Repetition, novelty and the problematic - notes on the structure of the first act of North by Northwest
It may seem odd to talk about acts in a film, but just as in a play, most films are split into fairly self contained sections. In the case of this film, there is a clear break off after the Thornhill seems guilty of the stabbing at the United Nations.
Establishment of the problematic
The film sets up Thornhill’s lifestyle and character extremely quickly- you will need to look yourself at how this is done. Once the hero has been shown in a situation of equilibrium, this is almost immediately disrupted by the establishment of the problematic- this is done quite confusingly, maybe Hitchcock is more interested in the fact of Thornhill being kidnapped, rather than the exact reasons why it happens- this adds to the sense of inexplicable confusion that hangs over him throughout the whole film and creates its atmosphere of paranoia.
Repetition
There are plenty of examples of repetition within the film, here are just some of them
Thornhill makes two very early pathetic attempts to escape: one from the car, one from the room- on each case calmly being blocked off by the baddies.
He responds to each difficult situation with a cool line.
We soon recognise the faces of Van Damm’s henchmen so that we just have to see them to know that trouble is on its way. The sight of their faces can be accompanied by suitable music.
Frequent scenes in cars and in particular in taxis.
genre repetition- multiple car pile up and baddies pushing a car over a cliff.
The two policemen who deal with Thornhill when he is drunk are a repetition of the behaviour of Van Damm’s henchmen.
The policeman repeats Van Damm’s uncomprehending behaviour when he questions Thornhill.
When we return to the house where it all happened, we get the same establishing shot of the house, the same person opens the door and we see the same room. However, everything is shown to us more quickly since it is repetition this time and no longer novelty. At the same time, there is also the novelty of things having changed.
Similarly when we return to the hotel we get a briefer shot to re-establish it in our minds.
The scene in Kaplan’s hotel room on the other hand is all new. However, it then leads into the repetition of the voice of one of Van Damm’s men.
There is repetition in his mother’s reactions- she does not believe anything he says. At the same time there is repetition in our own feelings since we can clearly see the danger he is in.
genre repetition - a taxi chase. However, maybe because he knows what a cliché this is, Hitchcock does not make anything of this-novelty
Repeatedly throughout the film, Thornhill makes the mistake of pretending to be Kaplan at dangerous points.
Repetition of paging while being watched by a baddy.
After the stabbing we get a clear repetition of the opening of the film. The music is exactly the same and we get a similar shot from the top of a tall building. This is clearly a kind of ending- the ending of the first act. To the original problem of being chased by baddies, Thornhill has now added being on the run from the law.
The Problematic continued
At this point, for the first time in the film the camera moves from Thornhill to other characters, the shadowy government officials who know what is really going on. We get a partial solution- the enigma of the opening act is solved, we understand what is going on so in a sense our problematic is solved, but at the same time Thornhill gets a new one- the very government officials who should be helping him will do nothing- he is on his own, running from every one- the pawn against a hostile state. At this point the workings of the narrative shift- we are in the know and he isn’t, we are cut off from him and the whole way the film works changes. In the early part of the film we probably have not felt much sympathy for him as a person, he is cocky and bullying, a man without any centre "Roger O Thornhill, the O stands for nothing." Instead what feeling we have for him is because we can imagine ourselves in his situation, our sympathy for him has been one of empathy- we feel for him and imagine ourselves in his situation because in a sense we are in his situation: we have as little idea of what is going on as he does.
From the moment of this explanation however, that all changes- we know more than he does and so we watch his behaviour as outsiders. We know, for example, that all of his attempts to trace Kaplan are a waste of time, since there is no Kaplan, and we also know long before he does that the girl is not to be trusted. We watch these events at a distance because of our understanding of the narrative which he does not share. It is important for the narrative that we should sympathise with its hero to an extent and because we no longer share his confusion, there is the risk for Hitchcock that we could sympathise with Thornhill even less than we have before so he takes other tactics to make him sympathetic. The most important of these is that he brings in Kendall, the love interest, almost immediately after the second act begins- her function in the plot is to allow us to empathise with Thornhill again as we all feel we know what it is like to fall for someone and be let down. Thus the scene where she rejects him and goes off to see Van Damme is vital for our changing sympathies. It is worth looking at this scene in more detail and having good notes on how it is filmed.
The arrival of the love interest also poses a new enigma for the audience since we once again are left in the position of being unsure of Kendall’s real motives- this is something which is carried on throughout the film as each time we think we know what side she is on we get a moment, as when she looks at him wistfully in the hotel, when her feelings are less obvious. The enigma of her true feelings remains until the very end when its solution forms a part of the resolution of the problematic.
| Steve Baker |  |
 Back to film |