Torn Curtain

"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 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

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.

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!

... 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