Comments on Screen Savour: Marnie (1964)

T.S., I eagerly await that review! (Indeed, even m...

2009-05-22T01:54:31.978-04:00

T.S., I eagerly await that review! (Indeed, even more eagerly than the rest of the Hitchcocks, which I have to admit I've yet to see...)

It usually gets knocked for being "not as funny" as Young Frankenstein & Blazing Saddles. Well, maybe it isn't (though I remember laughing a lot) but it sure is interesting. Among other things, it transposes fragments of Hitchcock's imagery, style and stories to 1970s America, filtered through the prism of Mel Brooks' parody. The curious result is alone worth the price of admission.

Thanks for the thoughts, Dave. You're right, there...

2009-05-18T19:18:00.000-04:00

Thanks for the thoughts, Dave. You're right, there is always a strange zip that goes through my body whenever I see a critic with Marnie on a top-ten of all-time list. I'm not even sure it belongs a top-ten of 1964 list.

But it goes straight to the heart of the matter that the film often becomes what people want it to be, particularly those intricately tied to Hitchcock's legacy. (Sad but true.) For example, there's that shot near the end when Marnie and Mark go to visit her mother, and that large, clearly painted ship near the docks. I've read critics who say that's Hitchcock at his laziest, that he wasn't even concerned about making the ship seem real at all. But then there are critics who say it's all part of the auteur vision, the overly expressionistic emotional draw, that the ship in Marnie isn't meant to be any more realistic than the sets of Dr. Caligari. I think that's going a little too far, because there's nothing else (such as in Rear Window) to suggest such broad thematic usage of a set backdrop like that, but, like the rest of the film, it's somewhere in between, which exemplifies his struggle with making the film a success. Although certainly you've got to give credit to Robert Boyle for designing such a beautiful image, meant to be seen as fake or not.

Excellent review of this film. My feelings toward...

2009-05-18T18:25:00.000-04:00

Excellent review of this film. My feelings toward it are similar to yours... I enjoy it and think that it is quite well done, but it's a far cry from the masterpiece that many have claimed it to be. I was shocked to see it listed among Bernardo Bertolucci's Top 10 films of all time. High praise, especially considering the other Hitchcock films that I can't imagine ranking below Marnie. Personal taste is the great equalizer.

I like how you sum things up in saying that it's a flawed film, but still essential viewing. I couldn't agree more.

@MovieMan - The to-his-head theory is an intriguin...

2009-05-17T18:41:00.000-04:00

@MovieMan - The to-his-head theory is an intriguing one, indeed, but you're right in the way that it feels slightly too convenient of an excuse for why the post-Birds films seemed in a constant state of decline. It certainly would coincide with Truffaut's interview. If any film can vindicate that theory, it might just be Marnie; when you start to get into Torn Curtain and Topaz, there's very little Hitchcockian that comes through.

Re High Anxiety: this is going to sound very weird, but I've never seen it all the way through. What I've seen (long ago, while it was broadcast on television) I've thought was generally funny. I'll probably officially visit it after this series.

What do you think of the theory that auteurist pra...

2009-05-10T03:41:00.000-04:00

What do you think of the theory that auteurist praise went to Hitchcock's head, and he started over-thinking all the things he had done intuitively? It seems perhaps too convenient to be true (particularly as it may be anti-auterists who foster the idea) but it is an intriguing thought.

I have not seen Marnie, nor any other post-Birds Hitch so I suppose I'll be flying blind from here on.

By the way, what do you think of High Anxiety?

T.S. said,"Hitchcock was a man who had to settl...

2009-05-09T22:04:00.000-04:00
T.S. said,"Hitchcock was a man who had to settle perpetually in his career — he never snagged Gary Cooper for Foreign Correspondent, he never convinced the studio to give him William Holden for Strangers on a Train... Note: I'am so happy!...that actor Farley Granger, was cast for the part in Hitchcock's 1951 film "Strangers on the Train" instead of, actor William Holden, because I feel that actor Farley
Granger, carried off that fearful, frighten, young man, look very well!...
...On the other hand, I feel actor William Holden,would have been "miscast"(because of his onscreen "persona"..I don't know if I would have believed his "fear factor" when confronting actor Robert Walker's Bruno...) I don't think that his portrayal of (Guy) would have been very "convincing"... maybe I'am wrong?!? (Shrug shoulders)

If the statement below has "any ring" of truth to it...I think that not only did the studios play a role in denying Hitchcock, access to stars, but so did the stars themselves.

“In England, I’d always had the collaboration of top stars and the finest writers, but in America, things were quite different. I was turned down by many stars and by writers who looked down their noses at the genre I work in.”

DeeDee ;-D

Hi! T.S., What a very "fascinating" and de...

2009-05-09T21:01:00.000-04:00
Hi! T.S.,
What a very "fascinating" and detailed review of Hitchcock's 1964 film "Marnie." (When it comes to reviewing films you leave no "stones" unturned do you?) :-D

..and I must admit several fact(s) were mentioned in your review that I wasn't aware of such as: Cinematographer Robert Burks, dying in a house fire...Wow!

...and I also agree with you,about the 1960 film Psycho being his (Alfred Hitchcock's) last masterpiece, his grand experiment and the film for which he will forever remembered...

T.S., I want to take this time(from commenting on your review(s) to wish your wife, and female family
members, a Happy Mother's Day! tomorrow.

DeeDee ;-D