Alfred Hitchcock: Classic or Dud?

It's got its flaws but I still really dig Shadow.

Maybe they shoulda made Hume Cronyn a pedo to add some extra frisson

sorry, just had to put 'hume cronyn' and 'frisson' in the same sentence

That was quite good

Shadow as a dud = CRAZY

Patrick McGilligan's excellent, recentish biog of Hitch makes the point that his pandering to/awareness of the critical discourse surrounding his films easily predates the 60s and his encounters w/ the Cahiers crowd (tho' admittedly Hitch, being something of a Francophile, was esp. pleased by their praise and attention.) Even in the 1920s, Hitch was cultivating his public image, playing up to to the trade and popular press w/ self-consciously 'arty' symbolism, expressionistic imagery/sound design and fluid camerawork, reading up on early film theory and psychoanalytic chitchat, and taking careful note of rival auteurs/critical darlings like Murnau, Ford etc.

he's half-right, but the context of the 20s was very unlike the 50s or 60s; intellectuals got to cinema late and were playing catch-up, certainly with guys like hitchcock who grew up with it. he saw murnau at work before anyone in england could have heard of him ('nosferatu' wasn't shown in england till the late 20s). he certainly played up to the press, in some instances (circa 'the ring') to show what a highbrow he was; but he also used his 'umble roots when he wanted to.

the thing was that there wasn't anything particularly 'highbrow' about the german influence at that point -- it was easily compatible with the popular gothic fiction that hitch gre up on, it was seen in regular cinemas, by regular folks.

the point about sound is interesting coz of course *he* (with 'blackmail') converted the highbrows *to* sound -- he wasn't sucking up but showing them them something new. his contact with the self-appointed highbrows of back then was kind of minimal, and when he did appear in 'close up' (the one highbrow film mag of the late 20s and early 30s) he took the opportunity to (gently) deprecate eisenstein.

(hitch was obviously an intelligent guy but proof of his readings of psychoanalysis in the '20s have not been too forthcoming. it's one of those things that rests on supposition.)

by the cahiers era highbrow crit inhabited its own space more, so that "appreciating hollywood cinema" could seem new again -- in the 20s it was less of a big deal.

in the end i think his experimental touches in the 20s, in 'the lodger', say, are more keyed to what he thought the audience would accept than his early 60s stuff.

In any case, Number 17 <<<<<<<< The Birds

Saw Rebecca tonight for the first time in years. George Sanders looks like a young LBJ.

Anyway, it's easily in his top ten, despite the phony denouement. Joan Fontaine = most underrated element? Fontaine handles the awkwardness of a parvenue so well that we squirm, like the scene in which Mrs. Danvers quietly mocks her ("Mrs. De Winter was very particular about sauces") is grueling.

and, yeah, it's better than the novelette.

Looney writer for The Believer: "James Stewart, an amiable actor of limited resources, was the wrong man to play Scottie. The right man, the only man, would have been Henry Fonda."

http://www.believermag.com/issues/200803/?read=article_mckinney

Vertigo is called a masterpiece, but it can’t be. Stewart lacks the physical and psychological ingenuity to embody this dreadfully twisted character. Perfect for Rear Window’s humor and shivery suspense, in Vertigo he is a soft center neither projecting nor inspiring fear, his madness a monotonous mimicry.

OTM!

Casting Stewart against type was one of the best things in Vertigo. It makes his descent towards the end all the more affecting, because you don't expect Jimmy Stewart to go that low.

OTM

blah.

that guy wasted an awful lot of time on this non-question.

xpost

not entirely against type. he'd been playing crazy muthas for anthony mann for a few years by then. and an obsessive in 'rear window' obviously.

I guess you guys have never seen Rear Window, xp

it's not a non-question; it's addressing the weakest link in a ridiculously critically-regarded movie that isn't as good as the other parts of its triumvirate and that people basically like because it's more auteurist and fetishistic and doesn't have any jokes or fun that might interfere with its greatness. also, nice scenery, ok, but it looks like a graphic novel.

I don't think Vettigo is a perfect film or Hitchcock's best, but IMO this isn't because of Stewart. As for Rear Window, there's a big difference between Stewart's obsessiveness in that one and in Vertigo. In Rear Window he remains sympathetic throughout the film, because his obssession is of the sort almost everyone can relate to.

Also, Fonda might've been a more nuanced "psychological" actor, but criticizing Vertigo because of its lack of psychological realism is sorta missing the point. It's not supposed to be realistic.

isn't as good as the other parts of its triumvirate

I hate to ask, Laughing Boy, but what's the third one?

doesn't have any jokes or fun that might interfere with its greatness

RONG. Most of the stuff w/ Midge early on is fun, and even her nasty Portrait of Carlotta joke. Also "You fell into SF Bay," "The gentleman certainly knows what he wants" ... Why are ppl so clueless about the Hitch humor?

While Stewart's mania in Vertigo is odder than in RW, I don't find it 'unrelatable.'

James Stewart, an amiable actor of limited resources

WAHT. Does he mean David Niven?

He could be referring to Joan Fontaine in Rebecca.

I hate to ask, Laughing Boy, but what's the third one?

the one with the train going into the tunnel

RONG. Most of the stuff w/ Midge early on is fun, and even her nasty Portrait of Carlotta joke. Also "You fell into SF Bay," "The gentleman certainly knows what he wants" ... Why are ppl so clueless about the Hitch humor?

no, I get all those, thanks, we just have different notions of fun (yes, that's a six-foot engraved invitation), and i don't think anything about the shopping scene is supposed to be funny

that's like saying The Birds attacking the school kids isn't supposed to be FUN!

I'm not fond of Vertigo either, but with all the problems of pacing and plot incoherence, picking on Stewart makes no sense.

plot incoherence -- IT'S A DREAM

I'm not fond of Vertigo either, but with all the problems of pacing and plot incoherence, picking on Stewart makes no sense.

yeah, he's only the heart of the movie

how is 'vertigo' in a trilogy with 'rear window' and... 'nnw'? not consecutive, not even for the same studio, not with the same leading man, not with the same writer, and thematically different. 'nnw' was self-consciously fun. don't see how it fits.

oh no, not from the same studio! i called them a triumvirate, not a trilogy, as i believe many regard them - all from a short, mid-period span, all in color, all concerning similar themes (nnw certainly fits) - as the three greats. why, you prefer the declasse little b&w genre flick that opened the 60s?

yeah, he's only the heart of the movie

And if the movie works, it's thanks to how well he handles the conceit: the aw-shucks demeanor is a mere facade.

(Anatomy of a Murder does this better, though).

The problem for me has always been the denouement in the middle of the movie.

you mean the 'secret' that AJH moved because he didn't want it to be the crux of the film?

oh no, not from the same studio! i called them a triumvirate, not a trilogy, as i believe many regard them - all from a short, mid-period span, all in color, all concerning similar themes (nnw certainly fits) - as the three greats. why, you prefer the declasse little b&w genre flick that opened the 60s?

-- gabbneb, Tuesday, March 4, 2008 4:13 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

ech, hitchcock's style changed pretty markedly from studio to studio. anyway i have no idea what links nnw to the other two, any more than other hitchcock films. i'm not sure if i prefer 'psycho' but it's no more of a genre flick than 'nnw'.

Jeez, guys, I'm very fond of Vertigo and feel no reason to say I'm not.

Vertigo's just suffering the inevitable backlash because it's been "Hitchcock's best film" for too long.

<i>you mean the 'secret' that AJH moved because he didn't want it to be the crux of the film?</i>

Yeah, I can see Hitchcock's point but I don't think it works. It kind of deflates the movie putting it where he does.

i liked it well before it knew it was a A Big Deal -- one of the first hitchcocks i even saw. the believer article feels pretty inconsequential.

xp: well, it deflates a lesser movie that he didn't want it to be! SURPRISE, she fooled ya Scottie!

C/D - Chicago Hope's Hitchcock tribute episode, filmed in black and white and featuring Tippi Hendren as a mad motel owner. I wish I were making this up.

or "The Flintstone" episode parodying "Alfred Hitchcock Presents," complete with monocle-sporting neighbor named "Alvin Brickrock."

the impact of vertigo would be severely weakened if scottie were a haunted nutcase from the start -- a lot of its power comes from the fact that for the first half-hour or so, he's just plain old jimmy stewart.

complaining that vertigo has pacing problems is kind of like complaining that king lear is too long: it's probably true but who cares?

I'd rather read Gloucester's speeeches than watch Kim Novak stare blankly, but that's just me.

yeah, i'd say that's just you.

"Vertigo's just suffering the inevitable backlash because it's been "Hitchcock's best film" for too long."

I'm pretty sure, if this is true, it's a recent phenom. It wasn't always so critically well-regarded.

it's been that way since its re-release in the 80s

I don't think it's GREAT but it's got awesome set pieces (Jimmy Stewart shaking Kim Novak: "You were a very apt PUPIL!").

although it's a masterpiece next to Marnie.

I'm rooting for a Topaz reassesment

Marnie's fine (mainly because everything in it is just a little "off"). I do believe though that as good as Hedren is in the lead, the film would have perhaps been better off w/a different lead actress. Hitch's blonde tunnel-vision hurt him a little bit there.

14 disc box set for £18.

why no North by North West?

These boxed sets are often a bit random. Great tip though, Gooblar. I think it's just on the side of not being likely to be a pricing error, so I've ordered it.

Yeah, there are actually a bunch of good deals there now; I think they're probably trying to get rid of a bunch of overstock.