MovieChat Forums > Topaz (1969) Discussion > Hitchcock's French Connection

Hitchcock's French Connection

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

One aspect of "Topaz" that should be kept in mind is that while American and British critics were belittling Hitchcock as a "mere entertainer," the French New Wave critics, led by Francois Truffaut, were lionizing him and Truffaut even published a book-long interview with Hitchcock published in 1967.

Hitchcock hadn't worked in years and was desperately trying to get another movie going when Universal showed him the book "Topaz" -- a fact-based story about spies in the French government, with a French protagonist and climactic scenes in Paris. I think that Hitchcock may have -- unwisely -- decided to do "Topaz" so he could do a "French movie."

There are some great individual scenes in Topaz -- the opening defection in Copenhagen, the suspenseful mission to get secrets from the Cubans in Harlem's Hotel Theresa (Hitchcock in Harlem?!); the hero's dangerous mission into Cuba and the death of his key contact there.

But Hitchcock really didn't like making "Topaz," he was bored and ill and resentful (Universal had killed a project called "Frenzy" -- not to be confused with the 1972 film he made of that name -- and Hitchcock was bitter about it.)

So we end up with a very half-hearted Hitchcock movie with a few good scenes, no real stars, THREE failed endings (all available to see on the DVD), that was ultimately best seen Hitchcock's attempt to "make nice with his French friends."

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

Torn Curtain is another example of a 65-plus Hitchcock still able to generate remarkably suspenseful, nerve-frying scenes, but unable to maintain his directorial energy throughout the film. Instead of great movies, he started delivering great scenes in somewhat disjointed, erratic films.

[–] ecarle 19 years ago

Yes, it seems to have been influenced by a number of things. Age, health...drinking (I'm afraid), and disappointment when he couldn't get the stars he wanted for his late films (which told him his power was ebbing.)

The one possible exception to the "old age Hitchcock movies" is "Frenzy," (1972), a tight, taut terrifying little movie that benefitted from being made on location in Hitchcock's home of London ("the prodigal son returns," wrote Time Magazine); featuring a psycho killer and the "wrong man" framed for his crimes (thus, two great Hitchcock icons in one); and featuring, for Hitchcock, the ultimate in disturbingly realistic murder scenes.

Upon its 1972 release, "Frenzy" landed on all the major Ten Best Lists. The "Newsweek" critic called it "one of Hitchcock's very best."

All these years later, "Frenzy" tends to look more like one of those "old age Hitch" movies, except that I think several elements took it higher: a screenplay by a top young writer, Anthony Shaffer (who had just written the play "Sleuth" to great acclaim) helped prop up Hitchocck's age problems. The cast was very good, if largely unknown. And Hitchocck himself, old as he was, felt real connection to this story, as he had been researching British serial killers for years and was really interested in how they "tick."

"Topaz" one film before "Frenzy," actually shares some things with it: an international feel (with Paris locales instead of London); a lack of stars; and an emphasis on disconnected set-pieces. It was a matter of story, screenplay, acting, and intensity that set the two films apart. (That's all, heh!)

Hitchcock was a proud man. The failure of "Topaz" (after the disappointments of "Torn Curtain" and "Marnie") pushed him not to retirement, but to a comeback: "Frenzy". Good chap! A great example for us all.

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

And in Hitchcock's defense, contemporaries such as John Ford and Howard Hawks had pretty much become defunct as directors by the late 1960s (although part of the reason for Hitchcock's continuing output was surely his vast commercial stature within the industry). I mean, let's face it: the idea of a major director such as Eastwood producing some of his best work ever in his seventies is fairly unheard of. Let's see how Scorsese and Spielberg are doing in a several years ...

[–] ecarle 19 years ago

Yes, Hitchcock managed to stay in the game past a number of contemporaries, and with his final two films (Top Ten Lister "Frenzy" and the amiable "Family Plot") to go out pretty much with respect and studio backing. Howard Hawks' last one -- "Rio Lobo" (1970) was a "Rio" too far (John Wayne w/o another star for once, in yet another "Rio Bravo" remake), and Ford's final "Seven Women" went out as the B-side of a double-bill.

Our respective Hitchcock/Eastwood interests compel me to note a few interesting intersects:

1. When Hitchcock's "Frenzy" was released in 1972, outside of a few premiere engagements, it was paired by Universal with Eastwood's "Play Misty for Me" of 1971, a Hitchockian thriller unto itself, with strong "Psycho" overtones and...your post elsewhere has amazingly demonstrated to me -- a strong connection to "Strangers on a Train" as well (the hero initiates a chance meeting with a clinging villain who was waiting for him all along, except its a woman in this one and the courtship is overt.)

2. The Eastwood-directed May-December romance, "Breezy" (starring Bill Holden w/o Eastwood in it) went out in 1973, and Universal felt it needed help on the marquee, so they inexplicably paired it on a double-bill release with the recent hit: "Frenzy"! (I've always figured that the film's respective "zy" final letters dictated the pairing: Breezy/Frenzy. But more likely Hitch and Eastwood were Universal's big names at the time. Uh, reverse that.)

3. Hitchcock was brought to Universal by Lew Wasserman in 1962. In exchange for signficant ownership of studio stock, Hitch was rather "sat upon" by his good friend "Uncle Lew." To some extent, Hitch was protected. Other directors like Ford, Hawks, Capra, and eventually Billy Wilder were cast aside by Hollywood. Hitch was too valuable.

On the other hand, Hitch chafed under his new boss, Wasserman. Wasserman personally vetoed many movies Hitchcock tried to make, including the dream ghost story project "Mary Rose" and an earlier version of "Frenzy" set in NYC.
Wasserman also watched Hitchcock's budgets, cast Newman and Andrews in "Torn Curtain" over Hitch's protests, and wouldn't spring for big star salaries later. Hitchcock and his wife Alma hated the control Wasserman held over them, but there was nothing they could do. Universal made Hitchcock rich, and kept him in a guilded cage.

At the same time Wasserman was lording over Hitchcock, he was TRYING to lord over two other talents: Clint Eastwood and director Don Siegel. Both Eastwood and Siegel were strong enough to break away from Wasserman and Universal, and they did.

Eastwood was outraged over poor marketing of "Play Misty" and other Universal Eastwood films, and hated the tour buses going past his offices. He decamped to Warners, doing a few outside films (like "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" for UA). Uncle Lew and Wasserman managed to lure Eastwood back to Universal for "The Eiger Sanction" (1975), and eventually Uncle Lew tried to get Eastwood to appear in a Hitchcock movie never made: "The Short Night." After Universal screwed up the releases of Siegel's "Charley Varrick" and "The Black Windmill," Siegel left, never to return.

Thus a bittersweet Hollywood tale: Eastwood and Siegel were strong enough and Eastwood was young enough to escape Uncle Lew Wasserman, but old man Hitchcock was trapped and had to stay til the end.

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

Eastwood's "Play Misty for Me" of 1971, a Hitchockian thriller unto itself, with strong "Psycho" overtones and...your post elsewhere has amazingly demonstrated to me -- a strong connection to "Strangers on a Train" as well (the hero initiates a chance meeting with a clinging villain who was waiting for him all along, except its a woman in this one and the courtship is overt.)

Yes, and in both cases, the "clinging villain" is a rabid fan of the celebrity hero.

2. The Eastwood-directed May-December romance, "Breezy" (starring Bill Holden w/o Eastwood in it) went out in 1973, and Universal felt it needed help on the marquee, so they inexplicably paired it on a double-bill release with the recent hit: "Frenzy"! (I've always figured that the film's respective "zy" final letters dictated the pairing: Breezy/Frenzy. But more likely Hitch and Eastwood were Universal's big names at the time. Uh, reverse that.)

That fascinating to learn, and I suspect that both of your suspicions are correct. As Eastwood subsequently opined, Universal's marketing department was lame, and he stewed about the studio's virtual discarding of Breezy. He also launched into an anti-censorship rant after the film received an "R" rating:

"I don't think it deserves to be R-rated at all, but it is because twenty-some states in the Union have statutes that say showing the nipple on a woman's breast is obscene. I understand that in Texas there was a move to give Paper Moon an R instead of a PG because an under-aged girl is swearing and kind of pimping for a hotel clerk in one scene. You could argue that the local community has the right to set standards, but if you accept that, you could argue that the community had the right to impose segregation. That's the long-range implication of something like the Supreme Court decisions on obscenity."

(Page 135 of Michael Munn's Clint Eastwood: Hollywood's Loner.)

At the same time Wasserman was lording over Hitchcock, he was TRYING to lord over two other talents: Clint Eastwood and director Don Siegel. Both Eastwood and Siegel were strong enough to break away from Wasserman and Universal, and they did.

Eastwood was outraged over poor marketing of "Play Misty" and other Universal Eastwood films, and hated the tour buses going past his offices. He decamped to Warners, doing a few outside films (like "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" for UA). Uncle Lew and Wasserman managed to lure Eastwood back to Universal for "The Eiger Sanction" (1975), and eventually Uncle Lew tried to get Eastwood to appear in a Hitchcock movie never made: "The Short Night." After Universal screwed up the releases of Siegel's "Charley Varrick" and "The Black Windmill," Siegel left, never to return.

Thus a bittersweet Hollywood tale: Eastwood and Siegel were strong enough and Eastwood was young enough to escape Uncle Lew Wasserman, but old man Hitchcock was trapped and had to stay til the end.

Regarding Eastwood, what happened was that in 1967, in agreeing to make Coogan's Bluff at Universal under Siegel's direction, the star signed a three-picture deal with the studio, a pact that the two sides later extended to eight pictures. Of course, unlike Siegel, Eastwood could work freely outside of Universal (it was Eastwood who secured Siegel's release to work on Dirty Harry at Warner Brothers). The eight films that Eastwood made at Universal were as follows:

Coogan's Bluff (Siegel, 1968)

Two Mules for Sister Sara (Siegel, 1970)

The Beguiled (Siegel, 1971)

Play Misty for Me (Eastwood, 1971)

Joe Kidd (John Sturges, 1972)

High Plains Drifter (Eastwood, 1973)

Breezy (Eastwood, 1973)

The Eiger Sanction (Eastwood, 1975)

Eastwood and Wasserman probably extended the deal prior to the release planning of The Beguiled, because that's when the star's relationship with his "home" studio really started to go downhill. Eastwood, under the advice of his friend and champion, French cineast and publicist Pierre Rissient (a former assistant to Jean-Luc Godard), desperately wanted to enter The Beguiled at the 1971 Cannes Film Festival. Although such a move would have cost a little money and caused a delay in the film's theatrical release, Eastwood longed for critical prestige and took the idea to Wasserman. Wasserman's response? "Absolutely not. I won't put any money in that. I won't get involved in that" (page 253 of Richard Schickel's Clint Eastwood: A Biography). Then Universal botched the release, as Siegel notes A Siegel Film: An Autobiography (355-356), rejecting some Edward Gorey advertising sketches and releasing The Beguiled like a typical Eastwood Western rather than as an art film in need of careful handling. As Siegel writes, "Not only did Universal lose money on it, but they ultimately lost for ever the services of the biggest star in the industry, Clint Eastwood" (356).

Then came Play Misty for Me. Once again, Eastwood deemed Universal's marketing inattentive and unsatisfactory. And when some California theater owners asked Eastwood to stop the studio from pulling the audience-packing film in favor of newer products, again Eastwood's "pleas were contemptuously dismissed" (Schicekl 256). Play Misty for Me proved to be a hit regardless, nearly grossing as much as Shaft in domestic release, but Eastwood felt that it should have been even more successful. Then came the slight of Breezy a couple years later. By that time, the star-director had one more contractual obligation with Universal, which turned out to be The Eiger Sanction. Eastwood, having risked his life on a deeply authentic mountain climbing movie that had killed a mountaineer, wanted to see his effort rewarded by Universal, but once again the marketing department expressed puzzlement. And so after that, Eastwood pulled the plug on Universal. As of early 1975, he was set to make The Outlaw Josey Wales, and he was not going to allow Universal to mishandle it (nor, as you note, did he want to have to keep dealing with the Universal tour that periodically chugged past his office). Eastwood thus went over to Warner Brothers, where he'd made Dirty Harry and Magnum Force, and he's largely been there ever since (although in recent years, he's expressed dissatisfaction and is making his Iwo Jima films with friend Steven Spileberg at Dreamworks).

One should not just single out Universal, however, because Eastwood's iconoclasm in the early seventies ranged far and wide. In his July 23, 1971 cover story in Life magazine, Judy Fayard records the following anecdote from a San Francisco bar across the street from the Dirty Harry set:

"What's wrong with the movies ..." somebody at the bar begins. Eastwood cuts in before the sentence is finished, and his voice, normally gentle, sharpens for an instant. "There's nothing wrong with the movies. There's something wrong with the people who make the movies. If we could do away with some of the padding ... some of those studio people, those men in their black suits sitting at their desks, who've been around for a hundred years ..."

Eastwood then proceeded to mount a contemptuous critique of Universal's recent release of The Beguiled.

Obviously harboring a generational grudge against the old-guard establishment, Eastwood battled other studios as well. In early 1970, on the set of The Beguiled, Don Siegel writes that Eastwood spent an entire day in his trailer, "in a fury," "having torrid arguments with the head mogul of MGM, Jim Aubrey" over the phone about Aubrey's butchering of Kelly's Heroes (Siegel 355). Eastwood felt that crucial scenes that expressed the film's anti-war theme had been thrown away because Aubrey wanted the movie to be more of a straightforward comic-action-adventure. Eastwood believed that the film's "soul was taken out, a little bit of its soul was robbed" (Schickel 236). Aubrey, of course, ignored Eastwood's protests. Unsurprisingly, the star (and soon director) never again worked at MGM and would only leave his own company, Malpaso, once more (23 years later for In the Line of Fire).

Then take Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, which the actor made a few years later at United Artists. Eastwood felt that, much like Universal had done with The Beguiled, UA misrepresented Thunderbolt and Lightfoot in its advertising, almost turning an ironic road movie into a Dirty Harry-style crime thriller (and if one views the original theatrical trailer and the film's posters, the charge is manifestly true). Even though Thunderbolt and Lightfoot out-grossed that year's James Bond movie, The Man with the Golden Gun, in domestic competition, Eastwood was not pleased. As a result, he also pulled the plug on United Artists, which had produced Hang 'em High, helped fund The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and released all three "Dollars" films in America Amidst the acrimony, Eastwood vowed never again to work at UA (which would subsequently be swallowed up by MGM, anyway).

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

eventually Uncle Lew tried to get Eastwood to appear in a Hitchcock movie never made: "The Short Night."

Ecarle, when did Hitchcock and Eastwood discuss that project over lunch? Eastwood has said that he had lunch with Hitchcock a few months before the latter's death, but I'm wondering if that was the same lunch in question. (Apparently, Hitchcock told Eastwood at one point, "Don't ever forget one thing, it's only a bloody movie!") And did Hitchcock have genuine interest in casting Eastwood, or was he just following Wasserman's orders, as with Newman some years earlier? And who did Hitchcock want for Torn Curtain?

[–] ecarle 19 years ago

checking in late on joekidd's posts:

1. I defer to your more detailed knowledge of the Eastwood career, but we seem in agreement about his break from Universal. I'd also read that "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" story, precipitating his refusal to work for UA ever again. Warner Brothers seems to have landed the permanent connection to Clint from 1975 to date. Was not "In the Line of Fire" the only non-Warners Eastwood since then?

2. Eastwood was not the only victim of MGM head Jim Aubrey's crazed editing of a preferred movie cut ("Kelly's Heroes.") Jim Aubrey was evidently some kind of supercruel studio head (recruited from TV, where he was known as "the Smiling Cobra" and fired Jack Benny by telling him, "you're through".) At MGM, Aubrey took delight in re-cutting the movies of filmmakers who came to MGM to do projects, roughly from 1970 to 1973. Other famous victims of Aubrey's destruction were director Blake Edwards ("The Carey Treatment") and Sam Peckinpah ("Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid.") This guy Aubrey was just sick -- and eventually fired.

When Robert Redford agreed to do "The Sting" on the basis of its script, he warned the producers -- "don't take it to MGM, Jim Aubrey will destroy the movie."

3. As to Hitchcock, Eastwood, and "The Short Night." I don't know exactly when the lunch over "The Short Night" took place between Hitch and Eastwood. I'm guessing it was a courtesy lunch, probably on the part of both men, who likely wanted to meet each other.

"The Short Night" was a project Hitchcock had begun around 1970, but after the failure of spy movies "Torn Curtain" and "Topaz," Hitch shelved it and made the shocker "Frenzy" and the comedy thriller "Family Plot" instead. Aged, ill, but determined to make another movie after "Family Plot" in '76, Hitchcock took "The Short Night" out of mothballs and spent three of the last four years of his life (1976 to 1979; he died in 1980) developing a movie that would never be made.

Several scripts were written. I've read one of them, and the hero of the piece is in no way a Clint Eastwood character. Rather, this man is a "regular guy" recruited by the CIA to travel to Finland to kill the British counteragent who got the hero's brother killed. Hitchcock eventually got a tentative agreement from Sean Connery to play the role -- more miscasting, probably just courtesy on Connery's part (he probably didn't think Hitch would live to make the movie; he was right). Walter Matthau agreed to play the villain.

After Hitchcock's death, Elliott Gould tried to buy the "Short Night" scripts so as to make the movie himself. Gould DID fit the "regular guy" hero role, but Universal wouldn't sell the scripts.

I would add that Hitchcock spent the seventies trying to lure stars of various magnitude into his movies -- Michael Caine (villain in "Frenzy"), Jack Nicholson and Al Pacino (hero in "Family Plot"), Burt Reynolds and Faye Dunaway (villains in "Family Plot".) But they all said "no." Some did take lunch with Hitch, though -- including Clint Eastwood, evidently.

4. For "Torn Curtain," Hitchcock rather inexplicably wanted to re-unite his "North by Northwest" stars, Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint. I say inexplicably, because "Northwest" was a fanciful pip of a thriller, whereas "Torn Curtain" was gray and grim and violent.

At a minimum, Hitchcock wanted Saint for the female role, realizing that Grant was near retiring and hard to get at any time.

5. Finally, I've read the Don Siegel autobiography, and Siegel seems to have spent most of the 60's as a top "in-house TV and movie troubleshooter director" for the autocratic Lew Wasserman. The late Siegel creates a vision of Wasserman's Universal that is well-matched in the Hitchcock books about Wasserman and Hitchcock.

Wasserman was trying to run his movie division like his TV division, with a master computer printing out days behind schedule or over budget and sheets being handed out to hapless directors. Siegel replaced some of those lesser directors. Hitchcock was never replaced, of course, but he was demoralized when Wasserman's boys handed Hitchcock sheets of schedule/budget overage on "The Birds" (1963) and "Marnie" (1964) and demanded that he cut back on shooting. Hitch hadn't been treated that way in years. Sad.

Meanwhile, whereas Siegel had been a dutiful employee of Wasserman in the 60's, the success of "Dirty Harry" (on loan-out to Warners at Clint's request) steeled Siegel to break from Universal a few movies later.

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

Was not "In the Line of Fire" the only non-Warners Eastwood since then?

Eastwood also made Escape from Alcatraz (Siegel, 1979) at Paramount and Absolute Power (Eastwood, 1997) at Castle Rock, but both of those films (unlike In the Line of Fire) were still Malpaso productions. (Apparently, Eastwood had wanted to make Escape from Alcatraz at Warner Brothers, hence resulting in a certain amount of tension between him and Siegel prior to making a deal.) Incidentally, Warner Brothers turned Eastwood down on Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. What were they thinking?

I would add that Hitchcock spent the seventies trying to lure stars of various magnitude into his movies -- Michael Caine (villain in "Frenzy"), Jack Nicholson and Al Pacino (hero in "Family Plot"), Burt Reynolds and Faye Dunaway (villains in "Family Plot".) But they all said "no." Some did take lunch with Hitch, though -- including Clint Eastwood, evidently.

Why were the stars of the seventies so reluctant to work with Hitchcock? Was it a combination of their newfound independence and the director's reputation for treating actors like cattle?

For "Torn Curtain," Hitchcock rather inexplicably wanted to re-unite his "North by Northwest" stars, Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint. I say inexplicably, because "Northwest" was a fanciful pip of a thriller, whereas "Torn Curtain" was gray and grim and violent.

At a minimum, Hitchcock wanted Saint for the female role, realizing that Grant was near retiring and hard to get at any time.

I could see Grant and Saint in the roles in more of a Notorious-type deal, but the young Newman was a better choice than an aging Grant (I'm not sure how Grant would have responded in the scene where Armstrong basically has to kill a guy with his bare hands). Incidentally, that's a Hitchcock role that Eastwood might have been highly effective in, but he wasn't yet a movie star in America (although he'd become a huge star in Europe and an icon in Italy). In any event, Newman is coldly effective in the part, foreshadowing his work in Hombre a year later. Julie Andrews, on the other hand, seems totally out of her element (in my view), and I would have much rather seen Saint in the role.

By the way, did you know that both publicist Warren Cowan and fellow actor-director John Cassevettes told Eastwood that he should add "Alfred Hitchcock's" to the title of Play Misty for Me?

Another Eastwood-Hitchcock connection: both men received critical acclaim in France years before they garnered similar attention in America.

[–] ecarle 19 years ago

Why were the stars of the seventies so reluctant to work with Hitchcock? Was it a combination of their newfound independence and the director's reputation for treating actors like cattle?

---

That's about it. These independent stars were sometimes producer/directors themselves -- like Clint Eastwood -- and old time autocrats like Hitchcock weren't up their alley.

But there's some more info about some of them:

Michael Caine practically worked in any movie offered him -- but Hitchcock offered him the unsavory role of rapist-killer Bob Rusk in "Frenzy." In his autobiography, Caine notes that John Wayne had told him "never play a rapist," and Caine "didn't want to be associated with the role" of Rusk. Caine was very hot around this time (1972) -- he did "Sleuth" instead -- but 8 years later, his career was tanking, and Caine played a Norman Batesian cross-dressing psycho in DePalma's "Dressed to Kill." (not a rapist, however.)

For "Family Plot," Hitchcock had a problem: the story featured four near-equal leading parts: a hero and a heroine, a villain and a villainess. Hard to convince a star to share the screen with three more. Nicholson and Pacino, moreover, were looking for big, prestige movies coming off of "Chinatown" and "Godfather II" respectively. (They got them: "Cuckoo's Nest" and "Dog Day Afternoon." )

Hitch wanted Burt Reynolds for the villain in "Family Plot" because Hitch loved "The Longest Yard" (1974) with Burt Reynolds. He couldn't get Reynolds, but Hitch hired three actors from "The Longest Yard" for "Family Plot" anyway, principally Ed Lauter as a sub-villain.

Faye Dunaway, coming off of "Chinatown," turned down "Family Plot" to do "Network," for which she won the Oscar. Probably a smart choice.

The truth for Hitchcock was that "Torn Curtain" in 1966 would really be the last time that great big stars trusted him to put them in a hit or a classic. Paul Newman and Julie Andrews were VERY big stars at the time, but they are the end of the line for Hitchcock. The stars of the 70's simply didn't trust Hitch to make major movies anymore. They were probably right. Hitchcock's era was over.

But in the late 40's, 50's, and early 60's, Hitchcock worked with the biggest stars around. He was "hot" back then.

-----

I could see Grant and Saint in the roles in more of a Notorious-type deal, but the young Newman was a better choice than an aging Grant (I'm not sure how Grant would have responded in the scene where Armstrong basically has to kill a guy with his bare hands). Incidentally, that's a Hitchcock role that Eastwood might have been highly effective in, but he wasn't yet a movie star in America (although he'd become a huge star in Europe and an icon in Italy). In any event, Newman is coldly effective in the part, foreshadowing his work in Hombre a year later. Julie Andrews, on the other hand, seems totally out of her element (in my view), and I would have much rather seen Saint in the role.

---

Agreed, all the way around. I don't see Cary Grant (especially at 60-something), wrestling around on the floor in that grueling murder scene. Newman seemed right for that role -- younger, more a "regular guy" (of rather slight build) than a Grant or Connery.

Given Newman's ice-cold deadpan in "Hombre" a year later, I do think that "Torn Curtain" helped "grow Newman up" by putting him in that grim murder scene. Heretofore, Newman liked to play off his great looks by mugging and goofing around, but Hitchcock gave him "gravitas."

Hitchcock himself felt OK accepting Paul Newman for "Torn Curtain," but was dismayed by Newman's "method" ways -- and a several-page memo Newman gave him criticizing the script for "Torn Curtain" (Newman didn't even like the title.)

Hitch never saw Julie Andrews in the other part, and indeed, she wasn't terribly right for it (beyond, oddly enough, some of the sexy banter at the beginning with Newman.)

--

By the way, did you know that both publicist Warren Cowan and fellow actor-director John Cassevettes told Eastwood that he should add "Alfred Hitchcock's" to the title of Play Misty for Me?

--

I have read that, yes. Interestingly, some months after "Play Misty for Me" came out in late '71, Universal elected to advertise the starless 1972 "Frenzy" with Hitchcock's name given equal size to the movie's title, like this: ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S FRENZY. Idea being: Hitchcock is the star of this movie, in fact: the only star.

I would add that Hitchcock somewhat followed his original casting with his 70's movies, but in different ways. The psycho Michael Caine wouldn't play in "Frenzy" was cast with an unknown British actor named Barry Foster -- who looked and sounded a lot like Michael Caine. When Hitch couldn't get Jack Nicholson to play the offbeat cab driver anti-hero of "Family Plot," he cast the well-regarded but less starry Nicholson pal Bruce Dern in the part.

---

Another Eastwood-Hitchcock connection: both men received critical acclaim in France years before they garnered similar attention in America.

--

Well, so did Jerry Lewis. But on Eastwood and Hitch, the French got it very right. I think Truffaut wrote something about Hitchcock that might have fit Eastwood: American critics didn't "get" Hitchcock because American TV and movies were filled with thrillers and hence Hitch looked too "usual." Well, American TV and movies were filled with Westerns, so maybe Clint suffered the same plight in the US as Hitch did. For awhile.

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

In his autobiography, Caine notes that John Wayne had told him "never play a rapist,"

Interesting. If Wayne ever told Eastwood that, the latter obviously didn't listen, hence High Plains Drifter. Then again, Eastwood saw himself as the anti-Wayne.

Heretofore, Newman liked to play off his great looks by mugging and goofing around, but Hitchcock gave him "gravitas."

Yes, and personally I like Newman better this way, icy and remorseless.

I think Truffaut wrote something about Hitchcock that might have fit Eastwood: American critics didn't "get" Hitchcock because American TV and movies were filled with thrillers and hence Hitch looked too "usual." Well, American TV and movies were filled with Westerns, so maybe Clint suffered the same plight in the US as Hitch did. For awhile.

Yes, they suffered for working in commerical genres. Incidentally, Don Siegel also received critical respect in France long before he garnered similar attention in America (if he ever really did).

[–] ecarle 19 years ago

I recommend Michael Caine's 1992 autobiography, "What's It All About?" Caine seems to have written it himself, and you can hear his witty talent for being a raconteur on every page. He offers good insights about how a Hollywood career is developed -- starting in England (like Hitchcock). He "drops star names" constantly. I'm not sure that you can believe EVERY star story he tells, but the gist seems right.

With Hitchcock and "Frenzy" for instance, Caine says that he took lunch with Hitch to discuss the sex-killer role just so he could "meet the great man." Caine was too chicken to turn down the role to Hitch's face, so he had his agent call Hitch to say "no." Hitchcock never spoke to Caine again at Hollywood events. "So much for Cockney solidarity," wrote Caine.

Caine claims to have met John Wayne by accident, at the Beverly Hills Hotel when Caine arrived in America to make his first US film ("Gambit") after becoming a star in the British "Alfie" and "Ipcress File." Wayne's helicopter landed in the park across from the hotel; Wayne was in full cowboy regalia fresh from an outdoor shoot. Wayne introduced himself to Caine and said "You're that Alfie fellah, right?" Wayne told Caine he was going to be a big star, and offered some advice: "talk low, talk slow, and don't say too blanking much." (Maybe Wayne gave THAT advice to Eastwood.) Wayne also advised against playing a rapist, and, says Caine, said, "never wear suede shoes." Why? Because once Wayne was in bathroom standing next to a man while they "did business," and the man turned in shock seeing Wayne...and, well, spoiled Wayne's suede shoes. 'Nuff said.

--

Yes, the French "found" Siegel, too. I suppose the gist is that American critics didn't much care for commercial/genre filmmakers, so the French had to rescue Hitchcock, Jerry Lewis, Eastwood, Siegel. Conversely, American critics back then went nuts for FOREIGN films -- and French filmmakers like Truffaut and Godard. Simple reverse-cultural snobbery?

However, that tide started to turn in the 70's. A new breed of American critics "re-found" Hitchocck and Siegel (Jay Cocks in "Time" wrote a long article praising Siegel on the release of "Madigan" in '68 and kept giving him good reviews ever after, especially for "Dirty Harry," "Charley Varrick" and "The Shootist".)

More dangerously, these new American critics were hellbent to prove that the movies WERE an art form, so they designated "new auteurs" practically every week in the 70's: Altman, Peckinpah, Bogdanovich, Friedkin. Only about half of those guys could take the ego-overload of being declared genius auteurs, and the others self-destructed. Maybe better for Hitchcock and Siegel that they took years to get respect. (Eastwood got box office respect very fast, he just needed years to be accepted as a good director.)

Hey, this is a "Topaz" board -- I guess I should again reiterate that "Topaz" rather fit the facts above and its 1969 release. "Topaz" was a Hitchcock "French movie" that reflected international films more than American ones. It had French stars like Michael Piccoli, who had worked for Godard, and Phillipe Noiret in it. Oddly, though, I think "Topaz" was not considered foreign ENOUGH by American critics, most of whom dissed it. Except one.

Hitchcock buff Vincent Canby, newly arrived as the head critic for the New York Times, called "Topaz" "Hitchcock at his best," and put the movie on the New York Times list as one of the ten best films of 1969. To make the New York Times Ten Best list was "high cotton" in those days. Canby liked Hitchcock's style and rueful take on spying "as a game" in the film: all these people die to save the world, but it still seems like a lot of lives were wasted so that others might end up where they started.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

Thanks. Joekiddlouischalma has been MIA for awhile. He knew his stuff, and pushed me to know mine. This was pretty wild given that we started on "Topaz."

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Bump. Because this is my take on "Topaz": why. And it hasn't changed.