When you talk about TOPAZ, I think that first and foremost, the most fair thing to do is to take it out of it's context as a Hitchcock film. Film criticism generally consists by far too much "loose opinions", and this has led to an ignorant popular belief that Topaz was "Hitchcock loosing touch" or a film made by the "senile" Hitchcock. It seems that Hitchcock couldn't make any kind of film he wanted, since his name held him captive as "the master of suspense" - with demands and expectations from the "thick" crowd. Now, I won't deny that Topaz is flawed. But it is an interesting, nearly fascinating film, nonetheless. More importantly, the flaws are quite complex and makes no real sense. Let me try to explain further.
Leonard Maltin claimed that the most difficult part of Topaz was it's "lack of stars". I think that the lack of stars is completely unessential. On the contrary, the idea of a more natural hitch film freed from stars is a nice one in my mind. It's possible that the absence of an Ingrid Bergman made matters worse to the general public, but all in all it's not a problem.
The problem lies in three things: The Plot. The Intrigue. The Editing. These three things, usually perfected with ease by Hitch, aren't properly working as they should in Topaz. First it's the story, the very idea of the film. It's puzzling in it's vagueness. Stafford's eligible French spy goes to Cuba to infiltrate Russian commie business. The mission succeeds, upon which a Russian leek in France is detected. The leek is tracked down. The end.
What?! There is no consistent story element that is anywhere near interesting in the film. Naturally, most Cold War-thrillers are bound to feel aged nowadays, but even when the Cold War was upon us this must have been a really thin plot. Now, if that wasn't enough, the intrigue is planned out with genuine dumb wit. First, we are led to believe that the story is about an espionage episode during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Diffusely we accept this plot and are gradually sucked into it with Hitch's talent to tell a story. Halfway through though, Cuba is abandoned for the trust-nobody-dramatics in France. The mood is suspenseful, but one must say that the story is genuinely uninteresting and more importantly out of cope with the pace of the film, which just started to get interesting. Another problem is that the first half of the film have some great characters: As we are led to believe that the film is about this spy operation in Cuba, we are also led to believe that John Vernon is our antagonist as well as Karin Dor is our heroine next to Stafford. These are great characters, but they are executed and dismissed the moment Stafford returns home. Instead we get a bunch of French suits, of which Philippe Noiret turns out to be the real villain. On Cuba, the film has a dramatic, flamboyant tone with colorful characters - in France, the color scheme is gray. It's simply a letdown.
It's no secret that Hitch had to re-cut Topaz, due to a catastrophe test screening. When you see some of the edited material, including the two endings where at least one (the duel between Stafford and Noiret) is a far better one than the bleak ending in the finished film. The biggest mistake in the editing process though is the reduction of the relations between the characters. Dany Robin's affair with Noiret makes no sense, but if you know how deep the story of Robin/Noiret/Stafford goes it's suddenly A LOT more interesting. The same goes for Stafford contra Noiret, who are longtime friends which doesn't come out clearly in the finished film. In this context, Vernon plays out as a great on-the-side-villain and Noiret's character is given a lot of strength.
Unfortunately, these crucial elements are basically abandoned in the finished film, leaving a strange and very unfocused film. Now, this comment deals with the flaws and not the upsides. In short, Topaz is a well-made film with good actors and a lot of typical, visual Hitch-stuff. It is completely impossible to make a bad film with those ingredients. But Topaz is definitely spoiled.
Leonard Maltin claimed that the most difficult part of Topaz was it's "lack of stars". I think that the lack of stars is completely unessential. On the contrary, the idea of a more natural hitch film freed from stars is a nice one in my mind. It's possible that the absence of an Ingrid Bergman made matters worse to the general public, but all in all it's not a problem.
The problem lies in three things: The Plot. The Intrigue. The Editing. These three things, usually perfected with ease by Hitch, aren't properly working as they should in Topaz. First it's the story, the very idea of the film. It's puzzling in it's vagueness. Stafford's eligible French spy goes to Cuba to infiltrate Russian commie business. The mission succeeds, upon which a Russian leek in France is detected. The leek is tracked down. The end.
What?! There is no consistent story element that is anywhere near interesting in the film. Naturally, most Cold War-thrillers are bound to feel aged nowadays, but even when the Cold War was upon us this must have been a really thin plot. Now, if that wasn't enough, the intrigue is planned out with genuine dumb wit. First, we are led to believe that the story is about an espionage episode during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Diffusely we accept this plot and are gradually sucked into it with Hitch's talent to tell a story. Halfway through though, Cuba is abandoned for the trust-nobody-dramatics in France. The mood is suspenseful, but one must say that the story is genuinely uninteresting and more importantly out of cope with the pace of the film, which just started to get interesting. Another problem is that the first half of the film have some great characters: As we are led to believe that the film is about this spy operation in Cuba, we are also led to believe that John Vernon is our antagonist as well as Karin Dor is our heroine next to Stafford. These are great characters, but they are executed and dismissed the moment Stafford returns home. Instead we get a bunch of French suits, of which Philippe Noiret turns out to be the real villain. On Cuba, the film has a dramatic, flamboyant tone with colorful characters - in France, the color scheme is gray. It's simply a letdown.
It's no secret that Hitch had to re-cut Topaz, due to a catastrophe test screening. When you see some of the edited material, including the two endings where at least one (the duel between Stafford and Noiret) is a far better one than the bleak ending in the finished film. The biggest mistake in the editing process though is the reduction of the relations between the characters. Dany Robin's affair with Noiret makes no sense, but if you know how deep the story of Robin/Noiret/Stafford goes it's suddenly A LOT more interesting. The same goes for Stafford contra Noiret, who are longtime friends which doesn't come out clearly in the finished film. In this context, Vernon plays out as a great on-the-side-villain and Noiret's character is given a lot of strength.
Unfortunately, these crucial elements are basically abandoned in the finished film, leaving a strange and very unfocused film. Now, this comment deals with the flaws and not the upsides. In short, Topaz is a well-made film with good actors and a lot of typical, visual Hitch-stuff. It is completely impossible to make a bad film with those ingredients. But Topaz is definitely spoiled.