Hitch_nnw

Actually I think a good topic would be the films of the directors who emerged in the 1970s--Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Altman, maybe even Lucas. They all follow Hitchcock in the sense of being "auteurs."

The most logical choice would be another genre. There are many that have been much more sustained than film noir or screwball comedy. For instance: Gangster Western Science Fiction Historical Epic

OK, that all makes sense. Some of what I've read about the film is that it's about "healing." But that's a hard one to buy. These characters seem far too messed up to be able to heal in any significant way.

Just wanted to raise this important question: does Mark really rape Marnie? In much of what I've read on the film, the word "rape" is used as if it were an incontestable fact. Perhaps because of censorship issues, much is left in doubt. Mark apologizes to Marnie after he tears off her gown. He again seems tender here. But soon after his face does look brutal. So does he momentarily turn into a monster, or does Marnie decide to succumb to his seduction?

Brian De Palma would fit the bill here, though many regard him as copying Hitchcock WAY too closely. In fact, I would say that myself, though to be fair I have not seen anything by De Palma in quite a long time. As far as being commercial is concerned, De Palma maintained popularity for a considerably shorter period of time than Hitch.

At this point I am taking Marnie out of the worst movies by our genius (on another thread I started), and indeed I'm regarding this as a must-see Hitchcock film. There are some horribly fake-looking scenes (and I don't think they are intentionally so), and I don't buy into the notion of Hedrin giving a consistently great performance--while yet admitting that in many scenes it is great. This film is different, and it is disturbing, and it has Hitchcock touches, and it has a personal quality. At the same time, I am not going to say that the value mainly lies in allowing us to psycho-analyze Hitchcock. Bottom line, the movie (on my second viewing ever) grabbed me, and allowed me to really think about two complex and rather twisted characters.

I think many of those who actually do win (movies, performances) are barely remembered even 5 years later. Hitchcock has done a bit better.

This is indeed a brilliant movie on so many levels, although the shower scene will forever remain the key scene and the one that will always be most analyzed. I've always been impressed by the second murder--and for some reason the final image of the raised knife. You imagine it's dripping with blood, although I'm pretty sure it isn't. Also, it's in my mind that the knife might be thrust into Aborgast again. I think there is a lapse in logic, or maybe it's more an error in timing. I recall Norman going into a cabin just before Arbogast pulls up. Arbogast is into the mansion pretty quickly--and killed even more quickly. How did Norman manage to do all the following in time--get back to the house, get upstairs (unseen), get into the dress and wig, grab a knife? Not that Hitchcock was always concerned with logic!

I believe the milk glass scene is from Suspicion.

I agree with a lot of this, but I would rate Blackmail as his first film bordering on a masterpiece and Number 17 as a minor classic.

I agree with you--I think he was burned out. That's what I get from watching it (although I have watched the film just once so far), and that is the view I recall from Donald Spoto's bio of Hitchcock. A director can make a movie that is artificial and yet artful. To me, a good example of that is Coppola's Dracula. Marnie is not that.

Just check back. Are you fairly new to Hitchcock--seeing a lot of films you have not seen before?

I'm curious to know who intends to watch all of the Hitchcock films on TCM this month. I mean watching all of them live or some time during the month of July. The scheduling is odd, with some films beginning at 4:00 a.m. But of course we can and do record. I think they are showing 44 films, which is a high percentage of the total. In my life I have watched all of Hitch's sound films but two (Juno and the Paycock, Waltzes from Vienna), and many I have watched countless times. But there may be those who are relative novices with Hitchcock who are trying to watch all 44 (or close to it).

One Oscar for Herrmann--and not for a Hitchcock film! Nor only that, it looks like he never even received a nomination for a Hitch film. It's disheartening to see how poorly the Academy has recognized great work. But they do recognize John Williams, who has 5 Oscars plus nominations in nearly every year of his 50-year career.

In my opinion Bernard Herrmann and John Williams are the only two men who scored movies who deserve an exceptional degree of analytical study. Without their work, many films would be much less than what they turned out be be due to the music--dare I say, they might not even be classics.