North by Northwest

I had just watched the film North by Northwest and it was a brilliant film as far as I am concerned. It managed to wrap romance, a who-did-it and politics in one single show.

The dialogue is fantastic and the editing as always from Alfred Hitchcock is first class. The start itself keeps you in suspense for a good 60% of the show and it left you wondering what the hell happen to the protagonist: Roger Thornhill or George Kaplan [ a fictitious name that has been used many other films to tell you it's an alias- I think I saw NCIS using this name as well] It starts with a sequence where the protagonist got abducted and mysteriously got mistaken for someone else and even for a murder. The first question that keeps you thinking for the rest of the show: Who did it?

That's why the editing is fantastic. It went from revealing familiar characters in different contexts and raising questions without revealing the true intentions. It keeps you in suspense without letting you go.

The main thrust ultimately is catharsis: of which you would get a release only 75% into the show. Where finally it is revealed: Roger Thornhill is George Kaplan and he is nothing but a red herring. He was created to nab the real fish: an art dealer. The real mastermind is a spy agency.

The rest of the 25% of the show introduces politics into the movie: of which the final scene is filmed at Mount Rushmore and in the context of Cold War era. And it then wraps romance around spying: the love versus duty dichotomy: a moral device so often used in many modern spy movies from James Bond to the Bourne series.

The film was right snapped in the middle of shifting social mores in America and moving towards the swinging 60s. Sexual promiscuity is strongly suggested but never explicitly filmed on set hence it costumes of the ladies were bright red, black and striking orange and the men conspicuously older and almost unfailingly suave and the age gap was further legitimize by the fact that the men refuse to "young down" but rather remain their age hence, dull grey, brown and bowl hats dominate that of the clothes of the men. Hence the men remain their age, the women remain unfailingly attractive and attention-grabbing- and often surrounded by much older men and no other female companion. I believe this mise-en-scene is legitimize only by the setting of a spy movie of which seduction and charm is of paramount importance- and in a "everyday" movie, this would be rather ridiculous really.

It is therefore then unsurprisingly that the film is set mostly in cities, art galleries and posh locales like hotels and mountain top homes.

The dialogue itself remains witty- if you are of the alpha male persuasion- of which the clever lines belong to the men and the women well plays the love interest of which are to be used isn't it. After all, the protagonist is a ad-man isn't it. If the woman are wittier than the men, it wouldn't be a charm isn't it- it would be a contest.

Let us then move on to the cinematography. I remembered quite distinctly that when the international art dealer was discussing with his associate how to kill the female protagonist after finding out that she is a spy: the camera work immediately moved above them. This is to suggest that a third person perspective a la: God passing judgement on a ploy. This suggest that the audience, the author and director knows it should be taken objectively and therefore what transpired was the capture of the art dealer and the death of his associate following the scene. I remembered this quite distinctly because this was the only time it was used: on other scenes, a to-and-fro: you and me camera work was used and therefore moral judgement is suspended.

Alfred Hitchcock editing has always been extremely focused. He excludes all scenes that is not necessary to the storyline. Hence he does not show lingering scenes of that in the long bus ride or a plane journey, he simply moves from boarding to the alighting at the destination. This is quite unlike modern films where a scene in a plane, bus is quite necessary for moving from place to place. It is as if something exciting is going to happen in these places hence modern films in a recent nod towards realism have placed emotive elements into these films as if to tell you: hey look I take a bus like you but what I do is discuss my feelings in them. When was the last bus or train ride been emotionally charged for you- yes, when I was taking my MRT ride for the first time that is.

Therefore the editing in these films is really interested in mastering the craft has opposed to adding these frills of which is cheap to do but really quite removed from that story telling. Having said that, it is not that emotions have no place in story telling but rather in quite a number of films it is really taking the easy way out of attracting attention without really saying anything. A good "emotional" film I would supposed is the of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". The emotions is then contingent to a good film but rather then a time filler.

Hence the editing tie in ultimately in the relationship between each sequence of montages. The badly edited leaves you scratching your head- like how does this character got to do  with the other. But this one ultimately fulfills the end of which he wishes to achieve: that of suspense, romance and politics. The chauvinism quite obvious in the film must be put into context of it's 1950s- rather be seen as a flaw but must contextualized to be understood as prevailing social mores rather than as a given truth.