MovieChat Forums > Topaz (1969) Discussion > If Topaz Had An All[-Star Cast...

If Topaz Had An All[-Star Cast...

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

Alfred Hitchcock made "Topaz" from a best-selling novel by a writer named Leon Uris, who had also written the epic novel "Exodus," made by Otto Preminger into an all-star epic.

Directors like Preminger and Stanley Kramer oftened used all-star casts to "sell" dramatic epics, particularly if the subject matter was grim (as in Kramer's "Judgment at Nuremberg" with Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Marlene Dietrich, Monty Clift,etc.)

Hitchcock wasn't much into all-star casts, and with "Topaz" he couldn't find even ONE star to be in it. Paul Newman and Julie Andrews had been the big stars in his last movie, "Torn Curtain." He didn't like them, they didn't much like him, no stars showed up for "Topaz."

But if Hitchcock had REALLY wanted "Topaz" to properly "play" as a dramatic historical epic -- what with the stories jump from Copenhagen to Washington DC to New York to Cuba to Paris and all sorts of characters interacting -- then it should have had a cast of 1969 stars, like this:

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.)

Then, "Topaz" wouldn't have had to be too exciting at all (and it wasn't) to be a big hit.

But as I say, Hitchcock didn't work like that. So it didn't get a cast like that.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

Thanks.

Yes, I've had that thought about "Topaz" for many years. If Otto Preminger or Stanley Kramer had made "Topaz," they would have gone for such casting immediately -- and probably gotten it, because they were willing to pay. And "Topaz" -- an interesting but rather diffuse and dull epic of a book --NEEDED that kind of cast.

Hitchcock indeed never worked like that, but trying to make "Topaz" with practically no stars didn't help at all.

It is of perhaps some note that Hitchcock did try to populate "Topaz" with some foreign film actors of note: Michel Piccoli and Phillipe Noiret (the two French traitors) had some Bunuel and Jean Luc-Godard films between them, I think. The Russian defector and his wife were recommended to Hitchcock by none other than Ingmar Bergman. Claude Jade, recommended by Francois Truffaut.

But none of those actors had marquee names. The lead -- Frederick Stafford -- was disastrous (Sean Connery turned the part down.) John Forsythe was recognizable, and a Hitchcock veteran ("The Trouble With Harry") but hardly a big star (this was years before "Dynasty.")

Yep, "Topaz" might have made more money, and been more memorable, with that all-star cast. If only Hitchcock had been willing...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nosnojsirhc 18 years ago

I say screw the box office and the $$.

Hitchcock was already rich and famous and he disliked stars and all that glitter and carpets. In this movie, by NOT using big names, he gave equal credence to all the parties in the story. I was watching and became very interested in the 'bad guys', the 'reds', the 'commies' - this wouldn't have happened with a bunch of sweaty hairy no-names (as usually Hollywood helps us in our movie interpretation by providing) up against every dashing star and starlet not already contracted out to another studio. Wise casting move on the Hitch's part.

This one stands up over time.

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

Interesting analysis.

I think the problem was by the time he made "Topaz," Hitchcock had had a pretty good reputation for landing significant stars in his movies, Paul Newman and Julie Andrews most recently. "Topaz" signalled that Hitchcock had lost this ability (and he had; Sean Connery turned "Topaz" down.)

The vast group of barely known players are very good and interesting in "Topaz" from Roscoe Lee Browne to John Vernon to Michael Piccoli to Phillipe Noiret (plus that great, arrogant Russian defector.)

But in my "alternative universe," "Topaz" might have been more marketable and successful with that all-star cast. It is a purely commercial observation.

I think the real problem with "Topaz" is its putative star, Frederick Stafford. He was certainly a handsome man -- he rather looked like an older, dissipated John Gavin (Sam in "Psycho") -- but his acting was generally stiff and in certain scenes where he had to silently show emotion, he was terrible, looking constipated.

Hitchcock was evidently trying with Frederick Stafford to create "a male Tippi Hedren" -- a made-to-order Hitchcock male star in the mold of Cary Grant much as Hedren was in the blonde mold of Grace Kelly. He succeeded better with Tippi.

[–] rsgre 18 years ago

Interesting comments everyone. Frederick Stafford was actually Austrian, but played a Frenchman...strange. Some critic called "Topaz" a very diffuse Hitchcock film, and it sure felt that way in the original theatrical version.
The extended DVD version redeems it somewhat, but the terrible music score and inconclusive ending detracts from it's potential.

Regards,

RSGRE

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I think Stafford looks more like a less muscular Burt Lancaster than Gavin. But that's just me.

"Some men will say we are traitors. Some will say we're patriots. Both will be wrong."

[–] sophiaboeck 18 years ago

When we see the 17 minutes footage version of "Topaz", the role of Claude Jade as anxious daughter of Stafford is much bigger and she seems to be a younger Grace Kelly. She was very popular at the time in France with her debut in "Stolen Kisses" and a leadig star a short time after "Topas" (with "My Uncle Benjamin" and "Bed & Board"). The same status like Michel Piccoli and Philippe Noiret - In Europe Noiret, Piccoli and Claude Jade where a star-cast.

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

I have re-thought this concept after thinking about the fact that indeed, Noiret, Piccoli, and Jade were a "European all-star cast." Phillipe Noiret recently died as of this posting, and he became even more famous after "Topaz" with "Cinema Paradiso."

People tend to forget that Hitchcock tried to stay abreast of trends in movies, and tried to make his movies different in look and style from film to film.

Thus, while "Psycho" has the look and feel of a "1959 low budget William Castle horror movie," "Topaz" has the look and feel (and CAST) of a "late sixties Eurofilm."

Hitchocck knew EXACTLY what he was doing in casting Noiret, Piccoli, and Jade. Before Hitchocck cast them, among them they had appeared in movies for Godard, Bunuel, and Truffaut.) I understand that Ingmar Bergman had used and personally recommended to Hitchcock the actor playing the Russian defector, Kusenov.

Still, Hitchcock did NOT have a true "international star" in his lead, Frederick Stafford (indeed weirdly, an Austrian playing a Frenchman with a good French accent!), and John Forsythe's presence as the key American lead was a let-down: he was a TV series star by then, not a movie star.

I stand by my "all-star cast" movie idea for "Topaz," but there can be no doubt that the great director cannily cast many of the roles from very respected foreign film star ranks.

One film later, with the London-based "Frenzy," he'd pull a similar trick: casting almost entirely from the ranks of skilled but little-known British East End stage actors. But that was because Michael Caine and other well-known British stars had turned the sick psycho thriller down.

Actually, my idea and Hitchcock's could peacefully co-exist for "Topaz." He could cast all those stars I mentioned for the roles in my first post, and still keep Noiret, Piccoli, Jade and the Bergman actor for their roles. A "mixed Euro-American all-star cast."

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Actually Julie Andrews liked Hitchcock. She mentions about this in a 1966 Interview.