philosopherjack
It's rather hard to get a fix on Alfred Hitchcock's Topaz, and all too easy to reflexively brush it aside as an illustration of the director's supposed late-career artistic exhaustion. As with many spy films of the period, exhaustion is actually central to its theme, of men (it's usually men) in suits sublimating their personal lives to the grand geopolitical struggle, even though the specific contribution of their life-threatening exploits to that struggle is often unclear, especially on the many occasions when one's masters prove untrustworthy (the treacherous scheme behind the film's title seems like such an example of privileged access and power collapsing in on itself). Topaz has a lot of rather flatly played conversation between such men, interspersed with set-pieces which intermittently exhibit Hitchcock's legendary compositional genius and visual intensity. It makes you reflect though how often those fraught set-pieces drew on explicitly voyeuristic or neurotic underpinnings - Topaz by comparison is drained of much in the way of desire or obsession, or even recognizable human demonstrativeness. The film's abstraction - its lack of interest in any kind of cultural specificity (the two main Cuban characters are played by a Canadian and a German) - becomes its own kind of statement on the milieu's moral confusion, bolstered by an unusually sprawling narrative that keeps shifting focus between locations and protagonists, reflecting the underlying sense of ambiguous ethics and boundaries. While it feels like an old man's film in many ways, the cast contains a startling number of actors from the French New Wave (it's a rich resource for any Bacon-type degrees-of-separation exercise), providing its own sense of renewal; Michel Piccoli's cheery wave in the final moments, and the final shot of a newspaper being blown away, suggest that whatever the momentousness of the world events in the background, the director is mostly interested in moving on from them.
zkonedog
Being directed by the Master of Suspense, "Topaz" indeed contains an interesting plot. The trouble, however, is that it moves at such a glacial pace that it requires a bit of effort to finish.For a basic plot summary, "Topaz" is an espionage tale focusing on Andre Devereaux (Frederick Stafford), who (along with wife, child, Latin lover, and national government) finds himself in a mess of government secrets involving the Cubans, French, and Russians.The actual espionage portions of this film are quite interesting and compelling. Hitchcock keeps you guessing up until the very end, when he then throws twist after twist at you until the ultimate climax. Though the overall plot is a bit slow to develop (like everything else in the movie), by the end you'll really want to see how things turn out.The trouble, however, is that "Topaz" is far too slow-paced to generate any really momentum from plot point to plot point. There is none of the usual witty Hitch-style humor or snappy dialogue in this one. Instead, it bogs down in sappy romance and erstwhile character development.Thus, I consider "Topaz" to be a weak Hitchcock film. Though the overall kernel of story is interesting, it lacks the usual Hitch suspense & tension. Unless you are a die-hard Hitchcockian, this one can easily be skipped.
janmderow8
Hitchcock's attempt to do a movie of Uris's cold war spy novel is entertaining, as all Hitchcock's films are, but I would wager that he agonized over this one. He was very good in the scenes where the politicians/intelligence agents are meeting over 'who knows what about whom, and what does it mean, and who is going to leak what to whom, and how will this affect everyone, and let's do whatever it takes to find out.' Hitchcock is always a genius in the one-on-one close-ups whereby body language so betrays the hidden dark secrets, but I am not so sure about the scenes that are supposed to explain to a movie audience just who is an enemy of whom, and who is out to stab whom in the back (if you know what I mean). Personally, I think Cubby Broccoli does a better job of these kinds of spy stories in the James Bond series.The Hitchcock action sort of stops and starts in jerky movements, like a car with a faulty engine. Copenhagen, to Washington, to Cuba, to Paris, back to Washington. Getting on planes, getting off planes. From unhappy wives to anxious daughters to an ambitious son-in-law (his loyalty was to whom? And what exactly was his purpose in the film?) From enigmatic mistresses to servants who are agents (for whom? and why?) The only explanation: "Cuba is a prison." Huh? In the early days Castro was a saint! To me, the best scene in the movie is that of getting the defector and his family out of Copenhagen. That was pure Hitchcock. Hitchcock never gave attention to the blatant "kissy, kissy" stuff in his movies like he did in this one. The romance was almost also implied, which made it even more magic. Those particular scenes in this one felt like A) filler or B) everyone in Hollywood is doing it; we should also do it.This movie was to me one of the weakest of the Hitchcock events. It is painful to compare it to "North by Northwest," "Rear Window," "Witness for the Prosecution," "Dial M...,' etc, etc, etc. The morale of this experience is, stay true to yourself and your craft, no matter what.
SnoopyStyle
Russian KGB official Boris Kusenov defects with his family to the States. He is arrogant and gives some partial info to the CIA about Cuba. CIA agent Mike Nordstrom gets his French intelligence agent friend André Devereaux to investigate the Russians' involvement in Cuba. Meanwhile the defector discloses a French spy ring codename Topaz.The defection works great. It is an exciting start to the movie. But I feel that there are a lot of static stationary scenes. It doesn't have enough movement to denote the needed action. On the plus side, there are other things here like the jealous wife of the French agent, and the spy craft minutia. But mostly it's a little bit slow.The fact that the main protagonist agent is French may be a hindrance to this movie. This is not a Bond movie. But it's also not morally ambiguous. Director Alfred Hitchcock has made something in between. It's a French Bond without much of the action. And the ending just fizzles out. It is a fairly average spy movie with some interest Hitchcock-style scenes.
AD
