The Alfred Hitchcock Discussion Thread

[dave jenkins]

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.

That's not what I was doing. I was checking out of a discussion after D&D altered the terms of the discussion. I wanted to talk about the ending of the film, but D&D wanted to bring in irrelevant material that was going to lead things away from the topic. It just wasn't worth my time anymore.

There are in fact any number of ways of looking at the ending of Psycho. One has only to read Rothman, Wood, etc. Somehow, I don't think D&D can be bothered to do so. He's happy with Ebert and the supplements on the DVD. Fine. He can go his way, I'll go mine.

[drinkanddestroy]

That's not what I was doing. I was checking out of a discussion after D&D altered the terms of the discussion. I wanted to talk about the ending of the film, but D&D wanted to bring in irrelevant material that was going to lead things away from the topic. It just wasn't worth my time anymore.

There are in fact any number of ways of looking at the ending of Psycho. One has only to read Rothman, Wood, etc. Somehow, I don't think D&D can be bothered to do so. He's happy with Ebert and the supplements on the DVD. Fine. He can go his way, I'll go mine.

Those supplements on the dvd that you seem to not think much of are made by the people who made the movie, including the screenwriter.  Yes, I will go with their interpretation of the movie (at least as much as I will go with experts, critics, film historians etc. It's not a matter of who is correct; idk if there is an objective "correct." The point is that since my view is one that is shared by many people who are at least as qualified as those you mention who support your view, that makes my point legitimate, and allows it to take a seat at the table as part of the conversation, as opposed to being instantly rejected as hiogwash. And the reason I mentioned Ebert is: you said something about how all the critics supposedly missed the premise my point was based on, and I was just pointing out how you missed the most famous critic's opinion.

Again, to be clear: I am not trying to say "I MUST BE RIGHT; YOU MUST BE WRONG. END OF STORY." That is a dj thing. I don't do that. All I am saying is that I think my point is a legitimate part of the discussion. And if you are going to use as "proof" the fact that such-and-such experts support your theory, all I am saying is that I certainly have experts on my side. To dismiss all those on the "making of" documentary -- who actually MADE the movie -- is beyond ludicrous. It's laughable.

But all this is perhaps only 1% as laughable as your insane notion that a kid like me has no right to even question the final shot of a Hitch movie. I wasn't bashing Hitch, I was just asking about it: wouldn't it have made more sense if he had shown X instead of Y? I think that is a pretty fair and respectable way to bring up a point, with all due respect to Hitch. If I am not allowed to ask a question on him, WTF is this thread for? Just for you to kiss Hitch's ass?

And above all else, your personal attacks -- not the first or second time -- are so undignified and obnoxious. Not hurtful, I don't give a shit about that. It's just obnoxious. And quite frankly, surprising. I never expected you to resort to this, but lately you have been doing it all the time. Calling people morons, idiots, and all sorts of rude shit just because they present a viewpoint on a movie that differs greatly with yours. That is completely inappropriate. Can't you stick with the substance of the matter? Are you afraid you have little substance and have to resort to this shit? Does prefacing the latest bullshit line with the qualifier "don't take this the wrong way"  make it any less rude and inappropriate than the other ad hominem attacks you've made with the qualifier "oh, now I am back to my normal affable self?"

You are certainly not the only one around here who does that all the time, and it bothers me equally when anyone does it. Cuz it is stupid and rude and not funny and most importantly, IT DETRACTS FROM THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOARD: TO DISCUSS MOVIES. That's what I do: I discuss movies. And if I disagree with someone's opinion on movies, even very strongly, I let them know and share my opinion, cuz that is what these boards are supposed to be about: discussing movies! But it never crossed my mind to resort to personal attacks -- except in moments like now, when I feel it is necessary and appropriate to respond in the kind to an asshole who can't seem to stick to discussing movies politely.

 I am a moron cuz I dare question Hitch; I am an idiot cuz I often don't like movies that come from plays, right? Seriously.

This bothers me for 2 reasons: cuz it detracts from discussing movies -- the point of these boards; and cuz occasionally I have to sink to your level to tell you the fucking truth.

I really never figured you for such an asshole, but I guess the truth eventually comes out.

And if this kid can criticize Hitch, the master of cinema, he can also question dj, the master of the sergio leone web board: I don't care how many movies you have seen and how many posts you have made here. You would serve the board a lot better if you stuck to movies and stopped the personal shit.

Sorry (to everyone else) for the long-winded shit, but this is annoyance over all dj's rudeness coming out into one post. This is the last time I will dignify this bullshit with a response. If he wants to allow that bug to keep crawling higher up his ass, I won't try to stop

[Groggy]

There are in fact any number of ways of looking at the ending of Psycho. One has only to read Rothman, Wood, etc. Somehow, I don't think D&D can be bothered to do so. He's happy with Ebert and the supplements on the DVD. Fine. He can go his way, I'll go mine.

And therein lies the problem. If your issue was just D&D playing lawyer than fair enough. But I don't see your argument is being anything more than rote snobbery. Eg., your requiring a lifetime of study to analyze or critique a film. Am I not entitled to pass judgment on Orca before reading dozens of critical essays on it? Do I need a sheaf of reviews to prove it sucks?

Not to mention that yeah, complaining that D&D isn't "allowing" you an assertion implies you aren't open to opposite readings. All analyses of the film must generate from your premise that it's about Marion. Good way to stifle discussion Mr. Jinx.

[Groggy]

To Drink: Hitchcock is a sore point with Jenkins generally. He once said I wasn't a real Hitchcock fan or some such for proclaiming The Wrong Man his best film. Perhaps an overreaction after my first viewing of that movie (though the title is fluid: Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers on a Train, Frenzy and North by Northwest are all contenders) but surely not deserving of a long-winded diatribe about how I don't "get" Hitchcock. That and how I need to see Vertigo a thousand times and memorize the score to truly appreciate it.

Then again, I get that way over Lean and Leone so I probably oughtn't throw stones. Though this particular form of snobbery I generally try and avoid. (Adrian Turner says this about Ryan's Daughter! You're an idiot, Jenkins!) I merely suggest you be leery broaching the topic with Jinkies.

[dave jenkins]

Not to mention that yeah, complaining that D&D isn't "allowing" you an assertion implies you aren't open to opposite readings. All analyses of the film must generate from your premise that it's about Marion. Good way to stifle discussion Mr. Jinx.

The real problem was that I started a discussion with D&D and realized it was a mistake and wanted to end it. I should have found a way to do it more gracefully, but at that point I certainly did want to stifle discussion. I don't object to discussions in general (other posts of mine should bear me out), just to discussions with D&D. I've learned my lesson, though. I'll assiduously avoid exchanges with him in the future.

[Groggy]

The real problem was that I started a discussion with D&D and realized it was a mistake and wanted to end it. I should have found a way to do it more gracefully, but at that point I certainly did want to stifle discussion. I don't object to discussions in general (other posts of mine should bear me out), just to discussions with D&D. I've learned my lesson, though. I'll assiduously avoid exchanges with him in the future.

With posts like this I certainly wonder how you two could stand each other in person.

[drinkanddestroy]

so I make a post about Psycho in the RTLMYS thread; dj asks me to go over to the Hitch thread to discuss it further, and then when I dare have a different opinion than him about the movie, he says it was a mistake to have a discussion with me. That's right, it is so awful it is when you are discussing a movie with someone and he... GASP! has a different opinion than you do!  

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who enjoy discussing movies without getting all personal about it, and those with a bug up their ass.

This is the most absolutely absurd  thing I have ever seen

[Groggy]

The lesson is don't take DJ up on his offers... unless Criterion DVDs are in question.

[dave jenkins]

Yeah, baby!!! http://www.filmforum.org/movies/more/dial_m_for_murder

[drinkanddestroy]

Yeah, baby!!! http://www.filmforum.org/movies/more/dial_m_for_murder

Are you excited about seeing this on the Big Screen  -- or more accurately at Film Forum, the Medium Screen -- or about seeing it as originally intended in 3D?

The reason I ask is that I saw this movie a few weeks ago for the first time, and it is not a great movie. Rates no more than a 7.5/10. That's not a bad rating, but maybe I expect more when it comes to Hitchcock? I don't have any interest in seeing the movie again.

HOWEVER, seeing it in 3D (as intended by Hitch) is certainly an interesting proposition.....  



As for the movie, there is one scene in particular that annoyed me:

SPOILER ALERT TILL END OF POST

It's the key scene (literally!) where the detective has laid the trap for Milland, and told Kelly what he has done, and is watching from the window to see if Milland will fall into the trap. As Milland leaves the building when the key doesn't work, then he has the puzzled look on his face, and turns back into the building, the detective is narrating all this for Kelly. No need for that. We can see what is happening. Once the detective explained exactly what he was waiting to see happen, it would have been far more effective if the camera had simply followed on Milland, silently (or with music), but without the superfluous narration by the detective.

Alternatively, if the detective had not previously explained to Kelly the trap he laid for Milland, then the detective could narrate Milland's actions, while explaining the significance of those actions topKelly (ie. the trap Milland was falling into). However, once he explained the trap to Kelly, having him then narrate Milland's actions is a very poor bit of filmmaking.

[dave jenkins]

Are you excited about seeing this on the Big Screen  -- or more accurately at Film Forum, the Medium Screen -- or about seeing it as originally intended in 3D?

The reason I ask is that I saw this movie a few weeks ago for the first time, and it is not a great movie. Rates no more than a 7.5/10. That's not a bad rating, but maybe I expect more when it comes to Hitchcock? I don't have any interest in seeing the movie again.

HOWEVER, seeing it in 3D (as intended by Hitch) is certainly an interesting proposition..... 

Yeah, I've never seen it in 3-D. Film Forum has shown it before in that format, but in the old 3D system. Given that this is DCP (with improved colors, clarity, etc.) and in the new 3D process, I very much want to see it. It will be coming out on disc for home viewing next month, but I don't want to convert my system to 3-D just for one title. I want to go to the theater and see it in 3-D, then go home and enjoy it on Blu in 2D.

I agree that this isn't first-tier Hitchcock, but it certainly has its pleasures, mostly Anthony Dawson and Ray Milland being evil. And Grace Kelly is in Technicolor, never a bad thing.

You're right about the superfluous narration: it's probably a hold-over from the play (where what Milland's character is doing is off stage and HAS TO BE narrated). You'd athought, though, that AH, master of silent story-telling, would have handled that correctly, but maybe he was in a hurry and didn't have time to rethink the scene. Or maybe he was genuinely worried that the audience wouldn't get it.

[drinkanddestroy]

And Grace Kelly is in Technicolor, never a bad thing.

You're right about the superfluous narration: it's probably a hold-over from the play (where what Milland's character is doing is off stage and HAS TO BE narrated). You'd athought, though, that AH, master of silent story-telling, would have handled that correctly, but maybe he was in a hurry and didn't have time to rethink the scene. Or maybe he was genuinely worried that the audience wouldn't get it.

 I don't think there is a single audience member who wouldn't "get it" when they see Milland doing the exact things that the detective said he would do, about 10 seconds ago.

But anyway, you're right about seeing Grace Kelly in technicolor......... and 3D

If I'm exceedingly bored, I might check it out, but probably not. But I really do wanna see Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion, playing during approximately the same week

[dave jenkins]

In yesterday's column, DVD Savant has some interesting things to say regarding the new 3D Dial "M" DCP:

It's shaping up as a 3D week here at DVD Savant. On Monday I was fortunate to attend a Warner Home Video screening at Grauman's Chinese of Alfred Hitchcock's Dial "M" for Murder. It's being released on 3D Blu-ray on October 9 but I haven't heard of any theatrical screenings so this was a big opportunity. George Feltenstein gave an enthusiastic, informative introduction, explaining that a similar 3D festival in New York in the early 1980s led to a brief 3D revival, the one that included Jaws 3D. Back in 1979 I had been fortunate to see a two-projector Polaroid screening at the Tiffany Theater on the Sunset Strip, which was my best experience ever with old-style 3D.
 
They projected the restored digital Dial "M" in the modern Real D format, which ironed out all the potential flaws. The alignment and convergence of the images is now perfect. The color restoration is quite good as well -- only opticals looked a bit less sharp. Hitchcock's conservative use of the 3D process is still marvelous, with foreground objects (particularly a table lamp) lending depth to the '3D stage' without asking us to strain our eyes. Even more than usual, Hitchcock directs our attention to exactly the right part of the frame, and focuses and converges the effect for that plane. He really can't afford distractions, for the screenplay is almost two solid hours of drawing room mystery exposition. Miraculously, the unobtrusive 3D provides a sort of hyper-spatial context, not a distraction. Our concentration is not broken. Other 3D pictures, even the new ones, are constantly "billboarding" the depth effect. After the main titles, Hitchcock does this maybe only four times.
 
This was also the first time I've seen Dial "M" displayed at its proper aspect ratio, 1:85. It mattes off very cleanly. I fully understand why earlier 3D film festivals didn't show it this way -- aligning a two-projector system involved hours of work, so they just left the screen unmatted and showed everything full frame.
 
It may have been wishful thinking, but George Feltenstein said he'd like to see all of Warners' 3D titles converted this way. The plan is to prep House of Wax for Home Video 3D in 2013.

[drinkanddestroy]

Thanks for the post, dj. I don't plan on going, but if I hear that it is absolutely awesome and a few scheduling matters fall into place, then there is a chance that i may.

I've still never seen a movie in 3D. I remember watching the bonus features on the Dial M for Murder dvd where they discussed how the 3D worked when the movie was originally released, something like this: the 3D glasses gave you a big headache, and the screen was basically split into two halves, and if you removed the 3D glasses, the screen would look fuzzy in middle where the left half met the right half. I wonder if this restoration will have the same issues.

And if you do go, can you please report back as to whether a) the glasses give you a headache; and b) if you remove your glasses does it look like a normal non-3D movie, or does the screen look screwed up in middle? Cuz I didn't love this movie on first viewing, and there is absolutely no reason for me to see this movie (ever again), unless the 3D is just irresistibly amazingly awesome, and the two problems I mentioned above no longer exist.

Thanks 

[drinkanddestroy]

From the little I've read here and there, it seems to me that RE: the issue of "What is Hitch's Greatest Movie?" the discussion usually centers around (one of) these 4: North by Northwest, Psycho, Rear Window, Vertigo. Is that correct?