Frenzy
I
mistakenly called “Marnie” the last Hitchcock movie on the List. Apologies. The
last Hitch on the List is “Frenzy”.
To me, “Frenzy”
is a bit of an after-thought. An old man’s pastime, trying to relive his old
successes. It is not a bad movie per se, but merely an unnecessary movie. I
feel like we have seen it all before from Hitchcock, and usually better, and,
well, it is not outright sloppy, but it lacks some soul and depth as if it was
done on the cheap as sort of a left hand job.
Hitchcock is
back in London where it all began and has made a murder mystery with all the
usually Hitchcock ingredients. A Jack the Ripper style murderer is killing off
women through strangulation and a man called Richard Blaney (Jon Finch) is
inadvertently placing himself in a position where he is the prime suspect. Partly
by being in the wrong place at the wrong time and partly by being bitter and aggressive
to everybody and their mother. Being considered unpleasant is never a good
starting point.
When Blaney’s
ex-wife Brenda (Barbara Leigh-Hunt) is killed, Blaney was spotted on the scene
and when his current girlfriend Babs (Anna Massey) is found dead, Blaney had
just spent the night with her. Of course, nobody believes Blaney to be
innocent, least of all the police who can close the case very neatly.
We learn
very early that it is Blaney’s friend Bob Rusk (Barry Foster) who is the murderer.
This is not really a spoiler. The element of tension here is that only we know
this, while Rusk successfully divert everybody’s attention elsewhere.
So, we have
some “The Wrong Man” here, some “Psycho” and a few other Hitch classics thrown
together. All in a wrapping that harks back to the very early British
productions. It is more graphic than usual for Hitchcock but also a lot less
subtle. It is as if he on his old days have decided to speak in capitals and
the result is that we as an audience can pretty much guess the next few steps.
The murders are gruesome and the predicament of Blaney is tight and people
around the scenes are very prejudiced. That may be very helpful to the audience
and including a few laughs is usually a good spice, but the end result is that “Frenzy”
becomes a bit of a caricature, almost a parody on a murder mystery. The characters
become very one-dimensional and flat, types more than people. Rusk is a psychopathic
sadist, but mostly because other people describe him as such. There is no
backstory. Blaney losses both ex-wife and lover, but instead of a grief-stricken
man, he is mostly concerned with avoiding the police. When he turns on Rusk it
is because of his treason, not for killing his loved ones.
Even the
ending is a bit… off. The police inspector Oxford (Alec McCowen) starts musing
over Blaney’s accusation that Rusk is the killer and with just few questions to
the right people the whole story unravels. Seriously, a man asking dating agencies
for women who likes pain, which then turn up dead, such a guy would deserve
some investigation one should think.
Add to this
a score that sounds like something from a western or “Dynasty” and the picture
is complete.
I cannot
help thinking that Hitch should have stopped after “The Birds”. This slow
deroute is a tarnish to his catalogue and I prefer to remember him for his peak
period in the fifties.
The
audience liked “Frenzy” though, it was a box office hit. Maybe it is just me
expecting too much from Hitchcock.
I agree with you. I'm not at all a fan of Frenzy, and I actively disliked Marnie.
ReplyDeleteThis feels like Hitch trying to jump on the R-rated bandwagon and not really vetting the story very well. It's unpleasant and not much better than that.
Agreed. The nudity and explicit violence did not add anything to the story and the decision to go there is weird. I cannot work out what Hitchcock really wanted to achieve with Frenzy.
DeletePersonally, I would do away with the films after Marnie as something gets through to me despite all the psychobabble. He did not make his name with spy movies or serial killer movies. I wonder why he could not continue to succeed with classic thrillers.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that he felt he had to develop. He was accused of having a very narrow range. Yet it was within this range that thing worked for him. Maybe outside pressure? Frenzy was made on a shoestring budget, maybe he needed the money?
DeleteAll I remember of Frenzy is how distractingly British it was compared to Hitch's work up to then, how gritty the film felt, and how crassly daring it tried to be in order to be an R-rated Hitchcock film. It's almost like if Brian De Palma decided to make a Hitchcockian film and then went way over with how British everything was to sell it more. That's Frenzy.
ReplyDeleteIt is daring, but at the same time feels very old school. It is a strange combination.
DeleteI like you image of De Palma doing a Hitchcock movie.