[Daily Dose #2: To-night Golden Curls (Opening Scene of The Lodger)]

1. Compare the opening of The Lodger to the opening of The Pleasure Garden - what similarities and differences do you see between the two films? 

 

In both introductory sequences, I think Hitch really goes out of his way to create an atmosphere of the mundane, the everyday, the familiar. In The Lodger it's the setting, the familiarity of the newsstands, newspaper press, phone booth and telegraph (which were all - obviously - everyday back then) and also the crowds and bustle of the city. Even with the murder, the cops and the newsmen are doing their jobs. It's all very believable. The Pleasure Garden showed us ordinary men enjoying a chorus line show, and you really feel like Hitchcock is trying - and succeeding - in portraying ordinary, everyday life. That is, IMHO, and excellent place in which to inject horror.

 

2. Identify elements of the "Hitchcock style" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. Even if you are not sure if it is the "Hitchcock style," what images or techniques stand out in your mind as powerful storytelling? Or images that provide an excess of emotion? 

 

The close-up-scream is a Hitchcock staple. You can see him wanting to do interesting things with the camera -- the weird distorted shot of the man. Ever the experimenting technician, Señor Hitchcock.

 

3. Even though this is a "silent" film, the opening image is one of a woman screaming. What do you notice in how Hitchcock frames that particular shot that makes it work in a silent film even though no audible scream that can be heard. And what other screams like that come to mind from Hitchcock's later work? 

 

As many people have said: Psycho, etc. ... It might be interesting to do the math on Hitchcock's leading ladies --- how many of them DIDN'T scream?  

 

... you probably won't read this, prof, but this is my first online course, ever. Totally enjoying it. All the best. -- e.s.

[Daily Dose #1: Spiralling into View: The Pleasure Garden (1925)]

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 

 

Voyeurism and the blonde. Also, something I noticed at 0:25, was the guy in the audience looking uncomfortable, or perhaps disdainful. I can't think of any other movie examples off the top of my head, but it ... feels like Hitchcock ... to have a number of leering men, happy in their debauchery, and then the conflict: one man grumpy about the whole display.  That contrasted morality is, in itself, a bit of a wink. Feels like Hitch.

 

 

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 indeed, his ... interests ... or shall we just call them obsessions? Nascent but present.

 

 

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? 

 

Interesting question; actually my answer is "Yes, but that was okay." Lack of sound was a limitation that forced all filmmakers to work harder at communicating meaning, intent, and subtext. Doing that work, I would contend, was part of the foundation of the language of cinema. I wonder if sound was available from the beginning of film ... whether that cinematic language would have developed as quickly.  Or would the filmgoing public have been inundated with painful exposition for a few decades? So yes, it was a limitation. But not a fatal one.