MovieChat Forums > North by Northwest (1959) Discussion > North by Northwest and Die Hard SPOI...

North by Northwest and Die Hard SPOILERS for both movies

posted 4 years ago by ecarle (14979)
14 replies | jump to latest

It has been said a time or two that "North by Northwest is ground zero for the action movie."

Rather like "Psycho,"one year later in the Hitchcock canon, launched "the slasher movie" and a new era of violent horror, "North by Northwest" took SOME of what had come before (Foreign Correspondent and Saboteur in Hitchcock) in action chase thrillers, and created the template for the future: suave, wise-cracking action hero and ladies man; sexually available but tough heroine; elegant sinister master villain complete with henchmen -- and plugged them into a movie with "action beats" across the entire film and a spectacular action climax(here, on Mount Rushmore -- no movie has ever been able to do better for a climax locale.)

Within a few years, the first child of North by Northwest arrived: James Bond. The first Bonds were much cheaper than NXNW, and From Russia With Love sported a rather sloppy re-do of the crop duster scene(with a helicopter). But soon the Bonds were very big in budget, and Goldfinger rather replaced Grant, Saint, and Mason with Connery, Blackman, and Froebe(not really big enough names, but now they are.)

Bond's domination for the next twenty years(while Hitchcock failed to keep up and simply walked off the field) was finally matched in the Spielberg/Lucas era with "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which put a historical and fantasy bent on the NXNW template....but we STILL had a tough wise-cracking action man(Indy Jones), a feisty-sexy love interest(Marion Ravenswood, soon to be replaced, like a Bond girl, with other heroines later, before coming back to marry Indy in the end); and a reasonably suave villain(Belloq, who is rather replaced as the villain by a couple of Nazis.)

7 years after "Raiders" came another entry in the action epic. Nobody quite saw it at the time, but the decades have proven that if North by Northwest has a REAL match in the world of action thrillers, Die Hard is it.

Indeed, a younger generation reading this who have seen both Die Hard and North by Northwest would likely say: "There's no contest at all -- Die Hard is much bigger and better -- and certainly more action-packed -- than North by Northwest."

And that's true. "Die Hard" is where you end up only AFTER NXNW begat Bond, and Bond begat Indy...with a few additional additives along the way: Dirty Harry to give us the "action cop"; Star Wars to go "big with the effects" -- so that by the time "Die Hard" came along, it was the NXNW template as refracted through 30 years of ever-bigger action movies and a Hollywood more inclined to make A action movies than any other(they are called superhero movies, now.)

Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman. A TV star with a coupla failed movies and a stage actor unknown to films at the time. And yet -- HERE were two actors to FINALLY give Cary Grant and James Mason a run for their money. Gert Froebe and the interchangeable Bond villains never quite had Mason's star charisma; Sean Connery was great, but his Bond wasn't "a regular guy." Roger Thornhill is a regular guy. John McClane is a cop(trained in combat and used to death) but by 1980's standards, a "regular guy"(compared to musclemen Sly and Arnold.)

And as for Alan Rickman -- man, what a find! A classic Hitchcock villain -- even though Hitchcock was dead 8 years when Die Hard came out. Rickman's Hans Gruber is stylish, wry, articulate, well-tailored -- and far more ruthless than James Mason was (he shoots the Asian executive just like that when the man gives him no answer on the count of three -- THAT's something you don't always see.) Actually, Mason and Company in NXNW were ruthless too -- from start to finish, all they wanna do is kill Roger Thornhill, they brook no argument. But Gruber and his gang were R-rated villains -- killing some hostages and not simply WILLING to kill all the rest , but INTENDING to kill all the rest. They're bad.

Raiders of the Lost Ark(and its sequels) were the "big" action movies of the 80's, but it seems that Spielberg didn't really get the rhythm right with Raiders. Unlike NXNW and Die Hard(which both build to a spectacular climax); Raiders rather peaks in the second act -- with the fight under the flying wing followed by the truck chase. Thereafter, the movie rather lazily winds down to a climax which -- while rather reminiscent of Mount Rushmore in matte shot look -- really doesn't involve the hero at all(he is tied up, his eyes closed while everything happens.) Plus, Raiders really loses track of its villains at the end -- and chooses to melt them all, equally.

Between "Raiders" and "Die Hard" came "Temple of Doom," which DID build to a big cliffhanging climax, but that movie rather collapsed under its own infantile weight; too much of a good thing, too geared to kids --and yet too gory and sadistic FOR kids.

"Die Hard" got the balance right -- we felt that adults were on duty, and that Hitchcock's many lessons of suspense were being followed.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

A great scene in "Die Hard" -- showing the tight structuring of the script and the Hitchcockian quality control -- comes when the Good McClane and the Evil Hans first meet face to face. Its long before the climax. McClane has a gun on Hans(my audience applauded and cheered) but -- oh no! Hans acts like he's just some schlub in the building named Bill Clay(Hans read "WM Clay" on a directory -- and smartly enough, goes for the more informal "Bill.") And McClane hands his GUN over to "Bill Clay" and -- my audience went crazy with suspense -- but when Bill Clay elects to fire the gun -- ha! Its out of bullets, McClane KNEW he was talking to a bad guy. The audience cheers -- but other bad guys arrive to shoot. "You were saying?" Hans snidely remarks as all hell breaks loose.

In the final analysis, the climax of NXNW and the climax of Die Hard are the same -- somebody hanging by a thread from a high place, somebody falling to their death. In NXNW, its only two henchman who fall to their deaths off of Rushmore. In Die Hard, the fall is given to the Big Cheese himself -- Hans. And it is most satisfying.

(As things turned out, it would be one year and one summer later that a blockbuster climaxed even CLOSER to NXNW -- Tim Burton's Batman had Michael Keaton holding Kim Basinger over an abyss while Jack Nicholson stepped on his other hand -- exactly the scenario with Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, and Martin Landau in NXNW. And thus, the Batman series has its roots in NXNW as well.)

There is this difference between NXNW and Die Hard: whereas NXNW has the twice-divorced Thornhill mutually seducing, bedding and eventually marrying Eva Marie Saint, Die Hard starts with a married couple on the rocks(John McClane and his wife)...and uses the adventure to bring them together. It is the wife hanging in danger at the climax of Die Hard.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

I'm expect that any young person watching North by Northwest and Die Hard back to back today will see no contest whatsoever in terms of action between the two movies. Die Hard wins -- it took 30 years of action changes to get there.

But I'm old enough to remember when "North by Northwest" was pretty much "the only game in town" for action movies. The drunken drive, the crop duster sequence -- the Rushmore climax. It was as big an action package as the movies ever delivered. Now we get "North by Northwest" once a week during the summer movie season.

But the thing of it is this. Compared to North by Northwest, the Bond movies were actually pretty lumpy in their plotting and unsuspenseful in their play out. Compared to North by Northwest, the Indiana Jones movies seemed uncaring about the talent playing the bad guys and a bit on the "kiddie" side...though the first one (Raiders) really comes close to the Hitchcock template of excellence.

No...it took until Die Hard to get the kind of action movie that STICKS with you, makes you care while you are watching it, always brings fond memories of how great it was. (And neither the Die Hards to follow nor OTHER action movies ever really came up with an arch villain to beat Rickman as Hans Gruber.)

I'll take them as a near-tie: North by Northwest in 1959 to start the genre; Die Hard nearly 30 years later in 1988, to finally match it.

[–] Quint (935) 2 years ago

Die Hard is an amazing popcorn movie! But there is no way to compare it with a perfect plot movie with incredible actors like Grant and Mason. Bruce Willis did his role in Die Hard perfectly. But he always was more of a two dimensional character. This isnt a critic in any way, cause such comedy action movies had to include two dimensional characters. Thats the reason why we like to watch again and again. But Thornhill is a real person. Ive watched the movie again and realized all the panic and fear within Thornhills actions and voice while realizing the terror of crime hes pushed into. And all that combined with the cool served emotions of the 50s. Thats something you wont see in many other action movies. So Die Hard isnt even in the same category as North by Northwest.

But that doesnt mean that it hurts the reputation of any of this two amazing movies!

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

But Thornhill is a real person. Ive watched the movie again and realized all the panic and fear within Thornhills actions and voice while realizing the terror of crime hes pushed into.

---

A great scene ahead of all the action in North by Northwest is the Glen Cove Library scene, in which, incredulous at first but slowly grasping the seriousness of the situation, Thornhill realizes that these men DO think he is George Kaplan and ARE going to kill him. Grant's reading of the line, "Townsend, you're making a serious mistake" is nicely desperate. As is his strained "I've never even BEEN in Pittsburgh." (I suspect Cary Grant would not.)

Also the twice-married, twice-divorced Grant does seem to use his adventure here to both "become a better man" and win a better woman: Eve Kendall, who has (like him) shifted from party animal to secret agent for all the right reasons. Its one of the happiest of happy endings when Roger and Eve "magically" end up married and on that honeymoon train.

"Die Hard" almost 30 years later had to add other elements -- a lot of cussing, a lot of violence, stray comedy characters(the black cop, the dumb police captain, the imperious FBI agents)..that rather dulled the human interest. But certainly McClane...realizing that he may never see his wife again, that one or both of them may die if he doesn't defeat the bad guys...there's definitely some emotion there.

I'll here note a 'lede that I think I lost" -- unlike the rather supporting-player, interchangeable villains of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom and Last Crusade -- I think Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber REALLY met the Hitchcock standard, and surpassed James Mason in "leader killer" villainy. Everybody today still remembers "Hans Gruber." I'm afraid Phillip Vandamm is lost to time. He didn't do any killing of his own...

[–] Quint (935) 2 years ago

I would agree even with most of your posting. But comparing the amazingly well played VanDamm with a two dimensional villain like Gruber is a little too much :) . IMHO Die Hard is amazing popcorn cinema. I really like to watch it every time. And you could indeed realize the panic within McClane when he found himself trapped at the skycrapper. But this is just some sort of empathy build up so that the audience wont fall asleep between the actions scenes ;) . For popcorn cinema this build up is absolutely believable and differs it from most of the horrible movies of todays action cinema (where most times character and story arc build up is obviously not an option and therefor the whole "movie" is just a graphics demo for the used rendering computer :) ).

But beside thos obvious qualities of Die Hard, theres no same level for comparing VanDamm (thos amazing dialogue lines - this point perfect acting (when VanDamm realizes that Leonard had a crush on him - handling that with one line)) with Kruger. Beside that I think that his almost one dimensional acting (a two dimensional character would have been absolutely perfect for such a movie. But IMHO his character wasnt even two dimensional ;) ) was the weak part of otherwise almost perfect popcorn cinema. BTW Am I the only one which likes Die Hard 2 as much as Die Hard :) ? Seems like the opinion of the YouTube bubble is, that Die Hard 2 was a let down.

And about Raiders: I found Belloq amazing. A villain almost as good/bad as the hero. And not even done in the teen only depressing way like todays movies (to simulate authenticism). But yes, the ones in Indy 2 and 3 were really interchangeable.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

I would agree even with most of your posting. But comparing the amazingly well played VanDamm with a two dimensional villain like Gruber is a little too much :) .

---

Ha. OK...I can certainly take the rebuttal, and I'm not ABSOLUTELY sure that Alan Rickman(however enshrined as Hans Gruber today) was ever a more important actor or star than James Mason. In fact: Rickman wasn't. His "Die Hard" villainy was rather devalued in movies like "Quigley Down Under" and "Robin Hood." Rickman rather "came back" with his continuing Harry Potter role(in which, as I recall, he SEEMED the villain but turned out not to be) and -- ironically -- his rather sweet and emotional turn in "Love Actually"(where he probably cheats on his wife, but all is forgiven.)

Rickman, in short, became a top character guy -- but Mason followed NXNW with the lead in Kubrick's Lolita and had been a star of some stature in the late forties and fifties -- becoming his own kind of character guy for DECADES after NWNW. (And alas, both Mason and Rickman are passed away now, Rickman more recently.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

IMHO Die Hard is amazing popcorn cinema. I really like to watch it every time.

---

I guess the film is what I would call "a pop classic." In the wake of all the "Die Hard on a BLANK" movies that followed it, it stands tall as having the right combination of storytelling, characterization, and action to outflank its imitators. At the time, Die Hard followed Lethal Weapon by a year. The two films had the same producer(not director), the same musical composer(very important, they SOUND the same) and both were hits -- but Lethal Weapon rather lacked the formal construction and storytelling skill of Die Hard. There was just something MORE to Die Hard that, for my money, put it in shooting distance of a classic like North by Northwest.

---
And you could indeed realize the panic within McClane when he found himself trapped at the skycrapper. But this is just some sort of empathy build up so that the audience wont fall asleep between the actions scenes ;)

--

Ha. Well North by Northwest had the benefit of playing by "classic Hollywood rules" -- it is mainly a story, mainly ABOUT the characters, and the action scenes are few (three) and far between (drunk drive at the beginning; crop duster in the middle; Rushmore at the end.) Action movies got more and more into the action.

A screenwriter named Jeffrey Boam said something scary when his "Lethal Weapon II" came out: "Most of us sit through dialogue to get to the good action parts. Well, this movie is ALL good action parts."

Too much of a good thing. Its why North by Northwest probably seems virtually action free TODAY. (Just as Psycho is short about 10 bloody murders TODAY.)

--

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

. For popcorn cinema this build up is absolutely believable and differs it from most of the horrible movies of todays action cinema (where most times character and story arc build up is obviously not an option and therefor the whole "movie" is just a graphics demo for the used rendering computer :) ).

--
I agree with all of that. Die Hard IS popcorn cinema, but with enough care and consideration to the script that today's "built in the computer" action films look like video games by comparison.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

But beside those obvious qualities of Die Hard, theres no same level for comparing VanDamm (thos amazing dialogue lines - this point perfect acting (when VanDamm realizes that Leonard had a crush on him - handling that with one line)) with Kruger.

---

Well, I should note here that North by Northwest is my second favorite movie of all time(Psycho being the first; they are a year apart from one man and absolutely SEMINAL to all thrillers than came after) so I can't really argue against James Mason as Phillip Vandamm.

His lines in the (great) Glen Cove library scene are so memorable:

"Games? Must we?"

"With your expert play acting, you make this very room a theater."

even how Mason says "Raaapid City, South Dakota" is worth a rewind.

And his great actor's studio speech, which ends with:

Grant: I suppose the only role that will satisfy you is when I play dead.
Mason: Your very next performance. You'll be quite convincing, I assure you.

(Such an elegant way of saying "You're DEAD, sucker!" and reflective of Vandamm's quiet rage that Roger has clearly been with Eve in some way.)

--

Beside that I think that his almost one dimensional acting (a two dimensional character would have been absolutely perfect for such a movie. But IMHO his character wasnt even two dimensional ;) ) was the weak part of otherwise almost perfect popcorn cinema.

--

Rickman as Gruber? Oh, I disagree a bit. Gruber gets none of the "romantic side" that Vandamm gets (Eve telling Roger how she fell in love with Vandamm and Roger says "That's nice," with obvious upset.)

But Gruber DOES get to be thoughtful and witty(about the Japanase business man's suit) and he gets that line, "He won't be with us..for the rest of his life."

Plus where Grant and Mason were rather "two sides of the same coin"(middle-aged, erudite, British knockoffs of American and Russian)...Willis and Rickman are rather opposites: the regular guy New Yorker versus the Eurotrash pseudo-terrorist.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

BTW Am I the only one which likes Die Hard 2 as much as Die Hard :) ? Seems like the opinion of the YouTube bubble is, that Die Hard 2 was a let down.

---

I like Die Hard 2 almost as well as Die Hard. The second came out a mere two years after the first, but seemed to have been given even a bigger budget to do even bigger action.

The movie faced its "built it problem" head on by having Willis grumble to himself: "How is it possible that I'm stuck on Christmas fighting terrorists a SECOND time?" Well, it isn't. And Die Hard 2 just says "we all KNOW that...let's get on with the action."

Or as someone else wrote: "Die Hard" was The Towering Inferno with terrorists. "Die Hard 2" was Airport 1975 with terrorists."

I didn't like any of the Die Hards beyond 1 and 2. Die Hard 3 made the mistake of bringing in a Best Actor Oscar winner(Jeremy Irons) as the BROTHER of Hans Gruber, and ended up making Irons look "sub-par." The film also shoehorned ANOTHER script called "Simon Says" into the Die Hard formula...which didn't work for me.. and the sketchy re-shot ending looked just LIKE a sketchy re-shot ending.

That said, I SAW all of the later Die Hards. Just like I saw all the James Bond films and all the Dirty Harrys and all the Lethal Weapons.

But only Die Hards 1 and 2 matter in that series.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

And about Raiders: I found Belloq amazing. A villain almost as good/bad as the hero. And not even done in the teen only depressing way like todays movies (to simulate authenticism). But yes, the ones in Indy 2 and 3 were really interchangeable.

---

I think I spoke too fast and too "murkily" about the interchangeability of the Indy Jones villains.

1 and 3 posit Nazis as the main villains, so they are certainly interchangeable. But 3 has one more villain(somewhat a "new" Belloq.)

2 has "Thugees" as the main villains, and a main villain among them, and -- some other villains WITH them? Its been a long time since I've seen 2 -- I can picture the evil Head Thuggee guy fighting with Indy on the hanging bridge, trying to pull his heart out but the thing of it is...

...almost NONE of these villains came close to getting the characterization of Hans Gruber, let alone Phillip Vandamm, let alone(for that matter) Auric Goldfinger.

Except for Belloq. My beef with Belloq on "first acquaintance" was that I didn't know the actor (Paul Freeman) -- Spielberg didn't seek a 1981 James Mason for the part, and I don't recall Freeman's career going much further in fame. (Mason AND Rickman, did.)

That said, Belloq IS interesting enough, indeed the "dark mirror image" of Indy himself, but wiling to align himself with the Nazis (and the natives in the beginning) to achieve his ends. I can't remember exactly his early line to Indy, but it goes like this and it is good: "Once again, I prove there is nothing you want to possess that I cannot have for myself."

But eventually Belloq is "diluted" by other bad guys: the geeky looking Nazi ss agent(with the frog face and the weird coat hanger) and a generic Nazi. Indeed, ALL THREE of them melt down in the film's rather anti-climactic climax (while Indy and Marion are tied to a post with their eyes closed.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

CONT

In contrast to Belloq, Phillip Vandamm and Hans Gruber are THE boss villains of their respective movies, beginning to end. Vandamm was played by a major star and Gruber by an unknown who would become a character star.

SPOILERS for Die Hard and North by Northwest:

Different fates for our two lead villains:

Hans gets a great "Hitchcock fall" off the building to his death (see: Norman Lloyd in Saboteur; Valerian the Knife Man in NXNW).

But Vandamm is merely captured and arrested and given a great final line in Vandamm's unflappable tradition:

"Not very sporting..using real bullets." Mason in an interview said he heard that that line was usually lost in audience applause for the saving of Grant and Saint.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

One other comparative point among North by Northwest, Indy Jones and Die Hard.

Whereas Die Hard was a "soft R" movie (language mainly and some of the violence, no sex beyond one topless woman in a room with her lover), all three of the Indy pictures were "aimed at the family" -- PG movies . Temple of Doom even had Short Round aboard "for the kiddies."

So Die Hard is more "adult" than the Indy Jones movies...and North by Northwest, made well before the R rating and quite "family friendly"(unlike Psycho) still FEELS like a story pitched to adults, about adults.

END

[–] PaidActor (0) 3 years ago

[deleted]