Topaz is near the end for Hitchcock, even though he had 12 more years to live when he made it in 1968 for 1969 release, and would make two more movies(spaced ever longer apart after it).
Indeed, the "one after Topaz" would be called "Frenzy" and would be hailed by many critics as one of Hitchcock's best, and an astonishing comeback film. Which negates the "health" issue -- except I've read that Hitchcock took a year off with some rest and vacations(one to Hawaii) to get ready to make Frenzy so he'd be in the best possible condition.
"Frenzy" had a simple plot that combined two classic Hitchcock things: (1) a wrongly accused man and (2) a psychopathic killer. Surefire, if not at the levels of North by Northwest or Psycho.
Compared to "Frenzy," Topaz was a very complex tale which couldn't generate suspense overall(though individual sequences are suspenseful), and a plot that unlike Frenzy (Psycho kills women and the wrong man is hunted) could barely be explained in one paragraph, let alone one sentence.
Cut to the chase: while Frenzy had a natural, delightful, perfect (if little) ending -- Topaz really had no ending at all. A desperate Hitchcock modified some footage shot for ANOTHER scene, freeze-framed it, put a gunshot sound over it -- and suggested a final suicide to end Topaz. But this was the THIRD ending filmed for the film, and the other two, though filmed as actual scenes...are worse.
If one "ends Topaz mentally" one scene before the non-ending, the movie feels more "complete." (Thus, the final scene, with a great camera movement, would be in a huge conference room with a chandelier, where a NATO meeting is taking place.)
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
A key thing about Topaz: the leading character in the film is Frenchman(Frederick Stafford as Andre Devereaux) and we meet his French wife, his French daughter, his French son-in-law and his fellow French spies in Paris and America.
This is very relevant to where Hitchcock was at the time: revered by French critics and worshiped by French critic turned director Francois Truffaut, whose book-length interview with Hitchocck was manna from heaven for film fans the world over.
So you can figure that Hitchcock liked the idea of making a movie with French leads and with some Paris locations.
Given the overall weakness of the Leon Uris novel Topaz as story fodder, the "French Connection" explains it all.
But Hitchcock couldn't cast "the right French." Only Yves Montand was of the right age and the right box office for Andre; he turned this down. A crazed attempt to put Sean Connery in the lead rightfully failed. And so Hitchcock went with a near-unknown named Frederick Stafford, who looked for all the world like a dissipated John Gavin. An attempt to shoehorn Catherine Denueve into the movie didn't work(she was too young for the mother and too old for the daughter.) Dany Robin and Truffaut muse Claude Jade got the roles.
And truly, Topaz ended up being thrown (in a wonderful way) to all the supporting actors AROUND Stafford as Andre. We got Roscoe Lee Browne as the French Harlem spy DuBois(whose journey into the Castroite-filled Hotel Teresa is a suspense highlight.) We got Burly John Vernon as the Castro lieutenant who serves as ONE villain in the piece(in Cuba), and French actors Michel Piccoli and Phillipe Noiret as TWO other villains in the piece(French, in Paris.)
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
Topaz is a globe-trotting movie that moves from Copehagen to Washington DC to Virginia to New York City to Cuba to Paris...but only Copenhagen and Paris get much location work. The rest is second unit and fakery(Northern California coast in for Cuba.) Still....the film has "breadth" -- it travels the world whereas Frenzy a film later sticks pretty much to London.
The mix of elements that didn't work(Frederick Stafford in for Montand, too much Universal backlot work) and that did work(great character actors and great locations) made Topaz a late breaking frustration for Hitchcock. A lot of it is good and works (especially the sequences in Harlem and Cuba), but a lot just dully sits there.
Still, it is Hitchcock, with a lot of great shots, and a few memorable scenes and...its his love letter to Truffaut and his fellow French Hitchcock fans.
reply
share