The Alfred Hitchcock Discussion Thread

[T.H.]

That's pretty close to my own ranking, except I'd put The 39 Steps in there and maybe Suspicion. Glad to see you didn't mention Shadow of a Doubt. I used to value Rebecca highly, but lately I find I can't really be bothered with it.

The next Hitch to go Blu will apparently be The Birds. I'm hoping V and RW will soon follow. Somebody (the CC, perhaps?) needs to bring out Under Capricorn in all its Technicolor goodness.

Suspicion is the only pre-46 Hitchcock movie I like. The 39 Steps, Rebecca and Shadow of a Doubt are too English and proper to click with me - even though the last two are US movies.

I liked SoaD on the first watch a few years ago but it's not something I want to revisit anytime soon. I don't strongly dislike Joseph Cotton, like I remember you stating, but I don't care for him. Had Bogart played that part, I'd probably have a much different opinion of the movie.

Rebecca takes way too long to get going and I flat out don't like Olivier.

I don't really have anything negative to say about The 39 Steps (besides its 'Englishness') but it lacks the exuberance of my favorite Hitchcock movies.

I haven't seen Under Capricorn.

I've heard nothing but good things about NxNW b-ray. RW and Vertigo have to be coming out soon.

[dave jenkins]

I've heard nothing but good things about NxNW b-ray.

Me too. But I've resisted buying it. I find that the DVD is so good, up-scaled through my BD player, that I don't feel the need for the upgrade. I suppose I'll eventually buy a cheap used copy.

The Paramount/Universal DVDs, on the other hand, show their limitations on larger screens. The Vertigo and RW DVDs look bad to this 2011 home video viewer. And Universal did such a good job on the Psycho BD that I'm confident their other transfers will shine.

[T.H.]

I actually don't own a Hitchcock movie on dvd. I kept waiting for those boxed set collections' prices to drop, which never happened as far as I know. His stuff is on TCM so much that I never got around to buying anything. I'll probably own every movie on my list on b-ray since the quality is vastly superior to a tv broadcast. I was much more concerned with aspect ratio until the HD craze hit recently. It will be nice to not to double dip on anything.

On the other hand, I own 3 copies of the dollars trilogy. At least I got the 3 b-rays for 10 each.

[moviesceleton]

Frenzy (1972) - 7.5/10

[T.H.]

I'm watching random scenes on the NxNW bluray, holy shit is this pretty to look at. There is so much depth to the image, the colors pop like crazy.

I also watched the shower scene on the Psycho BD and that was almost equally impressive.

I was definitely misinformed about the whole bluray process a while back, but these things are like crack to me now. It's basically like owning a film print to watch on your tv. It doesn't beat the theater experience but it certainly creates a different movie watching experience.

[dave jenkins]

Savant, in rare form, on the new Spellbound Blu: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3798spel.html
As per usual, much of the review is an analysis of the film itself. Certainly worth a read.

[dave jenkins]

Wow! http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/To-Catch-a-Thief-Blu-ray/35498/#Screenshots

[drinkanddestroy]

dj suggested we move our discussion of Psycho to this thread, so I will copy the last 3 posts we made on that movie in the RTLMYS thread:

drinkanddestroy http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=jvoef46ehng66t7evc30cc19c1&topic=7645.msg155820#msg155820


Psycho (1960) 10/10

My first viewing of this movie.

I saw the 1998 re-make in theaters (I was in 9th grade, and some classmate mentioned that it was supposed to be "sooooo scary!") and didn't love it all that much. I then found out it was (virtually) a shot-for-shot re-make of, and never felt any urgency to see the original, figuring that eventually I would, someday. Well that day is today. And a great day it is! A wonderful movie. Anthony Perkins is much more of a sweet, innocent - looking guy, as opposed to Vince Vaughn who (if memory serves me correct from 1998) seemed much more openly psychotic.


As for the scene with psychiatrist yammering on and on at the end, I wonder if it was really necessary. Reading Roger Ebert's review on this movie in his "Great Movies" section, I see he believes that as well. Here is what Ebert says about it:



For thoughtful viewers, however, an equal surprise is still waiting. That is the mystery of why Hitchcock marred the ending of a masterpiece with a sequence that is grotesquely out of place. After the murders have been solved, there is an inexplicable scene during which a long-winded psychiatrist (Simon Oakland) lectures the assembled survivors on the causes of Norman's psychopathic behavior. This is an anticlimax taken almost to the point of parody.

If I were bold enough to reedit Hitchcock's film, I would include only the doctor's first explanation of Norman's dual personality: "Norman Bates no longer exists. He only half existed to begin with. And now, the other half has taken over, probably for all time." Then I would cut out everything else the psychiatrist says, and cut to the shots of Norman wrapped in the blanket while his mother's voice speaks ("It's sad when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son..."). Those edits, I submit, would have made "Psycho" very nearly perfect. I have never encountered a single convincing defense of the psychiatric blather; Truffaut tactfully avoids it in his famous interview.


I suppose maybe it was important to let us know that Norman had actually killed his mom and her lover, as opposed to what the police had always believed was a murder-suicide. But that speech by the shrink does seem (at least mostly) unnecessary.

Finally, I don't know why, after showing Norman in jail, they cut to the shot of the car being lifted from the swamp, before THE END flashed on the screen. Was that really necessary to see? I mean, we know they are going to remove the car; that shot is useless. Wouldn't have been much creepier if the movie had ended with that shot of Norman's face?

I've never liked when tense moments (eg. while Janet Leigh is driving with the cop behind her) are punctuated with the repeated boom-boom on the soundtrack. That sort of thing always annoyed me.  I don't need to be told when a moment is supposed to be tense, and it doesn't add anything. Just annoys me.

Anyway, what can I say about this movie except that it's reputation as a masterpiece is well-deserved  

p.s. I am watching the Collector's edition dvd (rented from Netflix), and it has a a really wonderful "Making of Psycho" piece in the Special Features, that goes for 94 minutes. I am in middle of watching it now, and it is terrific. they have so many people who were involved with the movie (eg. the screenwriter, the assistant director, Hitch's daughter who has a small role, Janet Leigh, Hitch's personal assistant, etc.). If you love this movie, and get your hands on the Collector's Edition dvd, be sure to check this out  

----------------------------------------------------------------


dave jenkins  http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7645.msg155886#msg155886



You missed the point of the movie. The film began with Marion Crane, and even though she dies about mid-way through, it is still her story. The shot of the trunk of the car, where her body was stashed, reminds the audience of Marion's fate. After the comforting words of the headshrinker, after having everything "explained," the audience gets handed something that can't be disposed of neatly--Marion's senseless murder. Upon reflection, the audience may even recall that Marion was killed at the point of redemption: she was just about to return the money she stole (another irony: Norman Bates entombed the money with the body unknowingly--something else that the final shot may cause one to remember). But in the world Hitchcock imagined for Marion there is no redemption. That is the chilling final meaning the closing shot communicates, creepier than anything having to do with Norman Bates.

If you study Hitchcock as a genre, you note that Psycho comes soon after Vertigo, Hitchcock's experiment with Tragedy. But even Tragedy with a capital "T" allows for transcendence; with Psycho, a tale of blackest Irony (where transcendence is not allowed), AH touched bottom. In his very next picture, The Birds, he would again treat the subject of a hostile and uncaring universe, but would re-introduce hope in the form of "lovebirds" (both the winged and human varieties). AH's period of pessimism was a short one.

[drinkanddestroy]

I have to disagree with you here. This is not really Marion Crane's story.

(Note: Much of what I am gonna say about this movie is from the extensive Making Of documentary on the dvd, which, as I described in my previous post, features many of those involved with the film: Leigh, Hitch's daughter, Hitch's assistant, the screenwriter, cinematographer, assistant director, etc.)

One of the biggest surprises of this movie is how the protagonists shift: first we think this is going to be a movie about Marion Crane. This was a deliberate trick by Hitchcock: Hitchcock specifically chose a big star, Janet Leigh, so that the audience will take it for granted that it will be her movie. Then, we are shocked when she actually dies so early in the film. In fact, Hitch was so concerned that latecomers to the theater would wonder "where is Janet Leigh," that he made the now-famous rule that nobody can enter the theater after the movie begins (which also turned out to be a great marketing ploy).

But having Janet Leigh as Marion Crane was one of the big tricks on the audience here.
Another big trick is the way the protagonists shift. Surprisingly enough, once Marion is killed, Norman himself becomes sort of the protagonist. Below, in yellow, I will quote 4 paragraphs from Roger Ebert's review, which I agree with. (The first two paragraphs I am quoting are near the beginning of the review, and the last two are near the end of the review. The full review is here http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19981206/REVIEWS08/401010353/1023 )




" Yet no other Hitchcock film had a greater impact. "I was directing the viewers," the director told Truffaut in their book-length interview. "You might say I was playing them, like an organ." It was the most shocking film its original audience members had ever seen. "Do not reveal the surprises!" the ads shouted, and no moviegoer could have anticipated the surprises Hitchcock had in store--the murder of Marion (Janet Leigh), the apparent heroine, only a third of the way into the film, and the secret of Norman's mother. "Psycho" was promoted like a William Castle exploitation thriller. "It is required that you see 'Psycho' from the very beginning!" Hitchcock decreed, explaining, "the late-comers would have been waiting to see Janet Leigh after she had disappeared from the screen action."



These surprises are now widely known, and yet "Psycho" continues to work as a frightening, insinuating thriller. That's largely because of Hitchcock's artistry in two areas that are not as obvious: The setup of the Marion Crane story, and the relationship between Marion and Norman (Anthony Perkins). Both of these elements work because Hitchcock devotes his full attention and skill to treating them as if they will be developed for the entire picture. "

-------------------------------

" The death of the heroine is followed by Norman's meticulous mopping-up of the death scene. Hitchcock is insidiously substituting protagonists. Marion is dead, but now (not consciously but in a deeper place) we identify with Norman--not because we could stab someone, but because, if we did, we would be consumed by fear and guilt, as he is. The sequence ends with the masterful shot of Bates pushing Marion's car (containing her body and the cash) into a swamp. The car sinks, then pauses. Norman watches intently. The car finally disappears under the surface.

Analyzing our feelings, we realize we wanted that car to sink, as much as Norman did. Before Sam Loomis reappears, teamed up with Marion's sister Lila (Vera Miles) to search for her, "Psycho" already has a new protagonist: Norman Bates. This is one of the most audacious substitutions in Hitchcock's long practice of leading and manipulating us. The rest of the film is effective melodrama, and there are two effective shocks. The private eye Arbogast (Martin Balsam) is murdered, in a shot that uses back-projection to seem to follow him down the stairs. And the secret of Norman's mother is revealed."

By the end of the movie, the story/fate of Norman Bates interests me much more than does the story of Marion Crane, whom I don't care about much anymore. And I don't need any reminder that the money is in the trunk -- I saw Norman throw it in just the same way I saw him throw Marion in, and I am as fully aware that the money is in there as I am aware that Marion is in there.

This movie is about Norman Bates -- just look at the title -- not Marion. I am not saying she is "just another" victim of Norman's; her story is indeed important and features aspects of Hitch's style. But overall, I think we are supposed to feel that if this movie is somebody's story, it is Norman's.

(I haven't seen nearly as many Hitch movies as you have: off the top of my head, the only ones I can think of are Psycho, Rebecca, The Wrong Man, North by Northwest, and Strangers on a Train. So I am not nearly as familiar with Hitch's general, style, ideas, and themes as you are).

[dave jenkins]

I have to disagree with you here. This is not really Marion Crane's story.

You are wrong. End of discussion.

[drinkanddestroy]

You are wrong. End of discussion.

well, I guess that's that, then, The fact I believe so, as do so many people involved in the making of the movie, including the director and screenwriter and so many others, and so many critrics do, etc etc. etc. doesn't matter.

Because if someone disagrees with dj's opinion, it's not like "maybe I can understand where you are coming from? Perhaps there is something to be discussed?

Rather, it's "YOU ARE WRONG. END OF DISCUSSION."

I am not sure why the always gentlemanly dj would invite me to this thread -- while knowing my points of view on the matter -- just to tell me I was wrong and to end the discussion? If cj is the Czar of Noir, what's dj -- the Dictator of Discussion?

So I warn all future trollers on this thread: because dj says so, THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION IS OVER
As for me, I'll flee as quickly as I have come, and never again get involved with a dictator. I LIVE only in LIBERTY!
LIBERTAD!

[dave jenkins]

As ususal, you don't understand anything of what I tell you. This discussion began because you assumed Hitchcock made a mistake with the ending of Psycho. I tried to explain that the ending is not a mistake. My belief that the ending is not a mistake is founded on the understanding that Marion Crane is the central character of the film. You will not allow me to have my assumption. I cannot make the case for the ending of Psycho being the correct ending without that assumption. Therefore, the discussion is over.

So now we know.

Hitchcock, the greatest practitioner of cinematic art in the 20th Century, who, in 1959 was operating at the peak of his creative powers, blew the ending of one of his most famous and successful films.

Drink & Destroy, some kid who just saw the film for the first time last week, is so perspicacious that he spotted this flaw immediately, although it has gone unnoticed by the critical establishment for over 50 years.

Don't take this the wrong way, Drink, but: U. R. A. MORAN.

[drinkanddestroy]

Hitchcock, the greatest practitioner of cinematic art in the 20th Century, who, in 1959 was operating at the peak of his creative powers, blew the ending of one of his most famous and successful films.

Drink & Destroy, some kid who just saw the film for the first time last week, is so perspicacious that he spotted this flaw immediately, although it has gone unnoticed by the critical establishment for over 50 years.

Don't take this the wrong way, Drink, but: U. R. A. MORAN.

hmmm... I disagreed with the very final shot that we see for what, 3 seconds? I wouldn't exactly call that "blowing the ending." Anyway, my opinion of the final shot is based on a premise of the movie not being "about Marion"; this premise is indeed shared by not only "the critical establishment," (at least Roger Ebert, the most well-known critic alive), but also those who made the movie. Watch the documentary on the dvd.
And once I accept the notion that -- at least by the end of the movie -- it's about Norman and not Marion, then my question about the final shot is legitimate.
(I read somewhere that the final shot may be to indicate that there are more cars in the swamp, but I don't think that's correct, cuz in that case it should show many cars being pulled out, we only see one, presumably Marion's).


Besides, if you look at the wording of when I made the point, I asked it as a question, to bring it up for discussion, as in "was that really necessary? wouldn't it have been better the other way? etc." It's not like I said "Hitch doesn't know what the hell he is doing!" I simply asked a question cuz I think it's a legitimate point for discussion. Now I'm not allowed to question Hitch?? Really?

Anyway, if you believe that the movie really is about Marion all along, you have every right to that belief, no matter how many people disagree with it. Everyone has the right to their opinion; I don't think it's necessary to preface every statement with "IMO" cuz it's obvious that what someone says is his own opinion. This entire discussion board is for individuals to share their thoughts on the movies they see: And the fact is that everyone is entitled to share their opinion about anyone. You can choose whether or not to accept what someone says, care about it, or even read it, but everyone has the right to share their opinions and nobody is too big or great or infallible for any viewer to be allowed to share their opinion of it. Otherwise, just close this thread to future discussion. Seriously. If a dumb kid like me can't say a word about the ending to a great movie by a cinematic master, then why the fuck are you even reading this? Why the fuck are you even on these boards? CUZ THAT IS WHAT THE FUCK THESE BOARDS ARE ABOUT  


Take this any way you want to dj, but U.R. A. JACKASS  

[Groggy]

Hitchcock, the greatest practitioner of cinematic art in the 20th Century, who, in 1959 was operating at the peak of his creative powers, blew the ending of one of his most famous and successful films.

Drink & Destroy, some kid who just saw the film for the first time last week, is so perspicacious that he spotted this flaw immediately, although it has gone unnoticed by the critical establishment for over 50 years.

Don't take this the wrong way, Drink, but: U. R. A. MORAN.

Jenkins, I usually take your side when you spar with Drink. But even I have to point out this is a remarkably obnoxious comment. Proclaiming your view of a film the only valid one is at best worthy of IMDB.

[drinkanddestroy]

Jenkins, I usually take your side when you spar with Drink. But even I have to point out this is a remarkably obnoxious comment. Proclaiming your view of a film the only valid one is at best worthy of IMDB.

You know Groggy, I get a  real kick out of how for some reason, whenever you criticize a position of dj's vis-a-vis my own, you are always careful to qualify that by noting that that you are usually on dj's side