Le rideau déchiré

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

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.

It is bad to judge Hitchcock movies. Look at all the masterpieces the man has on his filmography list -- from the classic Secret Agent and 39 Steps to Rebecca and Lifeboat to Strangers on a Train and Psycho to The Birds and Marnie. The man NEVER had a BAD movie. Torn Curtain possesses all aspects of classic Hitchcock -- interesting locations, clever storyline, suspense, humor, stellar acting, stars, music, among other features. Perhaps this movie was criticized on pre-production. Julie Andrews was under contract and her shooting time was very limited. This posed a problem for Hitchcock who had to rush into production. Hitchcock also had a problem with his newly trained actor Paul Newman, who would always have it his way or the highway. Torn Curtain is highly supsenseful and on DVD is a gem. Presented in widescreen it also features the trailer, a documentary, and scenes with Bernard Herrmann's unused score. Thank god Herrmann didn't get the job to score this movie -- as much as Herrmann proved to be perfect for classics like Vertigo and Marnie (known as his best) -- he was way out of his league here. Torn Curtain was very ahead of it's time dealing with suspense, romance, and the Cold War. John Addison performed an excellent score fitting the movie well with the recurring theme that can either make you jump or cry. Andrews was excellent (good to see she can also do straight movies without music), as was Newman and the ensemble. See it on DVD. ****/*****

I didn't hate Torn Curtain, but I didn't love it either. I think it is a decent film, but I admit I was disappointed. Torn Curtain is a good cold-war espionage thriller, however it doesn't rank in my favourite Hitchcock movies list(like North By Northwest, Psycho, Rebecca, Vertigo and Rear Window). I did prefer The Birds, Stage Fright and Spellbound over this.

My main problem with Torn Curtain was the pace. It was a good length, but the pace was disappointingly sluggish. Another problem was the script. I will agree that there are flashes of interest and suspense, but on the whole the script came across as rather underdeveloped and turgid. There are some nice sets, but there are also some phony-looking ones, especially the hill on which the characters go up to to chat.

Many have complained about John Addison's score. I can understand this, I found it nice but forgettable sadly. Bernard Hermann (whose score for Vertigo especially was full of suspense and induces goosebumps though my favourite score for any Hitchcock movie is Miklos Rosza's for Spellbound) would have been a much better choice as composer, the score in the film just wasn't suspenseful enough. I don't really blame Hitchcock for any of these problems. If anything I blame the studio. They should have let Hitchcock do what he wanted rather than forcing him to get the score changed and change his casting choices.

I always found Hitchcock to be a great director. While reported to be uninterested and dissatisfied with the film, the direction wasn't too bad at all. There are some elements of Hitchcockian suspense. The plot was intriguing enough, a little confusing in places, but a very nice idea that starts off very promisingly. One of the recurring themes of Hitchcock's movies is the plight of the common man caught up in uncommon circumstances. It is this theme here, with the plot telling of a woman believing that her fiancé intends to defect to East Berlin in order to get funding for his pet project.

The acting was a mixed bag. I had no problem with Paul Newman, seeing as he gave a very brooding and intense performance. I have loved Julie Andrews in films like Mary Poppins and Sound of Music, but I for one found her an odd casting choice. She wasn't bad, she was merely okay, but what did disappoint was the lack of chemistry between the two leads and the fact that Sarah Sherman isn't exactly the fully fleshed out character Hitchcock would have liked. Wolfgang Kieling is great as Gromek, the sinister villain of the piece though.

It may look as though I hated Torn Curtain. I didn't, far from it. The cinematography was very nice, with dark colours and pretty looking scenes. It is one of the most beautiful looking late-Hitchcocks. The costumes are pretty to look at too. And while there are pacing problems throughout, there are some truly effective scenes. One that springs to mind is the film's highlight, the murder scene. It was shockingly graphic, and one of the most realistic and graphic murder scenes in any thriller. I was impressed with the ballet scene too. The choreography was impressive, and the music featured was Tchaikovsky's Francessca Da Rimini. Brilliant music, shame really you don't hear it in its entirety it is really something. There are some entertaining bits as well, notably Armstrong's conversation with Lindt.

All in all, deeply flawed Hitchcock film, but it is at least watchable and it could have been much worse than it was. I was disappointed I admit that, but I would watch Torn Curtain again if given the choice. I think perhaps it is underrated, because while far from the master's best it is a decent film. 7/10 Bethany Cox