: rape for the woman; emasculating humiliation for the man. (Indeed, part of the EAR's great "power" was the fact that he was confident enough to TAKE ON MEN, unlike the fictional Rusk and so many real life killers who only targeted women.)


reply

I personally lost track when the East Area Rapist became a killer. Evidently eventually he killed a couple on a suburban street in Sacramento( his "home base")...and then moved elsewhere in California and started killing more than not. (A horrible truism about all psychos is that "they get worse" and start killing or start killing more, before capture or retirement. Even in Frenzy, we get a sense of Rusk getting sloppy in his choice of victims and more prolific in his killings.)

Part of what Patton Oswalt's late wife evidently did was to "expand" the EAR into "The Golden State Killer" so as to make sure his deadliness was accentuated. Throw in that "Original Night Stalker" monicker, and we now have the most awkwardly named killer in California history!

reply

Rusk found an out and took it with Blaney, but we do not see what his out will be when he commits another rape/murder. The final time his plan seems to be hiding his victim presumably where it can't be found for some time, b
--

I'm always willing to "take another look" at a set opinion about a movie story. And it is possible: Rusk could continue raping and murdering -- even with Blaney imprisoned -- as long as he HID the bodies. The real-life John Christie hid several(many?) bodies in the wall of his flat before being discovered. If Rusk started hiding his victims, women might "disappear" but it would take forever to realize the Necktie Killer was still at it.

---

Yet, you're right. Rusk doesn't think of an out before or at the time of the rape/murder.

--

No, he doesn't -- he's compulsive, he's getting worse at his killing planning. And Rusk seems to LIKE putting himself at risk of exposure -- killing Brenda in her office at noon before the secretary returns, for instance. And when he puts Babs' clothes in Blaney's bag -- he's as much as TELLING Blaney he is the real killer.

---

reply

I think (Rusk's) facade allows him to get away with his crimes. People do not think he's such a sadist and murderer.

---

This is very much the key to Bob Rusk as a Hitchcock psycho much unlike the three that came before him. I'll knock off two in comparison with ease, the third is a bit harder. But first these two:

BRUNO ANTHONY: Bruno is weird and off-putting within minutes of meeting him. Guy is stuck with Bruno for that opening train ride and not very comfortable with him -- its a real escape for Guy to get off that train("Sure, sure, Bruno...I agree with ALL your theories!") Later, Bruno invades an elegant party and insults, discomfits the guests, and almost strangles one of them to death. ("Who invited that young man here?" says the Senator host.) Unlike Bruno, Bob Rusk gets along with everybody -- you want to hang out for a beer with Bob Rusk ("Bob's your uncle.")

NORMAN BATES: Unlike Bob Rusk, Norman is a nervous, introverted and withdrawn loner, hidden away with his mother in California's backwaters. "Do you go out with friends?" asks Marion Crane. "Well...a boy's best friend is his mother" answers Norman...and Marion in that instant knows this a full-grown man who is still a child. In contrast, the extrovert Bob Rusk is EVERYBODY's friend in Covent Garden, it seems, cheery and supportive and funny.

reply

And now the hard one:

UNCLE CHARLIE: On the surface, Uncle Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt seems to be well-liked by everyone he meets -- ladies of all ages swoon for him, and he's sought after as a "world travelled" speaker for a night in the community. But something is off about Charlie from the get go: the friendliness is a façade that falls quickly -- he is paranoid and cold and wants people to keep away from him. He insults the banker boss of his brother in law, and embarrasses the brother in law accordingly. His dinner table conversations are pretty spooky as when he talks about "greedy wheezing widows" -- "eating the money, drinking the money."

No, I think by the time Hitchcock gave us Barry Foster as Bob Rusk, Hitchcock was more sophisticated in giving us a killer who gives off NO vibes of his evil tendencies until it is too late...as it is for Brenda Blaney when Rusk (as "Mr. Robinson") enters her office at lunchtime.

Rusk is perhaps the best example of Hitchcock's credo: "Killers have to be attractive. Otherwise, victims wouldn't come near them."

Norman Bates runs a close second in THAT regard...and outshines Rusk in others.

reply

>>No. And it is as if Hitchcock in "Frenzy" is bound and determined to keep it that way -- to keep the audience from EVER warming up to Blaney beyond feeling bad for his plight.<<

It's not just that, but Blaney didn't borrow the money from Babs for a reason. At least in my mind. He wanted to keep it more as a sleeping friendship. Brenda was more his type.

As for the rest, I suppose it could've been a larger movie but a British film would have more limited distribution. Maybe Frenzy did as well as it could. I think you're attracted to the British charm. Even with the big scenes by Rusk, it's not going to be comparable with NXNW. Rusk couldn't pull it off.

By then Hitch had made his mark and career and it was fitting he ended it with a movie based on his return to his roots and Family Plot which shows his crafty sense of humor and was something fun for him to make. Was it another film that critics liked? Sure and it gave them more chance to effuse about Hitchcock.

reply


, but Blaney didn't borrow the money from Babs for a reason. At least in my mind. He wanted to keep it more as a sleeping friendship. Brenda was more his type.

--

I lose track about how/where Blaney got money. Brenda(his ex-wife) slipped some into his pocket(discovered when the Salvation Army guy tried to take it.) Babs turned down a loan? In any event, Frenzy demonstrates that Blaney was pretty much -- homeless -- after he lost his room at the Globe pub. Scary in a different way(Frenzy, like Psycho, and unlike To Catch a Thief, is about the terrors of scraping by a living.)

---

As for the rest, I suppose it could've been a larger movie but a British film would have more limited distribution. Maybe Frenzy did as well as it could. I think you're attracted to the British charm. Even with the big scenes by Rusk, it's not going to be comparable with NXNW. Rusk couldn't pull it off.

---

I recall asking a friend what he thought about Frenzy around 1973 and he said, "it was too British for me." I suppose the film lacked the "All-American flash" of NXNW or Psycho; and it certainly lacked any major stars. Rusk did what he could to be interesting but no, he couldn't save the whole story -- as against something as big(and with big stars) as North by Northwest. Still, the critics didn't mind -- they felt a "small" Hitchcock classic was good enough. Time called Frenzy: "Alfred Hitchcock's droll little study in terror."



reply

By then Hitch had made his mark and career and it was fitting he ended it with a movie based on his return to his roots and Family Plot which shows his crafty sense of humor and was something fun for him to make. Was it another film that critics liked? Sure and it gave them more chance to effuse about Hitchcock.

---

Well as critic Stanley Kauffman noted, "Hitch got a second wind in the 70's" -- both Frenzy(a lot) and Family Plot(somewhat less so) got plenty of raves from a new generation of critics who felt Hitchcock "got no respect" for Vertigo and Psycho.

The opening ten minutes of Frenzy -- the Thames speech -- are photographed by Gil Taylor with a kind of "high gloss professionalism" -- I always think: "There, Hitchcock means top technical polish." But alas, the Hollywood-filmed Family Plot, after opening with some nice reds in Julia Rainbird's mansion -- turns into "the blue screen that ate Bruce Dern's head" and Family Plot stops looking as good as Frenzy.

No matter. Hitchcock needed to return to England for Frenzy, and then he needed to return back to America for Family Plot -- a nicer, if lesser film.

reply

A few more review excerpts of Frenzy(for a reason) and a couple of excerpts from 1960 Psycho reviews(for a reason):

As a teen I read the movie reviews in Time, Newsweek, and Life(which came to our home), and I learned about the movies -- and I learned about writing for major magazines by critics. I learned about writing, period. Not necessarily vocabulary, but how to USE vocabulary. And key reviews stuck in my mind:

Richard Schickel(Life) on Frenzy:

"After flat Marnie, mechanical Torn Curtain, diffuse Topaz -- Frenzy is like a homecoming to the kind of sly and savage movie we all thought that Alfred Hitchcock either could not or would not make anymore."

A rich sentence. First of all, Schickel's choice of JUST ONE WORD to summarize the problems with Marnie("flat"), Torn Curtain("mechanical") and Topaz("diffuse") and -- you UNDERSTAND and perhaps agree with each word chosen.

"a homecoming" -- other critics were more direct about "a homecoming to England" or a "homecoming to London"(the opening shot is a "homecoming shot") but Schickel went in a different direction:

"...to the kind of sly and savage movie." Frenzy IS sly, and it is certainly savage, savage in a way that NXNW and Family Plot(for two) are not -- but that Psycho is.

"that we thought Alfred Hitchcock either would not or could not make anymore." -- "could not" is a polite nod to concern that age and health and diminished Hitchcock's powers forever(as it turned out, they were STILL diminished for Frenzy, somewhat) and "would not" suggests that Hitchcock had not seemed ready to "go all the way" with an R film. (But he was, and he did.)

reply

Newsweek,

"It all seemed so clear and simple. Starting with The Birds and sliding down to Topaz, Alfred Hitchcock's works had declined as a combination of age and ill health. Well, as usual, the old master has fooled us. Frenzy is one of his very best."

The Newsweek review stands as the biggest rave Frenzy got in 1972, and perhaps ended up under attack from other critics who didn't quite think it was that good.

The review was also one of a few that included "The Birds"(coming after Vertigo, NXNW and Psycho) as 'the first film of decline." Which it sort of was. The Universal production values, an overly slow first act reflecting Hitchcock's desire to "go arty", and frankly a set of uninteresting characters -- will always hurt The Birds in spite of its landmark effects and set-pieces . And yet -- Frenzy is better? Little bitty expository overly violent Frenzy? I'm not so sure myself.

reply

The Time review by Jay Cocks(a Scorsese friend who would someday write scripts for Marty) was positive but tougher:

"In case anyone was concerned back in the dim days of Marnie and Topaz, Alfred Hitchcock is back in fine form. Frenzy is not at the level of his greatest works, but it is shrewd and smooth and dexterous, a fitting reminder than anyone who makes a suspense film is but an apprentice to this old master."

Everything in that Time review is positive except "it is not at the level of his greatest works," and for almost 50 years now, my own view of Frenzy has veered from Newsweek("One of his very best") to Time("Not at the level of his greatest works.")

But here's what else I like about the Jay Cocks review of Frenzy: the phrase "smooth and shrewd and dexterous," which DOES capture the feeling of Frenzy, and again shows how a good writer chooses his words well.

reply

Now here is an excerpt from the 1960 Time review of...Psycho(author unknown, they didn't "bill" them , then):

"What follows(the shower scene) is expertly Gothic, but what could have been an effective creak-and-shriek thriller instead becomes a spectacle of stomach-churning horror."

I'm sure that Time intended that line as a "pan," but it likely pulled in audiences who read the review all the more: they WANTED to see a spectacle of stomach churning horror.

Time doubled down with a "capsule" review of Psyhco on a list of movies the next week, but grudgingly understood it was a hit:

"Hitchcock's hand is heavy on Psycho -- and thoroughly dipped in blood -- but it is nonetheless a successful thriller."

reply

The Newsweek review of Psycho in 1960 was positive and a bit too "give-away":

"It becomes apparent that Psycho depends on a single, specific twist, and audience members will try hard to guess that twist early on. Right guessers will deal themselves out of much of the suspense; right guessers will be enthralled to the end."

Fair enough -- but not really. "Right guessers" will figure out Norman is the killer early on so if he's down at the office with Sam, Lila's in no danger up at the house. But right guessers who know Norman is the killer will still be pretty much in suspsense when Arbogast climbs those stairs or when Norman knocks Sam out and runs up the hill...

reply

And finally, here is the opening line of a review I read this week for a movie I WATCHED (again) this week: "DePalma," where Hitchcock copycat(sometimes) Brian DePalma sits for a film long interview not only with clips from his films, but with clips from Hitchcock's film(a quick shot from the Mount Rushmore climax of North by Northwest dazzles in its sheer epic SIZE versus the Depalma clips.)

Anyway, the review sentence:

"'DePalma opens with a clip from Vertigo. Daring to open a movie about DePalma with a clip from Vertigo is as dangerously on the nose as ending the greatest thriller of all time with a scene of a doctor explaining the psychosis of the killer."

--

Now what might THAT be?

reply

To this day I've never seen Frenzy except for a few minutes on TV.

I must get a copy of it.

Interesting reviews of Psycho. It must've been one tough movie to review.

It's hard to describe the story without giving away too much.

I've seen the trailer that Hitchcock did. He explained so much yet he didn't TELL the audience anything! Like I said before, he had a sly smile and was such an imp!

Speaking of not giving away the twist, I was amazed at how reviewers of The Sixth Sense never gave away the secret.

reply

To this day I've never seen Frenzy except for a few minutes on TV.

I must get a copy of it.

--

Well, 1972 is a long time ago and the "frenzy" over Frenzy being a Hitchcock comeback has long died down. I personally remember the movie "in the wake" of those rave reviews. It plays differently now I think -- though the R rated material is still pretty shocking and creepy.

-----

Interesting reviews of Psycho. It must've been one tough movie to review.

It's hard to describe the story without giving away too much.

---

I've read (using microfiche) about 50 reviews FROM 1960 about Psycho, and they sure do struggle to describe what happens in that movie after Marion reaches the Bates Motel.

I found that most reviews couldn't help but give away the shower murder (Newsweek: "A scene that begins with a shot under a shower nozzle throws a lot more scare into the movie than that Gothic mansion on the hill.") MOST reviewers did not give away the twist, but a couple did.

The shower scene ended up being hinted at in most reviews, but not the Arbogast murder(nor was Arbogast even discussed.) Its my guess that therefore, a lot of people were surprised when he got killed.

One grumpy reviewer (San Diego) gave away everything including the Arbogast murder, rendered thus:

"Martin Balsam plays a private eye, an eye which is permanently closed by Perkins. Miles and Gavin await a report from Balsam, but he is too dead to report in."

Ha ha. But boy would I have been mad reading THAT review!

reply

I guess the reviewer thought he was being witty!

It's not the reviewer's job to give away all the plot points. I think it's their job to make the movie sound so enticing that audiences want to see it AND discover the plot for themselves.

Once when we were discussing movies, my sister gave away a plot twist. We were talking about The Sixth Sense and I mentioned that I just bought The Others.

She proceeded to tell me the ending before I could say "Shush!", I haven't watched it yet.
I still enjoyed the film. I just watched it from a different perspective. I looked for hints all through the movie.

reply

I guess the reviewer thought he was being witty!

---

Well, I must admit that "he is too dead to report in" is a funny line...and rather on point to the story at that point.

But that review was criminal. The critic gave it all away -- shower, staircase, fruit cellar -- and quite dismissively. Just because he didn't like the movie, felt Hitchocck was "slumming."

---



It's not the reviewer's job to give away all the plot points. I think it's their job to make the movie sound so enticing that audiences want to see it AND discover the plot for themselves.

---

Well, modernly critics will write their reviews with a SPOILER alert(for people who don't care.) And I've read many a review that says "Don't read this now. Please see the movie first and then read this" -- which nicely allows the critic to get into the spoilers and to write more of a "study of the film."

---

Once when we were discussing movies, my sister gave away a plot twist. We were talking about The Sixth Sense and I mentioned toat I just bought The Others.

She proceeded to tell me the ending before I could say "Shush!", I haven't watched it yet.
I still enjoyed the film. I just watched it from a different perspective. I looked for hints all through the movie.

---

"I looked for hints all through the movie" -- that's why Psycho got more repeat business(it is said) than any movie before it. People went BACK to look for hints all through the movie.

Its too bad when someone gives away a twist. I recall when The Untouchables was being made, a reporter reported on the death of a major character. When the movie came out a year later, I realized that was a TWIST that was reported so I watched the movie knowing that character was going to die. I wish I'd been surprised.

Oh, well, as Hitchcock said -- its only a movie.

And there's a lot in Psycho to enjoy even when you KNOW the twist.

reply

Also, Bosley Crowther in the New York Times chose not to single out the shower murder, but rather grouped the two murders together(without telling who the victims were) thus:

"It turns out that Perkins has a Mother kept up in that house on the hill. And that mother, it turns out, has a penchant for creeping up on people with a big knife, drawing considerably blood. A couple of people are gruesomely punctured before the mystery is solved."

THAT would bring audiences in, I bet. But they'd know that only " a couple of people" are killed.

The Los Angeles Times reviewer (Philip K. Scheuer) found "Psycho" to be "a messy business" ("When blood is supposed to spurt in this movie, it really spurts!") and cannily called out the fruit cellar climax as "being borrowed from the Phantom of the Opera."

At the end of 1960, Scheuer couldn't put Psycho on his Ten Best list, he wrote, because "Hitchcock has here sadly misused his great artistic and technical powers in the service of a movie that is beneath him."

And so forth and so on. Contrary to certain stories, Psycho DID get quite a few good reviews, but it was mainly just sort of dismissed.

A mistake, as it turned out.

reply

...and THAT'S why I take a lot of movie reviews with a grain of salt!

I've read some truly horrible reviews of movies and went on to enjoy them.

Maybe that just says something about my taste in films! LOL

When it come to Hitchcock, no movie seems to get greater reviews than VERTIGO and it is truly the one movie he did that I don't like. I've tried and tried to like it. I watched it several times, but it does nothing for me.

I have the book of the making of Vertigo. The actual behind the scenes stories, Hitchcock's ideas and the making of the movie are so interesting.
It's just the actual film that I don't like. Go figure!

reply

It's hard to describe the story without giving away too much.

I've seen the trailer that Hitchcock did.
--

Its a great trailer -- I think at least one of the LONGEST trailers ever made, and possibly the greatest and -- this is important -- it doesn't have one single clip from the movie itself -- which only compelled more people to want to show up to see it.
(The screaming woman in the shower at the end is Vera Miles, in a shot staged for the trailer; Janet Leigh was no longer available.)

--

He explained so much yet he didn't TELL the audience anything!

---

Well, he protected the twist(he even LIED, talking about the mother like she existed), but he sure gave away a lot about the two murders. He didn't say WHO got killed, but he said WHERE they got killed -- and gave us that shot of Vera Miles to suggest a woman gets killed in the shower.

I'll here repeat my refrain that that trailer REFUTE decades of film critics and writers who said that Hitchcock wanted to surprise the audience with the shower murder. Hell, he SOLD the movie with the shower murder (like "Come see my new movie where a woman gets killed with a lot of blood, in a shower!")

When the legend, becomes fact, print the legend.

reply

Like I said before, he had a sly smile and was such an imp!

--

Hitchcock made that Psycho trailer at the peak of his international popularity. His TV show was a top ten hit; North by Northwest had been a big commercial hit following the already-revered Vertigo(the French critics were talking about it.)

The TV stardom in particular made Hitchcock the "natural" host of this trailer, and his narration was written by the guy(James Allardice) who wrote his TV intros("The victim..or should I say victims..had no conception of the type of people they were dealing with in this house.")

---
Speaking of not giving away the twist, I was amazed at how reviewers of The Sixth Sense never gave away the secret.

---

I think by 1999, movie critics were more sophisticated about not giving away twists -- and more subject to "punishment" by movie studios if they did so(like, getting banned from any further private screenings.)

My take on the twist ending of The Sixth Sense is that "it turns a horror movie into a tearjerker."

reply

...and THAT'S why I take a lot of movie reviews with a grain of salt!

---

The "bad" reviews of Psycho? Oh, sure. Of course, that was a different age and Psycho pretty much insulted the delicate sensibilities of many critics.

Also, Janet Leigh pointed out that Hitchcock wouldn't give critics a private screening of Psycho -- made them watch it with audiencs -- and some of them wrote their pans out of snooty spite for being "forced to sit with the commoners."

---
I've read some truly horrible reviews of movies and went on to enjoy them.

Maybe that just says something about my taste in films! LOL

---

I'm the same way. I'm not "anti-snob" so much as I'm "pro me."

Some of my favorite films -- Big Jake, The Magnificent Seven(2016) Silverado -- got mediocre reviews -- 2 stars, mainly, for The Mag 7 remake. But I enjoy them anyway -- with no feeling that any of them had Oscar chances.

There's a writer-director named Peter Hyams(inactive now; dead?) who made a SERIES of movies I liked that generally got mediocre reviews: Capricorn One, The Star Chamber, Outland, Sudden Death. Favorite movies of mine, all of them. Totally ignored for Oscars or praise.


reply

When it come to Hitchcock, no movie seems to get greater reviews than VERTIGO and it is truly the one movie he did that I don't like. I've tried and tried to like it. I watched it several times, but it does nothing for me.

--

You are not alone. In the greatness of Hitchcock's overall career with big hits(Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Psycho) that were ALSO well reviewed(yes, Psycho was in some places) -- Vertigo was NOT a hit on release, and NOT well-reviewed at the time.

Said Time(or was it Newsweek): "Vertigo is another Hitchcock-and-bull story in which the question isn't whodunit but who cares."

Ouch.

No, it took some French critics(like Truffaut at Cahiers du Cinema), one 1960's writer(Robin Wood, who claimed that Vertigo is "one of the five or six greatest films ever made); one 1970's writer(Donald Spoto) who claimed it was Hitchcock's masterpiece to single-handedly convince the critics of the world to move Vertigo to Number One on the Sight and Sound list of great movies.

My theory? No critic was going to endorse a "hit entertainment" like Psycho or North by Northwest over a "little seen art film" like Vertigo. "The contrarians strike again."

Me? I like Vertigo very much...but it took a lot of work and I don't think it really does what a popular classic(The Godfather, Psycho) is supposed to do: engage the world forever after in memory.

Half of the greaness of Vertigo is how it sounds(Herrmann's second greatest Hitchcock score, after Psycho. and much more lush), and how it LOOKS with DP Robert Burks gorgeous and moody shots of San Franciso and environs. The "mood" of Vertigo overtakes its plot.



reply

I think the real issue with Vertigo is, indeed, how old James Stewart looks next to young and sensual Kim Novak. Their final kiss in the green-lit hotel room may well be "the greatest scene in Hitchcock"(Roger Ebert) and Bernard Herrmann's greatest moment ever, but stills of Old James Stewart in his hat and brown suit embracing va-va-voom KIm Novak just look WRONG to me. (Compare Cary Grant with Grace Kelly; Cary Grant with Eva Marie Saint. Compare Kim Novak with William Holden in Picnic!)

reply

I have the book of the making of Vertigo. The actual behind the scenes stories, Hitchcock's ideas and the making of the movie are so interesting.
It's just the actual film that I don't like. Go figure!

--

That Vertigo book and a book on the making of Frenzy...are the most "technical books" on how Hitchcock made his movies. They aren't better than Rebello's more "chatty" book about the making of Psycho , but they share this:

We get to see how many takes , and how long a day, Hitchcock took to shoot his movies.

Example: Hitchcock had booked half a day for James Stewart and Tom Helmore to film their opening exposition scene in Vertigo. The two actors got it all done in less than an hour. Hitch called lunch early.

Example: The shot of Bob Rusk coming through the door to Brenda Blaney's office(cheery and scary at the same time) from a low angle -- two takes, that's all. Printed the second.

Example: Hitchcock did NOT film takes of Kim Novak jumping into a studio tank over and over(the Golden Gate scene.) Two takes.

Example: Hitchcock scrapped all the opening "Thames crowd scene" from Frenzy as he first shot it, and brought in new extras(including himself) to film a whole new version.

reply

And here is an example from Psycho:

Its a famous story that Hitchcock was sick with the flu on the day the Arbogast murder was to be shot. So Hitchocck by phone instructed assistant Hilton Green to film JUST Arbogast in the foyer and on the stairs, not the murder itself.

That's some great shots.

Well, the Rebello tells us that after Psycho filming was "over," Hitchcock brought Martin Balsam back to re-film that foyer scene. So Hitchcock likely filmed that, after all. Not Hilton Green.

reply