ViewGuide

Created Sep 29, 2009 10:17AM PST • Edited Sep 29, 2009 10:17AM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   OK 2.5

   A confusing, bizarre and eccentric addition to the Hitchcock filmography, ‘Marnie’ is a rare misstep for Hitch – particularly in its casting of Sean Connery in a role that would have suited an actor with real ability and skill.

4. Acting

   OK 2.5

   Sean Connery, for all his acclaim as 007, is a far from talented actor – and his role as Mark Rutland is evidence enough for anyone to dismiss him as a one-trick pony. Tippi Hedren is the saving grace up to a point – her performance flits between deeply damaged and frenetic, but sometimes crosses over into hamminess.

5. Male Stars Pretty Bad 1.5

   I wonder what was going through Hitchcock’s mind when considering Connery for this part – Rutland is supposed to be American, and Hitchcock’s roster of male actors tend to be American. Casting the worst actor for accents in film history is never a good start, but Connery continues this negative strain by essentially continuing as playboy Bond here. In those films it made sense – in a taut, tense drama he seems out of place, a decision that effectively kills the film. Dramatic scenes that should resonate don’t, and taking into account Tippi Hedren’s excellent performance, it’s a damn shame Connery was hired quite frankly.

6. Female Stars Very Good 3.5

   Hedren, last seen in ‘The Birds’ with Hitchcock, infamously fell out with the director after making this film – but she gives the very best of performances as the distracted, compulsive Marnie. As Rutland delves deeper into this woman’s mind, the audience witnesses her increasing discomfort with her life, her situation and her past actions, culminating in a conclusive revelation that underpins and explains her actions. Hedren is masterful here – better even than Grace Kelly in the Hitchcock acting stakes – and it’s such a shame she was partnered with Connery; James Stewart, Cary Grant or indeed any other American male star of the time Hitchcock had used before would have been more than able support for this great performance.

7. Female Costars Good 3.0

   Diane Baker smoulders onscreen as Mark’s sister-in-law; more than capable of grabbing the viewer’s attentions than Hedren, her character’s machinations and jealousy are underplayed – but her performance and expressions say much more than the tight plot and running time would allow for.

8. Male Costars OK 2.5

   Alan Napier and Martin Gable round out the supporting male cast, the former as Rutland’s father and the latter as a colleague of Rutland, whose experiences link them together in the story of Marnie. Both actors have little to do and as such provide little, though Napier’s interplay with Connery is at times entertaining.

10. Film

    OK 2.5

    Despite the anachronistic (and, at times, incredibly primitive) visual effects employed, the Hitchcock hallmarks of drama, tension and twists are all present – and this film is intelligent in creating a protagonist who cannot be understood until the very last scene – the audience’s opinions and understanding of her actions and motivations constantly ebbing and flowing.

11. Direction Very Good 3.5

    Hedren’s performance is testament to Hitch’s skill and mastery; Connery’s not so much. Sidestepping this, the director’s handle of the dramatic scenes is, as expected, infallible. With dips into psychoanalysis and repression, this film deals with harsher and more realistic ideas than some of his other films perhaps did – fitting indeed considering that this was his last film with many of his collaborators.

12. Play Very Good 3.5

    Scenes that are well-written do require acting of a high standard to reflect their quality – unfortunately, Connery is not up to the task all too often, and instead Hedren’s near-monologues are that which we must cling to. The focus on psychoanalytical thought and repression toward the end of the film are ingenious in that they tie everything we have witnessed thus far together – the screenwriter’s adaptation of the novel carrying more than a slight touch of Hitch’s dark sides and focus on mental states.

13. Music Bad 1.0

    Bernard Hermann again fails Hitchcock with a repetitive and monotonous score – this actually being the worst I have heard used for any of his films. Time and time again the music lets the tension seep from the scenes, when it should be tightening the proverbial noose about the audience. No wonder Hermann and Hitchcock never worked together again, particularly as Hitchcock felt the composer was ‘repeating himself’ in his scores.

14. Visuals Pretty Bad 1.5

    Defended by some as a nod to German Expressionism, the incredibly dated and anachronistic backdrops here are woeful – particularly considering Hitchcock’s amazing vision in such past works as ‘Rear Window’. A director who in one film builds an entire apartment neighbourhood to better convey the visual power of film fails himself in another by using terrible matte paintings and blue screen throughout here – what Hitchcock was trying to achieve is unknown, but for a modern viewer not overly enamoured to the cult of Hitch, a 1964 film with such reliance on poor visuals is not exactly going to draw their attention.

15. Content

16. Edge

    Risqué 2.0

    Akin to ‘Psycho’ and ‘The Birds’, Marnie features some sporadic scenes of violence that are usually out of place in Hitch’s films.

17. Sex Titillating 2.2

18. Violence Fierce 2.1

19. Rudeness Salty 1.6

21. Reality

    Natural 1.0

    Again, typical of a Hitchcock film, the events are all in themselves realistic but in combination and execution quite far-fetched, though the psycho-analytical grounding behind Marnie’s behaviour is a surprisingly complex and interesting nod to real-world psychology.

22. Circumstantial Natural 1.0

23. Biological Natural 1.0

24. Physical Natural 1.0