strike-1995 It's a shame because there is a great story in there. Some strange decisions were made in the direction of the film.

vorkapich This film should have been titled Torpor. Hitchcock, who in his best films was interested in plot merely as a means to guide the audience from sequence to sequence, here presented a film that is entirely plot — there isn't any memorable sequence and little in the way of engaging performances. The two films that Hitchcock directed prior to this — Marnie and Torn Curtain — at least had striking sequences that generated suspense and excitement. In the former, the riding sequence ending in the injury and killing of the horse and the sequence of Marnie stealing money from the Rutland firm; in the latter, the murder of the agent in the farmhouse and the panic in the theater, to name a few examples.The relatively weak box office performances of those films put Hitchcock in the position of needing a hit. Hitchcock thought that a story about recent international spycraft would do the trick, even though Torn Curtain, which had a similar basis, had been tepid at the box office. Adapting the Leon Uris novel for the screen proved problematic, even though Uris was a veteran screenwriter. Hitchcock usually had a film all planned out before any production was done; filming was simply the work to put the director's vision on film. Topaz went into production without a finished script. The result is a film that moves from routine dialogue scene to routine dialogue scene without any distinctive touch. Even the death of the Karin Dor character is oddly flat in its impact. Only the supporting players, and Karin Dor, gave some hint of character. John Forsythe and Frederick Stafford seem to be caught in an ad for men's suits (Botany 500 probably). John Vernon works on the sort of accent used in the Mission Impossible series: "Jyoo weeel tell ahss the theengs jyoo haff dohn." Hitchcock seems to have been adrift here. Two of his key collaborators on the great films of the Fifties — Robert Burks on camera and George Tomasini in the editing room — were no longer available (Marnie was the last film they would work on); he couldn't get a satisfactory script. The result was a film made to fulfill a contract. Any director could have done this film. Even Don Siegel would have made it better-paced.

subxerogravity I was curious about this film. there was a twenty or so year period where Alfred became Hitchcock and planted down the seed that made him the biggest director in the world, but the guy made movies before and after this period.When we think about the fat man, we think about movies like Psycho and Vertigo which are the highlights and if your a die-hard fan you are familiar with Rope and Strangers on a Train.I was curious about the movies he made out side that twenty year zone, and Topaz was the first that I came up on.Topaz is about a French intelligence agent who gets involved in Cold War politics that lead up to the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis.It's got Hitchcock's stank all over it with camera angles and story set up. One scene in particular, when the french spy has one of his field people get him in to me a Cuban official. The spy watches from across the street as his people make the arrangement. There was no dialogue it was just all visual story telling and it really stands out. The type of scene that Hitchcock fans would rip off over and over again. Too bad Topaz is not a good enough Hitchcock movie.The vibe was just not there. People say Hitchcock lost his edge at this time (He was 69 when he made the film). I think the Birds was the last note worthy film he made, but he kept making films (even one with Robert Redford, which I want to check out).I personally noticed the movie had a different atmosphere, because I noticed that it was filmed outdoors instead of on a sound stage which is where the Fat man made a lot of his films (Not Vertigo, which was filmed all over San Fransisco, and you can take tours of the areas it was filmed).The DVD I saw Topaz on had a interview with Film Critic, Lenard Maltin who stated that Topaz had no stars in it, And that is a point, I knew nobody in this film off hand, and Hitchcock did work with a lot of big stars of the time.Topaz can be handed as proof of what a movie star can do for your film. There is a reason why Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart are stars. They bring something to the role that no one else possibly could.But Topaz had nobody that I could draw myself to (well, except for Roscoe Lee Browne, a character actor who has made guest appearances on all my favorite television shows that he may as well be a star as far as I'm concern. He was the he guy the french spy got to talk to the Cubans in the no dialog scene, which I guess added more awesomeness for me)While having flavor of the Fat man on it, I found Topaz very drawn out to the point where I lost my interest altogether.If you are a die-hard Hitchcock fan, I would give it a try because it really does have that feel to it, but it does look like he lost his edge around this time and I would not recommend for anyone trying to get into the Fat Man.http://cinemagardens.com/

brchthethird TOPAZ, based on a novel of the same name by Leon Uris, was Hitchcock's second (and final) foray into the Cold War, and is about a French agent who gets caught in between the Americans and the Russians. By this point in his career, Hitchcock was quite content to plagiarize himself, as a lot of elements in TOPAZ can be found in his other (better) films, but I did find this to be a slight improvement over his previous effort, TORN CURTAIN. Without the star power behind this as was in TORN CURTAIN, TOPAZ's story, as labyrinthine and convoluted as it is, is brought to the foreground. As always, Hitch's use of camera-work and editing to create suspense is as evident here as it is throughout most of his other work. The sequence which stood out the most to me was a prolonged, mostly silent scene in which a Martinique agent gains access to a hotel where he will get some documents important to the plot, all while his French contact watches from the other side of the street. There was also a just-before-death confession reminiscent of one in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, and an exquisitely filmed death scene in which a woman's purple dress fills most of the screen. Still, the plot this time was a bit unwieldy. As there weren't any stars in the film, there wasn't as much focus in the story as I would have liked. At first you think it will be about some Russian defectors, later American NATO agents, and then it settles on a French NATO agent who works on behalf of the Americans to get some information on Russian activities in Cuba. Although it will probably benefit from watching it a few more times, on first viewing it was a lot of take in and keep track of. Still, the complicatedness of it all allowed for some interesting double and triple-dealings. From an acting standpoint, I thought that most of the performances were rather wooden. Considering that this is perhaps the most talkative Hitchcock movie I've seen so far, it was a little difficult to watch in that regard. Still, it wasn't all bad. John Forsythe (THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY) had a supporting role as an American NATO agent, and he did fine. And even though badly miscast, John Vernon did alright for himself as Cuban Rico Parra. Switching composers again, Maurice Jarre provided the score, and while not in the same league as Bernard Herrmann (after all, who is?), his cues and main theme set the tone of the film quite nicely with some occasionally quirky touches. The title sequence, set over a Russian parade, also had a stirring martial quality that perfectly set the mood for the tense opening scene. Overall, I would say that TOPAZ has more immediate entertainment value than did TORN CURTAIN, although the plot is more complicated and the acting isn't as good. Still, TOPAZ is as eloquently produced as anything Hitchcock laid his hands on and provides enough thrills to balance out the long running time.