1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples.
Yes, I have often noticed in the most popular of Hitch's films the focus on objects and the focusing of the camera view on the object of importance. For example, his use of the large tea cup in Notorious signifying to the viewer that the cup and its contents will soon be even more important than it already was. (Shortly after the large cup is the focal point of the scene in the foreground, Alicia is alerted to the fact that the contents of her cup should not be consumed by anyone else.) He used focus and focus on specific items (and body parts) immediately in this opening scene of Pleasure Garden.
Later in the scene outside the theater, he focuses on the handbag and notes the pickpockets (pickpurses, haha) are eying it. Immediately we know that there is something inside the bag that she will need. The theft alone will not be as important as what is stolen. And again, similar to the cup in Notorious, it is not the cup itself, but its contents that are important, and we have an indication that that prop and the main character's relation to it it will have significance within minutes.
As a side note, he focuses on the legs but also provides context regarding the ways in which the men focus on the legs - via monocle and theater glasses/binoculars. That is so very similar to the use of Jeff's camera in Rear Window. Things are blurry or small until the character uses a visual aid to view the important detail. This reminded me of the methods he used for introducing a new character with questionable intentions (e.g. Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca). I have often noticed the zooming in on the face and the altering of focus at other times (such as Vertigo zoom) in his films when the observing character's visual focus and mental focus on the person or object is important to him or her (as well as to us, the audience).
2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career?
Yes, but I don't think I would not have recognized this as a Hitchcock film if I had not been told it was. Once I knew, I watched for him. In later films, the elements and approaches are much more obvious, at least to me. Before I was a Hitchcock fan, if I saw one of his later films I would recognize some of these aspects immediately and know it was his film. So, I think they became more pronounced and developed as part of his style as his portfolio grew. There have been times when I watched one of his films for the first time and groaned a little when I saw the use of some of his angles and classic elements. I almost felt as though he maybe got stuck in using some of them until they became less effective for those who had seen so many of his movies.
3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?
Possibly that the use of title cards (is that the correct term?) required breaks in the scenes where focus on body parts or props was so important. With spoken dialogue there would be no cut to a title card, so maybe that could keep the attention on the visual elements that were so important to his style.
