Jump to content

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About konway87

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Yes, I have seen the episode "Walking Distance." Its a great episode with a brilliant score from Bernard Herrmann. His score makes the episode very memorable. My personal favorite Bernard Herrmann score is The Roadbuilder (1971). The Roadbuilder is also known as The Night Digger. The story takes place in England. I didn't like the film. But Herrmann's music was brilliant. unfortunately, some of his cues didn't end up in the film. But I uploaded couple of them on youtube. Here is one. This video contains only the music. So you can watch it even if you haven't seen the film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6daBijOS_g4 Bernard Herrmann had huge disagreements with Roald Dahl with the structure of the story of The Roadbuilder (1971). The interesting thing is he composed the film exactly opposite to the way the story of the film ends up. Although Herrmann didn't get what he wanted with the story, still the film ended up becoming a box office flop like he predicted.
  2. Hello Everyone, I always thought that Bernard Herrmann was a composer who put his complete effort into the films he worked on. Many praises him today. But I feel that lots of composers don't put the effort as much as he did. Many people don't realize that several of his cues for some of his films ended up becoming either out of synchronization or unused. One of them was Taxi driver, because Bernard Herrmann died after the recording. So Scorsese didn't know where to put the music "exactly." So a little more than 75% of cues ended up becoming either out of synchronization or unused. For The Bride wore Black, only 55% of Herrmann's score was used. Other 45% wasn't used. Bernard Herrmann was very upset about it. But he didn't argue, because he liked Truffaut and his enthusiasm in films. Here is one of several videos I made for Taxi driver with "proper" synchronization. Others are available in my youtube account. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGjuywfZ1gc& Fahrenheit 451 and The Night Digger (1971) were other films where "few" of Bernard Herrmann's cues weren't used.
  3. SPOILERS I am posting information about Rope (1948). Rope (1948) is entirely different from the play it is based on. Hitchcock and Hume Cronyn made a totally different adaptation. Here are the differences between the play and the film. Here are characters in the play - Rupert Cadell (only 29 years old in the play), Wyndham Brandon (Brandon Shaw in the film), Charles Granillo (Philip Morgan), Sir Johnstone Kentley (Henry Kentley, the father of David Kentley in the film), Ronald Kentley (David Kentley in the film), Leila Arden (A friend of Wyndham Brandon and Charles Granillo), Kenneth Raglan (A friend of Wyndham Brandon and Charles Granillo), Quiet Mr. Debenham, Sabot. Quiet Mrs. Debenham became the cheerful Mrs. Atwater in the film. Sabot became Mrs. Wilson. In the film, Rupert looks like he is in mid 40s and he may marry Mrs. Wilson. Here are the descriptions of the characters that aren't in the film. The descriptions are from the playwright Patrick Hamilton. In the play, Leila Arden and Kenneth Raglan have no relation to the victim Ronald Kentley. With the exception of Mrs. Wilson, everyone in the film knows David Kentley. The play takes place in England. Hamilton's Description of Leila Arden - "Leila, like Raglan, is young, good-looking, and has no ideas. She also has the same tendency to conceal that deficiency with a show of sophistication. In this she is perhaps more than successful than Raglan. She has a fairly good stock of many-syllabled and rather outré words which she brings out with rather comic emphasis, rolling her eyes the while, as though she doesn't really mean what she is saying. In this way she never actually commits herself to any emotion or feeling, and might even be thought deep. But she is not." Age: 20-25 Sex: Female Eye Color: Blue or Brown Hair Color: Blonde or Brown Height: 5"6' Hamilton's Description of Kenneth Raglan - "Raglan is very young, fair, simple, good-looking, shy, foolish and good. He has no idea whatever. He still thinks that nightclubs are dens of delight, but that there is probably one girl in the world for him whom he will one day find. His pathetic ideal, in his bearing before the world, is sophistication. To hear him alluding to 'simply staggering binge, old boy,' when he was merely got mildly intoxicated, is to have exemplified at once his sense of humor and wickedness. In the presence of Granillo and Brandon he is merely, of course, tentative and hopeless. He is in evening dress." Age: 20-25 Sex: Male Eye Color: Blue Hair Color: Blonde Height: 6" Nationality: England Hamilton's Description of Sabot - "Sabot is an alert, very dark little Frenchman, with a long nose and a blueness of cheek which no amount of shaving will eradicate. He is an almost perfect servant - intelligent, alert and obedient, but not, perhaps, completely impersonal - his employers being in the habit of making the occasional advances towards him. Whoever he is with, he has an air of being breathlessly anxious to apologize for something or anything. He is married, quietly ambitious, industrious, and will have a restaurant of his own one of these days." Age: 35 Sex: Male Eye Color: Blue or Brown Hair Color: Blonde or Grey or Brown or Bald Height: 6" Nationality: France Hamilton's Description of Mrs. Debenham - "Mrs Debenham is the sister of Sir Johnstone. She is tallish, plainly dressed, has been widowed long, is very plain, about fifty. She hardly ever opens her mouth, her sole means of expression being a sudden, broad, affable smirk. This she switches on, in a terrifying way, every now and again, but immediately relapses into the lost, miserable, absent-minded gloom which characterizes her. She is, indeed, so completely a nonentity as to acquire considerable personality and distinction from the very fact." Age: 50 Sex: Female Eye Color: Blue Hair Color: Grey Height: 5"8' Nationality: England So we can see that the film is totally different from the play. In the play, there is no gun scene. Instead, Rupert uses a whistle to call the police. Rupert finds out that David was there through a theater ticket. But in the film, Rupert finds out that David was there, because of David's hat.
  4. SPOILERS I want to point out another scene that is very unique and another scene that is a scene of sincerity. Its the scene where Eve leaves her father's house in the morning. You see Eve's love towards her father and we see her father's concern over his daughter through the note on the car. Like Shadow of A Doubt, Stage Fright is a small picture with intense elements. I think it will only get better and better in time.
  5. For me, anything is worth discussing when there is a possibility. To me, It doesn't matter if the information is stupid and juvenile to you. You write based on the way you see things. But when you write them by saying words like stupid and juvenile, your words in those posts become a representation of yourself.
  6. Like I said, my opinion is mine. Yours is yours. Let's end it that way.
  7. Now you know why I like the film and why I find it interesting.
  8. SPOILERS I know Hitchcock felt guilty, because many critics told that lying flashback was a mistake. But I found it very interesting, because of several reasons. I believe "the audience" is a character in Hitchcock films. The function of the audience is to watch and wait while Hitchcock intensifies their role by using suspense in the film. Let me give an example. A Suspense Scene from the film "Rope." Its the suspense scene where Mrs. Wilson clears the things on the chest to put the books inside the chest. If we take a closer look, then we will realize that the audience will be the "only one" who will be "heavily" concerned about opening the chest in that suspense scene. Unlike Mrs. Wilson, all the other characters in the film aren't focusing on both Mrs. Wilson and the chest, because they are busy talking about David. But the audience is concerned about it, because of the suspense Hitchcock uses. When Jonathan is telling the flashback story (which he created) to Eve (Jane Wyman), he is not only giving a visual idea of the story to Eve, but also to the audience through his "viewpoint." We are not the only one who ended up believing his story. Eve believed his story too. So he ended up convincing both Eve and the audience. By traveling through Eve and her father (Alastair Sim), we watch and wait throughout the movie to find the solution. By the end, the audience feels cheated when they find out the truth. But to me, what the audience doesn't realize is that they were able to share a true moment of feeling with a character in the film. We are not the only ones who were cheated. Eve was also cheated too. Its one moment where a fictional character (Eve) and the audience share the same feeling - "They were deceived by Jonathan Cooper (Richard Todd)." But the moment we see the horrifying side of Jonathan Cooper, we can completely feel the horror that is going through Eve. Both the audience and Eve feel the true feeling of danger, because both audience and Eve shared the same experience throughout the movie which is the desperation to find the solution. But when both the audience and Eve finds the truth, they both feel and share true moments of horror. Its not just Eve who wants to get out of that horrifying situation, but the audience also wants her to get out of there. The story of the book "Outrun the Constable" also known as Man Running (the book Stage fright is based on) was very different. In the book, Freddie Williams is the killer. Jonathan Cooper in the book is innocent. But Hitchcock always liked to make his own adaptation. Alfred Hitchcock entirely created this lying flashback for the film. From what I know of, One "main" reason why Hitchcock created this flashback was because of the main character's name "Eve." In the Bible, Eve was deceived by the serpent in the "beginning" days of mankind. In the film, Eve was deceived by Jonathan Cooper in the "beginning" of the film by telling the false story to her. Hitchcock always made Biblical references in his films. For Example, the line in Foreign Correspondent - "You cry peace, Fisher. Peace. And there was no peace." This line was borrowed from the book of Jeremiah. The another example is The Man Who Knew too Much (1956) - The gunman at Albert Hall (Reggie Nalder) looks at the main villain (Bernard Miles), because he is wearing the uniform of priest. The gunman says at the villain "What does the old proverb says? A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing." A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing was borrowed from Gospel of Matthew in New Testament Bible.
  9. Hello MissG, I want to post another interesting information. This time, the film is Stage Fright (1950). I found Stage Fright to be one of most Hitchcock's interesting films. After the failure of Hitchcock's previous films (The Paradine Case, Rope, and Under Capricorn), Hitchcock was given a small budget for Stage Fright. In audio interview with Truffaut, Hitchcock called Stage Fright "A Small Picture." But even in this small Hitchcock picture, I found several things interesting. I don't know if anyone noticed this. if you rewatch this film, then you will see that the characters are telling one lie after another from the beginning of the movie. And the story builds up based on lies- one after another. But we see exactly the opposite on the last part of the film. The last part builds up by revealing the truths - one after another. And when we enter into the last portion of the film, we reach to a point where we never expected the film to reach.
  10. I can explain them. But I am only going to point out few major points. Dracula is mentioned in Shadow of A Doubt (1943). Jack Graham telling Ann to tell Catherine the story of Dracula. That itself gives a room of possibility for vampire references. The same blood runs through the veins of Young Charlie and Uncle Charlie is a possible reason why there is telepathic communication between Young Charlie and Uncle Charlie. The same blood runs through our veins is a line that is used in Dracula (1931). This only increases the possibility of vampire references. The fact that Uncle Charlie comes to the west from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Dracula comes to the west from Transylvania increases the possibility even more. I can say more and more. But I am not going to, because I have given the room of possibility that Vampire references was deliberately used in Shadow of A Doubt (1943).
  11. Bilgewasser, You wrote - "In his 2002 interview, I believe he stated he wasn't really traumatized that night." I will only give one example. I can give other examples. But I am not going to. Here is a small portion from the interview. "HR" is Herman Raucher. *HR:* I recognized her handwriting ... but were talking about 1971, which was almost 30 years after the incident, and I get this letter - and I never knew her last name - and the postmark was Canton, Ohio, and she had remarried. And, interestingly enough, she was worried about what she had done to me and my psyche. *LHP:* Really? *HR:* And no one has ever thought about that. Everybody thought, ‘Oh, that’s interesting. The kid grew up.’ But it was a traumatic event. Now back to the subject. We know that the event was traumatic through this 2002 interview. Since it was a traumatic event, I can say this gives room for possibility that he could have ended up in suicide. Why do I have to keep correcting the misinformation you write? It doesn't matter if she wasn't interested in dealing with psychological problems or not, because the point is she herself admits that she was worried about what she may have done to him and his psyche. So it was her responsibility. But she didn't do anything about it I believe what Dorothy did was wrong. You don't. Let's just end it like that, because these posts will never get anywhere.
  12. That's your opinion. Its also very easy to say that they are downright silly and far fetched. There are lots of people who believe it was done intentionally. I collected these infos from at least 10 Hitchcock fans. Alfred Hitchcock didn't mention too much about his films, because analyzing is upto the audience. But he was a man who loved little details. This was revealed in Truffuat Interview and also interview with Dick Cavett. For Example, Alfred Hitchcock was a man who hated seeing vine coming out of the wrong bottle. For Example, Alfred Hitchcock mentioned about him putting little details when he and truffaut were discussing "I confess." Hitchcock revealed to Truffaut that he deliberately put the woman eating the apple in the scene close to the ending. When Truffaut asks him about putting these details in the film, Hitchcock replied this. "Well, we have to do those things; we fill the whole tapestry, and that's why people often feel they have to see the picture several times to take in all of these details. Even if some of them appear to be a waste of effort, they strenghten a picture. That's why, when these films are reissued several years later, they stand up so well; they are never out of date." I don't have to write any of these, because there are people who believe what I wrote. But I am writing just to let you know that when you judge by making statements like "downright silly and far fetched", you can become like a fool in the eyes of several members of this forum. But I don't want you to be a fool. That's why I wrote this. Since we know that Hitchcock was a man who loved little details, this only increases the possibility that he deliberately put these vampire references in Shadow of A Doubt and other symbolic details in his other films.
  13. SPOILERS I don't know who came up with parallels. But I will credit both Thornton Wilder and Alfred Hitchcock.
  14. Thank you, Frank Grimes. Did you notice Edgar Allan Poe references in Marnie? I posted it just recently in this thread.
  15. SPOILERS How do you know that she had, at the time, a much greater loss than Herman did? How much do you know about Herman's psychological conditions during that time? He himself states that night incident was a traumatic event for him. He completely lost the woman he loved. At the age of 14, He lost his virginity, his innocence, became psychologically disturbed, and was also depressed. On the top of that, he started facing other sad news. As we both know, there was only major thing Herman had in his mind during that night - To prevent her from getting into any possibilities of danger by sacrificing his own innocence, virginity, and risking his own life. Unlike Herman, Dorothy only pushed him into several possibilities of danger since she knew she may have damaged him psychologically. He could have ended up in one of the most severe psychological illnesses or even facing death. But Dorothy didn't bother to find out. So she was leaving him for the destruction. In terms of moral standpoints, I don't see anything good coming from Dorothy's actions. I am sure Dorothy had lots of her "own" things for her later days. One of those things in her later days was "immediately" selling her house to new people. When she sold her house, she was removing the existence of her past life and her relationship with Hermie in that house. This is the same woman who said she will remember Hermie. To me, It doesn't matter how old she is or where she comes from. Its her actions that count. Under that sad circumstances, I can understand why she had to leave Hermie. But it was her responsibility to come back and make sure that if her friend was doing alright. When she didn't, she pushed Herman into several possibilities of danger including destruction. She moved on with her life by throwing away the life of Herman who loved her and helped her to move on with her life by carrying her groceries and providing other help. For Example, let me take a political figure so we both can visualize. This example is only for "generalizing." Not particularizing. Does Hitler's age and background justify what he did to 6 million Jews and several other lives? To me, it doesn't matter who "really" Hitler was. Its his actions that count. Hitler had his own future plans. He did his own plans by destroying others.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...