ElMaruecan82
... yet "Topaz" had none of these. I don't know if it was a movie buff instinct or just a coincidence, but it never topped my Hitchcock watch list, maybe it was the title, the cast or the faded fame. But a few days ago, I saw "Torn Curtain" again and the film convinced me to check out "Topaz". Hitch couldn't possibly make two misfires in a row?Now, I saw "Topaz" (or should I say 'endured') and frankly, when the movie ended, I wanted to reconsider every negative thing I said about it's ill-fated predecessor. Maybe it was Hitchcock's displeasure with working with box-office stars like Paul Newman and Julie Andrews that convinced him to cast 'unknown' actors for mass audiences, but I think it was a tragic miscalculation. Newman and Andrews didn't make "Torn Curtain" a better film, but no matter how uninteresting most of the plot was, they made you care about how strangely uninteresting it was, in "Topaz", there are so many unfamiliar faces that you can only count on the action to engage you, but most of the first act consists on cold and sophisticated discussions between well-tailored and well- spoken men with a central figure, no disrespect toward Frederick Stafford, is too stiff to be sympathetic. How can you care for what a character does if you don't care for the character? That's the question the writers should have asked themselves. You never know where the film is going, we only get that the Cuba Missiles crisis works as a backdrop, the problem is that it takes for granted our attention because the international stability is supposedly at stakes. The problem is that Hitchcock understandably prefers economical directing, so we never get the big picture, there's no real illustration of the political climate, there's a sort of intimacy in the directing that doesn't really evoke some high-scale life-and-death situations, it's just a succession of mini- plots and subplots involving no more than two or three players each time. Costa Gavras' "Z", a political thriller of the same year is the perfect counter-example. This aspect wouldn't have been a flaw if the protagonists were interesting, but for me, only Robert Vernon as the Fidel Castro copy (with his icy blue eyes) and Roscoe Lee Browne as the French Agent did make an impression. Apart from a few little thrills, Hitch never found the proper way to engage the viewer into the story, and I think the real issue here is with the actors, I mean, if you don't have stars, have a great story, if you don't have a great story, have stars. But "Topaz" had none, and I read many comparisons with another political thriller of the same period "The Day of the Jackal". Fred Zinnermann had the merit of clarity and it was a simple plot but one hell of a race against the clock combined with a cat-and-mouse chase, transcended by a meticulous and heart-pounding editing. We knew the mission would fail since De Gaulle couldn't be killed, so the point was to make the Jackal a compelling character, here in "Topaz", we know the mission will succeed, but it doesn't make things any more interesting. Of course, the movie is a legitimate serious spy film, but why should we be indulgent just because it's from the Master of Suspense who certainly had the best intentions? I saw the film on DVD, and I know by experience that the better a Hitch film is, the longer and richer the Bonus Features are. I wasn't the bit surprised when the bonus of "Torn Curtain" only consisted on a short documentary praising the qualities of the film though acknowledging it didn't fit among the Top 10. The case of "Topaz" is even more telling, you don't have a critic but a defense. Vincent Canby said that had Hitch made only "Rear Window" or "Vertigo" or "Psycho", it was enough to stand a legacy, he made certainly twenty high-caliber films and then indisputable masterpieces, so we can accept a few misfires. But "Topaz" is then relegated to "second-tiers". I don't think it belongs to the second category either, after all, why were people so enthusiastic when he made "Frenzy" if it wasn't for finally ending that spy-oddities' streak. "Frenzy" was pure Hitchcockian delight, "Topaz" is an odd and perplexing film with a few good moments, and some beautifully shot ones. Of course, the opening crane shot is a technical prowess followed by the suspenseful porcelain store chase, not to mention the magnificent purple dress falling like a pool of blood which is perhaps one of Hitchcock's cleverest tricks and the Pieta composition with the tortured prisoners, is haunting, but when critics or viewers need to keep saying how much they love some shots, you know there's something wrong in the content. The visual quality can never overshadow the story. And the story had potential but it seemed like espionage wasn't Hitch's strong suit, and he said it himself, he didn't enjoy directing the film, which is probably why he felt the need to go back to his roots with "Frenzy". Regarding the DVD features, I learned that there were three endings to the film, I don't think the ending was the main issue. The problem was the lack of a climax, there was absolutely none, so when it ended, I was like "okay, that's it", frustrated and also relieved because it was over, but who knows which bits have been cut out the editing room, dull bits? Could they be duller than the absurd intervention of the son-in-law, the rather casual ways they got rid of the French villains, played with panache by French actors Michel Picolli and Philippe Noiret. The ending betrayed a lack of motivation and a desire from Hitch to get through the whole thing. So why should we feet so hot about one of his most disliked creations anyway?
sol-
Set in the weeks leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, this Hitchcock thriller details the attempts of the CIA and France's intelligence agency to work out what Cuba is planning to do with their reported missiles. With a basis in real life events, 'Topaz' sounds interesting enough, however, the film was apparently a very troubled production full of scene rewrites, and this uneasiness is very visible. Calling the plot 'muddled' would be an understatement as the screenplay awkwardly tries to weave in espionage intrigue (what does the codeword 'topaz' mean?) with all the tension regarding Cuba. The most disappointing aspect of the film is, however, the characters and performances. There is not a single likable character who is engaging or interesting to follow around. Hitchcock reportedly disliked how two dimensional the antagonists in the source novel by Leon Uris were, and to his credit, John Vernon comes off relatively well as a Fidel Castro type, oozing danger yet never a caricature of evil, however, the fact Vernon is far more fascinating than protagonists Frederick Stafford and John Forsythe never feels right. The film is not, however, quite as worthless as some of its dissenters claim. There are several tense moments throughout, with a clear highlight being an exciting sequence in which the French try to get hold of a red briefcase full of secret documents; the opening defection is also nail-bitingly intense - but these solid bits are few and far between as the film relies far too heavily on dialogue for a movie where the characters are secondary to their actions.
MrOllie
This is a Hitchcock film that "Got Away" as it is one of his films that few people seem to be aware of. It starts off OK with a Russian Official, along with his wife and daughter, attempting to defect to the Americans in Copenhagen. The Russian Defector tells the Americans that there is a French Spy ring codenamed "TOPAZ" who are passing NATO secrets to the Russians. He also states that the Russians are shipping materials into Cuba although he doesn't know what these materials are. John Forsythe who plays a CIA man then tells his friend in the French Secret Service who is played by Frederick Stafford. Stafford agrees to go to Cuba to find out what is going on. After his return he then attempts to track down the French spy ring. All this is taking place in 1962. As previously stated, the film starts off OK then chugs along, briefly coming back to life with a long scene in a New York Hotel which is full of Cubans. Finally, however, the film kinda stalls and by the end has sort of fizzled out. An interesting Hitchcock film, but not a memorable one.
