Hitchcock films

stripedcatstripedcat Posts: 6,689
Forum Member
To celebrate the upcoming film about Hitch and Tippi Hedren(The Girl) and the new making of 'Psycho' film coming out, let us have a discussion about some of Hitchcock's films.

He probably was the greatest film director of all time. Made so many films. Not all of them were thrillers(Under Capricorn was a period drama and Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a comedy, as was The Trouble With Harry). He made some great films and some duds as well. By all accounts he did have an unpleasant side to him(the Hedren episode and his fetish for the ice cold blonde, which if you see Vertigo and the makeover scene is very disturbing).

My favourite films of his are :-

1. Psycho. An amazing film. the first time I saw it, I was not impressed. It is much more subtle than many people think. The use of voiceovers and the editing. The second murder was good as well(the way it was shot). The reveal and the subject of taboos was handled well.

2. The Lady Vanishes. Probably has the best character interplay of any Hitchcock films. A good 'macguffin' as well.

3. The 39 Steps. His best chase film in my opinion. Donat and Carrol are great in this.

4. Rear Window. A multi-layered film(voyeurism, human relationships, Stewart as a film directors with the camera looking into other people's apartments, how media affected us, etc). The use of the 'silent-film-like' sequences are what gives this film an edge.

5. Shadow of a Doubt. The whole 'small town America' and how something is evil in it, makes this film stand out.


I like some of the other films as well(North By Northwest and Frenzy stand out), but those are my favourites. I suppose that Frenzy is interesting as it wasn't bound by the censors so much. Hitch going 'hardcore' and doing a story about rape and so on, was unique.


Some of the films that I don't like :-

1. Vertigo. Yes. I know this is going to upset a lot of people, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. The score is amazing, the cinematography is great, performances good, I suppose that there is an interesting story premise(but it never adds up to much). It never really gelled with me. Plus, it perhaps revealed a bit too much about Hitch's personality. It does seem to suffer from lacking the dark humour of some of his other dark films(Frenzy and Psycho for example). I can never understand why Hitch thought that Stewart and Novak were miscast in this. They were both amazing. I also think that the 'reveal' is given away too soon.

2. The Trouble With Harry. It is meant to be a black comedy(like Kind Hearts and Coronets and Arsenic and Old Lace), but it never feels right. The lack of suspense in this, and the strange behaviour of some of the characters doesn't feel right. Hitch made a better comedy type film with Family Plot(not his best, but better than this).

3. Torn Curtain. A waste of Newman and Andrews. I think that the Cold War type plot ages it. Plus, the rear projection hurts it(it hurts a lot of Hitch's films). The story lacks excitement.

4. Under Capricorn. Feels very out of place in the world of Hitchcock. He had made period films before(Rebecca is sort of one, and much better). This feels too talky and very flat as a storyline.


I think that he did need a strong writer, with a good story to produce his best work. When he didn't have that, he turned out some duds. Likewise, there is always the criticism that he rushed his endings(which in some cases I think is right).
«134

Comments

  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My favourite is the brilliant Rebecca. A great adaptation. There is a fantastic shot where the light from the windows shines across Mrs Danver's face making her look so spooky.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 496
    Forum Member
    I certainly am of the opinion that Hitchcock is the greatest Director in Cinema history.
    The term "genius" is bandied about far too frequently, liberally, and incorrectly these days.- here its is totally justified.
    North by Northwest is my own current favourite.
    Foreign Correspondent, Strangers on a Train, The Birds, Notorious.....the list just goes on and on.
    Even Torn Curtain and Topaz contain some brilliant sequences.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,832
    Forum Member
    Top 5:

    Vertigo - The strange, dreamy atmosphere, the shots of San Francisco, Bernard Herrmann's music... Jimmy Stewart as an obsessive, perverted control freak.

    Dial M for Murder - The first half an hour, with the build up to the murder, is probably the most suspenseful film segment I've ever seen.

    Lifeboat - A bit preachy towards the conclusion, but I love movies where people are trapped in a small space. William Bendix is absolutely amazing in this.

    Rope - Similar to above, in that the one location scenario is handled really well. The "one take" gimmick is all people ever talk about when they mention this film, but it works as a simple thriller too.

    Notorious - Hitchcock's best camerawork, with lots of elaborate set-ups and interesting shots. The romance is a bit hokey by modern standards, but hey, it's Ingrid Bergman... come on...

    As for his worst, there are some I haven't seen, like Under Capricorn, Mr & Mrs Smith and the Paradine Case, so I'll just list the ones I didn't like:

    Topaz - Really tedious Cold War "thriller" with a long, uninteresting plot, bad acting and a truly awful ending.

    The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) - The British version from the 30s is much better. This is just too slow with long sections of dialogue and boring exposition. Plus Doris Day and her flippin' Que Sera caterwauling.

    Frenzy - Too grubby. Just because you can put boobs and swearing in a film in the 70s, doesn't mean you should! The rape scene is just gross.
  • MissDexterMissDexter Posts: 1,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm a massive Hitchcock fan.
    Obviously some more than others. Psycho would be top of my list which is a little predictable but i can't help it - it is just a perfect film.
    Love The Birds, Frenzy, Strangers on a Train, Vertigo etc etc.

    Funnily enough, one of the reasons i like Torn Curtain is the rear-projection. I feel it makes it seem more like Hitchcock - he was known for not liking location filming at all, so seeing the rear-projection proves he was doing it the way he loved so i appreciate it more. And it looks really old-fashioned and quirky.

    http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1679354&highlight=hitchcock+blu
  • Andy2Andy2 Posts: 11,942
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dial M for Murder is one of my favourites. The slow pace and doggedness of the police inspector (John Williams doing what he does best) keeps me on the edge of my seat no matter how many times I see it.
    Both Grace Kelly and Ray Milland are quite wooden, but Hitchcock seemed to have a talent from bringing out the solid oak in his performers.
    A bl**dy good film though.

    Frenzy is one of my least faves. It's just plain nasty and it looks cheap. The best moments are provided by Inspector Oxford (Alex McCowan?) who has to feign delight at his wife's culinary disasters.
  • Miss HavershamMiss Haversham Posts: 877
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Love

    Rebecca
    Rope
    Strangers on a Train
    Shadow of a Doubt
    To Catch a Thief

    Not so much...

    Vertigo (in fact I actually dislike this movie, something not quite right about it)
    Marnie
    The Birds
    Dial M for Murder
    Rear Window
    Psycho
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 496
    Forum Member
    Bernard Cribbins as Felix Forsythe to whom anyone he dislikes - ie the whole world- is a "right b*****d" , is one of the many pleasures of Frenzy.
  • ironjadeironjade Posts: 10,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't like "Vertigo" mainly because the plot is idiotic. The best explanation for it is that the whole movie takes place in Scotty's head as he falls to his death. We never actually see him being rescued from his predicament.
    It looks good and Kim Novak is gorgeous but as a thriller/mystery it's a dud.
  • MissDexterMissDexter Posts: 1,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ironjade wrote: »
    I don't like "Vertigo" mainly because the plot is idiotic. The best explanation for it is that the whole movie takes place in Scotty's head as he falls to his death. We never actually see him being rescued from his predicament.
    It looks good and Kim Novak is gorgeous but as a thriller/mystery it's a dud.

    How is it idiotic?
    Man believes he saw a woman he was attracted to commit suicide. In an emotionaly vulnerable state he meets a woman who attempts to mould into the first woman. Quite simple and effective - I truly cant see how it's idiotic.

    It works brilliantly as a thriller and a mystery. It may seem tame nowadays but at the time the suggestiveness was quite controversial.

    A master class in paced storytelling that could teach many of today's thrillers a thing or two.

    Films like Megacroc vs Sharktopuss are idiotic - are you saying Vertigo is on a par with that?
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,028
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I really like Frenzy. It's supposed to be cheap and nasty. And the trailer with Hitchcock floating down the Thames is probably my favourite trailer.
  • Mr TeacakeMr Teacake Posts: 6,593
    Forum Member
    Lets face it Hitchcock films are overrated but loved by the pretentious sophisticated types.
  • TheshaneTheshane Posts: 1,815
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mr Teacake wrote: »
    Lets face it Hitchcock films are overrated but loved by the pretentious sophisticated types.

    Impressive. That's almost a sweeping as it is stupid.
    Gold star.
  • MissDexterMissDexter Posts: 1,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mr Teacake wrote: »
    Lets face it Hitchcock films are overrated but loved by the pretentious sophisticated types.

    That's not true at all.
    Some are overrated, some are underrated.

    And as for only loved by pretentious sophisticated types, er no!

    I could quite happily watch Psycho followed by Zoolander followed by Texas Chain Saw Massacre whilst sat in my underwear whilst picking my nose. I'm proud of my lack of sophistication.
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mr Teacake wrote: »
    Lets face it Hitchcock films are overrated but loved by the pretentious sophisticated types.

    Hitchcock deliberately made films to entertain and was highly successful.
    Hitchcock films are enjoyed by people from all walks of life.
    So for you to say that is so wide off the mark.

    As for being overrated I think they're rated as they should be as he made many films which could arguably be called perfect cinema. Many of his films I simply can't see how they could be improved upon. Not even by himself.
  • ganderpoke66ganderpoke66 Posts: 2,128
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm a fan, but there are a few duds in Hitch's output, his annoying Mc Guffins , poor attempts at " black humour " and awkward script co-incidences are a bit grating.

    Only Psycho hits my mark as almost flawless. no shitty studio backdrops and the rear projection is kept to a minimum, a cracking script, and the young , new actors [ no Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant thankfully } are on top form.

    I also love Rope which few rate, and despair of The Trouble With Harry, what a waste of the vibrant Shirley Maclaine.
  • stripedcatstripedcat Posts: 6,689
    Forum Member
    JCR wrote: »
    I really like Frenzy. It's supposed to be cheap and nasty. And the trailer with Hitchcock floating down the Thames is probably my favourite trailer.

    Yeah, that is right. He did appear in quite a few of his trailers for his films. They were quite funny. The one he did for Psycho was quite funny. Likewise with Frenzy and the : "Look he's wearing my tie!" ;-)

    I think that Frenzy was born out of Hitch's frustration of not being able to do his 'Kaleidoscope' film. That was meant to be very hard core(Universal put a stop to it!). I think that Frenzy was meant to show the grubby side of London(not just the tourist side to it). It was also a bit of a comeback for him and proved that he could still mix it with the new wave of Hollywood(Spielberg, Altman, Coppola, Lucas, Scorsese, De Palma, etc.). I think it also helped that it had a strong writer(Shaffer and he did The Wicker Man and Sleuth as well - all in roughly the same time period) and it also had some black humour, which helped out. Especially, after it was lacking in things like Marnie and Torn Curtain. A shame that Michael Caine turned down the role of Rusk(but he didn't want to play another seedy character after Get Carter. Hitch held this against him and snubbed him in a LA hotel lobby).

    De Palma seems to think that he is Hitchcock Jnr. I watched 'Obsession' by him last night. It was him trying to do 'Vertigo'. Hmmmm, well maybe it didn't pay off.

    There are a few other films which feel very like Hitchcock, namely Charade(with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn) and also Wait Until Dark(with Audrey Hepburn as well). I am sure there are some others as well. I think that the original Sleuth could have been done by him(he liked films with one setting : e.g. Lifeboat, Rear Window and Dial M For Murder).

    There is a video blog of Hitchcock film reviews, done by some American couple on YouTube. It is quite interesting. They did all of Hitch's films, except Family Plot. I don't know why they stopped! I think it is under the title of 'A Year of Hitchcock films' or something similar. There is a separate website as well.

    I have seen quite a lot of Hitch's films. I think the major ones that I haven't seen are The Skin Game, Topaz, I Confess, The Wrong Man, Foreign Correspondent, the original The Man Who Knew Too Much, Secret Agent and a few of his early British films(including his silent work). I'll only watch them if they come on TV. By all accounts, they are not worth getting on DVD or Blu Ray.
  • StrakerStraker Posts: 79,567
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    afx237vi wrote: »

    As for his worst......

    Topaz - Really tedious Cold War "thriller" with a long, uninteresting plot, bad acting and a truly awful ending.

    A truly abysmal film. It makes me laugh when Hitchcock scholars try desperately to rehabilitate this deeply tedious film into the canon.
    afx237vi wrote: »
    Frenzy - Too grubby. Just because you can put boobs and swearing in a film in the 70s, doesn't mean you should! The rape scene is just gross.

    If filmmakers are going to show rape shouldn’t that be the point? It is a seedy film but then that’s totally on purpose.
  • CAMERA OBSCURACAMERA OBSCURA Posts: 8,002
    Forum Member
    For those that did not know there is a Hitchcock Blu ray Boxset coming out soon.

    I might just have to invest in a region free blu ray player to get the US version, cant stand novelty box sets.

    Uk Boxset

    http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/33314704/0/Alfred-Hitchcock-The-Masterpiece-Collection/ListingDetails.html

    US Boxset
    http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=82657




    As for his films, I'm not overtly keen on The Birds.
  • MissDexterMissDexter Posts: 1,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    For those that did not know there is a Hitchcock Blu ray Boxset coming out soon.

    I might just have to invest in a region free blu ray player to get the US version, cant stand novelty box sets.

    Uk Boxset

    http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/33314704/0/Alfred-Hitchcock-The-Masterpiece-Collection/ListingDetails.html

    US Boxset
    http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=82657




    As for his films, I'm not overtly keen on The Birds.

    You won't need to buy a new player as Universal are almost always region free so will play on you UK player.
  • CAMERA OBSCURACAMERA OBSCURA Posts: 8,002
    Forum Member
    MissDexter wrote: »
    You won't need to buy a new player as Universal are almost always region free so will play on you UK player.


    That is good news. Thanks MissDexter.
    :)
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    stripedcat wrote: »
    De Palma seems to think that he is Hitchcock Jnr. I watched 'Obsession' by him last night. It was him trying to do 'Vertigo'. Hmmmm, well maybe it didn't pay off.
    Even I, a confirmed De Palma apologist, find Obsession a tad lacking, though I generally love his hokey Hitch pastiches - even Body Double :o

    As for the man himself:

    Psycho. Nigh-on perfect, and a genuine game-changer.
    Rebecca. Haunting, lyrical and so forth.
    Vertigo. Hitch to the max. His most 'meta' film perhaps. Understandable why it's become so revered by academics and in time may just dislodge Citizen Kane as the critics ultimate choice in Sight & Sound's legendary ten-yearly poll.
    The Lady Vanishes. A reminder that he could be a delightfully entertaining director. Edges ahead of North by Northwest on this level.
    Frenzy. Seventies nastiness ahoy. Out of place and out of sync with the new postmodernism it may be. But one of his most strangely fascinating pieces and with strong touches of the old magic more than evident. One you keep coming back to.

    Seems a bit churlish to note the duds, but Family Plot proved even the true giants can go out with a whimper, sadly.
  • drwhorudrwhoru Posts: 242
    Forum Member
    I've not seen all his films but I've never seen one i didn't enjoy.

    Psycho is probably one of the best films ever made in any genre.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,832
    Forum Member
    Straker wrote: »
    If filmmakers are going to show rape shouldn’t that be the point? It is a seedy film but then that’s totally on purpose.

    I get what you're saying, but Hitchcock spent his entire career proving that implied violence can be just as powerful as explicit violence. There's even a scene later in the film where
    the killer takes the secretary home to his flat, the camera follows them up the stairs until they turn the corner, then it backs away slowly, down the stairs and into the silence of the street.

    We know what happened, and it works much better even though we didn't see it.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    ^ True, that scene in the spoiler is a lovely touch, but did it not need the earlier explicitness to be so?

    It may not have worked so well if Hitchcock had been so coy all along.
  • MissDexterMissDexter Posts: 1,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ^ True, that scene in the spoiler is a lovely touch, but did it not need the earlier explicitness to do so?

    It may not have worked so well if Hitchcock had been so coy all along.

    Totally agree with that.
    Hitchcock loved to shock the audience, he does that here by presenting the audience with such a full-on scene. The strength of the later scene is that we know what's going to happen but don't need to see it.
Sign In or Register to comment.