Musashi94
Easily the worst 'traditional' Hitchcock film, "Topaz" tells the tortuously dull story of a French espionage agent who goes undercover in Cuba just prior to the notorious missile scare before returning home to root out a double agent in the French intelligence service. One of these plots could have made a good movie; unfortunately, Hitchcock decides to include both of them and neither of them has anything in the way of a satisfying build-up or conclusion. This is hardly Topaz's only problem however. To start with, the film has the weird distinction of being over-the-top while lacking any sort of energy. To illustrate what I mean, all of the Cubans in the film look like they're trying to cosplay as Fidel Castro with their bushy beards and army uniforms even when they're sitting around in their New York City hotel room. One of the actresses also gets a ridiculously overwrought death sequence where her dress pools out beneath her as she dies. Yet, the acting of most of the cast is dull as dirt; all of these melodramatic elements in the script just come across as strange when the actors are so flat in their performances. The fact that almost no star power is present aside from Michel Piccoli (himself hardly a 'big' name and who is largely wasted in a supporting role) is puzzling, given Hitchcock's clout in Hollywood. As bad as these flaws are, it all comes down to the film's original sin: the awkwardness of how the two plots are stitched together. Just when you're looking forward to the movie being over, the second act begins. This disjointed feeling is compounded by the lack of any likable or interesting characters to keep the audience invested. The main French spy cavalierly cheats on his wife while on assignment in Cuba but he never reconciles (or even reveals these indiscretions) with her at any point. And yet, he's not presented as a flawed hero in any way. All these flaws, plus Hitchcock's rather outdated direction just makes the film look stale when compared to contemporary 1969 films. Thankfully, this was not the film the director went out on.
ElMaruecan82
... yet "Topaz" had none of these. I don't know if it was a movie buff instinct or just a coincidence, but it never topped my Hitchcock watch list, maybe it was the title, the cast or the faded fame. But a few days ago, I saw "Torn Curtain" again and the film convinced me to check out "Topaz". Hitch couldn't possibly make two misfires in a row?Now, I saw "Topaz" (or should I say 'endured') and frankly, when the movie ended, I wanted to reconsider every negative thing I said about it's ill-fated predecessor. Maybe it was Hitchcock's displeasure with working with box-office stars like Paul Newman and Julie Andrews that convinced him to cast 'unknown' actors for mass audiences, but I think it was a tragic miscalculation. Newman and Andrews didn't make "Torn Curtain" a better film, but no matter how uninteresting most of the plot was, they made you care about how strangely uninteresting it was, in "Topaz", there are so many unfamiliar faces that you can only count on the action to engage you, but most of the first act consists on cold and sophisticated discussions between well-tailored and well- spoken men with a central figure, no disrespect toward Frederick Stafford, is too stiff to be sympathetic. How can you care for what a character does if you don't care for the character? That's the question the writers should have asked themselves. You never know where the film is going, we only get that the Cuba Missiles crisis works as a backdrop, the problem is that it takes for granted our attention because the international stability is supposedly at stakes. The problem is that Hitchcock understandably prefers economical directing, so we never get the big picture, there's no real illustration of the political climate, there's a sort of intimacy in the directing that doesn't really evoke some high-scale life-and-death situations, it's just a succession of mini- plots and subplots involving no more than two or three players each time. Costa Gavras' "Z", a political thriller of the same year is the perfect counter-example. This aspect wouldn't have been a flaw if the protagonists were interesting, but for me, only Robert Vernon as the Fidel Castro copy (with his icy blue eyes) and Roscoe Lee Browne as the French Agent did make an impression. Apart from a few little thrills, Hitch never found the proper way to engage the viewer into the story, and I think the real issue here is with the actors, I mean, if you don't have stars, have a great story, if you don't have a great story, have stars. But "Topaz" had none, and I read many comparisons with another political thriller of the same period "The Day of the Jackal". Fred Zinnermann had the merit of clarity and it was a simple plot but one hell of a race against the clock combined with a cat-and-mouse chase, transcended by a meticulous and heart-pounding editing. We knew the mission would fail since De Gaulle couldn't be killed, so the point was to make the Jackal a compelling character, here in "Topaz", we know the mission will succeed, but it doesn't make things any more interesting. Of course, the movie is a legitimate serious spy film, but why should we be indulgent just because it's from the Master of Suspense who certainly had the best intentions? I saw the film on DVD, and I know by experience that the better a Hitch film is, the longer and richer the Bonus Features are. I wasn't the bit surprised when the bonus of "Torn Curtain" only consisted on a short documentary praising the qualities of the film though acknowledging it didn't fit among the Top 10. The case of "Topaz" is even more telling, you don't have a critic but a defense. Vincent Canby said that had Hitch made only "Rear Window" or "Vertigo" or "Psycho", it was enough to stand a legacy, he made certainly twenty high-caliber films and then indisputable masterpieces, so we can accept a few misfires. But "Topaz" is then relegated to "second-tiers". I don't think it belongs to the second category either, after all, why were people so enthusiastic when he made "Frenzy" if it wasn't for finally ending that spy-oddities' streak. "Frenzy" was pure Hitchcockian delight, "Topaz" is an odd and perplexing film with a few good moments, and some beautifully shot ones. Of course, the opening crane shot is a technical prowess followed by the suspenseful porcelain store chase, not to mention the magnificent purple dress falling like a pool of blood which is perhaps one of Hitchcock's cleverest tricks and the Pieta composition with the tortured prisoners, is haunting, but when critics or viewers need to keep saying how much they love some shots, you know there's something wrong in the content. The visual quality can never overshadow the story. And the story had potential but it seemed like espionage wasn't Hitch's strong suit, and he said it himself, he didn't enjoy directing the film, which is probably why he felt the need to go back to his roots with "Frenzy". Regarding the DVD features, I learned that there were three endings to the film, I don't think the ending was the main issue. The problem was the lack of a climax, there was absolutely none, so when it ended, I was like "okay, that's it", frustrated and also relieved because it was over, but who knows which bits have been cut out the editing room, dull bits? Could they be duller than the absurd intervention of the son-in-law, the rather casual ways they got rid of the French villains, played with panache by French actors Michel Picolli and Philippe Noiret. The ending betrayed a lack of motivation and a desire from Hitch to get through the whole thing. So why should we feet so hot about one of his most disliked creations anyway?
sol-
Set in the weeks leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, this Hitchcock thriller details the attempts of the CIA and France's intelligence agency to work out what Cuba is planning to do with their reported missiles. With a basis in real life events, 'Topaz' sounds interesting enough, however, the film was apparently a very troubled production full of scene rewrites, and this uneasiness is very visible. Calling the plot 'muddled' would be an understatement as the screenplay awkwardly tries to weave in espionage intrigue (what does the codeword 'topaz' mean?) with all the tension regarding Cuba. The most disappointing aspect of the film is, however, the characters and performances. There is not a single likable character who is engaging or interesting to follow around. Hitchcock reportedly disliked how two dimensional the antagonists in the source novel by Leon Uris were, and to his credit, John Vernon comes off relatively well as a Fidel Castro type, oozing danger yet never a caricature of evil, however, the fact Vernon is far more fascinating than protagonists Frederick Stafford and John Forsythe never feels right. The film is not, however, quite as worthless as some of its dissenters claim. There are several tense moments throughout, with a clear highlight being an exciting sequence in which the French try to get hold of a red briefcase full of secret documents; the opening defection is also nail-bitingly intense - but these solid bits are few and far between as the film relies far too heavily on dialogue for a movie where the characters are secondary to their actions.
donaldking
I don't care who made it, TOPAZ is a dreadful film. The acting is terrible - John Forsythe and Frederick Stafford make Greg Morris and Peter Lupus in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE look like Olivier and Gielgud. John Vernon looks exactly like one of those stock Latin American revolutionaries that the IMF force overthrew every week. As a thriller, it simply does not thrill. The dialogue is execrable - the dubbing worse. The only interesting bits are when - mercifully - hardly anybody speaks. The blurb on the 2005 DVD describes TOPAZ as a 'riveting' and 'spellbinding espionage thriller.' By the end, 'the danger and the suspense builds to a heart-pounding conclusion in this lavish, globe-trotting thriller.' Ask for your money back - but you won't get it. I think Hitchcock is greatly over-rated: he made some great films, yes, but some terrible turkeys as well. If you want a great espionage film, try THE IPCRESS FILE, THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, THE GOOD SHEPHERD, or the TV series of TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY and SMILEY'S PEOPLE...
