criterionforum.org

I totally forgot the matte shots of the birds, although these are processed into shots with several other means.

There is even some traditional animation in a few of those shots, I believe. And yes, it definitely has the quickest cutting of any Hitchcock film.

Assume you also watched the extremely interesting docos on this and Marnie DVDs. The Production manager mentions how they had to sneak into Disney to "borrow" the technocology for Birds, and the "More lifelike"
mechanical horse for the CU riding shots in Marnie. Of course the process backgrounds during the riding shots look pretty ordinary, don't you agree.

Yes, I watched those docus a few years ago. I love rear-screen projection in old films, and I love it when I see it in new films as well...there's something about it I like, something cinematic, the same reason why I love big, dramatic matte shots. But yes, the riding scene in "Marnie" certainly is more 'natural' than most of them.

Back to "The Birds," did you read Evan Hunter's book "Hitch and Me?" He had major issues as to why Rod Taylor's character is still living at home and the age discrepancy between Taylor and his sister, and argued with Hitch about this. He also worked a long time on "Marnie," but was eventually fired.

As for "The Birds," I really like the sequence with the gas running all over the place and the guy lighting his cigarette. Personally, the cutting gag of the people watching the fire erupt, then their reactions in a series of freeze-frames, doesn't work, but it's interesting. I also love the lead up to the first major bird attack, with Melanie sitting in the foreground smoking a cigarette, and the schoolhouse in the background with the kids singing that repetitive nursery rhyme song, while birds are landing all over the phone wires and monkey bars behind her. Then again, I think that's the most popular scene.

The original Hermann score would have definitely elevated Torn Curtian to another plain altogether. BUt I still can't accomodate the performances. At least Julie has a lot of wide shots with little dialogue, but Newman is intolerable.

I'd actually have to see it again to comment further on the performances, but I remember liking them (but personally, I like Paul Newman in anything). It definitely was a commercial cast though, which was one thing leading as to why Herrmann had to go.

tavernier wrote: Can someone explain to me what is so special about The Dead? I found it to be Huston's biggest disappointment and a complete comedown after Prizzi.

Those who admire it pretty much do so I'd wager because they feel its a beautifully acted, beautifully photographed, beautifully directed adaptation (which is quite well-done) of a magnificent short story by Joyce. If you don't see it or feel it there's nothing wrong with that. My feeling is that the ending in particular is as fine an elidiation of the melancholy of mono no aware as can be found anywhere.

I on the other hand think PRIZZIS HONOR a complete waste of time, one of the dumbest & least entertaining films of it's era.

Another reason for a downfall....

I've recently become obsessed with Jerry Lewis, and he's a director that most turn to as completely going downhill. As for the reasons, I attribute this to his self-awareness as a filmmaker and as a clown. As a filmmaker he took his art seriously, often using subversive gags and satirical jabs aimed at stereotypical comedies. But he was also known as a clown. Aren't most filmmakers defined incorrectly, or at least feel they are defined incorrectly. Spike Lee was the militant black director, Spielberg is the family adventure director, Scorcese is the vulgar crime director, etc etc etc... and a lot of times directors feel the need to fight off this generalization about their works. Jerry Lewis, as a clown, also run the risk of his main audience outgrowing him. So not only was Jerry Lewis fighting off his stereotypes as nothing more than a comedian, but he was also trying to keep is younger audience... the mixture became a mess that few enjoy.

Spielberg's use of more pronographic form of violence in films like AI and Munich are attempts to break out of his friendly Indiana Jones reputation. I think it works well but I'm not sure many are going along with him. Spike Lee on the other hand is becoming more mainstream, where as Scorsese isn't really changing at all.

Could it be that directors sometimes get better or worse over time because they are unhappy of their image as an artist?

I don't think it's accurate to claim that John Huston's career ever went into a distinct decline because his work was never consistently excellent in the first place; its quality rose and fell, from picture to picture, sometimes drastically so, right from the beginning. Huston is, in fact, one of the most wildly erratic filmmakers in the history of the medium, with good and bad movies—even great and awful ones—evident in every decade of his creative life.

Rambling thoughts...an old, dying neighbor said to me years ago, 'the harder I look, the softer it gets. It's all putty in the hand, eyes and ears these days.'
I can't help but recall Donen's speech when collecting his Lifetime Achievement award a few years ago at the Oscars, when he said it would be easy to make the films he made today, except for the fact there's no Freed, Astaire, Kelly, Hepburn, etc. etc. Just about all the key directors of the Studio era relied on their writers, technical collaborators, surroundings and stable bosses to keep up the momentum of high achievement. When these relationships start to crumble...at least their is still a vision and personal interest in the final works of Chaplin, Ford, Minnelli, Wilder, Hitch etc. to keep us going back again and again.

I'm with David on the final days of Hitch. On Torn Curtain you can sense the dread Hitch felt on dealing with Newman, too old to fight the fight, and just giving up completely. From then on, Hitch would go on without a key component of his work - the Star. But times change. If only more of the seniors club today would rid themselves of the star nuisance. DeCaprio may need the prestige of working with Scorsese, but it is Scorsese's ego and need to keep playing with the big boys that he finds himself paddling frantically to make vital work these days.

Outside the studio system, I've always loved how Agnes Varda and David Attenborough (an assessment of his work as producer/director/presenter in his field is surely needed) grow old and continue to go about their work. Individual to the last pore, Varda's loving documents to Demy (who also had trouble in the final years) and The Gleaners and I proved that an open mind to what's new (and what goes on in the real world as against the reel one) and a willingness to stay honest is all it takes to really matter.

devlinnn wrote:Outside the studio system, I've always loved how Agnes Varda and David Attenborough (an assessment of his work as producer/director/presenter in his field is surely needed) grow old and continue to go about their work. Individual to the last pore, Varda's loving documents to Demy (who also had trouble in the final years) and The Gleaners and I proved that an open mind to what's new (and what goes on in the real world as against the reel one) and a willingness to stay honest is all it takes to really matter.

Varda's a good example I missed, though she does seem to be relegated to documentary nowadays. Her recent films (specifically Gleaners and Ydessa) exhibit the same wonderful liveliness and curiosity that animated her early works.

Frenzy is a really ugly film, but it is teeming with innovation - the transition from studio set of the house to real street exterior is pretty clever. Mancini's original score is fantastic and the film would cast a deeper spell if it had been used. I really can't stand Ron Goodwin's style and his score here is overly decorative. Mancini's is quite mesmerizing.

Sam Fuller was still full of beans on The Big Red One and White Dog (which I saw for the first time a few months ago) is pretty daring.

Andre De Toth's, Play Dirty (1968) is terrific, daring and witty.

Fred Zinnemann never really lost his touch. Julia (made when he was 70) could have been grittier, but overall, it's a success.

Bresson certainly never lost his touch or became jaded. 82 when he made L'Argent - incredible. And he was planning a film based on the Book of Genesis. Mindboggling.

Carol Reed ran out of steam in the 50s, really. Personally, I feel that the greatness in The Third Man has little to do with him. Greene's story is obviously the key, but the team of cinematographer Robert Krasker and operators and future ace DPs, Edward Scaife and Denys Coop are what really raised it to greatness and Cotten, Valli and Orson hardly need much direction. Still, Reed was good, but the later films are decidedly undistinguished. Oliver!? Horrible.

Anthony Mann died too young, but I reckon that he would have made interesting films in the 70s.

John Frankenheimer made solid, exciting films right up to his death. Path to War is terrific.

Joseph Losey stumbled a few times, but he was still taking chances late in his career.

Sidney Lumet is more than capable of pulling off one last masterpiece with either Before the Devil Knows You're Dead or Whistle.


Too much like a list? Yeah, but whatcha gunna do, huh?