Marnie
As far as I
can see “Marnie” is the last Alfred Hitchcock movie on the list. A recurrent
theme on this blog has therefore reached its last chapter. Hitchcock is the
single most prevalent director on the List and I have lost count on the number
of times I have reviewed a Hitch movie. Usually they are good, even very good. This
time… it is okay, but not great.
The
Hitchcock catalogue is so large and so glorious that it is a tall order to find
a place in that collection and “Marnie” barely makes it. In my opinion at
least. Undoubtedly there are big fans of this movie as well.
“Marnie” is
the story about a woman, Marnie (Tippi Hedren), who has a scheme going. She
will work in a company for a few months under an assumed identity and then rob
the place and leave town. In between heists she will visit her mother, Bernice
(Louise Latham), give her some money and spin her some tale of what she is
doing. As we are entering the story Marnie has just done a tax consultant
office and is moving on to the Rutland company.
The Rutland
company is headed by James Bond… eh… Mark Rutland (Sean Connery). He was a
client at the tax consultancy and recognized Marnie. This makes him insist on
hiring her and he takes her under his wing. Exactly why is never quite clear,
but the more messed up Marnie turns out to be, the more insistent he is. Marnie
is afraid of the color red, she is afraid of thunder and she abhors men. She
also eventually robs the Rutland company and tries to walk away with a fortune.
Caught between Mark and a crime charge Marnie is forced to marry Mark and go on
a lengthy honeymoon with him, all for him to play psychiatrist on her.
It is a
strange couple. Marnie is seriously messed up and Mark is obsessive, even
sadistic, in his insistence on getting her “solved”. No wonder Marks former
sister-in-law Lil (Diane Baker) finds it weird and suspicious and tries to stop
this charade.
It does of
course come to a climax where the psycho analysis goes full throttle.
“Marnie”
seems like a composite of previous Hitchcock movies. There is a lot of “Spellbound”
in it. The man frantically trying to solve a woman mystery from “Vertigo” and
the lead as a thief from “Psycho”. It all feels like we have been here before
and those elements were not the best from those movies. Sure, Hitch is a genius
at building up suspense and editing his movies, but it feels old here. Not just
because we have seen it before, but in 1964 cinema has moved on and a Hitch
movie still looks like something from the fifties.
There is a
lot hanging on Tippi Hedren and Sean Connery. Their chemistry is quite decisive.
Fortunately they are up to the task, but only barely. Sean Connery is James
Bond and that air of uber-man he also brings into his role as Mark. Super confident,
strong, assertive and resourceful. But also manic in his insistence of fixing
Marnie. His character is not the gentle hero but something darker and we never
learn why. I had hoped that something would explode in the climactic scenes due
to his flaws, but instead he steps down and becomes a more ordinary gentleman
hero. Disappointing. Tippi Hedren has to be this seriously troubled girl. A
thief and a liar, she is not the person you would normally root for and in
clashing with the dark insistence of Mark Rutland she is like a wild animal
caught in the headlights. She does that well. That she as a character is quite
a bit out there in unbelievable territory is not her fault.
Beside the
nice editing what I really liked about the movie was the score. As usual it is
Bernard Herrmann and this time it is very haunting, but also the kind of music
that buries itself in your skull. It is still there and I am humming the Marnie
theme while I am writing.
“Marine” is
okay. It is not a bad movie, merely a tired movie. It marks a natural end to the
big Hitchcock productions. He did continue to make a few more movies but as I
understand it they are considered lesser movies in his filmography. Ultimately “Marnie”
was a bit disappointing, but I think that is mostly when comparing it to his
great movies.
For the record, you've got one more: 1972's Frenzy. It's very different from a 'normal' Hitchcock, though, since it's late in his career (his second-last film, actually), so it's got that going for it if you're getting weary of Hitchcock at all.
ReplyDeleteUps, I had missed Frenzy. So this was not the last Hitchcock after all. well I do not mind another round of Hitch.
DeleteYeah, Frenzy is still to come. It's not my favorite Hitch, but it's better than Marnie, which I really dislike. This is a bunch of psychobabble to me.
ReplyDeletePsycobabble is the right word. It borrowed a lot from Spellbound and not the best parts. With two flawed characters I had expected a resolution that would be more destructive and unpredictable. Instead we went straight Hollywood, all things resolved, nice and tidy. Uff.
DeleteAs you say, some really good elements that don't add up to a great or even good whole. The rape scene was really uncomfortable (and I hope it was meant to be so). And as you say, it feels like a Hitchcock film from 1954, not 1964. Bit of a step backwards after Psycho.
ReplyDeleteYes, it actually felt weird watching it, knowing it is from 64. Usually Hitchcock movies are ahead of the curve, but this was like watching a Douglas Sirk movie. It felt so retro.
Delete