← Back to Reviews
in
Plot - Richard Blaney is a down on his luck guy, who drinks too much and has just been fired from his job as a bartender. When his ex-wife is raped and murdered by the notorious 'Necktie Murderer', Blaney is seen as the absolute prime suspect. The police have the wrong man, but the true murderer is actually so very close to Blaney that he goes to him for help.
The plot is a familiar one for a Hitchcock film. An innocent man is falsely accused of a serious crime and goes on the run until he can clear his name. However this time we don't find ourselves in an escapist world of espionage, spies and global conspiracy. This time we are in much darker, seedier waters. Coming towards the end of his career (it's his penultimate film) it almost plays as a scrapbook of elements from his previous work. Along with the familiar plot of an innocent man wrongly accused which was found in many a Hitchcock film (The 39 Steps, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Saboteur etc) there is the relationship between Blaney and Rusk that evokes feelings of Strangers on a Train's 'friendship' between Bruno and Guy. There is the sexual deviance of Psycho (even featuring a brief appearance by the killer's mother, perhaps a little nod to Psycho) and a scene where the killer is trying to frantically retrieve a pin from a body (more on that later) which once again brings Strangers on a Train to mind. And even just the fact that he still has his little bag of tricks when it comes to filming techniques.
The film opens with a particularly impressive shot as we swoop along the River Thames, through Tower Bridge and over onto the banks where a politician is pronouncing about pollution in the river, just as a naked female body washes up in said river. This is just one example of Hitchcock's typically macabre humour which makes frequent appearances throughout, though even by his standards some of it is a touch on the morbid and nasty side.
While Hitchcock frequently dealt with some of life's more sinister elements, here it all feels just a bit grislier and lurid, with the violence and sex the most explicit of his career (as far as I'm aware). The horrific rape, and ensuing murder, of Brenda Blaney is deeply unsettling. With a large series of quick cuts it feels in the same style as Psycho's famous shower scene, except in Psycho we never actually saw the stabbing. While numerous people swear they remember it, it was all just implied . Yes we knew fine well what was going on but much of it was created in our minds. Here however it is presented in a full-on graphic manner. And Rusk's coarse uttering of the word 'lovely' over and over again just adds to the sleaziness. It's not even just the vile act and the way it's shot that contribute to this feeling of unease. There is the uncomfortable moment where the victim actually realises what is going to happen and accepts it, no longer struggling. She feels the rape is the worst that is to come and just wants it over with. And then there's her horrific realisation of what is really going to happen as he removes his necktie.
As a result of that first rape scene we don't even need to see the next one to feel its power. All we need to hear is the chilling phrase “You're my type of woman” to know what's coming and pity the woman for her complete ignorance to the fact. It's also here that Hitchcock breaks out one of his cinematic tricks. As the door closes we don't follow them. Instead Hitchcock delivers an extensive and uninterrupted reverse tracking shot away from the door, down the stairs and out onto the street. While all the time we know exactly what is going on. He forces us to picture it in our minds again.
The standout scene for me, the one that will stay with me, takes place in the back of a truck transporting sacks of potatoes. Following the murder of Babs he forces her body into a sack and places it in the back of the truck, only to realise afterwards that he cannot find his monogrammed pin. As it dawns on him where it is, he returns to the body to search, only to have the truck take off, with him trapped in the back. He embarks on a frantic search for the pin, locating it clasped in her hand. Even then he has a problem; he cannot remove it from her hand, frozen by rigor mortis. His solution? To forcibly open up her hand, one finger at a time, breaking each with a cringing loud snap. What is odd, and morally unnerving, is that in a way I felt myself rooting for him to find the pin. It's such a fine scene; in such confined, claustrophobic conditions and with so much desperation on show that I began to identity with the killer's predicament. It also feels like another callback to an earlier piece of Hitchcock's catalogue, coming across as very similar to Bruno's frenzied efforts to retrieve a vital lighter from a sewer.
While there is frequent gallows humour on show, there is also a series of scenes between Inspector Oxford and his wife which are delightfully entertaining in a much lighter tone. While they discuss every grim detail of the case, of greater concern to the Inspector is how to avoid participating in his wife's gourmet food experiments. It may not have much bearing on the film as a whole, but it was perhaps my favourite little facet of the film.
While the 'innocent man accused of a crime he did not commit' angle is nothing new for Hitchcock, what is different is the character who has been falsely accused. Instead of classic everyman James Stewart (The Man Who Knew Too Much), or likeable and sympathetic Farley Granger (Strangers on a Train), we have Richard Blaney, a character who I didn't really care for or sympathise with. He is a man short of temper, and short on redeeming qualities. However he doesn't have to be likeable to still be innocent of murder. Just as Rusk's appealing and charming surface hides a cold hearted sadistic killer inside. While I wanted the true killer to be caught, it was more a feeling of wanting justice served than for Blaney to be saved
The film just exudes the vibe of the 70s. From the fashion to the hairstyles, right down to just the look of the picture it leaves us in no doubt what decade this is from. Except for Hitchcock it's aesthetic is a bit different. These aren't the glamorous streets of San Francisco (Vertigo) or the exotic locales of Morocco (The Man Who Knew Too Much) or the French Riviera (To Catch a Thief). The action takes place on the grittier and murkier streets of London, and we don't have his trademark set-piece set on a famous landmark.
As Hitchcock was frequently blessed with during his career, he has a great script at his disposal. Its main strength for me was just how believable it made all the circumstances seem which make Blaney's guilt seem almost certain. And while none of the actors are particularly big stars (at least not to my knowledge) they provide performances that are certainly worthy of stars. Barry Foster just oozes a creepy menace as the murderer, Jon Finch feels perfectly cast as the innocent but discreditable Richard Blaney. And Anna Masey is very alluring and sexy as the fiery barmaid Babs, even if she is not perhaps the most traditionally attractive of women.
What I did find unusual, and indeed weak, was the stretch of the film following Blaney being picked up by the police. The revelation that Rusk has framed him by placing Babs' clothes in his bag feels rushed, as does Blaney's trial, imprisonment and fake suicide attempt. We don't see Blaney's furious denials and implication of Rusk in court. And what about the couple who could provide him with an alibi for Babs' murder, where were they? And while I could guess at it there seemed to be no real sense of time in play. Has this all taken place in a matter of weeks, months, years? Oh and how did Blaney convince the other patients to aid him in his escape?
Conclusion – Falling a touch short of Hitchcock's truly great works, and not the entertaining flight of fancy many of his films were, this is still a wonderful piece of suspense and thrills. It's a dark, often disturbing, creation that will most likely stay with you for a good while after the credits have rolled. And it proved even at this stage in his career the Master of Suspense still had the ability to shock and wow.
|
|
Year of release
1972
1972
Directed by
Alfred Hitchcock
Alfred Hitchcock
Written by
Anthony Shaffer (script)
Arthur La Bern (novel)
Anthony Shaffer (script)
Arthur La Bern (novel)
Starring
Jon Finch
Barry Foster
Anna Massey
Alec McCowen
Jon Finch
Barry Foster
Anna Massey
Alec McCowen
Frenzy
Plot - Richard Blaney is a down on his luck guy, who drinks too much and has just been fired from his job as a bartender. When his ex-wife is raped and murdered by the notorious 'Necktie Murderer', Blaney is seen as the absolute prime suspect. The police have the wrong man, but the true murderer is actually so very close to Blaney that he goes to him for help.
The plot is a familiar one for a Hitchcock film. An innocent man is falsely accused of a serious crime and goes on the run until he can clear his name. However this time we don't find ourselves in an escapist world of espionage, spies and global conspiracy. This time we are in much darker, seedier waters. Coming towards the end of his career (it's his penultimate film) it almost plays as a scrapbook of elements from his previous work. Along with the familiar plot of an innocent man wrongly accused which was found in many a Hitchcock film (The 39 Steps, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Saboteur etc) there is the relationship between Blaney and Rusk that evokes feelings of Strangers on a Train's 'friendship' between Bruno and Guy. There is the sexual deviance of Psycho (even featuring a brief appearance by the killer's mother, perhaps a little nod to Psycho) and a scene where the killer is trying to frantically retrieve a pin from a body (more on that later) which once again brings Strangers on a Train to mind. And even just the fact that he still has his little bag of tricks when it comes to filming techniques.
The film opens with a particularly impressive shot as we swoop along the River Thames, through Tower Bridge and over onto the banks where a politician is pronouncing about pollution in the river, just as a naked female body washes up in said river. This is just one example of Hitchcock's typically macabre humour which makes frequent appearances throughout, though even by his standards some of it is a touch on the morbid and nasty side.
While Hitchcock frequently dealt with some of life's more sinister elements, here it all feels just a bit grislier and lurid, with the violence and sex the most explicit of his career (as far as I'm aware). The horrific rape, and ensuing murder, of Brenda Blaney is deeply unsettling. With a large series of quick cuts it feels in the same style as Psycho's famous shower scene, except in Psycho we never actually saw the stabbing. While numerous people swear they remember it, it was all just implied . Yes we knew fine well what was going on but much of it was created in our minds. Here however it is presented in a full-on graphic manner. And Rusk's coarse uttering of the word 'lovely' over and over again just adds to the sleaziness. It's not even just the vile act and the way it's shot that contribute to this feeling of unease. There is the uncomfortable moment where the victim actually realises what is going to happen and accepts it, no longer struggling. She feels the rape is the worst that is to come and just wants it over with. And then there's her horrific realisation of what is really going to happen as he removes his necktie.
As a result of that first rape scene we don't even need to see the next one to feel its power. All we need to hear is the chilling phrase “You're my type of woman” to know what's coming and pity the woman for her complete ignorance to the fact. It's also here that Hitchcock breaks out one of his cinematic tricks. As the door closes we don't follow them. Instead Hitchcock delivers an extensive and uninterrupted reverse tracking shot away from the door, down the stairs and out onto the street. While all the time we know exactly what is going on. He forces us to picture it in our minds again.
The standout scene for me, the one that will stay with me, takes place in the back of a truck transporting sacks of potatoes. Following the murder of Babs he forces her body into a sack and places it in the back of the truck, only to realise afterwards that he cannot find his monogrammed pin. As it dawns on him where it is, he returns to the body to search, only to have the truck take off, with him trapped in the back. He embarks on a frantic search for the pin, locating it clasped in her hand. Even then he has a problem; he cannot remove it from her hand, frozen by rigor mortis. His solution? To forcibly open up her hand, one finger at a time, breaking each with a cringing loud snap. What is odd, and morally unnerving, is that in a way I felt myself rooting for him to find the pin. It's such a fine scene; in such confined, claustrophobic conditions and with so much desperation on show that I began to identity with the killer's predicament. It also feels like another callback to an earlier piece of Hitchcock's catalogue, coming across as very similar to Bruno's frenzied efforts to retrieve a vital lighter from a sewer.
While there is frequent gallows humour on show, there is also a series of scenes between Inspector Oxford and his wife which are delightfully entertaining in a much lighter tone. While they discuss every grim detail of the case, of greater concern to the Inspector is how to avoid participating in his wife's gourmet food experiments. It may not have much bearing on the film as a whole, but it was perhaps my favourite little facet of the film.
While the 'innocent man accused of a crime he did not commit' angle is nothing new for Hitchcock, what is different is the character who has been falsely accused. Instead of classic everyman James Stewart (The Man Who Knew Too Much), or likeable and sympathetic Farley Granger (Strangers on a Train), we have Richard Blaney, a character who I didn't really care for or sympathise with. He is a man short of temper, and short on redeeming qualities. However he doesn't have to be likeable to still be innocent of murder. Just as Rusk's appealing and charming surface hides a cold hearted sadistic killer inside. While I wanted the true killer to be caught, it was more a feeling of wanting justice served than for Blaney to be saved
The film just exudes the vibe of the 70s. From the fashion to the hairstyles, right down to just the look of the picture it leaves us in no doubt what decade this is from. Except for Hitchcock it's aesthetic is a bit different. These aren't the glamorous streets of San Francisco (Vertigo) or the exotic locales of Morocco (The Man Who Knew Too Much) or the French Riviera (To Catch a Thief). The action takes place on the grittier and murkier streets of London, and we don't have his trademark set-piece set on a famous landmark.
As Hitchcock was frequently blessed with during his career, he has a great script at his disposal. Its main strength for me was just how believable it made all the circumstances seem which make Blaney's guilt seem almost certain. And while none of the actors are particularly big stars (at least not to my knowledge) they provide performances that are certainly worthy of stars. Barry Foster just oozes a creepy menace as the murderer, Jon Finch feels perfectly cast as the innocent but discreditable Richard Blaney. And Anna Masey is very alluring and sexy as the fiery barmaid Babs, even if she is not perhaps the most traditionally attractive of women.
What I did find unusual, and indeed weak, was the stretch of the film following Blaney being picked up by the police. The revelation that Rusk has framed him by placing Babs' clothes in his bag feels rushed, as does Blaney's trial, imprisonment and fake suicide attempt. We don't see Blaney's furious denials and implication of Rusk in court. And what about the couple who could provide him with an alibi for Babs' murder, where were they? And while I could guess at it there seemed to be no real sense of time in play. Has this all taken place in a matter of weeks, months, years? Oh and how did Blaney convince the other patients to aid him in his escape?
Conclusion – Falling a touch short of Hitchcock's truly great works, and not the entertaining flight of fancy many of his films were, this is still a wonderful piece of suspense and thrills. It's a dark, often disturbing, creation that will most likely stay with you for a good while after the credits have rolled. And it proved even at this stage in his career the Master of Suspense still had the ability to shock and wow.