To Catch a Thief

Post by **silentfilm** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:06 am

Speaking of cheap DVDs, I was walking past the bargain-bin at Walmart last week when I saw a DVD of Hitchcock's To Catch a Thief sitting on the top of the pile. I couldn't pass it up at $4. I guess they are unloading them because Paramount is coming out with another version of the film (the third since 2002).

It had been a long time since I had seen it, and it was just as good as I remembered. The four leads (Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, John Williams, and Jessie Royce Landis) are all perfect. The scenery is spectacular and the script is really funny. The "making-of documentary" on the disc is pretty nice too.

I don't understand why this one isn't considered a classic like Rear Window or Vertigo or North By Northwest except that it is not nearly as serious a movie. Cary Grant is rarely in danger. I guess that the only real shortcoming compared to those is that the villain is not exactly formidable, and is not even revealed until the end.

The denounment, where Grant is spotlighted on the roof and everyone really thinks that he is the thief, really reminded me of the ending of Frenzy (1972). In that one, Richard Blaney (Jon Finch) has escaped from prison to hunt-down the necktie strangler who has framed him, and ends up walking into the bedroom of the strangler's latest victim. To make things worse, the police detective catches him there and his goose looks really cooked! Of course, Hitchcock really knew how to build up suspense until the very last shots of his films...

boblipton · Post by **boblipton** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:20 am

It's not considered a classic because in the middle of Hitchcock's peak period, it is simply overshadowed by even better Hitchcock works. It also lacks the sense of innocence menaced. Although Grant's John Robie is innocent of this particular crime, he is guilty of so much else.

Bob

Jim Reid · Post by **Jim Reid** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:32 am

Could it also be that since it was owned by Paramount, unlike his other Paramount releases, it wasn't caught up in the media blitz when those films were finally re-released back in the early 80s? I mean I have seen and heard good things written about it, but the other films have had tons written about them.

rudyfan · Post by **rudyfan** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:45 am

This has long been one of my favorite Hitch films. I suspect it gets overlooked because it is viewed as total fluff. Fluff it may be, but it's damned stylish fluff with great scenary and as Bruce correctly stated, a very witty script and very witty players.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:22 pm

rudyfan wrote:This has long been one of my favorite Hitch films. I suspect it gets overlooked because it is viewed as total fluff. Fluff it may be, but it's damned stylish fluff with great scenary and as Bruce correctly stated, a very witty script and very witty players.

And that unbelievably gorgeous gold dress (worn by the unbelievably gorgeous Grace Kelly). What's not to love?

Fred

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:40 pm

I love TO CATCH A THIEF, but if any one Hitchcock film is underrated, it's THE WRONG MAN, which is gripping from one book-end to the other and is so untypically cinema verité of Hitch.

That being said, there's an awful lot of Hitchcock's directorial work that I find unwatchable, particularly near the end of his career. I find MARNIE, TORN CURTAIN, TOPAZ and FAMILY PLOT unbearable.

Mark Pruett · Post by **Mark Pruett** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:19 am

And that unbelievably gorgeous gold dress (worn by the unbelievably gorgeous Grace Kelly). What's not to love?

The spectacular dress was virtually sewn onto Kelly, apparently, a costuming ordeal that took a fair bit of time. Her arrival on the set prompted Hitchcock to observe, "Grace, there's hills in them thar gold."

Ray Faiola · Post by **Ray Faiola** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:08 am

The film has a weak score by Lyn Murray. A lot of people don't realize how important strong through-scoring is to Hitchcock's pictures.

gjohnson · Post by **gjohnson** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:02 pm

Jack Theakston wrote: That being said, there's an awful lot of Hitchcock's directorial work that I find unwatchable, particularly near the end of his career. I find MARNIE, TORN CURTAIN, TOPAZ and FAMILY PLOT unbearable.

I agree that "Marnie" is slow and doesn't seem to go anywhere and "Family Plot" is tired as it tries to revisited the old verve but "Torn Curtain" has enough Hitchcock moments to still make it fun and "Topaz" is really interesting because it has no Hitchcock moments in it at all. It comes off as a typically absorbing 60's Cold War thriller of it's time.

Gary J.

boblipton · Post by **boblipton** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:09 pm

FRENZY also has moments of interest. But, really, while Hitchcock's work after PSYCHO has its moments, he was past his peak.

Bob

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:28 pm

I saw Family Plot for the first time and enjoyed it a lot. Is it objectively great? Not in the least. Is Bruce Dern Cary Grant? Definitely not. Would it have seemed the squarest thing this side of The Green Berets in 1974? Probably. But it's not 1974 now, and I thought it was amusing, quaint, clever enough-- a perfectly pleasant timefiller.

Post by **silentfilm** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:12 pm

I don't think that anything Hitchcock did is totally bad, but Topaze is only good for about 15 minutes. And the USA got the worst of the endings that he shot.

Frenzy is just a notch down from first-rate Hitchcock. It was his only attempt at an 'R' rating. It has a delicious villain (pun intended) and lots of food jokes. The only thing I don't like as much is the drab color compared to most of his 1950s films.