Topaz (1969)

Just perfect...

From my favorite movies..

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

'Topaz' is quite different than most of the previous movies in the filmography of Alfred Hitchcock and also lacks the (American movie) stars in its distribution, as his fans were accustomed in the 20 or 30 years that preceded its release in 1969. These may be two of the principal reasons that the movie is less credited in by the critics and historians of cinema. There are, however, sufficient reasons of satisfaction for the movie fans, and the film does not fall in my opinion lower than 'Torn Curtain' that preceded it by three years, and also brought to screen a Cold War spy story. On the contrary, I would say.The film brings to screen a novel by Leon Uris which tells a true story of a Soviet spy ring in the high French political environments during the critical days of the Cuban missiles crisis. The events in the fall of 1962 that brought the world closer than ever to an atomic war were since then the subject or background of many books and films, but Hitchcock was the first well-known film director to bring what was at that time very recent history to screen, in a moment when the story was still under censorship in France. However, this was not in the area of comfort for Hitchcock who liked to be very involved in the writing of the story and building of the suspense, an opportunity that was lost with 'Topaz' . This may be also why there is less Hitchcock thrill in this film than we are used. There is yet quality, but more in the details than in the overall architecture.One of the best parts of the film is the rendition of the atmosphere of the time and places where the action takes place. Washington, Moscow, Copenhagen, Paris are all well served by filming on location, the only exception is Cuba, for obvious reasons. We can say that Hitchcock was a pioneer (also) of the international spy thriller, and we can only imagine what would have happened if he had been trusted with a James Bond movie. He also uses in a flawless manner the combination of documentary clips cut and edited together with filmed fiction. The lead actors are not doing great service to the movie, but we can see a progress and less stiff acting than in previous films. It is with the supporting roles that the good surprises appear, with the beautiful and exotic Karin Dor in the Cuban episode, and the French stars Michel Piccoli and Philippe Noiret giving style and credibility to the French episode of the action. It is in the humor of dialogs and situations, in the use of music (composed by Maurice Jarre) and in the creative games of colors that we find some of the Hitchcock touch. Otherwise, we can just enjoy a good action movie based on a Cold War story which has the merit to have been filmed at the time of the Cold War. Not a bad film, but not really one of the best Hitchcock films either.

I saw this movie again after 10 years. I rented it on Amazon.com. Are there two endings to this movie? In the original movies I remember seeing for years, at the end, the character Jacques Granville is told that the Americans don't want him at the meeting. He leaves the room... then you see him go back to his small house and you hear a shot.In the movie I just saw, at the end you see him climbing the stairs to a plane with letters on the stairway in Russian and waving at Andre Devereaux.Has anyone seen the first ending I described?

Easily the worst 'traditional' Hitchcock film, "Topaz" tells the tortuously dull story of a French espionage agent who goes undercover in Cuba just prior to the notorious missile scare before returning home to root out a double agent in the French intelligence service. One of these plots could have made a good movie; unfortunately, Hitchcock decides to include both of them and neither of them has anything in the way of a satisfying build-up or conclusion. This is hardly Topaz's only problem however. To start with, the film has the weird distinction of being over-the-top while lacking any sort of energy. To illustrate what I mean, all of the Cubans in the film look like they're trying to cosplay as Fidel Castro with their bushy beards and army uniforms even when they're sitting around in their New York City hotel room. One of the actresses also gets a ridiculously overwrought death sequence where her dress pools out beneath her as she dies. Yet, the acting of most of the cast is dull as dirt; all of these melodramatic elements in the script just come across as strange when the actors are so flat in their performances. The fact that almost no star power is present aside from Michel Piccoli (himself hardly a 'big' name and who is largely wasted in a supporting role) is puzzling, given Hitchcock's clout in Hollywood. As bad as these flaws are, it all comes down to the film's original sin: the awkwardness of how the two plots are stitched together. Just when you're looking forward to the movie being over, the second act begins. This disjointed feeling is compounded by the lack of any likable or interesting characters to keep the audience invested. The main French spy cavalierly cheats on his wife while on assignment in Cuba but he never reconciles (or even reveals these indiscretions) with her at any point. And yet, he's not presented as a flawed hero in any way. All these flaws, plus Hitchcock's rather outdated direction just makes the film look stale when compared to contemporary 1969 films. Thankfully, this was not the film the director went out on.

I was curious about this film. there was a twenty or so year period where Alfred became Hitchcock and planted down the seed that made him the biggest director in the world, but the guy made movies before and after this period.When we think about the fat man, we think about movies like Psycho and Vertigo which are the highlights and if your a die-hard fan you are familiar with Rope and Strangers on a Train.I was curious about the movies he made out side that twenty year zone, and Topaz was the first that I came up on.Topaz is about a French intelligence agent who gets involved in Cold War politics that lead up to the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis.It's got Hitchcock's stank all over it with camera angles and story set up. One scene in particular, when the french spy has one of his field people get him in to me a Cuban official. The spy watches from across the street as his people make the arrangement. There was no dialogue it was just all visual story telling and it really stands out. The type of scene that Hitchcock fans would rip off over and over again. Too bad Topaz is not a good enough Hitchcock movie.The vibe was just not there. People say Hitchcock lost his edge at this time (He was 69 when he made the film). I think the Birds was the last note worthy film he made, but he kept making films (even one with Robert Redford, which I want to check out).I personally noticed the movie had a different atmosphere, because I noticed that it was filmed outdoors instead of on a sound stage which is where the Fat man made a lot of his films (Not Vertigo, which was filmed all over San Fransisco, and you can take tours of the areas it was filmed).The DVD I saw Topaz on had a interview with Film Critic, Lenard Maltin who stated that Topaz had no stars in it, And that is a point, I knew nobody in this film off hand, and Hitchcock did work with a lot of big stars of the time.Topaz can be handed as proof of what a movie star can do for your film. There is a reason why Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart are stars. They bring something to the role that no one else possibly could.But Topaz had nobody that I could draw myself to (well, except for Roscoe Lee Browne, a character actor who has made guest appearances on all my favorite television shows that he may as well be a star as far as I'm concern. He was the he guy the french spy got to talk to the Cubans in the no dialog scene, which I guess added more awesomeness for me)While having flavor of the Fat man on it, I found Topaz very drawn out to the point where I lost my interest altogether.If you are a die-hard Hitchcock fan, I would give it a try because it really does have that feel to it, but it does look like he lost his edge around this time and I would not recommend for anyone trying to get into the Fat Man.http://cinemagardens.com/