I don't understand your complaint about the camera work from Hitchcock. The guy could do it all. The Psycho shower scene has about 80 shots in just that one scene and took over a week to film. Yet in the Hitchcock film Rope it's all one continuous shot only stopping to change film. That's true mastery. In Notorious when she's walking with the poisoned drink, they put an actual working light bulb in the glass to get the effect they were looking for. I just can't understand that particular criticism.
Jamaica Inn is in public domain. The full film can be viewed here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7323648702986291027
Yes. And the end scene in Notorious, with the tracking shot down the steps? Spoiler <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/w5Kt0Ud5jr8#t=6m19s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> The quick edits on Grant locking Rains out, the small smile from a (potentially) dying Ingrid Bergman? The closeup on Rains? And then forcing Rains to walk back up the steps, to his certain death, framed in/suffused in light? Enveloped in the light of the Nazi hearth, which means his doom? Door closes. That's cinematography perfection.
It's a Wonderful Life Casablanca The Maltese Falcon The Third Man Bicycle Thieves The Old Man and the Sea North by Northwest The Magnificent Seven Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid 12 Angry Men High Noon Rio Bravo
"Mesmerizing" is an overused word when it comes to movies, but in this case the shoe fits. If you haven't seen it, do. It's scary how relevant this movie still is.
Adding: crane shot, from the balcony, down to Bergman's hand, just to illustrate a plot point. Spoiler <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/reWOxLvp5sA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Welles was a master: literally digging up the floor of the newsroom in Kane just to get the desired angle, the visual trickery of revealing the deep focus fireplace, the tracking shot at the beginning of Touch of Evil. Kubrick was without parallel. (His monomaniacal genius/attention to detail also drove him to being a semi-recluse in adult life.) But Hitchcock undoubtedly brought it as well.
So right now I'm 40 minutes into "North by Northwest" and as I watch more and more Hitchcock movies I'm starting to see what I REALLY hate about him. First of all, the characters are so damn naive. *main guy gets kidnapped by two men* Doesn't at least try to fight his way out of the car. Where is the realism? THey weren't even holding a gun to him. He could have easily knocked out those two guys and/or the driver. Who in their right mind would be so calm after being kidnapped like that? Another instance is where he's talking to the real Townsend in a room for 30+ people and the assassin throws a knife in the back of Mr. Townsend and EVERYBODY thinks he did it. What kind of crap is this? Seriously. In a room of 30 people, no one saw that ****? This movie is like a parody. I'm only 40 minutes in, but I'm pretty sure I'm gonna see more stupidity in the story. Also another complaint of mine is that his stories are too straightforward. Point A to Point B to Point C. No creativeness.
With all due respect, wrong, wrong, wrong. Grant did try to get out of the car. The doors were locked. He did have a gun pointed at him, which they made clear in the hotel. They had them in their jacket pockets. You might try paying attention. I think your problem with Hitch, which is ironic because you appear to like "old movies," is that you don't understand the director, or the time period of some of his films. Grant is a very wealthy man. He dotes on his mother. What happens to him is entirely out of his life experience, and much of the flick is him figuring out just how much trouble he's in, what's happening to him, who's "good" and who's bad, and finding his own courage to deal with a bizarre, incredible situation. It's one of Hitchcock's best, and after 40 minutes, you think it's stupid? You could knock me over with a feather.
The guy on the left put the gun back in his pocket when they were inside the car. I'm just saying if that was me, I would have gave it more effort because who knows what these guys were about to do to me, than just make continually make sarcastic comments. So what you're saying is that he's a spoiled man who does not know how to react in a situation like that (getting kidnapped by strangers), I can kind of buy that but still, it's ridiculous. My problem with Hitch is his (in my opinion) his movies are not as good as people make them out to be. To rank his movies as one of the top of all-time just because they pioneered the way movies are done today when in truth people have improved upon his work is nonsense. I think greatness in movies is measured by when it stands against the test of time, something one could truly watch over and over and honestly say with a straight face that they enjoy it and not just simply "appreciate it" for what it did for the history of film-making. My example would be "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly" - this film is good forever, I still think 50 years from now people will enjoy it... there are no still no films that are as good as it that has been made in the past 20 years. Vertigo, or North by Northwest however, have been stripped by other movies and directors have used the same formula and have made better stories.
I know you probably realize this, but don't forget to place older movies within the context of their times. For instance, people were actually fainting in theaters during the original run of The Exorcist, but today's audience would find the special effects cheezy. If it had been made with today's special effects back then... Some of my favorites Cool Hand Luke The Godfather 1 & 2 Dr. Zhivago (sp?) Apocalypse Now One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Platoon Bridge Over the River Kwai The Manchurian Candidate (original) Being There The Exorcist Taxi Driver To Kill a Mocking Bird Bonnie & Clyde Edit: and all the old Marx Brothers movies
