I’ve done a lot of these mini-reviews at this point, but I think Alfred Hitchcock’s 1964 thriller “Marnie” is the one I’ve had the hardest time judging.
To be clear, I’ve been a huge fan of Hitch’s work since I was a kid. He’s probably the reason I write horror stories (though his oeuvre would be better termed suspense.) I agree with those who call “Vertigo” the best film ever made.
Hitch made a lot of films and I’ve seen about 80% of them. But until a few days ago, “Marnie” was one I hadn’t. What was my reaction upon seeing it?
I fell asleep.
This really had to do more with me being tired than the movie itself. But it’s also because this movie by the master of the macabre, the sultan of suspense* is kind of boring. (I did go back and rewatch what I missed.)
In the film, the titular character, a young woman played by Tippi Hedren, is a criminal who ingratiates herself into office workplaces, learns the code for the safe and then absconds with the money. The scheme is going well, until she’s recognized by Sean Connery’s character, Mark. Instead of turning Marnie in, Mark falls in love with her and marries her.
That’s the surface level goings-on, but the film is really an exploration of Marnie’s psyche. Her criminal intent is sourced back to childhood trauma and Mark must interrogate the various ticks of her behaviors (her fear of red, for example) to uncover to the truth.
This should be right up my alley – I love Freudian repressed memories stuff. Yet it felt dull.
This may be partly because Hitchcock’s works have been so duplicated that everyone has seen variations of “Marnie” in a million later horror films or TV movies. (Dario Argento’s “Deep Red” shares some obvious DNA with the film.) Imagine if you heard a million Jimi Hendrix clones and then finally heard Hendrix—he’d sound pretty pedestrian.
Another confusing issue is that the film is embedded in the sexual mores of 1964 when it was released. If you can’t bring them to mind (me, being born in ’71, cannot), you’re probably not feeling the impact of the subtle nuances of the pregnant looks or turns of dialogue. There’s a scene when Mark commits behavior that would probably be called rape today. But was it considered such in ’64? (After a bit of research, I think the answer is yes, but while watching, I was unclear how Hitchcock wanted me to interpret the scene.)
Finally, at the end, when the truth comes out, well, it comes out a bit too easily, with minimal effort. And its shock value is muted by the standards of today. (e.g. things that were shocking in ’64 are less so now.)
Despite these complaints, I think “Marnie” is a good, possibly great film. I could see giving it another pass and really keeping an eye out for the fine grain of the story.
Like I said, this was a hard one.
(As a final word, I’ll note if you’re going to watch “Marnie”, you might pair it with a movie called “The Girl”, currently on HBO Max, which details Hitchcock‘s relationship with Tippi Hedren during the making of both “Marnie“ and “The Birds.” It’s horrifying in its own way.)
