Another Winner From The Classic Film Collection: North By Northwest

The Good: Good acting, interesting characters, Much of the plot
The Bad: Many "surprises" are dated, Several sets
The Basics: With its smart tale of mistaken identity and cross-country travel for truth and exoneration, North By Northwest is surprisingly worthwhile, even today!


Those who read my reviews tend to know that I'm not a fan of many old movies. If it's in black and white, odds are I didn't enjoy it (notable exception being Casablanca, reviewed here!). Usually, it's the writing, if it's a comedy, I'm not much of a fan of slapstick. I had seen The Birds when I was rather young, but I had not seen any Hitchcock movies since. Until now, when I was given the opportunity to see his political conspiracy thriller North By Northwest on the big screen.

I was pleasantly surprised.

North By Northwest follows an odd turn of events for protagonist Roger Thornhill. An advertising executive, Thornhill is mistaken by spies as a spy and set upon by the villainous Phillip Vandamm. Abducted and threatened, Roger attempts to simply let the truth set him free by stating that he is not the person that Vandamm's people think he is. When he is intoxicated and set to be killed through driving while drunk, Thornhill becomes interested in the person Vandamm's men thought he was. His search puts him in the company of the mysterious Eve Kendall and sets him on a cross-country cat-and-mouse adventure that has him fleeing for his life and searching for the truth.

To cut right to the chase, as it were, this IS the movie that has both the plane shooting at a man (Thornhill) while running through a cornfield and the one that climaxes on Mt. Rushmore. Those are the two frequent allusions to North By Northwest, though there is a great deal that the Bond movies would seem to owe to this Hitchcock thriller.

The thing that surprised me about North By Northwest was how smart it was. Instead of relying on random chance, it's an extraordinarily well put together film in terms of story. All of the pieces fall into place and make sense. But equally smart is the dialogue. Roger Thornhill sounds like a confident, successful executive. Vandamm sounds like a villain and Eve sounds like exactly who she is.

The exchanges between Roger and Eve are smart and frank. I was surprised, as a student of history, by how direct North By Northwest was in terms of sexuality. For a film made in 1959 I was surprised by how direct Roger and Eve are when they begin to engage one another sexually - no pretense of love there! And that, possibly more than anything else, raised the movie up for me and made the characters real and eliminated any element in the film that might seem dated.

And there is a lot that does seem dated here. Thornhill's drunk driving scene is supposed to be suspenseful and comic and while Hitchcock directs is well, it's terrible on a technical level. Indeed, the bluescreen technology is so obvious and bad that it rips the viewer out of the story. It's laughable and while unavoidable given the time it was made in, it dates the film in terms of the movie's "look."

Similarly, one of the biggest reversals in terms of character in North By Northwest hinges on outdated gender roles. While I'm sure audiences in 1959 were surprised by the true nature of one of the characters, the truth was blindingly obvious to me almost from the beginning.

Which is not to say there were not elements other than the frank sexuality that surprised me. No, this is a well-concieved conspiracy tale which means there are some decent reversals and there are moments of real cliffhangers. In short, this is ultimately a cool movie.

Part of what makes it work is the timeless quality that comes from the caliber of acting presented in the film. There are some pretty wonderful performances. A young Martin Landau appears as the villainous henchman Leonard and he sells himself quite well. One wonders if he was noted back when the movie first was presented. James Mason does a competent job as the often understated Phillip Vandamm, presenting a character who has an intelligence indicated through the gleaming in his eyes.

Eva Marie Saint plays Eve Kendall and she is articulate and expressive, easily convincing the viewers of her capability. Eva is called upon to be both strong and vulnerable, but always intelligent and she mixes the emotions well to create a well-conceived and well-presented character. There is never a moment in North By Northwest where the viewer feels like they are watching an actress perform. Eva is entirely "on" as her character. And it helps that she has great on-screen chemistry with the lead, Cary Grant.

North By Northwest is the first movie I've seen Cary Grant in, to my knowledge. It's easy to see why he is such a well-respected actor from this era of cinema. He is smart and dashing and his talents are quite obvious in this film. Grant is given the challenge of playing a character who is very smart and used to being in control who is thrust into circumstances quite outside what he is used to. He does a respectable job of playing strong and ignorant, turning on a dime. His talents make the 136 minutes fly by. Indeed, this movie is so well-paced it does not feel like it is over two hours long (and I'm someone who likes three hour movies!).

Who will enjoy North By Northwest? Certainly fans of vintage cinema. This is one of the better offerings from the late 50s. Anyone who enjoys a decent conspiracy thriller will find a lot to enjoy in North By Northwest. Anyone who can suspend their need for technical precision (i.e. special effects, spectacle) will easily be captivated by the story, characters, and acting in North By Northwest. Anyone looking for the fantasy 1950s where women stay at home and are bland and chaste will not like this one.

For other classic films, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Citizen Kane
All Quiet On The Western Front
Hamlet

7.5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movies I have reviewed.

© 2012, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Emphasis On Mood Over Character Or Plot Drags Down Rebecca: The Ultimate Tale Of Second-Wife Syndrome!

The Good: Good direction, Good sense of mood, Acting
The Bad: Light on character, Slow plot, Lack of DVD bonus features
The Basics: Alfred Hitchcock's Best Picture winner Rebecca is very much a classic 18th Century English Gothic tale modernized and brought to screen with more attention to mood than plot.


Sometimes, I manage to forget how much I know or how much I've experienced until I experience it again. For example, I forget about the classic 18th Century English Gothic novel tradition until I encounter something that utilizes that format. I mention this at the outset of my review of Rebecca, which was based upon a novel, because it is remarkably similar in plot and form to Jane Eyre (click here for my review of that novel!). It is very much an archetypal gothic story of love and mystery. Rebecca, ultimately, offered no real surprises for me as a fan of that type novel because it was very much carrying on in the tradition of that style work.

Still, Alfred Hitchcock's Rebecca is by no means unenjoyable and it begins as an engaging work that captivated me. The problem with the film is that the longer it goes on, the more it belabors the mood and the more it slows down focusing on creating an air as opposed to actually developing the characters or progressing any sense of the plot. And it is possible to create something that is an effective mystery with weird undertones that is engaging, even today (I look to Veronica Mars as a prime example), but Hitchcock and screenwriters Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison fail to do that with Rebecca. Hitchcock effectively creates a creepy mood, but the novelty of that wears off as the viewer waits for something, anything, to happen.

While in Monte Carlo, a young woman (never named) who is working as a paid companion for the gossipy Edythe when they encounter Maxim de Winter, the owner of a huge estate, Manderley, in England. Maxim is a widower and while he appears to pine for his dead wife, Rebecca, he is enchanted by the young woman. Maxim encourages her to abandon Edythe and return to England with him, as his wife and they immediately marry and soon thereafter return to Manderley.

At Manderley, the new Mrs. de Winter finds herself surrounded by all things that remind her of Rebecca and make her feel like she is living in the shadow of the dead wife. She is treated harshly by the head of housekeeping, Mrs. Danvers and a whole wing of the house is forbidden to the new Mrs. de Winter, as it acts as a shrine to the late Rebecca. Trying to be a good wife, the new Mrs. de Winter tries to get Maxim past his obsession with Rebecca and when they throw a costume ball, Mrs. Danvers sets Mrs. de Winter up for a fall. When the boat Rebecca was sailing with is recovered, though, it unearths secrets that threaten the marriage and shake Manderley!

The problem with discussing the plot of Rebecca is that the film is just over two hours long and the plot does not actually begin until the last half hour of the film. The Monte Carlo scenes take fifteen minutes and then there is over an hour and fifteen minutes of static presentation of Mrs. de Winter exploring Manderley while being intimidated by Mrs. Danvers before anything actually happens again. Characters are introduced, like the very sociable Crawleys and the mysterious cousin Jack, but the relationship between Mrs. de Winter and Maxim does not grow or develop or even change. In fact, the two do very little until the costume party and then we learn what most viewers will already suspect, that the hateful Mrs. Danvers is plotting against Mrs. de Winter.

But it is only after the costume party scene that things happen, as Mrs. Danvers's attempt to get Mrs. de Winter to kill herself is interrupted by a plot convenient shipwreck off the coast. That sets into motion a chain of events which rocks the last half hour of the movie. The further problem, though, is that that entire last half hour is less the mystery it is intended to be and instead long strings of exposition. The viewer is told about Rebecca through the first two thirds of the film, then all of the truths come out in the final third and they are long scenes of one character - Maxim, Jack, and a doctor in London - telling their interpretation of past events surrounding Rebecca with little else in the way of development.

In fact, in the final act, there is little other than plot revelations. There are no character changes; Mrs. de Winter is loyal, Maxim displays the same temper he has from the outset, and Mrs. Danvers is monolithically creepy and bent upon the ruin of Mrs. de Winter. Mrs. de Winter is thrown curveballs by the plot revelations, but she never varies from her love for Maxim and her desire to protect him. Similarly, Mrs. Danvers is bent on her desire to see Mrs. de Winter ruined all for some misguided loyalty and love for Rebecca.

Unfortunately, in addition to the slow sense of movement in the film, followed by long exposition, the mood is made oppressive by Hitchcock. What starts as entertaining - the opening voice-over about not being able to return to Manderley is excellent, especially when paired with the intriguing visuals - soon becomes droll as Hitchcock holds on facial expressions that are hardly expressive and on rooms and set pieces that contain an air of mystery. The murky mood dissolves with each revelation and the mysterious becomes mundane. Still, Hitchcock tries to keep the viewer guessing or feeling tension through the music or long camera shots on people or objects that ultimately are static. The technique is admirable, but ultimately academic. Hitchcock might get a viewer for a single viewing, but the sense of intrigue does not hold up even over a second viewing because we know the movements are building to something far less dramatic or interesting.

Still, there is enough to recommend this classic film, most notably the acting. Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine star as Maxim and Mrs. de Winter and they have excellent on-screen chemistry. Fontaine is able to hold her own by making scenes where she acts opposite herself in empty rooms or with a dog engaging through her facial expressions and attention to body language. Olivier is able to pull off the withdrawn widower exceptionally well and he delivers some of the most potentially campy lines with an earnest quality that makes them ring true.

But the real stalwart is Judith Anderson. Anderson plays Mrs. Danvers and while the role is somewhat monolithic, Anderson makes the scenes work by presenting a character who is constant and mysterious. She is stone faced and when Hitchcock holds on her for a slight flutter of her lips, the viewer might not know the emotion she is attempting to convey, but we know she is up to no good! She is creepy throughout.

Largely, that is what Rebecca is, a classic creepy movie without a horror or even a strong sense of mystery. The elements of a mystery are put in place, but then it unravels after an hour of just unsettling the viewer. It's interesting for a viewing, but hardly a masterwork by any means.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, which is available by clicking here! Please check it out!]

For other mysteries, please check out my reviews of:
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets
The Game
The Bounty Hunter

5.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |