Le rideau déchiré

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!

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

It may have sounded like a perfect commercial operation. Two huge box office stars, Paul Newman and Julie Andrews with Hitchcock no less, at the helm. Paul Newman and Julie Andrews have the sexual chemistry of two white slices of bread and Hitchcock didn't have Bernard Herrman at his side. In fact Hitch and Herrmann broke off their successful marriage during this production. Pity. I love Hitchcock. There is a detachment here never seen before in a Hitch flick. As if the master was tired or uninterested. Paul Newman seems in a hurry to get the hell out of there - no pun intended. Julie Andrews seems bewildered and whatever little she's ask to do it's way beneath her. Lila Kedrova comes as a welcome relief. I can't believe the ones who accused her of being over the top. Over the top? Of course she was over the top, brilliantly. I love actresses and actors who chew the scenery but are believable, moving, entertaining, hysterically funny...Bette Davis, Charles Laughton, Geraldine Page, Kim Stanley... Lila Kedrova chew the scenery but you didn't forget her and in "Torn Courtain" you were grateful for someone chewing something. I also enjoyed Tamara Toumanova in her funny self parody. Her spotting Newman at the theater was one of the highlights of this minor Hitchkock film.

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