Alfred Hitchcock

[HarryLong]

Yes, lots of love for Zardoz (and Charlotte Rampling!) but like most of Connery's films I end up liking them despite his performance rather than for it.

Would that include THE NAME OF THE ROSE? While there are a number of Connery performances I think quite good, ROSE is about the only film I can think of where Connery's performance is the main reason for liking it.
Though come to think of it, Connery's perf is about the only worthwhile thing in THE AVENGERS...

[domino harvey]

A thought that occurred to me while screening it in class today: Is it possible to dislike North by Northwest? It offers so much for every level of film viewership that it seems like one of the few movies that truly is unequivocally "great" to anyone watching

[knives]

I know someone on the internet who dislikes it. Says the the movie is too confusing for them, yeah they're movie stupid.

[zedz]

A thought that occurred to me while screening it in class today: Is it possible to dislike North by Northwest? It offers so much for every level of film viewership that it seems like one of the few movies that truly is unequivocally "great" to anyone watching

I wish I could put my hand up for this, but I actually like the film. However, I get the strong sense that I like it much less than most Hitchcock fans. It seems to be perceived as the ultimate version of his 'wrong man on the run from set piece to set piece' films (39 Steps, Foreign Correspondent, Saboteur etc.), but I find it a bit tired and cushioned, almost like the Disneyland ride version of that particular template. It all very well-oiled, and the performances are all on the money, but I find it a bit too opulent and mechanical for my liking, so it never rises above mid-level Hitchcock for me (i.e. below the first two films cited above and way below things like Psycho, Rear Window and Shadow of a Doubt).

I wish I could be more specific, but 'good, not great' is a tough distinction to argue, since most of the arguments for the film's greatness I'd probably agree with, and would simply append a shrugging "yeah, well. . ." to them, and there's nothing in particular that I think is actively wrong with the film.

[Mr. Ned]

I have to agree with zedz there: it's a great film, but a merely good Hitchcock film. For me, NBNW has always felt like the ultimate exhaustion of Hitch's "landmark as critical setpiece" schtick, something he did for a good 10-15 years before he got around to doing it with Grant here. Some of his earliest examples of that trend--Saboteur and Foreign Correspondent--are arguably greater films, despite having more flaw-ridden scripts and actors who aren't up to the androgynous-super-sexy-charming-alpha-male-Cary Grant snuff--because their use of landmarks (Statue of Liberty, Hotel Europa, etc.) are more than ironic and somewhat supercilious critiques of American society but something of a deeper, more angst-ridden weight (those two are WWII drama, after all). I've always liked it, but tons of other Hitch movies speak to me more ..at least Doris Day is nowhere to be found, but different strokes; que sera sera...

[Mr Sausage]

North by Northwest has the most ingenious "wrong man" scenario of any of Hitchcock's movies. It's so surprising and insidious.

The two above posts come off, somewhat understandably, sounding rather spoiled. 'It's great and all, but I mean, it's not great great or anything.' Such an odd thing to grouse over, but then Hitchcock's made so many masterpieces that perhaps it's inevitable.

It all very well-oiled, and the performances are all on the money, but I find it a bit too opulent and mechanical for my liking,

The above is so necessary for NBNW's overwhelming success because much of the fun comes from being in on the joke, as it were. The movie is all about enjoying a "Hitchcock movie," watching him joyfully expand on, play with, subvert, and otherwise stage manage his most familiar tropes. What's so pleasurable is waiting to see what Hitchcock'll get away with next; you become happily complicit in his mischief. The mechanical aspect is not a failing but one of its major strategies: allowing the audience the pleasure of watching Hitchcock work. The effect is rather like observing a master builder constructing an elaborate practical joke--admiring the ingenuity and eagerly imagining how it'll all play out.

The emblematic moment for me is this one. It's almost like the actress has broken character and suddenly realized, holy shit, that's Cary Grant! And that knowing, wryly chiding reaction from Grant only works if you're aware that you're watching Cary Grant in a Hitchcock movie.

At the same time, the movie still works as a straight-forward comedic thriller. You get the most out of it if you've watched some Hitchcock before, but you'll find much to laugh and gasp over if you haven't. So, yeah, I'm with Domino: is it possible to dislike this movie? After Psycho, my favourite Hitchcock.

[zedz]

Yeah, well. I can't disagree with any of that, but from my perspective it just seems like another way of saying it's the Hitchcock theme park ride, which is the factor that limits my enjoyment of the film.

[Mr Sausage]

Yeah, well. I can't disagree with any of that, but from my perspective it just seems like another way of saying it's the Hitchcock theme park ride, which is the factor that limits my enjoyment of the film.

Well, yes, but then any auteurist career summation is susceptible to the same complaint. For me, NBNW does not simply take you on a tour of old techniques, it knowingly overgoes them. For example, it has the familiar wrong man scenario, but takes it in a startling direction when it reveals the hero has been confused with a man who doesn't even exist, a genuinely inventive twist on an old trope. Hitchcock outdoes himself, deliberately, and invites you to be in on that process. If it's a theme park ride, it's one that takes everything every other theme park ride does, and then does it better.

[Murdoch]

Due to my recent infatuation with Carole Lombard I picked up a copy of Mr. and Mrs. Smith and after watching it tonight I'm surprised at the ho-hum reactions to it. While it's certainly not indicative of Hitch's general oeuvre, it's a perfect display of his comedic abilities and genre versatility. Lombard and Montgomery have, unsurprisingly, great chemistry, and Gene Raymond is among screwball comedy's finest third wheels. The hilarious night club scene rivals anything by that other great screwball Bringing Up Baby, and the entire film is just as well-paced and plotted (it's an easier task for me to place it within the context of screwballs than attempting to rank it among Hitch's more famous and suspenseful works).

There's an interesting play on gender roles in the film, with Montgomery, upon receiving the news that his marriage to Lombard is non-binding, fantasizing about bachelorhood, only to revert to his role as husband once Lombard displays a disinterest in him. And Lombard on the other hand going from the domesticated role to occupying the bachelorhood that Montgomery had been fantasizing of. There's a great moment early in the film when Montgomery confesses that, if given a second chance, he wouldn't marry, and upon this confession Montgomery directly addresses the camera and thus places the viewer in the place of Lombard, putting us in the position of having Montgomery directly address his dissatisfaction with marriage to us. The shot lasts only several seconds, but it's a great display of Hitch's use of perspective as it puts the viewer in the rather uncomfortable position of watching this conversation as an outsider, then quickly having one of the actors addressing us as we are forced into the position of Lombard.

Hitchcock appeared to have a good time making this, the malfunctioning carnival ride was a nice suspenseful wink to the audience expecting someone to fall to their death in the true Hitchcock fashion. I was surprised by how rewarding I found the film to be after it aroused so little in his admirers, as it certainly ranks among my favorite of his films, even if it isn't typical of his style.

[Lars Von Truffaut]

So I caught the tail end of Ebert Presents At the Movies this morning and noticed something peculiar. Omar Moore talks about Hitch's "The Wrong Man" and under the title of the first clip shown, it reads Criterion Collection. This clip confirms what I saw. What does this mean? Could this be forthcoming from CC? I think we've all been anticipating "Foreign Correspondent", but TWM would be news to me...

[knives]

I don't know how but I assume e-mailing Ebert would be the best way to answer that question.

[I.V.]

I believe it may just be an error. We did a title that was distributed by Criterion (Something Wild) on the same show, and we usually just copy-and-paste the same credits template in editing. Someone just forgot to change it the rights-holder credit to "Warner Bros."

[MichaelB]

The BFI is inviting questions about their ongoing restoration of all nine Hitchcock silent films - members of the restoration team will film and publish answers in a few weeks' time. Hopefully with some work-in-progress clips.

[gyorgys]

François Truffaut's big 12 hours interview with Alfred Hitchcock (Aug/1962)

[MichaelB]

It's just been confirmed that all nine restorations of Hitchcock surviving silent output will be given screenings with live music (and newly-composed scores) next summer as part of the 2012 London Olympic festivities - and will be followed by a complete Hitchcock retrospective at BFI Southbank in the autumn.

I suspect the restorations will also hit Blu-ray and DVD at some point, but this hasn't been confirmed yet.

[Duncan Hopper]

Michael, I think it is only Three films (the Lodger, The Pleasure Garden and an as yet unnamed third film) screening in 2012.

As I understand it, the BFI are some way off getting all 9 finished, quite a bit of work and new funds are still required. Indeed some titles are still at the very early stages of restoration.

[dustybooks]

I do apologize if this is old news -- I didn't turn up anything through search, but I could've missed it -- but Hitchcock devotees lacking multi-region capability may be interested to learn that the rare (in the US) Downhill is up at the Internet archive.

Kind of a bittersweet find for me, as it was the last of AH's features (Mountain Eagle notwithstanding) I had yet to see, having recently gotten hold of both extant versions of The Pleasure Garden as well as Waltes from Vienna (the latter is complete on Youtube, not sure how legally).

I'm curious to read any opinions about these three films. Was quite impressed by both of the silents, although Downhill seems oddly pat at the finale (a trend with Hitchcock's silent films, I find). Until then, it's one of his darkest movies ever, with the vivid portraits of Ivor Novello's largely self-imposed misery often quite nightmarish! The director's prior experience really shows on Pleasure Garden, which is a considerably more accomplished effort that I'd been led to believe; it does not feel like a directorial debut at all. Waltzes was much more problematic, with (I felt) a somewhat hollow story -- but even it had some extraordinary moments.

I intend next to try to round out the years-old obsession by catching all of the Hitchcock-directed TV shows I can. I also have yet to see the silent Blackmail, Mary, and the two WWII shorts. Still much to discover, then.

[triodelover]

Rebecca and Notorious on BD in January.

[mnemaric]

Hey all - first time poster, long time lurker :)

Apparently Hitchcock's 'Suspicion' is being remade with none other than Veena Sud (the show-runner for AMC's The Killing) at the helm. Seems like an interesting move given the general response to The Killing.

[domino harvey]

Warners in Germany is putting out Strangers on a Train on Blu on May 11, no doubt an American date will soon be announced

[Noiretirc]

Apparently Hitchcock's 'Suspicion' is being remade with none other than Veena Sud (the show-runner for AMC's The Killing) at the helm. Seems like an interesting move given the general response to The Killing.

Maybe this version will have a good ending.

[knives]

I think the present ending is far creepier than what they originally wanted. What's more frightening then deluding yourself that a maniac is safe?

[dustybooks]

I think the present ending is far creepier than what they originally wanted. What's more frightening then deluding yourself that a maniac is safe?

I tend to agree -- especially since Hitchcock himself used to rail against movies that simply "confirmed suspicions" -- though I think the ending as shot still seems a bit clumsy and unfinished. Compromises like this go all the way back to The Lodger when AH didn't want Ivor Novello directly exonerated at the finale.

Bill Krohn and Ken Mogg have some fascinating material about the end of Suspicion here.

[rockysds]

The bloggers Farran Smith-Nehme (The Self-Styled Siren), Marilyn Ferdinand (Ferdy on Films) and Roderick Heath (This Island Rod) have been putting on a blogathon this week in support of Graham Cutts' The White Shadow, three reels of which were discovered in New Zealand, and on which Hitchcock were editor, screenwriter and assistant director. The goal is to sponsor a recording of new music for the film plus finance the web premiere at the National Film Preservation Foundation's website.

If you're interested in seeing the film, you might want to donate something.

[Bürgermeister]

sorry if this is a kind of a dumb question. :p

Whats the actual length of The Lodger: A Story Of The London Fog? I've watched the tinted version clocks in at around 70mins & I've noticed theres a B&W version that's around 90mins in length.

Is this just a frame rate thing?