Frenzy and Eastwood's 'Tightrope'(1984)

I was watching "Tightrope" the other day. It is officially directed by Richard Tuggle but its star, Clint Eastwood, reportedly took over the direction and gave Tuggle the credit. I'll call it Eastwood's Tightrope.

It has a lot in common with "Frenzy" -- but tells much of the same story in an entirely different way. And it also has a lot of material NOT in common with "Frenzy." Still, they make for a nice pair of creepy companion pieces.

In "Frenzy," modern-day London is being terrorized by a serial killer who rapes and strangles women, and we watch as a Scotland Yard inspector(Alec McCowen) tries to find the man before he kills again.

In "Tightrope," modern-day New Orleans is being terrorized by a serial killer who(at least) strangles women(I'm not sure if he does rape them, unlike as in Frenzy, we never see a murder), and we watch as a New Orleans detective(Clint Eastwood) tries to find the man before he kills again.

Its a standard plot, to be sure, but certainly there is built-in suspense as a killer keeps on killing and the police stay one step behind.

There are big narrative differences in the film. There is no "wrong man"(ala Richard Blaney) in Tightrope. And Tightrope(naturally) focusses on the movie star cop, not the strangler. Tightrope also sticks to murders of hookers and other sex workers, with the movie's main theme being that cop Eastwood is "too close to the vice scene" he is investigating...and MIGHT be the killer himself.

But to me, the most interesting BIG difference between "Frenzy" and "Tightrope" is: how the killer is handled.

"Tightrope" first. For most of the movie, we simply don't see him. When he attacks his victims, he is wearing a mask -- sometimes a Mardi Gras mask, sometimes that old standby, the ski mask(which renders this particular strangler "generic"). Most of the time, he is introduced only by his tennis-shoe-wearing feet. We kinda see his face when he is disguised as a clown, but all that make-up. For the film's climactic chase and fight between the killer and Eastwood, the man is in a mask right up until his last moments of life, when Eastwood finally pulls off the mask and we see...a non-descript middle-aged bit player.

Hitchcock rather clearly elected to eschew this entire approach to "the killer" for "Frenzy." We meet the guy before we KNOW he's the killer, and we LIKE him. He's funny. He's handsome(enough.) He's stylishly dressed. He's everybody's friend, and his name is Bob Rusk.

Hitchcock then forces us to watch the long, long long scene in which Rusk -- wearing no mask, just his stylish sportcoat and tie ensemble -- slides from cheery to sad to menacing...to raping and to strangling...his latest victim. In her office.

And then Hitchcock abandons a view of Rusk for about a half hour...but brings him back as "the star" of the final third of the film, holding the screen by himself in many a scene.

The "Tightrope" approach -- in which we spend the movie craving to see the face of the killer and don't get to until the end -- is the more accepted "mystery" approach, but there's really no villain here -- just a "force." The focus is -- rightly for a Clint Eastwood picture -- ON Eastwood(and his investigations, and his family life as a divorced father, and his love life with a tough woman nicely played by Genevieve Bujold, and his kinky forays into the red light districts of Orleans).

But ultimately, Frenzy is the better movie, the more interesting movie, the more STYLISH movie. And in making sure that we really get to KNOW the psychotic strangler...Hitchcock pulls us right into his story.

Tightrope never really wants to do that. And indeed --perhaps following the lead of series TV even in an sexual "R" movie -- Tightrope also elects to spare us the sight of ANY strangling...just the oppressive piling up of female bodies...and one male one. Its rather standard stuff.