MovieChat Forums > To Catch a Thief (1955) Discussion > The Epitome of Glamour...and One of Hitc...

The Epitome of Glamour...and One of Hitchcock's Best


So there.

If you were looking to find the polar opposite of "Psycho" in the Hitchcock canon, I think "To Catch a Thief" might just be the ticket.

Whereas the characters in "Psycho" are workaday, hardscrabble types (they manage barely profitable motels and hardware stores, work as secretaries, etc), the characters in "To Catch A Thief" are generally rich, and/or surrounded by the rich.

"Psycho" was cheaply made in black-and-white almost entirely on the Universal backlot (for Paramount). "To Catch a Thief" was made in Technicolor and VistaVision on the gorgeous French Riviera, with Hitchcock's favorite cinematographer, Robert Burks, winning his only Oscar for showing us a mouth-watering Monaco, a night sky full of fireworks, the eye-popping golden gowns and other clotes of a costume ball.

"To Catch A Thief" came out five years before "Psycho," and "Psycho" was largely seen as a shocking rejection of the glamour that "To Catch A Thief" portrayed. Maybe it was -- the sixties would slowly drain glamour out of the movies and the movie stars.

In which case, "To Catch A Thief" is all the more rare a gem in the Hitchcock collection -- a standing monument to a time long gone and a lifestyle that the "new rich" have not carried on.

Objections include "it's not much of a thriller" and "it's not as exciting and action-packed as 'North by Northwest'" of four years later.

Granted, granted. But "To Catch A Thief" stands tall far more as a romantic comedy in the Lubitsch tradition than a thriller -- even though it does thrill.

And "North by Northwest" -- which was meant as the big budget "Hitchcock picture to end all Hitchcock pictures" isn't as glamourous as "To Catch a Thief," and is an "All-American thriller" to boot.

Also, Eva Marie Saint, good actress and beauty that she is, is not Grace Kelly.

"To Catch A Thief" offers us Cary Grant looking about as good as he ever did -- 50 but much younger-looking, tan, fit enough for swim trunks -- paired with Grace Kelly looking about as gorgeous as SHE ever did -- parrying and thrusting all over the French Riviera looking as gorgeous as IT ever did. And that's almost enough to justify the whole movie.

Cary had "retired" in his forties, feeling that the Marlon Brandos, James Deans, and even William Holdens were replacing his Golden Era elegance.

But Hitchocck lured Grant out of that premature retirement, with two things: a character who fit Cary like a glove, and the prospect of working with Grace Kelly. Cary called Grace his favorite leading lady; and you can see why. They are a perfect pair here. One movie earlier in "Rear Window," Grace had been paired with Jimmy Stewart in an "opposites attract" kind of thing. But with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, their gorgeous bodies match, their smooth voices match, their elegant ways match. It's perfection.

But wait, there's more!

If "Notorious" perfected the "black and white 40's noir look" with a younger,more studly Cary Grant and an exotic Ingrid Bergman, "To Catch A Thief" perfected the "50's Technicolor look," with Grant and Kelly a perfect match of a different sort, in a movie designed, like so many others of the 50's, to battle the gray bleakness of that Old Devil, television with a screen full of color and scenery.

And yet, still more:

John Michael Hayes wrote four screenplays in a row for Hitchcock -- "Rear Window," "To Catch a Thief," "The Trouble With Harry" "The Man Who Knew Too Much" -- and this one may just be the wittiest. Oh, "Rear Window" had its great lines,but "Rear Window" had a lot of gripping suspense and silent camerawork. "To Catch a Thief" is a comedy romance that rather DEPENDS on those great lines. Not just between Grant and Kelly, but between Jessie Royce Landis (as spoiled Grace's no-nonsense rich widow of a mother) and EVERYBODY.

I particularly like Grace's line to Cary when he says he's in the lumber business.

Grace: You don't look like an Oregon lumberman to me.
Cary: I must remember to shout 'timber!" more often.

Or when Grace tells Cary that she's reported to the police everything that happened between Cary and she the last night.

Cary: Everything? Oh, the boys down at the station must have enjoyed THAT.

There's also the dapper fun of John Williams (a Hitchcock character acting favorite, not the musical composer of "Jaws" and "Family Plot") as Grant's reluctant "partner in crime": an Insurance man who gives up the info on rich residents of Monaco so that Cary can find the copycat thief who is framing him for robberies. Grant and Williams trade some nice lines, too.

And how about this:

Early in the film, Cary dresses up in a nice tuxedo and goes into a Monaco casino to play Baccarat. You're waiting for him to say, "Bond, James Bond." But of course, the Bond movies were seven years away! Hey, wait a minute. Maybe they start RIGHT HERE. (With "North by Northwest" to provide further underpinnings for the Bond series: action, femme fatales, supervillains with mountain lairs, etc.)

Not to mention:

One of the sexiest yet funniest moments in movie history. On their first meeting, Cary escorts the luminously beautiful Grace -- heretofore nearly silent -- to her hotel room door. Grace lays a big sexy kiss on Cary -- we see only the back of his head, which is quite funny -- and closes the door. Cary turns in close-up with a "Cary Grant grin" and turns to walk down the hall with a languid yet jaunty Cary Grant walk...as Hitchcock's camera pulls back to play off the elegance of the joke.

There are other sexy-funny scenes in "To Catch A Thief" . The chicken picnic ("Breast...or thigh?" Grace asks.) The fireworks courtship in the darkened hotel room with Grace's breast's a heavin' in another gorgeous gown. "Look at them!" (The diamonds, she means.) "Have you ever had a better offer?" Cary's grumpy reply: "I've never had a crazier one."

There's also the saucy humor of Cary caught between two vixens -- Grace's society girl and Danielle Auber's barely-legal Frenchgirl stalker -- in the open water off Cannes. Cary's head bobs back and forth comically as the two women trade barbs en route to a waterbound catfight that doesn't quite happen.

Sexy. Funny. "To Catch a Thief."

But wait:

It IS a thriller. Maybe not as suspenseful as "Psycho." Maybe not as action packed "North by Northwest." But Cary's John Robie is a former jewel thief who also happens to be a mass murderer: to win his freedom from incarceration, Robie killed scores of Nazis in WWII, and his stout maid, Robie notes, "once strangled a German general with her bare hands...without a sound."

John Robie is, in short, a dangerous man -- certainly a more lethal professional than Roger Thornhill a few years later-- and he is also "the wrong man" in the classic Hitchcock tradition, hunted by the police for new robberies while being stalked by gangsters who want the heat off. There's a fair amount of suspense, danger, and potential death lurking beneath the glamour surface of "To Catch A Thief."

It all comes together at a masked ball in which the costumes pop our eyes out while Cary (a former acrobat in real life) does some daring jumping and hanging from rooftops.

Hitchcock perfected so many genres: the spy movie. the slasher movie. the child-kidnap movie. the bomber movie.

Here, Hitchcock perfects "the caper jewel heist movie." "The Pink Panther" was just one of the knock-offs from this film. And Robert Wagner had a 60's TV show called "It Takes a Thief" ("It Takes a thief...to catch a thief") that borrowed from this movie quite a bit.

All these years later, I think one has to sweep aside the thriller elements of "To Catch A Thief" to find its real value in the Hitchcock canon. Let there be no doubt: this was a big hit for Hitchocck, and a defining work in his canon. It stands as perhaps the most glamourous movie of the fifties, with the most perfectly paired stars. There can never be another movie like it. It's impossible.

But "To Catch A Thief" lived on beyond its making to add two grand Hitchcockian ironies that give it an even more special aura today:

1. Grace Kelly soon became the Princess of the small, rich nation in which this movie is set. Hitchcock, who wanted to work with Grace Kelly forever, is the man who brought her to the place that would cause her to give up movies.

2. The film's then-quite-exciting car chase sequence (process screens were fine back then) now carries a dark charge: Grace Kelly speeds around cliff-side corners in Monaco where she would die in a car crash in 1982.

Hitchcock, who died in 1980, would not have appreciated that Hitchcockian irony at all.




reply

THAT was one of the best things I've ever read on this woefully immature site. Thank you for that. TCAT is probably one of my all time favorite-and yes, it is "Hitchcock light", what a gem!

reply

I'm copying this from someone else, and I take no credit for it:

Film opens with a woman screaming. Her jewels have been stolen.
From 0:12 to 1:00 (minutes) We cut between cats on rooftops and women screaming that they've been robbed.
At 1:00 there is a police meeting, ending with 5 policemen sent to arrest John Robie (Cary Grant).
At 1:30 We see Robie's maid cleaning up... and the black cat.
At 2:00 Robie hears the police car racing towards the villa. After he sees the police car, he runs inside. At 2:50 the 5 policemen pull up, surround the villa.
At 3:25 Robie loads his shotgun, hides it.
At 3:50 Robie talks to the police - they're here to arrest him. He says he's innocent - they don't believe him. He asks if he can change...
At 4:30 Robie goes into the bedroom... and the shotgun fires! The police rush the door (locked).
At 4:50 we see Robie on the roof of the villa.
At 5:00 the police break down the door - the bedroom is empty.
At 5:10 the police hear a car roar away and run out of the bedroom - the chase has begun!
From 5:10 to 7:20 there is a car chase - the police chasing Robie's car around hairpin turns. There's a sheep obstacle, too. When they catch up with the car - it's driven by Robie's maid! The police turn around and go back to the villa.
At 7:20 Robie flags down a bus and goes to town.
At almost 8:00 Robie arrives at the restaurant. Everyone there hates him - one guy throws an egg at him. The restaurant staff is made up of ex-criminals who fought in the resistance with Robie. They fear the police will arrest them for Robie's recent crimes.
At 9:30 Robie tells the restaurant owner that he hasn't stolen a piece of jewelry in 15 years - he's INNOCENT, wrongly accused.
At 10:00 one of the guys breaks a plate - ready to attack Robie with the jagged edge.

I think that covers everything you need to do in the opening ten minutes of a film made in the 1950s... or today! Plus it's an exciting opening. We get a car chase, almost get a fight, have a clever escape from the police... plus we learn about Robie, set up the plot conflict in an exciting way, and I want to know how he's going to convince the police that he's innocent when even his friends think he's guilty... and have turned against him.


Proof that kicking your story off from the very beginning is not a new, MTV-inspired thing. Every great movie kicks off with a bang.

reply

That breakdown of the opening of "To Catch a Thief" is a brilliant take on how concise a Hitchcock script and sequence of events could be. And notice how much of the story is told visually.

Some writer noted that Hitchocck movies compress plot and imagery down to a bare minimum, with little wasted action in communicating things. Modernly, screenwriters can't really do this -- the movies have changed, with MTV-flash not always meaning clarity in writing.

The screenwriter of "Marnie," Jay Presson Allen, said that when she suggested to Hitchocck a montage of "honeymoon shots" of Tippi Hedren and Sean Connery he said, "how about just a shot of champagne with a note, "Happy Honeymoon." That's all he wanted to say about that.

P.S. Thanks, to the poster above us.

reply

[deleted]

Thanks.

I skimmed this thread and I was a bit intrigued to see that "To Catch a Thief" seems to be a Hitchcock film that some folks really HATE. I'm not much for debating these things(my oft-expressed rule: you can't convince somebody to like something they hate), but I really don't understand it.

If I were going to try to debate it "just a little," I would point out that in 1955, Hitchcock had no real knowledge that he was going to make something as "jam packed with action" as "North by Northwest" or as shocking as "Psycho." The movie business had to change some more, Hitchcock had to mature some more...those movies weren't "ready" yet, and America and the world weren't ready for them.

But "To Catch a Thief" was very much OF 1955, with its emphasis on Technicolor travelogue(TV was driving the movie studios nuts, but it was small and black-and-white) and romance. Hitchcock himself saw the film as "corn," but he had just made "Rear Window," which was really the "Psycho" of 1954(Thorwald chops up his wife into pieces, carries her head around,and strangles a little DOG, c'mon!) and felt that his audiences could use something lighter from him.

I would like to speak here to two simply great shots from "To Catch a Thief":

1. Cary Grant on the rooftop at the villa during the costume party as the lights are thrown on and he stands at the edge looking down, with the audience ABOVE AND BEHIND him. A BRILLIANT matte shot, what "Hitchcock is all about." We feel, immediately...vertigo! It is dizzying how high up we are and scary how close John Robie is to the edge of the roof. Meanwhile, the costumed folks way down below are in perfect contrast to Grant's back-lit dark-form(even from behind he looks suave.) I could look at this shot again and again.

2. Final scene of the film: Hitchcock had scripted and threw out about five or so "exciting" final scenes before settling on something simple: Grant facing Kelly, on the porch of his villa, the sunlit glories of Monaco behind them, as they close the deal on marriage.

They have great dialogue:

Kelly: Tell me you needed my help, you couldn't have done it without me, you're not the lone wolf you think you are.
Grant: All right. Frances, I needed your help. I couldn't have done it without you. I guess I'm just not the lone wolf I thought I was.

Its all very wry and cool and kind of touching. Gruff and reclusive hermit John Robie is giving in to marriage -- I like how he "humanizes" his remarks ("Frances..." "I guess I'm just not the lone wolf..")

But..the way they LOOK!

Grant in profile, all in black and a long overcoat with turned up collar. Kelly, in profile, amusingly still in her "regal costume gown,"(how's THAT for a clue to her coming life?) but beautiful nonetheless. I believe there is a freeze frame of this shot here at imdb, and I'll say it again: the epitome of glamour. Two movie stars BEING movie stars and yet somehow connecting with us as people we'd like to be, or at least know.

I've worn an black-clothes-and-overcoat-outfit somewhat like Cary Grant wears at the end of "To Catch a Thief," and though I sure as hell don't look like him, I could at least for a short time feel like him. People often follow the styles of stars. As 60's song-spoof comedian Allen Sherman wrote,to the tune of "A Taste of Money," a song about a guy trying to score chicks by emulating a star:

Got a pair
Of those new tight pants
Styled my hair
Just like Cary Grant's
A waste of money!
Household Finance...took my pants

--

And as Princess Grace of Monaco said in the sixties:

"I was on a plane and I saw 'To Catch a Thief' again and I was thinking: weren't Cary and I just gorgeous in that picture?"

Yes, you were. And we miss you both, very, very much.

reply

Beautifully done. The movie and your remarks.

reply

I absolutely adore the gold ballgown that Grace Kelly is wearing during the party scene. It is pure perfection.

reply

Wonderful and illuminating commentary. Many thanks!

reply

Thank you for reading.

reply

The majority of people would agree that Hitchcock's greatest films are "Rear Window", "Psycho", "Vertigo" and "North by Northwest". When people are asked to recite their favorite Hitchcock films these are generally the ones people will mention. Now, there were the only Hitchcock films I'd seen and was very impressed. When I finally got round to see this one I was amazed by how much I enjoyed it, just as much if not more than his others; I struggle to see why people discredit this as being of of his best. It may not be quite on par with the others but I certainly think it deserves a mention. Do you people agree that this is one of Hitch's best? And if not provide some reasons it's isn't on par with his other masterpieces?

reply

It IS lightweight, a confection, a whipped-up froth with dialog...but oh what dialog, what actors, what pacing and visuals. I happened to see it last night, Feb 2, 2007.

I turned it on late at night, by accident and was utterly spellbound (yes, I know...lol). It was such fun watching these two, Grant & Kelly go at each other, they were a match and, God, wasn't she beautiful!

I mean really beautiful.

I forgot what the epitome of beauty was...certainly among today's actresses.

Thanks to the OP for the great summary.

Not Hitch's best, but still good enough.

Best Wishes, Traveller

reply

<< Do you people agree that this is one of Hitch's best? And if not provide some reasons it's isn't on par with his other masterpieces? >>

I think it's one of the weakest Hitchcocks. Please read some of the user reviews posted, using the "Hated it" filter: there are a couple of dozen of reviews from people explaining why they disliked To Catch a Thief.

As an example of what I disliked: the dialog between Grant and Kelly with the fireworks in the background. Grant was so-so, although he seemed (throughout the movie) to be rattling off his one-liners too glibly, without inner interest; but Grace Kelly seemed ridiculously affected in that scene. I've just watched the scene once more to give it another look and I'm appalled by it. Especially Kelly's movements were all wrong; how would anyone ever think of seducing anyone else with such embarrassing antics? Also, wasn't Kelly's character supposed to be the epitome of glamour? Well, I was reminded of the Red Light district rather than glamor in that scene, sorry. The scene was heavy-handed, un-funny and un-erotic, and the sumptuous surroundings only made it all the more annoying.

For a contrasting example of where these sorts of male-female conversations were written, acted, and directed with 100% precision, watch Charade starring Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant. Charade is a true Hitchcockian thriller-comedy-romance, while To Catch a Thief is merely an attempt at it. Even though Charade wasn't directed by Hitchcock and this one was.

Also, To Catch a Thief is untenable in comparison to a masterpiece such as North by Northwest. The two simply cannot be mentioned in the same breath. Yeah, the cinematography is gorgeous in both, but that's where the similarities (in quality) end. Take only two examples: screenplay and music in North by Northwest are vastly superior over To Catch a Thief.

In short, the primary attraction of To Catch a Thief is neither the story, nor the direction, nor the actors, but (overwhelmingly) the settings: the French Riviera. And that's too little for a work of fiction; you might as well watch a documentary if what you want is to admire the French Riviera.

reply

one of the most underrated movies in my opinion.

reply

There are other sexy-funny scenes in "To Catch A Thief" . The chicken picnic ("Breast...or thigh?" Grace asks.) The fireworks courtship in the darkened hotel room with Grace's breast's a heavin' in another gorgeous gown. "Look at them!" (The diamonds, she means.) "Have you ever had a better offer?" Cary's grumpy reply: "I've never had a crazier one."
I love that scene, especially how Hitch cuts back and forth from the fireworks to the actors - not particularly original, just very well done.

It has that great closing scene too; the look on Robie's face is priceless when Frances says: "So this is where you live? Oh, Mother will love it up here"!

reply

OK, when was the 1st use of fireworks to imply foreplay & sex? I think this was pretty original in 1954-when it was photographed.

reply

Great commentary, ecarle. Just seen this movie again after many years. Still as brilliant as always.

reply

Agree.



Yours,

Thusnelda

reply

[deleted]

15 years ago....thanks!

reply