Although savaged by the critics, TORN CURTAIN was a big hit--in fact, it was the biggest moneymaker in Universal studio history until the following year, when it was eclipsed by another Julie Andrews movie, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE. In fact, they both feature scenes shot on the same theatre set, though dressed quite differently, of course.
The look of TORN CURTAIN is rather flimsy; there's too much rear-screen projection that looks cheap and phoney even by the standards of its day, and much of the background is obviously painted backdrops. However, the story was an interesting and intelligent approach to treating complex Cold War issues that were otherwise getting ridiculous play on the big screen in the girls-guns-gadgets genre propped up by the astounding success of the James Bond franchise (as well as its spoofs, like Matt Helm).
I like Newman and Andrews together. Theirs is a neat combination of sexiness and class, even if I feel that Newman is somehow wrong for the role; he's never quite convincing as a defector or as a nuclear scientist. I think Steve McQueen would have been a more convincing rebel/defector, although perhaps only nominally more convincing as a scientist. There are no other first rank American male stars of the period who could have done it, as far as I recall. Richard Burton had been excellent the previous year in THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, as had Michael Caine in THE IPCRESS FILE, but neither Brit would have been able to truly pull off a quintessentially American role. It might have been a good idea to reunite Julie Andrews with James Garner, her co-star from THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY, but he wasn't really big enough at the box office or available (he was in Europe, filming the exciting and rather forgotten GRAND PRIX). Jack Lemmon was huge, but also not available.
And, yes, STAR! was certainly long, but not any longer than many other movies of the period. Length for these films was standard, so it should not automatically be discounted on that basis. But perhaps the pacing and lack of involvement with the main character's story is what worked against STAR! so fatally. The "road-show" movie--which always contained curtain music, intermission, and exit music--was still prominent: in 1968 alone, FUNNY GIRL, OLIVER!, FINIAN'S RAINBOW, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and ICE STATION ZEBRA had intermissions as well, not to mention the six-hour American cut of WAR AND PEACE). The practice continued at least as late as 1971 (FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA), and I think even "1776" had this upon release in 1972, as did the biopic YOUNG WINSTON. The rise of multiplexes changed this practice, as did the spiraling financial disasters of so many big-budget films (most especially musicals). PAINT YOUR WAGON, GOODBYE MR. CHIPS, SWEET CHARITY, HELLO, DOLLY!, TORA! TORA! TORA!, THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN, SCROOGE, THE MOLLY MAGUIRES, RYAN'S DAUGHTER, CROMWELL, THE LAST VALLEY, SONG OF NORWAY, ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER and GAILY GAILY lost untold millions for their studios. After 1968, only a very few road-show engagements (like PATTON and AIRPORT) managed to succeed at the box office, and the tradition died an ignominious death.
"Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind."
reply
share
rsgre
14 years ago
Thanks for your insightful comments Milliedil, did not know that Torn Curtain had been a financial success. For me, Julie Andrews was too fresh from TSOM to be believable as a scientist, and Hitchcock even made disparaging remarks to that effect, in later interviews. As far as Paul Newman, Hitchcock appears to have had the same problem he had with another method actor, Montgomery Cliff in "I Confess". You can almost feel the conflict in styles, where the actor seems to be saying "no...I'm doing it my way...", and Hitchcock was asking for a different way. I think it comes down to actors who can transmit emotions to the audience via facial expressions, otherwise the performance falls flat. The best actors for Hitchcock were the ones who could do exactly that and follow his instructions explicidly. Might have more...see if I can rent Star and get a first hand viewing..
RSGRE
reply
share
mikwalen
14 years ago
Thank you Millie for that detailed comment!
I was disappointed to read that SCROOGE was a "disaster". I thought that it had done OK. I wish DOLLY had done better (indeed it was actually one of the highest grossing films of 69/70), but home video put it nicely into the black.
Yes, FIDDLER was indeed "road-showed". I recall seeing it in its first-run in NYC at the Rivoli theater. The whole nine yards - Intermission, entracte, exit music, and a beautiful prgram which I still have. I was 9 and my mom ordered the reserved seats in advance a few weeks before. What a day that was!! I wish could have seen STAR!, SOUND OF MUSIC, and DOLLY at the Rivoli as well in their road-show runs. I agree that it wasn't the length of STAR! that was the problem. FIDDLER was three hours, and was a smash.
Multi-plexes, in my opinion, took the magic out of movie-going. At that point, a lot of movie-going became like fast-food.
And I didn't know AIRPORT was ever a road show!
:)
"Everytime I want to have a little fun-SHE turns out!" (Baron Bomburst)
reply
share