Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Do you watch Hitchcock?

20:38 / 02.10.05

He's acclaimed as the master of suspense and one of the greatest directors that ever lived, but do people actually still watch Hitchcock. For fun, I mean. He's still a mainstay on the syllabuses of film schools, but outside of Psycho, do people actually watch Hitchcock anymore? If you do, which of his over 50 films have you seen? which is your favourite and why?

Brigade du jour

00:33 / 03.10.05

Damn right I watch Hitchcock for fun, although I should qualify that admission by pointing out that I am a pretty massive movie geek.

I've seen about half of his films, probably somewhere around 20+ of them, and the main thing I get out of them is a nice adrenaline rush to the brain (or whatever it is, I'm not a physiologist) as I try to follow the plot. I'm also very fond of his sly (and sometimes quite crude, in retrospect) humour, e.g. the final shot of North By Northwest with the 'train' 'shooting' into the 'tunnel' just as Cary Grant finally gets it on with Eva Marie Saint.

I think is Psycho is my favourite of his (indeed one of my top ten of all time) because it encapsulates everything I like about Hitchcock - it's creepy, a bit awkwardly acted (or to be more charitable and perhaps accurate, portraying awkward characters), and often very funny. But my opinion isn't very robust these days because watching Psycho is, for me, like visiting an old friend. Who kills people. And hides them in the fruit cellar. Ho ho.

I think it's also worth pointing out that they're often being shown on terrestrial TV so anytime I might start to forget how much I love his stuff, another movie comes along that I haven't seen yet and slaps me right in the critical faculties.

But the image is at least as important as the movies, isn't it? I mean, there are a number of generations who know what the man looked like and sounded like. The clarity and frequency with which his personality seemed to live in his films is a huge reason why they are remembered, I feel. Or is it? Well, let's discuss!

09:49 / 18.11.05

Well, the answer to this question would seem to be largely 'no.' - But his work was mentioned in the films to watch thread so I just thought I'd give this topic a bump to see if it attracted any more posts this time round...

lord nuneaton savage

10:25 / 18.11.05

I only recently got around to watching "Rear Window", which I had never seen before. A great film mos' def'. The suspense is well handled and it keeps you guessing up until...well, at the risk spoiling it for people who haven't seen it, the ending's rubbish.

"Is my neighbour a murderer?, I have been spying on him doing odd things. The tension is getting to be almost to much...

...oh, I guess he is then".

I suppose it's my fault for expecting it to be a bit more modern, but I could've done with a twist, you know?

I enjoyed "The Trouble with Harry" though.

10:50 / 18.11.05

Out of the handful of Hitchcocks I've seen, I think my favourite is 'Rope'. When I first heard about it, I kind of expected it to be a bit gimmicky: the thing everyone talks about is how it's shot in eight ten minute takes, edited to look like one take, etc etc. And that is quite unusual. But the film itself is also fantastic, with that kind of thumbscrew tension that just builds and builds. It's real edge of the seat stuff. Plus it's got a fantastic performance from some actor I'd never even heard of. I can't recall his name, but he plays the main murderer dude, the playful leader of the pair. Anyway. Great stuff. As for what one gets out of it, there's the usual things you get out of a fim - excitement, intrigue, mental excercise, food for thought etc. In this case it's also has an interesting layer insofar as it gets you thinking about the differences between theatre and films, as mediums (Rope was adapted from a play).

The film does resemble a play - single stage, single 'performance, etc, but the camerawork is integral to the tension. So it's quite fascinating in that aspect.

I also saw Vertigo for the first time recently, which was also great, and again worked for me on the conventional levels of intrigue, excitement and intelectual engagement, only with the attendant excellenc in all areas that comes with watching a master of the art form at work.

I'm suprised at the fact this thread exists, to be honest. I've always thought Hitchcock was one of the most accessible directors who ever worked, with the tight pacing and gripping plots. It's never ocurred to me that he would only be watched by film students.

11:21 / 18.11.05

Hitchcock made a fair few films that would be equally suited to the stage - lifeboat and rear window being other notables which is interesting in itself, and underlining that it how you tell a story is as important as what that story the story itself...

11:24 / 18.11.05

Absolutely, I haven't seen much of the Cock', but what I have seen has always been utterly involving.

Vertigo is wonderful(check out the weird perspective games when Jimmy Stewart gets the titular phobia..), as is North by Northwest.

Tis' a shame that he has been so lionised by film school types, because at it's heart his work is merely finely tuned entertainment.

As for Rope, wonderful stuff, adn adapted from Patrick Hamilton's play. Hamilton is one wonderful writer (his "1000 streets under the sky" was recently adapted), and the film of "Hangover square" as a great kitschy brit thriller which deserves far more acclaim.

11:27 / 18.11.05

I dunno. Rope feels very forced, to me. The 'one shot' thing robs it of any spontaneity - you're always aware that you're watching something that's been carefully planned out, that it's all scripted. One big set piece, in effect.

That's the thing that I often notice about Hitchcock films - the set pieces, the scenes that stand out from the rest, and how they pull me out of the film and only serve to make me aware of the guy behind the camera. It's that 'hand of the writer' thing. The worst of them is probably that scene in The Birds, with the quick cuts between angles that makes the sequence look like a series of stills. I don't know if it's something to do with the film's age - maybe it felt sparkly and new at the time, which might have excused it - but watching it now, it's simply embarrassing.

North by Northwest is probably my favourite of the Hitchcock films I've seen, and thinking about it now that could be because

A) it's a *series* of Big Scenes, and
B) there's little obvious, clever-clever jiggery-pokery going on during them. None of them stick out like a sore thumb, because they're all filmed in the same sort of way. They're all there to serve the same purpose - to crank up the tension while telling a coherent story - and none of them are there purely to remind the audience about what a genius the director is.

12:00 / 18.11.05

Tis' a shame that he has been so lionised by film school types, because at it's heart his work is merely finely tuned entertainment.

Interesting that you say this as it seems to point to something that I suppose could be called an anti-intellectual or anti-analyitical response - that if film types find something interesting about this film it must be boring/dull/uninteresting/unentertaining.

Bullshit ignorance.

Mister Six, whom all the girls

12:25 / 18.11.05

So glad at least one other person dislikes Rope.

I was very very annoyed by the film. I turned to my wife at least ten minutes in abd said, "This was based on a play, wasn't it?" She said yeah... I sneered... "The whole movie is like this, isn't it?" She got the idea and turned it off.

I'm so much fun to be with.

It was the style of just straight play-to-movie adaptation that killed the film for me. Without ruining it for anyone who wants to see it, the 'gimme' of the film was too silly for me and the idea that two well groomed and sophisticated people would be killers not interesting to me at all.

I've still only seen a couple of Hitchcocks (The Birds, Vertigo... um... that might be it) because of being turned off by Rope. But I'm game to jump back in if anyone has a suggestion.

12:46 / 18.11.05

I'd recommend the 1950s Jimmy Stewart version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much". It's a fun ol romp with some genuinely dark moments - such as a loving husband drugging his wife before before tells her that their child has been kidnapped.

But what I particularly love about the film is its climax in the Albert Hall - From a certain point onwards, the actors cannot be heard. The music does all the talking, and does it far better than any dialogue ever could... and there is a certain camera angle/close up which looks fantastic wherever it crops up.

As for the plot, it really is all in the title... - check it out -

Mister Six, whom all the girls

13:02 / 18.11.05

Ta.

13:31 / 18.11.05

But what I particularly love about the film is its climax in the Albert Hall - From a cerrtain point onwards, the actors cannot be heard.

Doesn't he also use that device in The 39 Steps? Either that or I've seen The Man Who Knew Too Much and only remember that scene, and then vaguely.

13:38 / 18.11.05

Not seen the 39 steps, so couldn't tell you -but yes, if you find it hard to engage with unfamiliar orchestral music - the climax will pull you in. Having said which you are very much primed with the piece over the course of the film, particularly how it underlines the importance of the crash of the cymbals...

18:28 / 18.11.05

Bullshit ignorance

Well perhaps, but all I meant was that the casual filmgoer might be put off watching what are very accessible and rewarding films because they've been smeared with critical appreciation by the big of brain. (Much the same effect with v.enjoyable classic lit. Tristram Shandy, or Jane Austen etc).

Does that sound like an arse theory?

23:35 / 18.11.05

I don't see why it should be true, I have to say. I never think of Hitchcock as being a film students' favourite. I mean, the dude was a massive cultural icon throughout his life - cultural, not cult - to the extent that people (who weren't film students) recognised him simply from his silhouette. That'll no longer apply to most people under the age of, say, thirty, but pretty much everybody will still recognise the name. You'd be hard pushed to find a director who only appeals to film students who that applies to.

He was a permanent fixture on the television, too. In no way was the guy ever anything less than an enormous star in his own right. If anything, I'd presume there may well be a snobbishness about his work amongst academics, precisely because it was so popular.

03:03 / 19.11.05

LIFEBOAT, recently released on dvd is my favourite. It tells a great story that still holds up today. There are great character moments for each of the cast, and their performances are all very compelling. It's also very exciting, which is amazing considering it takes place entirely in one location (see the title).