Alfred Hitchcock's 1969 film Topaz, often included in Universal Hitchcock box sets but rarely watched, represents a complex entry in his spy thriller career that showcases both his signature suspense techniques and significant production challenges. The film, based on a controversial book about Cold War espionage, features multiple endings, a problematic lead actor (Frederick Stafford), and an unfinished screenplay that was completed during production. While the film contains excellent sequences like the opening defection scene, the Harlem sequence with Rosco Lee Brown, and the Cuba sequence with Karen Doran, it suffers from pacing issues, a weak main character, and a rushed final third. The film's reputation as one of Hitchcock's weaker late-career works stems from its inability to maintain audience engagement throughout its 143-minute runtime, despite containing moments of genuine Hitchcockian brilliance.
Alfred Hitchcock’s TOPAZ Review w/ Calvin Dyson (#239)Added:
Hello and welcome to Spy Hart's podcast.
I'm Agent Scott.
>> And I'm Cam the Provocator. And Scott, well, that was Topaz.
>> You could say that. And I mean, like, if you think of Alfred Hitchcock as as as Thanos and he's assembling the Infinity Stones, if he put this one into his gauntlet, I wonder what would have happened.
>> His hand falls asleep.
>> Thank you, folks. Thank you.
>> I mean, that that's that's the intro perfectly done there. Um, but before we continue, we need to welcome our guest, a man who has been on this show more times than I can count. I think he's part of the fivetime club now, which is an esteemed club of people on the show.
I've lost count. Calvin, you have to let me know. It's the one and only Calvin Dyson. Hey, thank you very much for having me back and I'm so excited. This feels like a prophecy is being fulfilled in some way because we talked about I can't remember if it made it into the episode or not, but I think it was way back when we talked about was it Torn Curtain that we we talked about?
>> No, no, it was the man. Yeah, it was The Man Who Knew Too Much, the remake version with Jimmy Stewart.
>> No. God, >> no. I think it was from Calvin's first appearance on the show way back in our early years talking about Goldfinger.
>> I think it was off air and we were talking about like what other things you'd like to talk about and you were like, I'm a big fan of Hitchcock >> Topaz. Must must talk about Topazes. Uh, and I think we wrote on our master list Calvin Dyson next to Topaz.
>> Brilliant. And it only took seven years that come around. But this is exciting.
Basically, I was being selfish when I was forcing myself on this because I don't know about you guys. Topaz is a movie that I've seen about four times in my life probably. It's a film that's often included in the Universal Alfred Hitchcock set. So, it's, you know, it comes as part of the box set usually.
Um, I've seen it maybe four times. I've never actually spoken to another human being about it. I never have actually had a conversation cuz no one watches this film. Um, so I'm excited for today.
>> Now you like opened up to my mind to like those people that would buy box sets and what is the ignored movie in that collection? Um, we were talking off air about a good day to die hard, but if you buy like the Die Hard set, a good day to die hard is the disc that's gathering dust. Um, >> what are you talking about? It's five.
Surely >> that is the Good Day to Die Hard.
>> Oh, I thought that was four. No, that's uh Well, for you that's I think Die Hard 4.0 and for us that's Live Free or Die Hard.
>> Oh, that's why it's confusing. Yeah, the multiple titles. I'm with you. I'm with you.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But um yeah, maybe for the original Planet of the Apes, it's Battle. That's the weakest one. But with that Hitchcock set, because I have the sets you're talking about, Calvin, both I had the DVD box set as well as I've got the 4K sets.
>> I feel like Topaz is the one that gets the least love.
might not be unjustified.
>> Well, >> is is that for good reason? We're gonna find out.
>> Well, well, it's an interesting one.
>> But before we dive into the the I don't know the jewel that is topaz. Um I use that term loosely. Calvin, it's been a beat. How have you been? What's new with you? And for those who are tuning in for the first time to hear, Calvin, Calvin is the James Bond YouTuber in my book.
And so if I ever think about James Bond on YouTube, I think about Calvin Dyson.
And it's always been a pleasure to have you on the show, but now we're talking about non-bond things. So, you know, we're stretching you here.
>> Oh, no. Well, that's very kind of you to say thank you. I appreciate that. Um, but yeah. No, I uh I'm a Bond YouTuber, I guess, is uh the the the term. So, most of the time I'm talking about James Bond on YouTube. That's my bread and butter these days. But, I have always been a huge Alfred Hitchcock fan. So, particularly when it comes to Hitchcock movies, anytime, you know, I can, you know, jump on a call or, you know, have a drink and talk about one at the pub, that's fine by me. So, uh, yeah. Uh, so looking forward to getting into, yeah, Topaz really.
>> Is it to like a I mean, when you talk about Topaz on the phone to someone, is it like a therapy line?
>> Well, well, I never have crucially with with Topaz. So, that that's what you know this is for, right? This is therapy for us all, >> right? And you in the past have done videos on Hitchcock movies because you've done one on Torn Curtain that I've seen. You did, I think, a North by Northwest one.
>> Um, >> yeah. Yeah.
>> But why I guess why Never Topaz.
>> Um, that's a very good question actually.
I'm not quite sure. Uh, my my head says that uh, you know, it's a long movie.
There's a lot to talk about with it. And is anyone gonna watch a video of me sort of monologuing about Topaz? I don't know. But uh yeah, it's um it's not a a very exciting movie to talk about.
Actually, I shouldn't be saying this at the start of a podcast talking about No, it's going to be great. We're going to have a wonderful time talking about it, I'm sure. But um you know, for Yeah. Um maybe I should shut up right there. I don't know.
Look, you're in a safe space, Galvin.
You're talking to guys who just recently covered Gary Cooper Civil War films from 1930. So, uh, >> and and The Boss Baby, too, last week, I think. So, >> that's right. So, we can jump through all sorts of hoops. It's not about what the movie is. It's about how much you how much fun you make the experience.
>> Oh, yes, exactly. I like that. Put that on a bumper sticker.
>> Um, well, I mean, my question at this point is usually, Cam, what are we talking about? But we've sort of spoiled that. Why don't you do it anyway because I know you love to say it.
>> Yes, of course. We're tackling the 1969 Alfred Hitchcock film Topaz. His actually followup to Torn Curtain, which we previously covered on the show.
>> Yeah, I didn't until I looked into it, I didn't realize this was actually the sequel to it. And you'd think he would learn some lessons.
>> Well, it's a different type of movie.
>> Ah, it is. He he learned lessons whether or not we agree with those lessons >> are talking in circles. Um I guess there is less background plates that are awkward.
>> Less of that.
>> There's a reason why there's no movie stars in this film and that's because he didn't have a very good time with Paul Newman and Julie Andrews on Torn Curtain. So that that was a lesson that he learned >> and he he's managed to keep the lack of sexual chemistry uh theme going through these films which is nice.
>> I think he realized torn curtain was too short.
>> Ah >> he was like we just need a little more breathing room.
>> That was the problem with torn curtain.
It wasn't long enough.
>> That's right. That's right. That curtain was a little too short.
This was something that I wanted to um ask you both actually because uh well Scott I'm assuming that we probably saw the same version of the movie which is the longer cut which is about what is 143 minutes. Um Cam, what do you have?
Um like do do you also have that version or do you have the shorter cut? I don't know how it works sort of geographically.
>> Yeah, so I have the 4K North American editions. is the three box sets of the Hitchcock Universal films and it is the 143 minute cut.
>> Um, >> right. Okay.
>> So, >> yeah, I have a bit of backstory on that.
I'll just say it up front now because you bring it up, but like so originally in like they did press screenings um back in 69 that version was 125 minutes and then it was confusing. It uh had audiences a little or press actually scratching their heads. So, they tacked on a minute and a half. That's the version that aired in theaters um initially, but when they did re-releases, it was the extended cut, which I think is considered just the definitive cut now.
>> It seems to be it's the it's the one that's put out on um you know, home media discs.
I think I mean the Wikipedia page for the film is a bit confusing because at the very end it does have in the American and French versions this is the ending or this is the ending in the British version which I don't think is the distinction anymore. I think it is just if you're in a predominantly English-speaking country you'll get the extended cut on disc and if you're not you'll get the shorter cut. And I think it's to do with when the film was dubbed um originally. So, this like I checked on my disc that it's I think it's the only disc in my 4K set where I can't, you know, there's no other language options. It's just the English version because when they were theatrically releasing this, it was the 126 minute cut.
>> Uh, and so it was dubbed at the time and, you know, it all those extra bits that were sort of added in for the home media releases of the English language versions, uh, they just didn't have the, you know, the dubs from back in the day.
So that's why it's shorter in um in other territories. I believe that's the reason why >> there were also different endings uh depending on where you saw it in the day >> because there's the airport ending that we're going to talk about today. That's what we saw. But that was only the ending in England >> uh initially >> and in the US and France it was the suicide ending with the uh the mole at the end killing himself offcreen.
>> I I called that the poochie ending.
Right.
>> Right.
>> Offscreen. O and that's it. Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. It was basically just made up in editing. So, it was something that they had to just kind of cobble something together because people were confused by the ending.
>> Um I I I I worry that we are getting ahead of ourselves. So, I'm going to pull the reins here and and get us on track. For those who haven't watched Topaz, despite us having spoken about the ending a little bit there, here is your synopsis, just so you're not spo for the rest of the film.
>> Is it like seven pages long, Scott?
>> Uh, actually, surprisingly, no. It's one paragraph.
>> Wow.
>> I can't wait to hear this.
>> Yeah. Uh, and there there's exclamation marks, so I will uh I will put some rasmatars on it for you all. Okay, stand back.
Topaz Hitchcock takes you behind the actual headlines to expose the most explosive spy scandal of this century.
That was that was me acting. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Probably better than some of the people in this film.
Copenhagen, Denmark, 1962. When a highranking Soviet official decides to change sides, a French intelligence agent is caught up in a cold, silent, and bloody spy war in which his own family will play a decisive role.
>> I mean, that's pretty succinct, actually.
>> Speaking of lessons people should take.
>> Well, I'm really I'm really coloring in here, aren't I? I'm really adding uh adding some shade. Um yeah, that that's the setup. Uh, the gist is basically it's a it's about the lead is a French intelligence agent, which took me a while to figure out who the lead was, but yeah, that's that's it really. Um, I I just have so much to say about this film. But, uh, I know we're all chomping at the bit, but Cam, we need the backstory. We need to know how you went from Torn Curtain from the heights of Torn Curtain.
>> Well, before we get to that though, we've got to just first first impression of the movie.
>> You're right. Um, and so like Calvin, you've mentioned you've seen it four times, >> but I want to know. Let's hop in the time machine.
>> Why?
>> Well, I want to hop in the time machine.
>> Calvin's first time watching the movie.
What is his takeaway? Oh, hated it.
Absolutely hated it. would have said it was one of my least favorite films of all time at a certain point in history, which I think is probably a bit h, you know, I might have been a bit overblown now, but I think because I saw this when I was getting into films in general, when I was like and you know, in my early teens and as we've already said, this is one of the films that's in the Universal Hitchcock collection. So, whenever they put out a collection, this is inevitably in it. And I watched pretty much every other film in that set, I think. And there was some highs and lows. You know, I'm not a huge fan of family plot. I love frenzy and I have a soft spot for Torn Curtain. And uh then it got to Topaz and it was just, oh wow, this is long and boring and confusing and I don't know anyone here and it's yeah, I really didn't connect with it at all. And then I must watched it again around university time and then the next time I watched it, it was when the Hitchcock films came out on Blu-ray, just on standard Blu-ray. Never touched that disc. That that Blu-ray never got played. And then finally when the 4K came out, I was like, you know what?
Okay, I'm going to get into it again and give it a go. Um, and I I I actually found myself enjoying chunks of it. I think it's a very messy film and I think it's going to be interesting to discuss.
I think we're going to talk a lot of, you know, tweaks here and there could maybe have, you know, come out with something more, you know, uh, competent and, um, enjoyable.
But, uh, yeah, I think time helped and I think a greater understanding of the context in which it was coming out helped. Like, you know, now that I know what the Cuban missile crisis was and things like that, like it's very because you really do kind of need that real world knowledge. I think to the film kind of assumes that you just know this.
Um, and the film itself, you know, it came out like, you know, it opens in 1962. The film came out at the end of 1969. It wasn't exactly on the pulse of this wasn't like Doctor Strange Love coming out at a point of sort of like really, you know, um, heated tensions, which gives the film an extra sort of meta quality. This was kind of a bit, you know, late in the day, I think, to say something topical about the Cuban missile crisis. But, um, yes. So, I I I've made peace with Topaz is, I guess, the short version of that. And I do think that there is a lot in here that is, you know, worthwhile. Hitchcock stuff. I do still think it's worth checking out, but certainly when I first saw it, I hated it.
Uh, I wasn't too far off from you. Um, I Okay, I may be wrong, but I have memories that um I I'd bought in the Universal DVD set and I've been basically checking off all the Hitchcock greatest hits before I bought that. So, I'd watched Psycho and Rear Window, North by Northwest, um, 39 Steps, ones like that. Bought that box set very excitedly and I had some knowledge of Topaz, not in the sense of like what it was about. I didn't really know, but I think my mom had said it was really boring. For some reason, I had a sense like there was a negative kind of air over that movie, which is why I left it to the last one in that box set that I watched. I watched Family Plot before that. And I was basically skipping ahead chronologically because I just there was for some reason, maybe it was like a review I came across, like an archival review, something about Topaz had jumped out. And so I remember one night it was like, "Okay, look, I love the Hitchcock films. I love this era for him. I'm sure it's just misunderstood."
And I sat down and I was um fairly young. I was probably I wasn't a teenager, but I was probably in my late 20s and sat down one night and watched Topaz. And I was just stunned at like how convoluted and how there was so little to hang on to. And it really just held me at arms length and in a way where I got I think more angry watching it where I was just feeling like this movie is giving me nothing and it's really making me angry to watch. And I will say like my this was my second experience going back to it. That's how much like it annoyed me was I'm just not even going to bother watching this movie again. I didn't upgrade to the Blu-rays. So, I went from the DVDs to the uh to the 4K set. And so, I was actually really excited to watch it for the reason of just seeing the 4K transfer, but also just seeing like 20 years ago, did I just maybe have the wrong take or was I just impatient?
Was I going in expecting something like North by Northwest and wound up with Topaz, which is an unfair comparison in terms of the two movies, but when you're looking at the lineage of Hitchcock spy films, they tend to have a fair amount of energy. and Topaz is like anti-energy.
So, it was one that I had very negative associations with and was always one that when Scott and I started this podcast and I was writing the list of Hitchcock films, I was always like, "One day that one's going to be a struggle."
>> I I have no story to add because this was my first time.
>> Had you heard of it or did you have any sort of like sense of what it was going in?
>> No. Well, I mean, the only thing I knew is two things. One is through just social media because that's what I run for the show. And when I talk about Hitchcock, people like I'll say like typical engagement bait tweet. Oh, what's Hitchcock's best spy movie? Blah blah blah. And then they'll be like, oh, North by Northwest. Oh, 39 steps. And be like, don't watch Topaz.
>> Okay. Noted. Noted. And then Calvin asking to come on for Topaz either meant it was the best or like a disaster that's fun to talk about. And I won't weigh in on it yet, but I think we're starting to get a sense of which way it is. Well, it's a it's interesting when you look at Hitchcock. His movies are so many of the masterpieces, but he has these movies that are frustrating and sometimes those are the most interesting ones to try to analyze because it's like this is someone this is not Hitchcock at the be early stages of his career when he's making some real clunkers or even when he's making something like the number 17, you know, where you're like, "Oh man, what happened there?" Like this is Hitchcock well past his master period.
He's continuing on and it feels like in some ways him struggling against what popular tastes are, not really knowing which way to go. This is 1969. This is the year where you're going to have the counterculture taking over Hollywood.
And I I feel like maybe there's a reason this movie is a little bit confused.
>> I think there's a few reasons. Well, well, >> um, what I think what you're actually saying is this is Alfred Hitchcock's Megalopouloolis.
>> Oh, uh, I don't know. This was not a vanity project for him at all. No.
>> Okay, that's fair. That is fair. And I think that leads us in to the behind the scenes.
>> Yes. So, this was based on a book by author Leon Urus, who was a Marylandborn writer and occasional screenwriter. His specialty was historical fiction. and he had a few of his books turned into movies. He did one called Battlecry which became a World War II film with Van Heftlin. He did The Angry Hills which starred Robert Mitchum. It was a movie in 1959 that was a Greek resistance spy thriller. So I've added that to our list to cover. And he had also >> Strap in next week folks. It's Robert Mitchum time.
>> Those hills are going to be angry.
>> Oh boy.
And he'd also written Exodus, which was turned into a very bloated uh Paul Newman film in 1960 about the creation of the state of Israel. And that movie was like a huge deal. It was like three and a half hours. Um, and it is one of the biggest chores to sit through I've ever encountered of the movie.
I mean, I have nothing to to really add there, but uh as in that's that's literally one of the worst things you've seen.
>> It's not one of the worst because you can look at something that's like truly atrocious. It's like it's well-meaning.
It is uh 1960s Hollywood. It is. This is a three and a half hour epic um with big stars, big production values, but the pace of like jello.
>> Next week, everyone.
>> It's Exodus.
Um, notably, uh, Leon Urus also wrote the screenplay for the 1957 western gunfight at the OK Corral, which is kind of a low-key classic with Bert Lancaster and Kirk Douglas. Now, the book Topaz was published in ' 67, and it was based on accounts allegedly by French agent Phipe Theod Devasjali.
Uh, apologies for the pronunciation. I knew as soon as I was writing that one out that I was going to be in trouble.
You >> should have sent that one to me, Cam. I do speak French.
>> Well, there you go. Um, this book, this manuscript got a big response. This is before it's even published. Um, French President Charles de Gaulle had heard about this book and publicly denied any truth to this being actually, you know, actually being something that happened.
And so, like, this book was actually held up from being published because the French government wasn't too happy with it. And um when it came to the film, the only way they could shoot in France was if they agreed that Charles de Gaulle would not be featured in the movie.
Yeah. Topaz.
>> It's not often I agree with France. But >> that's how I'm going to answer things from now on. Topaz >> right?
>> Topaz. Am I right now? This is Hitchcock's 51st film and it's the follow-up, as I said, to Torn Curtain. This is not the movie he wanted to make at the time. He was way more interested in a script he'd been working on for Frenzy.
And Universal did not like Frenzy. They were saying, "No, we're not too interested in that." But Universal President Lou Wasserman, who at one point was Hitchcock's agent in the past, um basically said, "We want to work with you. Here's a list of properties we have. Do any of them jump out to you?"
and he picked Topaz out of that pile.
And what grabbed him was the idea of modern espionage and doing something like a realistic Bond film that was adjusting to changing times.
>> Wasn't that his line for Tor Curtain as well though?
>> There was an element of that I want to do more of like a anti-bond kind of thing. Yeah.
It's almost as if he was sort of seen by many as one of the masters of spy films and then Bond turned up and he was like, "Ah, I guess I'm not the master anymore."
>> Or is it also like, "I need to be in charge of the next evolution." Like, we've seen the 60s super spy. The 60s is coming to an end. I want to be the guy that charts the course for where these are going.
>> It's interesting when you Frenzy is one of my favorite Hitchcock films. I love that film so much. particularly coming after Torn Curtain and Topaz, it does feel like a bit of a creative shot in the arm for him when you see that film and how sort of much more alive and uh so it feels like it's directed by a much younger man, someone who's like maybe at the start of their career, whereas um there is something quite sort of bloated about Topaz. And I know from what I read about behind the scenes where Hitchcock would just sort of like you know take himself away at a certain point of the day or something because he was just tired and feeling a bit and you know he is you know getting on in years at this point as well so that's understandable but um yeah there is a kind of a sluggishness about it I think.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Uh and so the book had not been published when Hitchcock became attached due to the controversy. So there was also like a kind of taboo element of this that probably appealed to him as well. Like this book is scaring the French and that's interesting.
Not easily scared those French, are they?
>> Sakura blue.
>> And uh so when they made the deal to make Topaz a movie, uh the uh it it started a lawsuit over the book and the film rights between the author Leon Urus and the agent he had talked to Devos Devos Jolie.
>> Oh, come on, Cam.
>> You got to give me that Scott. How do you say it? V is what you just said.
>> Turning into Cluo. Uh, it's V O J O L I.
>> Can you send it to me?
>> Uh, no. Uh, >> okay.
>> Basically, what happened was this operative um said that he had written a manuscript for his own story in French and Leon Urus had been translating it and then had turned that into his own book. M >> that was the accusation.
And so the operative, this French operative actually won in court uh damages for $350,000.
So Leon Urus was, it seems, accountable, and there was a lot of questions as to who actually the author of Topaz truly is.
>> VJ O.
>> Yeah.
>> Vosi.
>> Vosi. Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Strip it down.
>> Okay. Well, there we go. Uh so um Hitch actually wanted to hire Leon Urus to adapt the book for himself. Um but they did not get along. Uh Urus did not enjoy Hitch's sense of humor and how he wanted to inject moments of whimsy into serious situations and he was really confused because Hitchcock kept saying he wanted this to be a realistic spy film. But could he perhaps draw inspiration from Notorious?
I I mean Notorious has the odd moment of reality. I guess >> it does, but it is a very like Hollywood >> star. Yeah.
>> So >> that's why I love it.
>> Yeah. Not a match made in heaven. And so instead he went to uh screenwriter Samuel A. Taylor who was born in Illinois. He was mostly a playwright actually. That's primarily where most of his work was. Um he had a couple TV credits in the late 40s and made his Hollywood debut when his um play the happy time was adapted into the 1952 Charles Boyer Louis Jordan comedy which is about a teenage boy who falls in love with the family maid.
>> H would you wouldn't get that today would you?
>> You should see the poster. It's like the maid is in like a fy sexy French maid costume.
>> Did you just put sexy and f Frenchy together? Frey. Did you just say >> I don't know if I was like blending those two. I was thinking of the word frenzy from the Hitchcock film, but it was one or the other.
>> FXY. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Coin something new though.
>> So then >> he can have it. I'm not I'm not putting Spyard's name on that. That's a Cam Smith original.
>> No, no, I don't want it. I don't want it. Um then in 1954, Samuel Taylor adapted his own play into the movie Sabrina, which was a huge hit. He got an Oscar nomination for it. It starred, of course, Bogart, Heburn, and William Holden. And the movie was much acclaimed. And from that movie, over the next few years, he's actually brought in by Hitchcock to uh co-write Vertigo, a movie that Hitchcock had very mixed feelings about in the wake of because even though he was passionate about the project, audiences did not like it at the time and Hitchcock kind of turned on it. So that's why he was someone who typically went to the same collaborators over and over again. But after Vertigo, he did not bring back Samuel A. Taylor for a while. Um, and so this was actually Taylor's followup to the 1967 Rosland Russell comedy Rosie. And um, yeah, basically Hitchcock went back to him because he was, I think, kind of like a safe writer he knew he'd worked with, but it was obviously not one of his like top tier favorites.
I'm more interested in the story about Hitchcock kind of distancing himself from from Vertigo because of course now that is held up as one of the best. I actually had it I have an issue with Vertigo. I don't not the actual condition. I don't have an issue with Vertigo personally.
>> You like Lucille too.
>> Oh, >> good reference. Thank you.
>> Very good. Yeah. Um um I'm a monster. Yeah. So, but I um like I I found the lead character to be a piece of crap and that was my problem with it. And I know that was like part of how it was, but was that the sort of audience's problem with it at the time as well or >> uh Yeah. with with Vertigo? Yeah. I think people found I mean Jimmy Stewart was like the most likable actor out there >> and you're portraying him in a way that was quite toxic and quite where audiences didn't know how to feel about him >> which is not how they want to feel about Jimmy Stewart. Um, Hitch blamed a lot of the movie on Jimmy Stewart being too old, which I don't think was particularly truthful because he then hired Carrie Grant, who was older than Jimmy Stewart, to start North by Northwest. But yeah, >> it was their last film together, wasn't it? Hitchcock and Stewart. It was Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, I think it was one of those where audiences were quite quite muted on it at the time. Um and then it was sort of you know when you know particularly when the French sort of uh started uh you know really discussing the the themes of Hitchcock films and everything and I think it stands now as probably his most personal film really in terms of the the ideas that he's exploring but I think um you know something like North by Northwest is you know much you know a more shorefire crowd-pleaser kind of film and I think that that's um yeah what audiences were more interested in at that time.
>> I haven't met many people that love Vertigo the first time they see it.
>> I didn't.
>> Definitely not. Took to Took took a few years.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think it was probably maybe like third or fourth viewing where it really >> Yeah. I remember taking my friend to see it in a theater for my second time because they were showing like a, you know, reps screening of it here >> and just sitting there going like, I feel bad for bringing my friend to this because this is not the type of movie he'd be wanting to watch. and we got out and he was kind of like, "Yeah, that was that was an experience."
>> Yeah.
>> There's only one film in my life I've given more than actually there's two films in my life I've given more than one try to try and have it win me over.
One was Ten It and that's still not won me over or I've still not started watching it yet. I'm not really sure what's happening in the timeline of that film. And then the other one sat here and that took about 10 viewings for me to start enjoying Star Trek the motion picture.
>> And that's unhealthy.
>> Yeah. Did you see 10?
>> About about 10.
>> Wow.
>> Yeah. I had to watch it on the big screen really before I actually got it.
And now I'm like, "Yeah, yeah, I understand exactly what they were going for, but I also understand why people think it's the most boring film they've ever seen." And then I will slide them a disc of Topaz.
Well, okay. So, the screenplay for this movie wasn't even finished until the back half of shooting. And so they were instead relying on a very detailed treatment that was written by Taylor and Hitchcock. And often uh Taylor was providing pages day by day as they were shooting. Um yeah. Yeah. So that might explain why there's a little bit of an unwieldiness to this movie and also why the ending was never really figured out.
>> But that's that's why editors are so important. They can go in and be like, "Okay, well this is a load of gubbins.
snip snip snip snip snip and then you end up with a tight film. But I I I wonder if there's a credited editor on this film.
>> Um there is. But uh I mean back in these days it was unusual to have like a a film with an unfinished script in production whereas nowadays that's just common, you know. I don't even know if Doomsday has a a script yet.
>> So hey, as of the day of recording, there's a trailer out somewhere. I don't know if it has anything that'll end up in the final film.
>> Yeah, >> who knows? But >> so, but for Hitchcock, >> not that common because he was someone who liked to know exactly what the movie was before he even showed up on set. And he said production was usually boring because he already knew what the movie was. I think he he there's a quote which I'm probably mangling from him where he did say something like the three key ingredients to a good film are the script, the script, the script. And it's like Yeah. So for him to like be just shooting without a completed one is uh and it does explain I think why so much of Topaz feels quite um episodic it feel you know there's these little I was kind of thinking like oh maybe this would have been better as a miniseries or something like that where they could have expanded on some of this stuff maybe given the hero more of a through line. I guess we'll get into talking about it more, but um you know, our lead character is problematic in the sense that I think all of the memorable scenes and sequences in this film don't include him and he doesn't do as much as a lot of other characters. And I uh I think that's one of the main problems with this thing. And maybe that comes from kind of uh you know, they were writing this thing, didn't quite know where they needed him to be, and he ends up just being the sort of uh center point to all of these story satellites that are going on around him.
>> I'm glad you bring him up because originally the studio wanted a star and they were looking at Eve Montand who was a French actor. Um, but they were also pushing Shan Connory um for a Marne reunion. Uh, that classic French actor Shan Connory.
>> Oh, could you imagine him doing the accent? That would be amazing.
>> No, of course he wouldn't do the accent, would he?
Uh, but Hitchcock instead wanted Swiss actor Frederick because Frederick Stafford because he wanted to turn him I'm going to leave this for pause into the new Carrie Grant. Ooh, I mean firstly I can't escape the gravitational pull of saying the following which is uh anyway well that's the end of Topash pretty good >> I'll take it um and uh ultimately I would guess the experiment ended with this film too for this chap >> he did work more but yeah he was not a uh exploding star after I actually could like physically and visually he's a pleasing chap to look at. Not a problem at all. I can see that sort of matinea idol in him. That's perfectly fine, but he lacks any of the charm.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um and so yeah, this movie um you know, the production doesn't seem like it was that bumpy other than like the script issues, but in terms of like complications, not so much. However, when they got towards the end, uh, they were going to be filming a big duel finale. I don't know if you guys watched the alternate ending.
>> I've seen them all now.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, they were going to be shooting that and, um, Alfred Hitchcock's wife, Elma, was sick. So, he actually left and handed the reigns over to associate producer Herbert Coleman, who finished the big duel finale, which is maybe why it's a little flat when you see it. Um, and the duel when they showed it to test, uh, test audiences, they just laughed at it. They thought it was a joke.
>> Well, when there's a line in the alternate ending, um, I think they asked Picard, which I just love the name. Um, when was the last time we had a jewel in France? And you'd expect it to be like a hundred years ago. He's like, no, it was like five years. Oh, okay. So, this is a serious thing that you're doing. That really stood out to me as well because I thought that that was going I I at first I thought oh is that a joke that she thinks that oh the last one was ages ago but then she doesn't really react to it and it's kind of oh cuz four or five years doesn't seem like that long ago actually. Um, but yeah, no, it's um it it's certainly of the endings that there are, and I think you can see them. I think they've been included fairly religiously on all of the DVDs, Blu-rays, 4Ks of Topaz. Of the available endings, it is the one that feels cinematic is the wrong word. Um, climactic. I I don't know. like it feels like it's it is a big ending of something with >> Yeah, it's a you know it's a it's a bit of action I guess it's a bit of a sort of a jolt of excitement or an attempt at that. So I I appreciate it on that level in a way that I don't think the other endings have that kind of that it the other endings the movie just kind of stops whereas that it feels like oh this is kind of a climax even though it's not terribly exciting.
>> Yeah. And that scrapped ending, uh, the duel was actually like just stored in Hitchcock's like stuff basically at his house and it was thought lost forever and it was his daughter discovered it later down the road and handed it over for preservation. So that's why we all have access to it now.
>> And I will add it's on it's on YouTube currently if you want to go hunt them and you haven't got the home media, although I would recommend always buying home media.
>> Yeah. Yep. And this was Hitch's third flop in a row after Marne and Torn Curtain. Um, it had a budget of $4 million and it earned three million. So, not a success story. Uh, the top three for the year, number one was Butch Cassidy in the Sundance Kid. Number two was The Love Bug, the Disney film, the first Herby adventure. And number three was Midnight Cowboy. Really showing where Hollywood is going with that one.
And um just the final note, Hitchcock would only make two more films after this. He would have Frenzy in 1972, which would be a hit and a return to form for him. And also taking what he does best and applying it to where the 70s cinema is going, where it's edgier, it's darker, it's more violent, um but also keeping what makes him special. And then his last film was 1976's Family Plot. Uh, and he died in 1980 at the age of 80.
>> I note you didn't say Family Plot was a hit.
>> It was, I think, a middle of the road performer. Um, Family Plot's a weird one. Um, I'd like to revisit it. I've only seen it once, but I remember watching kind of going, "Huh, didn't didn't dislike it, but it was like a it's really strange." particularly following on from Frenzy which as you say does feel like a real return to form for Hitchcock and it's it's basically you know has a lot in common with the lodger which is a silent movie which was I think it was his third film overall but it was the film that sort of start you know got him noticed and had a lot of the sort of key Hitchcock themes that would reoccur throughout his career and in a way the lodger and frenzy feel like such a perfect like bookend to his career in a lot of ways and then there's family plot which is this slightly sort familyfriendly, slightly mad cap comedy thriller kind of thing with very low production values. It's quite odd. Um, but Frenzy is amazing. I love Frenzy. It also feels like it's a movie with a cast because it's Bruce Durn and Karen Black who are like two stars of the 70s and it just feels like Hitchcock's dabbling now with actors who are very of their time in material that doesn't feel like it's that kind of revolutionary 1970s stuff.
>> Yeah. Like William Deain's in it and then um ah uh I can't remember the actress's name. She was in the original Freaky Friday with Jodie Foster where she played the mum. Um, >> oh, >> can't remember her name now, but uh >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. But it is like yeah compared with particularly with um with Topaz which um I mean Cam did that come up much in your research about Hitchcock being kind of uh not enjoying the experience on Torn Curtain with Julie Andrews and Paul Newman so much that this was a bit of sort of like uh you know an overcorrection that he was like because John Foresight is probably the only name on this cast list that I think people at the time would have had any familiarity with.
>> Yeah. because John Vernon hadn't really blown up yet. Um he would with Animal House, uh but that's like almost a decade later.
>> Um so yeah, I I think that I mean PE Bond fans would have known Karen Door from You Twice, >> but yeah, it's not like a high wattage cast >> and uh yeah, it was really Newman him and Newman did not get along because of Newman's method approach.
So, I think he he was kind of like, I don't care for this, so I'm going to go to these, >> you know, kind of newer actors who don't have maybe the clout to try to push me around.
>> Yeah. I read somewhere as well that a part of it, you know, Paul Newman and Julie Andrews particularly at that time, you know, in in history were very expensive. Uh whereas this cast in particular with it being so big and sprawling, keep the costs down. Don't have any terribly big stars in there.
But god damn it, the cast is so sprawling that I would have appreciated some stars at a few, you know, a few points so that I knew I would know who to pay attention to because sometimes you're in a room with all these people.
It's like I don't know who's important here. And um having watched the movie, I'm not quite sure I know who who's important.
>> We'll have to run a poll, I think. like who is the main character of this film?
Let us know in the comments below. Um well, let's let's comment. Let's do it.
Calvin, you've waited I think we're we're coming up to our seventh year now, close to seven years to talk about Topaz to have your online therapy session with us. So, the chair is yours. Share your feelings on top. Well, well, as as I say, I I think it is a bit of a mixed bag because I do sort of want to pivot to talking about some of the sequences that I think are actually really good in this film.
And I'm curious to see if you guys agree with me, like particularly with the um the opening where we are following this uh family, this um uh he's a Soviet intelligence officer. Um, C. Uh, pronunciation wise, Kusnov. Kusenov.
>> I'm not I'm not the person to come to for pronunciation.
>> Kusenov. I think it's Kusenov.
>> He's very fxy.
>> Yeah.
But he him and his him and his wife and young daughter are in the process of defecting to the West.
And the whole kind of like the first like 15 minutes of the movie or so, there's some lines at a certain point from John Foresight. It almost works as a silent movie where it's these characters just trying to lose their these agents that are tailing them and they're having to do it in public.
They're sort of like going there, you know, in between trams and stuff to try they're going into on a museum tour at a certain point. Um, all that stuff I think is like pretty classic Hitchcock stuff. It's really good suspense.
There's bits where the characters are slightly cornered and then the uh people that are um uh following them um appear out of nowhere. There's a couple of good jolts in it. I think that it's um a really to be honest if the entire film was just about that family like moving forward. I think I would have been kind of happy with that because I think it's it sets up an interesting human problem, you know, and I I I think the fact that the mother and father seem so jaded.
There's this lovely relatively incidental bit that I has always really stood out to me when they eventually get to the west and the young daughter, she's very excited about seeing the White House and she sees the capital building and she's, "Oh, is that the White House?" And the guy in driving the car says something. Oh no, we'll point it out when we get there. And then again, this very incidental thing, but just how she's, you know, sort of smiling and keen and interested in this sort of exciting new life and her parents look quite jaded. It seems like they kind of there's an innocence to her and not to them. I think it sets up this really interesting human dynamic, human drama between them and then they disappear for the rest of the movie and we never really get any serious kind of res resolution. But I'm curious to know from you guys like what you think of that opening and if it hooked you as much as it did me Scott particularly on a first time watch. I can't imagine going like you must assume oh well these are the main characters or or you know they're going to be throughout the film.
I can only assume that's what you make of it at first.
>> I think my fourth note is sorry who's the main character?
>> I think that was around about the time that they were being debriefed.
Um, >> but to your question, did I enjoy that first sequence? It's one of my likes.
And I think when I was watching the film >> and after having known torn curtain game before this and just thinking, oh, okay, Hitchcock's cooking again. He's got the tension going. I'm I'm kind of edge of my seat here. Are they going to get away? Are they not? And and then then the rest of the film happens. And there are a couple other nice moments I want to touch on. There things I do like about this film. It is not a disaster by any stretch of the imagination. But >> to your question, yes, I think that was probably the high watermark of the film.
>> I have another one that's high, but it Yeah, it's a movie that on my revisit I was like, it's sort of this interesting collection of pieces that I enjoy. And I I said that like my take on it was different this time. And it was the first time. Honestly, if you would have had asked me prior to re-watching the movie to tell you about moments in Topaz, I would have had like a blank stare on my face.
>> Very little I would have remembered. I would have >> unusual.
>> Well, yes, I would have remembered uh Karen Door's death with the purple dress draping outwards like blood. That's what I would have remembered.
>> Beyond that, I think I would have just stared at you. I wouldn't have been able to answer any real questions. And it was funny when I was re-watching yesterday and we got to um you know classic Cuban actor John Vernon as like a Cuban general um I was suddenly like that's what movie this was like I that suddenly all came back and I was like it was this movie where I saw that. Um and so it's a movie that on my rewatch though I found myself appreciating a lot of parts. You know, Calvin mentions that intro. I had the same reaction. That entire like factory sequence where they're going through and you see like the ornate designs of the statues and then like the two goons trailing the family throughout the way they split up and have the daughter going off on her own.
>> That stuff is great. There's a few sequences like that through the movie.
>> And again, just like just in that little micro scene there, you like the daughter dropping the statue to cause a distraction to go out of the room to make a phone call >> that was part of an agreed plan. And then you're like, "Oh, this is some good trade craft here. This is really interesting." I like that.
>> Yeah. And like the way there's that escape and it's like a real like hairy escape where the daughter gets hit by a bicycle and that the agent Mike has to like go back and get her. Stuff like that is really cool.
>> I don't think she deserves to be picked up. That was like it was a weak hit by the bike. That that that's some Darwinian stuff there. She should have just been left behind. Having been to Copenhagen, I felt for her because damn it, they are menacers on their bikes in that place. My brother lives there. I I know exactly where they were standing in that roundabout. I know where the department store was. I know all of it.
And I'm watching it like this is cool from that lens of knowing Copenhagen very well. But yeah, like you watch out for cyclists in Copenhagen. They all come at you. They have their own like uh lanes in in major roads, not just like little cycle lanes, but big wide lanes.
>> Oh yeah. No, totally. It was interesting seeing that it's like, "Oh, wow. God, this has been Yeah. thing since the 60s." I guess it's just part of the culture there. I suppose >> I had that experience in Europe, not in Copenhagen, but like here in Vancouver, if you walk on a bike line, uh bike lane, it's no big deal. Like chances are you're not going to get run down by bicycles.
>> Cam is just out there throwing like twigs into the bicycles to try and knock them over.
>> Trying to put them through the spokes like in Indiana Jones. Yeah. Um, but no, it's just not that uncommon for, hey, if it's like um, you know, traffic on one side of the sidewalk, just walk across the bike lane, you're fine. But I remember when I was in Europe, my friend Tonyy's like, you're going to get yourself killed. What are you doing? And I'm like, what do you mean? There's no one around. He's like, doesn't matter.
Just stay off the bike lane. And I was like, huh? Well, who knew? Who knew?
>> There's there's one outside the train station I I work at. I don't work at a train station. I work next to a train station. And uh there's a very particular one where a lot of accidents happen and it's a very long walking phase outside of the station and at least once a day I will see people almost get hit either going to home or or getting lunch or something. But it's also a lot of them just skip the red lights which I think is also like they really want to take their life into their own hands with that.
>> Yeah.
>> Anyway, this this turned into Scott's uh anticyclist corner. I'm I'm I'm shoving like you know things into the spokes.
I'm Yeah. I'm a I'm a I'm chaos.
>> But but yeah, just in terms of like a collection of sequences, I think there's a lot to entertain in Topaz.
>> The problem is, and I feel like we'll all come down on a very similar note, which is like the pacing and assembly of these into a 2hour and 20 minute story is really rough. Really rough. And I was actually like chuckling to myself after the movie. I was thinking like it would be amazing. I've I've been listening to the slash filmcast for a long time. It's now just called the filmcast, but they've been getting uh letters from university professors who teach film classes and just talking about how they cannot get their students to sit through a movie anymore because they just have short attention spans. They don't want to and it's just become a struggle. And several teachers that they've heard from have actually quit the profession because they just got too frustrated.
Uh, and I was thinking like you should have the Topaz challenge where like to get a passing grade, a student, a 20-year-old student, 19-year-old student has to sit through Topaz beginning to end.
I think that's a genius idea. Yeah, this is this is the movie to test people's attention spans. God.
>> Or it might turn an entire generation off of cinema.
>> Well, maybe. Maybe. God forbid.
>> Or Hitchcock. Yeah. Well, you know, it isn't too long after the opening that uh my main problem with the film, which uh you know is uh Frederick Stafford um Devo, who you know, he's I think you mispronounced it. It's stiffered.
>> Stiff.
>> Is it? He puts the stiff. No, it's not really.
>> Oh. Oh, very good. Very good. It took a moment for the penny to drop there, but yes. Nice. Nice. I like that. Well, this is actually uh what what I want what I was so mulling over during some of his scenes where my mind was wandering as he was talking, but I was kind of like, is it a lack of star power that I'm missing or is it just a general lack of charisma and that he could just be an act? I know this actor from nothing else, but transplant in someone with at least an ounce of sort of watchability of charisma. maybe I would have been a bit more engaged with this because as soon as the film kind of pivots to him and as I say he's top build I believe his character is the main character um but he does become just a bit of a kind of observer through far more interesting things particularly for the first twothirds which I think is an interesting there are some lovely set pieces I think the opening is great there's a whole chunk in Harlem which I think is really interesting where he's stood outside watching from across the road. And then there's a load of quite quite interesting stuff happens in Cuba.
I think again he's back at the ranch like not pay, you know, not actually getting involved in the nitty-gritty.
And I think a big part of my problem with it is that we have a main character who for the most part doesn't really engage in the actual spycraft, even though he is supposed to be the lead in this thing. It's other characters that are doing stuff and going, you know, getting into these tense situations and these having these dangerous moments and he's just kind of at the background sort of gliding through and having interactions of course, but um you know, you know, there's scenes like in in the Harlem bit, we are seeing a lot of it through his perspective. There's a great sequence. I think again it sort of works as a silent movie where he's across the road and he's watching his contact who's waiting for a guy to come down in the lift and then he has a conversation with him and we do not hear their dialogue at all. It's just that classic Hitchcock thing of you can follow it, you know exactly what's happening but you don't hear a word. And I think that's so brilliant. Um, but then you know that whole sequence occurs and is great and then we're back with Frederick Stiffford for you know another 10 minutes where he's just very dull. But uh, yeah, I think he I mean he is my problem with the whole thing. The the main character in Sorry, one more thing and then I'll shut up about this. But again, just from like a human interest kind of dynamic that is so underutilized in this a big part of the film is his uh main character Devo. He's got a wife. They've got a daughter who's newly married. Um, and I think that that is an interesting family sort of dynamic that they they're joining their daughter on her I think they are joining her on a honeymoon, aren't they? Which seems like a bit of a buzzkill, but >> I've wrote that down. I would not go on my honeymoon with my parents.
>> I can't figure out why the son-in-law looked about the same age as the uh father, >> right? They treat him like he's this like 18year-old at certain points. It's like, wait, you look like exactly the same age. You look like contemporaries.
again. And I think that that is an interesting potential sort of core uh you know human interest element to this thing that is just completely underutilized.
Um and and and ultimately yeah it comes down to character I suppose. I think there's just a general lack of character throughine um you know in terms of an emotional journey. There's characters that pop up every now and then that have an interesting thing. Anyway, I've waffled far too much there. Well, >> I I need to I need to come in, Cam. I need to come in because because I'm jumping off I I want to give my two cents, but I also want to jump off a point that Calvin said, and this is really where my notes go into. I sort of in my notes is like a psychosis I'm writing about this so much. You talk about like a lack of charisma, a lack of star power perhaps for this chap.
It's everything. Here's the complete package of the anti- lead.
And I was thinking about like when have we seen this before and I realized that this same year we had a similar circumstance and that is on her majesty secret service. Ah >> the difference the difference is that unimagined secret service has confident filmmakers around and a confident cast around George Lenby so you don't notice the the faults and the lack of skill that or perhaps lack of experience. I won't go firing guns at George Lenby here. um he did the best he could with what he had but and that's why I think on matches is a successful film ultimately because of the people around George.
This is an example of when you haven't got that safety net. This is George Lenby in a bad film >> and that's what we've ended up here.
You've got a unconfident lead. I'm not sure unconfident's a word.
Inconfident, non-confident. He lacks confidence. There isn't any confidence.
I'm not confident in my own word.
anti-confident.
>> Anti-confident. He is the anti-confidence, but the film making around him is lacking in confidence, too.
>> Hitchcock is clearly not invested in the material. The none of the other characters are particularly like shining. There's one chap I will call out when we get to likes. I think does a good job of what he's given, and we'll get to that. But I think this is really an example of terrible casting and a script that lacks any sort of like no one believes in it. So no one's really pushing it and so no one in this in this whole film believes or or like is in love with what they're doing and it's all just for the point of doing a Hitchcock film. And that is you could smell it everywhere because you know if I was if this film was done by any other director I would have been less angry at the end.
But because this film did Alfred Hitchcock at the start I have expectations. I can't help for having expectations. Um they're great and unfortunately I was frustrated is a word you both used very early on especially when you both talked about the first time you saw this film. Frustrated is definitely the word I left this with.
But it was also sad. Like I just think he could have been doing other things at this time that are far more memorable and this is his third to last film. What an absolute shame of and waste of talent. And and so you've just got this this blob of very long beige.
Um which incidentally was my Tinder handle back in the day. But um where did that one come from? Um, so yeah, I just But the laser be thing I couldn't shake.
Cam Cam's going off on that one.
>> No hits. Um, no. Okay, fine. Um, but the laser be Yeah, it was a lot of left. It was a lot of left. Um, hey, I married someone off of Tinder, so it worked for me in the end. Uh, but that Lasenby thing just stayed with me.
>> Yeah. And and I guess it's also like Lasen B while he's limited as an actor um they gave him a lot of physical action to do where you go that's impressive you know him on the ice sliding um you know ducking down to throw the knife that's like a physicality you'd never really seen Connory exhibit truly and it was kind of exciting whereas like the problem here is and I was trying to put my finger on it because we've seen this kind of thing before with Hitchcock And I think of Rear Window. That's Jimmy Stewart observing things for like two hours straight, right? He's really not involved until the very end when he's being attacked in his suite. Um, but Jimmy Stewart is a movie star. He has a face that pulls you in when he's seeing something. So does Grace Kelly for that matter as well. Um, and I think the problem here is you have like, you know, uh, Stafford here. um he doesn't have that support. If you look at his filmography, he's worked he was in one of the OSS films actually. Um but he's not someone with like this dense filmography. He's not considered like the actor's actor. And a lot of this movie is him having to respond to Hitchcock sequences he can't see. And you don't have that level of just staring at a movie star's face throughout. And that would cover a lot of ground in terms of the kind of the divorce between blank shots of him and then, you know, like Rosco Lee Brown going on and having like that really cool adventure where he's like breaking into like the hotel and meeting someone.
Like that stuff's interesting and involving, but then you cut back to, you know, Stafford just staring like a corpse.
He stood outside that building for a long time as well, just in that same spot just there's a lot going on in that hotel and he's just stood there just looking up. So, okay, >> from like a trade craft point of view.
Dreadful. Absolutely dreadful. I'm going to watch my Mark in front of the building where he's doing his job. Like, I mean, go around the corner at least and get a coffee and sit down in a cafe and watch or something. What are you doing?
>> You watching a dog something?
>> Yeah. I mean, it'll be a lot of walking back and forth on the same road, but maybe that dog really likes that strip.
Who knows?
>> But I think you make a great point there, Cam, in that it's he like he doesn't even have the action. He's not even involved in you can't point to like a cool like suspenseful setpiece that he was a, you know, a a big part of or at the center of or anything because all of the interesting stuff in the film is involving other characters. And I think maybe that's why I do have a soft spot for the duel ending because it le at least gives him like something. He has a gun in his hand at, you know, one point and it's like, oh, he doesn't do it.
>> Yeah. No, he doesn't even get to shoot.
>> It's not even him that shoots. It's a guy in the in the stands.
>> No, he's he's a really impotent leading man for a spy. And you know, and I I appreciate that a part of Hitchcock's emmo with this might well have been to do a realistic, you know, spy scenario or whatever, but I I don't think that that should be an excuse for yeah, they're just being a bit dull, you know.
I mean, we've seen realistic spy, you know, Tinker Taylor Soldier Spice brings to mind immediately as sort of a more sort of like grounded um thing, but Alec Guinness in that, you know, TV series in particular is just so captivating. Well, wind the clock back just a few years if we're talking Lara. You had the spy who came in from the cult.
>> Ah, of course. Yeah. Yeah, you're quite right. Yeah.
>> And there you go.
>> And uh Deadly Affairs around this time, too. And Deadly Affairs not regarded as one of the all-time great Lar films, but >> Chris File is there.
>> If Chris File, it does like quote unquote boring espionage, I think much more interestingly than this movie does.
like this is trying to do the stuff that you see in Tinker Taylor or Deadly Affair or IP Chris File to a degree, >> but it just doesn't involve you. You don't feel kind of sucked into that world.
>> Well, you you've got Michael Kaine, Richard Burton.
>> James Mason.
>> Uhhuh. Yeah. And then Guinness, of course, in the you know, later on in those miniseries. Yeah.
But, you know, this this jewel must have some shine to it. Let's talk about the things that did work for Topaz. So, Calvin, I'll put you on the spot.
Something else you liked about Topaz.
>> Uh, well, should we talk about um Karen Door? Because, you know, we're all Bond geeks, so you know Karen Door from You Live Twice, Helga Brand.
>> Yeah. almost unrecognizable as well with um without the red hair which uh I I believe that that it was a wig or it was dyed for you and Live Twice, right? Like her natural color was brunette, I think.
>> Yeah, there's some there's some production stills and I think some publicity images of her with brown hair.
>> Ah, right.
>> For You Only Live Twice. Um, but she's sort of the the center of this uh uh Cuban episode basically where um Frederick Stafford goes to Cuba and we spend, you know, about 20 minutes, half an hour of the movie there. And um our main couple are French, so obviously they're both having affairs. They've both got sexual interest in other people. And Karen is his, you know, former flame, mistress. I, you know, however you want to uh uh square it. I wrote down I wrote down his his piece of revolutionary Cuban ass.
>> Nice.
>> Sure.
>> But you know what? I I think she gives a great performance that I wish was in a better movie. Particularly in the scene where she and um Deo are saying goodbye to each other and she's got tears coming down her face and I think, "Oh wow, she's really great in this moment. I wish that she had someone to play against or I wish I was invested in their romance in any way, but unfortunately I'm not. She does have and Cam, you mentioned it earlier on. Um, if there's anything iconic about Topaz, it's the shot of her dying and she falls to the ground and the purple dress that she has sort of flows out. It's, you know, sort of visual metaphor for the blood coming out of it kind of thing.
Um, I think they do I am I right in this cam? Did it come up in the behind the scenes thing? There were like grips like off camera. I think they attached like little uh fishing wire or something to her dress and then they pulled it as she went down so that it kind of flowers out the way it does. It's quite a beautiful shot. I think it's lovely.
>> Yeah. It's like that is a moment where you just see that pure Hitchcock imagination >> and you're like if this movie had the same pace, same actors and all that, but he was just hitting you with moments like that every couple minutes, >> I think Topaz's reputation would be a lot better.
>> Um, but like that moment really does stand out. And with her performance, um, it's like that entire Cuba sequence really does kind of work.
>> It's like No Time To Die. Cuba is where it's at. That's where the movie suddenly explodes to life. if you're like, "Hey, give me more of the Cuba stuff." Because like that's where the Notorious element comes in too where she is also seeing John Vernon's Cuban general character.
Um there is that kind of conflict going back and forth. You had that great scene I thought where there's the the dinner sequence between her and Dero and then um you know uh Rico Par comes in and sits down at the table >> and it's just like you can feel actual tension >> between characters which is a rarity in Topaz where you go oh wow how's this going to end >> and even the way her story finishes and I think great performance too that moment in her death scene which is kind of like a mercy killing where like you know Rico is telling her all the things they're going to do to her if she's caught as a traitor. And we've seen an example of that earlier where two of her helpers in I thought a really good sequence where they're given away by seagulls. Uh Hitchcock had it out for the birds at this time in his life. Um, but like you see what happened to them and there's that horrifying shot of the two of them like laying on the benches and then you have Rico saying what's going to happen to her and we've seen it and so like that dread is really built in and then her death and it's like this is the sort of stuff that is like A-level Hitchcock material where I go Topaz every now and again it has a stealth moment that just completely bowls you over. You just wish there was more of them. But that section and Karen Door, it's great stuff.
>> I do love that moment where you see the uh the picnicer characters, you know, the the two that go and then they're captured of course and then you see them where they're being held and it's just she's like slumped with her back up against the wall and her husband's like draped over her lap kind of thing. Just look at it's like it's a really horrifying that you know she's just got this completely vacant like deadeyed stare and then you know and she whispers. Uh really effective moment. I think it's lovely and I love that whole picnic bit as well. It's again, it's another highlight of the film that doesn't include a leading uh character, but just as like a little episode, I thought that worked really well. What do you think, Scott, about the the the whole Cuba bit? Was it sort of drawing you in?
>> I'm confused, firstly, because I seem to recall that it went to like a dead screen. I just saw my own face looking despondent >> and sad. Is it?
>> And and then your dress draped out around you.
>> Yeah. I I thought that's as as it does as it does.
>> Did you collapse slowly to the ground?
>> That was when Topaz ended. Yeah. Um uh No, I I think I I think in terms of sequences, there's three major bits I enjoyed with this film. One was the defection, two was this, and there's the third one that I want to bring up as my like, but I think it actually gets a a pulse for about 20 minutes, and you're like, "Oh, something's going on here."
And you've got other characters that have brought in some liveless that have come come over from the Harlem section as well. So you've got a little bit of connective tissue there. Some good.
Again, I keep using the word tradecraftraft in this episode like it's the word of the week. But again, there's some interesting stuff for the there's like the the typewriter with everything hidden in it. That was great. Like you don't see that every day.
>> Um the razor.
>> The razor also good.
>> So yeah, I really I really enjoyed that sequence and I think Karen Door was spectacular. I think she's great in You Only Live Twice. And I I think it's actually a shame I've only seen her in so few things because this this says to me I probably should seek out more of her work.
>> Yeah, she had a disadvantage with You Only Live Twice because everyone just kind of goes, "Well, it's the kind of lesser Luchiana Palooi and Thunderball character, >> but you know, you could see here that she had a lot to offer as an actress."
>> Um, I would just take us over to my other like, which is the Harlem section.
generally speaking I think was fun but specifically um the actor uh chap's name >> he plays Philip Dubois which is sort of his lead in that era Rosco Lee Brown and um >> yeah he is absolutely fantastic he's like he's in a different film and I just want to point out for longtime Spyards fans he was also in Jumping Jack Flash I remembered that >> oh was he okay >> I don't know why I remembered that but I did but uh he he reminds me of um tying back to T torn curtain. There is that character whose name escapes me right at the end when they're trying to escape on the bus and they get off the bus and there's this lady who wants to get into America or whatever it is and she's got this whole like mini arc in the film and she's spectacular and it's like a just oh this comes to life for the and then she's you know wheeled off by the Nazis or by the Russians or whoever the villain is and to curtain I think it's the Russians and but again this is the exact same sort of thing here like he comes in the pulse goes up you're like oh this is fun he's got a smile on his face it's cheeky chappy and it's Great.
And you also get that little bit, which is a thing Hitchcock has done before, but the use of obscuring sound, which I I I like when it's used. It It's used a couple times in this film. I think it was first used by him in North by Northwest, but it might have been prior to that.
>> We also saw it in Torn Curtain, the scene where it's Julie Andrews and Paul Newman up on a hill >> and the people down below observing them.
>> Yeah. But I liked in like a florist freezer, which I didn't realize florists had freezers, but >> Yeah. Yeah. Coolers. Yeah. There you go.
Enjoyed that. But I just think I I think he was great and it was a great performance there.
>> That sequence, there's like a grittiness to it that I really enjoy. And it's Hitchcock trying to kind of figure out where movies are going. That sequence feels like the 70s to me. Like that feels like him dabbling with where movies are going. And you know, there wasn't a lot of diversity in Hitchco.
This feels like again what you're going to see more of in the 1970s. And to have Rosco Lee Brown taking front and center throughout this whole section is great.
And I thought this was where the most tension came from. Him going up and down those hallways. There was the sense of danger. There's the bit where he gets out of the elevator and there's the sign that says elevator out of order. And it's like very prominent in the frame and it almost feels like it's setting you up that something horrible is going to happen with an elevator at some point. I don't know if he's going to get thrown through the open elevator doors or something, but it was like these little bits of information. the fact that like this unruly hallway with all these like Cuban military guys and women probably of the night who are there with them and it's just like what is going on? You see the way that like Rico was just laying waste to his hotel room with like burgers thrown all over the place and beer bottles and you're like this is chaos. What is going to come of this?
The way they build up that whole red suitcase stuff is classic McGuffin.
And when it has Rosco Lee Brown take a bail out the balcony. I was like glorious. Like there is an energy and a grittiness to that whole sequence that is just absent through the le like the rest of the movie. It really does feel like he takes it over. And I feel like remind me Calvin because it's been a little bit for me but I feel like a little more of that energy is in frenzy.
>> Oh totally. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. know that gritty kind of and I completely agree with you. It's uh that like 20 minute episode in Harlem like it it feels like a boiling pot. It feels like I mean you know you could maybe just set a whole movie in that hotel with these characters and what's the the uh the rally the protest outside and then what's going on inside. It's just chaos and it's this really you know interesting um setting and collection of characters. Um but you know exactly as you say as well I think Hitchcock was probably trying to tap into some you know social commentary perhaps um in a way that he hadn't done previously. Um >> this is um also very shortly after the civil rights movement in America as well.
>> So to be putting Rosco Lee Brown front and center for this section. This is a new thing for Hitchcock.
>> Oh totally. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I I think you get not not not the the um racial politics or or themes in Frenzy, but that sort of the grittiness. I think like it the the bit where um he he picks up the there's like a burger that's been on a document and he takes up the book and it's just got this grease on it and then he has to like wipe it off and then he starts reading it. It's just one of those like really like gross like gritty but quite real thing. It doesn't feel Hollywood. That's not like a Hollywood moment. I can't imagine Carrie Grant would have done such a thing or James Mason in North by Northwest 10 years prior to this. It's just one of those like, oh, it feels really real and gritty and there's more of that in Frenzy, I think, for for sure. Yeah. So, maybe this was Yeah. laying the groundwork for that cuz I do think of Torn Curtain as a very sort of like old school Hollywood I in, you know, uh, in terms of presentation like that when that grittiness is sort of seeping in a bit here in Friends in Topaz.
Now, I'm kind of left up a creek here because you guys have taken basically my likes. So, I'm gonna say I actually really like the last line, the uh >> I am actually a fan. So, maybe that's interesting that I'm going to raise this as a like because you know the whole like anyway, that's the end of Topaz. I like when Hitchcock does a really punchy ending and we see that throughout his work. you know, the train going through the tunnel in North by Northwest is a classic one. Um, the car being pulled out of the water at the end of Psycho.
There's something to me fun about this in a way that it acknowledges sort of the absurdities of espionage where you see, you know, this uh was it Jacques character getting on the or was it Francois I think was actually no, Francois was the uh son-in-law. Jacques was the traitor. Jacques was the mole.
Um, but you have Jacques getting on the plane and just kind of waving and it's this sense of just like the sides are always changing. Things are ne there's no justice in this world. That's the end of Topaz. What can you do? I actually think that's really funny and points out some absurdities.
Does it match the often kind of leen movie you've watched for two and a half hours? No. But I actually really like that ending. I think it's a very punchy funny way to end a movie.
>> It It's good, you know, for the avoidance of doubt. It's like, well, that that is the end of the film. Like, yeah. Uh, I know what you mean. I think it's I think there is something and I think this was one of the reasons why that ending didn't go down well in certain places because essentially the main villain gets off scot-free. And yes, he's going to, you know, he's getting the one plane over to the Soviet Union. The heroes are getting their plane to America and that's kind of it.
how he gets on and he just sort of like, you know, tips his hat or something like that. It's it's sort of similar to um uh towards the end of the eyes only where it's all been about the ATAC and then Bon throws off a cliff and him and the Soviet general general goal are just like, "Well, that's that. You don't have it. I don't have it." Well, okay. But it works in that scenario, I think, because you have another main villain that already has been sort of taken out and you've had that confrontation. Whereas with Topz, I feel like it's just a bit, oh, I didn't think this was that movie that was going to end with a bit of a shrug of like, well, that's Chinatown kind of thing. And, you know, that's just the way it is. It didn't feel like it was, you know, and I suppose it wasn't building up to that originally because it was building up to the duel originally, but >> Yeah. It does feel very like kind of in keeping with a lot of the Cold War stuff going on at that point because I think of also Ice Station Zebra.
>> Remember there's the big conflict and then it just ends with the two of them being like, well, >> I guess I'll see you another time.
That's that. You know, um >> I like I like the energy and the sort of idea of well this is the reality of it.
Like they're getting away. What I don't like is the line. Mhm.
>> Like I I feel like if you saw him get on the plane and then you see Devro go, "What a shame." or something like that.
Some sort of reaction to give you like an idea that something he's displeased with it. I mean, I'm not a writer. I'm not saying that's what they have to do, but it the fact that he then almost almost mugs the camera and goes, "Well, that's the end of Topaz. I'm just waiting for like Hitchcock to like go wacka." And then just like then like that's all, folks. And then it it just feels farical. And for a film that is taking itself far too seriously, that's such a weird change at the end.
Maybe he should have uh saved that cameo for the end as opposed to the wheelchair guy at the airport earlier.
>> Oh yeah. No, one of Hitchcock's better cameos, I think. Uh >> pretty good.
>> Yeah. like when he's in the wheelchair and then he's stands up, shakes the guy's hand, and then they go walking off together. Just a silly little visual gag. I thought that was >> I couldn't tell if that was like, you know, like in hospitals when you've had a procedure, they have to wheel you out for for like insurance reasons. I wasn't sure if it was kind of like that or he actually just played a joke on someone and he didn't need to be pushed and then he was like, "H, sucks to be you."
And walks off. Uh, I wasn't sure what the joke I'm assuming it was the latter.
>> Uh, we'll never know. I don't know.
>> I laughed. That's all I know.
>> Okay, that that that that's all you need. Um, is there any more likes to discuss?
Um, you know what I particularly coming off of torn curtain and I believe we talked about this about how Hitchcock was really, you know, there was some I think of that Julie Andrews Paul Newman scene where they're having their argument and reconciling where they're up on a hill and it's supposed to be in this little park and it couldn't more obviously be a sound stage like if unless you saw like the rafters or you know the lights like hanging above them.
It's that obvious. And I like that in Topaz it did feel like Hitchcock was trying to get more with the times a bit and there is more location work here.
And there are things like, you know, when the picnicers are on the hill and they're looking um spying below and stuff. I things like that I was like, "Oh yeah, no, he could have just wheeled out that hill that Julie Andrews and Paul Newman were on in Torn Curtain and had them on that." But he didn't.
They're out in, you know, the the open air. Obviously, there is still an awful lot of um set stuff in here. there's a lot of studio um stuff that's masquerading as uh um other locations, but overall I didn't feel like it was as intrusive or as uh in your face as it is in something like Torn Curtain. So that I thought and I think that's a nice thing also to have in a international spy romp like this, a spy thriller where it's sort of like, oh no, you do want to believe in the tactility of the locations that they're in. Um, and I felt like I believed it a lot more here than in Torn Curtain.
>> Yeah, if you're going to make like a real world espionage style film, I think you want to feel the locations and you do here. And yeah, I'm reminded of that uh that uh hill in torn curtain. It looked like the Necronomicon altar in Army of Darkness.
>> Oh, that's a good reference for it.
Actually, I'm going to steal that.
>> Go for it.
Well, okay. Okay, we've done our best to shine up this topaz, but unfortunately it's uh not looking too good. Now, we have critiqued it already. We have sort of dropped some of our critiques, but if there's anything else to bring up, this is the time to do it. Um, and this is perhaps ironic, but I'll start us off.
It did not to be need to be as long as it was.
>> Need to be longer, right, Scott? Longer.
>> I I I need the uh like a 4hour version.
Give me the brutalist version of this.
>> Sure. Or when uh Dances with the Wolves won best picture, then Kevin Cosner cut it from like three hours into four hours.
>> Did he do that?
>> Yeah. Yeah. If you buy like physical media copies of Dances of the Wolves or four hours.
>> Oh, I didn't know that.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't see Okay.
>> It's strange that they don't give you the option on the disc of like watching I mean I I say the shorter version. It's still like over two hours long at 126 minutes, but it's that I I feel like that would be a bit more palatable, you know, just chopping off that 15 minutes.
I believe that that version is the version that ends with the suicide ending, which is of the three endings that they that you can watch on the um well on YouTube. Um as Scott discovered earlier, uh that that's my my least favorite of them all because it's just so obviously cobbled together of like what footage did they have? You're meant to believe this one character just leaves, goes home. you see a like like the the grain like the film grain freezes so you just know that the film has just been like stuck and then it like really bad zoom in and then just a gunshot and then there's a strange like montage images of other characters that have died throughout the film and then it ends with Frederick Stafard just looking upset on an airplane and that's it that's the end of Topaz in that >> scenario which I can't imagine is very satisfying.
>> The film grain looks like when they zoom in on Kanga balloon at the end of Let Die or it's just like this doesn't look right like this film is being beaten in an editing room.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Ex. Exactly that. But uh but yeah, >> I think you could have improved that shot by just again having Alfred Hitchcock step in and be like, "Oh, >> you know, they actually floated that for the ending of his very last film Family Plot. the idea that Hitchcock would actually be like there in the last scene and he would like wink at the camera and then that would have been like the last shot of the last >> I was joking if I came up with that.
That's terrible.
>> Maybe if he'd said cut and like that's the end. That would have been nice.
>> Or like a pan out and then you see the sound stage and it leaves or something.
>> Something like that. I mean, I don't think he he didn't know that was going to be his last film because he had other films he was developing. So that would have been kind of fun though, especially like a director like him. Maybe might do that one when he ends his career.
>> But also, wouldn't it be like Quentin theoretically?
>> Him too. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Because he has his last film. He will do it and then everyone knows that's the end. So him >> Yeah.
>> It has to be someone that's like a pure stylist where everyone kind of knows their thing.
>> So yeah.
>> Yeah. It peels back the camera and he's got someone's foot in his mouth. Um, and there you go. You just uh you you do your thing, Quentyn. You wear your feet, your freak proud. Um, I in terms of I I mean I mentioned it's too long, but I'll throw it out to the room. Calvin, is there any critiques you'd like to make that we haven't already said?
>> Oh goodness. Um, where to begin? No, I >> I think that we have covered pretty much all of my critiques. I'm just scrolling through my notes to see if that there was anything. Um because it is it is one of those unfortunate instances where a lot of my issues with this can just be boiled down to Frederick Stefart, unfortunately. Um and just how he isn't so involved in the uh the more exciting stuff in the film. He's just a real sort of dead weight of a lead to be honest.
Um so no, I think we've covered all of that. Do you have any big I have a big one that I'm actually surprised hasn't come up >> which is the central antagonist who takes over the last like 50 minutes of the movie >> and that is the uh Jacques Granville character played by Michelle Pickley um and I this is unforgivable to me that this character who we know nothing about there's no sense of you even just have at one point an off hand mentioned that like um you know Andre Dero's wife who was in the uh resistance during the war uh she was also with him and it was like a love triangle and it's just mentioned offhand there's no sense of these three having any chemistry together and then they introduce this guy basically with 50 minutes left in the movie and are building the whole thing around will he be revealed as the you know the mole within the uh French uh basically government and it's like no no you have to like set this character We have to know something about him. And he's such a blank. And yet, you spend a crazy amount of time with him. You don't even see any sort of chemistry between him and Andre. It's not like the two of them have a scene together. It's not like when Andre is going through his spy stuff in the first two hours or whatever, hour and a half. You get a scene maybe where he's going to that guy for counsel, getting some advice, something to show a connection. It's this is like the classic, you know, show don't tell. And a lot of this is just telling us that this guy's important and that he's the bad guy.
I I also think it loses uh credibility a little bit when you've got your lead who despite his flaws as an actor is quite good-looking and so is his wife and then she's running off to him and and I know I know the heart wants what the heart wants but I mean come on you've got the pick of the litter in Paris and you pick this bit of cat poo in the litter like that's >> oh no that's It's a shame. Well, you've got the other guy um who I think is the economy specialist. Um Henry Jar is the character's name played by Philip Nor.
Uh who's the guy who has like the um like the cane that he walks with.
>> I love him because he spends most of his time eating or drinking.
>> But he is actually like interesting visually. He's interesting. The actor has a unique face. when you have the scenes of him like getting nervous about this sort of unraveling cover they have.
Um, I cared a lot more about what he was experiencing and Hitchcock has that classic thing of shifting your sympathies to the bad guys. We saw that in Strangers on a Train famously. Um, but and we saw it with Norman Bates as well and Psycho. And you get that a bit here where it's like this guy we know is not doing anything good. But when you see him getting sweaty and nervous having that interview with Francois, I'm like this is actually compelling. Why are we spending so much time on Jacques who's given us nothing?
>> I I I entirely agree with your point. I I would rather have spent more time with him. I just uh there's more shots of him eating than actually being a spy, I'd say, in this in this film, which is odd.
Um but I do like how he gets Yeah, it's a character thing.
>> That whole meeting where you have um Andre turning and looking to see if he's reacting and he's eating every time.
>> I don't know why he was eating. That that did disturb me. It looked a bit weird, >> but it had like some Hitchcock suspense to it where you're like waiting to see that guy react.
And I think the National Board of of Review really liked this movie. They gave Hitchcock best director and I think they gave that guy um best supporting actor of the year.
>> Wow.
>> Who who gave this to him?
>> National Border Review.
>> Oh >> yeah. And they listed this movie as one of the 10 best of 1969.
>> Huh?
Sorry, Love Bug.
Okay. Well, I I I it sounds like we've exhausted our dislikes. I do have a dislike, but I think I'll do it in the final notes section. So, I'll take us there and we'll get to the knock list.
So, anything else, Calvin, it's been seven years. Is there anything else you want to get off your chest about Topaz?
This has been very therapeutic for me actually. I really genuinely really enjoyed having this conversation. Um, so no, I'm just going through my notes.
I don't think there is anything else.
It's um the only other note that we haven't that I've got here is those sandwiches look huge and dry and I think did you notice that as well?
>> Yes.
>> When they're going for the picnic and they're putting the thing in it and it's like the gigantic. It's >> the bread to ham ratio was way off. Like if you're looking at trying to do things undercover, if I'm going to search someone's sandwiches to check if they're a bit iffy and I see that little slice of ham in half of a baguette, I know something's wrong.
>> There was no butter or mayonnaise or lettuce in there to try, you know, sort of like freshen it up a bit. I was really sort of um yeah >> I worry about their digestive tract.
There's no fiber in there. What are they doing?
>> But I did enjoy just you know food scenes in Hitchcock are often you know some something worth paying attention to and cam as you said I also really enjoy those shots where you see Frederick Stef like leaning over and trying to you know see what the other guy's doing. That's all really good. And I liked all the stuff in the kitchen in Cuba where they're taking the stuff out of like the chicken and stuff. It it's just um yeah, a lot of that stuff's really nice. But uh yeah, no, Topaz. It's um I I I actually knocked it down in my letter box rank rating of it on this latest rewatch. I was like last time I was very generous. I gave it seven out of 10.
>> Yeah. which I think was God knows what I was on that day, but I knocked it down.
I knocked it down to a far more reasonable six out of 10 cuz it's just one of those very frustrating experiences where there's so much in here that's really great and then so it just doesn't tie together and it completely goes off a cliff. I mean, I I think it it it says a lot that like the main villain of the thing we discussed at the very end, you know, cuz Cam, you brought him up and it's sort of like, oh, we can't go without it. It's like, oh, wow. Yeah. the fact that, you know, we're talking about him almost like he's an afterthought just sort of speaks volumes to how kind of inconsequential that whole final third is because I think it really does come crashing down in that final third where it's like, wait a minute, what have I what am I supposed to be caring about anymore? But I think in the first two/3s enough gems to keep a Hitchco interested, I would say. Yeah, I would say like if this had been like a 100minute movie that ended after Cuba shortly after, I actually think this movie would have a far better reputation.
>> I think it just breaks people down, especially in that last 40 minutes of just being like, "Oh, when is this going to end?"
>> Um, so my final notes, I've got a couple. There's a shot at the embassy at the start of the movie where it's like this face in a mirror you see a couple times. really cool effect where you have the family leaving and then it'll just show a shot of a mirror and there's this very like intimidating looking face like reflecting back. I thought that was very cool. Um something about um Francois's journalism um I'm very curious about. As someone who went to journalism school, it never really occurred to me that I should be sketching people I'm interviewing >> and not actually taking any notes.
that seemed because he wasn't pulling out a recorder that I could see to record anyone, >> but he just sits there and sketches them and listens. I don't know how accurate his journalism is going to be.
>> Listen, you're you're not you're not clued up on French journalism. I understand you're not civilized like some of us. They don't talk with words.
They talk with pictures.
>> It's vibes journalism.
>> It's vibes.
And my last note, I rarely watch a spy movie where I go, that would be me in the field because usually I'm watching Bond, I'm watching, you know, Dean Martin. I'm watching all these various super spies or it's I'm watching like Smiley and I'm like, well, that's not me. Finally, I found my spy avatar. And that is the broken man on horse who comes out to retrieve the camera footage after the uh helper family had been taken away.
>> Nice.
>> Yeah, I I um I I I saw myself more in the uh the guy who eats a lot and gets thrown out the window.
>> Oh dear. Oh dear.
>> Oh no. A sad ending. Um, I mean, my only note was going to be this the outrageous sandwiches.
Outrageous. There will be many pictures of those sandwiches online this week.
But, um, I did note down um that that's all I'm posting.
>> There's going to be many photos this week of the set.
>> Yeah, just just remember folks what happened in that Rebecca Ferguson uh episode. It was about Rogue Nation, but turned into a Rebecca Ferguson chat. And uh there was a there was more pictures of her feet than I probably should have posted that week, but hey ho, that that just happened. Um I don't judge. You shouldn't either.
>> Silly silly people sandwiches. It's all of it's non judgmental.
>> Foot foot long, >> you know.
>> Oh, there you go.
>> I mean, it's there. It's there.
>> The only other thing I had was um some of this was happening in or around Martineique.
uh that was a nation that was involved in this and in my head I was like wait isn't that the madeup place in Live and Let Die. I then realized that's San Monique but uh I I did just kind of like oh yeah that's funny and then I mean and also the sort of the fun Harlem connection to Live and Let Die there as well. It's just >> yeah interesting that Hitchcock did that little bit before.
>> Um well it's finally time for the knock list. the need to see official classics as despite hards cannon.
Calvin, you've had a good run on this show so far.
>> Um trying I mean Goldfinger was your first appearance and you got that on there. So can't get you can't get much better.
>> Yeah. And also The Man Who Knew Too Much the remake made it on the list as well.
Yeah.
>> Mhm. Yeah. So you've got a Hitchcock on there. You you've done all right, but now Topaz, it's its time. Can can Topaz after this 1 hour and 45 minute evisceration we've just served it? Can Topaz make the knock list? Uh you get the first vote, sir.
>> Uh unfortunately not. Uh and I don't think this is going to be a controversial take. I don't think you're going to get lots of angry emails and letters from people who were frustrated that it didn't make it on assuming I'm predicting where you two are going to vote um correctly. Maybe it'll surprise me. I don't know. But Um, no, unfortunately not. I mean, it it it's in that sort of space where it's kind of like, is this even recommendable to anyone who isn't just a bit of an Alfred Hitchcock geek and it's just kind of like an interesting insight into where he was at at that point in his career? if it wasn't included in the Universal Hitchcock box set religiously, would this even get that? This film has a 4K release before like far more important and influential and worthwhile films um that have come throughout history. So, it's it's lucky probably that it's just included in in in the sets no matter what. Um, probably the last one I would come to in in that set, which is a set that includes Psycho, The Birds, Manne, Rope, Rear Window, Vertigo, like Sab, even Sabotur, and Trouble with Harry and, you know, all all of these really um, you know, worthwhile films to watch even just for someone who isn't necessarily into Alfred Hitchcock. This is more specialist. think I think it is a bit more kind of like okay if you're a fan of the man's work it it's worthwhile checking out but more as a more more as a curio really rather than a thing to be enjoyed which is probably quite a damning thing to say. That being said, stuff in it that's worthwhile. I think there are little gems in there. There is still some of that Hitchcock magic. It's just um yeah, it's it's spread thin on this one.
>> Okay. Uh well, as you said, it's all still to play for. Uh, Cam, what do you have?
>> Yeah, it's a no for me. It's like how like this is definitely like kind of like the academic >> Hitchcock only choice. Like you could say Vertigo is one that academics love, but I do think you could show it to other people who may not love it the first time, but we'll find things in it that are interesting. I just watching it last night. Uh, I was really scratching my head. who would actually enjoy sitting and watching Topaz outside of hardcore Hitchcock fans or film academics. I don't and this is released as a mainstream entertainment. So I think that's a very important question to ask because this is something released to everyone. this would have been showing in, you know, a wide release in a theater back in its day and or well they would have been doing more of a platform release in those days but nonetheless this would have been a mainstream entertainment and I just can't imagine most people sitting through this and so I tend to think the knock list you want movies that people uh are going to feel drawn towards a spy genre and not repelled from and so yeah it's a no. This This is the spy film I recommend to my enemies, >> right?
>> Yeah, >> this is the best. You should check this out. Come and see me after your two-hour journey. Uh, no, this is I mean, Cam, you asked the question, who would who would be the people that would enjoy this film? The answer is honest and easy. It's the same people that would have enjoyed those sandwiches.
>> And you got to worry. I You got to The seagulls might actually enjoy them.
You've really got to worry about those people. There's there's no butter.
There's no salad. It's absolutely gross.
You would hand that back >> to I mean that's even like in a bar like a bar sandwich that's still gross. So yeah, but honestly no there are bits here that that are enjoyable, but I think they almost work better as like YouTube clips. Unfortunately, we're in that world now where like you could jump into that Harlem sequence and you could jump into that defection sequence and be like, "Oh, that was interesting. I wonder what the rest of the film's like.
And I'll just write in the comments of those videos, do not watch the rest. And that's it. So, three nos.
>> As such, Topaz is not making the notist dossier on the film is complete and filed as classified. And I will just say when you have such a emphatic no like that, the question would generally then be the disavowed list. I don't think Alfred Hitchcock has done anything that would ever be in question for the disavowed list.
>> No. No. I I agree on that one.
>> Yeah. So, >> uh Calvin, you look more thoughtful about that. Are you thinking about like >> number 17 or something?
>> I was going to say you brought up number 17 earlier on and I was like, I don't know, maybe maybe that one, but it's yeah, been a while since I rewatched that one. But >> that's about as close as it gets to hit >> spy genre. No. No.
>> Well, >> oh.
>> Oh, >> is it?
>> I don't. It's not really.
>> What is the plot?
>> I don't know.
>> There's no spies in it, aren't they?
>> Were they? Oh, please don't tell me that. I don't have to add that one to the list to cover, do I? I I need to like I'm just going to Google this right now just to see if it if it makes any mention of spies in the >> for that don't know number 17 is one of Hitchcock's early films that was badly butchered in the editing room so it is pretty incoherent to watch. Uh it's not long though unlike Topaz which is you know 2 hours 20 minutes. I think number 17 is like 75 minutes but yeah >> I I think you're safe. It's It's just detectives and criminals. So, >> thank God. Thank God.
>> Yeah. No. No. No spies, no agents, unfortunately.
>> Oh, no.
>> Unfortunately.
>> Oh, no.
>> I I was just hoping I could bully you into >> Oh, into into making it onto the show.
But >> I think the the one that people keep bringing up saying we should do is Jamaica in, >> which I've seen, but I feel like that one is murky at best when it comes to spy craft and espionage.
Uh, yeah, it's been a while since I've seen it. I think the hero is going undercover in some way, but it's like it's set in like the early 1800s or something, is late 1700s. I'm not Did spies exist then? Maybe.
>> Um, probably, but like Yeah, because they go back, you know, long ways, but >> that's a weird one because it's more about like a almost like modern day pirates.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Set on the It's set in Bodman where basically my parents live.
Oh, that's nice.
>> Um, I'm just I mean there's lots of pirate stuff. I'm just The synopsis doesn't mention spies specifically.
>> I'm just >> So, if anyone listening or watching can send us a good argument as to why Jamaica in should be covered, let us know because I I'm willing to do it. But >> yeah, I'm game for this sort of thing.
But that that's what the the comments below are for. if you if you think oh you have any more pictures for Hitchcock Spy movies maybe we haven't mentioned maybe we've missed one put them in the comments below but uh leaves me with my final duty and that is to thank you Calvin for venturing back onto the show it's uh it continues to be a pleasure >> oh it's always a pleasure for me like honestly this is yeah this is great thank you very much for having me on I'm really glad that we that we came to got to close the Topaz chapter after uh after all these years but no it's it's been a blast honestly I've loved it.
>> We need to we need to maybe not on air, off air, we can talk about it, but we need to pick your next adventure on Spy Hards. Uh there must be something else because you know you and we'll talk about your YouTube channel for a second.
Um >> sure.
>> You talk about Bond of course, but you also talk about other movies, spy movies and adjacent. So you're you're wellversed in the verse.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I know I just finished going through all of the Die Hard films recently, so I know that that's not uh consistently spy genre, but you know, I cover sort of, you know, other bigger sort of action franchise stuff every now and then as well. And that was an interesting um thing for me, particularly when it's, you know, when it's movies that you don't have I'm I'm probably one of the few people on earth that doesn't have that much of a fondness for the first Die Hard. I think it's a really great action film, but I don't watch it like every year religiously like some people do, so I don't know that series um in and out. Uh but I but I really enjoyed it. Three and four in particular I really uh really enjoyed. But um >> four is having like a little bit of a resurgence. I've seen online at the moment. People are like, "Oh, four is actually it's like the people who went back to watch Crystal Skull when Dial of Destiny came out. They're like, "Oh, yeah. We were we were too severe on that one."
>> Yeah.
Yeah. I liked four at the time and I remember a lot of people It actually got good reviews. So, you know, I think history's remembered it differently, but I think four had like an 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, >> but it was like a lot of people who were diehard die hard fans from the early films really didn't like it >> and so that was quite noisy, especially online. But I do think like when you contrast it to especially five, >> four looks pretty darn good.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, five is awful. That's like >> Yeah.
>> one of the worst films I've seen.
>> We keep talking about it. I feel like that might be your next adventure. But >> watch watch this. Okay, you multiple times we've spoken about Die Hard 5 on this episode and you you've been in our vicinity.
>> I only watched that a couple of weeks ago. Don't make me do that again.
Actually, no. This is great actually because then I can watch the theatrical cut because I made the mistake of watching the extended cut and my beloved uh Mary Elizabeth Winstead, one of my favorite actresses, is not in the extended cut. They cut her out. Um, >> hey, don't share all your notes now. You got to keep that episode. Oh my god. Oh wow. Okay. Well, uh, Calvin Dyson will return and apparently it's in Die Hard 5. But, um, you know, for >> I don't know, but I feel like it's sort of like magically happened and we're okay with it, right? So, that's that's fine. But, um, for those who haven't ventured over, I'm just breezing past because I don't want any resistance. Uh, for the people who haven't checked you out on YouTube yet, and I suggest you all do, uh, where can people find you and what can they expect from from your YouTube channel?
>> Uh, well, you you can find me on a variety of platforms if you just search Calvin Dyson. That's just the name of my channel. Um, and yes, it it's it's mainly videos about Bond um, uploads every Sunday pretty much. Uh, and they can vary sometimes. Sometimes it's, you know, talking about Bond news. Sometimes it'll be a ranking. Sometimes it'll be a terribly long in-depth review video. I'm making one, which will probably be out by the time this podcast goes out, actually, um, on the video game Everything or Nothing, which is shaping up to be the longest video I've ever done. It's just expanding and expanding, but there's an awful lot to talk about with that game. So, it's it's it's a Bond Geekout channel, I think. And then occasionally we talk about other movies as well. We me. Um, so >> there's multiple use in some of the videos to be fair. So like >> you'll talk to yourself which is fine.
>> Yeah. No, true.
>> Um, thought I was I was going to ask quickly, Calvin, have you ever thought about doing the Matt Helm films?
>> Oh, you know what? I've never seen them.
Um, they they've come up every now and then. How many are there? It's four.
>> There's four. There's a lot of like Bond Austin Powers crossover stuff.
>> Oh yeah, you you'll see the DNA of Austin Powers in those films.
>> Interesting. Yeah. I've never seen any of them. Yeah. I'm just looking up.
Yeah. Silencers, Murderers Row, The Ambushes, The Wrecking Crew. Oh, they got them out in quite quick succession.
>> Two of them were the same year.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> They they knew what was hot at the time.
>> Uh well, that's your challenge. Should you choose to accept it is to uh I want to see some Matt Helm. I want to see some Matt Helm. Uh yeah, I I want more Matt Helm in my life. That's uh yeah, I need more D Martin. But yeah, Calvin, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for coming back on the show. I suggest everyone goes and watches all of your videos in secession and hits subscribe and rings the bell and likes everything.
>> Thank you very much. Well, it's it's been a pleasure for me to be on this show as well. You know how much I love you guys and what you do and it's uh Yes. No, it's always a pleasure. Always.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Yeah. Let him get away at this.
>> I told you, my lord, he doesn't miss a trick. They have nothing against him.
>> Anyway, that's the end of Topaz.
Related Videos
Fouchon is Defeated | Hard Target
ActionPicks
4K views•2026-05-28
It Takes Two 💞
barefootandindependent
1K views•2026-05-31
Supply and demand, my friend. #movie #edit #shorts
gaskinpenton
11K views•2026-05-28
🎬 Across the Line (2000) 4K | Brad Johnson Neo-Western Thriller 🔥 | Crime & Border Justice
BabelWestern
734 views•2026-05-30
An Anime For Every Letter In LGBTQIA
KrisPNatz
2K views•2026-05-31
Mark Kermode reviews Tuner
kermodeandmayostake
2K views•2026-05-28
Once Upon A Time In The West (1968) - 20 Hidden Facts Nobody Knows
AmazingMovieRewind
111 views•2026-05-28
Backrooms Movie Review
TheAwardsContender
785 views•2026-05-30
