Alfred Hitchcock: Classic or Dud?

vertigo (no matter how many times you see it, it's always more twisted than you remember)

also funnier, but maybe that's just me.

― sarahel, Wednesday, 30 December 2009 08:32 (1 week ago) Bookmark

i am watching this tonight. after rear window and nxnw i am ready to have my mind blown and my senses thrilled a third time round

― Electric Universe (wherever that is) (acoleuthic), Wednesday, 6 January 2010 18:32 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is such a slow-burner!! gotta say i didn't see the twist coming. i'd already worked out a far more outlandish one in which midge was madeleine :D that'll teach me to second-guess!

midge is way hotter and saucier and generally more attractive than the kim novak character obv. snappy chick who paints and has a sense of humour? will take that ahead of doomed tragic...oh wait maybe that's the point of the movie!

― Electric Universe (wherever that is) (acoleuthic), Thursday, 7 January 2010 04:47 (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

(it's not, but it's telling that he can only pursue a remembrance of death, like madeleine in her act...as that chris marker crit piece says, midge is painted out entirely for the second half)

― Electric Universe (wherever that is) (acoleuthic), Thursday, 7 January 2010 05:22 (1 minute ago) Bookmark

wonder if this movie wd have been better if it had confirmed the dream by ending with stewart in the hospital sitting bolt upright and grinning painfully like jonathan pryce at the end of 'brazil'

hmm

btw now i've seen the 'holy trinity' i've gotta say they're all AWESOME, wd rank them maybe rear window > nxnw > vertigo, but they're all different. first one's the date movie, second's the james bond, third's the slow descent into the inferno. vertigo suffers a little from being a mite unsatisfying right at the end, although i hadn't formulated the dream theory at that stage, and it'd have been better if i had. the main thing is that even with the dream theory, even with this expression of a man trying to reclaim something impossible, it doesn't feel quite as fundamental as the other two.

of course, rear window is one of the all-time great date movies (what a fucken script!) and nxnw is better than every james bond film put together and given a healthy anabolic injection of awesome

maybe need to see vertigo again more than the other two?

also it's unclear how much the kim novak character loves james stewart, or what her motivations are? i quite like to read it that stewart semi-deliberately destroys her, whether in actuality or in his 'dream'. because then stewart becomes evil. which makes the movie twice as cool as it already was. this man, becoming evil!

it isn't as breezy as the other two movies. it's poetic, but anguished. rear window is poetic, and it is as light on its feet and as exhilarating as movies can be. also the chemistry between the two leads in RW is WAY more powerful. in V it's more desperation than chemistry. they're brought together by duress, deception and illusion. in RW they're brought together by mutual belief and understanding. aw maybe i'm just an old sop.

i'll stop now.

man i LOVE the final act of Vertigo absolutely! find it incredibly satisfying all way through to the "i heard.."

you're totally right about the chemistry/desperation in the films' respective couples - but i think that's why i personally have to love Vertigo more, it's just a swarming, encompassing dream-sickness that you're watching in the final bits, vs. a more linear though still quite effective tightening of suspense in RW

also adding to what you're saying Novak's motivations - i don't know if she really fell if love with Stewart up through the first tower scene, but after that she basically became the husband's plaything and was tossed aside and abandoned, so by the time she meets in the third act she's also been at least somewhat devastated, used, broken, guilty - heck she's still hanging on to that souvenir - alone in that apartment. does she really believe he's never going to figure it out, or does she actually want to be caught?

not to slight the other two even a bit - NXNW especially, probably the most flat-out entertaining Hitch film, and RW's pretty great too but Vertigo's the one to me that really, really gets under the skin

Well, as many have said there's the chance that the second half is Stewart's vision, which makes her dilemmas less interesting (albeit that the way he 'turns' her possession into a something far more literal is delicious). There's the tiniest element of Vertigo that it's fucked-up for the sake of being fucked-up, and a weeny bit contrived (with the vertigo); I know it's expressionist and I know it's basically a horror movie but the concerns of RW and NXNW held me in a slightly more vice-like grip. Vertigo is still a fine, fine movie. Wondrously shot, and the pursuit scenes (all of them) are glorious.

I think the thing that puts Vertigo over the top is that you'll find yourself watching it literally dozens of times, all the while the experience only gets richer.

second's the james bond

hmmmm, NxNW is more like Bond with humanity.

btw From Russia w/ Love ripped off the cropduster scene.

Yes (xp). It has the escapism, free spirit and pacing of a Bond movie (Bond applies screwball tropes to action), but it has a believable, confused and wholly sympathetic character in the main role, and James Mason as some sort of awesome Bond/Bond villain superhybrid. It's Bond but with acknowledgement that life is one big accident. It has you cheering where Bond has you glazed.

I was saying to myself throughout 'this is James Bond! but three-dimensional'

NxNW totally rips off 39 steps.

(and with a killer script. OH btw the train scene in Casino Royale...take out the Rolexes and the Oxbridge oneupmanship, and put in a bit of chemistry...)

NxNW totally rips off 39 steps.

Not seen 39 Steps for about 10 years (true story) and need to see it again but there's nothing wrong with a director trying to refine his own craft and express something he can express in terms he prefers.

it's a refinement. xp

a believable, confused and wholly sympathetic character in the main role

sort of, but Grant is established as enough of an asshole in the first 3 minutes to make his predicament a blast.

He's a fast-talking, illusory ad exec, and his taxi patter is intended to be both boring and assholish, yeah. Plus, he's an entertainingly coarse drunk. He's not a 'nice guy' at all; he's a city slicker half living on his wits and half barely surviving a gloriously escalating situation.

However, he's sympathetic, because he's assholish in ways we can see in ourselves! Aspirational, well-to-do, grand.

...and then he becomes a superhero.

he has that line about "expedient" lying, and then no one believes him for most of the film.

Call it Morbs' feminine intuition.

(an accidental superhero)

Haha! This is actually true. Especially in the auction scene where he plays that to his advantage. He's never quite pinned down by anyone (except the girl).

The very last shot is one of the funniest things I've ever seen btw

It's like the end of Preston Sturges' Hail The Conquering Hero turned up to 15

Hitchcock called it "the only symbol" in the movie. xp

Love the look on Mother's face when she snatches the bribe from his hand in the Plaza lobby.

"That was mother" might be the funniest line of the film

just saw 'stage fright' and i'd say it's possibly my favorite hitch without stewart or grant. genuinely unpredictable and funny, and the acting somehow feels a lot more natural than the other hitch films of that period (much as i love AH, i often find the acting in a lot of his work off-puttingly wooden).

and jane wyman, damn!

http://www.classicfreemoviedownloads.com/jane%20wyman%2001%20500.jpg

I still haven't seen Stage Fright, the only one post-Jamaica Inn of which that's true, I think.

Glenn Kenny via Dave Kehr: Hitchcock borrows an image from Cecil B DeMille (37 years later):

http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2011/04/demillehitchcock.html

Got a DVD of The Lodger in Oxfam for 2 quid. Haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but pleased.

Probably won't get much agreement here, but I was writing about Hud the other day, and I said that I consider it a much, much better film than The Birds. They both came out in '63; because of Hitchcock's auteurist standing--as opposed to Martin Ritt, who has none--The Birds is the much more famous and written about film.

I love Hud, and, yeah, it's better than The Birds.

like both, prefer The Birds, but haven't seen Hud in awhile.

last night i couldn't sleep so i watched the first two episodes of hitchcock presents. what fun!

i liked 'the spy who came in from the cold' and maybe a few other ritt films but im not sure he is as distinctive a filmmaker as hitchcock. i don't like 'the birds' much but it's sort of obvi why hitch has the auteurist standing he has. for sure too much is written about him but all the same.

They're hard to compare, being so different...I'll concede that there's probably more going on visually in The Birds, even though James Wong Howe's black & white cinematography in Hud has a nice spare, classical look to it. But when you get down to performances, it's not even close. Taylor and Hedren are typically wooden, whereas Newman and O'Neal are fantastic. Especially O'Neal--she'd be on my short-list of favourite female performances ever. Anyway, I'm glad you guys have a favorable opinion of it; I feel like it's an unfairly neglected film. (Love The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, too.)

The Birds always strikes me as Hitchcock challenging himself to see if he could make a suspense flick using the most outlandishly silly premise he could imagine. It only works if you allow yourself to swallow (no pun) the premise entirely. I never can, so it has always seemed to me a very silly film.

read a good book saying he was shooting for a 'real art-film' with the birds, having realized all these serious young men took him seriously now -- had its debut at MoMA iirc

Yeah, you have to turn your brain off a bit. I do like The Birds, though, especially how it clears the ground for something like Night of the Living Dead.

I've been getting Hitchcock Presents discs from Netflix for a while now, I'm up to season 4 (though they stream on Hulu too.) Absolutely love them. (Season 1 #1 "Revenge" is ultra-awesome.)

One more vote for Hud > Birds, but yeah they're so different stylewise it's really oranges/apples. (I just prefer oranges.) I just saw Hud for the very first time not long ago, so the "newness" of it for me may color my judgement a bit. Great, great film.

I've been getting Hitchcock Presents discs from Netflix for a while now, I'm up to season 4 though they stream on Hulu too.

YES!!! :D

Just this image gives me all sorts of warm fuzzies -- conjures up late night TV as a kid:

http://epguides.com/AlfredHitchcockPresents/logo.jpg

sorry, I like the CHARACTERS in The Birds, and the way the fantastic menace comes out of their interpersonal tensions. (It took me awhile to look at the film this way, I guess Robin Wood gets the credit.)

I mean, you don't think it's ABOUT birds massing and attacking people, do you?

that's the problem!

read some Robin Wood, yo

Jessica Tandy and Suzanne Pleshette ("How do you like our little hamlet?") are particularly amazing, and the Cartwright girl.

I didn't find Wood particularly convincing on The Birds; he trod suspiciously auteurist ground.

Wood's regard for The Birds and Marnie was...off the charts. I think it's fine to approach the The Birds either way. But because Taylor and Hedren are so bland, to me it's not worth the effort to parse out what's going on psychologically; I think it's a better film if you stick with the birds massing and attacking people.

I suspect you are a Paulette, Soto!

I think it's fine to approach the The Birds either way. But because Taylor and Hedren are so bland, to me it's not worth the effort to parse out what's going on psychologically;

otm

how do you feel about Hedren and Sean Connery? I think she's quite good in Marnie particularly.

I've only seen Marnie once, about 10 years ago (introduced by Wood). It's one of those films where I'll finish reading Wood and think, "Wow, I'd love to see that," and then you see the film and it's "Huh?" I hesitate to say any more because it was so long ago. Another major Wood puzzler: Rally Round the Flag, Boys!

weird, just today i was reading david thomson's bk abt psycho etc, including this paragraph abt The Birds: "The screenwriter, Evan Hunter, who had witnessed Hitch's indifference to what the birds might mean firsthand, was now amused, yet distressed, by the way the director was available for any and every parable of significance. Hunter had known that Hitch had no other aim except to frighten the audience. But the subject of earnest interviews needed more weight. And so The Birds - which was in postproduction during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 - became a story about the end of the world and man's complacency. In truth, of course, it was a strange sadomasochistic transference between actress and director."

i think 'the birds' is great, and agree with morbs about the supporting performances being excellent. plus it's the only hitch i've ever found genuinely scary --- the last scene with hedren coming up the stairs espec.

also tbi i don't find the premise 'silly' at all -- i mean, hell, it could happen! if anything it strikes me as more plausible than the setup of 'vertigo.'

The Birds is also very much a companion piece to Psycho, in themes and obv the shower scene's resemblance to some of the Tippi-attacked scenes.