Review: Topaz

Set around the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the plot involves a Soviet agent (Per-Axel Arosenius) attempting to defect to the US, with American CIA agent Nordstrum (John Forsthe) trying to swiftly move the agent and his family to safety in Washington DC. Frederick Stafford plays Nordstrum’s long-time French acquaintance Devereaux who is tasked by the French government to investigate claims that Soviet missiles with nuclear warheads are set to placed in Cuba. Devereaux is also asked to infiltrate the title spy ring whom the defector claims to be giving NATO secrets to the Russians. Dany Robin plays Devereaux’s wife, who rightly suspects her husband has been unfaithful. Karin Dor is Devereaux’s mistress in Cuba, now the main squeeze of Cuban official John Vernon…who does not like sharing. Roscoe Lee Browne plays a French-Martiniquan agent contact of Devereaux’s, whilst Philippe Noiret and Michel Piccoli play respectively a NATO official and one of Devereaux’s oldest friends.

 

One of the more underrated films from Sir Alfred Hitchcock (whose best films are “Strangers on a Train”, “Vertigo”, “The 39 Steps”, and “Shadow of a Doubt”), this 1969 film version of the Leon Uris is flawed but interesting spy stuff. It’s certainly better than previous Hitchcock spy films like “Secret Agent” and “Torn Curtain”. It would be even better if it had a more charismatic leading man than Czech-born Frederick Stafford, a wooden mixture of George Lazenby and Roger Moore. Stafford looks the spy part but just doesn’t cut it as an actor. Thankfully the technical side of things is worthy and Hitchcock has also cast a bunch of mostly very interesting actors around Stafford to make up some of what Stafford lacks. The colour cinematography of Jack Hildyard (“Hobson’s Choice”, “The Bridge on the River Kwai”, “The Sundowners”), costume design by the great Edith Head (too many credits to list), and production design work by Henry Bumstead (a later collaborator with director Clint Eastwood) are all exemplary, helping to make this one look very classy. In fact, the only visual drawback is Hitchcock’s unfortunate reliance on projection work, especially for driving scenes. As with films like “Marnie” it only helps to date the film unnecessarily. On the plus side, the integration of stock footage of Fidel Castro is pretty seamlessly done. Composer Maurice Jarre (“Lawrence of Arabia”, “The Train”) also contributes a terrific music score.

 

John Forsythe brings a sturdy, no-nonsense presence to his scenes as an American agent associate of Stafford’s. Dany Robin plays Stafford’s wife, and she’s a thousand times better and more charismatic than he is. This was sadly her last film before retirement. The late, great Roscoe Lee Browne briefly livens things up as a French-accented associate of Stafford’s. He’s great fun in a film that probably could’ve used a lot more of him. Deep-voiced Canadian all-purpose villain John Vernon isn’t exactly convincing as a darkened-up Cuban but is otherwise rock-solid as an extremely jealous Cuban dictator. A dark-haired Karin Dor is stunning as his wife and Stafford’s mistress, and she’s certainly a lot better here than she was in “You Only Live Twice”. French actors Philippe Noiret and especially Michel Piccoli are well-cast and like Browne steal their every moment on screen. They arrive late, but you won’t forget them in a hurry.

 

The scenery is terrific on its own, but Hildyard really does shoot this thing perfectly. Look at those wide shots in huge interior sets – stunning. Karin Dor’s final scene is the film’s highlight, with shot composition and costuming perfectly in sync. The film’s one great scene, it’s a masterpiece of suggestion and symbolism from Hitchcock. It’s the one scene where The Master really does seem to be at the helm and in vintage form. Still, that’s more than “Torn Curtain” and “Family Plot” had to offer. I do think Hitch should’ve cut to the chase a lot quicker, it does take a while to get the engines revving here. It’s a shame because a quicker pace and a better leading man could’ve really helped this, it’s not like the plot is uninteresting. It’s just not as interesting as it could’ve been with a more interesting protagonist and more urgency. Hitch does seem to have fun with little gimmicks throughout like having conversations seen but not heard by the audience. I’m sure he enjoyed all those bits of business with the resistance smuggling spy cameras in the orifice of chickens etc. Look out for one of my favourite Hitchcock cameos in a wheelchair at the airport. It’s very funny. As for the much-discussed ending, I feel it’s a tad rushed but wonderfully cynical and a lot better than the silly duel alternate ending or the clunky third ending that was proposed. Ultimately Hitchcock went with the best of three imperfect endings, I think.

 

Imagine how great this could’ve been if it were 20 minutes shorter and with a real actor/movie star in the lead. Instead we’ve got what we’ve got, and what we’ve got is still pretty good. Unlike Hitchcock’s worst films, there’s parts of a terrific film within the confines of this film, even if the film as a whole isn’t a masterpiece. It looks and sounds mostly great, the supporting cast is tops. It’s no “39 Steps”, but it’s certainly one of Hitchcock’s more underrated films. That said, it wasn’t a financial success, it probably ranks 17^th out of the 39 Hitchcock films I’ve thus far seen (Sandwiched in between “North By Northwest” and “Murder!”), and apparently the director himself was unhappy with it. Worth a look for sure, especially if you’re a Hitchcock fan or someone who enjoys the anti-Bond side of spy storytelling. Just be aware that this is quite a long one at around 2 ½ hours in length. The screenplay is by Samuel L. Taylor (playwright of “Sabrina”, screenwriter of Hitchcock’s masterful “Vertigo”), from Uris’ novel.

 

Rating: B-