Alfred Hitchcock

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
karmajuice
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:02 am

#51 Post by karmajuice » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:11 pm

I think it's hilarious that people have trouble coming to terms with Vertigo's narrative inconsistencies, but no one has mentioned any qualms with Anthony Perkins dressing like his mother to kill people. Is Vertigo really as ludicrous as Psycho's liberties with the human psychology?

Sheriff Chambers
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 4:53 pm

#52 Post by Sheriff Chambers » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:02 am

karmajuice wrote:I think it's hilarious that people have trouble coming to terms with Vertigo's narrative inconsistencies, but no one has mentioned any qualms with Anthony Perkins dressing like his mother to kill people. Is Vertigo really as ludicrous as Psycho's liberties with the human psychology?
You're absolutely right, it is ludicrous - but great fun. Pure hokum (as Hitch might say).
Mr_sausage wrote:But all of this comes back to my intial point (which I hope not to have to make again), which I made through an analogy to Night of the Living Dead. You read the Ebert thing. All of those kids, and no doubt most of the older people watching, we're prepared for the very same thing: a 'shocker' to be consumed according to the conventions they were used to (and the reason so many kids were allowed by parents to see it). It too was a film supposed to offer "audiences a particular experience (often a sense of, albeit perverse, fun – a key characteristic of much horror cinema)." And as we can see, that did not, in any way, stop the film from being a harrowing, dazing, and awful experience for the unprepared. And very few would ever call Night of the Living Dead "a fun picture with some great scares," no matter how much it is part of a genre, no matter what the general appeal of the genre is, and regardless of what kind of person the genre attracts. Therefore (and this is a small hop), there is no reason to hang these sorry assumptions around Psycho's neck, as though one's reaction to a film were overdetermined by its generic appeal.
You make an important point when you say "… as though one's reaction to a film were overdetermined by its generic appeal". I quite agree, one needs to know where one stands with the film itself (or any film for that matter) and also to understand it as a ‘text’ without always needing to place it in context. But I’ve been talking about Psycho in objective terms, as the product of the classical style and system at a specific historical moment, the strategy it deployed as a commercial product and how it might have been received.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

#53 Post by aox » Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:08 am

karmajuice wrote:I think it's hilarious that people have trouble coming to terms with Vertigo's narrative inconsistencies, but no one has mentioned any qualms with Anthony Perkins dressing like his mother to kill people. Is Vertigo really as ludicrous as Psycho's liberties with the human psychology?
Yes

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#54 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:05 am

karmajuice wrote:I think it's hilarious that people have trouble coming to terms with Vertigo's narrative inconsistencies, but no one has mentioned any qualms with Anthony Perkins dressing like his mother to kill people. Is Vertigo really as ludicrous as Psycho's liberties with the human psychology?
Perkins dressing like his mother takes no real liberties with psychology; and anyway, it's probably the least ludicrous pre-murder ritual that's ever been performed.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#55 Post by colinr0380 » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:48 am

Mr_sausage wrote:
Sheriff Chambers wrote:By ‘shocker’ I mean a film that can be understood as belonging to a particular genre/sub-genre, and as such is likely to be consumed according to the conventions of that particular genre/sub-genre – i.e., as a film that offers audiences a particular experience (often a sense of, albeit perverse, fun – a key characteristic of much horror cinema).
But all of this comes back to my intial point (which I hope not to have to make again), which I made through an analogy to Night of the Living Dead. You read the Ebert thing. All of those kids, and no doubt most of the older people watching, we're prepared for the very same thing: a 'shocker' to be consumed according to the conventions they were used to (and the reason so many kids were allowed by parents to see it). It too was a film supposed to offer "audiences a particular experience (often a sense of, albeit perverse, fun – a key characteristic of much horror cinema)." And as we can see, that did not, in any way, stop the film from being a harrowing, dazing, and awful experience for the unprepared. And very few would ever call Night of the Living Dead "a fun picture with some great scares," no matter how much it is part of a genre, no matter what the general appeal of the genre is, and regardless of what kind of person the genre attracts. Therefore (and this is a small hop), there is no reason to hang these sorry assumptions around Psycho's neck, as though one's reaction to a film were overdetermined by its generic appeal.
That is where horror films are playing a dangerous game. They attract people looking for darkness and scares but I would suggest that part of what a successful horror film should do is push the boundaries a bit further than you were expecting to be pushed. Night of the Living Dead is a great example of that, even Dawn and Day. Land Of The Dead, while I quite enjoy the film, really does not push beyond audience expectations at all, and perhaps best explains the obscure feeling of dissatisfaction I was left with after that film.

However if a horror film is truly successful in pushing beyond audience expectations then it can expect to be villified (especially by people who would never have gone to see a horror film in the first place, and who will of course have a more extreme reaction), attacked and banned itself, simply for stirring emotions and proposing a dark view of the world rather than a sunny one.

Horror films can often be separated into the 'conventional' and 'unsettling' categories, in which the conventional ones retread old ground to a more or less successful effect (the various remakes we're going through now with slight manipulations to plot or gore level), the unsettling films break so much new ground and cause such an impact that they become classics.

My one problem with recent films such as Saw, the various 70s remakes and Haute Tension is that they seem content to stick within the conventional and feel that extra gore compensates for a relative lack of originality (and cynicism) in construction rather than an original vision or take on a well known tale or a lack of confidence in being able to scare through less obvious means, like through a flock of birds.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#56 Post by Antoine Doinel » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:43 am


User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

#57 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:49 am

“One of the teachings of Kabbalah [which she practises] ... "
Sigh.

User avatar
reaky
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:53 am
Location: Cambridge, England

#58 Post by reaky » Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:14 pm

A bit belated, I know, but BBC 4 are showing a couple of archive interviews tonight with Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles. I imagine they'll be available afterwards on the BBC iPlayer.

Anonymous

#59 Post by Anonymous » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:53 am

aox wrote:Are there any gems that kind of get overlooked?
I think Young And Innocent is his most overlooked. Lady Vanishes is fantastic.
adeeze wrote:Does anybody find Vertigo especially overrated at all?
Not me. I can watch Vertigo over and over again. It haunts me.
Jack Phillips wrote:
Sheriff Chambers wrote:I can think of no other Hitchcock film that is quite as bleak as Vertigo.
In fact, Psycho is bleaker than Vertigo. At the end of V, although I pity Scottie, I can't help feeling that his tragedy is largely self-inflicted. He started out as a victim, true, but in the last act the tables turn and he becomes the victimizer. Judy of course facilitates his obsession, but Scottie is the one driving events, and really it is his actions that send Judy to her death. It is a terrible thing to lose someone you love; it is worse to lose them and feel you are also responsible; still worse must be to feel responsible for losing someone a second and final time. But this result follows from choices Scottie has made; it is possible to imagine other decisions, other results.

The contrast with Marion Crane could not be more stark. She enters the chaos world (Robin Wood's phrase) of her own volition, and drives deeper into it under her own power. A combination of choices bring her to the Bates Motel. But at the edge of the abyss she suddenly pulls back, turns, attempts to return to the light. Then the underworld reaches up and pulls her down anyway. Redemption is denied her even at the point of repentance. Scottie naturally comes to grief because he is incapable of seeking any sort of redemption; Marion, however, actually demonstrates a change of heart just prior to her death. It counts for nothing. The world of Psycho--and of The Birds--is entirely naturalistic, operating independently of human morality, a frightening thing to contemplate.

Scottie on the tower looking downward is a devastating image, but can't compare with the sucker punch Hitchcock delivers in the last shot of Psycho. After listening to Simon Oakland explain away Norman and his mother fixation, then seeing a final demonstration of it, we may feel a bit reassured. Yes, the world is often terrible, but it is terrible in an understandable way. Suddenly, the trunk of Marion's car emerges from the muck, dispelling the comfort that the foregoing explanation has afforded. Explain that, Mr. Psychobabler. But there is only silence following this bleakest of bleak endings.

But bleak endings, though infrequent in Hitchcock, are not unknown within the Western narrative tradition. Sophocles had them, as did Euripides. As did Shakespeare. They make for weightier dramas, in fact, and have allowed the creation of some of our greatest works of literature.
Damn fine post, this! :)

(God, you are all so "expert". I am a deer in the headlights.)

User avatar
psufootball07
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:52 pm

#60 Post by psufootball07 » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:07 am

Certainly Chris Marker doesnt find Vertigo overrated, he stated on the Criterion La Jetee/Sans Soleil extra that e saw Vertigo 19 times in theatres and it greatly influenced his work. One of my favorite extras on any Criterion disc.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#61 Post by Antoine Doinel » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:57 am

The Hitchcock homages of Mad Men.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#62 Post by domino harvey » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:16 pm

I didn't click that link but I assume Number One is "misogyny"

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#63 Post by Antoine Doinel » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:02 pm


karmajuice
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:02 am

#64 Post by karmajuice » Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:48 pm

So I watched Psycho again recently and that viewing may come to be one of my most cherished. I watched it with some people this time, whereas before I had only seen it alone. The two people I watched it with were my sister (19) and my friend Chase (15). Neither had ever seen it before, and Chase knew next to nothing about it (he recalled hearing about the shower scene once it came around, but otherwise was oblivious). They were both riveted the entire time: they were creeped out by Perkins, by Leigh's death, by the house looming in the background; my sister jumped when Perkins murdered Arbogast; all the twists surprised them. The perfect audience. We started out spread around the room but by the time the film ended we were all huddled on the couch together. Afterward we stayed up for several more hours talking about the movie and Hitchcock and sharing creepy stories. Twas a good night.

Aside from that, I have a question about Vertigo. It seems clear to me that Scottie has figured out the Madeleine/Judy connection before arriving at the Spanish monastery, that he brings her there for that reason (to verify it for himself and confront her). There is no moment of revelation once they get there, he confronts her about it with pre-meditated certainty. Is this a commonly accepted reading? He seems to know before they get there (and why would they go, otherwise? Why would Scottie want to relive her death if not to expose Judy?).

The question, therefore, is at what point do you think Scottie realizes the truth? When does his focus shift from recreating Madeleine to exposing Judy? I don't think it precedes her pinning up her hair, coming out in the light of the neon sign, but I think it may coincide with that moment -- at least a very distinct suspicion.

So when we say that Scottie goes from being the victim to the victimiser, to what extent is he unintentionally torturing Judy (via his obsession), and to what extent does he intentionally push her in order to uncover the truth and punish her (and is he justified, since she was consciously involved with the murder of a woman).

And is his punishment doled out for using him or for her moral misdeeds? Presumably some combination of the two, but where on the spectrum?

I need to stop asking questions now.

Jack Phillips
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:33 am

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#65 Post by Jack Phillips » Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:30 pm

Scottie knows Judy is the woman who pretended to be Madeleine the moment he catches sight of Carlotta's necklace in the mirror.

The shift from victim to victimizer begins occurring with Judy's flashback scene: once the plot has been revealed to the audience, we know that Scottie has been duped. However, we suddenly begin feeling sympathy for Judy as well, and when Scottie starts making her over that sympathy grows as we understand that she is essentially abasing herself out of love for her man. Simultaneously, we lose a lot of our sympathy for Scottie as we see what he is putting Judy through.

The return to San Juan Batista at the end is fraught with suspense, because we don't know exactly what Scottie is going to do. Is he merely seeking a confrontation that will force Judy into a confession? Or does he intend to go further, exact revenge? Will he end up throwing her off the tower, either out of rage or some psychotic need for repetition or poetic justice? The first time through the picture, we don't know what will happen until it happens.

The ending satisfies the morality of the 1950s: Judy must die for her part in the murder scheme (and since Elster isn't around to pay, there is probably a sense in which Judy is made to pay for his part as well). Scottie is going to suffer no matter how things turn out: he has gotten into the unenviable position of facilitating the falling deaths of people, something I surely wouldn't want on my conscience; also, he's been carrying the torch, he realizes, for a woman who never existed. He will probably follow Judy off the tower, or head back to the asylum.

User avatar
George Kaplan
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:42 pm

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#66 Post by George Kaplan » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:38 pm

It has always seemed to me that Judy's fate is sealed when she consents to Scottie's makeover of her as Madeline.
"Alright, if I do it, if I let you change me, will that do it?" And then with the words, "Alright, I don't care anymore about me" Judy is "safely solipsized" (borrowing Humbert's phrase about Lolita) and ceases to exist except as the "Madeline" assembled by Scottie - a simulacrum of a simulacrum.

It is also in this scene where I think Scottie and Judy first "meet" where the sadness and sickness of the two characters reveal themselves honestly to the other, before swiftly moving back into denial about everyting that is revealed. She, as mentioned above, is so desperate to be loved for "herself" that she completely sacrifices that self to his dream of desire. And he, at that moment that always makes audiences deeply uncomfortable - so that some think they are laughing at a weird old movie - when his gaze moves up from her face to her hair, "your hair." And ultimately, "Judy it can't matter to you" signaling the desperation of Scottie's psychosis.

User avatar
psufootball07
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#67 Post by psufootball07 » Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:47 pm

Is Notorious his best? The more I think about it, the more I feel it is one of his more underappreciated films, at least compared to Rear Window, Psycho and Vertigo. I would love to have this film in Blu-Ray, or at least have the Criterion compared with the new release which messes with the lighting in the film, at least according to what I have seen and read on DVDBeaver.

User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#68 Post by Yojimbo » Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:25 am

psufootball07 wrote:Is Notorious his best? The more I think about it, the more I feel it is one of his more underappreciated films, at least compared to Rear Window, Psycho and Vertigo. I would love to have this film in Blu-Ray, or at least have the Criterion compared with the new release which messes with the lighting in the film, at least according to what I have seen and read on DVDBeaver.
I'd rank 'Notorious' in the 'second tier' of Hitchcock films: below the three you mentioned (and 'North by Northwest', his best comedy-thriller, in my opinion), and alongside 'The Lady Vanishes', 'Shadow of a Doubt', and 'Strangers on a Train'

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#69 Post by tojoed » Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:38 am

Yojimbo wrote:
psufootball07 wrote:Is Notorious his best? The more I think about it, the more I feel it is one of his more underappreciated films, at least compared to Rear Window, Psycho and Vertigo. I would love to have this film in Blu-Ray, or at least have the Criterion compared with the new release which messes with the lighting in the film, at least according to what I have seen and read on DVDBeaver.
I'd rank 'Notorious' in the 'second tier' of Hitchcock films: below the three you mentioned (and 'North by Northwest', his best comedy-thriller, in my opinion), and alongside 'The Lady Vanishes', 'Shadow of a Doubt', and 'Strangers on a Train'


Well, we obviously differ, because I think "Notorious" and "Strangers on a Train" are two of his very best films.

User avatar
psufootball07
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#70 Post by psufootball07 » Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:17 am

Just solely based on what I have seen on the screen, top 3 in no order: Notorious, Vertigo, and Shadow of a Doubt. That being said I do love North by Northwest, The 39 Steps, Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, and Psycho. Even his early work like The Man Who Knew Too Much (British version) and Blackmail or Murder were very beautiful looking films and are closely tied with German Expressionist filmmaking qualities. While Rope and Dial M for Murder are not his best, they are still worth a view. Sadly two of his films I have yet to see are Rebecca and Spellbound, which will probably try and watch those of Christmas.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#71 Post by Tommaso » Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:30 am

Though I don't have a specific Hitch favourite, I must say that I was completely blown away last night when I watched "The wrong man" for the first time. Apart from striking visuals (even considering Hitch's standards), this must be one of Hitchcock's darkest and most devastating films, and almost a political movie considering the intensity in showing what can happen to an innocent person suddenly caught in the state machinery. To think that this was based on an actual case makes it only more frightening. Sure, Fonda is acquitted at the end, but the devastation wrought on his and especially his wife's life remains. I wonder whether that final title telling us that the wife was completely cured again after two years in the sanitarium is accurate for the real-life case or something inserted by Hitch to appease the studio/audience/censors?

User avatar
fiddlesticks
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: Borderlands

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#72 Post by fiddlesticks » Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:00 pm

psufootball07 wrote:Sadly two of his films I have yet to see are Rebecca and Spellbound, which will probably try and watch those of Christmas.
I have 27 Hitchcock films on DVD, and of those 27 I'd rate Spellbound as probably the worst. YMMV of course.

User avatar
psufootball07
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#73 Post by psufootball07 » Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:08 pm

Yeah, I mean I havent seen ALL of his stuff, The Wrong Man, Foreign Correspondent, To Catch a Thief... but Spellbound and Rebecca are at the top of the films of Hitchcock's that I greatly desire to see.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#74 Post by denti alligator » Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:15 pm

There are only six Hitchcock films I haven't seen (they're in my kevyip), and nothing quite reaches the lows of To Catch a Thief or Topaz.

User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Alfred Hitchcock

#75 Post by Yojimbo » Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:49 pm

Tommaso wrote:Though I don't have a specific Hitch favourite, I must say that I was completely blown away last night when I watched "The wrong man" for the first time. Apart from striking visuals (even considering Hitch's standards), this must be one of Hitchcock's darkest and most devastating films, and almost a political movie considering the intensity in showing what can happen to an innocent person suddenly caught in the state machinery. To think that this was based on an actual case makes it only more frightening. Sure, Fonda is acquitted at the end, but the devastation wrought on his and especially his wife's life remains. I wonder whether that final title telling us that the wife was completely cured again after two years in the sanitarium is accurate for the real-life case or something inserted by Hitch to appease the studio/audience/censors?
Yeah, I want to look at that one again: its very doom-laden, almost, dare I say it, Wagnerian doom.
I don't know did Vera Miles get typecast somewhat as a result of her performance in this one: I recall seeing an episode of one of the (half-hour) Hitch tv series in which she had a similar role.
More than 'Marnie', which seems to be increasingly championed these days, I definitely think its one of Hitch's most daring films

Post Reply