HitchGeek Academy: The Power of Marnie's Purse

[@mostdangerousgame1]

Big Hitchcock fan here. Just discovered your channel & will be binge-watching your videos. I love what you're doing. Many thanks for the content you're producing.

[@jtgunz]

Hey Ben, thanks for dropping by! Glad to make the connection.

[@jtgunz]

Hi Ben, I've expanded this one into a full 30 minute piece. Would love your thoughts: vimeo.com/310051354

[@JT-rx1eo]

I guess Hitchcock was really big on color symbolism. Ive seen analysis of Vertigo talk about the reds and greens. And I watched Rope again today and noticed an alternating red/green color. Outside the window of the apartment there was an alternating red/green neon light shining in.

[@clumsydad7158]

although a lot of it may seem awkward today, hitchcock was one of the first to peer deeper into the human psyche, even if, yes, some of the viewpoints seem gender inappropriate and stereotyped today. as in spellbound, vertigo, psycho and others a protagonist is trapped by past traumas. in Marnie, the acquisition of money represents the effort to recover power, independence, and agency. the dialog in the movie isn't great, so this point is a bit submerged. the exegesis of the purse image is pretty, deep, haha... a bit over the top but interesting none-the-less. great observations about the presence of yellow, i missed most of those. and although as many have pointed out, connery's psychology is a bit hard for a modern audience to decipher, yet i was a bit surprised how much i accepted and enjoyed his performance, as he successfully toned down his theatrics throughout to represent Mark's ability for empathy. yellow - let the sun shine in. it takes somewhat of a blind eye to contrivances and some grating exchanges, but it is possible to enjoy this movie, most assuredly for hitch fans.

[@foreoW]

Marnie is as yellow as Vertigo is green. But whereas the green in Vertigo is easily interpreted, I've always been at a loss to see the deeper meanings of yellow in Marnie. So I'll be interested to see part 2, Joel ;)

[@jtgunz]

Excellent! I've got 2-3 more videos coming on Marnie. I'll be very curious to hear what you think!

[@jtgunz]

Hey Foreo, (great name, BTW). Here's my full-length take (parts 1-3 combined): vimeo.com/310051354

[@clumsydad7158]

yes, this movie is like vertigo light, a lot of similar themes and imagery ... one also sees the emphasis on red (obviously) and green in clothes in this movie, similar to vertigo,,, but i'm not sure it has much meaning, or just literally a visual mimicry reminiscent of his classic

[@poetcomic1]

The handbag contains a LOT of money which also symbolizes freedom.

[@zcdel9192]

Striking symbolism!

[@jtgunz]

Thanks for dropping by, Celia! I've expanded this into a full 30-minute deeeeeep dive and posted it on Vimeo: vimeo.com/310051354

[@zcdel9192]

Joel Gunz very, very cool!

[@CarolineWolterHall]

I would like someone to please explain from the male vantage, how a man claiming to love a woman, the blackmailing into marriage aside, could rape his wife. She was a 32-year-old virgin. In reality, there would have been blood on the sheets from his assault. I can't see how the movie tries to seamlessly connect his redemption by getting her Forio. In short, how could she forgive him, much less fall in love with him? But how could Mark do that to begin with if he truly loved Marnie? I'm having trouble placing this in my head. Insights would be appreciated ~ lol. Aside from, of course, that back then, married women were considered chattels. That's reflected in law at a time a wife could not charge her husband with rape or other assault. The idea of property etc. I'm not interested in hearing that. I'm asking how any man claiming to love a woman, could turn around and rape her? I know it's Hitchcock, a perverse thinker ..... I can't seem to form my question here properly. Like in the end, it's lovey-dovey: "I'd rather be with you, Mark." I agree Connery is charming and Mark does spoil Marnie. So how could he do something, which I consider very shameful?

[@jtgunz]

Hi Caroline! What you've identified here is indeed a troubling part of the story. The original screenwriter, Evan Hunter, fought Hitch on this point and insisted that Mark would lose audience sympathy if he were to engage in "marital rape." Eventually Hitch fired Hunter for being uncooperative and he hired a woman writer-Jay Presson Allen (Prime of Miss Jean Brodie)-to write a new screenplay, and to write in the rape scene as Hitch wanted it. So yes, I think Hitch was being perverse-but using perverse to address some philosophical questions. I don't see that Mark is redeemed by fetching Forio or by any other good deed. And I don't think we're supposed to forgive or overlook his sexual assault, any more than we're to forgive or overlook Marnie's criminal behavior-and that might be the point. Of course, rape is by far a more heinous and hurtful crime than stealing, yet there is a certain symmetry in that both Mark and Marnie take things that don't belong to them. I think Hitch is asking a very complex moral question: If audiences give Marnie a "pass" for stealing-and even root for her to get away with it-might we also be willing to view Mark's sexual blackmail, rape, etc. in a morally relative light? If so, what would that look like? Or, in the War of the Sexes, are "women weak and men selfish pigs" as Marnie says at one point? Or, rather, aren't we all messed up individuals, imperfect, "clawing at the air, clawing at each other" as Norman Bates suggests?

[@cryan4041]

@@jtgunz In "The Trouble with Marnie" documentary, Jay Presson Allen responds to Evan Hunter's concern for this scene quite aptly by positing the sheer star power and charisma of Sean Connery is how you redeem the character of Mark. She tells Hunter, "They're not stars for nothing." Interesting, Mr. Hitchcock never used the word "rape" in discussing the screen play with Jay Presson Allen, and she never saw it as a rape scene. She felt it was simply one more episode in a very trying marriage. In the Hitchcock/Truffaut book, Mr. Hitchcock states that Mark's obsession with Marnie is based, at least initially, on feeling aroused by the very fact that she is a thief. In this way, Mark is like the Grace Kelly character in To Catch a Thief; she is sexually excited by the fact Cary Grant is John Robe, a notorious jewel thief. Like in film noir, the richness of these characters is partly a result of their moral ambiguity; they are flawed. Thank you so much, Mr. Gunz, for the wonderful critical insight and beautifully produced segments about Marnie, my favorite Hitchcock film. (Is there a Part 3?) I stumbled on to your Marnie segments quite by accident, and, of course, now I'm hoping for more. :)

[@clumsydad7158]

it was 1964, so... but there's a lot about connery's character that is dubious, one just has to accept a lot, as if one is too scrupulous one can't enjoy the movie even a little

[@clumsydad7158]

@@cryan4041 yes, i think something about the stimulation of being involved with a thief or criminal in dull early 60s america could be seen as a turn on, although the movie doesn't give a good portrayal of what 'obsession' or interest Mark had in Marnie. i really was expecting something to be revealed also about the death of his wife and him living with his sister-in-law. that seemed obviously odd and suspicious, but it was just a red herring really, nothing came of it

[@frostylunetta]

As a lady myself, I never see that as a rape, but more of a seduction scene

[@condimentking7039]

I didn’t like Marnie at all

[@ryanjackson6701]

I agree - i thought it was a terrible movie

[@clumsydad7158]

@@ryanjackson6701 it's hard to argue for, at least at first viewing, as there are many things in the story that seemed contrived or strange. however, as a hitchcock fan, it probably is his last movie that reflects some of his golden era style, and for that reason may be a sentimental one for many