User reviews

"Topaz" is at its best when Alfred Hitchcock lets the camera tell the story: there are several small but brilliant moments in this film. But while his direction is still masterful, his pacing certainly isn't - the film often feels talky and plodding. The abrupt ending is another problem - one of the alternative endings, the airport one, sounds much better (unfortunately I haven't had the chance to see it yet). Frederick Stafford is no Cary Grant or even Rod Taylor, but he does the job; so do the rest of the actors, with Phillipe Noiret a standout in a brief role and Karin Dor adding a touch of sensuality to the proceedings. On the whole, "Topaz" is not even among Hitchcock's Top 10 pictures, but his fans will still have fun spotting his touches here and there. His cameo - a wheelchair-bound man who suddenly gets up and starts walking (!) - is just one of them. (**1/2)

EDIT: I finally did see the airport ending: it is undeniably better than the present one, but still a bit too abrupt.

In 1962, the highly ranked Russian intelligence officer Boris Kusenov (Per-Axel Arosenius) defects to the United States of America with his wife and his daughter under the protection of CIA agent Michael Nordstrom (John Forsythe). In Washington, Boris discloses the Russian movement in Cuba, and Nordstrom asks the French agent and his friend Andre Devereaux (Frederick Stafford) to get further documents from the Cuban leader Rico Parra (John Vernon) using his anti-American corrupt secretary Luis Uribe (Don Randolph). Then Devereaux travels to Cuba to get additional evidence of the Cuban Missiles with his mistress Juanita de Cordoba (Karin Dor). When Devereaux returns, he receives orders from the French government to return to France to explain his participation in Cuba. However Nordstrom schedules a meeting of Devereaux with Boris and the ex-KGB official tells him about Topaz, the codename for a group of French officials in high circles who work for the Soviet Union. Further, he tells that the French NATO representative Henri Jarre (Philippe Noiret) is the second in the chain of command of the spy ring Topaz, leaking classified information to the soviets, and the head of spies in known only by the codename of Columbine. Devereaux realizes that he can not reveal the truth before finding who the traitor is.

The dated "Topaz" is one of the weakest Hitchcock's films. The story, based on a true event (the Cuban Missile Crisis), is too shallow and long. Nicole is a key character but is not well-developed. Further, it is naive the explanation of friendship between Andre Devereaux and Michael Nordstrom to make the first to get entwined in the situation with Cubans and his government. This time, the cameo of Alfred Hitchcock is in the airport in New York, when he arrives in a wheelchair and walks under the United Air Lines to Planes plate while Nicole and Andre are welcoming Michele and her husband François Picard. The two alternative endings, with the duel between Devereaux and Jarre and Henri Jarre defecting to Russia, are not good. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Topázio" ("Topaz")

Note: On 18 November 2024, I saw this film again.

One of The Great Alfred Hitchcock's later films, Topaz is an international espionage thriller, set across various locations.

Topaz doesn't have the feel of a Hitchcock movie, firstly it doesn't have the usual pace and intensity, and secondly the story just doesn't feel like Hitchcock, it put me more in mind of John Le Carre.

Topaz isn't a bad movie, it has some wonderful elements, but at times it's quite a frustrating affair. It seems to lack a clear focus, it's a bit messy at times.

The opening sequences were fantastic, scenes of that Russian family fleeing KGB Agents in Denmark looked fantastic, they were fast paced and energetic, sadly the rest of the film was more pedestrian, the Cuban sequences at times were too drawn out.

Pacing was a real issue, at over two hours long, this could have easily been edited down to about 90 minutes, it would have flowed so much better, it needed to be so much tighter, if it were a conversation, it would be full of waffle.

The music does not fit this film, it's way too jolly, it would have fitted one or Margaret Rutherford's Miss Marple films so much better, it really doesn't work.

The cast were pretty good overall, one or two were a little wooden, Karin Dor stole it for me.

The best element, the visuals, it's a remarkable looking film, it's a sumptuous, lavish production, it truly looks like it was done on a big budget.

80 minutes in and I needed a double espresso, as I was starting to nod off, the ending was pretty good.

6/10.

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.

We are talking about Alfred Hitchcock here, and as Leonard Maltin has written, even Hitch's weaker films are worth viewing for those most interested in his resume. This two and a half hour film, like Torn Curtain before it, is a Cold War-set drama/thriller, but unlike Torn Curtain, does not benefit from charismatic stars like Paul Newman and Julie Andrews (who famously did not get along with Hitchcock). The voice of Charlie from Charlie's Angels (John Forsythe) is the only really recognizable star, with Roscoe Lee Brown and John Vernon popping up for diehard movie fans as well.

Frederick Stafford, mostly unknown to U. S. audiences, has the Cary Grant/James Stewart role, a French diplomatic living in Washington DC who works with CIA-like operatives (although the CIA is never named) to stop Cuban communists from obtaining missiles from the former Soviet Union. The events in the movie take place a year before the Cuban Missile Crisis, and when this movie was made in 1969, that near-global disaster was probably still very much on the filmmakers', including Hitchcock's, minds.

There is a prolonged sequence at the beginning of the film that involves a Soviet family attempting to defect, with the daughter being followed by goons in a china shop. This is classic MacGuffin. The Soviet family and his American operative (Forsythe) are the focus of the first 30 minutes of the long film, but it changes gears and the family and Forsythe barely appear in the remaining two hours.

Probably the most memorable sequence involves the enlistment of a florist from Martinique (Brown) to pose as a photo journalist from Ebony magazine (one of the few moments of comedy in the film, when the characters try to decide what magazine Brown should be from). Brown infiltrates a rally being held by Rico Parra, one of Castro's trusted allies, and barely gets away with his life.

Rico Parra is played by John Vernon, with a Castro-like beard and deep blue eyes that Hitchcock's camera seems to be fixated on. Vernon is best known as Dean Wormer from Animal House, and seeing him play a heavy of a very different kind is interesting (and amusing). How can any viewer who loves Animal House see this actor, no matter what character he plays, and think "fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son." Vernon was roundly panned for his performance in Topaz, but it's not bad. Rather well-nuanced.

Finally, Stafford is dependable if rather stiff as the main character in the film. There are moments when he engages with female characters where he seems like he's auditioning for the role of James Bond. It makes one wonder if Stafford was on the list to replace Connery at one time.

Hitchcock fans will probably get more out of this movie than casual viewers. It was his third financial disaster in a row (after Marnie and Torn Curtain). He would get back on track, with both critics and audiences, with his next film, Frenzy.

I found Topaz a delight to watch, tightly scripted and carefully filmed as it was with sumptuous and alluring sets throughout and a compelling story and plot. The idea is familiar enough, but does at times feel abbreviated, the only real failing that I found in this otherwise interesting film. It's as if there was a great deal of action that the director wanted to portray, but was in a hurry getting it done, for example the outing of the French intriguers. There are also a few scenes which beggar belief, for example when Devereaux's man is caught stealing secrets with Piccoli and again, the speed at which it happens; That just didn't add up. The film is definitely helped by excellent casting, with one notable exception - John Vernon as Rico Parra. That hasn't aged well (and my guess is that it probably didn't play well then either). Overall a great film, but moments like these do take a toll on an otherwise enjoyable thriller.

It's a shame to go into a film by a director with a massive, amazing career and reputation and knowing that this particular film isn't regarded well. I put off seeing Topaz for years, and I'm not sure why now seeing it: it's not a terrible film or an embarrassment. It even has some very good things to say about it. But I can see why the reputation came with it as it did: it's Hitchcock's longest film at 143 minutes, and there's times dialog doesn't exactly bog the movie down as much as it *sounds* like movie dialog, it doesn't always have the natural flow as it does in other Hitchcock films. Does it need to be 'lighter'? Of course not. But when there's this much exposition and the characters are mostly meant to move the pieces along, the charm and excitement found in other works by this director - outside of the technique, when it was down to a great script and great actors making it a combination - the depletion of quality can be felt.

To say some positive things: Hitchcock at this stage still has a grip on set pieces, and the opening is terrific. It's mostly done without much dialog, if at all, as characters are following other characters, others then notice they're being followed, subtle little things happen like the knocking over of a glass doll, and always the camera and editing make this kinetic while calling just enough attention (i.e. that first shot after the credits where the camera pirouettes, or I should say the zoom lens, from a view into a small window/mirror to the actors leaving a building and then following).

And certain individual shots and moments, like seeing exposition happening but not hearing it (we don't have to hear it, of course), or a couple of key over-head shots in a set-piece involving a man having to kill someone he doesn't want to but has no choice left... I mean, there are moments where it's hard not to get the 'Hitch gives on a spine-tingling sensation).

Oh, and I must point out John Vernon, easily the best consistent part of the movie acting-wise; it's interesting that a white guy who clearly shouldn't be playing a Cuban doesn't show that it's miscast. He completely sold me on this character of this Castro acolyte and makes him intimidating and on occasion soulful. I thought he'd only be in one scene and when I saw he'd be a key antagonist, I was thrilled.

I think even the story itself, when you look at structurally how it's laid out and the little twists and turns it takes, is compelling enough to keep attention, or at the least it's not unwatchable. I think what hurts this is that most of the other actors, even John Forsyth, who worked with Hitch before, are flat and especially so with Frederick Stafford.

On the DVD extras Leonard Maltin may say he's a "good" actor, but I'm not so sure. Maybe in material that wouldn't require so much, if it just was a part that asked for swagger or a little 007-rip-off charm, then fine. Here, this is a character that should have a little complexity even as the straight-man lead spy. Dany Robin is alright too, but not given much to do; I thought it interesting that the writer Samuel Taylor tried to put in some comment on infidelity in the film with this couple, but it gets lost in the scope of this plot.

I might have been even kinder and found this to be a good movie instead of just fairly decent (and, yes, one of the lessor Hitchcock films... which still means it's *not bad*, I need to emphasize that), if it had a strong ending. It's now some film history that there are alternate endings, yet I got the wrong impression from one of the books I read and thought this ended with the duel set-piece (which makes sense, as this needs a final confrontation between the two characters involved in this). I should only comment on how this *does* end, but that sucks so I'll review briefly these alternate endings: the 'duel' one is conceptually brilliant, but I think the lack of the director on set (he had to be called away before it could be shot so a producer stepped in to shoot it) can still be felt despite the storyboarding; the 'airport' ending, which is different than what is on the DVD of this full director's cut, is actually amusing in the way that maybe the rest of the film isn't, but it works well in a way that's unexpected in giving a big shot of ambiguity.

And then there's the third ending, which was screened in the shorter 127 minute prints on its original release, where a character goes and kills himself after receiving some troubling news. This looks awkward, but there's a brief montage showing everyone who died in the line of all of this espionage and that, superimposed over a newspaper headline about the missile crisis being over, is extremely affecting and effective. It almost shouldn't feel earned, but that is a good little gut punch at the end of all of this.

So, I don't know. None of them are completely satisfying, but it turns out to be a case of there not being a sufficient ending, which is a problem. All the same, Topaz isn't some disaster, and isn't as boring as you've heard. It's simply part of that weak period someone this filmmaker fell into after (the underrated) Marnie and his last hurrah in true diabolical fashion with Frenzy.

In the three years that had elapsed since Alfred Hitchcock's uneven 'Torn Curtain', the 70 year old director had been desperately casting around for a suitable subject for his 51st film and eventually settled, grudgingly, upon Leon Uris' best seller based upon the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Hitchcock recalled that this was 'a most unhappy film to make' and this is very much in evidence. The original material is dynamite but the result is, alas, a damp fuse. Apart from the sequence in the Cuban Embassy it is strangely devoid of both momentum and suspense and causes one to lament the earlier demise of Hitchcock's greatest editor, George Tomasini. There are just too many locations, too many conversations and far too many characters most of whom fail to come alive.

The shooting of Juanita with her purple dress opening like a flower is the one highlight whilst the Paris segment is effective thanks to the presence of two of France's finest, Michel Piccoli and Philippe Noiret.

One critic has compared watching this to 'listening to the concert of a great singer about a mile from the stadium. It is only a glimpse of greatness'.

When wooden Frederick Stafford, certainly no Cary Grant, utters the singularly appropriate 'That's the end of Topaz', this viewer at any rate could not help but heave a sigh of relief.

It's a shame because there is a great story in there. Some strange decisions were made in the direction of the film.

I was curious about this film. there was a twenty or so year period where Alfred became Hitchcock and planted down the seed that made him the biggest director in the world, but the guy made movies before and after this period.

When we think about the fat man, we think about movies like Psycho and Vertigo which are the highlights and if your a die-hard fan you are familiar with Rope and Strangers on a Train.

I was curious about the movies he made out side that twenty year zone, and Topaz was the first that I came up on.

Topaz is about a French intelligence agent who gets involved in Cold War politics that lead up to the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It's got Hitchcock's stank all over it with camera angles and story set up. One scene in particular, when the french spy has one of his field people get him in to me a Cuban official. The spy watches from across the street as his people make the arrangement. There was no dialogue it was just all visual story telling and it really stands out. The type of scene that Hitchcock fans would rip off over and over again. Too bad Topaz is not a good enough Hitchcock movie.

The vibe was just not there. People say Hitchcock lost his edge at this time (He was 69 when he made the film). I think the Birds was the last note worthy film he made, but he kept making films (even one with Robert Redford, which I want to check out).

I personally noticed the movie had a different atmosphere, because I noticed that it was filmed outdoors instead of on a sound stage which is where the Fat man made a lot of his films (Not Vertigo, which was filmed all over San Fransisco, and you can take tours of the areas it was filmed).

The DVD I saw Topaz on had a interview with Film Critic, Lenard Maltin who stated that Topaz had no stars in it, And that is a point, I knew nobody in this film off hand, and Hitchcock did work with a lot of big stars of the time.

Topaz can be handed as proof of what a movie star can do for your film. There is a reason why Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart are stars. They bring something to the role that no one else possibly could.

But Topaz had nobody that I could draw myself to (well, except for Roscoe Lee Browne, a character actor who has made guest appearances on all my favorite television shows that he may as well be a star as far as I'm concern. He was the he guy the french spy got to talk to the Cubans in the no dialog scene, which I guess added more awesomeness for me)

While having flavor of the Fat man on it, I found Topaz very drawn out to the point where I lost my interest altogether.

If you are a die-hard Hitchcock fan, I would give it a try because it really does have that feel to it, but it does look like he lost his edge around this time and I would not recommend for anyone trying to get into the Fat Man.

http://cinemagardens.com/

TOPAZ, based on a novel of the same name by Leon Uris, was Hitchcock's second (and final) foray into the Cold War, and is about a French agent who gets caught in between the Americans and the Russians. By this point in his career, Hitchcock was quite content to plagiarize himself, as a lot of elements in TOPAZ can be found in his other (better) films, but I did find this to be a slight improvement over his previous effort, TORN CURTAIN. Without the star power behind this as was in TORN CURTAIN, TOPAZ's story, as labyrinthine and convoluted as it is, is brought to the foreground. As always, Hitch's use of camera-work and editing to create suspense is as evident here as it is throughout most of his other work. The sequence which stood out the most to me was a prolonged, mostly silent scene in which a Martinique agent gains access to a hotel where he will get some documents important to the plot, all while his French contact watches from the other side of the street. There was also a just-before-death confession reminiscent of one in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, and an exquisitely filmed death scene in which a woman's purple dress fills most of the screen. Still, the plot this time was a bit unwieldy. As there weren't any stars in the film, there wasn't as much focus in the story as I would have liked. At first you think it will be about some Russian defectors, later American NATO agents, and then it settles on a French NATO agent who works on behalf of the Americans to get some information on Russian activities in Cuba. Although it will probably benefit from watching it a few more times, on first viewing it was a lot of take in and keep track of. Still, the complicatedness of it all allowed for some interesting double and triple-dealings. From an acting standpoint, I thought that most of the performances were rather wooden. Considering that this is perhaps the most talkative Hitchcock movie I've seen so far, it was a little difficult to watch in that regard. Still, it wasn't all bad. John Forsythe (THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY) had a supporting role as an American NATO agent, and he did fine. And even though badly miscast, John Vernon did alright for himself as Cuban Rico Parra. Switching composers again, Maurice Jarre provided the score, and while not in the same league as Bernard Herrmann (after all, who is?), his cues and main theme set the tone of the film quite nicely with some occasionally quirky touches. The title sequence, set over a Russian parade, also had a stirring martial quality that perfectly set the mood for the tense opening scene. Overall, I would say that TOPAZ has more immediate entertainment value than did TORN CURTAIN, although the plot is more complicated and the acting isn't as good. Still, TOPAZ is as eloquently produced as anything Hitchcock laid his hands on and provides enough thrills to balance out the long running time.

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.