MovieChat Forums > Torn Curtain (1966) Discussion > Sam Peckinpah on Torn Curtain and Hitchc...

Sam Peckinpah on Torn Curtain and Hitchcock


From a 1974 interview:

Peckinpah: "I have often said it but I will repeat it if you want me to: "The Wild Bunch" was my way of reacting against all the films in which violence seemed facile, fictitious, and unreal. I was always fascinated to see how one died easily in the movies. Almost always violent death is deactualized. People die without suffering and violence provokes no pain."

"I love the sequence of the murder of Gromek in 'Torn Curtain' by Hitchcock, because this is one of the rare films where one can actually see death at work. Hitchcock, with all of his immense talent, shows us that it is not easy to kill a man and that the human body has an extraordinary power of resistance to physical aggression."

"The murder of Barbara Leigh-Hunt in 'Frenzy' is just as remarkable because Hitchcock really causes us to feel the intensity of the suffering of a person who decomposes under our very eyes. I am not a Hitchcock fanatic, but all the same, one has to admit that he knows how to render tangible the multiple facets of human suffering."

END QUOTE.

---

Comment: I was interested to see that Peckinpah knew enough about these two rather late and obscure Hitchcock films to say "the murder of Gromek" and "the murder of Barbara Leigh-Hunt." It shows that Peckinpah was paying attention to these two movies.

I like the comment, "Hitchcock, with all of his immense talent." Shows you something, there. Though Peckinpah holds back a bit: "I am not a Hitchock fanatic."

Nor does Peckinpah sound like a man who much liked "Rebecca" or "The Trouble With Harry." "Bloody Sam" moved directly to the two most violent of Hitchcock murders (more violent, even than those in "Psycho" or "Marnie") and praised Hitchcock for something that many critics and viewers were repulsed by at the time: lingering and realistic depictions of slow murder.

I love "The Wild Bunch" for its final montage-orgy gunbattle, and I can't believe that the shower scene in "Psycho" didn't inspire it as much as the final shootout in "Bonnie and Clyde" (those close-ups of the Bunch about to shoot it out, or of Bonnie and Clyde about to die...come directly from the three shots of Janet Leigh screaming in "Psycho.")

In any event, there it is, on the record: Peckinpah praises Hitchcock.












reply

Thanks for supplying this. I'm a fan of both and was curious how Sam felt about Hitch (I wonder how Hitch felt about Sam... I doubt Hitch would've watched "Junior Bonner", but that is a great American film.) But I'm glad Sam watched the killing of Gromek with great appreciation and familiarity.

reply

I'm a fan of both directors, so thank you very much for sharing this. I'm not surprised by Bloody Sam's comment, Gromek's murder is not only a standout scene in Hitchcock's movies but in movies in general, it's just a shame that the rest of the film never reaches the intensity of that single moment.

Darth Vader is scary and I  The Godfather

reply

I return to belatedly to say you are welcome, and I'm glad that you enjoyed Peckinpah's comments.

I do think one thing that is interesting about the two brutal Hitchocck murders versus Bloody Sams' famous Wild Bunch massacre/gun battle at the end is that Sam was more of an entertainer in his bloodshed -- we got fast edits, different films speeds, incredible sound effects(bullets, dynamite) EVEN AS the deaths in The Wild Bunch were bloody and painful.

But the murders in Torn Curtain and Frenzy are almost "anti-entertainment," very realistic and brutal, no music, no gunplay and distinctly disturbing: Gromek has to be slowly killed by "the good guy"(Paul Newman) who seems devastated by having to do the deed(via knife, shovel, and gas oven); Brenda Blaney is a totally innocent woman who in no way provoked or invited Bob Rusk's psychopathic attack upon her(which consists first of the violation of rape, then the agony of strangulation). These scenes were hard to watch. Much harder than the rather "action packed" finale of The Wild Bunch, in which, at least, the violence was between hardened, violent men in an unevenly matched gunbattle.

reply

The funny thing is that even though I recognised Gromek's killing is more realistic it also seems drawn out and a bit silly because we're so used to quick convenient deaths in films.

reply

The funny thing is that even though I recognised Gromek's killing is more realistic it also seems drawn out and a bit silly because we're so used to quick convenient deaths in films.

--

That's a good point. It was, after all, 1966 and the movies (even under the hand of the great Hitchcock) really didn't quite know how to do "realistic violence yet." Compare this scene to the various fights to the death in the "Bourne" movies, for instance.

That said, Hitchcock famously had a streak of dark humor that ran through his films, and I expect that he KNEW some of this fight to the death would play "funny." Example: the farmer's wife slams the butcher knife (the infallible "Psycho weapon") into Gromek's upper chest(above his heart, not fatal) ...and the blade BREAKS OFF. That's a little bit funny, yes?

Also funny: that Newman here has to fight not a top assassin type(as in the Bourne movies; and he'd LOSE there) but a rather dumpy middle aged man who nonethesless tries to deflect Newman about his fighting prowess with : "I was trained by experts!" A lotta good it did him.

Not so funny: as the farmer's wife hits Gromek with a shovel, the shovel head clanging (RINGING) against the shin bones of Gromek. I could feel the pain in that one, and Hitchcock cuts to Gromek's eyes rolling -- the blows almost cause him to pass out.

Its such a weird, weird scene -- it spun Torn Curtain far away from the "fun" of The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, and North by Northwest, setting a grim tone for the entire movie.

reply

I agree with this completely. It's the very impression I had when this scene ( one of the best in the movie, btw ) began to unfold and how realistic it appeared.

reply

One director said of this scene that "its as if one morning, Alfred Hitchcock woke up and decided to film a scene in which he would show how hard and long and difficult it is to kill a man."

The process had begun, I suppose with Psycho, in which it is not terribly long and hard for Mother to kill either Marion or Arbogast, but its longer than murders in other movies. Especially the killing of Marion -- She is stabbed many times and stands upright for a long time, slowly sliding down the tiles after her killer has left the bathroom.

In The Birds, it is only at the end that we see a character under the onslaught of attack by the birds -- Tippi Hedren in that upstairs bedroom. But she survives, and the scene has a "fantastical quality" that undercuts any realism even though it is --as the shower murder was -- a very long attack.

Marnie climaxes with a bloody murder -- of Bruce Dern's sailor john -- but it ends up being perhaps the most awkwardly staged murder in Hitchcock. Little Marnie hits Dern over the head with a poker, but the blow seems to be with no power at all -- not even a glancing blow -- and she drops the poker. Blood pours but the overreaction of Marnie and her hooker mother plays almost comic. There is no real cinematic power to this murder. Though it begins with a disturbingly sexual component -- Dern "comforting" Little Marnie with too much intimacy and the mother's stuggle with Dern suggested through their legs intertwined in a mocking of sexual congress.

With Torn Curtain, Hitchcock removed the music of the Psycho killings, the fantastic nature of the bird attacks, the bumbling around and sexual overtones of the Marnie murder -- and got down to business. A threatening, menacing man must be killed. By the good guy. Without using a gun( a cab driver is right outside, he would hear that.)



reply

And this: with both this Torn Curtain killing and the murder of Brenda Blaney in Frenzy to come, Hitchcock allows tension to build and build and build and BUILD before violence erupts. As critic Robin Wood noted of the Gromek murder, the build-up consisted of two phases for the audience: "He will have to be killed" slowly and agonizingly turning into "well, go on now, KILL HIM."

The murder part of the Frenzy murder -- the strangling by necktie of Brenda Blaney -- doesn't eat up much more time than the knifing of Marion Crane in Psycho. But the strangling is a more "intimate" and lingering kind of murder than fast-cut stabs. It is very disturbing to watch Brenda Blaney give up her life so slowly. In any event, even if the strangling doesn't take that much time, the rape before it does, and the build-up before that rape is more excruciating still.

There will remain -- now and forever -- the feeling that both the murder of Gromek in Torn Curtain and the murder of Brenda Blaney in Frenzy -- are "great cinematic acheivements" on the one hand, while, almost equally, being so disturbing in their realism that they seem to go against the very grain of "entertainment." It used to be that we went to thrillers for a little edge-of-the seat harmless excitement. To be forced to watch two long, slow, realistic killings seemed to be both an indictment of Hitchocck and an indictment of our own bloodlust.

reply

bump.

reply

As much as I've tried to provoke some on this site, I have to say, your post is what I'd prefer to see all the time around here. I will make a pledge to only discuss movies from here on and to avoid as much as possible any political comments. I am tired of politics.

reply