GALLOWS HUMOR.
Some people really joke this way about terrible events.
Just because the film shows this reality doesn't mean Hitchcock or anyone thinks you're literally supposed to agree with statement, the man who said it, or gallows humor.
I believe the desired effect was to shock and unsettle the audience.
Mission accomplished.
Mission accomplished.
---
Yes. When..about 20 minutes after that line is spoken..we are "up close and personal" for the terror imposed upon a woman by a REAL sexual attack. We can assume that Brenda Blaney feels no sexual pleasure at all.
This is one of the things that Frenzy is about. How society at large jokes about murder. Unlike as with Psycho -- in which nobody knows about the horrific murders committed by Mrs. Bates until she is unmasked at the end -- EVERYBODY knows there is a necktie killer terrorizing London.
And men feel quite safe. This "necktie fellow"(as one of the men calls him) is only killing -- and raping -- women.
So men can feel safe and smug and joke about rape. And about how " a good series of sex killings can be good for the tourist trade."
But Frenzy also postulates that society manages to "absorb" ANY horror into its day-to-day, gossiping and joking existence. We do that today even as terrorists and crazed shooters do the most horrible things -- to women AND to men.
A great, unsung Hitchocck picture...with a worldview that remains relevant today.
Things have changed drastically in the 40+ years since Frenzy was made. The word "rape" carries much more weight now, and would never be joked about in such a way in a movie.
I remember seeing a comedy sketch from around the same time where a "damsel in distress" runs from door to door shouting "Rape!" It was played for slapstick laughs, like a speeded up Benny Hill sketch - quite shocking to see now, but as I often say, you can't judge society then by the standards of society now.
Or like in Blazing Saddles where one of the outlaws applying for the job of terrorizing Rock Ridge lists rape twice among his crimes because "I like rape". That line would not be laughed at today.
Frenzy is a good film, I guess, but I felt like taking a shower after watching it. No interest in seeing it again, unlike most Hitchcock movies. I preferred when he was a bit more constrained and subtle in his violence.
I agree. I liked the film and I would see it again but I prefer my Hitchcock dark but elegantly restrained. Full blown rape and murder, tits and swearing isn’t what I go Hitchcock for, but credit to him for trying something new and adapting very well to the New Hollywood of the 70’s where the gloves were off.
but credit to him for trying something new and adapting very well to the New Hollywood of the 70’s where the gloves were off.
--
The R rating came in at the end of 1968. He could have used it on Topaz(1969) but that political spy story didn't fit that. The best he could do was give us a hero who cheated on his wife and stayed with her(she cheated on HIM, too.)
But I think after Topaz, Hitchcock aggressively looked for a movie that would allow him his first R rating and "fit the times": sex, nudity, cussing.
He actually used all those elements with some restraint.
And then, having made his "first R rated movie," Hitchcock backed off to rather mellow, non-sexual, non-violent mode in Family Plot. His final film. He said it wouldn't be , but he probably figured it COULD be, so he made something nicer than Frenzy to say goodbye with.
I wish people would stop trying to make excuses for Hitchcock.
Hitchcock was sick enough to think it was funny to make a joke like this. Starting with Vertigo, he pretty much became obsessed with using his movies to play out his fetishes, and rape and murder were two of them.
I wish people would stop trying to make excuses for Hitchcock.
Hitchcock was sick enough to think it was funny to make a joke like this. Starting with Vertigo, he pretty much became obsessed with using his movies to play out his fetishes, and rape and murder were two of them.
---
I take those points but...I think they are part of the "draw" of Hitchcock. That he got away with putting such ideas on the screen.
Now he was more successful with Rear Window and Psycho(in which the repellent material was couched in classic thrills and screams), but I think the perversity was there long before Vertigo. Perhaps as he aged, it came out more.
And it was only when the R rating came along in 1968 that Hitchcock finally had the option(exercised in 1972) to go "all the way" with the rape thing(it had been suggested rather than shown in Marnie.)
Anyway, I think you can find perversity here, too:
Notorious: the twisted love/hate romantic relationship.
Rope: The opening strangling of young man by two other gay young men -- with sexual release suggested.
Strangers on a Train: The villain strangles the trampy estranged wife of the hero : she accepts the fliration of the killer while on a date with TWO men and with another man's baby in her belly.
Dial M for Murder: The strangulation attack on Grace Kelly -- staged like a rape -- and SHE "penetrates" the killer with scissors in his back.
No, Hitchcock was a fairly sick puppy for most of his career. Good thing for him he couched it in great movies with big stars...and occasionally made a "nice" movie like The Trouble With Harry.
I think Hitchcock despised women in real life and enjoyed using his powers as a director to show them being terrified and abused. He left Grace Kelly alone because she was from a rich family and married into an even richer one. But Tippi Hedren was made miserable by this man.
shareI think Hitchcock despised women in real life and enjoyed using his powers as a director to show them being terrified and abused.
--
There is much to support this theory...but there is also some argument on the other side (see below.)
--
He left Grace Kelly alone because she was from a rich family and married into an even richer one.
---
Well, yes, but the long strangling attack on Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder was pretty violent for 1954, with strong overtones of rape -- the way the man is overpowering her and she has to wrestle him to fight back before managing to stab him.
And in Rear Window, killer Lars Thorwald grabs her and manhandles her for a few moments before the cops arrive to save her.
----
But Tippi Hedren was made miserable by this man.
--
Famously so. Its all she talks about. And yet, back in 1979, she was invited to and attended the American Film Institute to Hitchcock -- and was introduced from the audience.
Now, "arguments against":
Versus Tippi Hedren's vocal attacks against him, a number of Hitchcock actresses -- Joan Fontaine, Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelly, Doris Day, Eva Marie Saint, Janet Leigh, Julie Andrews, and even the two who were raped and murdered in Frenzy(Barbara Leigh-Hunt and Anna Massey) all said he was a very nice man. Some directly refuted Tippi Hedren -- whose stories kept changing over the years, by the way.
Moreover, as Hitchcock's daughter Pat reminded us(she's dead now) that Hitchcock "preferred actresses to actors" (his more macho stars intimidated him) and used FEMALE assistants though much of his career -- John Harrison, Peggy Robertson, some woman named Glauthier. Biology favored him with a daughter(no other children) and three granddaughters, so he was "surrounded by women" all his life.
CONT
And finally: yes, some women are tormented and killed in Hitchcock movies , but MEN are nastily killed in Foreign Correspondent, Saboteur, Spellbound(a BOY is impaled on a spear-like fence), Rope(strangled to death in the opening scene), To Catch a Thief, The Man Who Knew Too Much '56, North by Northwest, Psycho(the detective), The Birds(the farmer with the pecked out eyes), Marnie(the sailor), Torn Curtain(Gromek, gruesomely killed) and Topaz(a man is tortured to death, along with his wife.
You might say that with regard to men and women, Hitchcock was an equal opportunity torturer/killer.
One more thing about Tippi Hedren: read about the making of her family-produced movie "Roar" sometime. The entire family , their cast and crew were almost killed by wild lions and tigers all through filming. Nutty family.
Well, yes, but the long strangling attack on Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder was pretty violent for 1954, with strong overtones of rape -- the way the man is overpowering her and she has to wrestle him to fight back before managing to stab him.
--
And remember: Hitchcock wanted to cast Kelly as the lead in Marnie... a movie where the main character is the victim of marital rape. She wasn't "immune" from that due to "being rich."
And remember: Hitchcock wanted to cast Kelly as the lead in Marnie... a movie where the main character is the victim of marital rape. She wasn't "immune" from that due to "being rich."
---
Nope.
Interestingly, "Princess Grace" as she was named by then DID agree to Marnie, so evidently that marital rape scene didn't bother her. Many reasons have been given for why she withdrew from the part -- something about tax issues came up! -- but I don't think "her people" much wanted to see her in that role.
I've seen a quote from Hitchcock on that: "She wanted to come back, but I offered her the wrong role." The RIGHT role would have been Eve Kendall in North by Northwest -- played by Eva Marie Saint. I've read that some work went into trying to get Princess Grace to play THAT role. It would have been great to see her seducing Cary Grant(again, after To Catch a Thief) and up on Mount Rushmore.
People like you will never stop pretending attitudes haven't changed drastically over decades and people simply didn't view things like rape, child molestation or drunk driving the way we do now. 50 years ago there would have been a good sized chunk of people who basically thought "Well that was in poor taste" but that was about it.
share