MovieChat Forums > Topaz (1969) Discussion > Why it was a Failure - Explained?!

Why it was a Failure - Explained?!

posted 19 years ago by James_Bond_007_218
11 replies | jump to latest

Topaz is, in my opinion, like the film The Day of the Jackal, one which relies more on intellect than action. While it is certainly not Hitchcock's greatest film, it shouldn't be dismissed by viewers. I believe the reason it was a boxoffice failure was because its not your typical Hitchcock film. Low key action,
unknown actors and a long running time. Fred Zinnerman regretted not hiring
Michael Caine to play The Jackal in the film The Day of the Jackal because
the film was also a boxoffice failure. Its odd that now the film is considered
a classic by film buffs.

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

Yes, "Topaz" and "The Day of the Jackal" were similar in many ways.

First of all, they were both from best-selling novels -- but that didn't necessarily mean that they would be hit movies, because they were both rather low-key and talky stories. I also think both films/novels were based on true events, which "hamstrings" fiction.

Second, neither film had a major star for audience identification. Hitch tried to get Sean Connery for Andre (a problem in casting "Topaz" is that it required a lead who could at least play "French.") I'm not sure why Michael Caine didn't end up in "Jackal."

Third, the films were rather specific in centering on French protagonists, without being French films made by French filmmakers.

Neither film was a hit, but all these years later they both seem like intelligent films with solid narratives.

I am a Hitchcock buff, but I think that "Day of the Jackal" is ultimately a more polished and professional-looking movie than "Topaz," which Hitchcock split between location filming in Europe, the backlot at Universal, and the northern California coast for Cuba. Hitch's movie has more "Hitchcockian cinematic tricks" than "Day of the Jackal," but "Day of the Jackal" looks more "real."

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

Just two points:

- Day of the Jackal was not based on a true story. The opening assassination attempt by the OAS was real, but that's the extent to which it's a documentary. The novel was inspired by Frederick Forsyth's time as a journalist in Paris, which happened to coincide with the OAS's terror campaign, and Forsyth tried to think to himself how he would go about killing De Gaulle.

- Michael Caine wanted to play the Jackal, and Roger Moore was also considered. Ultimately Edward Fox was cast because Fred Zinnemann didn't want a star to play the role; Zinnemann wanted an inconspicuous actor for the part, a decision which ultimately backfired.

In spite of its lukewarm reception, Jackal is now almost universally considered a classic and is very popular with mass audiences (or at least certain sections of it). Topaz still gets largely mixed reviews (though both the Video Hound Movie Retriever and Maltin give it 3/4 stars) and is still considered one of Hitch's weaker efforts. I think Jackal is far superior to Topaz, but Topaz is still a solidly structured, well-made film.

Stone, you can watch me or you can join me. One of them is more fun.

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

Although Topaz isn't one of Hitchcock strong points, still there are lots of brilliant ideas in the film. It shows some of the ideas from Oscar Wilde and Literary work Dr. Zhivago.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

I can see some of the ideas from Zhivago (particularly the defector's reluctance to betray the USSR), but what are you getting from Wilde?

Stone, you can watch me or you can join me. One of them is more fun.

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

Hitchcock/Peter Bogdanovich Interview, Hitchcock mentions this while talking about Shadow of A Doubt "Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said, "You destroy the thing you love?"

In Shadow of A Doubt, Young Charlie loves Uncle Charlie. But she ends up killing him. In Marnie, Marnie loves her horse. Marnie ends up killing Forio. In Under Capricorn, Samson Flusky kills his favorite horse. In Topaz, we see that Rico Parra loves and respects Juanita de Cordoba. But Rico Parra ends up killing Juanita de Cordoba.

[–] oliver-177 15 years ago

It was a failure because the final quarter contains some talky and silly scenes (such as the return of the wounded son-in-law). Plus the fact that the audience expected stars, and the never resolved ending.

But with hindsight, it contains terrific scenes. Much to enjoy.

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

The Day Of The Jackal is finely constructed instead of Topaz´s sequence of bland set pieces, feels far more professional and believable, is genuinly suspenseful and features very good performances across the board. Jackal works, Topaz doesn´t.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Percivalx 15 years ago

It isn't odd that The Day of the Jackal is considered a classic. It's a great film and much better than Topaz. True that both have, as you say, low key action, unknown actors, and a long running time -- But The Day of the Jackal simply has a better constructed, more streamlined script. It's clear there is one protagonist, who happens to be a murderer, but we are wondering if he's going to get caught throughout the film. That's what the film is about.

Topaz, on the other hand, has a convoluted plot with multiple characters, making it harder to identify with anybody. Plus, right when you think Topaz is about to wind up, like when Deveraux returns from Cuba, we still have about 30 minutes left of yet another subplot that includes the Henri Jarre character. On top of that, the ending is unsatisfying.

Another poster said it, The Day of the Jackal worked, Topaz didn't.

"Mr. Rawitch, what you are I wouldn't eat."
"How dare you call me a ham?"

[–] rexshard93 15 years ago

Topaz worked on some levels. But on other levels, it was a failure. Hitchcock and Sam Taylor wanted to do a lot more structural development on Topaz. But it didn't happen.

[–] oolala53 12 years ago

I haven't seen Day of the Jackal so my comment may not be accurate. I'm also no expert on films, but what struck me while I was watching Topaz was that it was amazing to me that so many of the good guy characters spoke with accents. I was pleased by this, but still surprised because frankly, I would have been surprised that American audiences would have accepted such a film. I just can't see it being a box office hit, even if Hitchcock may have been using his fame to foist international culture on the provincial Americans. Or so he might have been accused.

[–] Soodinum 9 years ago

It's boring crap