|
Post by taranofprydain on Apr 7, 2017 23:37:47 GMT
taranofprydain Interesting that you did not take right away to Black Cauldron seeing your name and avatar. There was an old Dick Cavett show on the other day (or maybe it was Johnny Carson ) anyway... guest was Voice Actor / celebrity imitator John Byner. I never knew he was the voice of Gurgi! He spoke much of the interview in Gurgi-speak. It was very VERY funny. I had a friend who keep using this quotation: "Oh, poor miserable Gurgi deserves fierce smackings and whackings on his poor, tender head. Always left with no munchings and crunchings." He used it so much that HE deserved some smackings and whackings. It sounds like a very funny interview! And I definitely remember the line your friend used to copy!
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Apr 8, 2017 15:42:21 GMT
Thirty years ago I watched the first half hour of A Streetcar Named Desire on TV and fell asleep. Watched it all a few years ago and loved it. I wouldn't have been ready to accept Tennessee Williams into my heart back then anyhow, but now I am able to appreciate his words and characters so much more. I moved on to Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Sweet Bird of Youth and loved those too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 15:45:07 GMT
What movies did you not like all that much (or even actively hate) when you first saw them BUT upon viewing them again, you now really like them ? Not a classic era classic but for me The English Patient (1966) comes to mind.
Scrooged (1988)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 15:46:06 GMT
So it's basically NOT a picture that you felt improved upon subsequent viewings then ? I cant buy some of the logic of the second half honestly. But the thread is not about what has not improved for you.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 8, 2017 15:49:38 GMT
I cant buy some of the logic of the second half honestly. But the thread is not about what has not improved for you. And im talking about what still doesnt work.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Apr 8, 2017 16:55:01 GMT
Your observation's indeed intriguing. For the purposes of such a discussion, would you mind specifying the way(s) in which he goes against his grain? I have a supposition or two, but don't wish to initiate anything that might be based on an errant one, so I thought it best to first ask. Doubtlessly, Hitchcock made this decision in To Catch a Thief because he did not conceive of the film as a dark suspense piece. Instead, in his public comments, he basically dismissed the movie as an entertainment vehicle with no intellectual interest whatsoever. And perhaps the lack of "suspense" renders the film questionable among some viewers as well. But Hitchcock's decision makes sense: while To Catch a Thief is ostensibly a thriller, thrills—at least as conventionally defined—are never the point. The point is the stars and their personal chemistry or coy sexual chemistry, the sun-splashed French Riviera locations, and the utter command of style both within and outside of the diegesis (basically a cinematic term for narrative, for those unfamiliar with the label). So Hitchcock's decision surely makes sense, yet it is still surprising given his avowed preference for "suspense" over "surprise." By the way, there is another, less significant, instance in the film where the director opts for "surprise" over "suspense"—at the costume ball. 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 once said, "Some films are slices of life; mine are slices of cake." With TCAT, he has his cake and slices it too: the whodunit aspect is obscured under the frosting of his most oft-repeated suspense formula, the Wrong Man Thriller. The identity of the actual thief - the MacGuffin - is of little interest to the audience and any suspense, although uncharacteristically de-emphasized, is concerned with Robie's efforts to unmask the thief and clear himself before the law closes in on him. It's perhaps worth noting that Hitchcock once stated that his Saboteur Statue Of Liberty climax represented something of a mistake, musing that it should have been the hero rather than the villain dangling, and yet he repeated that scene structure as the culprit is found in a similar position at the climax of TCAT. So on some levels, it's typical Hitchcock; on others, not. And as you suggest, the primary interest is in the development and resolution of the push-pull of the romantic relationship, just as it had been in Notorious, to cite another example.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Apr 8, 2017 20:17:52 GMT
Doubtlessly, Hitchcock made this decision in To Catch a Thief because he did not conceive of the film as a dark suspense piece. Instead, in his public comments, he basically dismissed the movie as an entertainment vehicle with no intellectual interest whatsoever. And perhaps the lack of "suspense" renders the film questionable among some viewers as well. But Hitchcock's decision makes sense: while To Catch a Thief is ostensibly a thriller, thrills—at least as conventionally defined—are never the point. The point is the stars and their personal chemistry or coy sexual chemistry, the sun-splashed French Riviera locations, and the utter command of style both within and outside of the diegesis (basically a cinematic term for narrative, for those unfamiliar with the label). So Hitchcock's decision surely makes sense, yet it is still surprising given his avowed preference for "suspense" over "surprise." By the way, there is another, less significant, instance in the film where the director opts for "surprise" over "suspense"—at the costume ball. 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 once said, "Some films are slices of life; mine are slices of cake." With TCAT, he has his cake and slices it too: the whodunit aspect is obscured under the frosting of his most oft-repeated suspense formula, the Wrong Man Thriller. The identity of the actual thief - the MacGuffin - is of little interest to the audience and any suspense, although uncharacteristically de-emphasized, is concerned with Robie's efforts to unmask the thief and clear himself before the law closes in on him. It's perhaps worth noting that Hitchcock once stated that his Saboteur Statue Of Liberty climax represented something of a mistake, musing that it should have been the hero rather than the villain dangling, and yet he repeated that scene structure as the culprit is found in a similar position at the climax of TCAT. So on some levels, it's typical Hitchcock; on others, not. And as you suggest, the primary interest is in the development and resolution of the push-pull of the romantic relationship, just as it had been in Notorious, to cite another example. It's been too long since I've seen To Catch a Thief for me to add anything to this conversation on that specific basis, but, as you and I discussed on the other thread, Doghouse, Hitchcock often uses the outer trappings of a "surprise movie," such as a whodunit, but turns it into a "suspense movie." For example, with Vertigo, the text on which it was based reveals the big twist at the very end. Hitchcock, though, cares less about the twist than about the characters--and his revelation of it in the middle makes us more invested in Scottie's reactions, which are the real focus (or should it be foci?). Ditto with the George Kaplan twist in North by Northwest. Even with climatic revelations in Hitchcock, for example-- Psycho, Stage Fright, and Spellbound, as you note, Doghouse--the twist aspect is severely de-emphasized, far more so than many other directors would do. (Preminger, who also cares more about character than plot, does the same thing, though less effectively, IMO.) The text on which Spellbound was based, The House of Dr. Edwardes (which I've never read but which I have seen analyzed in a book on Hitchcock), emphasizes twists, clues, alibis, etc.--the aspects of a whodunit, in other words--before revealing the murderer, whose identity is a surprise. With Spellbound, the revelation is more of an "Oh, he did it" than a "What! How could I have missed that?" which, as noted, is very much Hitch's purpose.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 9, 2017 4:35:03 GMT
Thanks for the assessment of The Wild Wild West, and I doubt that I will disagree if I actually take a look at it. And I am glad that you also enjoyed and appreciated The Lone Ranger. As you indicated, the film's blend is not perfect, but it manages to tap into some rich cinematic veins and offer more sophistication, depth, and vitality than one would have expected from a summer studio blockbuster. While no masterpiece, THE LONE RANGER was certainly fun - and the Monument valley scenes were quite breathtaking. THE WILD, WILD WEST, however, is is incredibly awful and not worth watching. A truly terrible film. ... good point. I had sort of forgotten about some of those long tracking shots. And I appreciate your "recommendation" on the other one.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Apr 9, 2017 5:17:55 GMT
Thanks for the assessment of The Wild Wild West, and I doubt that I will disagree if I actually take a look at it. And I am glad that you also enjoyed and appreciated The Lone Ranger. As you indicated, the film's blend is not perfect, but it manages to tap into some rich cinematic veins and offer more sophistication, depth, and vitality than one would have expected from a summer studio blockbuster. While no masterpiece, THE LONE RANGER was certainly fun - and the Monument valley scenes were quite breathtaking. THE WILD, WILD WEST, however, is is incredibly awful and not worth watching. A truly terrible film. Complete agreement on both, jeffersoncody. And if I may add--as I noted in my earlier post--the climax on the train in The Lone Ranger was absolutely brilliant. What a summer blockbuster should aim at being.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 9, 2017 5:56:12 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Apr 11, 2017 15:54:15 GMT
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. Exactly. I wrote something similar above. I find it interesting that he didn't have to reveal the twists early in these. I think the fact that he did adds to his repeated concept of the negation of surprise and emphasis on suspense. The source material for Vertigo, for example, reveals the twist at the very end of the book--something that Hitch decided not to do by adding the "letter-writing scene." (In fact, interestingly, even though he came up with the concept for the scene, he then had second thoughts about it, according to the Wikipedia article and to Patrick McGilligan's A Life in Darkness and Light.) With Psycho the book, too, if I'm not mistaken, the twist isn't so hinted at as it is in the scene with the sheriff in the film.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Apr 11, 2017 23:55:48 GMT
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. Given his more typical pattern, it might have been expected that Hitchcock would reveal the thief's identity much earlier in TCAT in order to generate trademark suspense, but as we've seen, there were themes and devices to which he'd regularly return, yet which he felt free to rearrange from one revisitation to the next. Take the cases of Suspicion and Rear Window as examples: in both, we're led to suspect to the point of belief that a man is a killer, but don't know for certain until the climax that one isn't and the other is. As much or more than with any other director I can think of, audience expectations had become part and parcel of his appeal by the mid-'50s, but rather than become a slave to them, he was able to subvert them when he cared to, making them work to his advantage as simply one more item in his bag of tricks. I'm only guessing, mind you, but perhaps this is what he'd set out to do in TCAT. As opposed to a straightforward, traditional whodunit, in which the audience knows both that the culprit will ultimately be revealed and that it won't happen until the final ten minutes, Hitchcock could mischievously play with what was expected of him - and generate suspense - by deliberately delaying the revelation: "I know he's going to tell us who's committing the robberies, but when?" After all, isn't that what's at the heart of suspense: delaying that which is expected, and could this simply have been what he was after with TCAT?
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 13, 2017 21:51:00 GMT
Dr. Zhivago is a well regarded film that didn't click with me. Would I appreciate it more if I put aside the hype about it being one of the most romantic films of all time? It might. Put aside all hype, pro and con, and just watch it. Still might not click but maybe it will. That's what happened with The English Patient with me.
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on May 15, 2017 17:10:17 GMT
I found Jordan's remark about Dmitryk's earlier version (1955) disingenuous. I cannot believe a film buff like Jordan would have been unaware of its existence. It is quite good, although the 1999 version is better. I just put up a review of the 1955 version: The End of the Affair (1955)
|
|