Showing posts with label James Mason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Mason. Show all posts

Friday, April 21, 2023

The Reckless Moment






 
























Director Max Ophüls

Joan Bennett (center) with her father and 3 daughters, 1918















THE RECKLESS MOMENT        A                                                                                         France  (82 mi)  1949  d: Max Ophüls

The highest reaches of the actor’s art begin, I believe, at the point where words cease to play a part.        —Max Ophüls

Among the more forgotten films in cinema history is this hidden gem, the last Hollywood film made by esteemed director Max Ophüls, perhaps his most underrated, which is not only his best American film, but also his shortest and most concise, consolidating the creativity of multiple artistic talents.  An actor, stage director, and producer in Germany and Austria from 1921 to 1930, he worked in more than 200 plays by the time he started his film career, yet spent his life dealing with adversity, including forced eviction from both countries as a Jew working in Nazi Germany, fleeing to Paris only to see the French government fall to the Nazi’s as well, taking his family to seek refuge in Switzerland where he was also expelled in a visa dispute with the Swiss government, eventually exiled to Hollywood in 1941, where the spelling of his last name is altered, as evidenced by this film.  Like other European auteurs at the time, such as Jean Renoir and Fritz Lang, he was treated poorly by the American film industry, unable to find work in America for six years until a recommendation from director Preston Sturges, who also undercut him on his initial working opportunities, taking his place when studio heads were perplexed by the Old World elegance of his sophisticated working style, with its scarcity of star close-ups, eventually leading him to RKO studio head Howard Hughes, making a series of four American films before returning to France, ending his career with a string of some of his most highly regarded films.  Known for his mastery of fluid camera movement, his visual style features distinctive camera movements, complex crane and dolly sweeps, and elegant tracking shots, having a pronounced effect on later directors like Stanley Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson.  In an early 1957 interview with Cahiers du Cinéma, Kubrick was quoted “Highest of all I would rate Max Ophüls, who for me possessed every possible quality.  He has an exceptional flair for sniffing out good subjects, and he got the most out of them.  He was also a marvelous director of actors… I particularly admired his fluid camera techniques.”  While his trademark motifs include the use of a complex and detailed dramatic scheme, lavish settings with an ornate décor of chandeliers, staircases, and mirrors, long takes that emphasize the subject, accomplished framing and lighting, and a strong female protagonist, he was one of the first truly international film directors, sensitive to national differences and the human qualities in all his characters, yet he was largely dismissed during his lifetime as a technically flashy auteur, where his thematic concerns were often regarded as trivial in the male-dominated cinematic universe.  However the artistic reputation of Ophüls underwent serious critical reevaluation in the early 1970’s with the advent of feminism, where his baroque style, attention to details, and intense focus on female characters were viewed as not only prophetic but thoroughly contemporary.  Like fellow German émigré Douglas Sirk, the sophisticated camera work and lush décor that were once derided as empty exercises in excess have since been regarded as painstakingly intertwined with the state of mind of the central characters, offering a unique reflection of the postwar landscape.  When examined from a historical lens, the spector of European trauma inhabits Ophüls’ American films, emphasizing the darker side of human nature, where it’s important to acknowledge that a transformation in postwar American culture was largely achieved by the arrival of European émigrés who brought with them haunting personal experiences and Freudian psychoanalytic methods while also introducing Brechtian modernism into America cinema, which can be seen in the melodramas of Sirk and Ophüls.

The story is adapted from The Blank Wall, a 1947 Ladies Home Journal story written by American novelist and short story writer Elisabeth Sanxay Holding, one of the many mystery writers who have undergone repeated cycles of neglect and rediscovery, turned into a what is generally considered her best novel, a subversive and original take on the figure of mother and housewife at odds with traditional views, reconfiguring a maternal protagonist in a patriarchal role, listed by The Guardian in 2011 as one of The 10 best Neglected literary classics - in pictures | Culture, while described by Jake Hinson as The Godmother of Noir: Elisabeth Sanxay Holding, exuding a profound disillusionment with the condition of women in a field dominated by the tough guys of Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, James M. Cain.  A pioneer of domestic noir and favorite of crime writer Raymond Chandler, who claimed she was “the top suspense writer of them all,” she began her writing career as a romance novelist, but switched to mysteries during the Depression, where the emphasis was on the perpetrators and the victims rather than on the heroic investigators, accentuating the dark interior lives of her characters, with early strains of German Expressionism, exacerbated by moodiness, despair, guilt, and paranoia, writing 25 novels between 1920 and 1953, with 18 dealing with criminal wrongdoing in one form or another.  As a woman in a distinctly masculine field, she’s less well known than her contemporaries and often overlooked by the reputation of best-selling murder mystery author Patricia Highsmith, a postwar Hitchcock favorite who frequented bars and entertained a mix of New York’s gay and literary worlds, while Holding was educated before WWI at distinguished finishing schools for young ladies and married a British diplomat, living for a while in Bermuda, so by the time the term film noir became widely recognized, she was already in her 60’s.  Celebrated cinematographer Burnett Guffey got his start working as a camera assistant with John Ford in silent features before developing an expertise for his use of lighting when shooting dozens of dark crime movies, becoming associated with film noir pictures, making 20 of them, most notably Nicholas Ray’s In a Lonely Place (1950), while winning Academy Awards for Fred Zinneman’s FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) and Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde (1967).  The other major collaborator is actress Joan Bennett (produced by Bennett’s husband Walter Wanger), who appeared in many black and white 40’s melodramas about strong women, with a hardboiled, noirish presence of this film.  Married in London at 16, a mother at 17, and divorced in Los Angeles at 18, she went to a women’s finishing school in Versailles and developed a European sensibility, collaborating with directors as eclectic as Fritz Lang, George Cukor, Jean Renoir, and Douglas Sirk, starting out as a sassy, baby-faced blonde in Raoul Walsh pictures before darkening her hair in the late 30’s and working with Lang in a string of four film noir classics, including THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW (1944) and SCARLET STREET (1945), known for playing working girls, femmes fatales, wives, and mothers, she brings a dry wit, subtle intelligence, and a hint of mystery to all her performances.  In this picture she’s elegantly dressed by Jean Louis, who designed all of Rita Hayworth’s outfits, resembling a toned down and darkened version of Myrna Loy, the darling of THE THIN MAN (1934) and its five sequels, known for her wit and sophisticated charm, not to mention female guile, where it’s impossible not to notice Bennett’s chain-smoking, perfect lipstick, and wild, horn-rimmed glasses.

Even while working under tight studio-dictated time and budget constraints, this rare instance of Ophüls dealing with a contemporary setting is a blend of a women’s picture melodrama and film noir, set on Balboa Island just outside Los Angeles, a vacation spot with very few year-round residents, starring Joan Bennett as Lucia Harper, a suburban housewife whose husband Tom is away on business in Europe helping to rebuild Berlin in the aftermath of the war, living with his elderly father (Henry O’Neill) and two teenaged children, Bea (Geraldine Brooks) and David (David Bair), along with black housekeeper Sybil (Frances Elizabeth Williams, a black activist who spent two years in Moscow studying with famed theater director Vsevolod Meyerhold).  In this film there’s an opening narration that quickly disappears, with suggestions of a literary work unfolding before our eyes.  Slipping away from her kids one day she drives to a sleazy hotel in Los Angeles to see a man named Ted Darby (Shepperd Strudwick) about staying away from her underage daughter.  Clearly driven by unsavory intentions, he’s a squalid character twice her age who turns into a shakedown artist, where she’s clearly out of her element, yet the sweeping movements of the camera with its meticulous eye for detail make this a compelling sequence fraught with tension, Reckless Moment, The -- (Movie Clip) She's Only A Child YouTube (3:27).  When she returns home, we discover Bea is a spoiled, rebellious type languishing away at art school, where her self-centered arrogance echoes the model set in the classic Michael Curtiz melodrama, Mildred Pierce (1945), the first film noir told from a female perspective.  The film takes a dark turn when Darby’s dead body is found lying on the beach the next morning, with Lucia immediately suspecting her daughter is involved, so she disposes of the body by dumping it in a distant lagoon, where protecting her family from scandal is her primary concern.  It’s a long, tense scene which is done in complete silence except the lapping of the waves, accentuating the breeze blowing her hair and scarf as she drives her motorboat with the body covered under a tarp, as she continually looks around, exploring her options, heightening the tension of her point of view with an impending sense of danger.  Very much a character-driven story, where shadows are evident in the hallways of the household, and objects are constantly seen in the foreground, like a labyrinth she has to navigate, yet things only get worse with the arrival of a strange man named Martin Donnelly, played by a moody and overly restrained James Mason with an Irish accent, a symbol of moral decay who went on to star in George Cukor’s A Star Is Born (1954) and Stanley Kubrick’s LOLITA (1962), who turns out to be a low-life blackmailer, wanting cash for a package of love letters written by Bea to Darby, implicating her in the murder, as otherwise he’ll turn them over to the police.  This really sets the gears in motion, elevating the intrigue in this brooding, psychological thriller, with Ophüls brilliantly staging this scene as a centerpiece showstopper, emphasizing the lack of privacy as the characters are under constant threat of being overheard, where constant interruptions challenge Lucia’s desire for middle class order and neatness, where nothing can appear out of place, making it seem like he’s a friend of the family, as he ingratiates himself into her life with strange and curious results, The Moves #3: The Reckless Moment (Max Ophüls, 1949) on ... YouTube (6:58).  Desperately trying to hold her life together against a rising undercurrent of ever-increasing threats to stability, she goes into what filmmaker Todd Haynes describes as “maternal overdrive” to try to protect her domestic life, a place where everyone depends on her, continually bombarding her with requests, never having a moment of peace, as Lucia still must run her family, raise her children, and care for her elderly father-in-law without arousing suspicions, while at the same time negotiate with a shady blackmailer to avoid being implicated in a murder investigation.  Ruthless in her determination to prevail, the film dramatizes the crushing weight on the shoulders of women, trapped by family life, discouraged from pursuing careers and denied independent lives, faced with limitations men never have to experience, yet obligated to provide for those around them while also being a nurturing presence, where there is literally no escape from this indefatigable maternal role, a reference to Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, becoming a radical critique of the pitfalls of domesticity and the patriarchal family, a daring move in the conservative era of 1950’s America.      

Donnelly, it turns out, is not your typical extortionist, as he deeply sympathizes with the plight of Lucia, who can’t raise the money without the signature of her husband, who is completely inaccessible, yet the monetary demand is immediate nonetheless.  Donnelly actually becomes infatuated as he hauls her groceries, offers grandfather tips on the horse races, and gives her son advice on how to fix an old engine, yet Lucia is casually dismissive, remaining guarded and emotionally impenetrable, stuck in this absurd no man’s land where nothing makes sense, literally torn from her world of suburban domesticity into a lurid criminal underworld where both feel morally bankrupt, while Donnelly finds himself in a similar position with his mobster crime boss Nagel (Roy Roberts) who impatiently demands the money now, with no further delays.  Lucia is seen in ever-restricted spaces, on the ferry with Donnelly, never leaving the confined space of the car where she is a helpless passenger discussing the terms of blackmail, in a crowded bus station, or in a public phone booth, always feeling exposed, afraid of being seen, where the compressed space is emblematic of her diminishing freedom, undergoing a series of “reckless moments” where the consequences become the primary focus of the film.  Exasperated at one point, with her family constantly watching her every move, Lucia confesses to her blackmailer, “You don’t know how a family can surround you sometimes.”  Viewing her as a victim, Donnelly aptly points out, “You have your family, I have my Nagel.”  What’s uniquely compelling is the way Donnelly fills the void by becoming a willing shadow husband, in some ways developing a deeper personal connection than she has with her family, so when he accompanies her on a trip to a local drugstore he blends in just like part of the family.  The postwar scenes of Lucia in downtown Los Angeles are particularly vivid, as she makes her rounds through the streets of Los Angeles visiting the bank, a loan office, and a pawnshop trying to raise the necessary funds with little success, where the traffic is terrifying, the sidewalks are cluttered, while strange men are lurking in the doorways, providing a disoriented feeling that matches her internal despair, resembling the documentary-style footage of postwar Tokyo in Kurosawa’s STRAY DOG (1949), another noir film made about the same time.  Lucia Harper is not your typical femme fatale drawn into a fatalistic criminal underworld, yet she is drawn in nonetheless specifically because of the absence of her husband, forcing her to assume his patriarchal duties.  With women having no access to economic power, they find themselves in a subservient position in society.  What Lucia fails to realize is that Sybil should be a close friend and confidante, an ally in her unsettling adventure down a dark path and an omnipresent moral center, though conveniently out of focus, placed in the background, or left out of the frame altogether, yet Lucia rejects her repeated offers of help and sees her only as a black servant, unable to recognize her equally repressive predicament working for the Harper family, both reduced to servitude, though Sybil does assume the position behind the wheel of a car late in the film, which may be the first time a black woman drives a car in a Hollywood film, yet she remains uncredited.  Their common plight foreshadows the emergence of both the Civil Rights Movement and feminism.  Lucia’s strength lies in her responsibility as a mother, as a head of a household, and a respectable member of the community, which is a stark difference from other noir women in similar predicaments, like Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity (1944), Lana Turner in The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946), or Jane Greer in Out of the Past (1947), who generate their power and strength from the way they manipulate men through their sexual allure.  There’s none of that here, yet we do get a very distinct cinematic image of her femininity in the way she neurotically chain-smokes cigarettes, or wears reading glasses to perform domestic activities, where she’s often seen behind a desk in a business-like manner writing letters or making a shopping list, where her restraint only makes the final scenes that much more rewarding, setting the stage for a dramatic emotional release.  Built into the film are bookended long-distance phone calls, with the camera fixed on Lucia as she takes the call by the stairs with family members parading back and forth behind her eager to get their chance to talk, calmly implying everything is in order even when it’s not, sparing her husband the dramatic details, instead conveying a picture of the same world he left behind, a portrait of domestic tranquility, while the “happy ending” of the finale has a subversive context, conveying the ultimate irony, and while she speaks cheerfully, she also weeps uncontrollably, a lingering expression of grief from the traumatic ordeal she has undergone.       

Note

Two years after the film was made, Bennett became the subject of her own scandal.  Having been represented by her agent Jennings Lang for twelve years, she met with him one afternoon to discuss an upcoming TV show, which upset her irate husband, producer Walter Wanger, who noticed her car was missing in the backlot of the television studio, having driven off in Lang’s car.  When they returned together, dropping her off to her car, Wanger, who was waiting, shot him twice where he stood, wounding him severely, but he survived.  Jealously believing Lang was trying to break up his marriage, Wanger pleaded temporary insanity and served a 4-month prison sentence, however the couple remained married.  Bennett’s career suffered afterwards, as the studios refused to work with her, having made 65 pictures in the 23 years beforehand, and only 5 in the decade that followed, with Bennett quoted as saying “I might as well have pulled the trigger myself.”

Maternal Overdrive  Todd Haynes on Max Ophuls’ The Reckless Moment on Vimeo (21:59) 

Eddie Muller introduces "The Reckless Moment"; Noir City 2016, SIFF Egyptian (7/27/2016) YouTube (7:19)

Moviedrome - The Reckless Moment (Mark Cousins)  Mark Cousins intro to the film, YouTube (3:00)

The Reckless Moment (1949) - Crime, Drama, Film Noir  entire film may be seen here on YouTube (1:22:02)

Monday, September 27, 2021

North By Northwest
















































working on the designed set



Director Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchcock arriving in Rapid City ahead of the shoot   

Cary Grant and Hitchcock on the set

setting up the crop duster scene

James Mason, Eva Marie Saint, and Cary Grant

The actors relaxing behind the scenes
















 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NORTH BY NORTHWEST            B+                                                                                         USA  (136 mi)  1959  d:  Alfred Hitchcock

I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know the difference between a hawk and a handsaw.                                                                                                                       —Hamlet from Shakespeare, Hamlet 2.2, SCENE II. A room in the castle. - Shakespeare (MIT)

Coming on the heels of Vertigo (1958), this comedy of errors is a sunny antidote to the gloomy puzzle-piece that preceded it, among Hitchcock’s most commercially successful films, arguably the most viewed, currently listed at #4 on his all-time list (Alfred Hitchcock's most popular movies - MSN), just above NOTORIOUS (1946), REAR WINDOW (1954), and Psycho (1960), while also listed at #4 on AFI’s list of top American thrillers, AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills.  This is vintage Hitchcock at the peak of his creative powers, making Psycho (1960) immediately afterwards, and then The Birds (1963), all among his most successful films and all uniquely different from one another.  His only film made for MGM, this notably thrives on incorporating the shooting of the film with prominent sites that include national monuments like the United Nations building and Mount Rushmore, neither of which are real (though the arrival sequence to the UN was secretly shot), as they weren’t allowed to shoot on the premises, so the United Nations interior is a matte painting, yet the film is shot on location in New York, Chicago, and South Dakota.  Accentuating the trappings of wealth, power, and prestige, the film opens with examples of 1950’s luxury in the crowded elegance of Manhattan buildings like the Plaza Hotel near Central Park and Grand Central Station, with a side journey to the Phipps Estate on Long Island (Old Westbury Gardens), followed by the 20th Century Limited train along the Hudson to Chicago, a quick jaunt to the Ambassador East Hotel, an out-of-the-way bus stop on a vast and empty plain of cornfields in Indiana, to the backdrop of the Mount Rushmore monument, where a full-scale replica was designed on a studio back lot along with a fabricated home (another matte painting) meant to look like a modernist Frank Lloyd Wright house, as in the late 50’s he was the most prominent architect in the world, making this one of the first films to openly highlight the sophistication and luxury of modernist architecture.  Added to the mix is the daunting presence of 1958 white Lincoln Continental Mark III convertible, a sure sign of flaunted prosperity and extravagance, and a capitalist symbol of the Eisenhower era American identity in the 50’s, which was wrapped around the idea of consumerism and wealth, all an illusion, as the country’s failure to come to grips with contentious social issues, like a separate but unequal racial and economic divide, left a sizeable moral vacuum that would define the struggles of the next decade.  However, the playfulness of the film is the most endearing quality, where much of the humor is tongue-in-cheek, displaying a sparkling wit that resembles 1930’s screwball comedy, with Cary Grant (in his 4th and final Hitchcock film) being the suave and sophisticated model of efficiency that defined that era, strangely mirroring BRINGING UP BABY (1938), where Grant goes from being strait-laced and professorial to utterly bonkers and completely irresponsible, while here he evolves from a snarky Madison Avenue wise-ass advertising executive continually making snide remarks over cocktails into a mature and capably responsible human being, ultimately redeeming himself for his earlier complacency.  Buoyed by Bernard Herrmann’s exhilarating musical score, this became Hitchcock’s most successful melding of espionage, comedy, and romance, becoming a surprisingly prophetic template for the James Bond movies that would follow only a few years later.  Made at the height of the Cold War, the intrigue of an international spy scandal was all the rage, allowing Hitchcock to introduce darker and more menacing elements to what is otherwise a thoroughly entertaining romance and adventure-on-the-run picture, combining darkness with light comedy, where witty humor, a love story, suspense, and mortal danger harmoniously merge in this espionage thriller, with the director displaying a mastery of building tension and creating plot twists, becoming a commercially financed luxury model for Godard’s more low-budget Breathless (À Bout de Souffle) (1959) made the same year, with main characters in each caught up in the existential angst of the times.  

Hitchcock’s films exist entirely within a highly stylized, artifical cinematic universe, as they bear no resemblance whatsoever to reality, yet he utilizes the talents of a collective team of creative artists that draw and replicate locations that they could not legally access, using drawings, miniatures, and fake sets.  Viewed by some critics as a lighthearted and trifling work when it was released, the massive popularity surrounding the film has only elevated its status over time.  While it lacks the depth of some of his best films, many believe the models for the film are the British and American spy thrillers The 39 Steps (1935) and SABOTEUR (1942) respectively, yet Hitchcock has effectively improved upon a more endearing characterization of the hero, integrating him more harmoniously into the whole, using humor and charm to beguile audiences, which certainly adds to the overall appeal.  The film follows the incredible story of Roger O. Thornhill (Cary Grant), whose name is a riff off of American producer David O. Selznick, who produced Hitchcock’s first American film Rebecca (1940), where in each the “O” stands for nothing.  Caught up in a case of mistaken identity, believing he is secret agent George Kaplan, he is immediately thrust into a game of high stakes when an ignominious spy agency headed by a villainous Phillip Vandamm (James Mason) and his strong-armed henchman Leonard (Martin Landau, who seems to relish his role of being one of the first gay characters to inhabit a mainstream film) kidnap him in broad daylight and whisk him off to a reclusive estate that belongs to Lester Townsend (Philip Ober), a United Nations diplomat.  When he refuses to divulge state secrets, feigning ignorance, caught up in a Kafkaesque nightmare, they force a quart of bourbon down his throat and send him down a winding coastal road in a car overlooking cliffs where they expect him to crash at his own peril.  But he somehow defies the odds and survives, only to be arrested for drunken driving by the police, who refuse to believe his incredible story, especially when testimony against him has been fabricated.  Thinking the only way to get out of this dilemma is to find the killers himself, he only inflames the situation when he meets the real Lester Townsend at the United Nations, immediately realizing he has been set-up, as Townsend is assassinated on the spot (though he was actually the target!), while he’s photographed holding the murder weapon, making nationwide front-page news, as a police dragnet searches for him.  It’s 40-minutes into the film before viewers realize what’s really behind this cloak and dagger affair, as the Professor (Leo G. Carroll) is seen consorting with his CIA colleagues, realizing Thornhill is just an innocent bystander, but they risk endangering their own agent who has infiltrated Vandamm’s organization, so they keep a safe distance, which leaves Thornhill precariously on his own.  Preferring a train to an airplane, as there are more places to hide, he sneaks aboard an overnight train to Chicago without a ticket, somehow avoiding detection, accidentally encountering Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint, another Hitchcock blonde), sitting across from her at dinner, where the sophisticated banter becomes sexually provocative, where she actually offers him help, allowing him a safe place to hide while rewarding him handsomely, as she helps him escape the next morning, only to discover, after nearly paying the ultimate price, that she’s in cahoots with Vandamm.  Still believing she’s an ally, however, he follows her instructions to meet the real George Kaplan (who doesn’t exist), but he ends up out in the open in the middle of nowhere where he has no means of escape, only to be attacked by a crop duster plane that relentlessly circles back after him, creating one of the most iconic of all Hitchcock set pieces, becoming one of the most analyzed and studied scenes in the entire Hitchcock repertoire, (NORTH BY NORTHWEST: Deconstruction of a Scene (The ...).  A surreal auction scene in Chicago turned into a farce leads to the murky chase finale taking place on the granite stone faces of the Presidents on Mount Rushmore, measuring some sixty feet from chin to forehead, about the same size as the head of the Giza Sphynx, where their constant presence looms over what transpires, as if offering their silent countenance. 

Unlike Erich von Stroheim and Orson Welles, who were destroyed by the studio system, as it stifled and thwarted their profound individualism and extreme originality, Hitchcock was largely a master craftsman, extremely well organized, preferring to shoot in a studio than actual locations, expertly navigating his way through a strangulating studio system by becoming a consummate technician, finishing his films on time without going over budget, rarely discussing the ideas his films generate, preferring instead to describe how each shot was ingeniously set-up.  Written by Ernest Lehman in a rare original story for Hitchcock, ambitiously describing it as “the Hitchcock picture to end all Hitchcock pictures,” sumptuously shot in dazzling color by Robert Burks on VistaVision, one of the most effective Hitchcock techniques here is leaving out huge chunks of information regarding each character’s true motives, identities, and intentions.  Eve Kendall, for instance, continually changes in the eyes of viewers as well as to Thornhill as the story progresses, where her accidental appearance in Thornhill’s life proves to be anything but.  She obviously knows all about him while the clueless Thornhill knows literally nothing about her, so her real intentions (until the end) are never clear.  With the director skillfully controlling access to information, he uses distortion and exaggeration to change how characters perceive each other, emphasizing an atmosphere of deceit and distrust, which perfectly defines how it felt living through the Cold War era.  This constantly changing tonal shift effectively keeps viewers off balance, continually altering the balance of alignment, where no one is safe in this Kafkaesque universe of irrationalities and absurdities.  Hitchcock does achieve his primary goal of demonstrating how easily an average person can undergo a dangerous and traumatizing experience, such as a near-death tragedy, that becomes a life-altering and transforming event.  Having no identity to speak of, Thornhill immerses himself in the assumed identity of George Kaplan, a man of action, one who accepts no excuses while taking on massive risks, and in the process discovers himself.  Despite his star power, Cary Grant comes to resemble that average person caught up in a whirlwind of events that forever changes who they are, where it’s easy for viewers to sympathize with him, a blatantly open Mama’s boy, still attached to his mother (Jessie Royce Landis), where her constant presence continually follows him, like a good luck charm, or is it just the opposite?  Hitchcock, on the other hand, seems to relish the pleasure of putting his star in constant jeopardy, literally twisting him into a pretzel and expecting him to become a contortionist to escape the perilous danger hovering around him, like a bad dream.  It’s a strange twist to make a spy thriller where the lead character is an innocent bystander, knowing nothing about the spy business, drawing parallels between espionage and advertising, early on heard muttering the mantra, “In the world of advertising there is no such thing as a lie.  There’s only expedient exaggeration,” yet in both worlds their ultimate success depends on their ability to manipulate and deceive others.  In this film he is continually bent out of shape, caught up in a wringer and sent through the spin cycle, continually lied to and fed disinformation, yet has to remain calm and clear-headed while under constant distress.  Grant has always been a character who remains cool under pressure, where his sophisticated dexterity with words allows him plenty of leeway, often getting him into and out of trouble, while Eva Marie Saint offers an alluring feminine counterbalance to his masculinity.  They work well together.  It’s the shadowy interjection of the Professor as a narrative device that feels weirdly off-putting and nebulous, continually recapitulating the strange plot twists for viewers and explaining things that might otherwise feel wildly convoluted, as he never really feels like part of the story, but there he is calming the waters that he has continually stirred up, always leaving Thornhill on the verge of drowning.  It’s a seductive formula, feeling more like a fantasy adventure than real life, yet the romantic elements endure, feeling hard earned and well deserved.   

Note – Hitchcock’s appearance comes early as he arrives too late for a bus, the door slammed in his face.