What is most remarkable about "36 Hours" is the year it was made: 1965. With the third and best Bond movie having been released in 1964, Hollywood and England were in the midst of 1,001 iterations of the secret agent theme.
To the modern viewer, this appears a knock off of "The Prisoner," but actually that was first broadcast in 1967. One poster says McGoohan outlined the concept in 1965, which still raises the possibility that "36 Hours" was a direct inspiration. However, there were hints of what was to come in his Danger Man/Secret Agent series. And some say "The Prisoner" was based on a real spy village.
Some might say "36 Hours" is an homage to Hitchcock. The concept certainly is, and there is a reason: Roadl Dahl also wrote several of the best "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" television episodes. The early scenes, where there a so many gray, little people who are actually spies is true to the Hitchcock paranoia, as is the sense of atmosphere.
However, the directorial style is not Hitchcock, and one must wonder what the movie would have looked like in his hands. I think the pace would have felt more taut, with more buildup of suspense. Another factor is the music. Look at the Portugal scenes - they look like Hitch, but the music by Dimitri Tiomkin is far too light for suspense. There was very little music later in the movie to set the mood. Bernard Herrmann would have given it more of a Hitch feel. So, I think they were trying not to imitate Hitch -- perhaps too hard.
Some complain that it is too slow, and, indeed, at points the movie does feel like it is 36 hours. But I strongly feel we have become an ADHD nation of short attention span due to modern editing. The slower pace gives you time to absorb the details and atmosphere, which is as much of the story as the explanatory dialogue. And you don't feel like a limp rag when it is over.
There are elements that echo Hitch's "North By Northwest," which co- starred Eva Marie Saint, a very pretty face with nothing to prove. Here, she gets to act a very different persona, and she creates a convincing younger version of Marlene Dietrich, with just a touch of German accent. They don't come more handsome than James Garner, but he, too, gets a chance to prove his acting chops. Rod Taylor also was in a Hitch classic: "The Birds," and gives a convincing performance here, one of his best. So there is some great acting to be seen.
"36 Hours" is about a Great Con, much like "The Sting" 1973, and the earlier "Went the Day Well?" 1942, which also entailed Germans speaking perfect English. Actually, there was much about D-Day that was a Great Con, much of which has only come out more recently. Lots of clues "accidentally" fell into German hands, including a corpse of a courier, the part-brainchild of Ian Fleming (who also hatched a scheme that sounds a bit like "U-571.") There were lots of real cons going on on the Allied side, so in that light, it is not so improbable that the Germans would try one of their own, if they had had the imagination.
It takes a while for the plot to thicken, say, about half the movie. The details eventually come together nicely, the hallmark of Roald Dahl. The clicking heels was a nice touch as a giveaway. The Germans now face the problem of whom and which version to believe, and the fall back to believing the Pas de Calais option is executed believably. Here, we see hints of the tricks that were played, historically. The movie seems to stay true to the era.
With all the attention to detail, there was one oddity: the coffee, which was served in a French press without any plunger. You cannot make coffee, then remove the plunger, or you will pour grounds into your cup. So this coffee was made, then put in the carafe. Was this a goof, or was it a clue something was wrong with the coffee?
Spoiler alert:
There was.
To the modern viewer, this appears a knock off of "The Prisoner," but actually that was first broadcast in 1967. One poster says McGoohan outlined the concept in 1965, which still raises the possibility that "36 Hours" was a direct inspiration. However, there were hints of what was to come in his Danger Man/Secret Agent series. And some say "The Prisoner" was based on a real spy village.
Some might say "36 Hours" is an homage to Hitchcock. The concept certainly is, and there is a reason: Roadl Dahl also wrote several of the best "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" television episodes. The early scenes, where there a so many gray, little people who are actually spies is true to the Hitchcock paranoia, as is the sense of atmosphere.
However, the directorial style is not Hitchcock, and one must wonder what the movie would have looked like in his hands. I think the pace would have felt more taut, with more buildup of suspense. Another factor is the music. Look at the Portugal scenes - they look like Hitch, but the music by Dimitri Tiomkin is far too light for suspense. There was very little music later in the movie to set the mood. Bernard Herrmann would have given it more of a Hitch feel. So, I think they were trying not to imitate Hitch -- perhaps too hard.
Some complain that it is too slow, and, indeed, at points the movie does feel like it is 36 hours. But I strongly feel we have become an ADHD nation of short attention span due to modern editing. The slower pace gives you time to absorb the details and atmosphere, which is as much of the story as the explanatory dialogue. And you don't feel like a limp rag when it is over.
There are elements that echo Hitch's "North By Northwest," which co- starred Eva Marie Saint, a very pretty face with nothing to prove. Here, she gets to act a very different persona, and she creates a convincing younger version of Marlene Dietrich, with just a touch of German accent. They don't come more handsome than James Garner, but he, too, gets a chance to prove his acting chops. Rod Taylor also was in a Hitch classic: "The Birds," and gives a convincing performance here, one of his best. So there is some great acting to be seen.
"36 Hours" is about a Great Con, much like "The Sting" 1973, and the earlier "Went the Day Well?" 1942, which also entailed Germans speaking perfect English. Actually, there was much about D-Day that was a Great Con, much of which has only come out more recently. Lots of clues "accidentally" fell into German hands, including a corpse of a courier, the part-brainchild of Ian Fleming (who also hatched a scheme that sounds a bit like "U-571.") There were lots of real cons going on on the Allied side, so in that light, it is not so improbable that the Germans would try one of their own, if they had had the imagination.
It takes a while for the plot to thicken, say, about half the movie. The details eventually come together nicely, the hallmark of Roald Dahl. The clicking heels was a nice touch as a giveaway. The Germans now face the problem of whom and which version to believe, and the fall back to believing the Pas de Calais option is executed believably. Here, we see hints of the tricks that were played, historically. The movie seems to stay true to the era.
With all the attention to detail, there was one oddity: the coffee, which was served in a French press without any plunger. You cannot make coffee, then remove the plunger, or you will pour grounds into your cup. So this coffee was made, then put in the carafe. Was this a goof, or was it a clue something was wrong with the coffee?
Spoiler alert:
There was.