Review of Topaz (1945) by Lady D — 04 May 2011

It's hard to say why Topaz feels less exciting than many of Hitchcock's other movies. Was he getting tired in his advancing age (70)? Was he trying something different by showing a more realistic portrayal of espionage? Hard to say, but he makes do with what he has.

When there are scenes of action (the defection, the infiltration of the Cuban embassy, the death of the lover) and even when there isn't (the lunch scene comes to mind), Hitchcock's flair for dramatic, indelible style and great eye for images remains intact.

But in between, there is A LOT of talking. This is most unusual for Hitchcock who famously derided those sorts of movies that are all talk, instead preferring to use images (and in this movie there are several conversations that are seen but not heard).

Unlike many complaints, I did not find the movie boring and was pleased to see this often unsung side of spy work. But there are some key ingredients missing in this Hitchcock movie that mar its quality.

The cast is hit and miss: some are excellent and some are borderline awful (often they're paired next to each other in the same scene) and this removed me from the movie sometimes. It's also too long and could have done with some trimming.

It also is missing any sort of memorable set piece; those scenes I talked about that retain Hitch's great skill as a director are quite plain in their locations and events. This is probably in line with the film's more low-key approach to espionage, but it removes the larger-than-life quality of Hitchcock's best films.

The script got worse as the movie progressed (this is a famous problem Hitchcock had to deal with-- an unplanned, off-the-cuff script). But there are more good things than bad and the scenes I listed show that Hitchcock still had some gas in the engine.