Movies We've Just Watched discussion
Movies of the Month
>
Alfred Hitchcock - Director of the Month for November
VERTIGO is one of my favorite Hitchcock films and I just watched again last night to prepare a few insights, to be inspired to write my emotional narrative concerning this masterpiece. What more can be said about his films? I can't top the world's great film critics but can offer only my own perceptions, trapped within my own world of celluloid dreams. Enjoy:) VERTIGO (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958, USA) Scottie is a faded apparition who haunts the crowded streets of San Francisco, his love transformed into a bleached vertiginous obsession. Considered by many to be Hitchcock’s masterpiece, VERTIGO attains the dizzying height of a suspenseful murder mystery but deep below the taught surface tension lurks a bestial narrative of male entitlement and naked aggression. Bernard Herrmann’s score amplifies the psychological dimension, invigorating the trauma with an illusive uncertainty; dialogue is often replaced by suggestive musical cues punctuated by Stewart and Novak’s subtle expressions and body language. Jimmy Stewart plays against type as John “Scottie” Ferguson, an ex-cop who suffers from debilitating acrophobia, a man unable to commit to a healthy relationship with Midge, his college girlfriend who adores him. She is the counterpoint to his fragile emotional state; we judge his spiraling madness against her feminine strength in an attempt to understand his sexual addiction…because Scottie seems to destroy those whom he loves most. Kim Novak’s duel performance is exceptional: she is a doppelganger; a cruel mistress of deception and lust who becomes imbued with a graceful humanity, a lovely woman torn between her past…and passion. Hitch is at his best with a dazzling 360-degree shot: as Judy and Scottie embrace in her room, his mind reels backwards and we see revealed the carriage-house; the place of the final zealous kiss before the bone-shattering tragedy. As he constructs Judy piece-by-piece like a sex doll she becomes a rapturous puzzle of soft flesh and lipstick, a fabricated ghost deluged with a violent green miasma of jealousy and delusion. Hitch understands suspense: he reveals the cruel charade, which powers the nuclear fission between the audience and the characters. A dark form emerges from the shadows of a bell tower, startling Judy quickly towards her final judgment…and leaves Scottie to bear his own cross of guilt and shame. (A+)
damn, alex, you outdid yourself here. i've always found this film difficult to sum up, but you hit all the right notes. great observations, great film - really, really unusual film - there isn't anything else quite like it, is there? several friends think this is his greatest work, i'm not sure. i just know it's flawless and it lives larger than life. a lot larger.and yeah, bernard hermann rocks the house in vertigo. i was trying to get my students to play this score last year, but they voted on psycho instead (which is certainly no downgrade...)
Re:Great Directors - Alfred Hitchcock Part 2 2 masterpieces discussed
Hitchcock’s first film was Number 13 (1922) and his last film was Family Plot (1972). Along his 50-year journey as filmmaker he forged a bold visual style that had the admitted influence of Sergei Eisenstein. The director’s first jobs consisted largely of visual design work (for film), so it is clear he had already begun to train his eye in early apprenticeship. His famous sketchbooks reveal that he drew every image that would be seen in a film before he started shooting. His technical understanding of all aspects of the craft of filmmaking was rarely rivaled and many great cinematographers of the 1940s and 1950s acknowledged their debt to him. He was a different director with every actor and technician that he worked with – seeming to be able to zero in on any personality and know how to use it to serve his purposes.
One thing not commonly known is how much Alma Reville (Hitchcock’s wife, who collaborated with her husband on nearly all of his films) was responsible for the consistency and eye for detail in Hitch’s films. Hitchcock met Ms. Reville while working on some of the first films he served on as art director and she served as camera assistant. Her contribution was an essential element of the realization of his films. She read and praised or declined scripts (Hitchcock never veered from his high opinion of her ability to visualize whether or not a script could be well-realized on film) consulted on all aspects of “continuity” (from pre-shooting to post-production) a title that she is most commonly credited with in his films.
In addition to Alma Reville, Hitchcock’s other greatest collaborator was Joan Harrison, who began working with the British émigré shortly after his arrival in 1940 and continued on with him until his death. Hitchcock put most of the responsibility of producing his popular TV series in the hands of Ms. Harrison, who also worked closely with Ms. Reville and Mr. Hitchcock on developing treatments of novels that would eventually be handed over to screenwriters (Rebecca, Spellbound, Lifeboat, The Birds, and many others). It seems ironic considering the flack that Alfred Hitchcock has received over the years from feminists when it turns out that two of his two most steadfast collaborators were women. Of course feminists could easily retort that those women were probably happy to be working (in such well-paying and prestigious positions), even if it meant propping up an old misogynist’s ideas.
Lifeboat
Shot entirely in the confines of a lifeboat, this experimental gem is a psychological study of war filmed in close quarters. Talulah Bankhead is the centerpiece of this small ensemble of actors that serve as a microcosm of the conflict between the Allied and German forces during WWII. Hitchcock originally worked with John Steinbeck on the script but was unsatisfied with the finished product and hired two successive writers to strengthen the narrative before retrieving the reins and polishing the script to meet his needs. The goal of Lifeboat was to enable Hitchcock to make a statement about the contrast between the philosophies and work ethics of the Allied forces and their Nazi counterparts. After several survivors make their way to a lifeboat after being bombed by a German U-Boat, they pull an enemy soldier out of the water and offer him refuge. The script illustrates the lack of direction and listless ideals contrasted with the enemy’s ability to point the boat in the direction of a German supply ship and fool his hosts.
Today’s audiences may see a distinct parallel to the constructs of today’s bi-partisan shuffle between right-wing Republicans, who seem very adept at articulating and realizing their agenda, and the House-dominating Democrats, who talk a lot about political reform, but don’t seem to have be able to articulate a clear agenda on how to actualize their liberal platform.
The Wrong Man
Alfred Hitchcock casts Henry Fonda in one of his finest (and often overlooked) performances as a musician wrongly accused of a bank robbery and nearly loses his family and his sanity in the process of proving his innocence. Hitch’s well oiled plot device of backing an innocent man into a corner is wholly reconceived in this calm depiction of the disintegration of a post-war nuclear family. Hitchcock’s ability to hold the film just this side of controlled hysteria is only mildly derailed by Vera Miles, who loses her balance in a few scenes and pushes her character over the top. Regardless of a minor mishap in an otherwise fine performance by Ms. Miles, The Wrong Man is a fine example of one of Hitchcock's principal themes delivered in an unusually restrained direction in order to portray a greater sense of tragedy in the collapse of one man’s family due to mistaken identity.
You guys are amazing. These are incredible reviews and insightful biography. Thank you both. I will start my movie watching right away.
I'm excited about this and eager to explore more Hitchcock! Vertigo is one of my favorite movies, and I also love Rebecca and Rear Window. I've also seen Psycho, of course, and Dial M for Murder.Which one should I watch next?
"Which one should I watch next?"SHADOW OF A DOUBT!!
We could do it a few ways. One, we all watch in the same order or Two we just watch randomly and review. I queued all the instant watch movies, there really are a lot.
This is fun!
I'm going to try to watch a few I haven't seen, which may be just a few of the early silent films. I don't really want to do anymore than I already have in terms of telling people what to do. I don't like doing that, as I've probably said before. I've given folks a list and some short reviews, merely meant to give an idea of what to expect. I suppose I could write a few more blurbs...Alex has recommended a really great film and one that tends to get overlooked. Shadow of a Doubt is top-drawer Hitchcock. I think Alex or I wrote a review on it in the (good) Horror films list (maybe we both reviewed it). Whatever - it really needs no introduction.
But just because Gina is way cool and offers great views on horror films on our other list, I'm going to offer my Top 5 recommendations (keeping in mind what she's already seen), designed just for her:
1) The 39 Steps (1935)
2) Shadow of a Doubt (1942)
3) Notorious (1946)
4) Strangers on a Train (1951)
5) North by Northwest (1959)
6) Frenzy (1972)
OK, so I couldn't keep it to 5!
Gina, a few of these are classics you just have to see (39 Steps, Notorious, North by Northwest), and a few are things that i sense you'll like based on the tastes you have exhibited in other discussions. Either way, you can't really go wrong with these films. They're listed in chronological order, which is my attempt at maintaining objectivity.
Phillip,Wow, this is an excellent little gift- a Top 5(6) Hitchcock Recommendations List designed just for me! I can't tell you how delighted I am.
Really, thank you so much for taking the time to do this- I have them all queued now, and so much look forward to watching them- it is my goal to see all 6 before the end of November.
i worship hitchcock. so many old horror/suspense films you watch today are completely laughable.....but not hitchcock. the fears he drew upon, the genius plots he used, the universal themes - they will continue to raise neck hairs and stimulate serious philosophical discussions for years to come.my top six (i couldn't pick five...):
1. rear window
2. dial m for murder
3. the birds
4. rope
5. shadow of a doubt
6. spellbound
My faves.....10. Suspicion
9. To Catch a Thief
8. North by Northwest
7. Rebecca
6. Strangers on a Train
5. Notorious
4. Rear Window
3. Shadow of a Doubt
2. Dial M for Murder
1. Psycho
that's just like cbs to jump on the MOVIES WE JUST WATCHED bandwagon.nice lists...i'm glad rachel mentioned rope. i like it a lot, but it isn't usually mentioned. too many people think of it as a clever experiment, but i think it has staying power on a lot of levels.
i guess i'm going to have to go back and watch dial m again. this came up in the (good) horror film discussion group. lots of people were defending it. it's been quite a long time since i last saw it, but i don't remember thinking it was one of his better films.
there are a few i have problems with. lots of folks universally praise hitchcock, i suppose i'm one of those people, but there are a few that didn't quite hit the mark. as alex said recently, even the ones that aren't absolutely brilliant have their high moments, and he's right.
but what about a film like suspicion? it has cary grant and joan fontaine, and so you expect a lot from it, but it kind of falls flat. i agree there are a few nice moments. i'd be curious to hear what alison has to say about that, it's on her list. or anyone else? any thoughts on why this is a great film?
and what about mr and mrs smith? no one talks about hitchcock's only comedy. i wonder what the general opinion is out there on that one?
and the trouble with harry? i remember liking it a lot the first time i saw it - it had an unusual charm, but on repeated viewings i really detested john forsythe's arrogant performance and shirley mac claine just sort of drifts in and out. it's a one gag joke, and the joke doesn't really sustain an entire film.
to catch a thief is an interesting one. i'm not sure it's one of his most well-made films, but i have it in my collection and watch it over and over again - it has enormous entertainment value. i think it has lots of flaws, but at the same time it's kind of irresistible.
just some thoughts...hey, no one's perfect. and the guy made 63 films....! only kurosawa and ozu come close to that kind of output, and i think they tap out at around 41 films. like hitchcock, their batting average was incredibly high, only a few minor mishaps to otherwise excellent track records. but 63 to 41 is like 50% more than the rivals' output.
I went to add Rope to my Netflix queue also, and found that it is already there. I am starting to think about hosting a Hitchcock movie night at my house with themed snacks, drinks, etc.Speaking of a Hitchcock theme, I saw this recently and thought it was so amusing:
"The Birds" Barbie!
http://www.entertainmentearth.com/pro...
I agree that all Hitchock is not good Hitchcock. I think some of his later films were panned by critics, or were considered mediocre at best. I'm trying to remember why I recently re-watched Suspicion. Maybe just because I was able to TIVO it. I enjoyed it because Cary Grant played against type as a scoundrel--he was a good bad guy. I loved the way the suspense built. I thought Joan Fontaine was great (she won the Oscar). So I guess you could say he was able to draw out great performances, although the story (mainly just the ending) fell flat.
SUSPICION SPOILERS:
The ending was a bit ridiculous--likely because Hitch was forced to change it from the book's ending--where he actually WAS the killer and he actually DID kill her. Apparently audiences weren't ready for that, but it would have made for a much more interesting film.
Crazy "The Birds" Barbie!
Well, Topaz was pretty awful. And some folks consider Jamaica Inn with Charles Laughton one of the worst movies ever made and that was done in the middle of his career I think. The Trouble with Harry wasn't all that for me either.Most of his films have comic elements, even Frenzy with the poor police inspector having to eat his wife's culinary arts class projects. Actually, I thought Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a very good film and a pretty funny comedy. maybe not as much fun as the Philadelphia Story or Bringing Up Baby, but quite well done. Still, it's a bit like asking Babe Ruth to bunt. Sure he can, but look at what he can really do if you let him.
I especially like North by Northwest, the 39 Steps and the Lady Vanishes, but I've got most of his films on DVD these days, so if there's one in particular folks want to talk about, let me go over to my shelf and put it on.
alison,i agree it was nice to see cary grant in a different role. he is also not entirely likeable in notorious, until the very end of the film, that is.
but in this case, yes - it was the ending. it just didn't make sense that he wasn't guilty. it would have been much better if the damn studio would have let hitch keep his ending. the film would have worked much better.
there are a lot of nice things about mr and mrs smith, and carole lombard is so great in those screwy kinds of comedies. nice casting, hitch....
north by northwest, 39 steps and lady vanishes are all excellent films, george.
i'm wishing i lived in gina's neighborhood so i could see what kind of snacks she serves when she shows rope...and where will those snacks be served? from a large wooden credenza?
just checked out the tippi hedren birds barbie doll.apparently hitchcock sent tippi hedren a similar doll in a coffin for her birthday.
i just finished watching frenzy...here's a blurb.Frenzy (Alfred Hitchcock, 1972)
Hitchcock's return to England after a long stretch of popular American films for Universal produced one of his darkest projects. Set in London, Frenzy portrays serial killings combined with sexual deviance. If the movie has a predecessor in Hitchcock's filmography, Psycho seems the obvious ancestor, where multiple murder is combined with sexual obsession and multiple personality disorder.
Hitchcock was a voracious reader and kept his eye on crimes in the news, in novels, stories, etc. As a result he really had his finger on the pulse for knowing what would shock his contemporary audiences. He succeeded in pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable to show in a film by shooting the infamous rape and murder scene, not masterfully edited in jagged fragments like the attack on Marion Crane in Psycho, but in longer real-tiime shots, meant to acheive a more intimate portrayal of an horrible crime. The outcome is both heartbreaking and bone chilling even based on today's standards of tolerance.
In contrast to the dark and murderous impulses that drive Frenzy, it is balanced with a good deal of good old fashioned British humor; several supporting actors on the trail of the killer keep levity in check (keep your eyes open for the main prison guard from Kubrick's "Clockword Orange"). Hitchcock also manages to insert his "wrong man" device, a welcomed addition that raises the stakes of suspense.
It would be interesting to also talk about remakes of his film I haven't seen his Mr. and Mrs. Smith but is that the same one that Jolie and Pitt did recently?I know Rear Window also had a modern version, but at 5:30 in the morning I can't remember what it is, the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
Meg, that MR. AND MRS. SMITH with Brangelina is not a remake of the Hitchcock film.The remake of REAR WINDOW with Christopher Reeve is really unfortunate. It tries to mix Disabled Hero Movie with Hitchcock Thriller Movie, and it can't do either genre justice. Best to just pretend it doesn't exist.
SUSPICION -- Novel and filmSPOILER ALERT!! Beware if you care about that kind of thing.
It is commonly accepted that the ending of the film SUSPICION was changed because audiences wouldn't accept Cary Grant as a killer. The film ends with a tearful reconciliation, while the novel supposedly ends with Grant's character killing the heroine. That's not quite how the novel ends. What happens is:
Lina (Joan Fontaine's character) has concluded that her husband is going to kill her, and makes peace with this. She drinks a drink that she thinks he has poisoned. She prepares herself for death, thinking about what a sorry mess her life has become. She doesn't write a letter telling someone that Johnnie (Cary Grant's character) has killed her. The book ends with the words, "It was a shame she had to die, when she so wanted to live."
It is worth noticing that the novel never actually says that Lina actually dies. It is entirely possible that she wakes up the next morning, sick with the flu but unpoisoned. The only evidence the reader ever gets about Johnnie's intentions to kill Lina are things
that Lina herself realizes, and by the time she begins to suspect that Johnnie is out to kill her, her perceptions have been shown to be, at best, unreliable where her husband is concerned.
The novel is not told in first person, but in third person. Most of the book tells us about what Lina sees and thinks, so it can be said to be mostly from her point of view. But every now and then a bit of information is given to the reader that Lina doesn't get, usually about Johnnie, that usually undercuts Lina's ideas and perceptions.
In a nutshell, Lina will think she knows all about something, and the text will drop a little factoid to contradict her, and to remind the
reader that Lina's perceptions aren't 100% reliable, that there is more than what Lina sees and thinks.
Get ahold of the book, if you can. It's a fascinating, slippery, entertaining read, that throws a lot of light on the movie.
one hitchcock movie that really fell flat for me was "marnie." i stuck with it until the end, but it was a very, very long 130 minutes... it was just the weirdest story and the whole relationship between marnie and sean connery's character only had two levels: completely flat or completely creepy. i didn't think they had any chemistry and i felt no sympathy whatsoever for marnie. it was just uber-weird.oh, and that "the birds" barbie is just about the coolest/most disturbing thing i have ever seen.
Thanx for that information Tom, I will certainly look into buying the book.
I just ordered THE BIRDS BARBIE which has to be the coolest thing I've seen in many years! My downstairs bathroom is decorated with a Hitchcock theme and this will be a welcome addition. I've been searching for a stuffed seagull to suspend over the toilet. Yeah, I'm strange like that... I can't wait for PSYCHO BARBIE with a nude Barbie stabbed to death in her toy shower.
I love Entertainment Earth and hadn't seen that Babie yet! Thanks!
Tom, thanks for the write up on the novel; SUSPICION has never been one of my favorites though there are a few great shots typical of any Hitchock film. I'll have to watch it again because it's been a few years. Maybe a SUSPICION BARBIE that comes with a glass of milk:)
The Lodger (Alfred Hitchcock, 1928 - silent)Warning: a wee bit of spoilers
It is interesting that I watched this right after watching Frenzy – each film opens with the discovery of a woman’s body by the banks of the river Thames. It is clear from the onset that both films will deal with a series of murders with a connecting theme. In the case of The Lodger, the killer seems fixated with blondes and leaves a calling card with the words The Avenger pinned to the victim’s bodies.
The Lodger illustrates the origins of what will become Hitchcock’s strong visual style. Even in this early effort he intensifies the emotional impact of the film by issuing leitmotifs that strike terror, a practice he refined and mastered over the decades.
The somewhat serpentine story opens with a murder and involves a young woman named Daisy who befriends a mysterious lodger. She chooses him over an admirer named Joe, who is a detective (and working on the case). The rivalry between detective and lodger builds tension until the end, which brings about a few unexpected twists. The film boasts a climax that shows the director's emerging talent for astounding spectacles.
The Lodger is recommended for Hitchcock fans who are interested in better understanding the origin of this great director’s work. It is also recommended to fans of silent film, for it stands up to many of its contemporaries.
The Ring (Alfred Hitchcock, 1929 - silent)The Ring is another silent film entry from Alfred Hitchcock, but it was a very different viewing experience from The Lodger. There is very little going on here visually or thematically to suggest it is a Hitchcock picture, apart from a few glimpses here and there of iconic imagery when the director is establishing the first setting (at a carnival).
While the story offers viewers a hint of moral dilemma, the outcomes play out in a rather bland fashion. The story is framed around a young woman who works at a carnival who seems involved romantically with a boxer called one-round Jack. A dashing young man arrives one day with an agent, who wants to sign Jack to commit to a series of fights with the new rival. Some tension arises over who will win her affection.
I turned the film off after about 40 minutes. There really wasn't much to hang on to. The Lodger is considered by many to be "The First Hitchcock Film", the director admits as much in his interview with Francois Truffault. Even though the Lodger came before The Ring, and despite the fact that Hitch wrote and directed the latter, The Ring doesn't seem to reveal anything notable.
************
OK, I went back and finished watching it. It didn't seem fair not to finish it. Here's what happens next:
The second half is better and brings out a bit more of the Hitchcock visual style and it increases intensity in its portrayal of a man who is obsessed with an unrequited love. He strives to work his way up the rounds of boxing finalists to get into the ring with his rival and beat him once and for all (and prove to the girl he's worthy of her love).
There are a few problems with the realization of the story, mainly in the realm of performance/casting. There's really no reason to root for the underdog. He seems clueless that this "love" he thought she felt for him was sisterly rather than romantic. It's clear to the viewer, from the start she appears attracted to the newcomer.
Nonetheless, Hitchcock does a great job in the final act when it's time to stage the boxing match. He builds a lot of tension with editing techniques he learned from Eisenstein - cutting from the audience to close-ups of the boxers, to specific faces in the crowd, referees, the box seats, the match-bell, long-distance shots, - the entire rollcall of images shuffles quickly, creating a good deal of exictement to the close of the film. There are some really beautiful moments when Joe is against the ropes and struggles to maintain consciousness.
*************
While the second half of the film is certainly an improvement on the first, I would still hesitate to recomend this film to anyone other than the most devout Hitchcock afficionado.
Some of these films come in box sets, as Alex has stated, and if you have it on hand, you might want to watch the last 15 minutes of The Ring. It's a good example of an evolving filmmaker flexing his editing skills and pushing his characters to the limits of obsession. For you in particular Alex, I think the closing sequence is really well done and is something you'd enjoy watching.
Thanks Phillip! I ahve both of these films in a box set but have never watched them. LODGER looks promising but I'll skip THE RING. Great reviews:)
i just found a copy of the criterion Notorious today at my local video store ...it was used and very affordable. it's been out of print for a while, and such a great film. i'm glad i found it.i also picked up the new eclipse series mizoguchi box, and the criterion "Amarcord"....damn, am i ever happy.
mostly i'm extremely excited to see Suzuki's "Branded to Kill" on the big screen this Friday at PFA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just finished Strangers on a Train. The opening scene, as Phillip mentioned, is a great scene. I love the shoes, especially from that era. In fact, just looking at the clothes makes me laugh. The tennis attire, all I can say is we have come a long way.The movie is incredibly well done, in fact one forgets how long ago it was made. Bruno is a touch nuts, but one wonders who is worse he or his mother? What a strange one that mother was. And her painting? Like mother like son.
I also thought the part where Bruno drops the lighter in the sewer to be well done. He drops it, demands people to help him and no one will. He pushes his had in to get the lighter, then his whole arm. He gets close, gets it, drops it.....Suspense building. The whole case built around the significance of the lighter. It was excellent.
One wonders what Hitchcock would have done, had he made this movie at this time, and what compromises he would have had to make.
Am in the process of watching The 39 Steps. Started it last night, but passed out about 20 mins in- not for lack of interest, just exhaustion. Eager to continue tonight!
meg,i don't know how hitchcock or anyone could improve on strangers on a train. i think it's one of his perfectly realized films. there isn't any excess, it all leads to the center. the ending sequence on the merry-go-round is one of his greatest climaxes - pure spectacle!
gina,
let us know what you thought of the 39 steps. it really is a blueprint of many of his later films.
i saw throw mamma once. how did i miss the homages? i haven't seen high anxiety. if you haven't seen strangers on a train, you might want to get around to that. i think it's one of his best films. definitely in my top 5.
No question, Strangers on a Train is one of his best. High Anxiety is entirely an hommage to Hitchcock. The 39 Steps is the prototype of many of his films that followed, but don't forget The Lady Vanishes, which has many similar elements.
Good point on The Lady Vanishes, which is also often (unfairly!) overlooked. Nearly the entire film is shot on a train.
I love Throw Mamma From The Train. that is one of the best comedies. I never thought of the Hitchcock part, I will have to watch that movie again (yeah!) since I just watched Strangers.I am still wondering how I missed Strangers all these years.
Rob said: Sorry to de-rail.Haha!
Well, I am embarrassed to admit that I got another 20 minutes along in The 39 Steps last night, and passed out again. Not from lack of interest, but from exhaustion. It is ridiculous, but the time change (even when we fall back) always throws me off, plus my teaching schedule is pretty full right now.
I am really enjoying it, though, and look forward to trying to finish it tonight. I am also eager to see Strangers On A Train, and now I may also add Throw Momma From the Train (although I saw it years ago) and High Anxiety to my ever-growing To-Watch list.
i think you'll enjoy strangers on a train more...i would make that a priority.but catch rope when you can. it's a winner. great jimmy stewart performance, it's really claustrophobic and builds tension nicely.
i watched notorious this morning. i already posted a bllurb on it above, but i wanted to say that i think that is one of the most superbly acted of any of the hitchcock films. an incredible movie!
NOTORIOUS -- Spoilers below, beware if you worry about that kind of thing.I like NOTORIOUS. A lot. I think it is one of Hitchcock's best and most interesting films, very nearly perfect in every way.
I'll have to admit that I didn't always feel this way. For a long time I most enjoyed the second half of the film, when Alicia is in Sebastian's house, and found all the set up with Devlin to be a bit of a bore. Many many viewings and a bit of growing up later, I saw how absolutely essential the set up with Devlin is to the film's success: the tug-of-war between Devlin and Sebastian over Alicia wouldn't make much sense without it.
Cary Grant's Devlin is another one of Hitchcock's Awful Heroes. I think of him as being, along with Jeffries in REAR WINDOW and Rutland in MARNIE and Scottie in VERTIGO, a generally decent man who, for whatever reason, treats the women in his life abominably. What I find interesting in NOTORIOUS is that this time we have a balance: Claude Rains' Alex Sebastian.
Sebastian adores Alicia, treats her with courtesy and respect and affection, and is clearly an ideal husband in pretty much every way (he's no Cary Grant in the looks department, but you can't have everything). If this is mitigated a lot by his participation in a plot to murder Alicia, it has to be remembered that Alicia has put Sebastian's own life in danger. If the other members of Sebastian's Nazi cabal find out that Alicia is an American agent, he's finished. Murdering Alicia basically amounts to self-preservation.
Alicia has also behaved particularly shabbily toward Sebastian: she has married him, made him think she loves him, come into his home and driven a wedge between him and his admittedly monstrous mother, and even informed on his actions to an enemy government. Talk about ingratitude. Ultimately, I find Sebastian's motivations concerning his ill-treatment of Alicia far more clear-cut and even sympathetic
than Devlin's darker emotionally twisted motivations. Devlin's nonsense about her needing to pass some kind of love test in turning down the
position that he basically pushes her into accepting never fails to turn my stomach.
My always growing respect for the film never quite manages to encompass Devlin's emotional about-face at the end. His long-overdue declaration of love for Alicia doesn't really convince me. I always find myself wondering what's going to happen the next time he runs into one of Alicia's apparently endless series of "playmates."
I also like the other games Hitchcock plays with Heroes vs. Villains. The Nazis are a polished and urbane group of businessmen funding independent scientific research, while the Americans are
basically a bunch of pimps who have the nerve to get all self-righteous about their work.
And lots of other things are fascinating to watch. That incredible party sequence, with its shifting points of view from Alicia to Devlin to Sebastian and back, the way suspense is created simply through showing a diminishing number of champagne bottles, the way in which Alicia and Devlin are warned specifically to not underestimate Sebastian and his cohorts only to have them do exactly that, and so on.
Plot-wise I've never understood one thing. Why didn't the American Intelligence arrange some kind of SOS signal for Alicia in the Sebastian house? Of course if they had, we wouldn't have the
big finish that we know have, and it is rather doubtful that Alicia would even have used it, as she seems pretty well to have given up anyway. It looks like the American Intelligence forces under-estimated Sebastian and his gang as seriously as Alicia and Devlin did.
One not-entirely-related anecdote. A while back an actor named Charles Busch did a play called THE LADY IN QUESTION, which is kind of a catch-all of wartime intrigue romance clichés, very cleverly assembled and performed with Busch himself in the female lead. At one point, dressed identically to Bergman's Alicia, Busch's heroine
realizes that she has ingested some poisoned sacher torte. With the utmost delicacy she passed the plate to her neighbor, politely said "Excuse me," and stuck her finger down her throat to retch it all back up over the back of the sofa, mercifully out of sight of the audience, who responded with what might be the biggest single
laugh response I've ever heard out of a live audience. I can never watch NOTORIOUS without thinking of this moment. God help me.
MEN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH -- Spoilers below, and all that...I've always felt the original MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH to be disappointing. Basically, it is a fairly amusing little movie with the occasional
little flourish of imagination, but nowhere as good as the remake. There's just no comparison at all. Don't get me wrong. There are things to recommend both films. I'm not talking about the obvious differences in budget and technical expertise. I find it interesting that the original was a fairly low-budget affair that manages to pull off some surprisingly good effects, while the remake is a well-produced big studio effort that has some astonishingly cheap-looking rear-projection scenes.
The good points about the original: it has the virtue of speed. The plot just flies along. There is an interesting little performance from Peter Lorre, who manages to make a lot out of a rather sketchily written part. I like the way that the Lawrences as husband and wife actually seem to like each other a good deal, rather in the mode of
Nick and Nora Charles. I like the little flourishes that Hitchcock tosses in along the way: Lorre's musical watch, and selected little
bits of expressionist-style cinematography.
The problems: The characters never really come to life at all in any meaningful way. They're very two-dimensional, pawns to be moved about in getting the story from place to place. While I do like the superficial give and take between Leslie Banks and Edna Best, it never really goes much deeper than that. Mrs. Lawrence really takes
a back seat in the original. The one surprise is Mrs. Lawrence's skill with a shotgun, which is shown at the beginning of the film and is then never mentioned again until the final moments of the film (more is made of Lorre's musical watch than of her skills as a markswoman.). The big siege at the end is almost completely tension
free, until Mr. Lawrence and his daughter attempt their escape.
That's not to say that the remake is any kind of masterpiece, or anything. It does take a bit too long to get moving, and there's some rather labored comedy about the McKennas being fish out of water abroad. That scene in the restaurant with Stewart trying to get comfortable just never ends. And there's an unwieldiness to the story too. I feel like there's a lot of energy expended in dealing with Ambrose Chappell and Ambrose Chapel and then getting Jo to Albert Hall while leaving Dr. McKenna at the Chapel, etc. And the
remake doesn't quite solve the story's biggest problem: that the story's climax is the sequence at the Albert Hall, and what comes after it can only be felt to be anticlimactic.
On the other hand, the remake features a more fully detailed script. The characters are more fully fleshed out: we learn who they bloody well are. In the original we never really learn much of anything about the Lawrences: they seem to be a happily married upper middle class couple. There is no idea given of the Lawrences' lives before the events of the film. We never even learn what, if anything, Mr. Lawrence does for a living.
In the remake, we get a wealth of information about the McKennas, their lives and careers and, equally importantly, ex-careers. And it isn't by any means a prettier picture: the McKenna marriage has some very deep strains that are nowhere in evidence in the Lawrence marriage. I can't forget that hideous scene where Dr. McKenna makes his wife take sleeping pills in exchange for news of their child. But if that scene goes too far, and I think it can be argued that it
does, at least it is beautifully done. Doris Day's work in that horrible scene is immensely effective, far more emotionally devastating than anything that Edna Best is expected to do in the original.
outstanding insights and writing, tom. well done. i'm so glad to hear/read you thoughts on notorious, i agree it's an outstanding film - perhaps hitchcock's most well-made film. the acting is absolutely flawless. bergman's performance counterpoints grant's perfectly - there's a great balancing act of bad girl goes good and good guy goes bad in there...i know i'm saying this in an awkward way, but i think you know what i'm saying. and as you point out, the cary grant/claude rains balancing act is even more sublime.much of what you have to say about motivation rings true. but the ellement of human error keeps the behavior of the characters from annoying me in the way that it would seem it annoys you.
the film is contructed in such a way that it makes sense in terms of the film's narrative, but perhaps it doesn't particularly make sense in a worldly way. why did devlin wait so long to confess his love? well, as far as the film is concerned, it keeps the tension in place. my argument would be: do we sometimes act in ways that betray our feelings? of course we do. do we sometimes wait too long to say i'm sorry or i love you? absolutely.
I am really enjoying your reviews Tom. I can't wait to watch all these movies. I am queueing up!
have you seen notorious yet, meg?if not, i hope you get to it soon.
i think you'll love it.
Perhaps the modern re-make of Rear Window that Meg was referring to was Disturbia? It certainly followed the same premise (with updated technology of course), and started out pretty cool, but for me it fell apart after the first hour or so. Before I get any nasty mail, IT WAS NO COMPARISON TO THE ORIGINAL. (haha)One thing that sticks out in my mind about Strangers on a Train...the girl at the fair, with the glasses...it's Hitchcock's daughter, right? Can't remember her name...maybe Patricia? But there's the famous scene...I think her glasses fall to the ground and you're able to see her murder in the reflection.
As for "The 39 Steps"...I read the book (it's short and considered to be a classic) and then saw the movie. It was pretty good, but not super memorable to me. I, too, remember drifting off. Oddly enough, I just finished "The Catcher in the Rye", where Holden Caufield cites "The 39 Steps" as his sister Pheobe's favorite film. Apparently, she's able to quote every line as they're watching it--she's seem it so many times. The story goes that it was actually Salinger's favorite film.
My GR friend just saw "The 39 Steps" on Broadway and says it was excellent. Only four actors...something to that effect. She called it a black comedy, which the book/movie are not.
alison,no...hitchcock's daughter (yes, patricia hitchcock) is indeed in strangers on a train, and she looks a bit like the woman who was strangled at the fair, but she plays the younger sister of the woman who is Farley Granger's love interest.
Yeah...I vaguely remember that girl. She has a very small part, right? All this time in my head I was thinking of the other girl. Thanks, Phillip! :)
Movies We've Just Watched
Books mentioned in this topic
The Awakening (other topics)The 39 Steps (other topics)
The 39 Steps (other topics)
The 39 Steps (other topics)
The 39 Steps (other topics)
More...
The Films of Alfred Hitchcock
It’s hard to know where to start when it comes time to write about Alfred Hitchcock. So much has already been written on his work, not to mention his personal life. Nevertheless, it is hard to overlook a director that found time to make 63 feature films. It was difficult to determine which films to discuss, so I neglected a few of the widely-praised Universal films like North by Northwest, Rear Window and Vertigo in order to focus on a few overlooked gems.
The 39 Steps
It is perhaps fitting that The 39 Steps is Hitchcock’s first masterpiece. It presents an essential theme that drives several of Hitchcock’s successive films: a wrong man is unjustly accused of a serious crime (usually murder) and must go to great lengths to prove his innocence. Mr. Richard Hannay (played by Robert Donat) learns from a dying secret agent that an important government secret is about to be handed over to enemy hands and is wrongly accused of her murder in the process. Like other successive Hitchcock narratives (the sappier Saboteur, the intelligent but patriotic to the point of operatic Foreign Correspondent, but eventually realized to perfection in North by Northwest), our hero must find the source of intrigue and travel cross country to bring it to light. Along the way, the director presents a host of comic routines, innovative camera moves, fast-paced chases and narrow escapes to entertain and fascinate his viewers. Donat rustles up sexual tension with Madeline Carroll, who adds comic appeal to the film and the two learn that they must join forces to stop the spy network for a happily ever-after. Deftly balancing humor, romance, and suspense, The 39 Steps illustrates one of Hitchcock’s great formulas for entertainment at a snappy pace that set the standard for numerous imitations.
Notorious
Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant ignite one of Hitchcock’s greatest achievements as they criss-cross two of the director’s favorite themes: romance and suspense. Bergman’s intelligence and vulnerability make her a prime suspect to infiltrate a Nazi organization in South America led by Claude Rains and enters enemy waters with the keys of romance, much to the chagrin of co-operative Grant. Beautifully photographed and as finely balanced as a troupe of high-wire acrobats, Notorious is a baroque masterpiece with high marks for erotic and psychological tension.
Strangers on a Train
This film begins with one of the more memorable sequences ever filmed: the opening credits roll as we watch two cars pull up to a train station. Two separate pairs of shoes step out of the cabs and make their way through the station, onto the train and into a passenger car, where they bump into each other as their subjects are seated. A ridiculous plot is hatched between the two strangers to swap murders, so ridiculous that one of the subjects goes along despite the absurdity. A few days later, after a murder occurs in an amusement park, the killer comes to call on his partner to fulfill the completion of the plan. From that point onward, a dizzying game of cat and mouse ensues, leading to one of the great climactic moments in the history of cinema: a dazzling sequence on a merry-go-round that spins out of control while populated with children, courting teenagers and the two suspects that battle desperately to prove their innocence. Strangers on a Train is vintage Hitchcock with an unusually clouded psychological texture and riveting suspense.
I Confess
Montgomery Clift plays a priest who overhears a confession of a murderer and must keep his vow of silence even if it means assuming guilt for the crime. Known for his thoughtfulness regarding locations and how they best serve the film’s narrative, provincial Quebec seems the perfect place to create a claustrophobic urban atmosphere set in place with narrow streets and towering gothic cathedrals. Montgomery Clift offers one of his best performances in I Confess, his clipped emotional range and brooding silence seems perfectly suited for the role of a priest. The original script followed the play by Paul Anthelme, which had the priest hung for the murder only to later discover his innocence. Studio executives balked, and the director changed the script to have the priest proven innocence after the court case was settled (he was acquitted, but when faced with a hostile public, the wife of the killer spills the beans). Mr. Hitchcock was obviously free to comment on the church, but not the death penalty. Regarded by director Peter Bogdonovich as one of the great director’s most personal films, I Confess is an examination of the ethics of faith.
Psycho
Set in the American West, Alfred Hitchcock tore the covers off the murderous undercurrent of our country’s new-found suburban veneer and in the process posited one of the most influential classics of the horror genre in this portrayal of a man who murders in order to calm his tortured inner matriarchal voices. Anthony Perkins plays Norman Bates, an icon of cinematic terror and killer transvestite if there ever was one. Janet Leigh’s performance as Marion Crane captures our desperate desire to flee the 9 to 5 once and for all, but fails to realize the potential of her sex-appeal on unsuspecting motel merchants. Ms. Leigh’s murder in the shower remains one of the all-time terrifying moments of cinema; the impact of the camera spiraling out of her open eye delivers a lasting nightmarish image that overwhelms the viewer with death’s ineluctable ability to put an end to all our desires and maneuvers. Vera Miles and John Gavin march on to uncover the trail of Marion’s killer and sacrifice Martin Balsam to mark a path of breadcrumbs that leads to the wicked old witch who dwells silently in the blueprint for Disney’s Haunted Mansion.
Mr. Hitchcock used a standard television crew to shoot Psycho for about $400,000, allowing Universal Pictures to make a lot of money over the years while earning him a great deal of creative control for future projects. Psycho is a murderous shout of a movie that ushered decades of imitations and tributes; a desperate scream for help that continues to reverberate long after the director’s death.
Phillip's Hitchcock Top 20
1) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
2) The 39 Steps (1935)
3) The Lady Vanishes (1938)
4) Rebecca (1st film in America 1940)
5) Foreign Correspondent (1940)
6) Shadow of a Doubt (1942)
7) Lifeboat (1944)
8) Spellbound (1945)
9) Notorious (1946)
10) Rope (1948)
11) Strangers on a Train (1951)
12) I Confess (1953)
13) Rear Window (1954)
14) To Catch a Thief (1955)
15) The Wrong Man (1956)
16) Vertigo (1958)
17) North by Northwest (1959)
18) Psycho (1960)
19) The Birds (1966)
20) Frenzy (1972)