Frenzy (1972)

When the studio system started to shatter and the counter-culture revolution no longer identified with the everyman (James Stewart) nor the dashing hero (Cary Grant), but instead wanted the anti-hero, Alfred Hitchcock was forced to make some adjustments.

In his second to last film, Frenzy, Hitch returned to his hometown (London) and used an exclusively British cast as he tackled the changing societal movie taste by introducing a good guy (Barry Foster) who's not very likable. He's a down-on-his-luck out-of-work bartender who's abrasive, a womanizer, smokes incessantly and, in classic early 70's style, looks like he needs a good shower and a haircut. He represents the "independent spirit."

His best friend (Jon Finch) is a hard working owner of a produce business who's charming, well dressed and well mannered. Of course, circa 1970, he's the bad guy. He represents "the man."

In Frenzy, our Oily Bartender is mistaken for a serial rapist while his well groomed best friend is actually the offender. We follow the Oily Bartender as he narrowly avoids capture and a good bath while, in classic Hitchcock form, struggles to prove his innocence.

Oily Bartender and Suave Best-Friend

The film is uneven at best. The main character is a horse's patootie and you just want him to be beaten into societal submission. What a jerk. Hitchcock works best when you are able to put yourself in the protagonist's shoes. The Oily Bartender may have touched the audiences at the time, but 30 years later he just looks and acts like a loser.

The one thing I love about Hitch's films, even the bad ones, is that there is always one scene or one shot that is so well done that it makes the entire film worth viewing. This is true in Frenzy in a scene where Suave Best-Friend must uncover a victim in order to recover incriminating evidence. The scene works so well because Hitch relies on no dialogue and masterful editing.

The rape scenes are very disturbing as well, as they should be, and shows Hitchcock exploring a more literal re-creation of violence.

I remember reading an interview with him about his film Torn Curtain where he discussed a lengthy scene where Paul Newman and another woman take five minutes and multiple weapons to subdue and eventually kill a KGB agent. When asked why he had it last so long he replied that the human survival instinct is very strong and it can sometimes take a long time to actually kill someone. He felt that the way movies handles such scenes (one gun shot or one punch and they're done) was unrealistic.

In Frenzy, Hitch makes rape uncomfortable. So, in that respect, he handles those scenes very well. I can only imagine what tortures he would put us through were he a filmmaker today.

Overall a disappointment, but with enough diamonds in the rough to make the viewing worth it, Frenzy is both an example of Hitchcock's strengths as well as the struggles he faced to remain relevant in a quickly changing counter-culture society.