|
Post by grubl on Jun 8, 2010 23:18:10 GMT -5
I agree with Eddie's first paragraph, rear projection was what Hitchcock had been doing his entire career. He was used to it and to close to it to see that it was no longer visually viable. He loved working on a set, he hated the lack of control he felt when shooting on location.
Most overrated Hitchcock film: SHADOW OF A DOUBT. Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jun 9, 2010 0:46:44 GMT -5
Know what makes SHADOW OF A DOUBT interesting for me? The relationship between Charles Oakley (Joseph Cotton) and his niece Charlie (Theresa Wright)
They have a couple of private conversations in the movie before Charlie begins to suspect her uncle is murderer that made me wonder if Oakley had seduced his niece on previous visits. It would certainly explain her extreme worship of her uncle. Not that a niece can't love her uncle a lot. But Charlie REALLY, REALLY loves her uncle. A LOT.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 9, 2010 19:02:53 GMT -5
Most overrated Hitchcock film: SHADOW OF A DOUBT. Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! My most overrated Hitchcock film is THE BIRDS, which I think is too long, fakey and kind of dumb. Plus everything, everyone says about Tippi is true. Plus -- while we're being heretical -- the underlying plot for VERTIGO is ridiculous, the revelation that the secret agent in NORTH BY NORTHWEST is a cut-out comes far too early in the film, and THE 39 STEPS (one my all-time favorite films) contains perhaps the most jaw-dropping plot-hole in any great film ever.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 9, 2010 19:57:24 GMT -5
So much of what makes Vertigo work is the psychology of Jimmy Stewart's obsession, and the fetishization of Kim Novak, that the plot not making sense (and the villain getting away with his scheme, for that matter) just doesn't matter. Most people who discuss Vertigo never mention Tom Helmore not being punished for his crimes, because it's another MacGuffin, incidental to the story.
Again, this goes back to my thoughts that Hitchcock never intended his films to be "realistic" but highly stylized movies that use the nature of the medium to tell his types of stories. I mean, someone trying to kill Cary Grant with a crop duster is pretty ridiculous, too, but depicted onscreen it's dynamite.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 9, 2010 20:01:38 GMT -5
Know what makes SHADOW OF A DOUBT interesting for me? The relationship between Charles Oakley (Joseph Cotton) and his niece Charlie (Theresa Wright) They have a couple of private conversations in the movie before Charlie begins to suspect her uncle is murderer that made me wonder if Oakley had seduced his niece on previous visits. It would certainly explain her extreme worship of her uncle. Not that a niece can't love her uncle a lot. But Charlie REALLY, REALLY loves her uncle. A LOT. I never saw the incest angle, but I think it's made clear that the two characters are mirror images in some respects, down to the detail that they have the same name (Charlie). Charlie looks up to her uncle as an idealized adult that she aspires to be, and he sees something of value in her. But she grows up by discovering his dark side (ie., that people aren't always what they seem to be on the surface, especially if they are idealized).
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 9, 2010 21:22:21 GMT -5
never mention Tom Helmore not being punished for his crimes, because it's another MacGuffin, incidental to the story. I guess we don't know that he gets away, as such -- Scotty could drop a dime on him after the nunnery. I think VERTIGO is a virtuoso turn by Hitchcock with a magnificent performance at its center. I find it hypnotic, but narratively a little gamey. A great film, that's also kind of overrated. (If that's possible.) The very deliberate stroke of revealing right away that brunette Kim Novak is, in fact, blonde Kim Novak (using a voice-over device that doesn't appear at any other point in the film) is a gamble that's a distraction for me. Plus, the climax is so intense and dramatic, that when I re-watch it, I get a very antsy in anticipation. All of which is academic, as the whole picture was ruined for me by the fact that I'd seen both of DePalma's entertaining rip-offs OBSESSION and BODY DOUBLE first, so I never really had a fresh experience of seeing it without knowing the outcome. (In some ways the plot of BD works the basic story a little better.)
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jun 9, 2010 21:51:16 GMT -5
Know what makes SHADOW OF A DOUBT interesting for me? The relationship between Charles Oakley (Joseph Cotton) and his niece Charlie (Theresa Wright) They have a couple of private conversations in the movie before Charlie begins to suspect her uncle is murderer that made me wonder if Oakley had seduced his niece on previous visits. It would certainly explain her extreme worship of her uncle. Not that a niece can't love her uncle a lot. But Charlie REALLY, REALLY loves her uncle. A LOT. I never saw the incest angle, but I think it's made clear that the two characters are mirror images in some respects, down to the detail that they have the same name (Charlie). Charlie looks up to her uncle as an idealized adult that she aspires to be, and he sees something of value in her. But she grows up by discovering his dark side (ie., that people aren't always what they seem to be on the surface, especially if they are idealized). Your analysis sounds a helluva lot better than mine. But then again, I have a dirty mind anyway ;D
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 12, 2010 11:20:59 GMT -5
Okay, so I watched FAMILY PLOT again. A few points --
1) According to the AD interviewed in the accompanying doc, they used the rear projection on the car scenes because Hitch didn't want to lose control of the actors and action. (Although his advanced age may also have played a part in this, as he didn't want to ride around in the lead car with the camera.) As most of the film is essentially realistic, I doubt he wanted to inject, in certain scenes only, some sense of artificiality. I also doubt they could have anticipated how badly these scenes would look as the prints of the film aged. Other films from this era employ the same technique, but for whatever reason, it looks terrible here.
2) I have a lot of affection for this movie, as I sat through it over and over as a kid when it came out, so I may be biased. I think it holds up well. It is a little too long -- but not boring. It's a pretty sophisticated script with its contrasting of the two couples, as I mentioned before. It's also low-key, and at times, you can forget you're watching a film from the master. Rather it feels like a good TV movie from the period. (And as BITD-ers know, there were lots of these.) Also, the script does cheat a bit by having some characters in the opening scenes give tons of information to Bruce Dern he might otherwise have to unearth with some actual effort.
3) Really good cast in this. One of the things you learn from the docs is that Hitch was so pissed by how much he had to pay Paul Newman and Julie Andrews for TORN CURTAIN, that he never used stars again after that. He would have used Al Pacino for the Dern role here, but wouldn't pay his post-GODFATHER asking price. William Devane as the sophisticated crook who occasionally lets us see his menacing side is very effective. And seriously, what was the deal with Barbara Harris? Did she retire or something? She is sensational and also adorable. (Although her freaking out in the big runaway car scene, is too much.) She did a few of these quirky roles, and was a big deal on Broadway, and just seems to have vanished. Last I remember seeing her was in PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED, and I felt the bulk of her scenes were cut.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jun 12, 2010 12:22:29 GMT -5
The only thing I can ever remember seeing Barbara Harris in is NASHVILLE. She's indeed adorable and downright sexy in both NASHVILLE and FAMILY PLOT and yeah, her freaking out in the runaway car is more Loony Tunes than Hitchcock.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 12, 2010 23:42:53 GMT -5
She was also Jodie Foster's mother in FREAKY FRIDAY, I think that she was, anyway. NASHVILLE is a great, great film. One of a handful of times that Altman made it all the way through without shitting over his own party. (The others being THE PLAYER, SHORT CUTS, GODSFORD PARK, McCABE AND MRS. MILLER...I'd love to add M*A*S*H*, but, as great as the first half is, it gets boring as fuck towards the end).
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jun 13, 2010 0:26:47 GMT -5
grubl,
Gotta agree with you about THE PLAYER. It's gotten this overwhelming reputation as an Altman masterpiece but I just find it plodding and dull. The only reason to watch it is the incredible list of actors that appear in it.
McCABE AND MRS. MILLER is one of the greatest westerns ever made but I do have to say that its not for everybody's taste. I think it's probably due to Warren Beatty and Robert Altman having such different approaches to the material and disagreements on how to shoot the movie. Reportedly there were many times during the filming of the movie when Altman, fed up with Beatty's repeated requests to do take after take after take of scenes Altman thought were fine simply walked off the set, left Beatty with the crew and actors and said he could shoot the scenes anyway he wanted.
I've never seen SHORT CUTS or GOSFORD PARK even though IFC runs them regularly. I'll have to DVR them the next time they air.
Can't agree with you about M*A*S*H but most would. Over the years I have learned that when I recommend the movie M*A*S*H* to people who only have watched and know the TV show I have to explain the differences between the two. I have had friends complain to me that I should have told them the movie was so different from the TV. Their main complaint is that the movie "isn't funny like the TV show" which is valid.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 13, 2010 1:16:50 GMT -5
Maybe I was unclear, but I actually liked THE PLAYER. I think that MASH is great, but that football game is interminable and stops the picture dead.
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Jun 13, 2010 7:00:04 GMT -5
Maybe I was unclear, but I actually liked THE PLAYER. I think that MASH is great, but that football game is interminable and stops the picture dead. I once picked up The Player in the bargain bin at the now-defunct Hollywood Video around the corner from me based on the praise it received in the past. Once I struggled through it, however, I found it very self-aware, highly indulgent and, most importantly, extremely smug in the way it thought it was making a profound statement we haven't heard yet....when in fact, it's a statement we've heard many times before.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 13, 2010 7:36:08 GMT -5
So this thread has free-associated from THE EXPENDABLES to Ed Lauter to Hitchcock and now is on Altman, all the while with the tag Arnold, et al under an overall thread that namechecks Christina Ricci's nipples? Nice...
Altman's output was a very mixed bag where the genius sits aside some pretty unwatchable stuff (ala PRET A PORTER.).
No one has mentioned THE LONG GOODBYE though, which -- tied with OUT OF THE PAST -- is my favorite film of all time.
The football game in M*A*S*H may go on too long, but there's a hilarious insert where they spike a guy with a hypodermic needle, but swab the skin with alcohol first.
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Jun 13, 2010 13:41:39 GMT -5
So this thread has free-associated from THE EXPENDABLES to Ed Lauter to Hitchcock and now is on Altman, all the while with the tag Arnold, et al under an overall thread that namechecks Christina Ricci's nipples? Nice... If you ever see After.Life, you'll realize why I had to namecheck Christina Ricci's nipples. If you really want to see unwatchable Altman, try to sit through Quintet, a weird-ass metaphysical sci-fi in which a bunch of people play a game that just. makes. no. sense. Still, give Altman this--he got to do what he wanted, when he wanted...and while there was as many hits (some would say less hits) as there were misses, you gotta respect him for not giving in and going with the crowd.
|
|