Topic: Alfred Hitchcock Marathon

[Tom]

ask yourself why else did he choose to do that.

You dismissed my reasoning, because you think Hitchcock is above it. I think he did it in this cause because he thought it would be funny, and for me it just doesn't fit into this kind of movie.

[Najemikon]

ask yourself why else did he choose to do that.

You dismissed my reasoning, because you think Hitchcock is above it. I think he did it in this cause because he thought it would be funny, and for me it just doesn't fit into this kind of movie.

I didn't dismiss your reasoning, because your first one was that he'd lost his grip, so I was responding to that, because he definitely didn't in this film. I do agree he did do it because it was funny, but the whole film has a sense of fun and parody. It isn't a straight forward thriller. Hitchcock even called it himself "cinema of the absurd" in which logic comes second. Even the title is nonsense. So to pick out this moment as an indicator that Hitchcock didn't know what he was doing is misleading.

Hitchcock wasn't above making mistakes, far from it, but it makes me sad that modern thinking seems to be an instant reaction of "I didn't like that so it must be wrong and I shall declare it as such!" without considering that the artist didn't do it on impulse but planned it within the big picture. I know you weren't necessarily doing that, but that's what discussion is for, otherwise why post the review at all?

[Tom]

This moment still took me out of the movie
Such car crash scenes are a pet peeve of mine, I admit. And in Hitchcock's days it was probably fairly "new". But I am just tired of these kind of scenes in general. And truthfully, I didn't expect it in a Hitchcock movie.

[Najemikon]

I think he's one of those directors that did do a lot of serious stuff and his reputation proceeds him for modern audiences, so they think he's doing proper films, which of course he is, but it doesn't account for the fact that he was more an entertainer and crowd pleaser who never admitted to taking it seriously himself.

North By Northwest in many ways paved the way for Bond, yet the 007 movies tend to treat their subject very seriously, so bear that in mind if you get to Topaz. It isn't a great film, but it does seem to me like he was making fun of the Bond character. I can't remember there being a car crash scene though, so you're ok there! 

[Najemikon]

Although what appears to be "creative choices" often is just done out of a whim without thinking. Heck, many director's are surprised about what the critics are reign into their films

I'll readily admit, I am usually also more of the straightforward watcher. Actually learning new ways on this forum, fom time to time...

The weird thing is, Hitchcock was so structured it was rare anything was done on a whim, yet at the same time, he didn't care what people read into them! Actually, I think he did care, but he kept up the pretence.

[Achim]

I definetely will agree that North By Northwest is not a straight forward thriller.

I will also point out that in the many viewings I had of this film I never really noticed this accident thing ore if I did forgot about it right away.

[Dragonfire]

North by Northwest isn't a straight thriller.  Yes there are a lot of thriller elements in the movie, tense scenes, and suspense, but that isn't all.  There is humor running throughout the movie, so having a car crash that is funny isn't that out of place.  I though it fit with the situation and the rather odd things that were happening to Grant's character then.  At that point in the movie, he still doesn't know what is going on.

[Jimmy]

Probably the best thread to post it...

Hitchcock Classics Get ‘Blu’ Treatment



But save your money as it will cost 199$

I know the set doesn't look to good visually talking, the region 2 one sure look less childish

[Dragonfire]

Yikes.

[Jimmy]

But you can restart a new marathon in high definition

[Najemikon]

So I don't take much notice of greatest lists of this and that because, how do you put works of art in order? Not possible. That Sight And Sound's regular decade undertaking to compile a top 50 always demands respect for the way it's compiled. Since the first poll 50 years ago, Citizen Kane has topped the list.

This time however, the honour has gone to Vertigo! I adore both Kane and Vertigo, but it's nice to see this astonishing film be recognised like by such a well respected poll too. It's an unusual film, deep and brilliant, that reveals just a little more each time I see it.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

Also, I found this interesting. When the film has reviewed on here before, others can find fault with the sequence where Stewart is following Novak in his car. What I see as sublime is frequently dismissed as slow and pointless! I've tried to defend it, but Scorcese's description gets to the point better.

[Antares]

So what was his point?  

All I heard was a rambling bit of nothing. Nice to see him, once again, referencing one of his films when he should just stay focused on the topic at hand. It's almost as if he's finally realizing his irrelevancy over the last 20 years, and he needs to remind us that he was once an auteur.  

Oh... and by the way, Rear Window should be Hitchcock's highest rated film, not Vertigo.

[Najemikon]

I'd probably agree with you. Rear Window or Psycho are the definitive Hitchcock films for me; but Vertigo transcends those to be Hitchcockian and something deeper rooted too, so it can be appreciated as a piece of art as much as anything else. I find something new each time I see it.

I think you're being very unfair on Marty! He's far from irrelevant. It's like you're punishing him for not producing works of genius on demand. But it's interesting that what you heard as rambling, I heard as a perfect summation of a sequence we argued about before, given that the reactions were the same to that sequence; you saw that as rambling, even going so far to question the editing, while I saw it as sublime and haunting.

[Antares]

I think you're being very unfair on Marty! He's far from irrelevant. It's like you're punishing him for not producing works of genius on demand.

But for me, he's become the Elvis Costello of film. His best work was decades ago, but he keeps popping up in everything, spouting "his view" on the subject, like his viewpoint is needed to derive credibility.

[Achim]

On the one hand, just because he doesn't make those "relevant films" doesn't mean he has good understanding of film and how it works.

On the other hand, I also found that his argument in this video was not very coherent. I may have missed something, but I thought he described the scene more than explaining it