Topaz (1969)

A lot can happen in three years.  Get married, divorced, kids, or follow up the lackluster Torn Curtain with a new hopefully superior film.  That’s actually what I anticipated going into this, though I had no reason too.  The international intrigue behind the plot, the unusually long length of the film (close to 2 ½ hours) and the lack of star power had me hopeful that this would be Hitch’s film through and through.  Sadly, these changes and time did not help much.

The plot deals with a Russian defector to the US who lets them know about a traitor in their midst.  This leads CIA agent Michael Nordstrom (John Forsythe in his first Hitchcock role since The Trouble With Harry) to utilize one of his French contacts Andre Devereaux (played by Frederick Stafford) and send him undercover to Cuba so that he may discover the extent of this conspiracy, and what exactly “Topaz” is (besides the title of this fairly average movie). 

Hard to say what the Master of Suspense saw interesting about this story.  Granted it was more relevant possibly at the time, being made during the cold war and taking place during the Cuban Missile Crisis (the plot is actually positioned to be the cause of the crisis, though references to this just feel forced).  However for me there was hardly any suspense at all, which is of course one of the major traits generally in all of Hitchcock’s films.  Mystery of who the mole was kept the plot moving and my attention on the screen, but only barely so.  Another issue

Actors do fine, with some standout performances by the female leads Dany Robin and Karin Dor, playing wife of Devereaux and lover of Devereaux respectively, but are hardly given the time or space necessary to shine adequately (save for an almost iconic shot with her and her purple dress).  Just as well, John Vernon as the antagonistic Fidel Castro-type Cuban commander Rico Parra almost made me think he was Cuban, but anyone who’s seen Animal House will recognize him right away.  Even Forsythe and Stafford are fine… but that’s it: just fine.  Usually “Hitchcock” mean “exceptional” or some similar adjective when describing aspects of his films.

If I had seen this movie without knowing it was directed by Alfred Hitchcock, I would’ve told you it was an above average thriller made during the 60s and that I would’ve been mildly curious to see who the director was.  There are minor moments that do stick out, mainly as they are unique or experimental (wide shot of dialogue without audio, blending of stock footage with film footage) which can certainly be associated with many films of the Master.  Mostly however, everything is relatively mundane and uncharacteristic of his cinematic abilities or counterparts (music, editing, and other technical features are lacking too). 

Apperantely 3 years wasn’t enough to get back on track.  Maybe Hitch should try another 3…