MovieChat Forums > Torn Curtain (1966) Discussion > Paul Newman and Hitchcock

Paul Newman and Hitchcock

posted 19 years ago by ecarle
15 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS

By reading various pieces over the years, it is interesting to see how the relationship of star Paul Newman and director Alfred Hitchcock may have developed with regard to their collaboration on "Torn Curtain."

It begins with the fact that "Torn Curtain" is not seen as one of the best Hitchcocks. It is not "Rear Window" or "Vertigo" or "North by Northwest" or "Psycho."

Some years after the film's release and failure, Paul Newman said about the movie "we all knew we were working on a dog while we were making it," -- which may have been in response to Hitchcock's own public grousing about Newman and especially Julie Andrews being "miscast" in "Torn Curtain" as a rocket scientist and his science-minded fiancee.

But other comments have arisen over the years that put things in a slightly different perspective:

First, that Paul Newman and Julie Andrews were cast "over Hitchcock's wishes" confirmed that Hitchcock had lost personal power at the time. Universal Studios Chief Lew Wasserman, Hitchcock's former agent and a personal friend, put pressure on Hitch to cast the "hot" Newman and Andrews because Hitchcock's last two films -- "The Birds" and "Marnie," had underperformed with not terribly big stars in them (Tippi Hedren was a near-unknown, Sean Connery wasn't really big yet, Rod Taylor was second-tier.)

Still, though Hitchcock felt Andrews didn't fit her role, he was actually interested in working with Paul Newman. Hitchcock was seeking a male star to replace the aging Cary Grant (his first choice for "Torn Curtain," who said no) and James Stewart. Hitch had studied Newman's films like "Hud" and the Hitchcockian "The Prize" and saw potential.

For his part, Newman took an active interest in "Torn Curtain" once he agreed to it. The 1999 Los Angeles Hitchcock Cenntennial displayed a single-spaced, multi-page memorandum from Newman to Hitchcock with Newman's comments on every scene in the movie script, in order.

The memo opens warmly, with Newman relating about his 40th birthday party flipping off a diving board in his backyard pool with his kids all around. I'm writing a book, Newman jokingly tells Hitch: "I Flipped at Forty." Newman then moves on to "Torn Curtain," offering, first up, his disappointment in the title: "It just doesn't have the power of 'Notorious' or 'Vertigo' to me."

(Note: I think "Torn Curtain" is a fine Hitchcock title, playing off the phrase "Iron Curtain" nicely. Also: imagine, Paul Newman wrote that memo at 40 and he's still with us, another 40 years later.)

Hitchcock disregarded Newman's memo; Hitch's scripts were usually "locked in" except for some line changes and improvisation.

Newman came to a dinner at Hitchcock's home and bugged the formal director by taking his suit-jacket off and putting it over his dinner chair, and eschewing Hitch's hand-picked wine in favor of going into Hitchcock's kitchen and pulling a beer out of the refrigerator.

Exactly what happened between Hitch and Newman on "Torn Curtain" isn't clear. Hitch complained to Truffaut in their interview that Newman's Method-actor mannerisms and demands hurt the movie -- but Hitchcock had already worked with he difficult Method Man Montgomery Clift, and lesser Method actors Eva Marie Saint, Martin Landau, and Martin Balsam without incident. Maybe the aged Hitchcock was just too tired to put up with such demands anymore.

For his part, Newman was chagrined: "Hitchcock told me the story, and it sounded very suspenseful and exciting. I don't know what went wrong." The story of "Torn Curtain" IS suspenseful -- its the old "undercover agent gambit" as Newman acts like he's joining the bad guys, but isn't really. But scene by scene, the story goes flat, with Newman and Andrews slowly moved away from the center of the movie to favor a parade of other characters and set-pieces.

Despite having once called it a "dog," Newman gave a later interview in which he said he saw "Torn Curtain" and didn't think it was that bad. In the same interview, Newman (rightfully) noted that Hitchcock should not have bad mouthed Newman and Andrews as miscast after hiring them. "If he didn't want us, he shouldn't have hired us," Newman said, noting with some pride, "we were stars and people did come to the movie because we were in the film. We gave up other projects to work with Hitchcock." In Newman's case, he gave up something very special: the solid lead in "The Sand Pebbles," which Steve McQueen took instead, leading to an Oscar nomination.

Maybe because he lost "The Sand Pebbles" to do it, Paul Newman doesn't look too happy in "Torn Curtain." When he's in a bad scene, he pretty much refuses to act well in it (example: exposition with the fake farmer on the trailer.) HOWEVER, in the film's several fine scenes, Hitchcock does well by Newman and Newman rises to the challenge.

In the famous scene where Newman must kill his East German bodyguard when the latter follows him to a farmhouse meeting with a counteragent, Newman is wonderfully tense as the agent corners him and exposes him as a fake traitor. Newman looks for all the world like a little boy having to confess to his father that he took cookies from the cookie jar. As it becomes apparent that Newman must kill this other, older man or be imprisoned (with the woman spy he is with being executed), the amateur spy engages in a brutal, grubby fight scene which Hitchcock intended to (1) debunk James Bond karate fights and (2) show how long, hard and difficult it is to kill a man. Newman has to get down and dirty and dragged across the floor in this fight to the death, and plays deep shock very well after he finally kills his opponent and must wash the blood off his hands.
One doubts Cary Grant would have submitted to such degradation.

Newman's other great scene is a "chalkboard duel" in which his scientist must trick an arrogant old East German scientist out of a secret formula by writing wrong formulas on the board and goading the old man into giving his secret up in response. Newman's wise-guy charm and intelligence surfaces here in a way he rarely gets to use in Hitchcock's movie, in other scenes.

Irony: right before making "Torn Curtain," Newman made a better movie called "Harper," with Janet Leigh, who was famously killed in the shower in Hitchcock's classic "Psycho" (1960.) Newman told Leigh how excited he was to be working with Hitchcock as she once did.

Right after making "Torn Curtain," Hitchcock made a better movie called "Hombre" with Martin Balsam, who was ALSO famously killed in "Psycho" (on the stairs.) I can only imagine Newman looking at Balsam and saying "So how come when you worked with Hitchcock, you were in a great classic, and when I worked with him, I was in a dog?"

As the years went on, Newman spoke better of Hitchcock, and actually attended the director's 75th birthday party in Los Angeles (Newman was in town filming "The Towering Inferno" at the time.) Newman eventually said that he and Hitchcock got along well, and should have been good friends, "but that script got in the way."

Alfred Hitchcock paid for bad-mouthing Paul Newman and Julie Andrews to the press. They would be the last two major stars to agree to work with Hitchcock. Sean Connery turned down "Topaz," Michael Caine turned down "Frenzy," and a host of stars (Burt Reynolds, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Roy Scheider, Faye Dunaway) turned down "Family Plot."

To the extent that "Torn Curtain" has positive attributes (and it does) one of them is simply watching Paul Newman, fortyish and in his most handsome years, doing what he can when he can to project a very virile and movie-starrish leading man presence in Hitchcock's brutal but old-fashioned film. And during that famous murder scene, Hitchcock and Newman served each other mutually well with an unforgettable dramatic sequence that brought out the best in both men.

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

Right after making "Torn Curtain," Hitchcock made a better movie called "Hombre" with Martin Balsam, who was ALSO famously killed in "Psycho" (on the stairs.)

For those who may be unfamiliar with the films, it was Newman, not Hitchcock, who subsequently made Hombre (Martin Ritt, 1967). (ecarle is very much aware of this fact and just made a typo; I'm making note of it for anyone unfamiliar with the films.)

(Note: I think "Torn Curtain" is a fine Hitchcock title, playing off the phrase "Iron Curtain" nicely.

I agree. Torn Curtain is a dynamic phrase and, as you note, a smart geopolitical metaphor.

Hitchcock disregarded Newman's memo; Hitch's scripts were usually "locked in" except for some line changes and improvisation.

Newman came to a dinner at Hitchcock's home and bugged the formal director by taking his suit-jacket off and putting it over his dinner chair, and eschewing Hitch's hand-picked wine in favor of going into Hitchcock's kitchen and pulling a beer out of the refrigerator.

Exactly what happened between Hitch and Newman on "Torn Curtain" isn't clear. Hitch complained to Truffaut in their interview that Newman's Method-actor mannerisms and demands hurt the movie -- but Hitchcock had already worked with he difficult Method Man Montgomery Clift, and lesser Method actors Eva Marie Saint, Martin Landau, and Martin Balsam without incident. Maybe the aged Hitchcock was just too tired to put up with such demands anymore.

For his part, Newman was chagrined: "Hitchcock told me the story, and it sounded very suspenseful and exciting. I don't know what went wrong." The story of "Torn Curtain" IS suspenseful -- its the old "undercover agent gambit" as Newman acts like he's joining the bad guys, but isn't really. But scene by scene, the story goes flat, with Newman and Andrews slowly moved away from the center of the movie to favor a parade of other characters and set-pieces.

To me, Newman made several mistakes here. First, regarding the script, he should have made his concerns and desires clear in the first place, before accepting the deal. If Hitchcock had refused to address them, then Newman could have cleanly declined the project. Second, once Newman signed the deal, he should have known that a director of Hitchcock's caliber and authority was going to maintain creative control and probably would not be swayed one way or the other. Third, Newman should have acted with greater decorum at Hitchcock's home. If the world's most famous director offers you some of his cherished wine, then you drink it (unless you don't drink). Certainly, you don't head over to the fridge and pop open a can of beer instead. Perhaps Newman was trying to assert his authority, but no star exerts his (or her) authority over Alfred Hitchcock. Besides, if Newman had acted more carefully, then maybe, just maybe, the director might have been more receptive to some of Newman's ideas.

One can tell that Torn Curtain was somehow an acrimonious production where the major players were not on the same page. That's too bad, because if everyone had been agreeable with one another, then the film may not have proven so erratic.

[–] ecarle 19 years ago

"Alfred Hitchcock's Hombre"? -- Oops. Indeed a typo. Typing too fast for the brain to catch up. : )

There are various reasons why "Torn Curtain" doesn't work, but surely if Hitchcock and Newman were at such odds from the beginning, it couldn't help. Newman's performance on screen can be shown to suffer. Hitchcock probably just "went through the motions" on directing some scenes. (There's a clue Hitchcock hated "Torn Curtain" when it came out -- he's not in the trailer except for a photograph; usually Hitch hosted his trailers in the 60's.)

Hitchcock evidently had even bigger problems relating to Julie Andrews -- not as a person, he thought she was very nice -- but as a "sultry Hitchcock heroine." Andrews said that just before filming started, Hitchcock made his (often-made) statement: "I finished this movie when I finished the script; I wish I didn't have to make the movie" -- and she felt without support from Day One.

Personally, I think Andrews IS fairly sexy in her early scenes in "Torn Curtain" (she's interestingly paired with the rougher Newman, she wears a sweater nicely and Mary Poppins was ALWAYS kinda hot to a younger generation), but the movie deserts her (she's stuck wearing an overcoat and head-scarf for much of the movie, how romantic is that!)

But your points are well-raised about Newman:

1. If he didn't like the script, he should have quit the movie (then, maybe Hitchcock, who also didn't much like the script, might not have made it and made something better instead.)

2. Newman's manners at the Hitchcock home were boorish. Documented in several books, I might add, and corroborated by Newman's behavior with other YOUNG peers in other books -- its fine to act that way if you're with people who enjoy it. Hitchcock was used to very mannered old-time stars: Cary Grant, Greg Peck, Jimmy Stewart, Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelly. Newman's behavior probably depressed him. Lucky he never worked with Dennis Hopper!

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

Personally, I think Andrews IS fairly sexy in her early scenes in "Torn Curtain" (she's interestingly paired with the rougher Newman, she wears a sweater nicely and Mary Poppins was ALWAYS kinda hot to a younger generation), but the movie deserts her (she's stuck wearing an overcoat and head-scarf for much of the movie, how romantic is that!)

You phrase it appropriately by saying that "the movie deserts her." Andrews just seems out of place and out of her element here, almost as if she'd wandered onto the wrong movie set. In fact, she appears clueless. Part of that was her character, I'm sure, but the cluelessness should have transmuted into more urgent, pressing emotions and eventual perceptiveness. And Hitchcock liked women who were sultry and sophisticated. Andrews, while pretty and sweet, just doesn't project that sort of allure and depth (at least not in this film).

ecarle, aside from Saint, which actress might you have preferred to have seen in the role instead? How about Elizabeth Taylor?

[–] ecarle 19 years ago

Hard to say, but not necessarily Elizabeth Taylor.

Which brings me to a detour (and then I'll come back):

One film after "Torn Curtain," Hitchcock made a film called "Topaz," from Leon Uris' novel about a French spy's journey from America to Cuba to Paris during the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 (with an opening Copenhagen chase to start the film.)

Hitch could get no major stars for "Topaz." The funny thing is, "Topaz" was the kind of oversized, multi-character drama that, in the 60's, usually would have had LOTS of stars to justify audiences coming in.

And I would have cast "Topaz" with these stars:

Andre (heroic French spy): Yves Montand
Nicole (his beautiful blonde wife): Catherine Deneuve
DuBois (heroic black French spy): Sidney Poitier
Nordstrom (American CIA boss): William Holden
Rico Parra (Castro lieutenant): Burt Lancaster

..and "Elizabeth Taylor as Juanita De Cordoba" (Andre's beautiful Cuban lover.)

---

That way, "Topaz" would have been like a Stanley Kramer or Otto Preminger all-star drama.

---

Back to "Torn Curtain":

How about the OTHER Julie: Julie Christie (who had just won the 1965 Oscar for "Darling" and done "Dr. Zchivago.") Or (in a less sexy version of the part) Audrey Hepburn?

One very oddball recommendation of mine for the Paul Newman role in "Torn Curtain" is (don't laugh):

Jack Lemmon.

Lemmon had done drama by then in "Days of Wine and Roses," and might have played the "amateur spy" aspect of the Newman character well. Audiences might have been REALLY shaken if it had been Lemmon having to kill that agent on the kitchen floor (with the help of "the farmer's wife".)

I recommend Lemmon because Hitchcock needed a "big star" for "Torn Curtain" and guys like James Garner and Rod Taylor weren't big enough back then. Lemmon was very hot at the time. Though Rock Hudson might have been somewhat interesting too -- Hitchcock had wanted him for "Marnie."

And, if the "American rocket scientist" had been converted into a visiting British scholar, that would open up the male role to be British (as the female role was allowed to be with Julie Andrews in it): Peter O'Toole, Richard Burton?

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

How about the OTHER Julie: Julie Christie (who had just won the 1965 Oscar for "Darling" and done "Dr. Zchivago.") Or (in a less sexy version of the part) Audrey Hepburn?

Christie would have been better, as she'd have brought greater sophistication and irony to the role. I think that Torn Curtain is too austere a film for the Audrey Hepburn of that era, though.

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

Jack Lemmon.

Lemmon had done drama by then in "Days of Wine and Roses," and might have played the "amateur spy" aspect of the Newman character well. Audiences might have been REALLY shaken if it had been Lemmon having to kill that agent on the kitchen floor (with the help of "the farmer's wife".)

I recommend Lemmon because Hitchcock needed a "big star" for "Torn Curtain" and guys like James Garner and Rod Taylor weren't big enough back then. Lemmon was very hot at the time. Though Rock Hudson might have been somewhat interesting too -- Hitchcock had wanted him for "Marnie."

Lemmon and even Hudson strike me as too comedic, or not austere enough, for the part. McQueen could have worked, but he wasn't quite on par with Newman yet. Eastwood also could have filled that role, but he was a movie star outside of America.

Here's a twist: they could have made the guy black and cast Sidney Poitier. But with a white wife prior to Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (Stanley Kramer, 1967), that wouldn't have been deemed acceptable.

[–] ecarle 19 years ago

Reviewing all those alternate choices, one realizes that Hitchcock actually did damn well casting Paul Newman in the male lead.

Newman could play serious better than Lemmon or Hudson (though Hudson proved himself in "Seconds," a serious thriller.) Newman could play an intelligent rocket scientist better than McQueen or Eastwood (both of whom projected intelligence, but not of the college-educated book-learning kind.) Unfortunately, the script and the chemistry didn't work for Newman once he was cast in the role.

Indeed, Hitchcock painted himself into somewhat of a corner by postulating the romantic couple in "Torn Curtain" as scientific types. A lot of male actors -- particularly American actors -- weren't big on playing brainy types like that. Audiences preferred to relate to more rugged types. On the female side, Hitchcock groused of Julie Andrews, "I had to cut every line about science from her dialogue." Well, that was HITCHCOCK'S problem, wasn't it?

I suppose that's why I could picture O'Toole or Burton in the Newman role. Some sort of "movie snobbery" suggests that British actors project greater intelligence. Still, evidently that didn't work with Julie Andrews, I suppose because of her musical reputation.

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

Newman could play serious better than Lemmon or Hudson (though Hudson proved himself in "Seconds," a serious thriller.) Newman could play an intelligent rocket scientist better than McQueen or Eastwood (both of whom projected intelligence, but not of the college-educated book-learning kind.)

Yeah, after posting that, I had the same thought about Newman vis-a-vis McQueen in terms of scientific sophistication. Eastwood did play a Professor of Art/spy in The Eiger Sanction a decade later, but I agree that Newman was a better choice for a rocket scientist, in part because he wasn't 6'4" and physically imposing, like Eastwood. (Of course, it's really a moot point since McQueen couldn't quite match Newman as a movie star in 1965 while Eastwood wasn't yet a movie star in America.)

[–] joekiddlouischama 17 years ago

bump

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Paul Newman was a method actor. Hitchcock didn't enjoy working with Method actors. Monty Clift is a great example.

Cary Grant was Hitchcock's original choice for Professor Armstrong. But he was too old. So Universal suggested Paul Newman.

Hitchcock wanted Eva Marie Saint for the leading female role. But the studio forced him to cast Julie Andrews. But Hitchcock did enjoyed working with Julie Andrews. He taught Julie Andrews about the use of lens in the films. This was mentioned in an interview with Julie Andrews.

[–] yotaxi 17 years ago

I agree with whoever said McQueen and Eastwood aren't booky enough. Too bad Dustin Hoffman wasn't around back then cuz I'm convinced he can play anything. I think Paul Newman was a pretty good choice for the part (considering the fact that Grant and Stewart were out of the question). As for the female lead, I think the part didn't have enough meat for anyone to really sink their teeth into (vegetarians please excuse the metaphor). I think Eva Marie-Saint would have been perfect but I can see Julie Christie pulling it off too. Why did Grace Kelly have to run off and become a princess? I would have loved to see Paul Newman and Grace Kelly in the same movie.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the_darkness_of_poetic_humor 17 years ago

That would be kind of interesting seeing Paul Newman and Grace Kelly on screen together.....never thought of that one before.

But then again we could sit here all day and night and pair classic legendary thespians together on screen...

[–] Ram_Bowen 17 years ago

"Third, Newman should have acted with greater decorum at Hitchcock's home. If the world's most famous director offers you some of his cherished wine, then you drink it (unless you don't drink). Certainly, you don't head over to the fridge and pop open a can of beer instead. Perhaps Newman was trying to assert his authority, but no star exerts his (or her) authority over Alfred Hitchcock."

Maybe, but that's what makes Paul Newman one of the coolest cats ever to grace the screen ;)

[–] heyuactor 11 years ago

Paul Newman and Hitchcock: oil and water.
Great posts here, BTW.

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.