Movies We've Just Watched discussion
Movies of the Month
>
Alfred Hitchcock - Director of the Month for November
message 51:
by
Phillip
(new)
Nov 07, 2008 07:08PM
your confusion is excused. hitchcock wanted to use them because they look like each other. when bruno sees patricia hitchcock at the senator's party, and he has his hands around that older woman's throat, he dis-associates and recalls the other woman whom he has strangled and it causes him to go blank and strangle the woman he's sitting with...nearly....then he passes out.
reply
|
flag
another response to tom's post...you've made some good points on the improvements on the man who knew too much. i still prefer the original, with all it's faults. i don't know, it has a charm i enjoy. but i agree that the characterization isn't well flushed out. in the remake, because the characterization is so well done, we feel the tragedy of their loss, which we don't feel so much in the original.
but the remake doesn't have that great scene in the dentists' chair....with the gas. i love that scene. and lorre, even though he's in it for a small bit, is such a great villian. the villians in the remake are kind of saccharine, IMO. and, there's the doris day thing, which i won't labor. the sound of her voice is like nails on a chalkboard, which i can enjoy on ocassion, whereas i'll have to be dead and gone before i enjoy listening to doris day.
thanks again for the nice observations and comparisons. i really like it when you stretch out and have something to say about films.
*****************
now i'm off to pfa to see suzuki's "branded to kill"...obama wins the election and i'm off to see suzuki on the big screen...can life get any better?
Yes, one would have thought the kidnappers would have returned the child if only to stop the pain of listening to Que Sera Sera one more time. I prefer the orginal with all its flaws to the remake, but considering Hitch actually did make a remake, it's obvious he thought he could do better the second time around. Interesting on Strangers on a Train, as often as I've watched it, I never realized the younger daughter was Hitch's daughter.
Hitchcock said (in his interview with Truffault) that he felt it was a superior film and that he didn't hold the original in high esteem. (i'm referring to the man who knew too much).
Phillip, I haven't seen Notorious yet, but I definitely will and will let you know.
Phillip, in re NOTORIOUS--It isn't that Devlin's declaration of love for Alicia is so delayed that is a problem. It is just that it is a bit too complete an about-face from his previous behavior, and his obvious emotional difficulties are just too obviously deeply rooted for them to be so easily banished, I've always thought. And it doesn't really bother me much, it is much more like a quibble than anything else, the movie is beautifully done that it is really a non-issue.
DOWNHILLA couple of years ago I had a chance to see DOWNHILL, Hitchcock's fourth film and second effort with Ivor Novello.
The story is a simple melodrama. A boy (Novello) at a British public school is falsely accused of getting a girl pregnant, and is expelled. He knows who the father of the child actually is, but won't rat him out. When the boy protests his innocence to his father, the father calls him a liar, the boy leaves in a rage, and the boy's trip "downhill" begins. Stops along the way include a turn as a taxi dancer/gigolo in Paris' Moulin Rouge, and a foul garrett in Marseilles where our hero lies ill with an unnamed disease before an especially unconvincing tacked-on happy ending.
No one will mistake DOWNHILL for any kind of masterpiece. Part of the problem with the movie is that at no time does our hero act even remotely sensibly, always choosing to act in as self-destructive a manner as possible. There are a couple of major holes in the plot, too.
What gives the film distinction is the sheer energy of the visual
storytelling, the way points are clearly and imaginatively made a la Murnau's THE LAST LAUGH. The scene in which the boy is accused of fatherhood is done almost entirely without title cards: the camera moves to a closeup of the girl's face, and a series of dissolves make it clear what she is saying. There's some good wit at work: one sequence begins by showing our hero as a waiter in a resort, but it is gradually shown that the resort is a set and our hero is an actor in a music hall.
An interesting sidelight: during the boy's tenure as a taxi
dancer/gigolo at the Moulin Rouge, he catches the eye of a rather faded looking woman of substantial means. Encouraged by her, he starts to pour out his tale of woe. The staff of the Moulin Rouge start to close the place down after a busy night. As they open the windows the morning light fills the room, and the once glamorous surroundings and elegant people are shown to be seedy and dirty, and it becomes clear that our hero's sympathetic lady friend is actually what looks like a man in full drag, complete with five o'clock shadow.
I'd never seen Novello in any film but THE LODGER, and that a long time ago. His performance in DOWNHILL is often very effective, very quiet and understated. He is clearly about twenty years older than the character he is playing, but he manages to make the boy real. He manages to work in a few moments of irreverence, where just the shadow of a mocking grin plays around his mouth. His more tragic scenes work just as well, as those big liquid eyes show a good deal of pain.
There was one bit of business in DOWNHILL that caught my attention, when a woman leans over backward to see the man behind her, and we see the man from her point of view, upside down. An almost identical moment happens in NOTORIOUS, twenty odd years later.
ALEX: i know this is a bit late, but i seriously want to see a picture of your bathroom!!!
I should recieve my BIRDS BARBIE today and build a corner shelf for display, then I'll post a few pictures on my website. I suppose first I should clean it (he grumbles, wanting to be lazy on a Saturday afternoon...)
Great review on Downhill, Tom! Where did you find it? I've wanted to see it for years. My local video store has a lot of the early silent Hitchcock films, but not this one. I'll carry on with the search. It seems that Ivor Novello was a matinee idol back in the day, and Hitchcock was encouraged to use him. His work in The Lodger worked for me...appropriately melancholy and vulnerable.Further, with regard to Notorious: yeah, I hear you, but that scene where he meets Bergman in the park. You hear him criticizing Alicia, but he's also studying her really carefully, and under the surface I see a sympathy there that predicts the "about face" that you're talking about. Again, it may be too little too late, but....
And, as you say, it's not like this consideration can tarnish this outstanding, extremely well made, deftly acted masterpiece.
Alex, send me the link to your website...I've got to see this bathroom....and whatever other surprises you have lurking there.
The Trouble With Harryis that he is dead. This movie was hilarious, I really enjoyed it, maybe I just need something to laugh about but.......
It starts off with a little boy playing with his toy gun in the hills of VT ( I am claiming VT because it looks like where I live) and as he does his pretend shooting, a real gun goes off. The absent minded tugboat driver thinks that it is he has killed the man while he was trying to shoot a rabbit. The little boy runs to get his mother. The tugboat driver ponders as to what to do next and states that if you are going to be shot you need to be shot in a place where place know you. Suddenly he hears someone, the boy has returned with his mother who looks at the body and says with relief that harry is dead. She then tells the boy not to remember this incident. The boy asks how to do that, and she simply states that he has to think of something else and they leave. Tugboat driver is relieved until he hears another person. The next person is a spinster who sees the body but actually wants to get to know the supposed murderer and asks him over for tea and tells him to forget the body. The next person is a doctor reading a book who can't see without his glasses. The doctor trips over the body, but doesn't see it because he drops his glasses. Again relief from the alleged murderer. The fourth person is a vagabond, who sees the body and steals his shoes.
All this is the first part of the movie. The antics, the life of small town people all come together over the what to do with Harry. Poor Harry gets buried 3 times.
The antics go on and it is one laugh after another. This is Hitchcock's second attempt at humor. This is a young Shirley McClaine.
I loved it. See it again, see it when you want to laugh and be silly. Great for a rainy day afternoon. And it is on instant watch netflix!
thanks for the review, meg. apart from john forsythe's performance (which was a bit arrogant), i liked this film. i've saw it a few times back in the 80's when universal re-released what, about 10 of his classics. it is another example of hitchcock trying to make what is largely a comedy (albeit a black comedy).i'm about to spend my rainy afternoon watching the lady vanishes. i'll write about it later today.
Phillip, I saw DOWNHILL at a local rep house a couple of years ago as part of a series, I can't even remember what the series was about.
Finally finished The 39 Steps on Friday night. I enjoyed the comic elements and the dramatic flourish at the end. I read the earlier review in this thread, and am pleased to begin understanding some of Hitchcock's recurring themes and fascinations. I'll have to say that I still prefer the flavor of favorites such as Vertigo, but I am eager to continue my Hitchcock education- Shadow of a Doubt next, I believe. And a re-watch of Rebecca soon- I remember being really impressed when I first saw it years ago.
SHADOW OF A DOUBT is really something wonderful, easily one of Hitchcock's best films, with NOTORIOUS and VERTIGO, etc. You've got a real treat in store for yourself.I'm making it sound rather sweet, aren't I? "Wonderful" and "treat" and all. Make no mistake, it is one of Hitchcock's saddest movies, as the heroine loses her innocence in no uncertain terms. A fabulously rich and rewarding movie.
Thanks, I'm excited for it! Hurry, Netflix! (Ha!)
g,i'll defend the 39 steps to my grave. i realize that, compared to today's standards, it may not be as fast paced or have the spine-tingling suspese that the other films have, but i think it's an important film in his body of work. it comes at the end of the 30's, which is the end of his british period. he said himself this period, for him, was about "strengthening his technical abilities and exploring his intuition" (he said this in an interview with Truffault).
i compare the film, not with today's films, but with the films that were being made at the time. when you do that, it's hard not to appreciate the pace, and the constant shifting of gears - he's going to the theater, he meets someone, she turns out to be a spy, she's killed, he goes on the lam, he's nearly arrested (several times), he meets his foe, he's nearly murdered, he escapes, he is arrested, he escapes, he stumbles into a political rally, he meets up with madeline carroll, he converts her, they make it to the london paladium, and the climax occurs.
it's a roller coaster, or the first in a series of hitchcock roller coasters. it provides a blue-print for north by northwest...and it stands on its own as an influential and groundbreaking film in terms of camera technique.
i look forward to hearing your views on some of the other films you're queueing up. i think the rest of the films i put on that list for you have a much more contemporary feel. i hope you'll enjoy them.
ok, here's another bit of rambling on another early hitchcock classic...The Lady Vanishes (Alfred Hitchcock, 1938)
This film comes at the close of Hitchcock's British period, which ends in 1939 when Hitch left England for America (his first film in America was Rebecca, made in 1940). Yes, there is an astonishing difference between these early films, which were mostly made on shoestring budgets, and the elaborate and opulent world of a Selznick picture; the stylistic differences between The Lady Vanishes and Rebecca are almost shocking.
But the late British period allows us to see the young filmmaker "exploring his intuition and developing technique". The Lady Vanishes offers audiences a quick paced thriller (albeit framed in lighter fare) with Hitchcock's blend of suspense, romance, and political intrigue.
The movie opens in a little village in the Alps just after a snowstorm. A collection of citizens from different countries (set in a moment when Europe was on the brink of war) are caged in a hotel, waiting for a train to take them to their various destinations. Among the guests is an older woman who identifies herself as a governess, a young American woman who is about to be married, a musicologist named Gilbert who is researching local folk music and dance, a pair of British cricket enthusiasts, and a couple who appear to be having an illicit affair.
The first act in the hotel gives the characters a chance to display their personalities and without the audience really knowing it, the macguffin is set in place. This first act drags just a little, there are perhaps one too many goofy gags that illustrate the cultural diversity of the crew. But it does establish that Iris (played with verve and intelligence by Margaret Lockwood) and Gilbert (played with poetic gallantry by Michael Redgrave) have unleashed a tidal wave of sexual tension.
Before the guests board the train, Iris is struck by a flower-pot on the head (which was meant for the governess), and the two have a bonding experience and board the train together. Once on the train, they continue to enjoy each others' company until Iris closes her eyes for a quick nap. When she awakens, her companion has vanished.
The bulk of what follows is a claustrophobic game of cat and mouse, played out by protagonists Iris and Gilbert, who come up against a team of agents in a myriad of disguises, all of whom seem to be under the guidance of a Doctor Hartz.
Internatinal intrigue ala The 39 Steps, Saboteur and other Hitchcock classics ensues. The wunderkind director employs numerous dazzling visual devices, more perhaps than any of the other late British films. All of the interior train shots were filmed on a 90-foot stage, and the design and feel suits the film remarkably well.
While The Lady Vanishes has many of the hallmarks of Hitchcock's mature work, the tension is derailed somewhat by a constant stream of humor. The Lady Vanishes reads more like a romantic comedy with suspenseful overtones (laced with some topical political intrigue). The result doesn't produce a great suspense film, but a highly entertaining movie that offers something for everyone.
Phillip- No need to defend The 39 Steps! I enjoyed it and am looking forward to more...
i'm glad you liked it. i certainly didn't mean what i wrote to imply that i was attacking your opinion or anything, i hope i didn't come off that way. i just think it's really something special, and at the same time i realize how it reads to a contemporary audience. but you have expressed appreciation for older films before, so i thought you'd appreciate seeing it. seems like you did. i'm thankful for that. (can you tell i'm thinking my butt is on the line with that list of recomendations i passed on to you?)
; 0
Suspicion is a terrific, chilling movie. How that glass of milk shone as Grant carried it upstairs... I'll be adding the book onto my to-read list. Anthony Berkeley is one of my all time favorite authors anyhow, he is amazing.My favorite Hitchcock films are those based on du Maurier's novels: Rebecca and Birds. I love Vertigo, too. Should really read the Boileau / Narcejac book.
Oh I see, Berkeley wrote it (Suspicion, i.e. Before the Fact) under the pseudonym Francis Iles. Here's an interesting article on Suspicion and its filming I found: http://www.tcm.com/thismonth/article/...
Really, Berkeley / Iles is so well worth reading! He's a master storyteller.
If you like Berkeley/Iles, try to find a copy of MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, a really terrific little thriller that Hitchcock spoke of adapting to film, possibly as a vehicle for Alec Guinness. If only.Phillip, love me some LADY VANISHES, there really isn't a dull moment in it. Great great fun, with just enough serious content to keep the movie grounded, otherwise it would all just float away. There are some good cynical jokes in there, as when dear little Miss Froy says, "I never think we should judge a nation's people by its politicians. After all, we British are a very honest people, aren't we?"
Tom, I've actually read Malice Aforethought but that must have been when I was about 12... I've always been into murder mysteries, the first novel I remember reading was Doyle's The Hound of the Baskervilles. I must re-read Malice, as well as some other Berkeley / Iles masterpieces. It's been ages...
Cissy, try to find a copy of TRIAL AND ERROR if you can. Great mean fun, about a man diagnosed with a fatal illness who decides to do the world a favor and commit a murder, doing away with one really awful destructive person.I'm ashamed to say I never finished it, because the only copy I owned was ruined by water damage (idiot upstairs neighbor, illegal in-house washing machine, overflow leaked through floor into my apartment).
I've read that too... I've actually read most of his books, that one I re-read quite recently. It is excellent, I agree.
Gina:OK!
(breathes a sigh of relief....)
Torn CurtainWho could not love a film starring the young Paul Newman and Julie Andrews at the height of their careers?
The movie starts with the couple, engaged, in Copenhagen. Newman starts getting mysterious when he receives a book that he has ordered that has a message (code) for him. Suddenly he is headed for Berlin leaving a bewildered Julie Andrews behind. We women wouldn't stand for that, so she did just what most of us would do. she bought a plane ticket and was on his flight much to his chagrin. It only goes downhill from there.
A delightful film with a mediocre plot. Not the best of Hitchcock but certainly worth watching if only to see Newman and Andrews totally out of their usual character roles.
thanks for your review, meg! i never hear people discuss this movie. there are a lot of mixed opinions on it. i hardly remember it; it's been 20 years since i've seen it. i do remember some really powerful scenes, but yeah, the plot seemed loose to me too.and, with newman recently passed on, it's nice you wrote about the one film he did with hitchcock.
thanks again!
Stage Fright (Alfred Hitchcock, 1949)I am glad we have been examining Hitchcock this month. I hesitated at first: two years ago I went back and watched quite a few of the pictures because I want to take a shot at writing something a little more in-depth. But this round has allowed me to go back and see a few that I haven’t caught in a long time (along with viewing a few that were new to me) and I’m glad I did. I hadn‘t watched Stage Fright for a long time and my memory had betrayed the film’s merits.
Stage Fright has a lot going for it. It leaps out of the gate at a fast pace, but there are moments in the second and third acts when things meander and the script gets a bit unfocused. The story, which unfolds in ways not commonly found in Hitchcock narratives, presents a man who involves an aspiring actress to help him evade the police on a murder charge. In order to help her friend achieve this aim the young thespian must enter the world of a well-known stage actress and discover the true identity of the killer.
Using the theater as a central environment allows Hitchcock to play with performance as an thematic element in the narrative. A few of the subjects portray false identities, so reality begins to bend with these meta-performances. The question of who wears the mask is one that applies to multiple subjects. This allows the whodunit aspect of the story to play out in layers. He uses theatrical interiors to add an expressionist element to the visual style. These boldly crafted images are contrasted in the ways he uses exterior shots or other interiors. As it so often happens, Hitchcock frames it all in a multitude of breathtaking shots.
It is fascinating to watch Hitchcock direct Marlene Dietrich, who exudes classic femme fatale: manipulative, conflicted, hypnotic and seductive. Her tongue-in-cheek sarcasm blushes with levity; she toys with the audience’s expectations and plot assumptions. In addition, we are treated to Dietrich's rendition of the Cole Porter classic, The Laziest Gal in Town, in her one-of-a-kind junkie elegance. In contrast, Jane Wyman plays the wholesome girl next door who is lured into a web of murder and blackmail and falls in love unexpectedly along the way. Michael Wilding and Richard Todd, both excellent British actors, balance Dietrich and Wyman deftly with intelligence and pathos. A large supporting cast contributes memorable performances; there’s a real mix of personalities, which seems apt for a film that exists in the interior universe of the theater.
Stage Fright may not live up to its name in terms of terror, but like so many of Hitchcock’s films, it is an entertaining movie with clouded psychological motivations and suspenseful flourishes, all assembled by a master director working in his prime with a legion of talented actors. He made some interesting films with Warner Brothers in the late 40’s and 50’s; many of these pictures seem overshadowed by their Universal counterparts. They don’t tend to be virtuosic operas like North by Northwest, but rather narratives that explore more a complex psychological territory. Hitchcock’s works for Warner Brothers include unforgettable classics like I Confess, The Wrong Man, and Strangers on a Train.
Dial M For MurderSlow moving, many twists but worth watching even if just to see the beautiful Grace Kelly.
The movie starts with the audience learning that Grace Kelly is cheating on her husband. She doesn't think he knows. The husband on the other hand is planning her murder, she is the one with the money. The plot gets better and better.
One of my favorite snippets is a cameo photograph of Hitchcock. I love his cameo appearances in movies. You really have to be paying attention to catch it.
yeah, it was around this time that he decided his appearance should be as close to the beginning of the film as possible, because i realized people were sitting there waiting for his appearance, and he didn't want it to interfere with the film. you'll notice that after 1950 his appearances get closer and closer to the start of the film. By the time you get to 1960, he's usually in the opening sequence.
Personally, I thought his appearance in Lifeboat was especially inventive and amusing.
super clever...he had just lost a lot of weight and wanted to show off....(his profile is used in a diet ad...since the whole film is shot in a lifeboat, he had to figure out how to appear...the ad is on a newspaper in the lifeboat). apparently he had thought of being a dead body floating by in the water....
Wouldn't have been as amusing, but it would have been especially Hitchcock. I understand people wanted to know how he did it. He could have sold lots of pills or excercise books.
indeed: aunt clara!i would have been surprised if you didn't like this one. it's a great film on every level. i love all the photography when bruno goes to the carnival the first time - those shadows in the tunnel of love, and the famous reflection in the glasses. the merry-go-round: right? amazing ending.
if you're not a stewart fan, it might not be the best choice, but it is a very unusual film, and well worth watching. i'm very interested to hear what you have to say about it.
yeah, rear window is a really well-made film, and one of the more celebrated ones. when i'm not watching it, i find it easy to forget, but when i watch it, i find myself being sucked into it in a big way. it's a great conception for a movie, and it is well executed, but personally the love interest between stewart and grace kelly NEVER made sense to me. i think the romantic element works better in vertigo. but the whole voyeur thing is explored in a nice way, and there is some good tension and suspense in the second half of the film.
anatomy of a murder is a fine films. that's preminger, right?
I just got Suspicion from Amazon. Will be watching it shortly... It's been a few years since I saw it last.
Speaking of STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, I agree that it is one of Hitchcock's better movies. Great mean fun. There's something strangely vicious about it, especially the characterization of Bruno: he means business. The great comedy with his mother and his playboy posing burns away when he's challenged or angry, and Walker's performance manages to bring both halves of Bruno to life. Anyone read Patricia Highsmith's novel? A fascinating experience. The differences between the novel and film are very marked, and throw a lot of light on Hitchcock and Highsmith's bodies of work. I won't go into too much detail here, but I can highly recommend the book. I think Highsmith blows it on the very last page, she finally bows to the conventions that she had gone to so much trouble to undermine.
i like highsmith, but i've never read this book you're talking about. i'll have to check it out. i like what i've read.
Highsmith RULES. I got on a real jag with her work a few years ago, I read several of them in a row. Really fascinating, troubling stuff. To be clear, I don't dislike the changes that Hitchcock etc. made to STRANGERS. I can see why they made them, and the film works beautifully as it stands. For Highsmith's novel to have made it to the screen as it was written would have required a much different director, and audience.
I can't read Highsmith...have tried several times. I enjoy the movies based on her books, also the Ripley ones, but her books are a bit too nasty and boring at the same time. I have a friend who loves them... she's always going on about Highsmith. *shudder* Strangers is a great movie.
Nasty, oh my yes. Boring, absolutely not. Well maybe one or two. The movies based on the Ripley books are pretty bad, for the most part. PURPLE NOON is pretty good, but blows it at the very last minute. That Minghella horror is just not worth discussing. And that other thing with Malkovich as Ripley is just unwatchable. Funny how they all work so hard to miss the point of the books.
i liked purple noon a lot more than the remake (the talented mr ripley).
PURPLE NOON comes closest to getting the spirit of the books, I think. Fast and grimly funny and grimly disturbing. I do think that Alain Delon is just too bloody magnificently handsome for the role, but he did very well for the most part. As did Matt Damon, who is also too bloody magnificently handsome for the role but did very well. I think someone more nondescript like Edward Norton would have been more the physical ideal.
Tom, I think Ed Norton is more bloody magnificently handsome than Matt Damon... Then again, I'm Finnish, and having Finnish ancestry too, Matt Damon looks too Finnish to be bloody magnificently anything but average-looking. He's an excellent actor, though, I like him. Re: Alain Delon... he just looks very French and suave.
I actually enjoyed the MInghella film a lot. :)
I thought the Minghella adaptation was beautifully filmed, but so much of the story was changed. So much! Which I never understand. It's a fabulous book though.
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...
