Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Aug 17, 2006 18:28:18 GMT
I'm having trouble considering your argument because I basically fundamentally disagree with putting Hitchcock, Kubrick, and Resnais in the same category. I don't feel as if their approaches to filmmaking can be compared on that level.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 17, 2006 18:36:39 GMT
In the sense that none are especially interested in character...?
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Aug 17, 2006 18:51:05 GMT
In the sense that Hitchcock appeals to the most basic of human emotions and his films consist of incredibly simple ideas. Suspense and romance, and that's about it.
Take Kubrick for example. He explores ideas about government control, criminal tendencies in humans, the maturation and evolving of the human species, extra-terrestrial existence, sexual confusion, reincarnation, war, etc.
Resnais, in the one film that I've seen from him, explores memory, subconcious thought, sexual fantasy, feelings of loss and regret.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2006 19:02:47 GMT
In the sense that Hitchcock appeals to the most basic of human emotions and his films consist of incredibly simple ideas. Suspense and romance, and that's about it. Take Kubrick for example. He explores ideas about government control, criminal tendencies in humans, the maturation and evolving of the human species, extra-terrestrial existence, sexual confusion, reincarnation, war, etc. I'm with you 100% on this one, Mista. Good points.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 17, 2006 19:10:31 GMT
Dig deep enough and you'll find questions of masculinity in most Hitchcock films. In fact, dig deep enough and you can pretty much defend any film for having depth. But what is depth? Who is to say "suspense and romance" are of less worth or significance than "feelings of loss and regret"? How do you measure what is 'deep' and what isn't?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2006 19:20:45 GMT
It's all lucid, Capo. It depends on the viewer.
Everything in cinema is lucid.
|
|
jake
Writer's block
Posts: 215
|
Post by jake on Aug 17, 2006 23:38:21 GMT
Resnais, in the one film that I've seen from him, explores memory, subconcious thought, sexual fantasy, feelings of loss and regret. Isn't that exactly what Hitchcock explores in Vertigo? Vertigo is about as personal as a film can get.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Aug 18, 2006 2:14:12 GMT
Like I said earlier, Vertigo somewhat seemed to venture into something deeper but it ultimately came off as ineffective to me.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Aug 18, 2006 2:57:58 GMT
Resnais, in the one film that I've seen from him, explores memory, subconcious thought, sexual fantasy, feelings of loss and regret. You might like Rebecca then. It's been a while since I've seen it, but it has those themes.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Aug 18, 2006 4:38:00 GMT
Yeah I mean don't get me wrong, I like Hitchcock and I am eager to see more of his work. Thanks for the recommendation.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 18, 2006 19:35:41 GMT
I've been misunderstood, I think; Mista, you thought I was putting Hitchcock in the same ranks as Kubrick and Resnais on a thematic level. I wasn't. I'm not saying they're entirely different either, but my point was that I find in Hitchcock's work serious and significant exploration of cinematic form, rather than simply telling a story.
It's often disguised in enjoyable ('simple', you called it) thrillers which are either an innocent in over his head (North by Northwest), or the bourgeoisie being undone by its own incompetence (The Birds).
In the thematic sense, what is depth, then? Who is to say "suspense and romance" are of less worth or significance than "feelings of loss and regret"? How do you measure what is 'deep' and what isn't?
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Aug 18, 2006 22:44:07 GMT
Perhaps we should make an attempt to confine this discussion to one thread. I'm pretty sure we're sprawled across three at this point, basically arguing the same thing.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 19, 2006 14:29:17 GMT
I deliberately intended to have it, at least initially, spawn across multiple threads, in order to bring up some obvious inconsistencies. I want to understand where you're coming from, is all.
But okay, let's keep it to one thread, then:
In the thematic sense, what is depth? Why are "suspense and romance" of less worth or significance than "loss and regret"? How do you measure what is 'deep' and what isn't? What is serious and what is not serious? How should Cinema be restricted to a "serious art form"? Why is it important (if it is important at all) to approach Cinema with a reductively high-brow pretence that it must be serious in order to be noteworthy?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Oct 26, 2006 0:41:47 GMT
I am devastated by your assessment of Torn Curtain, Wet Dog. I feel like crying.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 26, 2006 1:02:48 GMT
I'm a bit befuddled by yours. I thought the only remotely notable scene was the very, very difficult murder in the cottage (and hardly a top drawer Hitchcock set-piece at that). Otherwise, a mediocre, plodding espionage story, with none of the energy, wit or invention that characterize his better films.
Better than Topaz, though. That film's as flat as a pancake. Hopefully it's his worst American film.
I've still got to see Family Plot and rewatch Frenzy, but I feel fairly comfortable saying Psycho was Hitchcock's last great film.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Oct 26, 2006 1:43:14 GMT
My proview reads:
Generally overlooked spy hokum, essential viewing due to the dazzling use of colour and the succession of set-pieces throughout: the elongated struggle between Newman and a German spy in a farm barn, culminating in an overhead shot of the latter dying with his head in an oven; the introduction of Newman's counterpart and quarry, with the editing making full use of the frame - Newman is shot in close-up, while the other is seen only in the distance, in a rather empty-looking lecture theatre; an unconventionally tense bus ride from Liepzig to Berlin; and a frantic finish in a crowded theatre hall, the exit from which echoes Cary Grant's escape from the auction in North by Northwest.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jan 23, 2007 5:02:08 GMT
Ranked in order of my preference ask if you want insight on any
Vertigo Shadow of a Doubt Rear Window North by Northwest Psycho Rebecca Strangers on a Train Notorious Spellbound Rope Lady Vanishes, The Sabetour Frenzy Torn Curtain Man Who Knew Too Much, The (56) Blackmail Birds, The 39 Steps, The Trouble with Harry, The Family Plot Young and Innocent Suspicion To Catch a Theif Man Who Knew Too Much, The (34) Marnie Topaz Secret Agent Murder! Number 17 Sabotage Jamiaca Inn
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 2, 2007 23:25:02 GMT
Hitchcock's best two cameos both involve children: in Torn Curtain, in Blackmail.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 9, 2007 23:21:34 GMT
Better than Topaz, though. That film's as flat as a pancake. Hopefully it's his worst American film. I quite liked it.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 21, 2007 1:35:42 GMT
I've decided that Hitchcock's probably in my top three to five directors.
The other four would be Lynch, Godard, Herzog and Bergman.
|
|