Marnie. Yes, that one.

[movieman1957]

The look of anyone may be that decidedly 1972 styles. I always found it odd how things from that time period seem more dated than older movies.

[Mr. Arkadin]

I don’t think that anyone would say Marnie is a flawless film. It is however, a much different kind of film--especially different from what most had come to expect from Hitchcock. It’s easy to criticize Hedren, but I think that she herself would tell you this was not the type of performance that she wanted to give. Put through the meat grinder in this film and The Birds made the previous year, you might wonder why she ever agreed to make another film. Hitchcock attempted to dominate her as he had done with Novak, but Hedren who was tired of being bullied, resisted. In the end, they communicated through written notes and rarely spoke to one another.

Hedren’s performance, as my earlier post stated, was an expressionistic one, painted against Hitchcock’s phony backdrops to give an impressionistic look of a world where truth does not exist. Hitch clearly has Hedren act out physical situations as symbolic gesture rather than using a naturalistic style. This is one thing that turns many people off about the film. If you’re expecting suspense (which Hitchcock was known for) you can’t help but feel disappointed. Marnie actually has more in common with The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919) than previous films in the Hitch cannon.

Many of Hedren’s surroundings have significance. Yellow is used as an indication of her cautious lifestyle (she actually walks on a yellow line like a tightrope at the beginning of the film). There are also many sexual signals, such as closing her purse when one attempts to kiss her (you don’t have to be Freud to figure that one out) as well as the free association game she plays with Mark.

Connery is fresh from his Bond work, but I would not say his performance is 007-like at all. James Bond is reasonably calm (except maybe when a laser is aimed at his privates) and not shown to be flawed in the early films. Mark by contrast, is almost as emotionally damaged as Marnie (which she gleefully points out to him)! Interestingly, they both compensate in a similar way, using control to insulate themselves from harm and hurt, controlling other's affections through gifts, and finally resorting to physical control. Mark’s rape of Marnie reveals his brutal nature and need for domination. Has any Hitchcock hero ever been so dark?

The death of Forio is the heart of the film and one of the best human reactions to animal demise I’ve seen (other greats would include Forbidden Games [1953] and Lonely are the Brave [1962]). Whatever one thinks of Hedren, this one scene is played in a realistic fashion and its power cannot be denied.

Critics often place Marnie as the culmination of a trilogy that includes Psycho and The Birds. Each film deals with relationships and the inability to connect beyond a superficial level. At the end of Marnie, nothing is really solved. The problems are still there, but the task of reconciliation has begun—starting with Marnie’s ability to see beyond the façade she has created to protect herself. Though this is no indication of a happy ending (listen closely to the children’s song at the end) we see them in Mark’s car turning away from the crude shipyard backdrop and realize that her new life will be based on reality.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Does anyone have an opinion on "Frenzy"? I think that is the only modern Hitch that hasn't come up.

I think Frenzy is a decent film, but it tends to revert back to much of his early to mid-fifties output (with a little nudity thrown in). In contrast to the maturing works from 1957's The Wrong Man through Topaz, it seems dated and out of step with the times. Hitch was second guessing himself here, trying to go back to the old formula and the result was mixed. Problems aside, it's still an enjoyable film for what it is and definitely has the best closing line of any Hitchcock movie.

[Ann Harding]

Funnily enough, Marnie is responsible for turning me into a film enthusiast. I first saw it on TV as a teenager. And imagine my frustration when my grandmother turned off the TV set before the end of the film....(it was time to go to bed, she said!)
Years later, I noticed that the film was playing in a rep cinema in Paris. I went immediately: at last, I was able to see the end!!! From that moment, I was hooked on rep cinemas. I went twice a week and discovered countless classics that way: The Killers, They Lived By Night, Psycho etc...

It's absolutely true that Marnie is a flawed picture. But, nevertheless, I find it more interesting than, for example, Vertigo which has always bored me to death (except for Herrmann's score).
As for Tippi Hedren, she is certainly not the best actress in the world, but Kim Novak isn't either.... I never thought that Hitchcock liked to create real characters. He was too busy making a film with entertainment and suspense to spend time on the psychology of his 'puppets'.

[MikeBSG]

I've never been that taken with "Vertigo," which strikes me as only okay.

I dislike "Marnie" and I really can't understand why writers have spilled so much ink over that movie trying to find something significant in that film. I would watch "Suspicion" over "Marnie" any day of the week.

I like "Frenzy." Perhaps it should have retained the post-WWII setting of the original novel, but I like the subplot of the detective and his gourmet wife, the Anna Massey character and the use of the "wrong man" theme. The film's ending is masterful.

[charliechaplinfan]

I like Frenzy and my husband likes Frenzy, that says something because Hitchcock films usually bore him to tears. It doesn't feel like a Hitchcock movie. I like Marnie too, I too remember being sent to bed before the end of the film and waiting years to see what happened.