The Kremlin Letter vs. Hitchcock's Topaz

Alfred Hitchcock's "Topaz" was released at the end of 1969, as a Christmas/Oscar bait attraction. Most critics were rather sour towards it; it had no stars in it and Hitchcock's Cold War tale(about the Cuban Missle Crisis by way of a Russian-influenced Communist spy ring in France) was considered "tired" and overlong by some.

Only a few weeks later, early in the winter of 1970, John Huston released "The Kremlin Letter." Its reviews weren't much better("old-fashioned" critics were apalled by the amoral savagery of the characters and its kinkiness; the rest thought it was simply a bad movie with a great cast.)

Both Hitchcock's "Topaz" and Huston's "Kremlin Letter" came perhaps at the end of a Cold War cycle that had flourished in the sixties, from the outlandish James Bond movies to the "realism" of Michael Caine's Harry Palmer films and LeCarre's "Spy Who Came In From the Cold," a movie with Richard Burton.

"Kremlin Letter" beat the Hitchcock film all over the place in terms of a charismatic cast: Huston cast Richard Boone, Orson Welles, George Sanders, Nigel Green, Lila Kedrova(from Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain" and an Oscar winner for Zobra the Greek), and a double-act from Ingmar Bergman -- intense Max Von Sydow and sexy Bibi Anderson.

What'd Hitchocck have? Well a handsome new stiff named Frederick Stafford. And John Forsythe as the only name American "star" in the cast. Plus a "lesser" Bergman player(in the role of a Russian defector) and two "quality" European actors in Michael Piccoli and Phillipe Noiret.

Still, Huston had the starrier affair(with young'uns Patrick O'Neal and pretty Barbara Parkins for protagonist sex appeal.)

---

One prominent critic reviewed "The Kremlin Letter" and found it LACKING against Hitchcock's "Topaz."

The critic was Vincent Canby of the New York Times. He had closed out 1969 with a review of "Topaz" called: "Alfred Hitchcock at his Best," and he had placed Topaz on the "Ten Best of 1969" list. Canby was a bit alone in this regard, though Hitchocck received a career-honoring "Best Director" award from "Topaz" from the Natioanl Board of Review.

A few weeks later when "The Kremlin Letter" came out, Canby not only panned the film, but pointed out that everything "The Kremlin Letter" got WRONG, Hitchcock's "Topaz" got RIGHT.

Canby's point, as I recall it, was that Hitchcock remained a master storyteller who kept "Topaz" interesting to watch, clear to understand, full of cinematgic invesntion, and with a clear "point of view" towards the Cold War spy shenenanigans. "The Kremlin Letter," by contrast, was an incoherent, non-entertaining mess.

I'm of several minds about this, for what it is worth.

First: clearly, neither "Topaz" nor "The Kremlin Letter" possessed the "movie pizazz" to break through as hits or classics or even particularly "good movies."

And yet, each was very distinctive in its own way:

"The Kremlin Letter" had that CAST. The underrated Richard Boone as his absolute amiable-menacing best; the grand voices of George Sanders and Orson Welles making exposition "sing"; the little-known but charismatic Nigel Green zipping in and out of the story as a totally amoral drug dealer; and assorted other goodies.

One wishes that Hitchcock had used a cast like that in "Topaz," but I expect Richard Boone and Alfred Hitchcock would never be a match(he had used George Sanders, twice and well, in the 40's with "Rebecca" and "Suspicion.") Orson Welles gladly worked for Huston(who sometimes worked as an actor) would/could Hitchocck have gotten Welles for a movie?

Meanwhile, Hitchcock may not have had that charismatic cast, but he had something almost better: HIMSELF. Himself as our "guide" through a nice array of cinematic tricks and suspense sequences. "Topaz" always bespeaks of the artistry of its maker -- the movie is IN the images and camera moves(though, alas, Hitch used to do that and use stars well, too.) Meanwhile, "The Kremlin Letter" pretty much unfolds in static shot set ups and a torrent of never-ending exposition. The "action," when it comes, is low-key and nasty and so realistic we don't even register it as action.

Myself, I give "Topaz" and "The Kremlin Letter" a tie...but advantage Huston. Given that both stories are low-key Cold War spy tales with little action, I am frankly more entertained by Richard Boone and George Sanders reading inexplicable lines than I am by Alfred Hitchcock playing his magical tricks with a camera.

On the other hand, I LIKE both "Topaz" and "The Kremlin Letter" very much, in the face of others hating them. Both films are intelligent, literally adult entertainments, and rather the "last gasp" of a novelistic and filmic tradition that pretty well played itself out in the sixties...less Mr. LeCarre going on and on in the decades after.