Topaz

A very enjoyable spy thriller set within the 1963 Cuban Missile Crisis.

This Hitchcock film is a mess. It's Hitch in the 1960s Cold War era, a bit James Bond, a bit Harry Palmer, but neither fish nor fowl. These Cold War thrillers have to be one way or another; the arrogant chauvinistic swagger of Bond, a propoganda vehicle, or the Harry Palmer downbeat 'We're all as bad as each other, nobody wins' miseryfest.

The lack of star power hurts, and for the first 30 mins you can't tell who the main protagonist is meant to be. The actor it turns out to be is handsome in a bland sort of way. There's way too much plot and exposition and the sense of it going on forever, rather like Exodus, another story by Leon Uris. Hitch shot a few endings, available to watch on the DVD with a good documentary by Leonard Maltin.

Topaz (1969) Adapting from his own bestseller, Leon Uris wrote the original screenplay for this cold war spy story. Alfred Hitchcock asked for a rewrite by Samuel Taylor, who had proven experience in writing complex plots; he worked with him on Vertigo, but this long and sometimes tiring movie still contains far too much plot, too many explanations, and not enough character depth to bring this lukewarm thriller to life. Shot around the globe with a cosmopolitan, if not particularly starry, cast (Frederick Stafford, John Vernon, Michel Piccoli, Philippe Noiret, John Forsythe, Dany Robin, Karin Dor, Roscoe Lee Browne), the action centres on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the presence of double agents in the French secret service, one collaborates closely with the USA, and two others with the Russians. Some of the scenes are hard to believe. I sincerely hope that the secret agencies around the world conduct their affairs more professionally. Hitch preferred to shoot many of the street scenes in the studio and this is noticeable. Everyone speaks very good English, including the French and the Cubans; this hardly helps the film’s credibility. When the film was done, prescreening were held and the audience was very negative in its reaction, saying that the film was dull, poor, bad, hardly a Hitch movie, asking to shorten the film (the film was shortened by some 30 minutes but it is still far too long) and to change the ending scene! Hitchcock eventually shot three different endings for an average film of his Hollywood career. The DVD contains all three final scenes, one of them made it to the film.

From the immense opening tracking shot of some very shady looking Russian spies, I thought I was in for a typical Hitchcock treat, unfortunately I was wrong, and after enduring the 2 hours and 10 minutes, I can tell why no one ever mentions or has heard of Topaz. One of the main reasons why this film is so obscure, even amongst Hitchcock fans, can be party attributed to the lack of a Hollywood star. Pretty remarkable stuff as there is always a Carey Grant, Jimmy Stewart or Gregory Peck in a Hitchcock film. Maybe the stars turned it down when they read the boring and complicated plot that leaves little or no space for characters. The only job of the actors is to explain the plot to each other so the audience can have some chance of unravelling the film. What I took from the film is the key theme of infidelity and deceit, from both family and country, an interesting theme, but one that is only skimmed over due to the complicated plot. The ending is so complicated the majority of the running time is spent trying to explain it to the audience and when the film did eventually end, I really couldn’t care less. That’s not to say the whole film isn’t without merit though. The archive footage of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara mixed with studio actors is interesting and there’s a beautiful Hitchcockian scene where a tumbling purple dress replaces the blood of a female murder victim.