It works, apparently, for Thornhill reveals that he cannot help but make love to beautiful women, and does so with a straight face to the near total stranger. From any other actor than Cary Grant this would be an example of a sinfully bad piece of dialogue. From Cary Grant, such cockiness seems natural. One must accept that films from this repressed era in Hollywood could not help themselves from shoehorning a romance into a story, but that does not make it a positive. One also wonders if Hitchcock ever saw the range that Saint displayed in her star-making turn in the Elia Kazan directed, and Marlon Brando starring vehicle, On The Waterfront. If he had it must not have occurred to him that a bit of range to her character would have made the film even better.
Mason, on the other hand, shows how to act even with a grimace alone. Watch his mien when his top henchman tells him that Eve has double-crossed him by using an old Gestapo trick. At first, there is incredulity, then betrayal, then hurt, then deep anger. This occurs in mere moments, but it is a master class in the craft. The numerous plot holes include no one at the UN seeing Vandamm’s henchman clearly toss the knife into the patsy, Lester Townsend (Philip Ober), and Thornhill’s silly touching of the knife when Townsend falls into his arms, the utter incompetence of the varied police departments who are after Thornhill, and the fact that the Soviet spies have a safe house and private airport a mere few hundred feet from a national monument, Mount Rushmore, and no locals seem to have noticed this. There are good supporting performances from Martin Landau, as Van Damme’s über-creepy quasi-homosexual top henchman Leonard — another Hitchcockian obsession — and longtime Hitchcock supporting player Leo G. Carroll as The Professor, head of what is presumed to be the CIA.
But the film succeeds despite its plot holes because a) Cary Grant mixes stylish sexiness with wit, and b) the action rarely lets up long enough for the plot holes to matter until a few hours have passed. No, the film is not deep, but few Hitchcock films have depth. Those that do can be counted on a single hand. But, this is one of the few films that can claim that its immanent and massive and abundant style easily trumps substance, and this is due mostly to Ernest Lehman’s light but flashy screenplay.
Article comments
1 - Jonathan Little
I can't say I agree with your assessment of Herrmann's score. The music is classic Herrmann from the Overture to the Finale. How is that opening fandango anything but memorable? It had me hooked immediately the first time I heard it. Then there's the love theme with various different renditions, the Mt. Rushmore suspense music, etc. If you want to hear scores from Herrmann that could honestly be considered "least memorable," you need to check out wonderful films like JOY IN THE MORNING, BLUE DENIM, THE NAKED AND THE DEAD, or TENDER IS THE NIGHT.
2 - Rodney Welch
And what in the hell does this mean: "While the cinematography by Robert Burks is solid, there are no eye-popping moments..."
Excuse me? Are you blind? You don't call the crop-duster scene eye-popping? What about the ending on Mount Rushmore? You don't think that's masterful cinematography? What does cinematography mean to you, if anything?
3 - Dan Schneider
Jon- compared to Psycho, or even The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, this score is rather serviceable, at best. Hear a few bars of the Psycho theeme and you know it instantly. Not so here.
Eye popping as in the great landscape cinematography of an Antonioni, the nature shots of a Herzog, the penetrating visuals of an Ozu. No, the crop duster and Rushmore secenes are standard thriller pieces. Do you consider True Lies a great work of cinematography? The difference is the visuals having a meaning aside from the script, and engaging a lasting memory. The sort of chase scenes you describe have been done before and since, and better. Watch a Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd silent and you'll see.
The film is a good popcorn movie, but nothing deep- i.e.- Hitchcock at his finest.
4 - Rodney Welch
There isn't a shot in anything by Antonioni or Ozu that is as memorable as the crop-duster sequence. It is a classic movie moment, sealed in every viewer's brain forever, which in my book means it is eye-popping.
5 - El Bicho
"pre-James Bondian Cold War thriller"
James Bond predates NxNW by six years. C*sino Royale was published in 1953.
6 - Dan Schneider
Rod- gimme a break. There's nothing in NXNW that comes close to the cinematography in L'Eclisse or L'Avventura, much less the bravura ending of The Passenger.
And the end shots at a beach in Late Spring is far deeper and more touching than the plane sequence in NXNW- which was bettered even in It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World.
El- the first Bond film was after NXNW. We're talking film, not books.
7 - Rodney Welch
Dan -- No one remembers any of that shit but geeks. It's impressive, sure, but EVERYONE remembers being gripped by the sequence in North By Northwest. No one whoever sees it will forget it. You cannot say this about the cinematography of Antonioni and Ozu, and I think there are fans of both men who won't recall everything you refer to. I saw Late Spring twice a few months ago, and I don't remember anything about a beach. I trust you that it was in there, but what really stuck with me were the scenes between the father and daughter.
I wouldn't normally admit this lapse, but Colin McGinn's new book The Power of Film gave me permission, since he pointed out how easily viewers tend to forget a movie within days if not hours after it's over.
But I contend no one has ever forgotten the crop-duster sequence. This may not make it on par with the greatest cinematography ever, but it certainly indicates that your refusal to see it as "eye-popping" is just mere disingenuousness.
8 - Dan Schneider
Rod-
Your average movie goer remembers no films earlier than a decade ago. To ask them of Hitchcock is like asking them of Fatty Arbuckle. C'mon, be serious.
Technically, 50% or more of the crop duster sequence was filmed on rear screen projection, so similar scenes in, say, a True Lies are far better.
Given the reality of public forgetfulness, yr points re: Ozu and Antonioni, and Hitchcock have to be taken in context of true cineastes, and no one there will argue that that or any Hitch scene will stick as long as some of the classic Ozu shots- i.e.- the bottle and lighthouse from Floating Weeds, or the end of The Passenger, or the last ten minutes of L'Eclisse.
It's comparing cotton candy to a steak. I recently phoned a friend, and we talked nearly 20 minutes on the end of The Passenger alone. Hitchcock- and some of his films, got a shrug.
So, if you're saying Hitch and his medium were more LCD and pedestrian- I accede, but yr avr viewer today wwill not recall that sequence any more than an Ozu scene.
9 - Dave
I have a question - in the last scene, vanDamme is shown along with the Professor and other policemen. He was not handcuffed and his tone gave the impression that he was on CIA's side. I didn't quite understand what happened. So was he really the villain?
10 - Robert Keller
No, vanDamme is not in handcuffs, but, yes, he's certainly the bad guy.
And Herrmann's score is far from wan; it's among the best ear candy in cinama history. The opening fandango is repeated three times (drunk car ride and Mount Rushmore) with terrific effect.
11 - JJ
Boy, where to start?
Eva Marie Saint was quite good in this.
Young women do like older men (see Harrison Ford), so it didn't seem unusual.
What is highly unusual is finding the word "boner" in a film review... eeks!
Also, wouldn't Eva Marie Saint be a little lower in the "Hitchcockian blond goddess pantheon"???
Well behind Kim Novack and Tippy at least.
The ending shot where Cary pulls Eva Marie Saint up and cuts to the train cabin was a great shot, brilliantly done,
and definitely not "atrocious". Now you're not just nit picking, but getting a little silly.
I agree with other comments about Herrmann's score. The music is truly great work and one of his best.
At this point,
I had to stop reading any further.
12 - xyz
I fully agree with the review. I saw the film because I read somewhere it was one of the best Hitchcock's films. What a mistake. Eve Marie Saint's performance is awfull, the plot is a pandemonium and the cut between the last two scenes is indeed atrocious.