MARNIE

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.  Written by Jay Presson Allen.  Stars Tippi Hedron, Sean Connery, Diane Baker.
1964, 130 minutes, Color, Rated PG. 

MARNIE was among the last of Hitchcock's films that I saw.  I avoided it for many years thinking, incorrectly as it turned out, that it would not interest me.  Critics seem to be pretty divided on it--either they think it a total misfire, or that it is Hitchcock's last masterpiece.  Truffaut calls it a "flawed masterpiece", and Daniel Spoto dispenses with the "flawed" appellation and flat out calls it a masterpiece.    As far as I 'm concerned, I find myself squarely in the masterpiece side of things.  It is undeniably old-fashioned, and this was held against it when new, but as more time passes it is easier to accept it for what it is.  

Hedron is very good in a largely unsympathetic role.  Her performance is full of hard edges and is a little bit shrill, but that is what the role was so I have a hard time faulting her for it. Grace Kelly considered coming out of retirement to play the role but ultimately decided not to.  With her in the role the movie would have been different as I think she would have been softer and thus more sympathetic. 

 

This was the last time that Hitchcock worked with his usual crew; his director of photography and editor would both die suddenly after this movie, and Hitchcock would fire Bernard Hermann from TORN CURTAIN (and Hermann provides a majestic, lush score for MARNIE).  Because the crew of this film has been together for so long there is an elegance to the execution that is truly exciting to see.  Albert Whitlock provided matte paintings for the film, and from an effects standpoint MARNIE is much more assured than THE BIRDS.  We are usually aware when we are seeing an effect in THE BIRDS, in MARNIE the opposite is true.  That said, the rear-process work is horrible in this film, and the reason for this is hard to ascertain.  Was it because Hitchcock had lost interest in the project by the time they came to be filmed?* Or just an assumption that movie audiences of the day wouldn't care?

Still, for sheer cinematic effectiveness the overall picture stands amongst Hitchcock's best, and surprisingly stands as the logical progression from THE BIRDS, which I always found experimental in construction and execution.  MARNIE is perhaps more experimental in that the characters do not operate on logic, but instinct and emotion.  I suppose this is why so many critics found it silly back in 1964.  I thought it was just grand.

*There is an oft-repeated tale that Hitchcock propositioned Hedron during the making of the film, she rebuffed him, and he lost interest in the film.  Certainly, there is an unevenness to sections of the film suggesting to me that Hitchcock rushed through scenes simply to get them over with (which is why Truffaut calls it flawed),