Marnie, la ladrona

One's interest or appreciation of Marnie is proportional to that of Hitchcock. The film isn't bad but it certainly has its flaws. The pacing is very subdued and there's a bit too much melodrama and stretches on the plot for it to truly thrive. But anyone who's actually interested probably will give as little thought all the psychological hooey as Hitch did. The focus of the movie is in the little details. The techniques and styles that make this an Alfred Hitchcock film. And of course the final help this film needed can be found with Sean Connery in between Bonds and at his best. And the master of suspense is supported by that sort of 'dream team' of Tomasini, Burks and Herrmann. With them he created some of the most elegant films and in this case he has Connery and Hedren to populate it.

Marnie is not perfect, the horse riding scenes are artificially edited and some of the sets seemed somewhat plastic-theatre-backdrop standard. However, while Marnie is not one of Hitchcock's very finest films, it is one of his most underrated. And I don't think it is close to his worst, his weakest overall for me is Jamaica Inn and Topaz the worst of his late-period films. Hitchcock directs splendidly with a lot of memorable touches in the final thirty minutes that are his style all over, while the photography is suave, atmospheric and above all striking. Bernard Hermann's score, while not quite as good as his ones for Vertigo and Psycho, fits perfectly and has a very haunting edge. The dialogue has wit and intensity, which makes the many talky scenes in Marnie interesting. The story is slow in pace but didn't bore me, here there are themes that are not easy to talk about that are explored compellingly and tastefully. The final thirty minutes is edge-of-your-seat stuff, to me the best final act of any Hitchcock film pro-Psycho. The characters are not easy to engage with and very complex, especially Hedren's, but all the actors give their all to making them interesting to the viewer. Grace Kelly may be more people's idea of icy aloofness needed for the woman who steals to forget, but Tippi Hedren particularly in the final act does a very good job(though I preferred her in The Birds). Sean Connery has a very atypical role, his character is somewhat boorish and calculating but he brings those qualities across as well as his trademark suavity and charm. Diane Baker is terrific, and Louise Latham is genuinely frightening as the mother figure. Bruce Dern and Martin Gabel don't have as much to do, but they are good too. To conclude, a fascinating film. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Marnie is a misunderstood masterpiece from the Hitchcock. Often cited as an example of a messy, flawed genius - it can be off putting to some since its quite talky. However stick with it and you will be intrigued and itching to discover all about Marnie (contrary to what most say, played with understated brilliance from Tippi Hedren).

The direction and cinematography is exceptional with Hitchcock and his usual crew i.e. Rob Burks etc on form. The atmosphere generated (apart from being 'Hitchcocky') is unique, dark, gloomy and at times akin to a horror film, yet it is utterly appealing and compelling. Theres an almost creepy, artificial humanless feel to proceedings as a result of the direction and how the actors have been directed to act as is briefly highlighted by a Hitchcock scholar in the documentary on the disk. Hitchcock knows the art of cinema, no flashy fast cuts or fast moving camera's as we see nowadays, but measured, inspired direction laced with flourishes of creative genius (thats Hithcock for you). Atmosphere, emotion is built up like poetry. Witness for example some moments of genius such as the final revelation, in what is one of Hitchcocks most underrated, powerful and shocking pieces of direction; the riding sequence which culminates in Marnies fantastic yet disturbing line of dialogue, " there there....", and also sinister momnets such as when Marnies mother wakes here from her nightmare- her voice disturbingly artificial in its lack of emotion and empathy for a clearly distraught Marnie.

Speaking of the mother, Louise Latham -the actress behind the role effortlessly steals the show from an already superb Hedren and Connery. Latham eleicits an absolutely breathtaking performance. Her character is frighteningly creepy, tragic, powerful and marvellously played to keep up the suspense and intrigue. You don't know what to make of the character except of the fact she knows or has played a part in Marnies psychological condition. In fact I would go as far as to say it is one of the greatest performances in a Hitchcock picture - an example of genius casting. Similarly her character is arguably the greatest 'mother' character in any Hitchcock film beating Pyscho and Notorious' madame Sebastion.

Marnie is a truly great picture and definetly Hitchcocks last great although Frenzy is a nice enough distraction. Not as good as Vertigo or Rear Window but certainly up there in the higher echelons of Hitchcocks work.

9/10

When Marnie was first released it was (quite unfairly) dismissed by critics. It has since been come to be known as one of Hitchcock's great films though. Tippi Hedren stars as Marnie. She is a liar and a thief. She has stolen large amounts of money from her employers on various occasions. Things start to change as she begins to work for the dashing Mark Rutland though. He becomes romantically interested in her but not wanting to get close to anybody she decides to steal the money and escape as quickly as she can. However, Mark catches her red handed and he gives her the choice of marrying him or being held accountable for her crimes. She chooses to marry him but he comes to find out that she can't stand to be touched by any man. He realizes that she has a deep seated problem from her past and that he must now help her to confront this. Marnie is a wonderful film and it is very underrated. A lot of people have watched it and it has gone over their heads therefore leading to the underrated status. It is much the same with Tippi Hedren's performance. Even though it is brilliant alot of people cannot see how wonderful it really is. Sean Connery is also very good.

It is really too bad that some people can't see Marnie for the masterpiece that it is. It's really quite pointless to call Marnie a "flawed" film as well. If Marnie is truly watched intelligently you will see that this is not the case. Marnie deserves far more credit than it gets. If you watch it I hope that you enjoy it as much as I have.

5 stars / 5 stars

This is not the stuff that director Hitchcock is usually attracted to. Hitchcock was scared of jails. In this film, the lead female character prefers to be bridled by marriage rather than jail. It is an intriguing choice for a character who had earlier stated to her husband "You don't love me. I am something you have caught. Some kind of wild animal you have trapped." Aware of this, the young lady who has so far fooled a lot of rich men and escaped the law, prefers marriage to jail. She is smart, a woman who embezzles her employers to buy rich gifts for her mother, aware of modesty in dress (keeps pulling her skirt over her knees) and a convincing liar. Like "Notorious," the marriage is one of convenience, or so it appears—the end of the film is open-ended.

For those who are not aware of it, Hitchcock fired the initial scriptwriter (a male), who honestly felt the rape of the wife by the husband was out character with male lead played by Sean Connery. The replaced scriptwriter (a lady) wrote the sequence which was used, in a suggestive way rather than a graphic way. Hitchcock loved to slip in sex even if it was out of character. Lesbianism is suggested by the husband's sister-in-law's remark "What a dish!" a remark one would associate from the opposite sex. (Hitchcock similarly played with homosexuality in "Rope"). A critical scene that could be mistaken for child molestation was probably an innocent gesture mistaken by the mother.

Hitchcock usually was attentive to visuals and sound. This is an unusual film where the director swings from one extreme of high sophistication to absolute stupidity. The opening shots of the woman walking away with the yellow handbag are stunning. The silent "cleaning" of the office safe, while a deaf woman cleans the office is simply outstanding. Yet the crass painting of a dock near Marnie's mother's house would make a school kid laugh out loud. Why would a woman who is scared of red wear red lipstick or not react when her husband's sister-in-law wears red at a party? Similarly, the shot of Marnie's hand not being able to pick up the money in the safe is an unconvincing shot, if ever there was one.

The film can be appreciated and be equally dismissed. The acting by all the main characters was good but Louise Latham performance (and make up!) needs to be singled out for praise. Kubrick seems to have copied Hitchcock's Marie's voice differentiation in the young child's voice in "The Shining." I am not surprised if people swing from liking the film to dismissing it and back again. It has great elements and bad elements as well—yet the bottom line is, it entertains!