I'm in the midst of a Hitchcock retrospective at MoMA and always enjoy seeing lesser appreciated/renowned Hitchcock films on the big screen. As such I was very curious to see Torn Curtain for many reasons: the unusual casting of Newman and Andrews for a Hitch film, Andrews his first non-blond leading lady and Newman having come from the 'method' acting background. Hitch didn't really want to use either but the producers were set on big name stars in this film and you couldn't get much bigger than Andrews in 1966. Also because longtime collaborator Bernard Herman does not provide the score for this film. On those two points, there is not a lot of chemistry between the two leads. They both do a fine job but no spark. The score is oddly upbeat for a spy/thriller and does nothing to enhance the action and suspense of the film. This last point is a real shame because Hitchcock's film scores are usually so strong. Despite these shortcomings though I have to admit that I really enjoyed Torn Curtain. I think the film looks very good and there are some beautifully composed scenes. The supporting characters are all well conceived, interesting, and memorable. And yes, there are a couple intense and memorable scenes that only Hitchcock would attempt. If Torn Curtain ever comes to the big screen near you, check it out.

The common understanding of Alfred Hitchcock's career is that 1964's "Marnie" was the end of an era: his final movie to feature an icy blonde, and his final movie scored by Bernard Herrmann. Using this logic, one would conclude that "Torn Curtain" was the beginning of the end of Hitch's career. But that doesn't do the movie justice. The Sultan of Suspense didn't create any mind-blowing scenes for this movie like he did in "Psycho" or "The Birds", but there's a scene towards the end that has no shortage of suspense.Paul Newman plays an American scientist whose fiancée (Julie Andrews) discovers that he's headed for East Germany...but there's more than meets the eye. Newman is in top form naturally, but I'd say that the movie belongs to Andrews. She gets to play a role very unlike those with which she's associated. Far from the happy-go-lucky performances as Mary Poppins and Maria von Trapp, her character here is a tense, scientific-minded person who understands geopolitics (although unlike a lot of Hitchcock's female characters, hers is not a "guilty woman").In the end I would say that even though Hitch had passed his prime, he hadn't lost his touch. I recommend the movie. He went on to complete three more movies after this one, and was planning another one when he died.So, the next time that you hear Julie Andrews sing about a teaspoon of sugar or a name to call myself, just remember that she also starred in a Cold War thriller.Watch for a young Wilhelm von Homburg (Vigo in "Ghostbusters 2") towards the end.

Did Hitchcock choose to name the bad guy 'Hermann' as a pun towards Bernard Hermann whom he sacked during the shooting? Hermann Gromek is one of the most memorable Hitchcock crooks that I spontaneously can think of, a sleazy, shrewd and intimidating type of a guy.Otherwise the movie is some kind of a travel brochure with all its locations and swift changes of means of transport.Newman's acting wasn't bad but I find it hard to accept that he didn't bother to learn German before 'defecting', being an academic and so on. Being an academic myself, I expect - out of experience - other academics to know at least three languages with reasonable command.Andrews. Terrible woman. I have true difficulties in watching anything where she's cast as she is completely in lack of sex appeal and annoying British accent. (I find Grace Kelly's accent annoying too, but that girl had IT, so to speak.) I don't believe that Hermann's score would have done anything to improve this! The sequences where Newman and the East German scholar doodle formulas on a blackboard, are those formulas authentic or random inventions?Besides Gromek, the ballerina was great.

Torn Curtain is a good little Cold War story involving unlikely spies and lots of traveling through European countries. And of course the thing you'll hear about is that one major set-piece, in the middle of the film, where a Character (with a Capital C) comes over to where Newman and Andrews are trying to lay low, and the first thing is the tension. It's what isn't said here that cuts like a knife, how Newman tries to keep up the cover and the other guy can just sense, taste, what this man is lying about. Finally the struggle happens, and the man is hit on the head. But that's not all. It's the Master of Suspense stretching what he could do in 1966 (the 'Code' was finally loosening, just a little), and it's graphic, rough, and a mini-masterpiece.The rest of the film is... alright. It's not completely forgettable as far as spy thrillers with espionage in the 60's goes, nor a crime against humanity. But, Julie Andrews was miscast here for sure. Paul Newman does okay actually, better than I expected as a professor-turned-Cold-War flip-flopper - though he's not, I think, who cares really - but their on-screen chemistry isn't very strong, which is the film's biggest flaw, especially for the material this filmmaker is working with here. If Newman had a stronger woman to work off of, a different sex appeal or a more realistic counterpart (maybe one of the stars of one of the European waves could have helped), but here...Hitchcock, I think, got this as well, so he got more pleasure out of side/supporting characters, like Ludwig Donath as Prof. Gustav Lindt or the German woman with the colorful scarf who needs a sponsor. It's not a bad movie by any stretch, and it has a nice wonderfully obvious Hitchcock twist (actually a couple) in the last reel. But Torn Curtain could've been more. It's a soup that needed more attention, or another lead actress.