Julie Andrews hated Hitchcock and vice-versa
Is that true?
shareI don't think so she even said the only reason she did the movie was because she wanted to work with him.
shareThe problem was more on Hitchcock's side, though I doubt he personally hated her.
The powerful chief of Universal Studios, Lew Wasserman, had been Hitchcock's agent at one time and lured Hitch to a permanent contract with Universal around 1962, after Hitchcock had a giant hit for Paramount (filmed at Universal) called "Psycho."
Wasserman was concerned that Hitchcock's first film on the Universal contract, "The Birds" wasn't as big a hit as "Psycho" and cost much more to make. Wasserman was even more concerned when Hitchcock's next Universal movie, "Marnie," didn't do too well with critics or the public.
One problem, Wasserman contended, was that "The Birds" and "Marnie" didn't have very big stars. Tippi Hedren was an unknown; Rod Taylor was a "second-tier leading man from TV" and even Sean Connery wasn't a big star yet when he made "Marnie."
So, for "Torn Curtain," Wasserman demanded that Hitchcock cast two big, hot, young stars: Paul Newman and Julie Andrews.
Hitchcock somewhat accepted Newman; Hitch felt he could be a leading man in the Cary Grant tradition. Newman's "method" ways drove Hitch crazy though.
But Hitchcock felt that Julie Andrews was simply miscast in "Torn Curtain." Her two giant hits -- "Mary Poppins" and "The Sound of Music" -- were musicals. In "Torn Curtain," she'd be playing a rocket scientist and didn't sing. Hitchcock evidently didn't notice that Andrews hadn't sung in "The Americanization of Emily" (1964), butalso felt that Andrews didn't fit this role.
Evidently, both Newman and Andrews learned of Hitchcock's feelings shortly after beginning filming on "Torn Curtain." Hence, Andrews and Hitchcock didn't hate each other, but Andrews felt "un-cared for" by Hitchcock while they filmed "Torn Curtain", and Hitchcock didn't much coddle Andrews or focus on her performance and wardrobe as he had with Grace Kelly or Tippi Hedren. The tepid result can be seen on screen.
Though I think Andrews is very good in the scene where the East Germans demand that she join Newman in switching sides. Forced to choose between patriotism and lover, she chooses patriotism ("You tell them! You tell them!" she cries to Newman about government secrets she's asked to give up) , and it visibly kills her to quit her lover --til Newman tells her the truth.
Unspoken then but well known now: "Torn Curtain" had a pretty dull and flat script for a Hitchcock movie. Thus, Andrews wasn't really happy in her part and Hitchcock was looking for "scapegoats" (Newman and Andrews) for his story problems. Newman and Andrews indeed signed on for "Torn Curtain" because they wanted to work for Hitchcock, but after that movie tanked with the critics and public, big stars never wanted to work for Hitchcock again.
One writer wrote when Hitchocck was alive: "Hitchcock speaks well of Julie Andrews. She speaks well of him. But they made no connection on 'Torn Curtain.'"
Truth be told, Julie Andrews likely was never a proper choice for a "Hitchcock heroine," even though she was British like Hitchcock. She lacked the sensuality and mystery of the greatest Hitchcock heroines. And she wasn't blonde (though that wasn't a strict requirement; Shirley MacLaine had been good for Hitch.)
[deleted]
Hitchcock wanted someone like Cary Grant for the leading role. I think William Holden would have been a great choice for Professor. I know Hitchcock always wanted to work with Holden. But the studio insisted on casting Paul Newman, because he was a big money making star at the box office during 1960s.
Paul Newman was a method actor. So he wasn't able to give the performance Hitchcock wanted in the film. For Example, Paul Newman wasn't able to give "neutral looks" Hitchcock wanted in certain scenes. Edward Ciannelli who played Mr. Krug in Foreign Correspondent gave a brilliant neutral look in Foreign Correspondent (1940), because he wasn't a method actor. There are certain limitations with Method acting. That's why Paul Newman wasn't able to give what Hitchcock wanted.
Hitchcock originally wanted Eva Marie Saint for the leading female role. But the studio forced him to cast Julie Andrews. As for Julie Andrews, She said in an interview she enjoyed working with Hitchcock. Hitchcock taught her a lot about how to use lenses in certain scenes. Hitchcock had great time with her than Paul Newman. After working with Paul Newman, Hitchcock tried to be away from Method actors.
Andrews offers such a dull, squeaky-clean variation on feminine wiles. She also seems to be wearing a girdle in 1966, which is just shockingly old guard. (and that lousy wig too)
shareIt also should be mentioned that Sir Alfred felt the scripts needed another revision or two to improve the dialogue especially in the First Act. Since Jule was in demand, Alfred was pushed into filming before these revisions could be done because Julie had limited time. (Alfred wanted everything to be set before filming.) Because of this, Alfred was soured on the project day one and he really could give the actors a cold shoulders when things were not going well.
Unfortunately, this made them movie flat (throw in problems with Newman's method acting/script revisions and Benard).