Top Rate Performances


I agree with the person who wrote earlier that Lila Kedrova's performance was outstanding in this film. This is the same French/Russian actress who won an Academy Award for her role in "Zorba the Greek" in 1964. Her interpretation of the Countess in "Torn Curtain" is memorable for its poignant desperation. She is very sad and every movement, every nuance is genuine.

I was also impressed with the role of Carolyn Conwell as the Farmer's Wife. You would be rather surprised to see that she is an American actress, she seemed to be so Eastern European, yet there is something rather like Liv Ullmann about her. She is now a regular on the CBS daytime drama "The Young and the Restless."

Alfred Hitchcock was very wise to include many European actors in roles in this film which boosted its believability. For example, Wilhelm von Homberg as the Blond Man on the Bus. And Tamara Toumanova as the Ballerina. Additional comments, anyone?

reply

Julie Andrews was unfairly accused of spoiling the film. I thought she was good. Wolfgang Kieling gave the best performance as the creepy Hermann Gromek.

reply

I thought Julie Andrews was alright, too. This wasn't one of her best performances, but then again, I didn't think she had much to work with. Her character was always around, but didn't get to do much. But I think she was much better than Paul Newman, who was rather wooden-but not as wooden as Frederick Stafford from Topaz.

reply

[deleted]

It was unfortunate. Hitchcock didn't really want Newman or Andrews in this film , but Hitchcock had just had just used near-unknown Tippi Hedren in two films, "The Birds" and "Marnie," the latter of which under-performed at the box office, and Universal chief Lew Wasserman demanded that Hitchcock use "hot stars" Newman and Andrews in "Torn Curtain." In other words, Wasserman, not Hitchcock, did the hiring of Newman and Andrews, and Hitchcock uncharitably groused about it, rather than quitting the picture.

That said, Hitchcock did feel better about having Newman in his movie than about having (the non-blonde) Andrews in the movie, and refashioned his script to favor Newman.



reply

Personally I thought Julie Andrews was excellent in the film. I feel Hitch's direction and Andrew's performance are the two best reasons to see this movie.

reply

Those two factors, plus Paul & Julie's sexy romp at the beginning of the film. Did anyone else find this particularly risque (they were not clothed, not married and had obviously spent the night together) - not for Hitchcock, but for 1966? Hey, I'm not complainin! I just thought it was a quite ::ahem:: memorable scene.

Moon River, wider than a mile...

reply

Perhaps risque... but unquestionably masterful! Excellent work all the way around in that scene.

reply

Who the Hell cares If Julie Andrews Wasn't Blonde? Some great actresses weren't Blonde. Anyways she's still a wonderful actress and Drop Dead Gorgeous. I think that she did a good job on this film but she could have been great if Hitchcock just gave her good Directions.

reply

Lila Kedrova. Brilliant.

reply

How could anyone think that Andrews wasn't sexy in this movie? She freakin' bites Newman's shoulder in that bedroom scene! Which must have been her own doing since apparently Hitchcock gave them little direction. They could have just kissed boringly in the standard Hollywood fashion throughout, but they actually have some fun with it.

If they hadn't dressed her in such unflattering clothes the rest of the time, I think people would have regarded her as sexier in this movie. I know those suits were the style then, but Hitchcock's other heroines got to have figure-hugging dresses nevertheless. However, I guess that does let the opening scene give a contrasting peek at the girl under the prim and proper exterior she shows while not actually in bed with Newman.

reply