Movies We've Just Watched discussion
Movies of the Month
>
Alfred Hitchcock - Director of the Month for November
I so agree with you on Cold Mountain. The book was so well written, the movie left me very flat.
agreed with tom and meg on cold mountain. i could have walked out....should have walked out...but i didn't.alain delon. definitely too handsome for some roles, but melville seemed to know how to drain some of his good looks, or taint them a bit. he's great in le sammourai and le cercle rouge, and has more of an edge in those than he does when he works with other directors.
of course, in a movie like l'eclisse, you want a gorgeous man to play opposite monica vitti...otherwise, why would she lose her head over him? they're great in that film together.
Delon is excellent in ROCCO AND HIS BROTHERS, which doesn't really seem to come up much. I've been wanting to see L'ECLISSE.
i put rocco on my netflix queue a few months ago. i think it's about two or three movies away from arriving. i'll write something when i see it.
OK, Phillip. Which Melville should I start with? Never seen one. Not one. I was thinking of LE SAMOURAI.
Saboteur1942
What a nicely relevant movie for our times of terror of terror.
Even then it was billed as "a significant story of today."
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Ten years after Tod Browning makes Freaks and the year before Fellini married Giulietta Masina alfred Hitchcock packs a caravan full of sympathizers in a way, well... you'd never expect.
The film is chock full of freaky little moments.
And my god it's Bob Cummings on the lam. You have to be at least middle aged to appreciate how unexpected that is in casting!
True to style, Hitchcock finds an appropriate national landmark of Americana mythology and righteousness for the mind blowing face off where the persecuted hero still reaches out with human compassion.
Saboteur is not the sublime feature of 39 steps, et al but it's deeply under appreciated. Loved watching it again while loathing the Dick Cheney Club.
tina, thanks for writing about saboteur, nice that someone is keeping the hitchcock flame burning bright! i like this one and sabotage, which came about a decade earlier. nice citation on the closing scene at the statue of liberty!tom,
well, if you want a good melville film with delon, my money stays on le cercle rouge. le sammourai is good, good performance by delon, as i said, but i think the former has a better storyline and some really nice suspence moments that are played with lots of subtlety.
but i think army of shadows is his greatest film - a real masterpiece. i don't think he ever topped that one.
I've always loved Notorious. The ending is a big pay-off (and so romantic!) I own it, but I need to see it again. And it's been 20 years since I've seen TMWKTM. Nice comments!
I second the shout-out for SABOTEUR, great fun all around, and that Statue of Liberty climax always impresses.POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW, beware etc.
Anybody like FRENZY at all? It has been a while since I've seen it, but I remember being most impressed with the way Hitchcock blurs the lines between hero and villain.
As the film begins, a British politician is standing by the Thames promising to clean up the pollution in the river, and a woman's corpse just happens to float by. She's the latest victim of the Necktie Strangler, a killer whose trademark is the necktie left knotted around the necks of his victims. As the politician is being hurried away from the scene, he notices the tie around the woman's neck and says, "That's not my club tie, is it?" We are next shown a man knotting a tie around his own neck, getting ready for the day.
This is Dick Blaney, an ex-military hero who seems to have fallen on hard times. The cut from the corpse to Blaney seems to suggest that Blaney is the killer, and a good deal of what we are soon shown seems to confirm this. There's even a scene of two urbane gentlemen in a pub discussing the psychological makeup of the killer, as Blaney stands nearby, the living embodiment of everything they mention.
In fact, it isn't clearly established that Blaney isn't the killer until we actually see the killer in action, and it of course turns out to be Blaney's best friend Bob Rusk, a hitherto appealing character of great charm who is now revealed to be a psychotic rapist/killer.
Things later go from bad to worse for Blaney, as Rusk eventually frames Blaney for the stranglings he himself has committed. One of the uglier moments in the film comes when a policeman thanks Rusk for his assistance in catching the killer, and Rusk graciously and modestly accepts the compliment.
The final section of the film, as Blaney escapes from prison and heads to Rusk's home to exact what will almost certainly be a particularly nasty revenge, is one of the more uncomfortably entertaining sections in Hitchcock, I think. It has to be remembered that, when all is said and done, Bob Rusk is a sick sick man who's just not in control of his actions, while Blaney cold-bloodedly plots and executes an escape plan to commit a revenge killing that, ultimately, was going to be unnecessary. It does turn out that Rusk has committed another murder while Blaney was behind bars, one that would almost certainly have resulted in the case being re-opened and Blaney's exhoneration.
A deceptively tricky and messy film, not pretty or easy. It seems to me to be closer to the work of Patricia Highsmith in its examination of guilt and innocence, and in its ambiguous ending, than a lot of the other films based on Highsmith's work.
I'm very fond of the film. The violence is more overt than anything else he did, even beyond Psycho, where most of the killing is more stylized. And there's nothing suggestive about the sexual nature of the crime. The dual plots involving Blaney and Rusk are layered in complication. Then of course, there are the various humourous twists, the long suffering inspector sacrificing his dinners to please his wife's culinary goals. And a very black humorous moment when Rusk retrieves his tie pin. There's a great deal to like in the film, unlike the later Family Plot.
i reviewed it above about a week ago...
I've found that one of the most interesting things about VERTIGO is Kim Novak's performance as Madeleine, or rather as Judy as Madeleine. If you watch the first half of the movie keeping in mind that Madeleine is really Judy pretending to be Madeleine, all kinds of odd little moments pop up. I was particularly caught short by the way she flinches visibly in one scene, when she thinks she's given the game away and that Scottie is on to her. Also by the sudden disappearance of Madeleine's British accent in one key scene.
rear window as always been kind of high concept, low yield. everything looks great....i'll wait to comment on vertigo until after rob has watched it. there's a lot to like about it, i think, but it's not a suspense film in the way strangers on a train is. it's a lot more about psychological exploration...in general.
some folks, robin most recently, were asking about this thread and it was buried in movies of the month...so i have posted here so it would rise to the top - feel free to chime in on your favorite hitchcock films!
thanks phillip, I am glad you have it up and running. Suspicion is a good one, you never know til the end about Cary Grant's character. The Birds is a good one, very suspenseful the Simpson did that one where the Baby was sucking on her pacifier, that is hilarious. Also Vertigo is Hitchcock's finest, Kim Novak played it to the hilt, Jimmy Stewart wasn't too bad himself.
I also did not care for Rope, it was too maudlin,I used to watch all the Hitchcock series on television. I loved it when he first came out on his shadowy profile. He was the master of the macabre.
I still like Shadow of A Doubt, talk about suspenseful, even til the very end you don't know if Uncle Charley, was that his name murdered those people. Poor Teresa Brewer was so blind to him. Joseph Cotten's character, was equally suspenseful. They don't make movies like that anymore. Even Suspicion, you didn't know if Cary Grant really was a murderer, also. Poor Olivia de Havilland, she played it to the hilt. Do you know why she Olivia and her sister, Joan Fontaine weren't taking. I heard something about it, but I don't know the details. Clue me in.
I think you mean Joan Fontaine in SUSPICION.
oops, I guess so they look so much alike, if you squeeze one eye shut and look sideways. There is a family resemblance.
Tom, I did read the Talented Mr. Ripley, it was spine tingling, had to read a few more of her books, but too gruesome. The movie version just used pretty boy, Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow. The book is more sinister as I recall.
The book of MR. RIPLEY is a lot more sinister, but also a lot more fun than Minghella's gloomfest. Highsmith's Tom Ripley is not as tortured as Minghella's. Her Tom Ripley would feel very sorry indeed for the poor young man played by Matt Damon. In fact, one of the later books puts Ripley into a situation like that: he has to become kind of a parent figure to a young man who has committed a murder and is dealing with some understandable guilt. THE BOY WHO FOLLOWED RIPLEY is one of the best Ripley novels, a treat to read.
thanks for the words, tom. i've only read the talented mr ripley. i'll put the boy who followed ripley on my to read list.
Tom, I recall reading that book, following reading Mr. Ripley. There was another one where he had to put the body of a person he murdered into the trunk of his car, because prior to that he tried hiding the body in the lake, it was a macabre visual that I still can remember, do you recall the book that I am referring to?
Robin, nope, that doesn't ring a bell. Are you sure that's from a Ripley novel?Philip, if you've only read THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, I'd say you should read the other novels in order before you get to BOY WHO FOLLOWED RIPLEY. They do stand on their own, of course. In order, they are:
THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY
RIPLEY UNDER GROUND
RIPLEY'S GAME
BOY WHO FOLLOWED RIPLEY
RIPLEY UNDER WATER
These are great entertaining and very mean little reads, and I like them a hell of a lot. You'd think that by now, in the 21st Century, someone would be able to bring Highsmith's novels to the screen without watering them down. Highsmith is still ahead of filmmakers.
ok, thanks for the chronology - i'll put those on my list. i guess ripley under ground is next!
Yes, it was, I like to read other works by novelists and I am pretty sure it was Highsmith's book, it follows the same grisly details.
OK. I'm not remembering it, but I might just be, well, not remembering it.
Could it be Ripley under ground. Just a thought.
Favorite Hitchcock movies are: Marnie, Frenzy, Rebecca, Psycho, Vertigo, and The Trouble With Harry. My favorite of his TV show was Lamb to the slaughter a great masterpiece written by Roald Dahl.Tom thanks for the Highsmith Ripley recommendation I've read the first and third and didn't realize the other books existed at all. The two books were much better than the films.
Mind if I add my $.02 to this thread? REBECCA is my absolute favorite. I first saw it a million years ago back in high school. We were studying mysteries, and the teacher showed this film. I was used to seeing mostly family/kiddie films up until this time. I couldn't believe films could be this good and this involving. Completely blew me away, and I like to call this film the gateway drug to my film addiction. :)
39 STEPS is so suspenseful, and I loved the comedic touches in it. When Robert Donat fills Madeleine Carroll in on his nefarious past and future plans for a life of crime, I was in stitches. One scene that has always stuck with me...Donat lodges for the night with a young Scottish woman and her much older hubby on the Scottish moors. Donat has to sneak out when the police show up. Right before he leaves, Donat gives the woman a quick kiss on the lips as a thank you for the help. That kiss has stuck with me for years.
REAR WINDOW -- fabulous film. Nothing more to say. Favorite scene is when Lisa (Grace Kelly) comes back all excited from her trip over to Thorvald's apartment. The look on Jeff's (Jimmy Stewart) face is one of awe, disbelief and love. It's as if he's thinking "She's just as adventurous as I am. This relationship may work after all."
NOTORIOUS -- great espionage thriller, and one of the most romantic movies I've ever seen. The scene where Dev rescues Alicia and carries her down the stairs makes me swoon every time.
PSYCHO -- Brilliant. The remake was trash.
There are a couple of Hitch films that don't get much press, but I still enjoyed them -- FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, SABOTEUR, and YOUNG AND INNOCENT.
I haven't been able to get through the remake of MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. Doris Day bugs the crap out of me. I keep hearing how great it is, so I guess I'll give it the old college try again one day.
SHADOW OF A DOUBT I didn't like at first, but I've seen it a couple of times now, and it's growing on me.
NORTH BY NORTHWEST and TO CATCH A THIEF are both fun because of Cary Grant's suave characters. I didn't like the reveal to THIEF though. I would have preferred someone else to be the cat burglar.
BLACKMAIL is my fave of his early films (so far...I haven't seen that many). A really great scene is after the girl murders her assailant, the next morning at breakfast she can't hear any of the conversation except when someone says "murder" or "knife" or some other word that reminds her of her crime.
THE BIRDS -- completely over-rated. It doesn't scare me or make me think or affect me in any way other than a decent time-waster on a wet afternoon.
Some of the others I've seen -- VERTIGO, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, ROPE, THE LADY VANISHES, FRENZY -- I've seen and think they're good but they don't immediately come to mind when I think about Hitchcock.
great words and lists and favorite scenes - thanks so much for your post, cindy! i find that i agree with most of your statements ... love the 39 steps, notorious and rebecca.i have the same aversion to doris day - she destroys the remake of the man who knew too much for me - jimmy stewart gets props for his performance though. i really like the original, actually.
one difference - it took me a long time to get the birds. i used to have the same reaction to it - what does everyone see in it? but last year i realized it really is trying to do something different with pace and form. i finally had a break through with that one.
anyway, love your list, mine also includes strangers on a train, the lady vanishes, vertigo, the wrong man, rope, lifeboat, i confess, and spellbound - the last few are uneven, but i still find a lot to marvel on repeated viewings.
I think she was miscast in the man who knew too much. she was not believable.
Thanks Phillip. I've never really considered myself a Hitchcock fan, but apparently I am...I've seen probably 80% of them, like most of those, and love many of them. Go figure. VERTIGO is a good movie, but I don't get into it as much as many others do. I think Kim Novak is the reason. She is just so stiff that she takes me out of the movie. I guess she's supposed to be -- at least as Madeleine -- but she's stiff in EVERYTHING. So in VERTIGO, did she put in a really good performance or a really crappy one?
I've seen THE BIRDS probably a half-dozen times and it never does anything for me. I always figured that there were more people in the world scared of bird attacks than I ever imagined. The scene where Tippi Hedron is in the phone booth during one attack seems so staged that I almost laugh at it. Her reaction shots were obviously edited in and it's really distracting.
It sounds like I don't like any of Hitch's blondes (maybe because I'm brunette?...heheh) but I do. He did wonders with Joan Fontaine, Ingrid Bergman and Grace Kelly. But maybe they were just more talented to begin with.
kim novak has a really difficult part to play in vertigo - i like it because it isn't like any other movie i can think of. it's much more of a character study - a study of a split character, both on the side of madeline and on the side of scotty. they are both fragmented characters in search of wholeness. they wrangle and both do a certain amount of damage to one another and then they have the chance for reconciliation, but it all goes down the drain. vertigo is not north by northwest, with it's fast pace and dazzling feats of spectacle. it is much more a study of interiors - the interior space of people and how their ghosts can come back to haunt them. i think novak's performance is really good - and like you, i don't like who she is. i get angry at her, feel some of stewart's disgust in her, and i also see how beautiful she is and how vulnerable and in need of true love in her heart. i feel compassion for her despite the fact that she has broken all the unwritten rules we have in relationships and sends the man who loves her into a dark tailspin. it's a very complex part, and i think novak makes me feel all the things i'm suppose to feel about her - a very complex set of experiences.
it's much easier to love someone like bergman in notorious, joan fontaine in rebecca, or ms. kelly in rear window. their parts are not as complex - although bergman's role in notorious is also somewhat duplicitous on the surface. like madeline, she wants to be loved (don't we all?) and to hell with all these politics that she is dragged into. her love survives the political battlefield and madeline's does not. the difference, if there is one, is that madeline makes very different existential choices - namely in her willingness to live a lie. it is perhaps out of the audience's need for justice that she perishes at the end of vertigo - which makes the film even more complicated - i think audiences feel a real moment of tragedy at the end of that film, because if you have invested anything in madeline at that point - in terms of sharing her desire to be free of her past - we are deeply disappointed that she has to pay the fatal price in the end.
I feel the same ay in Kim Novak's performance, she was too completely different people, even down to the hairstyle and hair color.
I found a treasure trove of old Hitchcock films in a $5 bin at Wal-Mart. It has a lot of his old, old stuff, and a several of the Alfred Hitchcock Presents shows. So far the only one I've had time to watch was the original "The Man Who Knew Too Much." Can't wait to watch the rest.
Myra wrote: "I found a treasure trove of old Hitchcock films in a $5 bin at Wal-Mart. It has a lot of his old, old stuff, and a several of the Alfred Hitchcock Presents shows. So far the only one I've had tim..."I have this, or at least something like that. The one I own has many silents on it, and then some of the early talkies.
I am at a disadvantage film-wise in that I am very literal-minded. If a film seems to be about a little girl and her dog being picked up by a tornado and dropped into a strange land, then that's what it's about for me. I have a really hard time getting into allegory or metaphor or what the characters are feeling or what the director is trying to say. My reviews are more likely going to comment on the performances or the script or the cinematography -- something concrete -- or how the film affected me. I own dozens of books of critiques and reviews of classic films. They talk very much about how this film means that, or this director was trying to say that, and I just go "Okay, if you say so." None of this takes away from my love of cinema, though. I actually wish I COULD "read" a film.As an aside, I had the same problem in high school and college literature classes. The instructor was explaining how the various elements in the story were symbolic for something else, or a metaphor of a particular historical event. But unless it was REALLY obvious (Billy Budd comes to mind), then it just went over my head. That's probably why I read very little fiction (and NO poetry) and concentrate more on history, science etc.
but you must branch out in your literary leanings.
in the past, especially in the realm of cinema, there was a lot you couldn't show, so directors and writers had to learn to express things in other ways than literal exposition. this was the case until the 60's, when "the code" began to thaw. then the rating system kicked in and you could show things, but it would mean your film would get a rating like R or X and the studios weren't so keen on releasing those films ... it meant your audience would be restricted.i think hitchcock did a good job of dealing with these problems. the things he didn't show left the audience in a position where they had to use their imagination. and he used that trick effectively. indeed, it is one of his trademark motifs - "what the audience DOESN'T see is more frightening than what they do see". he said this many times throughout his career.
in the case if vertigo, the aspects that i cited are not symbolic. they are quite literal. I'm just breaking down the themes and problems that the characters have to deal with. as i mentioned before, hitchcock presents characters that are not wholly sympathetic (both madeline and scotty) in vertigo and that was kind of groundbreaking. i think that's one of the reasons why vertigo still challenges viewers.
Robin wrote: "but you must branch out in your literary leanings."Trust me...I've tried to read fiction, and used to. I really liked stuff like Brave New World, Farhenheit 451, and 1984 (gives you an idea of what I think of the future, huh?). I read Tales of the Arabian Nights, The Holy Bible and Lord of the Rings in 18 months. I went through a gothic romance phase, an Arthurian/Celtic phase, and a horror novel phase. The last novel I read was Don Quixote, in about 2003. I want to read Dickens and Hawthorne and Faulkner, but I get bored a dozen pages into the book. To me, reading is about learning -- history, biographies, encyclopedia on various topics, science magazines, even cookbooks.
When I want to get my escapism on, I turn to film -- mysteries and thrillers (where Hitch comes in), fantasy, sci-fi, foreign and silent films. I'm not interested in films such as "chick flicks", and films dealing with family issues (divorce and custody battles, financial struggles, child abuse, terminal illness). Themes like those strike too close to home for me. Been there, done that, ya know?
Phillip, I understand what you're saying about the code. And I'll take that into consideration when I watch older films. Could open me up to a whole new appreciation of cinema...as if I COULD appreciate it any more than I already do! :)
i really don't want to change your mind here. and i would never suggest you should change your reading habits. you like what you like. who's to say you're wrong? not me.i was just trying to describe why i think vertigo (in particular) is a difficult film for people to appreciate.
i understand the need for escapism. some nights when i turn on a movie, that's all i'm looking for. but i like all kinds of films, and i like things that make me look past the surface.
life demands that we see beyond the exterior, and i am a composer and musician, so i learn a lot from film (and literature) about form, how to develop your subject, etc. so this stuff is nutritious for me in many ways. it's all personal and highly subjective. i just want you to know (from here on out) i don't care if i don't agree with people on things that have to do with art or entertainment. it's all good with me - we're just here to express our opinions and maybe learn from one another, or at the very least find out about movies we didn't know existed.
No, no, no Phillip. No problem, really. I guess I should have divided up the post. Robin had made a comment about my needing to expand my literary leanings. I commented on that, and then got off on a tangent, as I tend to do. Only the last paragraph was intended for you specifically.
I've only been here a short time, but I really appreciate what I've read so far from the people in this group. While everyone has different tastes in and opinions on films, no one seems to be nasty or abusive or condescending to others about their habits. I just hope my VERY opinionated self won't offend anyone else.
Cindy, I was just making a comment that you should expand your horizons, if you find escapism in movies, and I don't care for custody battles, child abuse issues, either, or terminal illnesses. How about Jane Austen and Bleak House for DVD, I checked out Little Dorrit that is quite good.
Cindy wrote: "Myra wrote: "I found a treasure trove of old Hitchcock films in a $5 bin at Wal-Mart. It has a lot of his old, old stuff, and a several of the Alfred Hitchcock Presents shows. So far the only one..."Sounds like the same one, Cindy. Couldn't believe it was in the $5 bin.
Last night hit FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT - first time I'd seen the whole thing. It's now one of my favorite Hitches. The long sequence involving the old Dutch mill is suspenseful, humorous and beautifully, Germanically shot (shades of VAMPYR!!). There are some other good sequences too -- the ramble with Edmund Gwenn as the avuncular assassin, George Sanders' turn as a sublimely bored spy-catcher, and Joel McCrea's bull-in-a-china-shop American savage.Tonight: SABOTEUR.
I agree with all the praise of STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and NOTORIOUS above. Top fivers for sure, along with VERTIGO, THE LADY VANISHES, and... hmmm... REAR WINDOW, maybe.
yeah, i really like foreign correspondent. i get saboteur and sabotage mixed up - saboteur is NOT the one with oscar homolka, right?
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...
Ugh. Minghella. I'll never forget or forgive that COLD MOUNTAIN travesty.