Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Jul 8, 2015 10:40:37 GMT -5
Considering the massive success of Psycho, this is probably where the "studio system" style of directing officially ended and the post-"studio system" style of directing officially began. If you compare Psycho to PG Cooper 's favorite, Rear Window, one is modern and the other is old-fashioned and boring. If you haven't, you should watch Peeping Tom, also from 1960. I know Doomsday has seen it. Peeping Tom is a good and ballsy movie in its own right, but Psycho is just another level of filmmaking. I don't know if you went to ACTUAL film school, meaning ACTUALLY making movies, but Psycho is still a required assignment. In 2004 or 2005 I had to re-create the shower scene from Psycho as a project, which makes me somewhat of a hypocrite for talking shit about Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake. lol. Then in 2010 I got a job teaching Final Cut Pro at a film school, and again, the Psycho shower scene is a rite of passage. If you can master that scene, you can do anything. You have to get all the angels and adjust the lighting for each shot. You have to obscure the nudity. And then seemingly edit everything together. It takes a fucking week to re-create the whole thing, assuming you don't fuck up along the way. |
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,621 
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 19, 2024 19:49:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Jul 8, 2015 10:50:17 GMT -5
I've seen "Peeping Tom", it's good, but doesn't quite live up to its concept and certainly doesn't match "Psycho". I did go to an "actual" film school, though we made our own projects and never were asked to recreate a scene or anything like that. I'm sure recreating this scene would be pretty painstaking, even getting the silhouette of Norman Bates correct is definitely a task.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,295
Likes: 6,761
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 1:33:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Jul 8, 2015 11:38:57 GMT -5
I dug Peeping Tom. Some of the scenes and set designs make it look pretty dated but it's still a solid watch.
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,621
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 19, 2024 19:49:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Jul 8, 2015 12:12:09 GMT -5
Yeah, it's kinda sad how Hitchcock was acclaimed worldwide for pushing boundaries with "Psycho", but Michael Powell's career was basically destroyed because of "Peeping Tom" for doing essentially the same thing.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Jul 8, 2015 22:09:06 GMT -5
I skipped The Birds. I have nothing against The Birds. It's a FUN movie, but it's The Birds. I don't think I need to re-watch The Birds. A town is attacked by birds for no reason. The humans pull a white flag and the birds prove their dominance. B+ says DoomsdayMARNIE (1964) I guess I understand PG Cooper 's hatred for Marnie. Sean Connery plays a character that "fixes" Tippi Hedren's character, who was physically abused by a man when she was a child. Like in Vertigo, Hitchcock made a movie about a man who must show his dominance over a woman even though he's madly in love with everything he hates about her. This is true of Hitchcock in life as well. As a director, he was incredibly misogynist towards his actresses, but at home the boss was his wife. People claim that Vertigo is Hitchcock's most personal film but I'd argue that Marnie is more accurate to who he was as a person and not just a director. It's just easier to defend Vertigo because Jimmy Stewart's character is ultimately the victim. In Marnie, Connery plays a fantasy. Nonetheless, while Marnie definitely has some eyebrow raising flaws, it exceeds in everything else. Hedren's role and her backstory were cutting edge for mainstream Hollywood movies in 1963. Hitchcock, even late in his career, was still pushing boundaries. The performances by Hedren and Connery are phenomenal. They might be a bit heightened to fit the overall style of the film, but they're emotionally complex and convincing. The cinematography and effects are very memorable. And the music by Bernard Herrmann is one of his best. In spite of its misgivings, Marnie remains one of my favorite Hitchcock movies. A- |
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,621
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 19, 2024 19:49:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Jul 9, 2015 10:02:18 GMT -5
Haven't seen "The Birds" or "Marnie", so much Hitchcock I still need to see.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Jul 9, 2015 14:15:03 GMT -5
Both are amazing films. I'm not crazy about the scene in Psycho where the psychologist spells out Norman's condition, but otherwise it's a masterpiece. Considering the massive success of Psycho, this is probably where the "studio system" style of directing officially ended and the post-"studio system" style of directing officially began. If you compare Psycho to PG Cooper 's favorite, Rear Window, one is modern and the other is old-fashioned and boring. I love how am either this really old fashioned, out of touch film snob, or a young kid who isn't old enough to "get" movies. Peeping Tom is excellent. I guess I understand PG Cooper 's hatred for Marnie. I don't hate Marnie. I admire a lot about it, but I can't overlook what I consider massive flaws. You do a good job highlighting the pros of the film. Haven't seen "The Birds" or "Marnie", so much Hitchcock I still need to see. I might be in the minority here, but Tippi Hedren might actually be my favourite Hitchcock leading lady. |
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,621
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 19, 2024 19:49:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Jul 9, 2015 15:25:29 GMT -5
Neverending is Cooper's movie bully.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Jul 9, 2015 17:17:55 GMT -5
Neverending is Cooper's movie bully. This is basically us. |
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,621
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 19, 2024 19:49:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Jul 9, 2015 17:27:39 GMT -5
Aww, you guys are so cute together.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Jul 10, 2015 16:43:42 GMT -5
Haven't seen "The Birds" or "Marnie", so much Hitchcock I still need to see. You need to fix that. I love how am either this really old fashioned, out of touch film snob, or a young kid who isn't old enough to "get" movies. There are many sides to PG Cooper. She's also my favorite "Hitchcock blonde." TORN CURTAIN (1966) Hitchcock's 50th movie wasn't the celebration everyone was expecting. It's about an American scientist, played by Paul Newman, who defects to East Germany so he can gain their trust and steal documents for the United States. It's supposed to be a straight-forward mission but his curious girlfriend, played by Julie Andrews at the peak of her success, follows him and complicates things. Newman and Andrews, as well as all the supporting actors, are very good and fun to watch, but the script never lives up to its premise. Hitchcock tries to make up for it by creating some memorable scenes but they're not enough to rescue the movie from being incredibly average. CTOPAZ (1969) Hitchcock began the 1960's with his masterpiece and ended the decade with possibly his worst movie. That's the very definition of rise & fall. Topaz definitely had good intentions. It's loosely based on the events that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. It has a very good international cast. And it features Hitchcock's eye for production value. But the script is awful. It's long and boring and unfocused. It makes no effort to emotionally invest the audience. Hitchcock made two more movies after Topaz and it's easy to see why. The guy was burned out. He died 11 years after completing this movie. Hitchcock wasn't just at the end of his career. He was also at the end of his life. This is why Quentin Tarantino thinks people should stop directing after a certain age. Although Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese have fought hard to destroy that theory. D says Doomsday |
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Jul 10, 2015 16:59:09 GMT -5
There are many sides to PG Cooper. Lol, that almost sounds like a compliment. She's also my favorite "Hitchcock blonde." I've always been curious about this film because of the cast. The thought of Paul Newman working with Hitch is just cool. Shame the film sounds very mediocre. Yeah, Topaz fucking sucks. Hitchcock's second weakest in my opinion. |
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,621
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 19, 2024 19:49:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Jul 10, 2015 17:12:39 GMT -5
Yeah, well, there's this damn thing called time that gets in the way. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Jul 10, 2015 17:12:43 GMT -5
I've always been curious about this film because of the cast. The thought of Paul Newman working with Hitch is just cool. Shame the film sounds very mediocre. Paul Newman once said that Hitchcock and him could have been a great duo together, like Hitchcock was with Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart, but they collaborated WAY too late. Sean Connery was Hitchcock's first choice for the role, which would have been interesting, but Connery didn't want to do spy movies outside of the James Bond series. What's his worst? Under Capricorn? I haven't seen that movie or Stage Fright or The Wrong Man. That's why I said "possibly" his worst in my review. |
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Jul 10, 2015 18:02:27 GMT -5
Paul Newman once said that Hitchcock and him could have been a great duo together, like Hitchcock was with Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart, but they collaborated WAY too late. Sean Connery was Hitchcock's first choice for the role, which would have been interesting, but Connery didn't want to do spy movies outside of the James Bond series. How cool what it have been to live in a world where Hitch was still at it's best while working with Sean Connery and Paul Newman? Under Capricorn is insanely boring. Stage Fright is forgettable but it isn't bad. The Wrong Man is pretty good. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Jul 11, 2015 0:01:28 GMT -5
FRENZY (1972) The only reason why Brian De Palma was able to create a career of Hitchcock knock-offs is because he started in the 1970's when Hollywood censorship ended. But if Hitchcock had gotten in better health and lived an extra 10 years, there wouldn't have been a need for De Palma. Frenzy is a great example of what Hitchcock would have given us in the 70's, and possibly the 80's, if he wasn't dying and it's pretty good. The script is a very typical Hitchcock story of a wrongfully accused man, but the execution is Hitchcock unleashed. He doesn't hold back on violence and sex and language. I mean - keep in mind that Hitchcock was raised in the early 20th century. He's not obscene and the movie is not obscene, but compared to everything else he made, this is very R-rated. And that's great because it rejuvenated him. You can tell he's enjoying himself and that positive energy affected the cast and crew. As a result, Frenzy is a VERY fun movie. It's dark and sketchy at times, but it's very fun to watch. A-FAMILY PLOT (1976) Well... here it is... the last Alfred Hitchcock movie and he went out on a good note. Things got worrisome in the late 1960's with Torn Curtain and Topaz, but he pulled himself together and made sure he had a satisfying exit. Family Plot is a black comedy about petty criminals crossing paths with professional criminals and hilarity ensuing. Hitchcock is the master of suspense and he's at his best in the horror and mystery genre, but he surrounded himself with talented people who helped him succeed in comedy so his fans can be charmed by his swan song. The movie isn't gonna make you laugh out loud, but there's a good chance you'll love the characters and all their hijinks. ARANKING ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S UNIVERSAL STUDIOS MOVIES Jibbs Doomsday Dracula PG Cooper SnoBorderZero thebtskink1. Psycho (1960) 2. Vertigo (1958) 3. Marnie (1964) 4. Family Plot (1976) 5. Frenzy (1972) 6. The Birds (1963) 7. The Trouble with Harry (1955) 8. Shadow of a Doubt (1943) 9. Rope (1948) 10. Torn Curtain (1966) 11. Rear Window (1954) 12. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) 13. Saboteur (1942) 14. Topaz (1969) Deexan PhantomKnightVERTIGO (1958) BY BERNARD HERRMANNPSYCHO (1960) BY BERNARD HERRMANNMARNIE (1964) BY BERNARD HERRMANNFAMILY PLOT (1976) BY JOHN WILLIAMS
|
|
thebtskink
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jul 2000
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Posts: 19,462
Likes: 4,984
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 13:25:50 GMT -5
|
Post by thebtskink on Jul 11, 2015 8:42:08 GMT -5
That Psycho theme is so so good.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,492
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:37:07 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Jul 11, 2015 10:05:15 GMT -5
You didn't even talk about my favourite.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Jul 12, 2015 13:10:35 GMT -5
This is what I wrote about Frenzy a few months back.
The best way to describe Frenzy is that Alfred Hitchcock moved his wrong man thriller into the seedy 1970s. All of the typical elements are there, but with a lot more 70s sleaze. We have an innocent man accused of a crime, but he's a complete scumbag and very unlikeable. There's a wide cast of eccentric characters, but none of them are played by known actors, and none have movie star looks. The movie also features much more graphic depictions of sexual violence than in Hitchcock's previous films. It's pretty interesting to see Hitchcock working in such a different era and he does craft some really neat scenes. The key murders here are all really well-staged, and there's a nice scene where the killer needs to seek out the body of one of his victims when he realizes it has incriminating evidence on it. It's nice to see Hitchcock still had some juice in the tank, even this late in his career. I think it takes some time to start cooking and at the end of the day this is still a less substantial Hitchcock effort, but it is a lot of fun and highly enjoyable.
B
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Aug 28, 2015 21:00:27 GMT -5
Has anyone here read Hitchcock/Truffaut. I've just finished it and it's a must-read for any Hitchcock fan. Hitchcock provides a lot of insight, self-criticism, and humour to all of his films. It's also a pretty quick read.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 9:16:16 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Aug 28, 2015 21:26:35 GMT -5
Has anyone here read Hitchcock/Truffaut. I've just finished it and it's a must-read for any Hitchcock fan. Hitchcock provides a lot of insight, self-criticism, and humour to all of his films. It's also a pretty quick read. I picked up a copy of that at a used book story about a year ago. I haven't read it cover-to-cover but every time I see a Hitchcock movie I go back to it to see what he had to say about it. |
|
Ramplate
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Apr 2005
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hamster
Posts: 30,425
Likes: 493
Location:
Last Online Oct 13, 2020 13:56:48 GMT -5
|
Post by Ramplate on Aug 29, 2015 12:55:07 GMT -5
"If you don't stop moving about, I'm going to get a nail and I'm going to nail your feet to your mark, and the blood will come pouring out like milk. So STOP MOVING!"- Alfred Hitchcock, whispered to a 7 year old Billy Mumy. Apparently Hitch liked scaring little children lol Mumy worked for him about 4 or 5 times and has no pleasant memory of him 
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Mar 23, 2017 13:35:34 GMT -5
I casually started a Hitchcockathon. Film 1: Rebecca I've been somewhat cold on Rebecca in the past for not being very "Hitchcockian". The film isn't really a thriller, there are set-pieces but they aren't the emphasis, and the film lacks Hitchcock's dry wit. This is a lot closer to being a costume drama, albeit one with Gothic trappings and a sinister edge. Despite my previous reservations, I really warmed to Rebecca on this viewing. While the film does stand out in Hitchcock's body of work, Rebecca is still an exquisitely crafted drama with some top-notch performances. I love the film's gothic atmosphere. The production design of Manderley is really sharp and the dark cinematography makes for a tense mood. I also love the performances. Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine do good work in the lead roles, but the showstopper is Judith Anderson's chilling turn as Mrs. Danvers. She makes for an ominous threat, but there is a subtlety to her performance and some interesting layers. I do think the film could stand to use a few cuts and the adaptation also softens the edges of the source material, but all told this is a damn good drama with a great Gothic angle. Does it lack the auteurial stamp that defines much of Hitchcock's work? Sure, but that the craft on display is still top-notch and for what it's worth there are some great suspenseful moments. A- |
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Mar 24, 2017 9:32:44 GMT -5
Film 2: Saboteur Saboteur is another riff on Hitchcock's "wrong man" thriller, but it isn't the best execution of the formula. The central problem here is the characters, who just aren't very interesting or memorable, with the hero himself being a particular bore. There's also a sloppily thrown together romance and the film's propagandist streak becomes insufferable. I get that this was made at the height of America's involvement in World War II, but Jesus Christ is the patriotic moralizing laid on thick. Having said all that, Saboteur definitely has its moments. You can definitely see the Master of Suspense at work as there are a handful of really effective moments. The finale has become pretty iconic and in general the staging in the film's third act is really strong. Other highlights include a tense dance while the heroes are in the thick of a Nazi spy-ring, a struggle between hero and villain over a detonator which ends with a cool explosion and some rapid editing, and the opening act of sabotage. These strong set-pieces and Hitchcock's general filmmaking prowess help turn Saboteur into a solid little movie, but comparable films like The 39 Steps put this to shame. B-
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,645
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Apr 3, 2017 16:58:01 GMT -5
Film Three: Shadow of a Doubt Shadow of a Doubt sees Hitchcock's theory of suspense embedded into the plot. The film could have been structured as a light drama about a charismatic uncle visiting his family in small-town U.S.A and then SURPRISE! Young Charlie finds out her uncle is the merry widow murderer (the bomb suddenly exploding under the table). Instead, we know from the opening scene that Uncle Charlie is not all that he appears to be and the tension comes from one his niece will find out and what the consequences of this will be (the bomb ticking under the table while two people sit obliviously). Having said all that, Hitchcock still maintains some mystery by waiting to reveal the exact nature of Uncle Charlie's crimes, but we know he is deviant and that also allows us to read his actions differently. The film is structured in such a way that suspense builds nicely. Crucial to this are the performances. Joseph Cotten is the highlight, delivering what I consider to be his strongest performance as Uncle Charlie. Cotten brings the pleasant charm that Uncle Charle puts forth, but he also nails the dark streak beneath the surface and any scene where his sinister edges come forth is a treat. His monologue at the dinner table about his disgust for women is fascinating and terrifying. Teresa Wright is also perfectly cast as the innocent youth. It's easy to root for her and her growing realization of the darkness of the world is really well-done. That arc is in many ways the heart of the film. Hitchcock finds a perfect "old-fashioned" American town and juxtaposes these ideals with darker morality really well. The murderous hatred held by the otherwise pleasant Uncle Charlie is the most obvious example of this, but there are other little details too like the Mr. Newton and his neighbour's obsession with the perfect murder. Formally, Hitchcock had really come into his own by 1943. There are a number of excellent shots and while the film is perhaps short on full-on set-pieces, Hitchcock makes up for it with a number of brilliant little moments and the masterful control he displays throughout. Highlights including the haunting introduction of Uncle Charlie (which is subsequently mirrored later), the aforementioned dinner speech, the meeting at the bar, and the garage. Shadow of a Doubt is also important historically, as it was the first movie to really blend Hitchcock's sensibilities with a more mature and thematically rich movie. It's a thrill to watch, but the movie does have some drawbacks. I think the romance in the film feels like a bit of an afterthought and I also think for all of Uncle Charlie's awesomeness, he goes out like a bitch. These blemishes do hurt the film, but Shadow of a Doubt remains a classic. A
|
|
