Topic: Woo-hoo!!!!

[Antares]

I stand corrected...

http://www.criterion.com/boxsets/743-eclipse-series-23-the-first-films-of-akira-kurosawa

Ohhhhhh, dear. 

Oh Christ!

http://www.criterion.com/boxsets/744-three-silent-classics-by-josef-von-sternberg

 

[Antares]

Just finished watching Buñuel's Viridiana. I'm kind of at a loss for words as I have read that this was his best film. 

I can understand why it would have been controversial during its time, but what makes it so good?

It was my first film by him, and now I'm a little leery of venturing any further into his canon.

[northbloke]

Is he the surrealist? I've never thought film was a good medium for surrealism. I think I've seen a few of his films in my student days but was never enamoured by them. 

[Antares]

Yes he is, but this film was definitely not one of his surreal films.

[Antares]

Time to play catch up...

Finally got to see Hitchcock's Rope along with The Sorrow and the Pity by Ophuls.

While I liked parts of Rope, the film left me a little hungry, like Chinese food does. I think the gimmick got in the way of the storyline at times.
But I'm going to be honest, and I await the chastising from Jon, aside from a few of his films, Hitchcock is really not my cup of tea. I understand the technical side of his genius, I just feel that he relied on gimmickry a little too much from time to time. 

I was amazed at the Ophuls film, and how some of the collaborationists could justify their positions. 


Hey Jon!... Jackie Brown tomorrow

[Najemikon]

No chastising necessary! You do however, sound like someone who hasn't been reading the Hitchcock marathon. Surely not? 

My Rope review from the thread is "Hitchcock-centric" and assumes to some degree that you already see past his gimmicky nature, because you're right, it is a film slightly hamstrung by the fact it is experimental. In fact, I found myself stressing the other parts of the film because I felt many people assumed it to be just so and actually, when I watched it again, I found it much better than I remembered.

"Relied on" though? Oooh, that's a provocative word! I don't think he ever relied on anything. Hitch famously was the first director to do storyboarding and I've heard several times people comment that he spent so much time making a film in his head that when he got to set, he was easily bored by the time-consuming act of actually filming it. Therefore, some of his films can feel detached. When the gimmick married with the story and the director's enthusiasm though, cinema has rarely been better.

Out of his lesser known films, I'd recommend:

The 39 Steps (OK, not lesser known and I'm guessing you must have seen this anyway?)
Rebecca (the most un-Hitchcock of his films!)
I Confess (follows Welles with a neat Kane-esque narrative twist)
The Wrong Man (very powerful story and the Cinema Verite method is very different for him)
The Trouble With Harry (very odd, almost Ealing like, but so quirky, right out the other side of your general criticism)
Frenzy (I know you like British films. Not sure if this would be your thing, but very good and great fun).

[Antares]

There were actually a few other things that bothered me about it, aside from the continuous shot gimmick.

First, I didn't think that he should have shown the actual murder taking place. It would have been more suspenseful, given the nature of the dialog that follows, to wonder if they had actually committed the crime.

Second, why the use of gloves? You can't lift fingerprints off a piece of rope.

Third, I just didn't buy Jimmy Stewart in the role of Rupert. I think it would have made the character more believable if he would have been played by either Robert Donat or Michael Redgrave.

Fourth, the dinner party ends in less than 20 minutes because Mrs. Kentley (?) calls and is flustered over David's whereabouts. I mean, it is New York City and if someone is just slightly late, it can be explained rather easily due to traffic or personal diversion. This to me, made the plot somewhat contrived at this point.

Fifth, when Brandon and Philip surmise that Rupert is on to them, Brandon grabs his revolver. Now, I could see Philip doing this because he's drunk and losing his composure, but Brandon? He's been cool and collected, and for the most part cocky all through the dinner.

Sixth, why not just strangle Rupert also? Again, this is New York City, and as we will learn, a few gunshots bring the police rather quickly.

I'm not saying I didn't like the film, but I've heard and read comments that this is one of Hitchcock's best. I just don't see it.

[Najemikon]

There were actually a few other things that bothered me about it, aside from the continuous shot gimmick.

First, I didn't think that he should have shown the actual murder taking place. It would have been more suspenseful, given the nature of the dialog that follows, to wonder if they had actually committed the crime.

Absolutely no way whatsoever! Hitchcock was the Master of Suspense for good reason. He rarely, if ever, did mysteries. His stories increase the tension by the viewer acutely understanding the situation and each characters part in it. You can argue if it was successful, but the point of Rope is to explore the intellectuals arrogance that they could perform the perfect crime. The viewers emotions are being manipulated as to who is really to blame and regardless of your sympathies, the real tension is, as he said himself, waiting for the bomb to explode, not the bomb actually exploding. In this case, the "bomb" is being used as a table...

Second, why the use of gloves? You can't lift fingerprints off a piece of rope.

Picky, picky, picky! Simple really. If it were me, I'd wear the gloves because fingerprints could be picked up elsewhere and prove circumstantial, plus, cuts down on chaffing. One can do without friction burns from said rope!

Third, I just didn't buy Jimmy Stewart in the role of Rupert. I think it would have made the character more believable if he would have been played by either Robert Donat or Michael Redgrave.

You might be right and it's a role that could have been more interesting, but I was convinced enough by his performance. It's more subtle than I remember, as he shifts from macabre advocate, fantasising and theorising, to finding the line that should not be crossed. No complaints if either of your alternatives had been involved though. Funny, we might have been arguing how good Stewart might have been.

Fourth, the dinner party ends in less than 20 minutes because Mrs. Kentley (?) calls and is flustered over David's whereabouts. I mean, it is New York City and if someone is just slightly late, it can be explained rather easily due to traffic or personal diversion. This to me, made the plot somewhat contrived at this point.

Certainly it is contrived. This is possibly for me the films only real weakness as the pace of a plot limited to a single take dictated such a development. For me, it felt more like a play than a film at this particular moment.

Fifth, when Brandon and Philip surmise that Rupert is on to them, Brandon grabs his revolver. Now, I could see Philip doing this because he's drunk and losing his composure, but Brandon? He's been cool and collected, and for the most part cocky all through the dinner.

Struggling to remember exactly, but Brandon is the real murderer in mind at least and the most capable. Philip is falling apart and importantly, reverting to type, which is someone usually incapable of such violence. It's actually very clever. They conspire to murder for the thrill, subscribing to the idea it is their right as intellectuals to dictate a form of natural selection, but the harsh reality separates them.

Sixth, why not just strangle Rupert also? Again, this is New York City, and as we will learn, a few gunshots bring the police rather quickly.

Now that's just being picky again! Brandon sees Rupert as an equal, possibly even a mentor and there is no way he could kill him in cold blood.

I'm not saying I didn't like the film, but I've heard and read comments that this is one of Hitchcock's best. I just don't see it.

That's interesting, because most of the Hitchcock retrospectives I've read consider Rope a largely successful experiment, but one that while watchable, is also a bit staid, constrained by its own conceit. Certainly not really considered top drawer Hitch. It is an important film though because it shows the level of confidence and reputation he was working with at the time after all the frustrations of Selznick having control.

It's an easy film to pick out for more naive reviewers, I think. He did it one take, so he must be a genius, eh? Ironically, I don't think even the director would have been bothered either way. Normally when we say "experimental", we mean, the director is trying to edgy and has his fingers crossed we still love him. Hitchcock actually was doing an experiment and his attachment ended as soon as he saw it worked.

He followed it with Stage Fright, which certainly has its moments, just as experimental considering it has a bluff in it, which I was only saying earlier, he rarely did. Although strange, I felt it was more fun for him to make (actually, I should have recommended it to you before because Alistair Sim, great British comic actor, is brilliant in it!). After that, he did Strangers on a Train, which is a more sophisticated view of a very similar dynamic to Rope.

As such, Rope was an interesting stepping stone, but not much more, with themes Hitchcock had yet to perfect.

[Antares]

I had Stage Fright in my hand a couple of weeks ago. I should have grabbed it.

[Najemikon]

Meant to also recommend Lifeboat. Another rather experimental film, but another I thought worked better than Rope. I suppose it's not quite as complicated (survivors from a torpedoed ship in WWII in one lifeboat for the entirety of the film; also includes a rescued German, who may or may not be a conniving sod). It's very good.

[Achim]

Sixth, why not just strangle Rupert also? Again, this is New York City, and as we will learn, a few gunshots bring the police rather quickly.

Strangling Rupert would have been against their point, too! They wanted to "prove" (to themselves, I guess) that you could murder someone (one person) and get away with it. Murdering a second person to cover their tracks was against that point they were trying to to make.

[Antares]

Sixth, why not just strangle Rupert also? Again, this is New York City, and as we will learn, a few gunshots bring the police rather quickly.

Strangling Rupert would have been against their point, too! They wanted to "prove" (to themselves, I guess) that you could murder someone (one person) and get away with it. Murdering a second person to cover their tracks was against that point they were trying to to make.

So they're going to shoot him instead? If they're so gung ho at committing the perfect crime, then killing Rupert is just an extension of their theory. If they kill him, killing David is still the perfect crime, because they still have not been caught. Rupert is just an additional key to their scheme. The whole point of committing the perfect murder is not getting caught. With Rupert out of the way, they've still accomplished their intentional plan.

[Najemikon]

You're looking at it close. Shooting him would have been out of anger, and maybe arrogance. Brandon had become brazen at his success so far.

[Antares]

You're looking at it close. Shooting him would have been out of anger, and maybe arrogance. Brandon had become brazen at his success so far.

But it makes no sense, especially from Brandon's point of view. As I mentioned earlier, it's fitting to Philips emotional state, but not Brandons.

[Najemikon]

It makes perfect sense to me... Philip isn't capable of cold-blooded murder, even though he did it! Sub-consciously, he will want to be found out, because he can't handle the guilt. No way would he do another one. Brandon on the other hand has proven himself by his own warped standards and could handle doing Rupert in as well.