MovieChat Forums > Topaz (1969) Discussion > Hitchcock's Direction

Hitchcock's Direction

posted 17 years ago by Avidog
10 replies | jump to latest

I thought this movie started out boldly and with purpose. I got the feeling that about half way through, Hitchcock handed the directorial reigns over to the likes of a Godard. It became aimless and pointless with a sort of "I don't really give a cr*p about how this turns out", on the part of the characters and the production crew. This could have been a Cold War gem, but instead was turned into nebulous garbage. This certainly was not Hitchcock's best, and I guess I've revealed my opinion of Godard. Apologies if I've offended.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Hitchcock would have made this film a masterpiece if he had enough time to work on the script. Sadly, he didn't get enough time to work on the project. Some of the Scenes were written hours before the shooting. That's one of the major reasons why the second half was very weak.

[–] Avidog 17 years ago

I wasn't aware, and thanks for the feedback. Perhaps Hitchcock set his own bar too high and made himself a tough act to follow?

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Leon Uris wrote original screenplay for Topaz. But Hitchcock later found out that the script is unshootable. So Samuel A. Taylor was called. And he came in and worked on the script. And another problem was working on the script and arranging the set for shooting at the same time.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

It's possible that Hitchcock himself was thinking of Godard as he made "Topaz," for he had cast a Godard guy in it (Michel Piccoli.) He also cast from the works of Bergman, Truffaut, and (I think) Bunuel (he certainly WANTED Catherine Denueve for a role.)

sonysunu is on target about the massive problems in script and pre-production time for "Topaz." I'm not sure that Leon Uris' novel was ever properly solid a narrative for Hitchcock to film. The movie had elements of interest to Hitchcock: spies, love, betrayal and a French angle that fit his lionization by the French. But the story was fragmented, inconclusive.

Still, I always advise people to look at "Topaz" in the spirit of the year it was made.

Hitchcock made "Psycho" in 1959/60 when black-and-white horror was all the rage: William Castle movies (The Tingler, House on Haunted Hill), Twilight Zone, Diabolique. None of that stuff was particularly relevant in 1968/69; that era was over. Hitchcock moved on to new cinematic influences: "the European film." "Topaz" is "Hitchcock's foreign film." Funny, given that he WAS foreign. Somewhere.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

We mustn't forget strong points in the film. John Vernon and Karin Dor. John Vernon is an American. And he plays Cuban character Rico Parra brilliantly. Karin Dor played Juanita de Cordoba brilliantly too.

Rico Parra loved and respected Juanita de Cordoba. But he couldn't see her as a traitor in front of his eyes. And he couldn't see his country punishing her as a traitor. That's why he killed her.

Another strong point with the film is Andre's relationship with Juanita. Andre never finds out that Juanita de Cordoba. But he knows that he is never going to see her again. He lost something that he always wanted. This may have been a reason why Hitchcock wrote the duel ending. Andre has nothing to lose. And Hitchcock heard about a recent duel that happened in France. This may have been one of the major reasons why Hitchcock wrote the duel ending.

I think there are some implications that Andre's wife loved Jacques Granville all along. But I am not sure. But we know that Nicole was very cold to Andre.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Very good point about Andre perhaps agreeing to a duel (in which he's practically guaranteed to die) as a means of atoning for Juanita's death. Otherwise, the scene just doesn't make sense.

---

Vernon and Dor were among the best players in "Topaz." John Vernon reminds us yet again that Hitchcock loved to cast people with great VOICES. Stars of that era usually had great voices -- Grant, Stewart, Bergman certainly did. When Hitchcock couldn't hire stars, he often hired people with fine voices. Vernon's was memorably DEEP, and for Rico Parra, most masculine and threatening.

Karin Dor came to Hitchcock from the then-recent James Bond movie "You Only Live Twice," in which the German actress looks nothing like a raven-haired Cuban. Nice casting. Beautiful woman.

---

I disagree a bit about Parra's motivation in killing Juanita. Some of it was his sincere desire to spare her torture, or not seeing her as a traitor, etc.

But he also knew: she was Andre Devereaux's lover, and GAVE her lover vital state secrets that were Rico Parra's to protect (for Cuba and for Big Brother Russia.)

Thus, Rico is humiliated by Juanita's selfless and sexual love for another man and deals with it directly: by killing her "for political reasons."

Maybe. Its a complex scene, like all of Hitchcock's great ones.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

"I disagree a bit about Parra's motivation in killing Juanita."

I can see what you mean.

But I found this information (below) very interesting.

In Hitchcock/Peter Bogdanovich Interview, Hitchcock mentions this while talking about Shadow of A Doubt "Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said, "You destroy the thing you love?"

Back to the Subject.

In Shadow of A Doubt, Young Charlie loves Uncle Charlie. But she ends up killing him. In Marnie, Marnie loves her horse. Marnie ends up killing Forio. In Under Capricorn, Samson Flusky kills his favorite horse. In Topaz, we see Rico Parra kills Juanita de Cordoba.

After the death of Juanita, we also see Rico walking "slowly" to the car. In the scene where Juanita falls into the floor, we see the purple dress in the form of pool of blood.

Another thing I found interesting is Andre's daughter and his son in law likes Andre better than Nicole. Nicole is very cold to Andre.

Some People say that Nicole truly loved Jacques Granville. Their relationship go way back. We see the photo with Nicole, Jacques, and Andre. Maybe they were in love all the time. Andre loses Juanita whom he truly loved. In the duel ending, Nicole loses Jacques Granville.

Topaz was also Hitchcock's final film in Technicolor. I think there are some connections between Dr. Zhivago and Topaz. Dr. Zhivago loved his wife Lara. But he refused to leave Russia, because he loved Russia. Juanita de Cordoba loved Andre. But she refused to leave Cuba, because she loved the country.

Maurice Jarre did the music score for both Dr. Zhivago (1965) and Topaz.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Good points, all.

The "Zhivago" connection is particularly telling regarding a character's refusal to leave a country, even if the country has changed and it is dangerous to be there.

In his "post-Herrmann period," Hitchcock did land a couple of major film composers: John Williams for "Family Plot" and Maurice Jarre for "Topaz."

Though I wish that Bernard Herrmann had done all the final Hitchcock films, Jarre was a good choice for "Topaz," given that he was French and famous for a certain type of lush, international score.

Ironically, though, after the huge sweep of Jarre's scores for "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Dr. Zhivago," Jarre's score for "Topaz" is rather small-scale and quiet. I do like the opening "march" for the credits and Jarre's main theme that carries from Cuba to Paris.

Hitchcock sent Maurice Jarre a cable after seeing "Topaz" with Jarre's score: "I have not given you a great film to work with,but you have given me a great score."

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

I liked Jarre's music especially during emotional scenes of Topaz. I also liked the music during the scenes that takes place at Hotel Theresa (Its the Scene where Roscoe Lee Browne meets Luis Uribe and Rico Parra.)

I always consider Herrmann and Waxman as the best Hitchcockian composers, because of their ability to score the scenes brilliantly.

Herrmann and Waxman used Screaming Violin Music in their films. Everyone knows Psycho Music by Herrmann. But I also liked Screaming Violin Music in Suspicion (1941). Its the Scene where Lina plays Anagram with Beaky.

[–] fredo-19 16 years ago

I think the detached perspective Hitchcock brings to this story is actually what makes it really interesting. Is it exciting like the Third Man? No. But it's not trying to be overtly entertaining. I found it actually really wonderful. The structure was so unusual, as there wasn't really a central plot, just a criss-crossing of related sub-plots. And obviously, there were so many amazing touches, for instance Hitchcock's use of silent conversations, where you really only hear traffic noise. I found that extremely effective. And there were the wonderful flourishes, such as when the Cuban woman dies and her dress floats outwards like purple blood. I believe it was always bold, and always purposeful, but perhaps not as high-energy as some would expect a "spy thriller" to be.

Oh, also! The score was gorgeous!!!! As was the photography, set design and costuming.