Gave them a second chance and they improved.

Gave them a second chance and they improved. Apr 9, 2017 5:56:12 GMT Doghouse6 and Salzmank like this

Quote

Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 9, 2017 5:56:12 GMT

Apr 8, 2017 16:55:01 GMT Doghouse6 said:

Apr 7, 2017 4:07:12 GMT joekiddlouischama said:

Thanks for your reply. What I was unsure of was whether it was the specific surprise element you found to be the most significant departure from Hitchcock's more typical construction, or the broader one of the film being essentially a whodunit, something the director made a point of saying he avoided. But he wasn't above inserting the occasional surprise mid-plot (Frenzy, Vertigo, Foreign Correspondent, Rebecca, for instance) or as a climactic revelation (Psycho, Stage Fright, Spellbound, among others).

Hitchcock certainly inserts surprise in the middle of Vertigo, but he still lets the audience in on the secret long before Jimmy Stewart's protagonist learns of it, thus rekindling the suspense. He really balances surprise and suspense beautifully—and daringly—in that film. (Some viewers, however, find Scotty Ferguson's naivete and failure of recognition implausible. For me, it works because Hitchcock cast the right actor for the role.)

Psycho offers a climactic revelation, but in terms of the film's visceral experience, one could argue that it is beside the point. I suppose that a full-fledged "surprise" would have been to not reveal (or strongly suggest) that Norman Bates was his "mother" until the very end.