MovieChat Forums > Topaz (1969) Discussion > The Terrible Burden on Topaz

The Terrible Burden on Topaz

posted 18 years ago by ecarle
13 replies | jump to latest

Clearly not one of the most exciting or impressive Hitchcock movies, "Topaz" looked even worse when it was released in 1969. Here's possibly why:

The movie Hitchcock released before "Topaz" was the star-studded (Paul Newman, Julie Andrews) but weak "Torn Curtain." This was three and a half years before "Topaz," in the summer of 1966.

But starting in the fall of 1966, United States TV audiences were about to get a full dose of older Hitchcock hits, at the rate of two or three a year, that brought him millions of new young fans because in those days, with only three TV networks and no cable or video, any time a Hitchcock movie was shown it got big ratings and millions of viewers.

Fall 1966 saw "Rear Window" on NBC. "Psycho" was to be shown on CBS, but was pulled.

Fall 1967 saw "North by Northwest" on CBS, and local premiere late night showings of "Psycho" on local channels as in Los Angeles and New York. And in January of 1968, "The Birds" was shown on NBC -- and landed the highest ratings of any movie shown on TV to that date.

Meanwhile, in 1967, Francois Truffaut published his book length interview with Hitchcock ("Hitchcock/Truffaut"), furhter exciting young film fans about this newly honored Master of Suspense.

Add it up: all those hits on TV (with "Psycho" and "The Birds" breaking ratings records.) Truffaut's big book. And word that Hitchcock was working on a new movie called "Topaz."

As you can figure, fans were mightily disappointed by the slow, awkward, virtually suspense-free "Topaz" when it came out at Christmas of 1969. And I think the reasons above made it even worse for Hitchcock. With memories of "Psycho," "The Birds," "North by Northwest" and "Rear Window" in their heads, audiences just didn't get "Topaz."

All these years later, "Topaz" looks a little better without all that pressure on it to perform like the classic Hitchcock hits.

[–] nickrogers1969 17 years ago

Thank you for your insight. Very interesting! Seems true.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Thank you.

This only occurred to me in recent years after thinking about it some.

Very young Hitchcock fans of that time were enthralled by the classics shown on TV from 1966 to 1968. "Topaz", they hoped, would be the best of the best.

Little did they know that Hitchcock was fading away.

Though "Frenzy" redeemed him a few years later. Sort of.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

I would tend to agree. I think "The Day of the Jackal" is a good match, and a more professional and polished film than "Topaz" (though lacking the Hitchcock stylistic touches.)

You'd have to get into a time machine to understand that "Topaz" was very much a film of its time and type; Hitchcock was always adjusting to what was popular.

Hitchcock was also somewhat desperately trying to get "more serious." I think he may have felt that "Psycho" and "The Birds" typed him as too much of a "horror man," too much like his TV personality.

And he simply had no interest in making "North by Northwest" again. By then, Hitchcock felt that Bond was handling that nicely.

There weren't many thrillers in the late sixties. "Wait Until Dark" and "Rosemary's Baby" come to mind, maybe "Bullitt," but it was an era of roadshow epics and serious films and countercultural youth.

"Topaz" reflects that time. Ironically, within just a few years, some young filmmakers who loved "Psycho" and "The Birds" would make movies like "The Exorcist," "Jaws" and "Halloween" -- and Hitchcock's "horror era" would become the norm, not "Topaz."

[–] rsgre 17 years ago

Thanks for your comments everyone. I saw Topaz when it first came out, and was surprised to see how dull and mechanical it was. I suspected even then, that something was missing, and the uncut DVD of today shows us how much was cut.
Better as time goes by...that's about all you can say...

RSGRE

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

I like "Topaz," but the funny thing is: within about two years of its release, after he didn't have to promote it, HITCHCOCK said he hated "Topaz."

You realize: even the filmmaker himself can decide he made a lousy movie...

So, am I allowed to like a Hitchcock movie that Hitchcock himself hated?

Sure.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jrhpax 17 years ago

I've seen all of Hitchcock's movies except a few of the earliest silent films, some of them dozens of times. My attitude is that he made some wonderful movies (i.e. "Psycho," "Vertigo," "Strangers on a Train," "Rear Window," "North by Northwest," "Rebecca," "Shadow of a Doubt," and maybe a dozen others), and many other solidly entertaining movies.
Having said this, I can't fathom why his fans would defend "Topaz." To describe it as having a "terrible burden" is missing the point. "Topaz" is a terrible movie. Terrible. Dreadful.
"Topaz" has a few decent scenes -- the opening scene in Copenhagen; the centerpiece slaying (which I don't want to spoil); Roscoe Lee Browne's long sequence in Harlem; and the scene with the seagulls and the bread.
Sadly, though, the movie as a whole is pathetically plotted, poorly cast, dreadfully acted (by almost everyone), and indifferently directed.
If you can appreciate great Hitchcock, I think you should also recognize bad Hitchcock. "Topaz" was the nadir of his career. "Frenzy" was an improvement, although almost no one would list it among his better movies. "Family Plot" was quite a bit better, but still it was no classic.
I watched "Topaz" last night (for the fourth or fifth time since I saw it in 1970) after taping it on the Sundance Channel. It was a sad movie. By the way, Hitchcock disowned it, in part because the script was being written day by day during production. He filmed three different endings, and none of them works. The movie is the work of a great movie maker, but I see no great movie-making in "Topaz."

[–] ecarle 16 years ago

SPOILERS

You know, film critic Vincent Canby of the New York Times named "Topaz" one of the ten best films of 1969, and his review (accessible at the Times on the 'net) is titled something like "Topaz: Alfred Hitchcock at His Best."

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I certainly have affection for "Topaz" against, if not a lot of Hitchcock's output, a lot of the OTHER movies of 1969.

Old filmmakers were dying out in '69, and some of the new ones really didn't know that they were doing. Stuff like "Ice Station Zebra" and "The Undefeated" and "The Maltese Bippy" was in release. "True Grit" had Glen Campbell's awful non-acting in it. Even the great big giant hit "Butch Cassidy" drags quite a bit. Have you ever noticed how little really HAPPENS in that movie? (the handsome stars and the funny lines carry it.)

Against a lot of the '69 competition, "Topaz" STILL looks like the work of a master. Script problems he may have had, but so much of "Topaz" is great to look at, shot by shot, scene by scene. Hitchcock simply couldn't disguise his talent.

There is an intelligence to the tale that I think really saves it, a lot of the time. Those American CIA guys talking to that arrogant Russian defector at the table in Alexandria, Virginia: it all strikes me as rather "the real thing," how men (and it WAS men, then) talking around tables and arguing, decided matters of geopolitical life and death in quaint Old America rooms. I love the circularity of their arguments: if the defector doesn't give them info, they'll "drop you on the steps of the Russian embassy." The defector's reply: "...and that would be the end of me. But you'll never get another defector."

The ending of "Topaz" is non-existent (since there are three of them, it doesn't HAVE one)...but my solution is simple. End the movie with the scene BEFORE the ending (a great Hitchcock shot involving chandeliers and a traitor being thrown out of a NATO meeting), and its OK.

Vincent Canby's main point was that Hitchcock IN '69, around the age OF '69, had a pretty innate sense of the proper dramatic tone for matters of espionage and sacrificed love. "Topaz" communicates this well.

Me, I watch it once a year. Start to finish. I laugh at a few bad lines,wince at a few poor scenes, make a certain "decision" about Frederick Stafford (he's OK just standing there or talking, AWFUL when he has to look sad or distressed -- he looks constipated. And I disregard the moments after the "chandelier and traitor" scene.

But for the entire rest of the time, I really love this movie, a late master's late (and last) look at the ironies of espionage.

I can hear Maurice Jarre's jaunty, strutting, exciting opening military theme right now...its like Bernard Herrmann on drums.

[–] bartf-4 16 years ago

Its far from 'suspense free' to anyone with a working knowledge of the politics and history of that era. Hitchcock made an intelligent film for a sophisticated audience. Just because the film didnt do well in the USA of the late '60's doesnt make it a failure.

[–] apostasia 16 years ago

The film is too smart for its audience. The level of satire in it seems to bypass most people. It's a shame, I think it's a gloriously silly film.

Just a painted face on a trip down suicide row

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

I think (forgive me if I've said this before) the "terrible burden on Topaz" is that it is, indeed a Hitchcock film. That gives the audience the wrong idea about the movie, and what to expect from it.

The key to enjoying Topaz is to take it as a Cold War thriller like, say, The Spy That Came in From the Cold, and not a Hitchcock movie. Inevitably it has some Hitchcock scenes and moments, but on the whole it's more of a spy film than a thriller. Topaz has at least three great scenes - the opening escape of the defectors, Roscoe Lee Browne's scenes in Harlem, and most famously, the murder of Karin Dors - that make it worth at least a look.

Do I gotta kill you to prove I like you?

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

I will pick this anyday over Torn Curtain. Its not Hitchcock's fault why Torn Curtain is so weak. He should have given more freedom on developing his projects.