Yet another...

...film that I watched and wrote about last year.  I think this is the second of four in a row that I will be watching.  Me and my silly rules.  Have you read the rules?  They are here.

Off we go again, this time with the last of the Hitchcock films I'm watching as I get through the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition).

Film 78

78.  "North By Northwest" (AFI Rank #55)

I am...well...I am a detail-oriented prick.  I can tell you right now, with more than a little embarrassment, that I missed, last year, during my first viewing, the moment where Cary Grant's Roger Thornhill is mistaken for George Kaplan.  As such, I had no concept as to why all this shit was happening to him.  Yes.  I missed it.  Liked the film anyway, but really had no idea what the fuck was happening in the story.  That is a tough way to watch a film whose whole premise is mistaken identity.

So, this time I caught it.  And the film was WAY better.

Directed by master filmmaker, Alfred Hitchcock, "North By Northwest" is another in his long list of "wrong man" films.  Filmed in 1959, the year before he filmed "Psycho," this film has amazing sequences...and some that miss.  Julie and I have discussed Hitchcock a bit, she has a much deeper knowledge base than I do, but we talked about "The Birds," and how...well...cheesy it is.  I watched this film the other night.  You know what?  You can see the roots of "The Birds" in this.  You can also see that which made Hitchcock amazing.

Some fun stuff:  Cary Grant, as Roger Thornhill, is nearly always to the left of any shot in the film.  In a "north by northwest" direction (if such a compass point existed - and we assume the top of the screen is North).  Hitchcock's trademark cameo in this is wonderful, and also demonstrates, even in its brief moment on the screen, why Hitchcock belonged behind the camera.
 

Bernard Hermann did the score for this film, as he did for 4 other films in the Top 100.  John Williams beats him out with 6 films, but I'd submit that Hermann shows a wider range.  This film is a little dreamy/surreal.  "Taxi Driver" was smooth jazz.  "Psycho," and its strings are unforgettable.  Etc., etc.  Williams writes sweeping classical style music.  Hermann provides a soundtrack.

Which brings me to something I mentioned in my earlier review of "Platoon."  I'd seen this film before I wrote that one, and I mentioned music and its use in film.  The most famous sequence in this film is the crop duster chasing Thornhill.  Here's what I want you to do, the next time you watch this film.  Watch that sequence, from the time Thornhill gets off the bus.  It's PAINFULLY slow in set up...yes.  However...I want you to observe that there isn't a note of music in it.  The soundtrack for this sequence is entirely ambient.  It seems so odd, as so much has been running at such a breakneck speed in this film, then we get to this, the signature piece, and it slams on the brakes.  This scene requires us to breathe, to take a moment, to notice all the details.  To spend a moment in Thornhill's brain.  And the lack of music is spot on.  SPOT on.  I've been raving in these reviews about how film is the only art form that can use music in this way, blah blah blah.  Here, it is precisely the LACK of music that makes the scene bristle.  And since I teased before, I'm going to tease again.  There's going to be more discussion like this in my NEXT review.

Hitchcock was a devil's in the details kinda guy, and his films were extensively storyboarded.  You can feel/see that dedication to his craft throughout this film.  Shots from overhead are abundant, and the one from the top of the United Nations building is exceedingly juicy.  Some shots, however, were too ambitious for the technology of the day.  This is what happened in "The Birds."  The intention is great, and with films like "King Kong," we let go of the special effects, because they are so abundant, and ultimately propel the story.  This film is so taut, so engaging, that when we get the moments of spectacular special effect, they look clunky, and like they don't belong.  The falls from Mt. Rushmore are terrible, the drunk driving sequence blows, but it's the shot where Cary Grant is about to be run over by the fuel truck in the airplane sequence that just feels so out of place.  It didn't need to be there, and it is a disappointing finale to a thrilling 2 minutes of film.

Acting in this film is about what is to be expected.  Eva Marie Saint might be a shade on the not passionately cold enough as Eve Kendall.  And yes, that sound contradictory, but I don't buy her cool act, even though the character is obviously a master manipulator.  She uses sex indiscriminately (fairly shocking stuff in 1959), but I don't feel a sense that it matters.  Martin Landau is menacing as the obviously gay henchman.  James Mason makes a fine bad guy.  Leo G. Carroll is engaging enough as "The Professor."  I kinda love that the "good guy from the government" is simply named "The Professor."  Beyond that, you've got some bad guys, who are stiffs.  Thornhill's mother is decent enough.  Cary Grant.  Cary Grant bugs me.  He seems talented enough.  I just...I just find his movements awkward.  I find his voice annoying.  I find Cary Grant...annoying.  I don't get it.  That's me, and I'm not going to be convinced otherwise.

Other things about this film I love.  I think the house at the top of Mt. Rushmore is stunning to look at, and a wonderful set piece.  I think the shot of the heads from behind when Roger says, "we're on top of the monument" is amazing.  I love the pace of the film.  I love most of the visual art.  I love the commitment on everyone's part to excellence.  I don't love the train going into the tunnel at the end, but I get it.  I do love that before that happens, we get a nice transition from the mountain to the train car.  Yes, it does transition as Roger tries to rescue Eve.  Good stuff.  I don't love the soft focus on a Hitchcock blonde, because it seems so cliché.  Bah.  This is a great film, and I'm glad I got to watch it again, if for no other reason than I now KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I WAS WATCHING. 

This is the last film Hitchcock made that I'm watching on this quest.  This is also the lowest ranked of the four films he has on the list.  It makes sense.  This, of the 4, is the one that I'd rank last.  It's an ambitious film, but it misses too often for my taste.  I'm blaming that on the technology, so I'll give it a pass, albeit not much of one.  I will miss Hitchcock as I get through these last 23.  It is funny, though, as I seem to have saved 3 of the 4 Bogart films until the last 21.  How about that?   I have enjoyed getting to write about and watch Hitchcock films in this way.  It's been a great pleasure.  Perhaps I move onto a different quest.  I've always wanted to watch all the Bond films, just to say I did.  Maybe I invest a little time in Hitchcock.  Maybe I watch all the Best Picture Oscar winners.  Maybe I don't do silly things like this anymore. 

I can be such an idiot sometimes. 

No Roger Ebert this time.  Can't find an article he wrote.  There is a fun "when is a close up a long shot" essay on his website if you wish.  Google "Ebert North By Northwest." 

See you soon.   Went to the theatre to see the next one.