|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 8, 2006 20:47:48 GMT -5
Vertigo
This is only the second time I've seen it and dear lord, it's even better than I remember. This is Hitchs most challenging film - he reveals the catch a half hour before the end of the movie and that's always invited much debate. But this time I think I get why.
Hitch was twisting the genera on its ear.
Traditionally your character development serves the mystery. We watch these people involved in a suspenseful situation - and we continue on to the "reveal", the resolution of the mystery.
But with the Vertigo the mystery doesn't really matter (In the traditional sense) - it simply serves the character study. This isn't a mystery needing to be solved, but a movie about a mans unraveling mental state.
Hitch has reversed the gears.
It's a character study about mental illness (Both real and created) of a desire twisted by obsession. Of the danger in objectifying and personifying a woman instead of loving and accepting her for who she is, faults and all.
Hitch reveals the mystery early because he doesn't want our attention directed towards that. He wants our focus on Scottie and his psychological downward spiral.
Pure genius. This viewing might have elevated this above North by Northwest as my favorite Hitchcock movie.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 9, 2006 8:28:27 GMT -5
Foreign Corespondent and Shadow of a Doubt
(Yeah I'm on a Hitchcock kick) Both of these are wonderful pieces of the Hitchcock cannon. Not as well known but great films never the less.
Corespondent has a very dense plot and aside from Laraine Day's whinny part as the female lead, is stacked with memorable performances. Herbert Marshall is in it, he's the father of the gal who played the blond maiden in Teenage Caveman.
Shadow is more psychological and character driven. Joseph Cotton was perfect as the suave but diabolical Uncle Charlie. I love how the train he rides into town on, billows out thick black smoke from its stack. As if it's bringing something evil to town.
I wasn't as fond of the Dimitri Tiomkin score. I know he's considered great, but I find his work a bit overdone and soap opera-ish. Bernard Hermann's surreal, haunting scores suited Hitchcock best.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 9, 2006 20:56:24 GMT -5
The Man Who Knew To Much
The British original. Hitch had yet to mature as a film maker, it isn't a seamless production (The end gun battle drags) but there are highlights.
Hitch was always refining his craft and working within similar themes as he improved and as the medium grew. So it's no surprise he remade this later on.
Interestingly Edna Best played the wife here. She's Herbert Marshall's real life wife and Mother to the blond maiden in Teenage Caveman.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 10, 2006 8:07:53 GMT -5
Topaz
Minor Hitchcock, one that I'd never seen before. Right from the credits (what no Saul Bass?) I knew it was going to be pretty artless. There are a few flourishes, but for the most part it's slow, too long with too much plot which makes it come off like a "how to" on spying, rather than a tense international thriller.
A few MST3K Connections - Stewart Moss (It Lives By Night) has a small uncredit part. Also in the cast I spotted, Inspector Ginko from Diabolik, Arturo Ramos from Black Scoprion, the French guy from 12 to the Moon and the guide from Leech Woman.
This isn't one I'll watch again, but at least I can say now that I've seen it.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 11, 2006 3:26:06 GMT -5
The 39 Steps Torn Curtain
Steps is arguably Hitchcocks first great work. And with the Lady Vanishes, the best of his early British era of film. And it is very British - More understated and urbane than his American films, it never the less shows the director in full stride. Robert Donat (Mr Chips) was a delight in the leading role and my lord, there's an 18 year old Peggy Ashcroft in a bit part. She was quite attractive, I've only known her as an old lady (She won an Oscar for "A Passage to India")
Curtain was Hitchs 50th film and isn't as bad as critics said at the time. It's no Vertigo, but it's solid, well told with many a memorable scene. There are times when it drags, the bits with the crazy old lady at the end bogged down the story and was unnecessary, but overall it's a good movie with good performances from Paul Newman and Julie Andrews.
I've got Spellbound left to watch and waiting for the Library to deliver Notorious, Lady Vanishes, Dial M For Murder and Suspicion.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 12, 2006 2:12:18 GMT -5
Suspicion Spellbound
I always try to NOT judge a movie by today’s standards. To allow myself to drift back to the era a movie was made and enjoy it within that context. But Spellbound seriously taxes this effort because it hasn’t weathered the ages well. The condescending attitude towards a professional woman losing it over a man, some of the psychotherapy in the movie has lost its impact and while I like the otherworldly feel of Hitchcocks films, the back-screen effect during the skiing scenes was so cheesy it hurts to watch, knowing that it’s coming from a master of the medium. Also, Hitch changes tactics and kept the audience in the dark for this mystery. Which means that while I loved the movie on first viewing, having the story driven by plot and not character, lessens the impact in subsequent viewings. A good but not great movie highlighted by a haunting score (which used a Theremin) and a brilliant Dali dream sequence. The Criterion edition includes a detailed look at this sequence and is highly recommended. Of Note: The blowhard scientist in Rocketship X-M had a part as a psychiatrist here.
Suspicion might very well have been a female version of Vertigo had Hitch been allowed to film the ending he wanted and had Joan Fontaine been as good an actor as Jimmy Stewart. The idea that she knows her husband is going to murder her, but she allows it because she can’t live without him would have made for a chilling psychological tale. But the end was forcibly changed and despite her Oscar win, Fontaine would never have had the acting chops to carry such a heavy role convincingly. Suspicion succeeds on many levels, and has many memorable Hitchcock touches (The “Milk” scene is a classic) but it’s not one of my favorites. Fontaine never convinces me on how and why she’d love a man who is a liar and cheat with a hair trigger temper. He is handsome sure, and fun. But deep down he’s a dickweed and the fact that I don’t buy into the premise, weakens the whole story for me.
Bottom line, both are very good but not classics.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 13, 2006 3:43:54 GMT -5
Young and Innocent Rebecca
Two excellent flicks. Y&I is from his British era (1937) and is one of his lesser known films. It's a lot like the 39 Steps but without the spy angle. It's a little more innocent, lighter and featured top notched performances from its major players. Nova Philbeam is especially good. She kind of reminds me of Kate Hepburn - physically she's thin and has a personality that's sassy. She carries herself with confidence.
Philbeam might have been a major star if Producer Selzncik had his way. He wanted her to star in Rebecca, he felt she was perfect for the role. But Hitch wanted to change the original story a bit and felt she wouldn't be right for the film. And she might very well have been too strong a personality. That's a shame - all that promising talent now forgotten and gone to waste.
Rebecca was Hitchcocks first US film and it made a splash with 11 nominations and a Best Picture win. The performances are all solid, Joan Fontaine does seem uncomfortable and uncertain, just as Hitch wants her to be. The supporting actors steal the show, The great George Sanders is suitably slimy and Judith Anderson is perfectly batpoopie insane as Mrs Danvers.
Rebecca is Hitch at his most slick and commercial and he does a brilliant job of casting Rebecca's formidable shadow upon the whole film.
Excellent double feature.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 14, 2006 1:26:44 GMT -5
Blackmail Juno and the PaycockTwo of Hitchs early British works. Blackmail was filmed as a silent just as sound was being introduced. He later added a sound track and re-filmed scenes. His leading actress had a thick Polish accent, so Joan Barry stood off stage and said the lines as the actress mouthed the dialog silently. Hitch uses the new tool effectively. There's a scene where the leading lady (who stabbed a man who tried to rape her) is listening to a nosy customer - the lead actress only hears her utter unintelligible mumbles, except for the word "knife". There are a few other nice Hitchcockian touches. From the use of a portrait which seems to mock the main characters to the big chase which ends with a fall from a large structure. Juno was his next flick, his first as a fully intended sound picture and it's pretty dull. It's not a suspense thriller (Though the son with one arm harbors a secret) but a drama about some poor Irish folk. Juno was a play Hitch liked and he films it very much like one, without any flourish. Perhaps he did this to remain faithful to the source, or perhaps because the first sound cameras were bulky and hard to maneuver - whatever the reason, the movie is very static with few of those trademark Hitchcock techniques. Comparing these early pics to his later efforts isn't any more fair than comparing the KTMAs to Season 5 for MST3K - but even then, Juno is a weak movie by any standard. Unless your intent on seeing every Alfred Hitchcock movie available, this is a flick one could avoid. A scene from Blackmail: Hitch had a different ending in mind, he said in an interview... "I had intended to end Blackmail just as it began. Only this time with the girl being arrested. I was going to repeat every shot. But they wouldn't go for it in those days. A happy ending--had to be. As I wanted to do it, the detective was never going to disclose to his superior that this was his girl. He had to go through with his duty--the old love-and-duty theme. I was going to repeat all the shots of the mugging, the interview, and finally--bang! goes the cell door on the girl, and the detective and his superior walk down the corridor. I was going to hang on and let them wash their hands in the men's room and go way down the corridor to right where he met her at the opening of the picture, in the lobby. And the superior says, "Well, what are you doing tonight, going out with your girl?" And he says, "No, not tonight." And he walks out."
|
|
|
Post by ash2 on Apr 14, 2006 12:42:44 GMT -5
Have you watched Sabatoge yet?
JG
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 14, 2006 16:51:10 GMT -5
Have you watched Sabatoge yet? JG A long time ago, and I have it with me and plan to watch it this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 14, 2006 17:44:40 GMT -5
The Lodger, The Ring, Secret AgentThese first 2 are from his silent film days... Hitchcock's first film attempt (Number 13) was never completed and the footage he shot is lost. Only 2 reels exist from his second attempt. His third, and the one most people site as his first complete film, The Pleasure Garden, I've yet to locate (aside from bootlegs) - the follow up to Garden is also lost and that takes us to the Lodger. Hitch considered this his first "real" movie and it does indeed set the tone for future tales. It's of a man wrongly accused of being a serial killer called "The Avenger". The direction for Lodger is sharp and inventive. The use of a glass ceiling to show the Lodger pacing on the floor above the family was smart. And the ending - shows us the handcuffed lodger running from a mob and getting his cuffs caught on a fence. He hangs helpless as revenge minded folk crowd around him... this tension filled moment is pure Hitchcock. The Ring is another silent film and it was written by the director as well. While I didn't find the story as compelling as the Lodger, the direction shows growth. The stories a love triangle, the ring signifies both the boxing ring the two men battle in - and also the wedding ring and arm bracelet each present to the woman of their dreams. The camera work is clever. A drunks fading vision is used to move us from one scene to the other, and the final boxing match develops some of the same style Scorsese will incorporate in Raging Bull (Blows from one fighters perspective - a slow moving glove that strikes the jaw of a boxer) Though he started out making Title cards, Hitch uses them sparingly and allows his picture to convey the story. Secret AgentComes from his British era (made after the 39 Steps) and is an odd and challenging film. It starts off like a screwball comedy, with quick witty banter between Robert Young (Father Knows Best, Marcus Welby MD) and Madeline Carrol. Then there's Peter Lorre, who plays a whacked out Mexican (who's not Mexican) who likes to be addressed as the General (though he's not really a General) This silliness is married to a very serious and often tragic morality tale. The thrust being that killing someone is still murder even when it's done as a duty to ones country. Carrol coming to the realization that this is isn't some fun adventure, but a serious matter of life and (wrongful) death is haunting. Aside from the usual directorial flair, Hitchcock also experiments with sound as a means to color his film. A dogs mournful howl as his master dies. The sound of rolling coins during Carrol's breakdown... the audio is as important as the visual aspects. Secret Agent isn't an easy film to pin down and its odd mix of bright comedy and dark tragedy makes for strange, uneasy viewing. One that not everyone enjoys. But I found it compelling, suspenseful and sad. Lorre is over the top but his eccentricities had flavor that I enjoyed and even though John Gielgud is miscast as the dashing lead (A role better filled by Cary Grant), the performances are honest and ring true. It's not a perfect film, but it is a very good one. Better than most give it credit for.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 15, 2006 13:19:34 GMT -5
Rich and Strange Sabotage
Two more from the British era
Rich and Strange (1932) is both a broad comedy and sad drama about a couple who come into a big inheritance, go on a cruise where they have affairs, lose all their cash and wind up back home, the same way they were when they started.
It's a weird movie and not entirely successful one. But there's lots of interesting camera work, in particular the opening rush hour scene - where workers march down some stairs and open umbrellas two by two.
Sabotage (Not to be confused with the later work, Saboteur) on the other hand is pure Hitchcock at his best.
The camera angels, framing, the deep shadows and pacing are all impeccable. The acting by Oskar Homolka and Sylvia Sidney (who modern viewers might know from Beetlejuice) is brilliant.
SPOILER ALERT The movie concerns a man (Homolka) who is kind and quiet, he takes care of his young wife and her brother and runs a movie house. But he has a dark secret life which causes the death of his wifes brother.
Critics at the time slammed Hitch for this death and Hitch himself said that it was a mistake. But I disagree. If the boy hadn't died, the event (a bombing) would have been effective only in an abstract manner. That it hurt someone we'd invested time with adds poignancy and depth.
Before this, Homolka was a somewhat sympathetic character, but afterwords we have no choice but to see him as a monster.
Sidney's scenes here are heartbreaking. She keeps seeing her dead brother in the crowd, and that 1,000 yard stare she wears was moving and real.
This isn't a movie that gets a lot of attention, but I feel it's one of Hitchcock's very best.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 17, 2006 10:15:35 GMT -5
Marnie Sabotuer
In the late 60’s Hitch’s films were seen as old fashioned. With the advent of Method acting and an interest in the techniques of Cinéma vérité, Hitchcock’s continued use of rear projection and Mattes seemed out of date.
It is important to understand that Hitchcock was influenced heavily by German expressionism, the works of Fritz Lang and his ilk. This 'expressionism' will become an intergal part of Hitch’s style from beginning to end. So in reality Marnie is not a film by a director stuck in the past, but rather by one who has mastered a “style” and continued to develop and experiment within that style. Much the same way you’d see painters from Gaugan and Michalangelo become masters of a style or genera.
In that light Marnie is a major work of art. The master uses all his skill to such a degree that every piece of music, color, framing, delivery of dialog, etc - works in brilliant syncronisity. Vertigo is Hitch at his most perfect within this craft, Marnie is its close cousin. The use of the fading/forward camera move, bright color to signify a persons mental unraveling, the psychological study and off kilter love story make these kindred spirits.
Marnie isn’t perfect, at times the script is overwrought and the Matte work for the Boston apartment doesn’t work, even within the context of expressionism. But Sean Connery is perfectly cast, like Cary Grant he brings a blend of the sauve and dangerous to his performance.
The movie was ripped to shreds on its release but lately the tide has turned and Marnie has found some vocal defenders, which makes me happy because I always felt it was terribly under rated.
Saboteur As the film industry matured, Hitch was able to draw from his ample imagination in bigger and better ways. And because of this he would revisted several themes through his career. Sabotuer is the next step from the brilliant “39 Steps” and it, in kind, would lead to the masterpiece, “North By Northwest”.
But in many ways, the middle child is the lesser of the 3. It’s not as well paced as the 39 Steps and is bested in all phases by bigger brother; North by Northwest. Which was the perfect filming of this theme. Also, as good as Bob Cumming was, he’s no Robert Donnat or Cary Grant.
Never the less, Sabotuer is wonderful picture with many memorable elements. The most famous being the ending atop the Statue of Liberty. The cast is brilliant, actress Priscilla Lane kind of reminds me of Mary Beth Hughes (I Accuse My Parents) in appearance and the villians carry the film. Norman Lloyd as Frank Fry, Otto Kruger is an absolute gem in the part of the smooth Charles Tobin. And Alan Baxter is soft spoken, off kilter and kind of creepy as Mr. Freeman (that bit about having long curly locks as a boy? Weird.)
|
|
|
Post by ash2 on Apr 18, 2006 9:17:10 GMT -5
Rich and Strange SabotageSPOILER ALERTCritics at the time slammed Hitch for this death and Hitch himself said that it was a mistake. But I disagree. If the boy hadn't died, the event (a bombing) would have been effective only in an abstract manner. That it hurt someone we'd invested time with adds poignancy and depth. A large part of me hopes your wrong on this one, I'd like to think that Hitchcock was proud of Sabotage. JG
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Apr 18, 2006 12:46:46 GMT -5
Rich and Strange SabotageSPOILER ALERTCritics at the time slammed Hitch for this death and Hitch himself said that it was a mistake. But I disagree. If the boy hadn't died, the event (a bombing) would have been effective only in an abstract manner. That it hurt someone we'd invested time with adds poignancy and depth. A large part of me hopes your wrong on this one, I'd like to think that Hitchcock was proud of Sabotage. JG Oh he was proud of the film as a whole, but not of that scene. Truffaut did an extensive interview with Hitch that was collected in a book called "Hitchcock" and this is the source of my information. Specifically the chapter titled, "The Boy and the Bomb"
|
|