This is one of my favorite Hitchcock movies, along with Psycho.
I just don't understand this....
SPOILERS AHEAD
...if Rusk wanted to blame Blaney for the murders, why would he kill another girl (the last girl, found in his bed) with Blaney already arrested? It would be obvious to the police that Blaney didn't do it, so they'd realize they arrested the wrong man.
Ideas, anyone?
I think that in many ways "Frenzy" is among the best of Hitchcock pictures, and stunningly so given how late in his career it was made and how ill he was when he made it.
And yet, the script gets rather wobbly near the end.
Upon his arrest, Blaney sees that Rusk put Brenda's clothes in his bag and immediately cries out: "Rusk!" He's giving the cops an alternative suspect and yet...Inspector Oxford waits until Blaney is convicted of murder before deciding to investigate Rusk...who, Oxford quickly proves, IS the real killer.
Meanwhile, you've indeed got Rusk killing again after Blaney is convicted -- which, by the way, is exactly what Blaney's old-RAF friend tells him will clear Blaney of the murders (so Hitchocck and screenwriter Anthony Shaffer at least contemplated it.)
So, some "defensive thoughts":
Hitchcock elected to "rush through" Blaney's trial (we don't see it) and sentencing, thereby creating an "artistic time jump" -- like in "Dial M" when Grace Kelly's trial consists of her simply sitting against a blank wall as different colors flash by to connote the passage of time. Given that "time jump," Hitchcock simply speeds up the fact that Inspector Oxford might very well let Blaney go to trial before investigating Rusk. After all, killers blame other people all the time. I suppose we can figure that Blaney's own defense attorney named Rusk during the trial; Blaney is screaming "I told you its Rusk" even as he is dragged to his cell.
Rusk perhaps just moved on with his day to day business, waiting to see what the police might do, and not committing any murders until...
...he just couldn't take it anymore, and elected to kill that woman in the bed.
It is quite possible, given that he was arriving with a trunk to put her in, that Rusk was really going to HIDE this body, rather than showboat the body on the River Thames or in an office chair or on a potato truck.
Thus, Blaney would still be convicted and Rusk's latest victim would simply be a "missing person."
The bottom line is that all this sudden plot sleight of hand happens in about the last ten minutes of "Frenzy," and by then Hitchcock had the audience on the hook and could fool 'em a bit.
Still, I think these are weaknesses not found in the plotting of other great Hitchcock films.
I see what you mean
But still, I think most serial killers like to show the police what they're doing, to show their superiority among the police and other people. It's like they're saying "I keep killing and you guys can't get me, because I'm smarter".
Rusk seemed like the killer that enjoyed that kind of superiority, so, killing a woman to just hide her body wouldn't mean a thing, if no one would ever know she was another victim of the necktie killer.
Maybe Rusk didn't cared about getting caught and the whole thing blaming Blaney for the murders was just another ego thing. He fooled the police to make they think Blaney did it, Blaney was convicted and he was free to kill more victims. How's that for superiority?
A psychopath's mind works in mysterious ways.
Most killers want to get caught so people can finally relate them to the crimes and say: "That's the guy who fooled the police and made everyone afraid for such a long time".
Yes, I think that's all very true...and has been proven by real life serial killers -- both in terms of the showboating ("I killed again, you can't stop me") and incriminating behavior ("Stop me BEFORE I kill again").
Indeed, one way to explain away all of Rusk's self-incriminating behavior (killing Blaney's women rather than total strangers, giving Blaney Bab's clothes, killing another woman after Blaney is convicted) is: "He's crazy!"
But it is also possible that this is Rusk "falling apart and wanting to get caught."
For instance: Rusk takes a great risk in raping and killing Brenda Blaney in her office during the lunch hour. As the movie demonstrates, Rusk missed by mere seconds being discovered by the secretary or Blaney. It was "risk-taking behavior."
And, however panicked Rusk may have been about the tiepin in Babs's hand ("R" could be Richard...Blaney as well as Bob ...Rusk), he puts himself at great risk riding along in a potato truck to retrieve it with a driver right in front of him.
Etc.
Exactly
I've always seen those scenes (Rusk killing Brenda during lunch hour, the potato truck) as Rusk daring himself.
Killing women is no longer a daring to him, he needs something much more risky.
I've read somewhere that to a psychopath, killing is just like using a drug. More is never enough.
After some time, what used to make you feel good doesn't work anymore. You need to be a little closer to the edge.
The first time I watched Frenzy I was pretty young and couldn't understand all those behaviors. To me, Rusk was just stupid to take all those risks.
Now it makes perfect sense. Like I said before, Frenzy is one of my favorite Hitchcock films. Most fans don't think so much of it, but I just love it :)
Frenzy is one of my favorite Hitchcocks, too. It is an acquired taste and sometimes attracts "the wrong type of people."
But Hitchcock elected to study the true-life horror of the psychotic four or five times in his career, and "Frenzy" was his last testament to the truly bizarre and frightening nature of these human monsters.
That the serial killer story is couched in a "Return To England", a wrong man story, and Covent Garden ambiance makes it more palatable.
I took the final killing 2 ways.
1 Rusk thinking the police were so obviously stupid as to arrest Blaney on flimsy to no real evidence. Why should he stop? He obviously has nothing to fear from the police.
2 Rusk wanted to get caught. So he keeps upping the stakes and risks until that happens.
No two persons ever watch the same movie.share