MovieChat Forums > Torn Curtain (1966) Discussion > Torn Curtain: Curtains for Alfred Hitch...

Torn Curtain: Curtains for Alfred Hitchcock

posted 17 years ago by ecarle
49 replies | jump to latest

First up, let me say that I think "Torn Curtain" is never less than an intelligent and artful film. Perhaps I can explore its greatnesses in other posts. Here's one: the cinematography, which Hitchcock purposely elected to do in gray colors through a gauze lens using natural light (or an approximation thereof) to give us a Hitchcock film that LOOKS like no other.

Meanwhile:

Books have been written on the making of "Psycho" and "Vertigo", but perhaps one could be written on "Torn Curtain." For it was Hitchcock's "Heaven's Gate," the movie that effectively ended his clout in Hollywood and left him, for the final 14 years of his life and only three movies, somewhat of an anachronistic "has been" in Hollywood. (Unfairly so, and "Frenzy" was a comeback even as it wasn't quite "good enough.")

The deal is this:

In 1960, the dawn of a new decade, Alfred Hitchcock was a Top Dog. He'd been given the biggest budget of his life to make the big hit "North by Northwest" in 1959, and in '60, "Psycho" was an even bigger hit, made on the cheap out of Hitch's pocket and hence able to make him a mega-millionaire. At the same time, he was a massively famous TV star -- globally -- thanks to his hit show "Alfred Hitchcock Presents."

Agent turned Universal chief Lew Wasserman lured Hitchcock away from Paramount and ensconsed him at Universal Studios, cutting a deal that sold Psycho and the TV show to the studio and made Hitchcock the third biggest stockholder of the company.

Hitchcock spent half of 1960, and all of 1961, trying to figure out how to "top Psycho." His answer was, eventually, "The Birds," but that movie barely made half of the gross of "Psycho," and studio boss Wasserman was concerned.

Wasserman was even more concerned in 1964, when Hitchcock offered up the drama "Marnie" and departed strongly from the youth-oriented shocks of "Psycho" and The Birds." Both "The Birds" and "Marnie" starred a previoulsy unknown woman named Tippi Hedren, whom Hitchcock had found on a TV commercial.

In 1965, as Hitchcock contemplated his next movie, Wasserman stepped in with some pressures: (1) Make a spy thriller in the "North by Northwest" tradition; (2) No Tippi Hedren; (3) Cast big stars.

Hitchcock relented. "Torn Curtain" was a spy movie. The two biggest young stars of the time were cast: Paul Newman and Julie Andrews (superhot with "Mary Poppins" and "The Sound of Music" just behind her.)

The public was told of the Newman/Andrews pairing, the spy movie genre (was another "North by Northwest" coming?), and, to add to the hype, the fact that "Torn Curtain" was "Hitchcock's 50th Film!"

But Hitchcock was facing some hard new facts of life. Since "North by Northwest" and "Psycho," a new young generation had emerged. Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" had set a new standard for geopolitical suspense (and comedy.) The Beatles were hot...and so was James Bond, a spy (in the Hitchcock tradition) whose every movie was filled with action, start to finish. On TV, spy shows like "The Man From UNCLE," "I Spy," and "The Wild Wild West" (James Bond goes west) were creating a hipper, faster feel to an old genre.

It all came together in ruination for Hitchcock when "Torn Curtain" came out in the summer of 1966. Hitchcock tried to warn critics: he hated James Bond movies, which stole from "North by Northwest." The crop-duster chase in "North by Northwest" was now a cliche, with all sorts of other machines chasing spies (a helicopter chasing Bond in "From Russia With Love.") "Torn Curtain," Hitchcock opined, would be a series of "incidents" (ala "The 39 Steps") and would be a grim expose of the grimy realities of spying.

And "Torn Curtain" certainly was that. Gone were the excitements of the crop duster and a chase across Mount Rushmore. In their place were the long and grueling murder of a sympathetic middle-aged villain by a reluctant Paul Newman. The whole movie was cerebral, low-key.

But "Torn Curtain" had other problems. Big money was spent on Newman and Andrews, so the whole movie was shot cheap in L.A., mainly on the Universal backlot but also at USC and Long Beach harbor (filling in for East German locales.)

Meanwhile, though Newman was an intriguing new Hitchcock hero (a kind of anti-heroic, wise-cracking Rebel Cary Grant), Julie Andrews fit neither with Newman nor with Hitchcock. (Try to imagine Andrews in "Notorious"; "Rear Window"; "North by Northwest" or "Psycho." No can do. "Suspicion," maybe.)

"Torn Curtain" was subdued enough against "North by Northwest." Against "Thunderball" and "Arabesque" and (the silly/sexy) "The Silencers" and "Gambit," it was downright square (despite its serious thematic concerns and very grim central murder sequence.)

The movie made some money on the strenght of Newman, Andrews, and Hitchcock. But not that much. It faded.

And that was it for Alfred Hitchcock. His TV show had gone off the air in 1965, the year before "Torn Curtain." He was no longer "current." Stars no longer wanted to work with him; they didn't expect to be in either a classic or a hit with Hitchcock at the helm.

And Universal no longer budgeted top dollar for a Hitchcock film.

Hitchcock had been making about a movie a year. After "Torn Curtain," he took a few years off. Returned with "Topaz" in 1969, just in time to be declared "over for the seventies." He surprised us in the the 70's with the well-reviewed, gripping "Frenzy" (1972), but it, too, had no stars in it, and was considered "Hitchcock's little movie." He took a long four years off before offering the smaller still "Family Plot" in 1976, ten years after "Torn Curtain," a much-honored but no longer relevant man.

In retrospect, "Torn Curtain" looks much better than its reputation. The murder scene was saluted by Sam Peckinpah, Jonathan Demme, the Coen Brothers, Bryan Singer, and others, as an All Time Great Hitchcock Scene. The "chalkboard duel" is the epitome of smart filmmaking -- even as we don't understand the formulas, we know exactly what is going on at all times. The bus scene, though flawed (bad process; silly moments), is a cerebral treat of suspense. And so on.

But back in hip, mod, "new" 1966, "Torn Curtain" looked like Hitchcock's Swan Song. I think it broke his spirit, really. He made more films, but even he knew he was coasting on his reputation by then.

As important as "Psycho" was for Hitchcock in 1960 as a "peak," "Torn Curtain" a mere six years later was a valley. It was a fickle decade, and Hitchcock paid the price.

None of this is to say that "Torn Curtain" is one of the great Hitchcock films. It is not. But it is by no means a disaster, or a bad film, or a dumb one.

It was simply the movie on which Hitchcock's luck ran out.

[–] Mr_McLaurel 17 years ago

I've never heard that Hitchcock hated the Bond movies. Interesting. It's weird that after North By Northwest, which pretty much set the template that the Bond movies to this day are still following, his 2 following spy movies made an effort to shatter the kind of glossy image of espionage that North By Northwest helped to create. I certainly don't think of Hitchcock as a Master of Realism, but he seemed to be going for realism, albeit with a characteristically expressionistic flavor, in Torn Curtain and Topaz.

What's the spanish for drunken bum?

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

I'm not sure he hated them so much as he felt that they "stole his thunder." For instance, the helicopter scene in "From Russia With Love."

More to the point: the Bond movies effectively killed off Hitchcock as a commercial entertainer.

What Hitchcock had done once, and perfectly -- "North by Northwest" -- the Bond movies did over and over again. Action set-pieces. Sexy romance. Ultra-villains. Every year, a different babe (or more). Every year, a different villain. Every year, a different adventure.

Hitchcock wasn't into repeating himself like that (oh, maybe every 20 years or so) and literally couldn't compete with the big-budget yearly-extravanganzas that every new Bond movie were.

New York Times critic Bosley Crowther's 1966 pan of "Torn Curtain" was brutal: "With James Bond out there, Hitchcock is going to have to offer something more exciting than this to compete."

Funny thing: "Torn Curtain" is grim, but it is not "realistic." For that, see "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold" (1965). No, "Torn Curtain" has lots of the stylistic flourishes of Hitch (the "freeze-frame ballerina"; the matte shots in the museum) and ends up being a weird "hybrid": fanciful realism.

"Torn Curtain" is an intelligent, good movie. But in 1966 -- it couldn't compete with Bond. Hell, it couldn't compete with "The Man From UNCLE" or drunky Dean Martin as Matt Helm. The movies had dropped a level or two away from Hitchcock's intelligence. Sex and violence were much more blatant. Dialogue was more silly (Bond shoots a guy with a spear-gun: "He got the point.") Hitchcock's brand of entertainment was over.

[–] Mr_McLaurel 17 years ago

Funny thing: "Torn Curtain" is grim, but it is not "realistic." For that, see "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold" (1965). No, "Torn Curtain" has lots of the stylistic flourishes of Hitch (the "freeze-frame ballerina"; the matte shots in the museum) and ends up being a weird "hybrid": fanciful realism.
==================================================================================
I guess this is what I meant when I said it had an expressionistic flavor. Not realistic in style, but more plausible in terms of story than, North By Northwest or Goldfinger.

What's the spanish for drunken bum?

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Yes, I think you were right; I was just sort of "chiming in."

The plausibility factor was very important to Hitchcock here. It really all boiled down to that scene where Newman and the "farmer's wife" had to fight and kill a middle-aged man who proved incredibly hard to kill.

"Topaz" was in rather the same tradition, based on Hitchcock's feeling that the realities of spying (which he called "a dirty job") were necessary to engage as a means of countering the fantasy of James Bond.

I like the James Bond films as entertainment, but I think that only "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" come close to Hitchcockian depth and polish, and even then, not really (have you ever listened to the tinny, melodramatic music over the boats-on-fire climax to "From Russia With Love"? Strictly amateur stuff.)

"North by Northwest" posited a once-in-a-lifetime adventure for Cary Grant, who got a sexy but solid wife-for-life out of it (Eva Marie Saint.) James Bond traded in one beauty for another, movie to movie. It was formula stuff. Hitchcock didn't like that. (Oh, I know Bond married and lost her in one movie, but that was just one movie.)

[–] Mr_McLaurel 17 years ago

I still think there are more similarities than differences between those early few Bonds, and maybe even the Bonds of today, and North By Northwest. The main difference really boils down to a monumental difference in quality. I love Dr. No, Goldfinger, etc., but North By Northwest is THE quintessential spy thriller that in my opinion has yet to be topped. It's to spy movies what King Kong is to monster movies: the first of a type that happens to still be the best.

What's the spanish for drunken bum?

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Agreed, of course.

You know, Hitchcock was about the richest filmmaker of his time, but he could have become RICHER if he'd been willing to make SEQUELS to his hits.

What if "North by Northwest" had just been the first of four or five Roger Thornhill chase adventures, ala Indiana Jones? "South by Southwest" could go to the Grand Canyon, for instance?

Or what if HITCHCOCK had made "Psycho II" and "Psycho III"? Or "The Birds II?" ("The Birds" ends with an open invitation to a sequel.)

That sort of thing wasn't done by serious filmmakers (much) in Hitchcock's time. Hitchcock always had to struggle to find "something new for the next one."

The Bond movies were "North by Northwest" over and over and over again...and they still make money today.

[–] Mr_McLaurel 17 years ago

The idea of anything other than a committee-assembled Hitchcock sequel, helmed by Hitch himself, is a pretty fascinating idea. Fritz Lang did more than one Mabuse movie, so why not Hitchcock? He did of course do a remake, The Man Who Knew Too Much, but I don't know how this was received at the time. Maybe you do?

What's the spanish for drunken bum?

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

The public loved the remake of "Man Who Knew Too Much" -- it was another solid Hitchcock Fifties Hit.

Critics were so-so. The main complaint: much longer than the original.

Personally, I like the second one better, a bit. Stewart and Day are very good, the married couple psychology is a bit in-depth, and the Albert Hall sequence is much "bigger."

I may kick around the "Hitchocck and sequels" idea away from the "Torn Curtain" board. It is an idea of interest to me. Maybe over at the main Hitchocck board, soon?

[–] Mr_McLaurel 17 years ago

Sure. I haven't actually seen the original Man Who Knew Too Much, even though I'm a big Lorre fan. I guess I'll have to check it out soon, because I've heard good things.

What's the spanish for drunken bum?

[–] bzane2003 17 years ago

Ecarle-

Just read your well-written and insightful comments about Torn Curtain. Great job, and thank you.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Belatedly: thank you for reading.

[–] shroomn 17 years ago

Gray colors? Huh? It looked like the typical technicolor of the time and Hitchcock's typical color palettes. What did I miss? I guess it has the modern cement look going on but no more than North by Nrothwest?

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Hitchcock "let go" his usual cinematographer, Robert Burks, so as to bring "Torn Curtain" to the screen not only with a fairly monochrome gray color structure (bottom line: once we go behind the Iron Curtain, things go very gray), but also to give the film a blurry "diffuse" look, and to create scenes using an approximation of natural light only. He used one of his TV cinematographers, John F. Warren to do this.

It was another "Hitchocck experiment" -- rather like "one-take Rope," but perhaps too low-key for anybody to really notice.

Hitchcock was ready to hire Burks again after "Torn Curtain," but Burks and his wife died in a house fire before Hitchcock could hire him again.

In the meantime, Burks did "little" Hitchcocks like, oh, Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest...

[–] shroomn 17 years ago

The soft lighting he used I recall in other Hitchcock flicks.
Diffuse filters were only used on the shots of the woman or heart to hearts.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

True, but I think if you look at "Torn Curtain," the diffusion effect is pretty constant all through the film. Compare it to "The Birds" or "North by Northwest," and "Torn Curtain" is much grittier, visually. Also, it was the "natural light" thing that Hitchcock was most into on this film.

"Topaz" one film later would have a lot of diffusion, too. Hitch tended to repeat effects in adjacent movies. After "Topaz," with "Frenzy," Hitchcock went for fairly realistic lighting; no gauzy lenses.

The gray color scheme in "Torn Curtain" was pretty apparent: once the action moves to East Germany, everything is dominated by gray, with little flashes of color getting through (the scarf Lila Kedrova wears, for instance).

Funny thing: modern digital prints of "North by Northwest" make it look pretty gray, too, but the original color scheme was more of a blue-and-silver motif on that movie. Goes to show you: color processing can be pretty important to a movie's look.

[–] Tashtago 17 years ago

Sorry ecarle but I have to disagree with you on this one. Unfortunately "Torn Curtain" lives up to it's reputation as lesser Hitchcock. Newman looks bored and Julie Andrews looks lost. As for the gray photography it's well gray and dull and at complete odds with the score, which is whimsically awful. When Hitch makes his cameo and they play the theme from his t.v. show that finished me. After the thundering terror of "Psycho" and the surreal horror of "the Birds" came the slow cardboard "Marnie" and then this, and "Topaz". A pretty rapid descent from the string of great films mid 50's to "the Birds". I'm thankful for "Frenzy" which while not top tier Hitchcock is at least worthy of his reputation.

[–] raghavan-69 17 years ago

this is a wonderfully written and superbly analysed piece. All of us who love Hitchcock want to defend every film of his. Though deep down we know that this or that was not as good as the masterpieces we have seen and got accustomed to from the director. I believe that even a flawed film by a great director has tremendous value and i get very angry with critics, film reviewers who unfortunately, seem to delight in tearing down a film. YEs, obviously we cant praise every film to the skies if it's not worked for us. But we can show some respect and try to understand the filmmaker's process and compulsions whilst making the film. Hitchcock, Billy Wilder, De Palma...their 'not as good as....' films still have so many superb things. Once again thank you for the piece.

[–] lubin-freddy 17 years ago

There's a very good documentary about Bernard Herrmann, which shows the killing-by-gas scene with music Herrmann composed before Hitchcock fired him from the project. It opens a great question, whether the scene works best with or without the music. In any case, I recommend the documentary, "Bernard Herrmann: Music for the Movies".

In any case I enjoyed reading your defense of "Torn Curtain". Can you do the same for "Topaz"?

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Don't believe many of the things that documentary says. There are lots of False information. Universal Executives was behind the fall of wonderful partnership between Hitchcock and Herrmann. Not Hitchcock.

Universal Executives hated Herrmann's score for Marnie. Thanks to Hitchcock, the score was used. But after Marnie, Universal Executives wanted a different type of score for Torn Curtain. So they insisted Hitchcock about making a different music score for Torn Curtain. Hitchcock warned in the letter to Herrmann about this. But Herrmann did his way. I think Herrmann always knew what is the perfect score for a film? But Universal Executives destroyed their wonderful relationship.

[–] lubin-freddy 17 years ago

Thanks for the information. After your sentence "I think Hermann...." you end with a question mark. I assume that's a typo, and you're not undermining the statement. Where did you get your information? Was the relationship between Herrmann and Hitchcock always harmonious, the two being not always easy to get along with? Also, why did the documentary get it wrong?

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

"?" was a mistake. Hitchcock always liked Herrmann's scores. According to the Book "Overtones and Undertones: Reading Film Music," It clearly shows how much Universal disliked Herrmann's scores.

Hitchcock loved Herrmann's scores. That's why Hitchcock doubled the salary for Herrmann's work in Psycho.

[–] mizhu 14 years ago

There's a very good documentary about Bernard Herrmann, which shows the killing-by-gas scene with music Herrmann composed before Hitchcock fired him from the project.

================

As a life long Huge fan of Hitchcock's, can you point me to this score?

[–] mizhu 14 years ago

Vertigo - I thought it was a decent movie and it's very possible my rating would go up with subsequent viewings. I thought that the second half, where James Stewart's sanity slowly unspooled to reveal him as a borderline psychopath, was rivetting and chilling, and the climax was brilliant. But the first half was draggy, poorly paced, and rather dull, and the fact that it was all nothing more than misdirection makes it even worse.

==========

...And those sequences are my favorites of the film. To each his own, I guess.

[–] rexshard93 14 years ago

SPOILERS ABOUT VERTIGO

As for Vertigo, I found the first half very interesting.

Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore) asks Scottie in the beginning of the film "Scottie, do you believe that someone out of the past, someone dead, can enter and take possession of a living being?" Scottie replies No.

Gavin later says "I call to her and she doesn't even hear me. And then with a long sigh she is back, and looks at me brightly, and doesn't even know she's been away... can't tell me where... or when." Gavin also says "And she wanders."

Later, we finds out that these were all part of Elster's plan.

But what makes this film mysterious is that Hitchcock answers all of these questions brought up by Elster. But he applies this visually so people can understand this idea. For Example, Madeleine dies in the middle of the film. And Scottie later takes this "dead" illusion of Madeleine from "the past" and brings it back by taking the possession of a living being (Judy). As you know, Scottie becomes obsessed with illusion of Madeleine. And the death of Madeleine began to "haunt" Scottie severely. Madeleine's death was so haunting and painful that he didn't not remain at the scene of the death. He ran away. He claims he suffered a mental blackout and knew nothing more until he found himself back in his own apartment in San Francisco several hours later. He begins to act very much like what Elster says about his wife in the beginning of the film.

The death of Madeleine was so haunting that Scottie didn't even know that Midge was next to him at the hospital. Midge says like this "John-O... you don't even know I'm here, do you?" After that, we see him "wandering." Scottie (possessed by illusion of Madeleine) goes to the places where "dead illusion of Madeleine" lived. This is very much like Madeleine/Judy (Possessed by Carlotta Valdes in the first half) goes to the grave of Carlotta and Carlotta's home (McKittrick Hotel) in the beginning of the film. So we see the influence of a dead character on a living being here. The first half becomes reality in the second half.

This was the similar idea that Hitchcock wanted to use in Torn Curtain. But interference of Paul Newman and Universal weakened the film.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 17 years ago

The problem with Torn Curtain is that it's just completely and utterly dull. The characters are virtually nonexistant, Newman and Andrews look bored and the story is paradoxically underdeveloped yet overdone. Waaaay too much exposition, with no pay-off. The murder scene is pretty much the only reason to watch the film. The last forty-five minutes or so was the most painful cinematic experience I've had in quite some time.

Just because it's a Hitchcock film doesn't mean it's good, unless one is a die-heard auterist. I'm a guy who has rather unorthodox taste in Hitchcock - my top three consists of Rope, Frenzy and Marnie in that order, and I'm not a big fan of Vertigo. But this movie just blows chunks.

"I'm a Doctor of STEW!"

[–] lubin-freddy 17 years ago

It's not that I disagree with you, I've always like those films, even though they're not my favorite. But I would like to read your take on those films, especially "Marnie". Do you have posts on other places? I'll check anyway.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I've been busy and forgot about this thread. I've actually bumped Marnie down to fifth after reconsidering my list. I spend most of my time on Film General and a few other boards, so I only discuss Hitchcock when he comes up or when I've just seen a film of his.

My comments in brief:

Rope - I just like this film, I was rivetted from beginning to end. I think it was mostly the script, story and acting. Long-take shots like the ones in the film don't really impress me, so that's not it. Not sure if I can write an in-depth review of it or not.

Frenzy - This movie has a few things which I really like about it that I can put my finger on. Although the plot is rather typical Hitchcock, I love the darkness added to it. It seems a lot more "modern" than most of Hitchcock's movie, both in the film stock (which is obvious) to the direction and content. I don't like gratutious violence but I think the rape/murder scene was chilling and effective (particularly the shot of Barbara Leigh-Hunt dead with her tongue sticking out - THAT just about killed me when I first saw it). Also I loved the fact that Jon Finch was a rather dislikeable character, so the fact that he wasn't guilty seemed immaterial (the shot of him stomping on the grapes was rather striking to me). Alec McCowen and Vivien Merchant provide rather amusing black humor in the background, and Barry Foster is chillingly brilliant (I also liked him in "Ryan's Daughter" so I'll have to keep an eye for more of his work). And one must say, the London locations add immeasurably to the film's atmosphere. It was an old-fashioned Hitchcock story with an edge, and I suppoes that's my reason for liking it so much.

Marnie - I can see why people wouldn't like this movie, it's borderline misogynist in its treatment of the title character, the story is a mite underdeveloped and the film is perhaps too reliant on visual gimmicks (the flash colors) - I'd also argue that Bernard Herrman's score, in this instance, is overwrought and overused. But what the hell, I admired the style, direction and cinematography and had a fun time watching it. Plus, Tippi Hedren really impressed me. I didn't think much of her in The Birds but her performance in the title role was layered and affective. I'm a big Sean Connery fan and while not his best work, he's quite good as Mark Rutland, in one of his first non-Bond starring roles. Although flawed, with a rather ludicrous denouement, I still enjoy it enough to give it an 8.

Vertigo - I thought it was a decent movie and it's very possible my rating would go up with subsequent viewings. I thought that the second half, where James Stewart's sanity slowly unspooled to reveal him as a borderline psychopath, was rivetting and chilling, and the climax was brilliant. But the first half was draggy, poorly paced, and rather dull, and the fact that it was all nothing more than misdirection makes it even worse. I'd be willing to watch it again, but I can't give it above a 7/10 on the basis of my first viewing. I honestly don't like to rewatch movies unless I own them, though.

Here's a list of the Hitchcocks I've seen to date. I'm a relative novice, but I daresay I've seen enough of Hitchcock's work to judge him as a director.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000033/board/nest/101318934?d=107348670#107 348670

Hope that satisfies your curiosity, my good man.

"Great, but why do they always use so much blood? Ruins the realism, don't you think?"

[–] ecarle 15 years ago

bump.

[–] rexshard93 15 years ago

Overall, Torn Curtain is an ok film. But the film would have been much more stronger if Hitchcock was able to cast Anthony Perkins and Eva Marie Saint. Unfortunately, mistakes accidentally made by Bernard Herrmann also led to the end of a great relationship between Alfred Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle 13 years ago

Well, this is from two unrelated sources.

Hitchcock himself in one of his later interviews said that he wanted to cast Saint in Torn Curtain.

Anthony Perkins in a still later interview said that Hitchcock wanted him in Torn Curtain.

Perhaps these offers/attempts weren't made at the same time, or perhaps in different pairings.

Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint had been together in Exodus, why not here? Note: Hitchcock evidently started out wanting to work with Paul Newman very much -- until he actually had to work with him.

Had Perkins and Saint actually been paired, I expect that Perkins could have been aged a bit -- graying hair, maybe glasses. It might have worked.

---

I've always figured that Hitchcock wanted to use Saint again in Torn Curtain because going back because of his recent female stars, Hitchcock had not gotten along with Vera Miles, Kim Novak and Tippi Hedren, and because he told Janet Leigh(said Leigh) "we can never work again after Psycho, because you were so unforgettable in that, it would unfair to you and to the new film."(If so, why did he want to work with Perkins again -- maybe Perkins is the "fibber" in this story.)

---

Also: Eva Marie Saint was still somewhat bankable through the mid-late sixties. She had the female leads in "Grand Prix," "36 Hours" and "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming" during these years, and "The Stalking Moon" a few years later. It was when the 70's hit that Saint found her box office draw diminished.

1972 and 1973 were sad years for this fan of Hitchcock females: Janet Leigh in 1972 was in the awful "giant killer bunny movie" "Night of the Lepus," and Eva Marie Saint was in the atrocious "final Bob Hope comedy" "Cancel My Reservation," in which we had a 1961 script(about murder on an Indian reservation) inexplicably in a 1972 movie and a middle-aged Eva Marie in...hot pants! I also think Kim Novak did her first TV movie around this time. Oh, well, they were all making a living.

[–] ecarle 15 years ago

Well, I am, sort of. Here. But I'll look into it! Thank you.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle 14 years ago

Time for a bump.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 13 years ago

Yes, Eva Marie Saint was an old lady, in no way suitable for the part . . . though Perkins may have brought a certain intensity to the role of the young nuclear professor . . . though I thouht Newman was okay in this part . . .

[–] ecarle 13 years ago

Hitchcock was under heavy pressure from Universal boss Lew Wasserman, after having "small star casts" in (he wrote a friend), Marnie(Connery wasn't a big star yet), The Birds, and even...Psycho! to cast big box office talent in Torn Curtain.

Newman and Andrews were just about as big as you could get in 1966.

I only in the last year or so saw the YouTube clip where Anthony Perkins claims Hitch tried to get him in Torn Curtain(who knows if an offer was made or if Perkins HEARD about the attempt.) And it made all sorts of sense.

People forget that after "Psycho" hit so big, Anthony Perkins made his movies almost exclusively in Europe until 1968, when he came back to do "Pretty Poison." (There was evidently one other American production called "The Fool Killer" around 1965, but it was barely released.)

Perkins didn't live permanently in Europe in those years, but he often kept an apartment in Paris while making movies in Europe, and Hitchcock visited him there in the early 60's.

What we can surmise is that Hitchcock may have felt bad about how Psycho typecast Perkins, knew how good Perkins was as an actor -- and wanted to help get Perkins back a star career.

Now, Torn Curtain involved some heavy kissing and romancewith the female...but Perkins was quite capable of that at the time without audience gossip.

Hitchcock's hope may have been to rejuvenate Anthony Perkins as a star, to turn him back into a hero from his villainy, and to get "Psycho" lightning to strike twice.

After all, in "Torn Curtain," the male hero does have to strenuously and violently kill another man -- though this time the victim is a bad guy, and this time, the butcher knife blade BREAKS.

In any event, Lew Wasserman had his way, Paul Newman was a much bigger star than Anthony Perkins(if not necessarily a better actor)...and Perkins never really got back to star level again.

---

Its funny. Sometimes Hitchcock got exactly who he wanted(Cary Grant for his roles, James Stewart for MOST of his, Anthony Perkins above all) but a lot of the time he had to "settle" and that worked out OK: Sean Connery instead of Rock Hudson for Marnie. Shirley MacLaine instead of Brigitte Auber for The Trouble With Harry.

Ya never know.

[–] ecarle 11 years ago

bump

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 11 years ago

Even a bump cannot save Torn Curtain . . . so sad . . .

[–] ecarle 11 years ago

Unlike the boards where I am more active, I try to "save" my longer threads on Hitchcock movies with occasional bumps.

I like it better than you do but...yeah.

Its simple: Torn Curtain isn't North by Northwest. The question is WHY?

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 11 years ago

You already know the answer . . . Universal!

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

4 years later I return to say...you're right.

Torn Curtain is such a regrettably backlot-looking job. I think the imagery is very caluated(gray uber alles) and actually rather beautiful...but this is clearly not filmed at all in East Germany. Instead, Hitchcock shipped German actors to Universal.

That said, its also pretty clear that Hitchcock did not age well as a matter of health and concentration. He got tired in his later years. The comparatively energetic and concise "Frenzy" of 1972 evidently reflected a year of rest and a health regimen undertaken by Hitchcock so as to "make one good movie" before retirement or death. He wasn't nearly so focused on Torn Curtain.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]