To Catch A Thief

[bengray]

Am I correct in thinking that this is just about the only Hitchcock film not available on DVD?

Anyone want to hazard a guess, why?

[cervaro]

Because Paramount own the rights, and last I read was that the movie needed a good deal of restorative work before it was ready for a DVD release.

Better make a good job when it does arrive.

[smithy20]

Am I correct in thinking that this is just about the only Hitchcock film not available on DVD?

Not by a long way Don't forget :-

Stage Fright
Foreign Correspondant
Lifeboat
I Confess
Dial M for Murder ( out later this year)
The Wrong Man
Under Capricorn
Suspicion
Mr & Mrs Smith ( though this IS out in France)
Waltzes From Vienna
The Pleasure Garden
Downhill
Blackmail (silent version)
Champagne
The Mountain Eagle ( NO copies are known to exist of this film )
Mary ( German version of Murder)

and then ther is the 20 episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents that were directed by Hitch himself

A lot of his early British films are available from Delta/Madacy but they are by no means of good quality and could do with a LOT of restoration i hope some one will take up the mantle and restore and release them isn as good a quality as can be attained maybe the Hitchcock estate?

smithy20

[jon smith]

I really want Stage Fright, haven't seen that for years.

Suspicion was on a few months back on the NFT (Cary Grant season), so I can wait for that a little longer.

[Tristan H]

To Catch a Thief would probably be in my top 5 most wanted list. I believe that it won't be out until at least next year. :(

[DanWilde1966]

Now long since on DVD.

Whilst this isn't really on the same level as a masterwork like Rear Window, it still shows Hitchcock in brilliant form, blending a fairly routine plot with the much more important John Michael Hayes dialogue and relaxed interplay between Grant and Kelly. The build-up to their first kiss (with Robie pretending to be "Conrad Burns"), the kiss itself, and then Robie's wonderful facial reaction, are fabulous. The material in the car (with Kelly sleuthing Robie), culminating in the picnic -- "breast or leg?" -- is very sexy stuff indeed. Then there are the supporting chracters: Huston the pompous insurance man and the amazing Jessie Royce Landis - Cary Grant's "mother" in North by Northwest. The whole film is a sumptuous treat, if lightweight Hitch. I watch this movie often, as a sort of Sunday afternoon comforting treat.

The DVD looks fine to my eye, though I've never really been one to faff over this or that conversion or DVD release. :dork:

[Raigmore]

I have the DVD of TCAT and agree that it is a good transfer without going overboard. Grace Kelly fits in well with the French Riviera setting (it was her real life kicking ground, wasn't it?) and the whole movie is a lighthearted romp as though Hitchcock was taking a breather. Good fun.

[DanWilde1966]

Grace Kelly fits in well with the French Riviera setting (it was her real life kicking ground, wasn't it?)Yep - she married Prince Rainier after filming and thus didn't complete any further films for Hitch, much to his disappointment. And the road she speeds on in the movie, is the one she was subsequently killed on.

[cprompt]

So... I love Hitchcock's work and have nearly all of his films (that are available) on DVD. The only film I can't watch is TCAT, it just bored me rigid when I tried to watch it. I got about half way through and gave up. Then, a few weeks later I tried again, continuing on from where I left off. After another 15 minutes I gave up again.

What am I missing? Is TCAT a great Hitchcock or is it really as dull as I think it is? It started out pretty well, but after the first 20 minutes or so, it just became a romance between Grant and Kelly and the yawn-factor increased. I am shocked really because I don't feel this way about any of his other films, just this one :(

[CrazyHorse]

So... I love Hitchcock's work and have nearly all of his films (that are available) on DVD. The only film I can't watch is TCAT, it just bored me rigid when I tried to watch it. (

From the above statement I assume then you've managed to sit all the way through Topaz which is more than I have done. That film sent me to sleep (literally) the couple of times I tried to watch it and I find it to be Hitch's dullest movie personally.

TCAT is Hitch lite, but great fun as others have stated. What's not to like ?...the marvellous combination of Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, a superb supporting cast, beautiful locations and a smart, witty script. Not a dull moment in it for me.

A wonderful easy watch.

[Livius]

So... I love Hitchcock's work and have nearly all of his films (that are available) on DVD. The only film I can't watch is TCAT, it just bored me rigid when I tried to watch it. I got about half way through and gave up. Then, a few weeks later I tried again, continuing on from where I left off. After another 15 minutes I gave up again.(

If you managed to plough your way through Mr & Mrs Smith and not get fed up then you're a better man than me. Even Topaz seems like a gem in comparison.
To Catch a Thief is marvellous stuff - sweet and light, like a good dessert.

[Raigmore]

TCAT is one of Hitchcock's lightweight works and visually dazzling. It may not have as many master touches like some of his other work, but still a very good film.

I do like Hitchcock's atypical efforts like The Trouble With Harry - another lightweight film - and the brooding Australian thriller Under Capricorn that is savaged by many of his critics and fans alike. But I confess that I too felt that he was not comfortable directing Topaz. AH was not helped by Samuel Taylor's awkward script but even so, the theme of the story was very unhitchcockian (and unlike some suppositions, not at all like the excellent Notorius). John Frankenheimer or Carol Reed might have found Topaz more to their line of work. The film was also let down by poor acting......John Vernon did his best but could only do so much in his limited role while the rest floundered.

[cprompt]

From the above statement I assume then you've managed to sit all the way through Topaz which is more than I have done.
Ha, well, I said nearly all his films! I've been put off buying Topaz simply because of all the negative comments about it. I have Mr & Mrs Smith but again, only because I got it for a quid in a Borders sale. Haven't got round to watching it yet. I quite enjoyed The Trouble With Harry, although it's not one I'll put on again when I have a spare 90 minutes.

Perhaps I should try again with TCAT. I guess I had been spoiled by all the other great Hitchcock films I'd seen beforehand and expected something more :D

[DanWilde1966]

Perhaps I should try again with TCAT. I guess I had been spoiled by all the other great Hitchcock films I'd seen beforehand and expected something more :DGo into it expecting candyfloss and a slice of cake and you'll be fine. The thing about the film is that Hitch's crew of Tomasini, Burks, Coleman, Hays, Grant and Kelly (et al) - soon to be joined by Herrmann, of course - knew each other so well that they could turn out something so apparently effortless as this. It's the Monaco GP of Hitch's filmography - a different sort of racing challenge to the more "pure" Spa Francorchamps of Rear Window and Psycho. It's also another variant on the "man wrongly accused" theme that obsessed Hitch throughout his life.

[JoelCairo]

Ha, well, I said nearly all his films! I've been put off buying Topaz simply because of all the negative comments about it.
Don't be put off Topaz by other people's opinions. Certainly most people dislike the film but there is much to admire in the movie. (I disagree with Raigmore's assessment, by the way. The film's big, big, big failing is its story structure. It would have been so much better if it had been reshaped around the marriage and had been essentially about how a marriage survives despite the wife having an adulterous affair with a traitor whom the unsuspecting husband is anyway investigating. Curiously enough a dormant and undeveloped sub-theme in the 1956 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much is how one marriage survives while another disintegrates.)

Although Topaz does not work dramatically there is masses that is good in the movie. Right at the beginning we have an excellent minor suspense sequence. The long hotel sequence is a brilliant demonstration of the art of using images to convey information without using any dialogue, and even non enthusiasts admire the way a dress blooms out onto the floor as a woman is killed.

Give Topaz a go. Don't expect a dramatic masterwork . . . . . and make up your own mind.

[Raigmore]

I disagree with Raigmore's assessment, by the way. The film's big, big, big failing is its story structure. It would have been so much better if it had been reshaped around the marriage and had been essentially about how a marriage survives despite the wife having an adulterous affair with a traitor whom the unsuspecting husband is anyway investigating.
I think we might be preaching from the same book to some extent. When I mentioned the script, I probably really meant the "story structure". One of AH's great strengths is to make the personalities in the story control the situations enables us - the viewers - to get involved in the goings on. For example, in Rear Window one can imagine oneself as an additional observer within Stewart's room, borrowing his binoculars etc. The problem in Topaz is that there is too much "situation" and too little personality and so the overall effect was a bit uninvolving. John Vernon apart, the cast seem nonentities across the screen and there is not much of the byplay that is so common with AH films. I am not saying that Topaz was a bad film, but it is definitely no traditional Hitchcockian.

[cprompt]

Hey, love your comments their guys, especially the Monaco/Spa analogy as I am a big F1 fan :)

If I see Topaz for the right price, I will pick it up for sure as I am a perfectionist and hate having holes in my collection. I'll give TCAT another go based on your advise.

Thanks!

[JoelCairo]

I think we might be preaching from the same book to some extent. When I mentioned the script, I probably really meant the "story structure". One of AH's great strengths is to make the personalities in the story control the situations enables us - the viewers - to get involved in the goings on. For example, in Rear Window one can imagine oneself as an additional observer within Stewart's room, borrowing his binoculars etc. The problem in Topaz is that there is too much "situation" and too little personality and so the overall effect was a bit uninvolving. John Vernon apart, the cast seem nonentities across the screen and there is not much of the byplay that is so common with AH films. I am not saying that Topaz was a bad film, but it is definitely no traditional Hitchcockian.
With nearly all movies, the story and screenplay are effectively the same and differentiating between them is a pointless academic exercise. With Topaz it is worth splitting them because, in my opinion, Samuel Taylor did well with hopeless material. Individual scenes are excellent in Topaz, both as written and as filmed. The problem is that they do not all link up and, to use your phrase, "there is too much "situation"". This is one of the reasons I say the story is wrong.

It starts with a defection, and then concentrates on the stubbornness of the defector. Fairly soon it switches to the French agent who begins investigating and the defector and his family now drop out of the story. (At the end of the film we will ask ourselves why was there such emphasis upon them in the first place.) We follow the French man to Cuba and learn that he has an old flame there who in turn is adored by a senior figure in the revolutionary Government. They both drop out of the story which returns to Paris and we learn that the man's wife has been unfaithful . . . . . and on and on it goes with no real shape to the story. The audience becomes impatient and irritable and starts asking itself "where are we going with all this?"

The cast does seem to be nonentities and this was the point I was driving at a few days ago in The High Commissioner thread. To quote myself (with a total lack of modesty):

As a general proposition, if the story is good and the film well made, a movie can work even with uncharismatic actors. It is those films which are handicapped with a feeble story which require a strong actor to carry them through. A prime Hitchcockian example of this is Topaz which has a severely mis-constructed story. (I think Samuel Taylor's screenplay does a brilliant job trying to cover the flaws in structure, and I think Hitchcock and his team were all on top form. Those who believe Topaz does not work because Hitchcock was below his best are completely deluded.) Such a misshapen story requires a Cary Grant to carry it. Frederick Stafford simply did not have the necessary screen presence.

It's worth comparing Samuel Taylor's screenplay, the central story and the way Hitchcock and his team made the film with Saboteur which has an absolutely atrocious screenplay, full of elementary mistakes. If I were one of those screenplay teachers, I would use Saboteur as an example of how not to write a screenplay.

I think I'll watch Topaz tonight.

[Douglas R]

I have the DVD of TCAT and agree that it is a good transfer without going overboard.

Are you talking about the first DVD release under the Golden Classics banner or the remastered version which came out last year because the latter is one of the best DVDs I've ever seen.

[Raigmore]

Are you talking about the first DVD release under the Golden Classics banner or the remastered version which came out last year because the latter is one of the best DVDs I've ever seen. Well mine is the Paramount 2002 R1 version and it looked good enough on my Sony HDMI setup.

This brings me to mention some odd things that I have seen with older DVDs and HDMI setups. Last night I saw my R1 anamorphic DVD of The Birds on HDMI for the first time, and the pictures looked soft to the point of seeming off focus occasionally. Still on the same set, the Warner Home Video / Turner Entertainment R2 disc of Gaslight looked superb. In fact, this DVD of Gaslight (the Bergman version) is so good that it is probably the best non-Criterion Black & White transfer that I have. Since I have not heard anything special about this DVD, I have assumed that I was lucky to get an unusually good disc - if that's possible.

[Douglas R]

Well mine is the Paramount 2002 R1 version and it looked good enough on my Sony HDMI setup.


I can assure you that the 2007 version is vastly better than the 2001 version. DVD Beaver has some comparisions on their site.

[Raigmore]

I can assure you that the 2007 version is vastly better than the 2001 version. DVD Beaver has some comparisions on their site. I believe you, but as I said, I have no complaints with my DVD of TCAT and so see no reason to spend extra money. As I have mentioned in other threads, the only Hitchcock DVD that I might look to replace is my R1 anamorphic issue of The Birds which, for some reason, looks awful on my system.