MovieChat Forums > Marnie (1964) Discussion > badly aged

badly aged

posted 4 years ago by peterkneter (381)
8 replies | jump to latest

As some other stated it is one of the not so good Hitchcock Movies. Actually may be it was better some 40-50 years ago. He plays an repulsive male Chauvinist while the Marnie Character is often overacting and is also not a loving character so you cant really root for anybody here.
It is far too long and the music is kind of a medley from Vertigo and also sounds very repetitive.
Nevertheless I also enjoyed the Hitchcock style of the Movie. Not as much as in "Dial M for Murder" or "Rope" but it was still there.

[–] laurieann74 (97) 4 years ago

So, what do you want? Ban this one because it doesn't meet your approval for the 21st century mind? I don't understand the comment that it doesn't age well. I see that same statement on a lot of movies and will never understand what, exactly it means. This is an old movie. Why would it need to meet current PC standards?

[–] thingmakersback (1210) 4 years ago

OP didn't suggest banning it... And it really isn't very good Hitchcock. In fact the characters are not interesting or likable and there's no harm in noting that the social attitudes are pretty alien to contemporary standards. Nothing too PC about that.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Oh, I'd say it was *better* received back in the day, back when spousal rape was legal, but this film was never *well* received. I think it was a financial disappointment when it came out, and it never had a good critical reputation and was never fondly regarded by viewers, even Hitchcock fans.

And that definitely includes me. It's Hitchcock's cruelest, most mean-spirited film, and also one of the least well-made. If a lesser filmmaker had made this mess, it never would have been released.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

I thought it was ok but the big reveal near the end wasn't very surprising and not very satisfying. I couldn't understand why the Sean Connery character was so in love with Marnie to begin with, although I enjoyed their conversations, why was he so willing to give up so much for her. So far, my least favorite Hitchcock.

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

He isn't in love, he's in lust!

Which still doesn't make his actions believable. I mean yeah, she's beautiful, but there are a lot of beautiful women in this world and 99% of them would be knifing each other for a crack at Sean Connery in his prime. Why he had to fixate on someone crazy and repulsed by sex is mystifying and the film doesn't attempt to explain it, we're left to wonder if it's all because this is the one beautiful woman in the world who doesn't want him... and he'd rather rape her than take "no" for an answer.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

He’s into zoology and wants the challenge of taming a predatory female, remember?

I liked his character, he was a villain and hero at the same time, kinda like Heathcliff.

[–] brucewayne (319) 3 years ago

"He plays an repulsive male Chauvinist while the Marnie Character is often overacting and is also not a loving character so you cant really root for anybody here."

in the subtext of the film she's basically a lesbian and yes hes a chauvinist bordering on rapist.

I actually really enjoyed the film

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

Why do you think he is a male chauvinist? How do you define a chauvinist?