The Prize (1963)

The Prize is my second favourite Hitchcock film he didn't direct (my favourite being 1941's All Through the Night). It's not instantly engaging from the start as there is a lot of setting up to do but becomes more and more tense as the film progresses. In classic Hitchcock fashion, once the mystery kicks in your left scratching your head wondering is the protagonist just paranoid or is something fishy really going on.I consider The Prize one of Paul Newman's best films, giving him the opportunity to show off his not often exposed comedic chops. Newman is one of few select actors in which I can ask the question, "honestly, who doesn't like Paul Newman?"; does there exist a more likable screen presence? Likewise Edward G. Robinson's role is reminiscent of his part in The Whole Town's Talking, playing a duel role of characters identical in appearance but with polar opposite personalities; while the hotel setting rings a bell of MGM's own Grand Hotel some 31 years prior. plus when you set your movie in Sweden it seems inevitable that someone will mention Greta Garbo along the way. Hitchcock himself also never fully took advantage of the cold war. Torn Curtain, although I do think is underrated, is imperfect while Topaz is one of his dullest outings. It's satisfying to see a superb Hitchcockian thriller with a plot about West vs. East. North By Northwest has the auction scene in which Cary Grant makes a fool of himself to get caught by the police in order to get away from the bad guys; The Prize has the same scene but ups the ante with having it taking place during a nudist meeting and of course naturally of all the countries in the world to a nudist meeting, where else but Sweden. The Prize is not quite Hitchcock's greatest hits but it's the closet a film comes to being so. There are other allusions to other Hitchcock films including The Lady Vanishes, Foreign Correspondent, Saboteur and Torn Curtain. Hang on, that one didn't come until three years after this movie. Huh, was Hitchcock inspired by this Hitchcock clone/rip-off/ homage/whatever you want to call it. As far as imitations of someone else's work goes it doesn't get pulled of any better than this.

Stockholm never looked lovelier than in this film. Seldom have I seen a city made to look as beautiful and colorful as they managed to do here. While introducing farcical elements to replace the heavy romance in the original, director Mark Robson and screenwriter Ernest Lehman virtually remake Alfred Hitchcock's (and Lehman's) "North By Northwest" in a way that continually pokes fun at itself.Paul Newman stars as effete and boozing American writer Andrew Craig, who somehow managed to win a Nobel Prize for Literature despite not having written anything but cheap detective novels for years. Arriving in Stockholm to attend the ceremony, he is shepherded during his stay by government representative Inger Andersson (the lovely Elke Sommer). He meets several other prize recipients, each of whom has some dysfunctional relationship with either a fellow prize winner or someone else close. Then there is one particular prize winner, Dr. Max Stratman (Edward G. Robinson), who is the subject of a sinister Cold-War plot....Newman lounges through most of the film affecting a now-it's-there, now-it's-not effete speaking voice that contrasts sharply with his pretensions to being a lady killer. Being a detective-story writer, he quickly senses from some subtle facts that something is amiss with Dr. Stratman and his perky niece (Diane Baker). He spends the remainder of the film gallivanting around Stockholm solving the mystery while contending with assorted colorful locals.Anyway, that's the set-up. There are gaping plot holes (at one point, Craig receives a mysterious and crucial phone call from someone for no apparent reason) and jokey scenes with no purpose (Lehman sends up a similar scene in "North By Northwest" by having Craig interrupt a Nudist Convention in order to escape bumbling killers). More so than usual in these types of films, the crooks seem to linger around practically inviting the hero to figure things out in time. The chief hired killer is a dead ringer for Martin Landau, who must have been unavailable, while Leo G. Carroll reprises his role as an authority figure to eliminate all confusion about what is going on. The real problem with the script is that it can't make up its mind to be a complete farce, so one minute Newman is stumbling around rather pathetically, the next he is outwitting professional killers on a cargo ship a la James Bond. As a mystery, the film is rather silly, and as a farce it pulls its punches, so those are not the reasons to see it.But Stockholm is glorious! There is an irreverent live-and-let-live attitude throughout that plays on the stereotype that anything goes in hip Sweden, and Elke is the embodiment of that wistful notion. Newman gets off occasional one-liners of the type that Sean Connery did much better in the following year's "Goldfinger" but are amusing in their own right. Worth catching for a trip to a fabulous place that never really existed.

To avoid misunderstandings; amongst the several "writers privileges" in this movie (such as being able to hit the sea from Katarinahissen), the omission of the peace prize winner is actually accurate, as this prize is awarded in Oslo, in neighboring Norway. This has always been the case. Otherwise one might say that the plot seems a little "childish" today, except maybe among the "conspirationists" of our time. It is fun however, that the egalitarian social-democracy of Sweden in 1963 still had a nobility (and still does), as only Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium and the UK besides Sweden has a nobility de jure. Count Jakobsson is more than unlikely though, he should have been named Count af Jacobsfält or something.

Paul Newman and Edward G. Robinson struck me as a curious combination, so I chose to watch "The Prize" not having any idea what it was about.This story about a number recipients in Stockholm about to receive their Nobel Prize, will show how their lives are intertwined in the days prior to the annual event. It is a mystery story that I almost gave up on after a handful of minutes -- my own fault for being impatient. A flower takes time to blossom, and so does a movie that is over 40 years old. But I am glad I didn't switch it off.The intrigue does start to capture after a while and the insights the viewer is granted are satisfying, while our hero is denied these sensations as no one believes him. The 21st century participant of this drama may find parts predictable, but it is very enjoyable, even if a little dated.Paul Newman gives everything you would expect. And you could say the same for Elke Sommer, since I wouldn't expect anyone to describe her as a terrific actor -- good performance for her, and she always wonderful to look at. I would have enjoyed more screen time by Edward G. Robinson in this role that had him more timid than I am accustomed to.I recommend this movie to everyone that enjoys these actors, although one viewing is probably enough.