Posted on

Marnie (Bekki’s take)

Well.
That was a tale of neuroses.
Practically everyone had one.
Let me just say, though, that this was really fun to watch with my friend, who is a therapist, and my housemate, who has raised many foster children that have had severe trauma. We has a steady stream of commentary during this entire flick.
Also, as a side note, what was up with Tipi Heddren’s hair? One of the opening credits mentioned some great hair designer that had done her hair in the movie. Seriously. I would not have attached my name to the monstrosity that was her hair helmet. I’ve seen worse, but not often.
Impressions:
MMM Sean Connery. Good to look at, lovely to listen to, but what a perverse character. Aside from the near rape (it technically wasn’t written as a rape in the screen play, but in the book it did take place) what kind of man entraps a broken woman into marrying him, and trying then to be the means of her healing? Narcissistic to say the least. It was almost like Munchausen syndrome by proxy, but instead of causing pain in someone to get sympathy, he caused pain to be the hero. It was odd, and weird.
I did not like Lil. She a) reminded me of Jacob in Twilight. (He’s not yours. Get over it. Stop trying to force yourself on him) and b) she wasn’t half as clever as she thought she was.
Honestly, though, I really didn’t like anyone in this book.
Loved the safe cracking scene where the cleaning lady was working. It was so much fun.

So early on I figured out that the childhood trauma was big. It was either she killed the man for hurting her, or hurting her mama. At least that was what I thought.
I think this is probably my least favorite of the Hitchcock movies. Mostly because I spent most of the movie wanting to knock peoples heads together.

Advertisements

3 responses to “Marnie (Bekki’s take)

  1. stevebetz

    After thinking about this movie, it struck me that it wasn’t nearly as sophisticated as I’d think a “smart” film from the 60s should be.

    I’m still totally on Team Lil. And Connery should have been too… 🙂

    • I found out that in the book there was a separate shrink and husband but that Hitchcock combined the two for the movie. I think it would have been smarter to keep them separate, and more sophisticated.

      • stevebetz

        That’s an interesting point — I can see where that could have made for a more complex tale. Harder to have a “leading couple” though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s