Julie Andrews??!?

Quite honestly, I enjoyed her performance, as well as Newman's. Their chemistry together was lovely, and it was refreshing to see Andrews in a Hitchcockian role. She's a helluva lot better actress than Eva Marie Saint, too.

~As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top. Then you'll need the cocaine~

Hitch should of used the blond who was in the movie "The Prize". I can't remember her name.

There is so little fact and so much hubris in your screed that it is ALMOST daunting to refute you.

ALMOST.

Fact: Hitchcock wanted another actress for the female lead. Eva Marie Saint is most often mentioned as his choice and she would have been fine acting-wise but, at age 42, was simply too old to be credible in the part. She was also not anywhere near a box office name. Julie Andrews was 29 at the time filming began and well on her way to being the number one box office star on the planet.

Fact: Universal did not want Saint. They wanted a top money-maker and they got that with both Andrews and Newman (it was, at the time, Universal's biggest commercial success ever--not a bomb--a record broken the next year by another Julie Andrews film, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE). The stars earned every cent of their respective salaries and delivered a highly popular entertainment.

Fact: Andrews created the original stage role in MY FAIR LADY which Audrey Hepburn filmed. This has nothing to do with TORN CURTAIN at all. Even a little.

Your snide contention that Andrews became arrogant and greedy after the extraordinary and unprecedented successes of MARY POPPINS and THE SOUND OF MUSIC is entirely subjective and has no verifiable basis in fact.

FACT: Any salary demands made by Andrews' representation [and Newman's] was a matter of standard industry economics and practice, and remains so to this day. Hitchcock was as aware of this as anybody and, if you knew anything useful about the movie business at all, so would you.

Andrews' other commitments at the time were important only to the extent that Hitchcock had repeatedly sought to delay filming because of his own dissatisfactions with the screenplay but was unable to do so. The Universal brass did not want to lose momentum or indulge Hitchcock, who was getting more and more lukewarm on the project with each passing day.

FACT: Whatever complaints Hitchcock had--justifiable or otherwise--the source of those disputes was with the studio, not with his either of his leads or the cost of their participation. Using their star status to secure financing and to sell tickets, and then turning around to blame that very status for a second-rate script, smacks of petulance.

FACT: Hitchcock had no on-set problems of any kind with Andrews, despite the verifiable and appalling lack of respect he showed her. Example: there is a line in the film where one of the characters expresses disappointment that an unexpected change in plans will deprive him of "the company of a beautiful girl," referring to Andrews' character. In front of the entire production crew, Hitchcock asked "Is that not a bit much? Could we not perhaps say "lovely" girl instead?" The incident was hurriedly glossed over and the line remained as originally written, but Hitchcock's singular lack of chivalry cast a chill.

FACT: Newman had inadvertently offended Hitch at a dinner party just prior to filming when he eschewed Hitchcock's offer of an expensive wine with dinner-- opting instead for beer--and he sought to have input into the screenplay (something Andrews' professional upbringing would never have allowed). Hitch resented this on its face as unwarranted interference from an actor ("I never said 'actors are cattle; I said they should be treated as cattle'"), despite the fact that HIS primary complaint was that the screenplay wasn't in good enough shape to film.

FACT: Andrews never publicly berated Hitchcock for the final product and, to this day, she has never been anything less than gracious (or circumspect, when pressed) in discussing the experience.

FACT: Hitchcock did not respond with similar respect or professionalism and the upshot was that no major star ever again consented to work for him, and he never had another success either critically or commercially.

FACT: The world premiere of TORN CURTAIN was held in Boston in the summer of 1966 (my hometown). Neither star appeared, which perhaps spoke louder than words. Much was made of their absence (though both were filming elsewhere and easily excused) and that is, in retrospect, one reason why Hitchcock subsequently bad-mouthed them live and in print. Again, it was hypocritical to have treated them poorly and then blame them for not more actively promoting the film. Had he been more gracious, they may each have felt a greater obligation or desire to publicly support the product upon its release.

FACT: Most critics disliked the picture, which had zero effect on its box office performance. Only the "death in a farmhouse" sequence received any genuine praise for originality or impact at the time of its release. To some extent, the criticism was based on disappointment. This was Hitchcock's 50th film and a lot of hype was focused on that event, as well as the anticipation of its leads--Paul Newman, Julie Andrews & Lila Kedrova, both of whom had won Oscars on the same night, and shortly before principal photography was underway.

"Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind."

The movie would have been just as bad with a whole different cast. Newman and Andrews talents were wasted in a lazy and sloppy film. Hitchcock didn`t like the film either--before he even made it.








Dorothy stop that, Mr. Ha Ha`s lookin at you!!

[deleted]

Hitchcock didn't want Julie Andrews for the leading female role. He wanted Eva Marie Saint. But the studio forced him to cast Julie Andrews. Hitchcock wanted to do extensive rewritings on the script. But he couldn't do it, because of limited availability of Julie Andrews.