I love this film...smart, slick, funny and an intriguing storyline. I would rate it up there with North by Northwest (also a personal favourite), but this one is not nearly as widely known.
Peter Joshua
The almost incredible story is that Universal Pictures neglected to display a copyright notice in the film credits, so by law "Charade" has been in the public domain since the day it premiered in 1963. As a result, when the American Film Institute started promoting videos by issuing "best picture" lists years later, Universal had no financial incentive to promote this masterpiece. "Charade" is the finest romantic-comedy-thriller in movie history.
shareI agree. This is a great underated movie with an outstanding cast.
shareI wasn't aware that you actually had to put the copyright notice on your artistic work. The copyright is automatically yours as soon as you finish it. But maybe that's different in different countries.
shareI believe that the law has changed since 1963.
shareThis was introduced in MIllenium copyright act in 1998. Before you had to put the C sign on your work. thats why pretty much ALL pictures from those times have the C notice somewhere in the corner and modern ones often lack one.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
I think it's because it really didn't progress cinema in any discernable way. It was a well crafted thriller in the style of the time. Certain films are considered milestones in the technical, artistic and social development of cinema for one reason or another. Hitchcock was known for his cinematography and camera work. David Lean was known for the vistas and epic scope of his films
shareLots of first-rate art doesn't "progress" the form, as you misuse the verb. Citizen Kane didn't pioneer any techniques; for that matter, neither did Bach. But his and Welles's works were exemplary exponents of existing forms--that's why they're renowned. Charade is a wonderful witty romantic thriller, served up in the highest style (style doesn't get higher than Grant and Hepburn). It's The Thin Man to the nth power. It is a classic, as its Criterion Collection release confirms.
shareI never even heard of this film, until it was recommended to me by an older gentleman and I knew I had to take a look because it starred Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn and Walter Matthau. I was shocked to see that of all my research of great films I completely missed out on this one. It is no wonder why many call Charade the greatest Hitchcock film that Hitchcock never directed. This ranks very high for me on my list of favorite films. I really don't know why this isn't more highly regarded because its cast is top notch, its plot is superb, and the music is also wonderful.
shareYes I think that quote does promote that film quite well.
It's known as the best "Hitchcock film that Hitchcock never directed" which I think draws a lot of people to it. I've heard that said on many occasions.
Also, I think it's well-known that Vincente Minnelli's and Stanley Donen's post-musical work is worth checking out, so that draws people to the film
www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner
I laughed in surprise when I saw (an hour in to the movie; I didn't realize it was on) George Kennedy, James Coburn and Ned Glass. JC is a favorite of mine, and who hasn't seen Ned Glass in just about everything? I need to see this movie from beginning to end.
I'm not a woman much less Deanna Durbin, but the old-time glam-shot appeals to me.
It is a classic, as its Criterion Collection release confirms.
Criterion publishes DVDs that otherwise wouldn't receive proper released. That doesn't really say a whole lot about the films themselves. Just because a film has a Criterion edition doesn't mean it's automatically a grand piece of cinema.
Charade is a very bland film. The script is very low key and safe. The story is very unoriginal (basically a heist game with your usual "who can you trust" angle). It's a pretty boring movie (and I don't mean in the "where are the explosions!?!" way -- Before Sunrise and Before Sunset are spectaculars films that are moved only by dialogue).
Charade's lightness is why a lot of people don’t get it. They mistake the light comedy for flimsiness, not realizing that one of the things that makes the film extraordinary is its successful balancing of comedy, romance and suspense. I can't think of another film that achieves this balance like Charade.
Anzerion shows great ignorance of Criterion, and the English language, by dismissing the significance of Charade’s presence in the Collection: “Criterion publishes DVDs that otherwise wouldn't receive proper released.” If she’d bother to check her facts, she’d have known that Criterion’s stated mission is to publish “a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films… the greatest films from around the world”. As part of the Collection, Charade joins such films as 8 ½, The 400 Blows and Grand Illusion.
@rrb: "Charade's lightness is why a lot of people don’t get it. They mistake the light comedy for flimsiness, not realizing that one of the things that makes the film extraordinary is its successful balancing of comedy, romance and suspense. I can't think of another film that achieves this balance like Charade."
I agree on that. Stanley Donen was a very stylish director. The hunt trough Paris's metro, the duel between Grant and Matthau for the trust of Hepburn was indeed one of the best choreographed scenes in film ever. Add to that the music of Mancini which is just the perfect score.
It's weird that Charade is labeled as the best Hitchcock film Hitchcock never made, Hitchcock would use a blond actress, his characters were often explained with a pseudo psychological background and Mancini's music would have to been too light for him. The only similarity is the lead actor Grant.
In his latter career (after Two for the Road) Donen lost his touch except for Movie, Movie (1978) a very underrated film. I consider Singin' in the Rain (co-directed with Gene Kelly), Funny Face, Charade, Arabesque and Two for the Road his best work and classics.
One reason is that the comedy is forced, not an integrated part of the plot
often enough, and some of Hepburn's lines are just too cutesy-pooh and
irritate most people upon repetition.
"Could be worse."
"Howwww?"
"Could be raining."
Hear, hear! Do you know what's wrong with your opinions about this film?
Nothing.
One of my all time favorites, it appealed to me as much as a 14 year-old (on its initial release) as it does today, truly standing the test of time, as all classics must. A young bartender in New Orleans (unborn when the film came out) saw me ripping a filter off a bummed cigarette and remarked: "It's like drinking coffee through a veil, isn't it?" A line I've used much of my life and, coming from a youngster, shows the film's enduring and universal appeal. It is a wondrous confection of a movie, a french pastry whereas some of the critics above prefer apple pie.
As you say: what a rare combination of styles and disciplines; although it is to be expected with two stars who were so unique in their range of roles and genres, they were matched by the range of their director, who made wonderful films in so many disparate genres. When I finally began taking note of direction in film, I was surprised to find that, unbeknownst to me, Donen had found his way onto my top 20 list about four times - and that doesn't even count his musical efforts.
Your allusion to the wonderful repartee in the "Thin Man" is spot on, but I would add another film of Grant's, "His Girl Friday". What the Hecht.
[deleted]
Not true. Bach pioneered many techniques...
Were you aware that the thumb was not ordinarily used in keyboard music of the day? His compositions forced its use.
He combined German, French and Italian styles into a cohesive whole, not done at the time.
He elevated the clavier from a continuo instrument to a solo instrument.
He elevated Baroque counterpoint to such a level that the style was forced to evolve into the Classical period. There was nothing left to do in that genre after his death.
..Joe
No idea to be honest. Was a great film. Prob one of my top 2 favourite Hepburn films (and Roman Holiday).
It just doesnt rely on great acting, it has the story and in general the way the film turned out to back it up. Thats one of the great things about it
Absolutely cannot wait for the Bluray to come out (mentioned in another thread)
Although I was very fond of this film when younger I've grown to like it less over the years. It seems to be slightly fake, none of the actors seem to be at their best. It is like some of Hitchcock's earlier films... patchy. Although there are memorable scenes they are held together rather loosely, and although there is a wonderful cast none of them seem to be at their best with the exception of Walter Matheau. Cary Grant seems to be slightly tired looking a bit too far past his prime and some of the other actors just don't have the material to work with it lacks that extra dimension that Hitchcock brought to the table when at his best.
I agree it deserves to be more highly regarded. It is a very classy and entertaining comedy thriller with some Hitchocockian-like elements, a great score, dreamlike chemistry between Grant and Hepburn and some wonderful action sequences.
"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeleine Kahn(CLUE, 1985)
Its a wondeful film, maybe too reminiscent of a Hitchcock movie.
Its that man again!!
[deleted]
Further, to call this movie bland shows a lack of - something. Sense, or taste, or honesty. From the opening credits (a great work of art all on its own) to the dialogue (which, far from bland, is funny and charming and original), to the performances, to the plot, no element of the film is bland, so it seems unlikely that all of these non-bland elements combined to form a bland film. You can criticize it in many ways, but to accuse it of blandness is not one of them.
My initial reaction, when someone describes this film as "bland", is that the person has some other problem with the film that is more personal, because of all the films that have ever been made, this one is easily in the top ten percent in terms of excitement.
"Bland", like you say, just doesn't register for this film. We've got all the ingredients. Gorgeous babe, witty lines, action, suspense, murder, big name actors, a great finale, a final death scene that I don't think has ever been duplicated or even copied since, we've even got PARIS! The scenery is awesome.
To call this bland is like saying Brett Favre and Peyton Manning don't know how to throw a football.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time
that's not funny!
I knew about and saw North by Northwest long before I heard about Charade. But when I saw Charade I just loved it. I prefer it over North by Northwest.
Though North by Northwest being more well known isnt as much of a surprise for those who watch FTA TV here because its been on quite a few times growing up.
Id recommend it as a movie moreso then if you like so-so person then check out Charade.
I checked it out as an Audrey Hepburn fan though and thouroughly enjoyed it.
[deleted]
[deleted]