Comments on Screen Savour: North by Northwest (1959)

Hi! T.S.,
I think that you may find the link be...

2009-02-20T18:51:00.000-05:00

Hi! T.S.,
I think that you may find the link below of interest...that is if you have not checked it out already.

http://thehitchcockpapers.wordpress.com/

One commenter who(m) post over there on Joel Gunz's blog (My former guest) said, something very revealing about Hitchcock in his comment on Joel's blog and that was that "Hitchcock's name is still very recognizable."

But of course! I agree with him "Hitchcock's" name is very recognizable even today.

Dcd ;-D

Well, I wish I'd read this before I posted my own ...

2009-02-13T13:40:00.000-05:00

Well, I wish I'd read this before I posted my own mini piece on WitD - I'd just have saved myself the effort and just posted a link here. Can't be topped, truly excellent piece.

Great in depth review. I love the details you incl...

2009-02-13T03:13:00.000-05:00

Great in depth review. I love the details you included and the film simply rocks. I cant believe its been 50 years already. This masterpiece still stands tall even to this day.

@Sam: Thanks so much. I was going for the spine-ti...

2009-02-12T22:22:00.000-05:00

@Sam: Thanks so much. I was going for the spine-tingling, bone-chilling effect in the final lines. It looks like I may have succeeded. Ha ha. But seriously, thanks for the comments – after writing something here, and then others with Vertigo and Rear Window and Strangers on a Train, I'm happy to stopped myself from trying to cram them all in during October. I wouldn't have reached this length if I had.

@Joe: Wow, thanks. If you know anyone looking for a chapter, send them my way. Ha ha. Hope you'll come back for the rest of the Hitchcock series over the next few weeks.

Wow, and I thought Allan Fish's review was great! ...

2009-02-12T16:26:00.000-05:00

Wow, and I thought Allan Fish's review was great! This should be part of a book.

This is simply a fantastic review by any barometer...

2009-02-10T22:43:00.000-05:00

This is simply a fantastic review by any barometer of measurement, and one that flows so eloquently, with authority and a passion for it's subject. I dare anyone to find a better review of NORTH BY NORTHWEST from anyone on the net (or anywhere else for that matter) As always, I enjoy greatly the historical context--in this case the prima-donna antics of Cary Grant, who still (according to your reference to Naremore) delivered one of his finest career performances--an assessment I could hardly challenge. Your paragraph talking about the film's 'meaning' and bringing in the other high-profile 50's films with the same capsule assessment is magisterial.
Similarly you do a fabulously authoritative job dexplaining the use of set pieces in the film, in fact tracing the famed ones in NBN to previous films like BLACKMAIL, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH and SABOTEUR.
Other fascinating points/observations include the 'moving typography title sequence', Robert Burks' 'geometric pattern' cinematography, yet another superlative Bernard Herrmann score (brass-woodwind dominated)Ernest Lehman's brilliant, and funny script, and the thrilling interplay between Grant and James Mason.

And then we have this magnificence:

"You don't need me to tell you it's Cary Grant. You don't need me to tell you it's North by Northwest. It's one of those things you know, one of those things you'll always know, something you'll fall back on time and time again and enjoy endlessly, something that's been imitated for years but never done as well in the fifty years since its premiere and no matter how much time passes, it'll be a mainstay. That's the genius of Hitchcock.

A beautiful conclusion to a classic review that is one of your landmark series' very best.

@R.D.: Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you enj...

2009-02-10T22:29:00.000-05:00

@R.D.: Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed the review, since the film is your favorite. I agree with you, I think North by Northwest is Hitchcock at his lightest, most entertaining, at least since he arrived in Hollywood. Every director should have something like this in his or her oeuvre, and really, they don't come much better than this film in terms of pure entertainment.

@dcd: Oh, I know... Stewart is perhaps my favorite actor of all time, but he would have been so mismatched here (just as Grant would have been mismatched in all of Stewart's roles, even though he was in mind for the headmaster in Rope, which ended up going to Stewart). I hope you enjoy the McGilligan book, too... it's been my primary source of research during this retrospective.

@MovieMan: Thank you, sir. Hitchcock and Stewart had a much better working relationship than Hitchcock and Grant; Stewart, in fact, was a creative partner on his films with Hitchcock, although it usually consisted of telling associate producers to relax and let Hitchcock have his way. (Reportedly he told Herbert Coleman to let Hitchcock go with the radical flashback in Vertigo where Judy discloses everything because "the picture's not that important.") I think Hitchcock had a special affinity for actors, despite what he said publicly, particularly the ones who worked well in his movies – Leo G. Carroll, Hume Cronyn, Stewart, Grant, Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman, etc. His relationship with Grant was decidedly weird because Grant was so demanding, but Hitchcock put up with so much (even taking a paycut on To Catch a Thief so the studio could afford Grant) because of what Grant brought him onscreen. The two didn't work with each other for almost a decade – Notorious (1946) to To Catch a Thief (1955) – primarily over a flap to do with Rope. Grant and Montgomery Clift were attached the project, but were uncomfortable with the heavy homosexual overtones and began backing out. At the time Grant swore he'd never work with Hitchcock again (and then the money was right) and Hitchcock swore he'd never go back to Grant (except the roles were perfect).

Great review, one of the best of the Hitchcock ser...

2009-02-10T21:24:00.000-05:00

Great review, one of the best of the Hitchcock series. I didn't know that about Hitch and Grant's relationship. There always seemed to me to be a weird discrepncy between Hitchcock's misanthropic statements about actors and his actual interactions with them (at least the males), in which he exacted excellent performances and continued to work with the same stars through many pictures. But apparently things weren't so rosy.

Correction:
Once again! a very well writ...

2009-02-10T20:57:00.000-05:00

Correction:
Once again! a very well written and very detailed (With you pointing "out" all the "important" details...in this film.) review of Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 film North By Northwest.
Which by the way, is always added to my list of favorite films, when it comes to adding films from Hitchcock's "canon" to my list of favorites.)

I really must add author Patrick McGilligan's book to my shelf and Speaking of, adding, I must add Hitchcock's cropduster scene, along with actresses Gloria Swanson and Bette Davis, scenes from "Sunset Blvd.," and "All About Eve" as the most memorable scenes that have ever graced the silver screen.(Respectively,)...Well, as far as I'am concerned "unforgettable."

Tks,
Dcd ;-)

Hi! T.S.,

Once again! a very well written, ...

2009-02-10T20:11:00.000-05:00

Hi! T.S.,

Once again! a very well written, very detailed (Pointing "out" all the important details...) in your review of Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 film North By Northwest is always added to my "canon" of favorite Hitchcock films.
T.S. said,"James Stewart had his eye on the role of Thornhill, but tangled post-production on Vertigo and a cancer diagnosis for Hitchcock's wife Alma delayed the start of North by Northwest and the role went to Grant, his last with Hitchcock.
Oh! I think that actor James Stewart, would have been "miscast" in the role of Roger Thornhill.

T.S. said, "He had previously sworn never to work with the director again, but the money – nearly half-a-million, plus a share of the profits – lured him in."I wonder why? actor (Cary)Grant, sworn never to work with Hitchcock again?

Tks,
DarkCityDame ;-)

Thanks for such a wonderful post on "North by Nort...

2009-02-10T17:47:00.000-05:00

Thanks for such a wonderful post on "North by Northwest." This has been my favorite movie since I saw it on the big screen when I was in jr. high (and knew nothing about Hitchcock or "cinema"). I've seen literally thousands of movies since, and it still remains my favorite of all time. I like the way you covered all the important points without repeating things that have been analyzed to death--it's hard to say something original about a movie that has received so much attention. It is a mystery why everything works so well. "Vertigo" is more complex and psychologically probing, "Psycho" is more perverse, but for me no Hitchcock movie is so purely pleasurable on the entertainment level (although "Rear Window" comes closest). If anybody ever needed to be convinced that pure entertainment can be elevated to art, then "North by Northwest" should be example #1.

@FilmDr, re: "you just don't know where to look"
2009-02-10T17:03:00.000-05:00
@FilmDr, re: "you just don't know where to look"

Very true, sir. I'm stirred every time I watch the film by how Hitchcock sends our eyes in so many directions at once in that scene (particularly Burks's geometric camerawork), and out of seemingly nothing, manages to build the inevitable feeling that something wicked this way comes. To your first point, I've heard the crop-duster sequence was a challenge issued to Hitchcock to make something claustrophobic in the middle of nowhere, but I couldn't substantiate it in my research for the essay.

On the element of sadism, I do think there's a little of it on Hitchcock's part toward Grant, particularly the unexplainable series of fiery hoop after fiery hoop that Thornhill must jump. Their working relationship had become so strained I wouldn't be surprised to see a little bit of that in between the lines, although I think there's something to be said for Hitchcock's admiration of Grant as an "Idea" and "Concept," thus the fact that Thornhill's coolness prevents him from ever being truly at the cruel mercy of fate – he can, it seems, handle anything thrown his way, including his mother.

Excellent review. Isn't it true that the crop-dus...

2009-02-09T17:40:00.000-05:00

Excellent review. Isn't it true that the crop-dusting scene was thought up as the opposite of how one would expect to set up a murder--in some dark alley someplace? Instead, they placed it in direct sunlight in the middle of nowhere outdoors. I like the way most of the elements of the scene appear early on (such as the plane, the specific cornfield), but you just don't know where to look. It seems in part a scene in which Hitchcock proves that he can extract great fun out of the least unpromising materials.

Isn't it true also that there's a sadistic element in Hitchcock's treatment of Grant's character?