Der zerrissene Vorhang

"Torn Curtain" is an exceptional Alfred Hitchcock film that is for the most part intriguing, suspenseful, and entertaining. But it's not a masterpiece. Paul Newman stars as an American scientist who appears to be defecting to Germany. Julie Andrews, coming off her Oscar-winning film debut in "Mary Poppins" and her Oscar-nominated role in "The Sound of Music", plays Newman's associate and girlfriend who tags along for the ride. Along the way they run into an assorted bunch of odd but colorful supporting characters. "Torn Curtain" isn't as good as "Psycho", "The Birds" and "North by Northwest", but that doesn't make this a bad movie. Even though the movie moves a little slow at times, it's still an interesting and sometimes funny movie, well acted by Newman and Andrews.

*** (out of four)

I'm not sure what made this Hitchcock thriller seem so different from his other classics. Maybe it was just simply odd to see Andrews in such a film. Maybe it was just simply odd to see Newman in such a film. Maybe it was the odd combination of Andrews and Newman together. I think it was all the above, however, it was still a very good movie.

Andrews did a superb job playing the completely confused, emotionally injured, and betrayed woman. Newman was good at playing the typical American man - silent and brooding when in a very concerning situation. They're characters were played in a very honest and realistic manner, especially the scene in the farmhouse, where you can see that Newman's character, being involved in a situation where a man needed to be 'silenced', was in shock and didn't quite know what to do. You could tell he was thinking it was all too surreal - and due to his incapacitation, the poor farm wife had to do most of the work. One may think 'What a pansy', but I don't believe that most men are created to be like a James Bond character, or a professional hit-man.

Lila Kedrova was wonderful, as usual. She didn't need a leading role to be effective or memorable. The character of the old professor was fantastic, especially in the scene at the chalk-board, LOL!!

I think this is a fine Hitchcock film that any Hitchcock lover shouldn't miss! It should have also received higher ratings!

On a conference visit to Scandinavia in 1965, an American scientist tells his assistant/fiancé that he must make an unscheduled visit to Sweden but refuses to allow her to accompany him. After a row, she decides to return to the U.S., but then discovers he actually plans to travel to East Germany. She follows him there and is horrified to discover that he plans to defect to the East.

In 'Torn Curtain' Hitchcock returns to one of his favourite areas - espionage. Yet somehow, as with 'Topaz' later, there is more fizzle than sizzle on display. It's hard to determine the problems, but certainly we know he wasn't thrilled with the studio-enforced casting of Andrews and Newman, and he admits to a few errors in judgement in his conversation with Truffaut, not least the dodgy 'backdrop' reel used during the bus chase. Curiously, whilst Hitchcock was crafting interesting, often strong-willed female characters during this period (Psycho, The Birds, Marnie, North By Northwest), with Andrews' Sarah Sherman he fashions a more passive woman, and consequently gives Andrews little to do but look either adoringly or woundedly at Newman. Newman fares better (although I never truly 'believe' Michael loves Sarah), but as usual Hitchcock fills the film with wonderful supporting characters and actors - Kedrova in particular blows the leads off the screen and her sequence is fantastic. So whilst 'Torn Curtain' is riddled with beautiful Hitchcock touches (the long shot of Michael approaching the farmer across the field; Gromek's very disturbing, prolonged murder - an electrifying performance by Conwell - the prima-ballerina's noticing of Michael in the audience), in the end it is one of his lesser works.

Torn Curtain (1966)

Hitchcock was on an odd path in the 1960s toward more contained and artificial films, beginning in a way with North by Northwest (a masterpiece of control, for sure) but getting overtly stylized in Birds and Marnie. Here, in a bizarre casting choice, we replace the doubtfully capable Tippi Hedron with doubtfully appropriate Julie Andrews, fresh out of The Sound of Music. And of course, there is Paul Newman, who had recently filmed Harper and before that, Hud. A weird mix, and it has its moments. In fact, the chemistry between the two leads in the first scenes is surprising and you might expect or want more of that later on--and you won't get it.

Add to these actors a tense milieu from the time, Cold War defections and the atom bomb, and you have an intriguing basis for making a movie. You can see why he gave it a go. The plot, for what it's worth, is ultimately thin and not convincing (hints of Cloak and Dagger with Gary Cooper way back in 1946) but Newman, at least, pulls off his role as Dr. Armstrong, atomic scientist, with intense restraint. Andrews? She doesn't sing, and there are no children to be seen (except briefly, on Hitchcock's lap in his cameo!), and frankly, sadly, she comes off a little out of her element. But then, her character as Armstrong's assistant is also meant to be a bit out to sea. We don't see too much of her. We do see lots of various bit characters, little known and not very interesting men, mostly, with Swedish or German accents. (I say it that way because they are almost just cardboard props for types of people--you know, those cold hearted Stasi types or the cool and cunning Swedes you can't quite figure out, neither of which is especially true or helpful for the plot.)

Of course, Hitchcock doesn't intend to make this a Cold War commentary. (The Spy Who Came in from the Cold with Richard Burton the previous year is the film to see for that.) Hitchcock uses the East German scene as a backdrop for the suspense of deception, and of ordinary people trying not to get caught, a perennial theme he manages so well. Besides Newman, there is a fabulous small role by the great Soviet actress Lila Kedrova that brings the last half hour to life. In the middle of the movie there is one scene that's totally brilliant and wordless, with Newman and Carolyn Conwell in a farmhouse, and it's worth the ride alone. Don't miss that for the world.

This can't be Hitchcock's or Newman's or Andrews's best movie for a lot of reasons. But it's a very good movie, which is enough for most of us, and an essential for any Hitchcock fan, and a enlightening surprise for anyone who thinks they know Paul Newman and want to see yet more of his impressive range.

... have 'know' idea what they're talking about. It may not be Hitch's best movie, but 'watch at your own risk' is an utterly ridiculous appraisal of this movie. But yes, when discussing a Hitch movie, all the normal conventions of movie analysis fly straight out of the window; now it's time to take out the REALLY big magnifying glass. The nitpicking borders on the outrageous. The story is actually quite enjoyable, no more implausible than that of many of his other films, and contains the usual Hitchcockian set pieces and camera work. Whats not to love? Ya, Newman doesnt exactly carry around Jack Nicholson-like expressiveness; there may have been better actors up to the task, and the Old Woman scene feels strange and out of place not to mention over-acted, but even these cant bring the movie as a whole down. Seems like for years this film has the unlucky honor of being the scapegoat in the Hitchcock stable...unfortuanate, really. If you haven't already, see it for yourself, you wont be disappointed