Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 15, 2007 21:30:15 GMT
Marnie Alfred Hitchcock 1964 USA Screenplay: Jay Presson Allen; Producer: Alfred Hitchcock; Photography: Robert Burks; Editing: George Tomasini; Music: Bernard Herrmann; Cast: Tippi Hedren, Sean Connery. An habitual thief falls in love with a man interested in psychoanalsis, and he cures her sexual frigidity by exposing a memory haunting her from childhood. Mildly interesting; you'd love to love it, but it's pretty bad. Dialogue, narrative and performances are all shabby, and there's nothing at all memorable or convincing about it. Let's face it: Hitchcock's best films are grounded on their setpieces, but here, even if there are any present (a horse chase, perhaps?), they are unremarkable. His best films also work well because the Maguffin subplots intrigue just as much as the grander theme behind it all; but Marnie just has a hideous air to it throughout, a dull means of psychologising a criminal nobody cares for.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jan 21, 2007 6:31:37 GMT
Hitchcock was largely interested in doing this movie because he wanted to challenge himself, mainly in potraying the male lead as a good guy despite a (SPOILER) short scene where he rapes the female lead. This film, and Topaz, are among Hitchcocks final movies, and have little to no value besides the "Hitchcock moments", which are superb
|
|
|
Post by seyfried on Apr 11, 2008 22:34:35 GMT
Vertigo aside (and maybe, the Trouble about Harry), it's probably his most interesting film to talk about. Rumor has it, tension culminated between Hitchcock and Hedren during the film's latter parts. In my comments about DePalma's Body Double, I mentioned how ironic it is that Hedren's daughter, Melanie Grifftith essentially enacts a twisted form of revenge through the ghost of the Master of Suspense haunting the film's narrative. If DePalma's films are a pathological exercise of envy and technical obsession, then Marnie is a diagnosis of Tippi Hedren's "marking" or, rather, Hedren's inability to escape being "marked." Two scenes come to mind:
1. In the famous Freudian word-association scene, Mark (Sean Connery) barrages Marnie with psychological questioning. Mark is seen throughout the film as attempting his own twisted form of taxonomy - as if his means of attaining Marnie, sexually, is through using the psychoanalysis as a form of "marking". Through tossing words of specific meaning and harmful intention at Marnie, Mark has little interest in playing the altruistic hero; his goal is sexuality, or more perniciously, domination. 2. In the final scene, where Marnie confronts her fears (the negative Oedipal Complex or patricide), we see Mark and Marnie walk hand-in-hand from the mother's house; seemingly Marnie is cured of her attachments. However, through the ironic tone of the film's final sequence and the film's score and the obvious "fakeness" of the street's background...the film's almost removed of its happily-ever-after conclusion and thrown towards parody.
If any of you guys get a chance to take Gender theory-- ask (or recommend) the teacher about this one!
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on May 21, 2008 6:22:52 GMT
If I understand correctly, Hitchcock propositioned Hedren for sex at one point during filming.
Hitchcock, for all of his genius, never could deal with psychological concepts well. His interpretation and use of Freudian concepts in his films come off a bit wrong like in this film or 1945's "Spellbound", though at least "Spellbound" was a more inspired work.
Hedren was never too interesting. That said, I prefer this film over his previous film, "The Birds", which has not aged well at all.
|
|
|
Post by seyfried on May 21, 2008 16:20:57 GMT
Hitchcock, for all of his genius, never could deal with psychological concepts well. His interpretation and use of Freudian concepts in his films come off a bit wrong like in this film or 1945's "Spellbound", though at least "Spellbound" was a more inspired work. Curiously, what were your problems with them. Mind you, I think we have a completely different take.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on May 21, 2008 16:39:38 GMT
Basically, I found they were oversimplified for the general audience. I agree, though. Connery is indeed "marking his territory" with the barrage of questions he gives to Hedren. And the ending does have an ironic twist, which makes this among Hitchcock's better later films in my eyes. I just feel that Hedren was a weak substitute for Grace Kelly and that the film simplified alot of basic tenent of psychoanalysis, though to be fair, Mark is not an analyst.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 21, 2008 19:41:58 GMT
Hitchcock, for all of his genius, never could deal with psychological concepts well. His interpretation and use of Freudian concepts in his films come off a bit wrong like in this film or 1945's "Spellbound", though at least "Spellbound" was a more inspired work. Curiously, what were your problems with them. Mind you, I think we have a completely different take. Though it wasn't put to me, I find Hitchcock at his least powerful when his themes are at their least "disguised" (as thrilling narrative cinema); Spellbound and Marnie are too on-the-nose, too much like illustrated essays concerning the theories they present. They strike me as contrived and hip. It's been a while since I saw either, though. Rope is the same (re Nietzsche), but that film has its own technical merits (and great acting, which I don't think the other two have). I don't think Hitchcock was as naturally talented at that sort of philosophical vehicle; he's not Tarkovsky. When his themes are wrapped in thrilling narratives, though, and not bullshitting us with namedrops, like in Rear Window and Vertigo, that's a different story.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on May 21, 2008 20:15:23 GMT
Agreed. Hitchcock isn't a filmmaker suited to make philosophic statements. He can be extremely personal as seen in "Vertigo" or make a film simply for sheer entertainment like "North by Northwest", but his forays into psychological territory as seen here, however interesting, do not work as they could. It is indeed contrived. I do enjoy Connery in this film at any rate. But Hedren sadly lacked talent. She made up with that with nice gams, but that never made a film.
"Spellbound" is a favorite Hitchcock film because I find that Peck and Bergman have such chemistry, the film doesn't get too bogged down. That said, 1946's "Notorious" is Hitchcock and Bergman's greatest collaboration. That's for another thread though.
|
|
|
Post by seyfried on May 21, 2008 23:27:31 GMT
I see Marnie as a critique of the establishment; containing, arguably, his most ironic ending since Rear Window, the film concludes itself obfuscating yet again the happiness of our heroine (or anti-heroine). As you point out, Mike, the film’s all about myth – and it works best that way. Rutland’s free association is less contrived once its realized as under the same pedagogical failure as the antagonists in Rope. Moreover, Rutland’s attempts at taxonomy are scattered throughout; in the same manner of Rear Window, Marnie assumes its males as displeased with anything other than control (or “marking”). Hitchcock sutures irony in both of the finales by suggesting feminine insubordination – particularly in Rear Window where Grace Kelly reverts back the giddy, “feminine” joys of Bazaar (the magazine). But you answered it here – “Mark is not an analyst” and unfortunately, Marnie isn’t an analysand. But Hitchcock’s problems were pathological; and even through falsity of the material, the unbearable floridity of its characters and motivations, he always had the ability to address his steady condescension.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 10, 2008 17:35:35 GMT
I find Hitchcock at his least powerful when his themes are at their least "disguised" (as thrilling narrative cinema); Spellbound and Marnie are too on-the-nose, too much like illustrated essays concerning the theories they present. They strike me as contrived and hip. First of all, I quite liked the movie. I think Hitchcock wanted to deal with some grander themes in his earlier movies, but was always aware of the fact that his popularity was largely due to nail-biting suspense thrillers and not psychological insight. But (IMO) Vertigo's success to a large extent changed this and was further solidified with Psycho's success. He didn't need to disguise his subject within popular thriller format. Marnie (as with Vertigo) quickly captures the audience attention with a robbery plot and later discards it pretty much in favor of a deeper character study. It was 1964 and he was able to deal with a lot of issues not common in Hollywood. To validate these theories by today's scientific standards is not fair. Gender roles, need for a man, sexuality, nature vs nurture, crime as a habit, electra complex, etc etc. comprise a fairly ambitious set of themes to deal with within the constraints of popular entertainment. I was pretty satisfied... they key is to not approach it as a thriller. Plus the opening shot in the train station is great and so is the hunt scene.
|
|