Marnie. Yes, that one.
Posted: September 12th, 2008, 10:05 am
I accidentally caught the last half of Marnie the other day (yesterday?) on TCM. I say accidentally because I wouldn't watch this film if you strapped me to a seat, pried open my eyes and used it to cure me of tendencies of ultraviolence (or, in this case, lazy filmmaking or bad acting). The one and only time I've ever watched it, start to finish, was when I was a teenager and my grandmother, a big fan of Hitchcock's later years (why?!) insisted we run a marathon. I hated it then, and I hate it now, and here's why-
1) It's boring. Hitchcock is uninspired with every part of the process and it shows. Like many genius directors, when he's on, he's really got it and he crafts an incredible masterpiece, even when he was inexperienced he was still exciting, but when he's off, all of the tendencies that worked for him previously now work against.
2) It is one of the most horribly acted films I have ever seen. Look, usually when I say an actor can't act, it's a bit of a stretch - even John Wayne can act, he usually only acts like himself - but here, it's truth. Tippi Hedren and Louise Latham are awful. Just plain awful. They make John Wayne in The Conquerer look like Laurence Olivier. What was Hitchcock thinking?
3) Worst MacGuffin ever. This, again, comes down to Hitchcock probably being bored, or perhaps senile, I'm not sure, what drives one to ruin their career?, but it just isn't interesting. Maybe that's why they cast Sean Connery after Bond, because it would be SHOCKING!!! for a woman not to want him. He's trying his best, but here he's still Bond, and it's hard to believe he has real enough interest in Marnie past wanting to bed her to want to help her overcome her issues. There is absolutely nothing compelling about this story, the twist or, well, anything involved with this movie.
Combine incredibly lazy filmmaking with incredibly poor acting and what do you get? You get Marnie. Among the worst serious movies ever made. It should have ended Tippi and Louse's careers but somehow it didn't. Oh, I rue the day it didn't. The ending sequence when Connery, I can't even remember the name of his character, that's how little I care, Mark?, took Marnie to visit her mother, again, can't remember nor care about the name of the character, is the single most painful scene I've ever seen, and I spent weekends watching direct-to-video crap and 50s b-movies. Those awful accents! Those horrible facial expressions! The way Tippi looks off to the side and slightly downward as if to convey blindness and regression to a previous time and place! Horribly contrived Hollywood conventions made all the worse by being poorly utilized by the very man who pioneered them...! The horror... The horror!
Phew, I feel better. Thanks Oasis. I just had to get that out of my system.
Bryce
PS. I just realized this was on TCM. What?! Really? This is considered a "classic"? That's two hours that could've been spent on something worthwhile. Geez. Air "The Sound of Music" in Spanish for all I care. Anything but Marnie!
1) It's boring. Hitchcock is uninspired with every part of the process and it shows. Like many genius directors, when he's on, he's really got it and he crafts an incredible masterpiece, even when he was inexperienced he was still exciting, but when he's off, all of the tendencies that worked for him previously now work against.
2) It is one of the most horribly acted films I have ever seen. Look, usually when I say an actor can't act, it's a bit of a stretch - even John Wayne can act, he usually only acts like himself - but here, it's truth. Tippi Hedren and Louise Latham are awful. Just plain awful. They make John Wayne in The Conquerer look like Laurence Olivier. What was Hitchcock thinking?
3) Worst MacGuffin ever. This, again, comes down to Hitchcock probably being bored, or perhaps senile, I'm not sure, what drives one to ruin their career?, but it just isn't interesting. Maybe that's why they cast Sean Connery after Bond, because it would be SHOCKING!!! for a woman not to want him. He's trying his best, but here he's still Bond, and it's hard to believe he has real enough interest in Marnie past wanting to bed her to want to help her overcome her issues. There is absolutely nothing compelling about this story, the twist or, well, anything involved with this movie.
Combine incredibly lazy filmmaking with incredibly poor acting and what do you get? You get Marnie. Among the worst serious movies ever made. It should have ended Tippi and Louse's careers but somehow it didn't. Oh, I rue the day it didn't. The ending sequence when Connery, I can't even remember the name of his character, that's how little I care, Mark?, took Marnie to visit her mother, again, can't remember nor care about the name of the character, is the single most painful scene I've ever seen, and I spent weekends watching direct-to-video crap and 50s b-movies. Those awful accents! Those horrible facial expressions! The way Tippi looks off to the side and slightly downward as if to convey blindness and regression to a previous time and place! Horribly contrived Hollywood conventions made all the worse by being poorly utilized by the very man who pioneered them...! The horror... The horror!
Phew, I feel better. Thanks Oasis. I just had to get that out of my system.
Bryce
PS. I just realized this was on TCM. What?! Really? This is considered a "classic"? That's two hours that could've been spent on something worthwhile. Geez. Air "The Sound of Music" in Spanish for all I care. Anything but Marnie!
):