MovieChat Forums > Torn Curtain (1966) Discussion > Torn Curtain is not inferior Hitchcock

Torn Curtain is not inferior Hitchcock

posted 21 years ago by tenordan
13 replies | jump to latest

I have loved this movie since the first time I saw it. Julie Andrews and Paul Newman are fabulous, and all the other parts are wonderfully cast. There are great scenes- the fight in the farmhouse is only one. It also has one of my favorite Hitchcock cameos. He's in the lobby of a hotel with a child sitting on his lap, check it out.

Why is this movie considered lesser Hitchcock?

She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?

[–] h_ordek 21 years ago

I think it is considered a lesser Hitchcock, because Paul Newman couldn't combine the role of the handsome guy with the professor role. He was not very convincing.

As for Julie Andrews, she wasn't very convincing either. While I was watching the movie I couldn't stop having the feeling of her going to sing The Sound of Music. And the mid-60s were the end of a movie era. The traditional movies which Hitchcock used to make were over. By then the heroes of the movie were dirtier than the heroes in Hitchcock's movies.

But who I definitely liked in this movie was Gromek. The man who played him acted in such a sinister way, that I sometimes hoped that he would win and not Paul Newman. It's only a pity that the scene in the farmhouse was so early in the movie. Then Gromek's part would have been longer.

And also the professor of the university of Leipzig was convincingly played. He looked more like a professor than Paul Newman did. Also here is a big chance missed by letting the professor appear at the very end of the movie.

[–] tenordan 21 years ago

Of course, it's all just a matter of taste, but I think Paul Newman is fine in the role, and Julie Andrews is even better than fine. She is very earnest and confused, and i believed her love and loyalty towards Newman, and it seemed natural that she would stick wth him.

Great comments on Gromek, though. I think having a strong "villain" is much more important than having a strong hero. Look at Shadow of a Doubt and Strangers on a Train, for instance. And it really is too bad that he is killed off so early, I agree.

She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?

[–] szekeong123 20 years ago

"While I was watching the movie I couldn't stop having the feeling of her going to sing The Sound of Music"

LOL! Is it because, like many other people, you cannot accept Julie Andrews in dramatic roles and lock her in your "sugary-sugary" mindframe?

[–] waha99 20 years ago

I've read that Hitchcock had to include Newman and Andrews at the insistance of Universal to guarantee financing for the project. Hitch also supposedly had a problem working with method actors (in this case Newman); he was more concerned with camera placement and lighting and such and wanted the actors to work out their performances on their own. So I've read...

I've also read that Hitchcock had the very same feeling about working with Julie Andrews; he was concerned that the audience would expect Ms. Andrews to break out into song any moment. Actually I feel like he could have effectively worked a song in for Julie to sing, as he did with Doris Day in "The Man Who Knew Too Much". It certainly would not have detracted any from the movie...

"I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrious" (unknown)

[–] CurlyGirl64 20 years ago

I really didn't think Newman's performance was bad at all. His character wasn't very interesting, but I don't think that was his fault. I also found Julie Andrews very convincing. At first, I kept thinking to myself "Mary Poppins!" but as soon as I got out of that mindset, I thought her performance was great. All of the European supporting actors were great as well, with the exception of the stewardess on the plane to East Germany. She had the absolute worst German accent I've ever heard. Oh, and the guy who inquired, "Wo ist Professor Armstrong?" He said something like "woe" instead of the "vo", which is how it ought to be pronounced. Sorry...that's just the German major in me coming out...

Wait! We can't stop here! This is bat country!

[–] szekeong123 19 years ago

Upon a second viewing, I am convinced that Julie Andrews did not deserve the criticism she got. She had tried her best to engage the audiences, and this is only her second major dramatic role(It was her first dramatic performance to be shown, making it an easy target for criticism). Beside, being a plot-driven mystery-suspense, she was not given much to work on.

Though Paul Newman was good, his low-key performance somehow make me wish he tried to engage the audiences like the way Julie Andrews did. This short-coming of his become apparent in the second act when he takes over Julie Andrews as the leading protagonist of the film. Thankfully, the supporting players all gave fine performances.

[–] He-She-It 19 years ago

I agree with the criticism of Newmans method acting. Ive always been amazed at the actors who wish to work with a particular director, then insist on directing themselves.
If a performer couldnt trust Hitchcock, then they need to go back to training.
Dont get me wrong, I like method acting, but everyone must admit, the most important star of a Hitchcock movie is Alfred. I always felt he would have had better luck hiring dancers for his films as he concentrated more on their marks and positions rather then the delivery of their lines.
Also: I feel the need to compliment the score of this picture as it has gotten a bad rap. It is well known that Hitch ended his long time and enormously successful collaboration with Bernard Hermann with this picture. (A decision, I feel, hurt all his subsequent films) However, I thought the musical score ended up being quite enjoyable. Rythmic and excitng.

[–] rachaeljackson60 19 years ago

i never seem to be able to understand why people cant see julie andrews in these types of roles for me she isnt locked into the roles of mary poppins and the sound of music although i do love these films i think she is brilliant in these films like victor victoria and the tamarind seed she is brilliant and dont know why think she shouldt be in thses kind of roles

[–] beccatx27 17 years ago

the fact that you thought J. Andrews might sing is your problem not hers.

[–] h_ordek 17 years ago

I only meant it as a joke. I am not used to see her in a role like the one she played in 'Torn Curtain'.

[–] GloriaStitts 17 years ago

That's fine. I happen to think it's a poor film except for that wonderful 17 minutes beginning with the pursuit through the museum and ending with the murder at the farmhouse.

Julie Andrews' acting has all the range of a white-washed brick wall. Her career peaked in the 60s and never came to anything, not because of typecasting but because she's a bad actress.

My opinion. She's likable to some people - Blake Edwards for instance and the wanker who made that Princess movie.

"What's this war in the heart of Nature?"

[–] Agnelin 10 years ago

I agree with you, this is a great, excellent movie.

I think it has become customary to say this is inferior, and a lot of people just accept that assessment and never question it, nor do they think for themselves, so they look for the faults in this film instead of the many qualities.

[–] tremblaylm 8 years ago

I have to agree with the OP, as I rank Torn Curtain in my Hitchcock top 15. Very suspenseful (more tense than say, North by Northwest) and fast-paced, which makes up for the slightly underwhelming lead roles.