|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frenzy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
What does this mean?
"In those days, Mancini had full music measurements sheet [sic] and he had to pay all transportation and accommodations himself." Please rewrite and clarify. Thanks. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The Soundtrack section was created on 18 May 2012 by IP editor 126.96.36.199 who did a series of edits, introduced and corrected typos, blanked the whole section, reinserted it, etc. The editor inserted the statement about "... full music measurements sheet ..." between ""If I want Herrman, I'd ask for Herrman" " and "Mancini never understood ... " I suspect the editor lost interest before completing what the editor meant to say. I removed the meaningless fragment. The whole section ought to be rewritten by an editor with cites to notable reliable sources on the subject. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think there is also (dark?) humour in the film. Unlike some other films by the same director. --188.8.131.52 19:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone's written that the Happy Mondays song 'Bob's Yer Uncle' takes it's name from a line in this film. I don't think this is the case - '...and Bob's your uncle' is a fairly old and common phrase in Britain. I don't think that this film was the first time it was used, so I've removed it. 184.108.40.206 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I just watched this film. The innocence of Blaney is realised by the detective in the scene preceding the denoument - on hearing about his escape from the prison hospital the detective knows where to find him - Rusk's flat - because he he already knows he's innocent but will be out for revenge. So the plot synopsis in the article is wrong - the detective already knows Blaney is innocent and that Rusk is his man, which is why he doesn't apprehend Blaney at the flat. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 18.104.22.168 (talk)Thanks -- I noticed the same. —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC).
Fair use rationale for Image:Frenzy movieposter.jpg
Image:Frenzy movieposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Frenzy contains three scenes of female nudity - naked breasts and so forth. As far as I'm aware it's the only Hitchcock film to do so, but I'm not an expert in the area, so will leave it to someone more learned to include if appropriate. Pete3194 (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure you're right. I can't think of another Hitchcock film that does. Some people have claimed Psycho did, and unless you count the shot of the bare backside of Leigh's body double being dragged from the bathroom, every frame has been examined and Leigh's torso is always out of focus (and even if it were in focus you'd see moleskin covering her). --22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hitchcock intended Karin Dor do have a topless scene in "Topaz" with Frederick Stafford, but then discovered both actors had visible scars from operations (Stafford had undergone lung surgery and apparently was left with a "livid scar from one side of his chest to the other" [McGilligan]). "Psycho" does show nudity and Marli Renfro's breasts are clearly visible (if somewhat blurred) towards the end of the shower scene. In "Frenzy", body doubles were used (apparently Anna Massey had assumed she'd do the scene and was surprised when it was doubled for her) and "television friendly" non-nude versions of the scenes were also shot.Davepattern (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Relationship of story to Christie murders
Surely the parallels in the story to the Christie murders are more than coincidental? The necrophile murderer, the innocent man made suspect and then convicted because everything interpreted because of misinterpreted troubled relationship with wife. There's even a teasing allusion to Christie in the film. I have no evidence for a direct relationship between the film, its source, and the 10 Rillington Place murders, but it seems like a plausible hypothesis.
- I thought the Christie reference in the film was a reference to Agatha Christie the murder mystery author? --126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Murder without music
The article says, "The rape and murder of Brenda (Barbara Leigh-Hunt) makes use of numerous short edits in a similar fashion to the Janet Leigh shower scene in Psycho, and this serves to heighten the images of violence and horror." It's well known that Hitchcock originally wanted the shower scene in Psycho to be without music until he heard Herrmann's score. The onscreen murder in Frenzy occurs without music and IMO is even more gruesome partly for that reason. It is as if Hitchcock was still interested in his original idea and sought to eventually succeed at both approaches. The return to England also might have had something to do with it since his early English films rely less on music. Richard K. Carson (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Critical reception? Great Film?
- Please cite a source that says this is a "great" film. I have never heard it described that way. When it was released, it was considered a good movie in which Hitchcock returned to form, particularly his pre-America English films.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I took out the reference to greatness from the intro, and put in a Roger Ebert contemporary criticism citation to back up my replacement prose, but I did leave the contention that "Some critics believe this is his last great film in the production section of the article even though it is unsourced.(Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The previous version often considered by critics and scholars to be his last great film before his death was more accurate. I have seen it referred to that way a number of times. And putting being evocative of his English films and classic Hollywood work of the 1940s is quite misleading out of context in the lead. This was much darker, Hitchcock's only R rated film with many scenes that could not have been done a decade earlier, much less in the 40s. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I was shocked to read that anyone thought this was a "great" film. The actors are entirely miscast with a bunch of people hamming Hollywood ideas of the English. I had to stop watching it after ten minutes. The script had characters talking like no one in England and the acting was stilted and staged. The article needs proper critics' comments. OrodesIII (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems to me most of the soundtrack section is dubious in tone and accuracy, and reads like it was written by Donald Spoto. The quote in the section isn't from Mancini but was made by Bernard Herrmann in a 1975 interview shortly before his death (Herrmann comes across in the interview as still bitter about his rejected "Torn Curtain" score). The decision by Hitchcock to ditch Mancini's score wasn't made during the London recording sessions (Dec 12-15th 1971) but later on after editor John Jympson prepared an edit of the film with Mancini's score mixed into it. According to Mancini's biography, Hitchcock attended the recording sessions: "He sat through every piece and nodded approval, and finally, when he was alone in the dubbing room, he decided that it didn't work." ("Did They Mention the Music?" pages 155-56). According to Raymond Foery, Mancini was paid a flat fee of $25,000 (equiv to between $140,000 to $300,000 today, depending on which online inflation calculator you use) regardless of whether his score was used or not, so didn't lose out financially. Mancini implies in his biography that the problem was simply Hitchcock gave him too free a reign to create the score, so he created what he felt was a perfect Hitchcockian score (i.e. a Herrmann-esque score, "with ten cellos, ten violas, basses, horns, bassoon, and bass flutes ... none of the screeching, high, intense sounds that would be thought a little melodramatic today", The Guardian (29/Dec/1971)), rather than the contrapuntal Mancini-esque score Hitchcock was presumably expecting. Mancini also said in his biography, "If I were doing the score again, I really don't know what I would do differently ... I still think what I did on Frenzy was good" -- if he said that Hitchcock, then the two were at an impasse and the director's only option was to hire a new composer. Perhaps realising his mistake with giving Mancini too much freedom, Hitchcock gave Ron Goodwin very precise notes on the mood required for each scene. If you examine Hitchcock's entire career, he frequently sought a new collaborator if the person he was working didn't give him what he wanted, so I don't think there's anything particularly unusual with the way Goodwin was hired. Davepattern (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've not heard Mancini's music that was intended for use later in the film, but I much prefer his opening theme to Goodwin's. It's majestic but also has a feeling of unease and foreboding connected to the sinister events taking place somewhere in the apparently peaceful city, which is seen, as a whole, from the air, in the opening sequence. Also, an uneasy turn in the music seems to coincide with the first sight of the tug boat in the distance crossing the Thames, steaming black smoke, which also seems a bit symbolic (or maybe that's just me projecting). Goodwin's opening theme just seems much more one-dimensional and upbeat. Dubmill (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If Michael Caine anecdotally turned down the part of Rusk because it was disgusting, why did he portray an even more disgusting serial sex killer in Dressed to Kill? --Clifford Mill (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- He also portrayed an at least equally disgusting, pathetic serial killer in The Hand. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Frenzy (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)