Torn Curtain Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Suspense! Azione! Sorpresa! [Suspense! Action! Surprise!]
It tears you apart with suspense!
American scientist Michael Armstrong defects to Eastern Europe, followed by his reluctant fiancée Sarah Sherman. It's no surprise to learn that the defection is not genuine, and that his real mission is to steal a secret mathematical formula from a professor in Leipzig.
| Paul Newman | Professor Michael Armstrong |
| Julie Andrews | Sarah Sherman |
| Lila Kedrova | Countess Kuchinska |
| Hansjörg Felmy | Heinrich Gerhard |
| Tamara Toumanova | Ballerina |
| Ludwig Donath | Professor Gustav Lindt |
| Wolfgang Kieling | Hermann Gromek |
| Günter Strack | Professor Karl Manfred |
| David Opatoshu | Mr. Jacobi |
| Gisela Fischer | Dr. Koska |
| Mort Mills | Farmer |
| Carolyn Conwell | Farmer's Wife |
| Arthur Gould-Porter | Freddy |
| Gloria Gorvin | Fräulein |
| Robert Boon | Prof. Winkelmann |
| Alfred Hitchcock |
6.60 out of 10 (6302 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Godawful cold-war propaganda film
posted on 31 Aug 2009Maybe it was the trend of the times to make pro-American propaganda films, but it still stings to see Alfred Hitchcock make a film like this. If you take this film seriously, it is so blatantly political, in such incredibly naive way, that it is not worth watching. The film totally fails in any way to seriously approach the matter of the horrendous humanitarian disaster which eastern Europe was during the cold war.The American spy makes it back home with his sweetheart - happy ending and we can all feel good about the state of the world. When Newman and Andrews get pulled into safety at the Swedish harbor towards the end of the film, one of the captains greeting them actually says, "we always keep warm blankets for refugees." Oh for crying out loud...This film could work well as a spoof on wartime propaganda films, maybe that's what Hitchcock intended?
They captured the feeling of East Germany...
posted on 31 Aug 2009It has to be said again - Paul Newman and Julie Andrews are badly miscast as the leads in "Torn Curtain". All along this movie I just saw them as Paul Newman and Julie Christie, not as the characters they play. She was especially out of place being so prim and healthy while wearing that hairdon't. Newman was the sex object in this one, seen in various states of undress while Andrews just shows off drab Edith Head creations. They did have one good scene between them in her hotel room after the first night in east Berlin.The idea seemed good at the time : the two stars + Hitchcock + political spy thriller = excitement... I understand what brought them all together but to quote an earlier poster, the film bored me to tears, even though there are plenty of Hitchcock moments. The film was badly in need of trimming, some scenes going on forever!
The Cold War was so sad that it makes us laugh today
posted on 31 Aug 2009Hitchcock was not brilliantly inspired with this film, even and maybe especially in 1966. It is true it was a very deep period in the Cold War, but because the trap of a war the US were already largely engaged in and involved in, the Vietnam War, was literally starting to shake the whole world with horror and to menace that world on its very basis after the sigh of relief we all let out after the Cuban missile crisis. So Hitchcock had to do a cold war film, so what, and he chose the easiest target he could find, East Germany, though that was rather easy, but even if it was easy it did not take him away from the good old European or Western tradition he would have lost if he had gone further East, and then he would have been lost in translation. And at the same time we feel there is at least one tongue in one cheek, and I would say on both sides of the mouth. What makes it a whole farce in a way? It is the whole vanity of the spying-counter-spying mission of that poor Professor Armstrong. To get out of an East German scientist the key scientific element of a discovery that could save the world from any nuclear war. First it was absurd to imagine the East doing some research to guarantee peace since western propaganda was repeating day after and night after night and week after week that their standard identity was that of a war-mongering empire. But the best of it all is that they send a scientist to get that element out of this East German, and that that amateur spy is getting the secret by tricking the East German into revealing him that secret out of vanity. And of course the East German professor understands he has been tricked by an ignoramus, but slightly too late. And every detail is going that way. Every situation is absurdly upside down. And these impossible elements become some kind of black, very black, blacker than black humor. Blacker than I you die, as the saying could have it. You'll have to watch the film to get a good laugh. In the entirely collectivized agriculture of East Germany you have one farm worker on his tractor doing nothing in the middle of a field, alone, and running around on his tractor waiting for the arrival of our Armstrong to tell him who knows what about who knows what. That is probably the most incredible element in that film, that absolutely solitary person in a regime that was based on the total absence of solitude. And what about the girl in the totally isolated farm alone again and her carelessness of not erasing the symbolic PI from the dirt in the farmyard. And once again what was that solitary farm doing in a collectivized agriculture? And the escape is more than a laugh. It is sad today to be so naively funny. Escape upon escape with so thin threads to hold it all up that we wonder if it is not some kind of joke. But the best is the female ballet dancer who recognizes Armstrong and his girlfriend in the middle of the opera from the stage with all limelight and overhead lights and all other lights on and blaring their dazzling light. Anyone who has any knowledge about that kind of situation will say it is impossible. Stage lights are like an unbreakable cocoon of light for the artists on the stage. Really that kind of humor is like "everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to go now". The final stages of the escape I can't tell because they are too sad in their fun, especially the episode of highwaymen on East German roads. If there was something typical of East Germany, it was their extraordinary honesty. Stealing was not even a crime that had to be banned or forbidden because stealing was just foreign to their minds. That was probably the best achievement of these communist societies: they ignored crime, not because it was not advertised, but just because it did not exist, or was so marginal that it was anachronistic to mention it. At the same time Hitchcock captured some of the traits of that East German society so well that it is better than "Goodbye Lenin", even if the mention of "good" coffee is so nostalgically true. I am afraid a modern audience might find it boring because it is, since every single detail has to be remembered out of oblivion.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
Sub-standard Hitchcock due to poor script
posted on 31 Aug 2009I was quite disappointed in this movie. I am a big Hitchcock fan and usually like most all his works. But this one is quite lacking in the high standards that I usually have come to expect from a Hitch movie.Suspense is usually top of the list on what Hitchcock does best, but this one left me lukewarm if not cold. There are a few scenes that raise your interest level, like the bus scene where are they are trying to escape ahead of the real bus that is following behind. Also, the close call at the movie theater where you just know Newman and Andrews are sitting ducks - but they manage to escape again. While others found the murder scene most intriguing, I found it rather comical and hard to believe.Also, usually Hitchcock movies are quite beautiful in their cinematography, but this one seemed cheap and poorly done. The fake back drops and bad process shots are very poor by usual Hitchcock standards.If I had to lay blame to one area, it would be that script failed to deliver much to work with. The suspense elements are just not strong enough, a lot is predictable and the pace rather slow. I'm not sure Newman was the best choice for this role either. He just didn't come across as the nuclear scientist type.
It's like yelling fire in a crowded theater
posted on 31 Aug 2009(Some Spoilers) When your told that the highlight of a movie is a long drawn out scene of a person getting brutally murdered, which is exactly what it was, to show how difficult it is to kill someone who doesn't want to be killed you know that you, as a member of the audience, and the movie , "Torn Curtain", are in for a long and tedious ride.The ride actually comes later in the film with its two top stars rocket scientist and esteemed physics professor Michael Armstrong, played by the late Paul Newman, and his pretty but what seems like bored fiancée Sarah Sherman, Julie Andrews, on he run from the East German Secret Police-the STASI for short-for the entire second half of the film.The plot is nothing really to write home about in that its been done dozens of times, and far better, before "Torn Cutain" itself was released in the summer of 1966. The fact that Alfred Hitchcock directed it in itself is worth spending a few hours, two hours and eight minutes to be exact, watching it and trying to figure out just what the movie is all about?American physics professor Michael Armstrong is a bit turned off on his country,the USA,in not financing with millions of tax payer dollars his pet project-Gamma V-that would in effect make nuclear war obsolete. Giving his fiancée Sarah a song and dance act in him traveling to Stockholm Sweden for official business Michael in fact plans to defect to Communist East Germany and sell his services to them, the war mongering Communists, in the name of "World Peace".Sarah who's suspicious of her handsome and cute, in a manly way, future husband of cheating on her finds out that he's in fact traveling to East Germany not Sweden! Getting on the same plane that Michael is on Sarah is discovered by him just as he's about to depart on the East Berlin Airport's tarmac. In what has to be by far Newman's, as Professor Armstrong, best acting in the movie he adamantly demands Sarah to take the next plane back to West Berlin! It's soon becomes obvious, if it weren't already, that Michael is really a spy, without the authority of the US State Department, for the US! Michaels so-called defection to the Communist East Berlin Government is just a sham in order for him to get in contact with Karl Marx University's top physic professor Gustav Lindt, Ludwig Bonath. Michael plans to pick Prof. Lindt's brains, in a mental sparring session, in order for him to find out what he knows about Gamma V that can in the end help both Michael and the USA perfect it!Having no choice but to have Sarah, who thinks that Michael is a Communist spy, tag along with him, as his assistant in rocket research, Michael's plans in finding out the secrets of Gamma V fall apart almost as soon as they began. It's only that the East German STASI-Secret Police-are so ineffective that Michael gets to see Prof. Lindt and, in a long and boring BS session with him, finds out how it-Gamma V-works! This happens just before the very bright Prof. Lindt suddenly realizes that Michael, who's just bull sh*ting his way through the entire conversation with him, who's supposed to be a genius in the complicated matters of modern rocket propulsion,as well as advanced nuclear physics, is totally ignorant of the subject!With the help of a number of key characters, a bus driver Polish Countess Postal clerk and stage hand with a very obvious and ill fitting red wig, popping up at the right time and in the right place both Michael and Sarah end up making it to safety out of East Germany by sailing, in an East German freighter, to the port of Stockholm Sweden by the time the movie finally ends. The very place that Michael was supposed to travel to before all this mindless intrigue and unintentional comedy happened!You can see right away that pretty and adorable Julie Andrews was totally miscast in the film in her not being able, as hard as she tried, to be believable in her role of Michael's fiancée Sarah Sherman. Julie looked lost in most of the scenes that she was in just staring into space and looking as if she was either hypnotized or suffering from a sever case of sleep deprivation.Paul Newman was not at all himself in looking both tired and disgusted in being forced, by his bosses at Universal Studios, to play the part of the genius physics professor-and top rocket scientist- Michael Armstrong. In most of the action sequences in the film where Newman and his fiancée Julie Andrews were running for their lives he looked as if he wanted to get caught, and executed, just to have a reason to get out of the movie!
It keep my hole attention.
posted on 31 Aug 2009This is not the best Hitchcock film, but it's not the worst. I just get a Hitchcock's box set and I just saw this one. Tt keep my hole attention all the minutes, it's fully suspense. The way that you are find out new things, and the way that you know more than some other characters make you hope the other character tell them, or find it out... Heh, its really interesting. This movie also has the Hichcock sign everywhere. There's a scene where someone stick a knife on someone, it's just brilliant, all those individual shot, close ups.I like it, but it's not one of those movies that I would see again. I love Vertigo, for me that's the best Hitchcock move all time. He has a lot of really good ones thought.
"Look mister, why can't you leave this intelligence work to us professionals?"
posted on 31 Aug 2009Every once in a while I like to go into a movie cold, without knowing what it's about or reading the DVD or video sleeve for a quick synopsis. That's the way I approached "Torn Curtain", along with a preconceived notion that that it might have some similarity to "Psycho", with the image of a slashing knife going through a shower curtain or some similar parallel. The surprise of course is the play on words in the title that does service to the era's preoccupation with the Iron Curtain, a concept that's already fading to the consciousness of those too young to remember the historic events of late 1989 when the Berlin Wall actually came down. The other surprise had to do with the picture's lead actors, I didn't know that Paul Newman and Julie Andrews had ever worked for Alfred Hitchcock.The early going was somewhat disorienting for me, I just didn't want to believe that Newman was cast as a traitor to his country. That set up was cleverly handled, particularly with Professor Armstrong's (Newman) double agent status kept a secret from his fiancée Sarah Sherman (Andrews). As the story unfolds however, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that Armstrong's mission had any chance of success. Especially after Gromek's disappearance and the recovery of the motorbike at the farm. Speaking of which, I got a kick out of that scene where Armstrong and the farm wife dispatched the German bodyguard. While being strangled, Gromek rather calmly advised Armstrong that he ought to stop because he (Gromek) was a trained professional. Like that was going to have an impact on Armstrong's decision to try and stay alive, hmm.Hey, how about the line Gromek used earlier to Armstrong while in the museum - "Strictly for the birds, huh?" I wonder if Hitchcock was paying tribute to his 1963 suspense film.Overall, I rather liked this film despite it's disapproval with the critics. Curiously, it seems that I wind up on the opposite side of most viewers for Hitchcock's pictures, as I don't particularly think "Strangers On A Train" and "Shadow Of A Doubt" deserve the reputation they have for reasons expressed in my reviews of those films in this forum. I guess that's one of the benefits of going into a picture cold as it were, there aren't any prejudices as to whether one should like the picture or not.
Alfred Hitchcock Tears it Up
posted on 31 Aug 2009Paul Newman (as Michael Armstrong) and Julie Andrews (as Sarah Sherman) are celebrating an early honeymoon, under their bed covers; it's a good way to stay warm while the Cold War rages, and heating systems fail. Ms. Andrews doesn't know it, but Mr. Newman is preparing to defect to the Soviet Bloc. Further explanation would spoil the plot, which takes both expected and unexpected turns.Alfred Hitchcock's "Tom Curtain" is masterfully directed; and, the otherwise more sunnily disposed Newman and Andrews are surprisingly effective. Their lesser known supporting players are appropriately chilling - especially the electrifying Wolfgang Kieling (as Hermann Gromek); his ghastly expiration scene is a classic. Mr. Hitchcock received some bad rap for his "Torn Curtain"; as, understandably, reviewers held his films to increasingly difficult to attain expectations. Still, Hitchcock and crew create an extraordinary frosty, paranoiac Cold War spy chiller.The film might have been perfected with some additional characterization given for Newman and Andrews to work with; either or both of their characters might have had an intriguing past relationship with, perhaps, the "Ballerina" (Tamara Toumanova) or the "Countess" (Lila Kedrova). As it stands, Mr. Kieling and others have more interesting backgrounds than either of the leads. ******* Torn Curtain (7/14/66) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Paul Newman, Julie Andrews, Wolfgang Kieling, Lila Kedrova
By No Means Hitchcock's Best, but Nonetheless, a Great Film
posted on 31 Aug 2009Torn Curtain is an edge of your seat thrill ride that scarcely gives you a moment to breathe. Sure, it's no Rear Window or The Birds, but I think it still deserves a spot among the classics. Hopefully you'll like it as much as I have.The film has a great cast including two of the biggest stars at the time, Julie Andrews and Paul Newman. All the performances are great. The story and action are both top notch and it will definitely keep you guessing as to what exactly is going on. Not to mention the extremely intense climax.Long time Hitchcock fans such as myself will definitely get a kick out of this one. It's truly a gem that needs to be seen.
Hitchcock/cold war spy thriller melange
posted on 31 Aug 2009A cold war thriller, although it's more 'a Hitchcock' by virtue of its technical assembly. It's also an extraordinary film for having Paul Newman and Julie Andrews, two huge stars of the time, playing against their and the director's type. Newman's understated, glowering masculinity is less suited for the director's auteuristic approach; I don't believe him as a nuclear physicist either. Andrews is too composed and sharp-witted for the co-heroine. However, both do a fine job, Newman as the action-man-on-the-run and Andrews as absorbing the chain of events into which she is thrown.The film is a must see for those interested in the construction of a thriller upon the Hitchcock template. Techniques going out of fashion in the 50s are still employed as well as some unwitting novelties - the ballerina recognition sequence is extraordinary. Could have done without the superfluous bus-chase sequence though. 6/10
Torn Cardboard
posted on 31 Aug 2009It may have sounded like a perfect commercial operation. Two huge box office stars, Paul Newman and Julie Andrews with Hitchcock no less, at the helm. Paul Newman and Julie Andrews have the sexual chemistry of two white slices of bread and Hitchcock didn't have Bernard Herrman at his side. In fact Hitch and Herrmann broke off their successful marriage during this production. Pity. I love Hitchcock. There is a detachment here never seen before in a Hitch flick. As if the master was tired or uninterested. Paul Newman seems in a hurry to get the hell out of there - no pun intended. Julie Andrews seems bewildered and whatever little she's ask to do it's way beneath her. Lila Kedrova comes as a welcome relief. I can't believe the ones who accused her of being over the top. Over the top? Of course she was over the top, brilliantly. I love actresses and actors who chew the scenery but are believable, moving, entertaining, hysterically funny...Bette Davis, Charles Laughton, Geraldine Page, Kim Stanley... Lila Kedrova chew the scenery but you didn't forget her and in "Torn Courtain" you were grateful for someone chewing something. I also enjoyed Tamara Toumanova in her funny self parody. Her spotting Newman at the theater was one of the highlights of this minor Hitchkock film.
A classy and polished Hitchcock spy story
posted on 31 Aug 2009'Torn Curtain (1966)' tends to be regarded as one of the black sheep of Hitchcock's late-career output. After a first viewing, I can't say I understand why it has received such a poor reputation. Certainly, the film seems somewhat mediocre when compared to such timeless classics as 'Psycho (1960)' and 'Vertigo (1958),' but, then again, so does just about every other film that any director has produced in the last 100 years. 'Torn Curtain' is another of Hitchcock's capable attempts at a spy picture, a sort of traditionally-styled rendering of a James Bond film {Terence Young's 'Dr. No' had been released in 1962 to enormous success, initiating a multi-billion dollar saga that was already reaping huge rewards by 1966}. Even though the chemistry between the two stars, Paul Newman and Julie Andrews, doesn't always work, Hitchcock focuses much of the film on the diverse range of foreign characters, a selection of unusual and contrasting eccentrics who make the film a definite joy to watch.Michael Armstrong (Newman) is a respected American scientist who has seemingly defected over to East Germany to aid their nuclear weapons research {the Cold War being very much alive-and-well at the time}. Sarah Louise Sherman (Andrews) is suspicious of her fiancé's actions, and trails him to East Berlin, her love for Michael forcing her to embrace the Communists' plans in order to remain with him. The first act of the film mostly takes place from Sarah's point of view, and, as we watch Michael suspiciously formulating his treasonous campaign, we begin to suspect that he is the movie's primary villain. However, this is where the Master of Suspense pulls his first twist, and Michael's behaviour is revealed to be merely a ruse, with the objective of acquiring vital nuclear weapons data from an oddball Commie scientist, Professor Gustav Lindt (Ludwig Donath). From here, Newman becomes a traditional cinematic hero, and, after uncovering the information that he required, he and Sarah, with the help of numerous fellow conspirators, must reach friendly territory without being captured.Famously, the production of 'Torn Curtain' didn't run as smoothly as could have been hoped. The director was hesitant about using Newman and Andrews, and both were thrust upon him by the studios, despite Hitchcock's differing preferences. Newman, for one, proved very problematic for the master director, repeatedly questioning the script and his character in a manner Hitchcock later described as "disrespectful." Newman has stated that "I think Hitch and I could have really hit it off, but the script kept getting in the way." Also notably, 'Torn Curtain' marked a devastating falling-out between Alfred Hitchcock and the legendary Bernard Herrmann, who composed a complete score for the film that was never used {instead, the director opted for British composer John Addison}.Say what you want about the film as a whole, but nobody can deny that it contains several completely unforgettable set-pieces. The murder of the charismatic henchman, Hermann Gromek (Wolfgang Kieling), is truly a horrifyingly gruelling sequence, which Hitchcock created specifically to show the audience how difficult it actually is to kill a man. The entire sequence plays out in almost complete silence, with the struggling Gromek even surviving a bloody knife wound that would have instantly killed a character in any other film. Another moment of Hitchcock genius takes place as Michael and Sarah attempt to flee East Germany, as, during a bus journey, they hope that the Communist troops don't realise that they are not riding in a legitimate vehicle. Add to this the suspenseful escape at a crowded theatre, the amusing moments featuring a disgruntled ballerina (Tamara Toumanova) and John F. Warren's polished cinematography, and you've got a spy thriller that is very much worth watching.
One of Hitchcock's lesser films
posted on 31 Aug 2009The idea is interesting, but the screenplay dooms it almost from the start. To portray the East Germans as such Don Adams types is the first big mistake. Then to hope the audience would forget quality of plot line for a convoluted spy and escape yarn is the second. The holes are too frequent, too early, and too obvious. A Director more interested in tight plotting would have had the screenplay thrown out and rewritten, but Hitchcock seems more interested in tweaking the nose of Communism. Newman and Andrews have nothing to work with here, and simply go through the motions as Hitch instructs. It reminds me of Topaz, with it's focus on the banal evil of communism, and it's much too dragged out ending! ****************SPOILER*************************** It is inconceivable that a man defecting would be able to slip away from his handlers. It is inconceivable he would attempt anything so stupid so soon into the defection, as it would send of alarm bells. This scene should have come near the end not the beginning!
Unrealistic
posted on 31 Aug 2009Although "Torn Curtain" is a somewhat enjoyable film, it is nothing more than light drama and fantasy.I spent time in East Germany and East Berlin prior to the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Yes, there were a few nice show places there that were accessible by a few foreigners and/or the upper apparatchik. However, most of East Germany and East Berlin were in quite pitiful conditions compared to the West. Furthermore, in East Germany and, particularly, in East Berlin, there were soldiers everywhere, state security agents (domestic spies) everywhere – ears and eyes everywhere. Yet, when you watch "Torn Curtain" you see shinny black taxis, brightly-colored buses, impeccably dressed citizens, and very modern, Western-style offices, dinning areas, etc. You also see a famous American scientist, who spoke only English and who had just defected to the East, and whose photo had been in all the newspapers and on TV, dodge security and visit a farm during his first day in town. Next you see the scientist and his British girlfriend dodge several security agents, police and soldiers in a building in Leipzig and escape back to East Berlin. And next you are supposed to believe that they soon thereafter somehow slipped back into the West healthy and happy. The whole thing is so absurd that, as you watch the film, you feel your I.Q. heading south by a point a minute.I tremendously respect the talent of Alfred Hitchcock and I love most of his films. However, "Torn Curtain" leads you to believe that Hitchcock either didn't understand the grayness and severity of totalitarianism that permeated all facets of life in the police state that was East Germany, and/or he didn't spend the time to find the right locations for filming, and/or he didn't respect his viewers enough to think they'd know the difference.
Torn Curtain: enjoyable film
posted on 31 Aug 2009This was one of Hitchcock's weaker efforts. But He did put interesting subjects in the film. Like "the death of Gromek", "Museum Scene", and "Theatre Scene" in the end.One of the biggest problems with the film was casting. Hitchcock wanted Anthony Perkins for the role of Professor Armstrong. This was mentioned in an interview in 1986 with Anthony Perkins. But Universal forced Hitchcock to cast Paul Newman. I thought Paul Newman was OK. As for the female lead, Hitchcock wanted Eva Marie Saint. I believe this was mentioned in Book "Hitchcock on Hitchcock" edited by Sidney Gottlieb. But the studio forced him to cast Julie Andrews.Brian Moore was chosen to write the screenplay. But the result was a weak script. Hitchcock called Keith Waterhouse and Willis Hall to do extensive rewritings on the script. Thanks to these 2 writers, Hitchcock was able to get an acceptable script. But Hitchcock was aware of the problems even after the rewritings. He wanted to work more on the script. But Hitchcock had to start shooting the film, because of the limited availability of Julie Andrews. So he wasn't able to work more on the script and remove the flaws. He was also upset about the salary Paul Newman and Julie Andrews demanded. He had to spent 1.8 million just for the casting of Paul Newman and Julie Andrews.Performances from Paul Newman and Julie Andrews were just OK. But the Cinematography and Hitchcock's style of Direction were great.As for Bernard Herrmann's music score, it was a beautiful music score. Alfred Hitchcock enjoyed working with Bernard Herrmann. There were no problems when they were working together in studios like Warner Bros, Paramount, and MGM.But when they moved to Universal, we can see how much problems Hitchcock and Herrmann faced, because of Universal Executives. The fall of wonderful relationship of Hitchcock and Herrmann was because of the interference of Universal Executives. It was Universal Executives who poisoned Hitchcock's mind against Herrmann. Lew Wasserman (the head of Universal and its corporate parent MCA) held a grudge against Herrmann who had earlier turned down a job from the powerful studio head. "All right, Benny," Wasserman said. "When you get hungry you'll come to see me." To which Herrmann replied "Lew, when I get hungry I go to Chasen's." At least, I am glad that Herrmann's Torn Curtain music score still exists.What interested me about Torn Curtain are Hitchcock's shots especially Museum Scenes, Wolfgang Kieling's brilliant performance as Gromek, and the death of Gromek. Hitchcock was very happy with Kieling's performance as Gromek. He mentioned this in Truffaut/Hitchcock interview book and other interviews.So there are interesting things Hitchcock put in Torn Curtain. But Universal executives should have given Hitchcock more time and more freedom to work on the script and the casting. Many of Hitchcock's ideas for the script were rejected by Universal Executives. This also includes the original ending Hitchcock wanted. Still enjoyable, I actually enjoy Torn Curtain with Herrmann's music far more than Addison's music. After all, this is just an opinion.
I bet De Palma watched this several times
posted on 31 Aug 2009This film is terrible and completely worthless.What's interesting is the lingering shots of the approaching knife during the murder scene. Hitchcock handles the murder terribly. It's a completely laughable and badly shot bit of "action". But the sustained and slow "approach of the knife" obviously inspired Brian De Palma's similarly subjective "approach of the drill" and "approach of the saw" scenes in "Body Double" and "Scarface".By the time Hitchcock got to this stage in his career, times had changed. Audiences were cynical, and no longer bought his quaint little thrillers. Hitchcock gives us a knife stabbing flesh in glorious color and expects us to be shocked and thrilled....but these things are no longer shocking or thrilling. It's just silly.It took De Palma to come along and blow away reality and embrace visual opera to pick back up the mantle. You want an approaching knife in slow, subjective, motion? Screw that. De Palma gives you a powerdrill and blazing chainsaw, slowly edging toward you at 2 frames per second!"Torn Curtain" also features a "chase" through an ornate museum. But it's one of the worst chases in Hithcock's career. Here we see how dry his photography is when he doesn't have Bernard Herrmann to highlight the action or provide exclamation points to guide his editing.The "chase" plays like this: Newman enters one room, hears footsteps, looks behind him and then enters another room. He then hears footsteps again, looks behind him and then enters another room. This goes on and on for about 12 rooms and is just stupid. Add the fact that each room is shot with a tripod mounted stagnant camera and you honestly have the worst chase in cinema history.But anyway, my point is that this scene, and the more fluid museum scene in "Vertigo", provided the framework for Brian De Palma's use of architecture throughout his entire filmography. The Classical Beaux-Arts architecture style, with it's large open spaces, expansive hallways, symmetry and pillars, is perfect for De Palma's elegant camera moves and spatial fetishes.But aside from these 2 points, "Torn Curtain" is a garbage. The leads have no chemistry, the villains are cartoonish, the acting is stilted and the film has no tension, pace or thrills. The music is also quite terrible. But I guess you can learn all this by reading other reviews.2/10 - The master must have been asleep. This film is completely worthless.
Vastly underrated
posted on 31 Aug 2009Vastly underrated...TORN CURTAIN may not be vintage Hitchcock, but it's a superior spy thriller, clearly grounded more in reality than the slew of Bond ripoffs Hollywood (and Europe!) had been grinding out in the 60s. Paul Newman is smartly cast as an American spy who may or may not be defecting TO THE EAST, much to the distress of his fiancé (Julie Andrews). Hitchcock keeps thing tightly wound and gets the most out of his actors...Newman & Andrews have real chemistry (note the very sexy opening scene). Newman is particularly good and makes a great anti-hero hero! The silent fight scene in the farmhouse has become a classic...and justifiably so. The great supporting cast includes Lila Kedrova in a pretty wacky cameo.
Today in my country the U.S. there are people in high places who do not want to see atomic war abolished ...
posted on 31 Aug 2009Says the protagonist defector at the center of this cold war adventure. I agree w/ IMDb reviewer blue_orpheus who writes "By 1966, Hitchcock was pretty much considered a has-been. But while Torn Curtain didn't help change that perception (in fact, it only confirmed it), it's not nearly as bad as some critics will have you believe."Not all Hitchcock films can be successes like "Psycho" or "Strangers on a Train." Eastwood or Spielberg don't always bat homers. This film requires slower pacing much like Preminger's "Rosebud." Newman's character's defection revolves around a "pre-SDI nuclear-bomb shield" amazingly twenty years before Reagan promoted the idea in the 80's.For anyone who has traveled to a Communist country, that initial sense of overwhelming societal displacement is common (when freedom is not a given "right"). Andrews' character communicates that in her performance (especially given she is clueless about why her lover has defected). The scene where the secret formula is extracted and how it is revealed is priceless. Especially when the older sly-fox Prof Lind realizes he's been out-foxed! He lamely proclaims to Newman "I forbid you to leave this room!" Yeah, like that's going to work! I didn't find the musical score that horrible and it would have distracted if used in the farmhouse murder scene.BTW: Is that Liv Ullman's secret twin as the farmer's wife/co-murderer? How come Ms. Kedrova gets 3rd billing for a cameo? She's very moving and effectively portrays her character's urgent desire to secure U.S. "sponsors" but she has only five minutes screen time.
Uneven, but worthwhile
posted on 31 Aug 2009By 1966, Hitchcock was pretty much considered a has-been. But while his political thriller "Torn Curtain" didn't help change that perception (in fact, it only confirmed it), it's not nearly as bad as some critics will have you believe. Yes, Hitchcock clearly felt a need to spoon-feed his audience at this time (obviously unaware that a new generation of filmgoers actually wanted to be challenged by the cinema.) But while the plot may stretch its credibility from time to time, "Torn Curtain" tells a decent story and features many streaks of great Hitchcockian craftsmanship. It's just a matter of overlooking the glaring flaws, if you can. I really like the photography here; it's quite dispassionate for Hitchcock in parts, featuring lots of wide-angle static shots at just the right times. Simultaneously (or sometimes alternately), the visuals are also very revealing plot-wise in the way we're used to from the director. I like the editing, too, as well as the generally slow pace of the film, which (like "Vertigo") works to the advantage of the plot (unlike with some other Hitchcock pictures.)Contrary to popular opinion, Julie Andrews can do drama (and not sing) quite well, and I didn't realize how attractive she was until this film. Wolfgang Kieling is wonderful as Gromek (who sort of reminded me of a tougher Peter Lorre), as is Paul Newman, who is perfect for his role and definitely helps bring conviction to the proceedings. Ironically, "Torn Curtain" features one of the nastiest prolonged murder scenes in Hitchcock's career, and it's every bit as well made and realistic as the shower sequence in "Psycho". The scene showing Newman and Andrews arguing in the distance without sound was also genius. The bus scene: masterfully suspenseful. Comedy falls flat on its face, however, with the sole exception of a marvelous performance by Lila Kedrova as the kooky 'Countess' Kuchinska. Personally, I think one of the bigger mistakes Hitchcock made in the final period of his career was no longer collaborating with Bernard Hermann. The soundtrack in "Torn Curtain" lacks consistency, going from intense and moody to downright syrupy and overwrought. The way it emphasizes Hitch's cameo will give you an idea of how lame it is at times.
Intriguing and suspenseful story set behind the Iron Curtain
posted on 31 Aug 2009During Cold War a professor named Michael Armstrong(Paul Newman stars as a stoic and subdued scientific)and his fiancée/secretary named Sarah(an enticing Julie Andrews) find in a Sweden science congress. But the espionage embroils the couple in escape and murder.The scientific poses as a defector at Berlin in order to discover details of the soviet missile program by professor Lindt, located in Leipzig. Once again the protagonists get an information that comes across something what place them in jeopardy and winds up being chased all over the country. Then happens a violent grisly killing, filmed on an exciting and nail-bitingly images , proving how difficult it actually is to murder someone. The duo is being pursued by the communists and they go a bus guided by a resistance fighter(David Opatoshu). Newman apparently defecting to East Germany but the secret police are soon on his tracks, the couple go on the run and encounter a refugee Polish countess(an extravagant Lila Kedrova) who helps them. They attempt to escape the freedom , hiding into a costume baggage of a Czech ballet company but they're denounced by a ballerina(Tamara Toumanova).Tense/suspense/mystery abounds in this thriller from Hithcock who combines the elements of spy-genre with romance, drama and pursuits. Newman as a scientist pretending to be a defector, in one of his best performances , Julie Andrews as his fiancée whose tidy life is disrupted when she uncovers what Newman is a traitor. The first part is based on Julie Andrews's point of sight and after under point of Paul Newman. By time the film and acting received negative reviews , today is better considered. Colorful cinematography by John Warren, habitual cameraman from the 'Hour of Alfred Hitchock' and suspenseful musical score by John Addison. However I miss the Hitch's customary, the musician Bernard Herrmann and photographer Robert Burks. As usual ,Hitch's ordinary cameo, this time as a man in hotel lobby with baby. This good thriller by the master himself, who preys on the senses and keeps the suspense at feverish pitch.Hitchcock tells that inspiration about this movie resulted to be the disappearance of two English diplomats , Burguess and McLean, who left their country and defected to Russia. The movie is directed among ¨Marnie(64)¨and ¨Topaz(69)¨his worst movie, later Hitch directed ¨Frenzi¨ and ¨Family Plot¨ his last film. Rating : Better than average, worthwhile seeing thanks some Hitch's touches.