by Reid Williams
In a world where the current pandemic continues to push back the release date of many tentpole movies, many movie fans have a James Bond-shaped hole in our hearts. The 25th film of the franchise, titled No Time to Die, was originally slated for release in April of 2020. However, with theater closures it was pushed to November of the same year. Now that November has arrived, we know that this was just another tease, as the film has been pushed again to April of 2021, giving us another six months until we can see Daniel Craig’s alleged final turn as the suave super-spy. With this in mind, I thought it would be fitting to focus on the original James Bond movie. Not Dr. No, but Alfred Hitchcock’s 1959 masterpiece: North by Northwest.
Hitchcock’s film is often cited as inventing the formula used to create the classic 007 movies, and it isn’t hard to see why. Cary Grant’s character Roger Thornhill may be an advertising man instead of an MI-6 agent, but he’s still handsome, sophisticated, and has a wit as quick as a whip. He is quickly swept up into an adventure featuring sinister villains, fantastic locations, and a mysterious beautiful woman (played perfectly by Eva Marie Saint).
The movie follows Thornhill as he’s mistaken for a government agent by a pair of henchmen. From this misunderstanding spins an adventure across the country as Thornhill is forced to use all his wits, charm, and muscle to get back his life against increasingly difficult odds. And of course, because it’s Hitchcock, there’s the fun element of a budding romance to liven up the action.
Before I move into spoiler territory, I want to give one final sales pitch to anyone who may not have seen the movie. If you’re a fan of James Bond, Hitchcock, Cary Grant, or any kind of adventure film, you’ll love this one. It’s fast-moving, twisty, funny, clever, and has some of the coolest set pieces of any movie outside of Ben-Hur. On top of all this, it’s made by Hitchcock, so you’ll get to see some fascinating camera work on top of all that. It’s a film that I can honestly say doesn’t seem to have aged a day. If you haven’t seen it, do so now.
With that off my chest, I want to discuss in a little more detail what makes this movie so spectacular, even 60 years after its initial release. For starters: Cary Grant. Arguably the most charming movie star of all-time steals your affection in his first minute on screen. He’s so witty and well-dressed that audiences latch onto him immediately. This only grows through the rest of the movie, as Grant’s character continues to stand up in the face of ludicrous accusations and ever-growing danger without ever blinking an eye. He’s not James Bond, but you can clearly see what the 007 movies borrowed from Grant’s portrayal: the impeccable confidence of a man who is never truly shaken. He’s what everyone wants to be in the face of injustice: indignant and effective while still being eloquent and well-mannered.
Beyond Grant’s Thornhill, all the characters in this film are expertly written and flawlessly portrayed. Eva Marie Saint is brilliant as this version of the “Hitchcock blonde.” However, she is infinitely more than that. She is layered and complex, which comes through in the subtleties of Saint’s performance. Playing a character that is not only experiencing emotions, but attempting to hide them is a great feat, and Saint pulls it off with grace. It is arguable that her character drives the plot just as much, if not more than, Grant’s. Her torn affections and loyalties are ultimately what bring Thornhill and his opponent into direct opposition.
That brings me to Thornhill’s opponent: Phillip Vandamm, played with icy venom by James Mason. What’s most impressive about him is that he inspires such vitriol and such fear without ever truly getting his hands dirty. He’s often mentioned in conversations among the all-time great screen villains, but he never physically does much of anything. This is clearly emulated by many of the early Bond villains (think Blofeld, for example), who have henchmen to do their bidding for them. What makes Vandamm such a great antagonist is his opposition to Thornhill at seemingly every turn, while at the same time being somewhat of a mirror for him. They have similar clothing styles, manners of speaking, and even temperaments. They also share the same stubbornness and determination to get what they want. On top of all of this, and maybe most consequentially, they have the same tastes in women.
Beyond the three principal characters, there are memorable turns by Martin Landau as Vandamm’s devious and loyal right-hand man, Leo Carroll as an actual government agent who attempts to clean up the mess, and Jessie Royce Landis as Thornhill’s hilariously condescending mother. Ernest Lehman’s script is flooded with characters that entertain and amuse regardless of their screen time.
The set-pieces in this movie are another thing that truly sets it apart. The Mount Rushmore sequence is phenomenally well-done, and the crop duster scene is justifiably one of the most recognizable and iconic of all-time. Even in less visually stunning locations, Hitchcock is able to ratchet up suspense from every angle. This is evident in the scene at the U.N. (capped by the brilliant overhead shot of outside the building), and arguably even more so in the brilliant auction scene.
One of the clear aspects that make this film work so well is the romance. With the potential exception of Notorious, I believe that this film has the most compelling romance of any Hitchcock film. Grant and Saint have fantastic chemistry together, but the way the plot pulls them together, then apart, is truly special. It really invests the audience as the betrayal of Thornhill by his lover is proven to be something forced upon her, and he then has to wrestle with what this means for the two of them. As Thornhill chooses to fight for his love when he truly does not have to, the audience backs his play completely.
This film also embodies the best usage of Hitchcock’s theories of suspense. He was notoriously not a man who liked a lot of mystery in his films, since in his view this ruined the suspense. The crumbs of information given to the audience are enough to keep watchers engaged without ever having truly figured out the entire picture. It’s masterful work by a masterful writer-director duo.
I’d be remiss if I completed this piece and neglected to mention that I believe this film to be a part of one of the most astounding feats any director has ever accomplished. I know of no 3 films that a director made back-to-back-to-back that can match up with the films Hitchcock made before, during, and after this. Hitchcock released Vertigo in 1958, North by Northwest in 1959, and Psycho in 1960. 3 iconic masterpieces in 3 years. However, I will close by saying that North by Northwest is, in my opinion, the strongest of the 3, and the best film Hitchcock ever made. Coming from a massive fan of Hitchcock’s work who has seen over 20 of his films, I don’t say this lightly. The character work, action sequences, phenomenal dialogue, and rapid-fire plot are rarely matched by anyone, even Hitchcock himself.
The original Bond film is still the best Bond film. That’s no expedient exaggeration, either.