Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kwittenbrink

    1. How might Streisand’s performance of the song “People” have felt different in the film, had she been more theatrical and expressive, perhaps even belting her song more?
      Well, it seemed an intimate scene, despite Omar not being in a great deal of it - just admiring her from afar - so she needed to sing quietly as she seems to be introspectively considering her feelings and what she wants and needs.  I find it interesting that she continues to move away from "people"/Omar, as she is singing how "people who need people are the luckiest people in the world," as if she is foreshadowing what will ultimately happen in the movie.
    2. Note the emotional transition moments in this scene: how do the two characters relate to each other as the lyrics are sung?
      As stated above, she moves away from him as she is singing and he doesn't go after her.  Perhaps they know that they aren't destined to be together?
    3. How does the direction and editing of this scene support Streisand’s performance? Be specific about blocking, reaction shots, etc.
      It is showing us how she perceives what she is saying and how she is ultimately reacting to it.  
    1. Explore any common themes and filmmaking techniques in a very different movie also directed by George Cukor, Gaslight. (If you are not familiar with Gaslight, compare and contrast Cukor's theme in this scene and his techniques with another musical you have seen during this course) 
      The techniques are similar to perhaps film noir or Hitchcock where much can happen in the dark or shadows - we can see a great deal about the characters.
    2. Note the emotional transition moments in this scene, how the actors portray them, and how Cukor supports them.
      Well, we see Eliza realize that she has won the bet for Higgins.  Now, she assumes, he's done with her and what is she good for now?  Higgins has not thought this through and acts that there is no big deal.  She cannot go back to selling flowers and cannot stay at his house.  She would have to marry because she actually has no money and isn't a worthy prospect because of that fact.  He has rendered her useless in that era.
      Cukor puts them together in the scene and we can see Higgins's reaction which is not one of realization and that is infuriatingly British.  We see Cukor's framework in these shots and the lighting; Eliza turning off the light is a nice touch.
    3. What do you notice about the relationship between Eliza and Higgins that seems enhanced by Cukor’s direction?
      Like the statements above, he seems to keep them in the same frame which is perhaps a foreshadowing of what's to come?  He keeps them together despite their arguing.  We know they end up together.
    1. As you look back to the masculine performances in musicals of past decades, what changes in male representation, and performance would you say are most noticeable?
      Preston seems a bit deeper than those in some other movies.  He does seem to embody the character and IS the character.  He doesn't seem to just be singing a song in a glamorous way.  He is telling a story and creating the story through his song.
    2. What other specific qualities do you notice about Robert Preston in either or both of these clips?
      He really is deliberate and sings to the audience - he looks them in the eye.  He uses hand motions and slight movements to accentuate his song.  
    3. Have you seen any Robert Preston films that are not musicals? If so, what do you notice about his characters and his approach to acting, now that you are more aware of his dedication to working his craft outside of his stage or film work?
      I have not seen any other movie of his, despite seeming so familiar to me.  I am looking forward to watching more of his movies and seeing these movies as well - I have only seen the clips!
    1. In what ways does this scene look backwards to classical musicals and how does it look ahead to new disruptions that we now know will happen in the movie musical?
      This clip looks back at the musicals that we have seen in the backstage show-how-the-musical works like in Singin' in the Rain or Bandwagon but it also looks ahead in the visual appearance of the movie - it isn't as showy and colorful or as glamorous as musicals used to be.
    2. This is the introduction of Mama Rose in the film. Comment on Rosalind Russell’s entrance and performance especially as a traditionally trained stage and film actress.
      She is doing a fabulous job as the quintessential stage mom, forcing her girls to make a buck and to live out some romantic notion of continuing what she tried to achieve.  You don't question her in the role, so she is obviously doing her job and not "acting" but just assuming the role. 
    3. Pay attention to the song “Let Me Entertain You” in this scene. Is there anything you notice in Sondheim’s lyrics that are sly, subversive, or edgy? You can also discuss the song’s performance and staging as disruptive (or not).
      No, I don't see anything particularly edgy or subversive - the costume and the synchronized tapping is perfectly child-like.  The fact that it is changed to Gypsy's sexy song later is wonderful!
    1. Does a movie that has as stylized a scene as An American in Paris’ ending ballet need to use a less-than-realistic, stylized approach throughout the film?
      No, I don't think it needs to use the stylized approach throughout the film, I actually enjoyed the beginning of the film more and was not as keen on the ballet interpretation of his rejection at the end.  I want the guy to get the girl.  It was a nice gesture on Henri's part.  
    2. What keeps Jerry Mulligan from being completely unlikeable in a scene in which he acts pretty darn unlikeable?
      I actually like that he is brash and confident!  I think that he knows what he wants and is initially apprehensive of Milo.  He knows what she is.  Perhaps he's hungry?
    1. How do the pre-dance movements of O’Connor and Kelly compare to their actual dance movements?
      They already feed off each other and know that the class is a silly waste of their time - they speak well and know that the class is really for their starlet who has horrible elocution.  While the movements don't mirror each other pre-dance, they certainly are still acting as a duo with the straight man for their fodder.
    2. Watch the Professor all the way through and consider the role of the straight man.
      He is perfect!  He is initially enjoying being the best teacher and believes that they are really amazed at his perfect elocution, and even after they begin to make fun of him he tries to control the class.  He never leaves the room and allows himself to be physically pulled into their antics.  It is wonderful!  And awful at the same time:)  But it is a musical and suspension of disbelief and all that.
    3. How do the representations of masculinity in all three men compare and contrast with each other?
      I suppose that we know that O'Connor is the 'beta' male, and Kelly is the 'alpha' and the teacher is the 'straight man.'  They each have their role and we understand that without being told.  It really is a great scene!
    1. As you reflect upon female representation in the 1950s, where do you think this film character falls in the continuum? Why?
      Well, I think that it is hard to keep churning out the female roles that the 50's thought were necessary.  I haven't seen the film yet, but reading the notes it states that Jane/Day donned a dress and tried to be more feminine - I wonder if that was the message that this film was trying to get to girls in that era - to be feminine to get a husband?  But then she tames it down and still wears pants but it just more polished as her character grows in the movie.  I have to admit that I like the end result and I am proud that her character was able to keep to the ideals that she had in the beginning, but was still able to grow and think as a character.  I'd like to think that there were still people in the 50's that wanted to continue to see women become equals and therefore was able to inject this movie into that female continuum.
    2. How do you think Doris Day grows as an actress in her various roles in the 1950s, before and after this musical?
      I love Doris Day - her voice is happy and sweet and she is always lovely.  I love her in The Man Who Knew Too Much, and in By the Light of the Silvery Moon - she always seems to embody someone who knew her own mind and was able to be a woman who wasn't too girly.  In Silvery Moon, she works on her father's car and surprises her boyfriend who was in the war; in MWKTM, despite being given tranqs by her doctor husband, she keeps her cool and sings her son out of his kidnapping - she is smart and knows things are not right about the people that they come into contact with.  
    3. Does Doris Day’s bright and sunny persona add or detract from the role of Calamity Jane in your opinion? Please defend your answer.
      I think, like I said above, that it adds to the character.  I enjoy her sunny personality and I think that it shows that she doesn't take herself too seriously and can hold herself in a situation.  I enjoy that after she falls at the bar, she hops back up and gets her drink; she doesn't run away in tears like some other girl may have done.  
    1. As you watch the interaction between the four characters in this scene, what do you notice about the way they include each other or relate to one another? How is it different from early musicals we have discussed?
      They move as a group as they entice Tony to see how life gives you ideas for shows, particularly their show.  They are not dancing individually and showcasing their dancing skills, which, as Ament pointed out, only Astaire is a trained dancer.  They are building the scene to work together.  In the past we have seen huge dance numbers with the main character taking the spotlight.
    2. What do you notice about the costuming of the characters that indicate cohesiveness of the ensemble, as opposed to setting anyone apart? Be specific.  
      They are in muted colors - mainly blues and greys.  Nothing is showy - it is suits and a dress that a woman would wear to work not out to a ball.  This shows that this scene could literally take place in a work setting and that we are all a team not individuals trying to stand out.
    3. What do you notice about the staging and interplay between the characters that helps define the relationships between the characters in the song?
      They are all goofing around and helping each other in each vignette: lighting a cigarette, a pyramid, marching together, building the scene again as a team.
    1. What do you notice about the way the scene is directed as Petunia goes to Joe’s bedside and as we cut to her outside hanging laundry? What does this tell us about her relationship, and the connection to the song?
      She is called to his bedside and is instantly jubilant as she realizes that he is alive and is doing well after being shot.  She says not to call the doctor but to call everyone to let them know the news!  Like all illnesses, and hardships, we are exuberant and exultant initially and then we still need to move on with our lives.  While we still are happy that the person is doing well, time cannot, does not stop, so we need to continue to move forward.  She is glad that he is in the chair as she is doing her laundry outside and continues to sing her happiness.
    2. How would the song change if it was a woman singing about her child? Does the cultural meaning change? How?
      I suppose the words would change, but the movement would still be the same - moving through our day to day.  I think with a child you may be more weepy and happy at the same time.  I don't see how the cultural meaning would change if it were a child.  Happiness is a thing everyone feels.
    3. What other thoughts do you have about this film, the issues of black Americans during WWII, and this film’s importance in this era?
      I can see that this is definitely a period piece with a caveat to certain notions about black people.  I see that it is a time-capsule and something that perhaps broke down barriers during it's time.  
    1. Thinking like a director and editor, describe how each shot spotlights key actions.  
      In this tight spot she has domination over him and he really can't avoid her.  She dominates him in her strength and her knowledge that he will be coming out of that door and she corners him in an instant.  She backs him into the wall; catches him at the end of the stairs; swings him up over her shoulders; etc.  He seems kowtowed into "falling" for her - I personally am put off by this scene and am not too keen on Garrett and how she is portrayed. 
    2. It’s interesting to examine how musicals segue into musical numbers. How does this sequence prepare us for the singing?
      Well, it seems to wind up like the pitch - we can hear the first few notes that are leading up to the song.  The actors positioning helps as well and we understand that the song and dance number are going to happen!
    1. What was the first Judy Garland film you recall watching? What was your first impression of her?  Probably like most, I saw her in Wizard of Oz, and of course loved her and the movie!  She has such a strong and sweet voice and is playful and funny and so expressive with her face.  A delight.  It is so sad to know how the industry pushed her to stay thin and that is what caused her to become addicted to meds.
    2. How do you view her differently after viewing these clips than you might have viewed her previously?  I guess I didn't know how versatile she was and how she was able to do vaudeville and dance with ease with Gene Kelly.  Wonderful!
    3. What films in her later career come to mind as examples of her increasing ability to capture an audience’s imagination as a storyteller when she sings a lyric?  The Christmas song was always too sad to listen to on the radio, I never knew that it came from Meet Me in St. Louis.  Now it has a deeper meaning and I see it in a different light.  
    1. Describe how the scenes in today’s Daily Dose were designed to promote American values for audiences during World War II. Be specific. Refer to props, set design, settings, etc. in your answer.  The opening scene with the white house, the grand staircase, the president, the flag, the parade - all to highlight America.  
    2. Listen carefully to the dialogue in these scenes. In what ways does the dialogue and/or the screenplay work to boost American morale? Quote specific lines of dialogue in your response.  I like that the president says a kind word about Irish-Americans since that is not the main feeling that America had for Irish  from the beginning of their immigration to the US.  It feels as if it was planted there purposefully?  
    3. Since this is the opening of a biographical musical, how differently do you feel this film would be if it opened with the Fourth of July Parade scene in Providence, Rhode Island vs. the opening with FDR in the Oval Office? Defend your answer.  It is essential to set it up for the flashback so that we understand why Mr Cohan Sr. must run out on his show - the birth of his son.  It wouldn't have had enough of an impact if it didn't include FDR and the man the baby grew up to be.
    1. What other aspects of battle of the sexes do you see indicated in this clip or in the film Top Hat?  I like how they are both trying to "lead" when they dance together - you can see the struggle in her as she tries to move him where she wants and he to her.  Their clothing, her not being swayed by his charm.
    2. How does this film distinguish itself from other Depression era musicals we have watched or discussed this week?  She is not the sweet and innocent girl that we have seen previously;  she is in pants and a hat and ready to battle in the dance number.  It is stormy and thunderous - it is not dreamy and elegant.
    3. What possible reasons might there be for the changes in roles between men and women depicted in these screwball comedy musicals that distinguish themselves from earlier musicals in the 1930s?  Part of the reasoning may be the "can do" attitude of the war era with women taking over the roles of men while they were away at war.  It reflected how women were able to do a man's part in the work force.  I LOVE it!
  1. Both ladies are lovely!  The 42nd street was not as elegant the other movie.  Keeler wasn't in the clip as much so it was hard to compare, but she is a bit more heavy footed than Powell.  I thought Powell was acting through her dancing and was quite humorous and graceful at the same time - those LEGS!  Beautiful.  I suppose I enjoyed her dancing more than Keeler's.  I feel as if I need to see more of Keeler to make a statement on the two.

    • Like 1
    1. What do you notice about the Lubitsch touch? How do the props, the dialogue, and the staging help you understand the character of Alfred (Maurice Chevalier)?  We see the drawer-full of guns and women's articles of clothing that he's collected from other escapades and see that he is a womanizer, but playfully!  I love that it is completely in French but no subtitles which is so amazing since that would not be so today since no one speaks two languages typically in America.
    2. Based on this scene, what are some of the things you notice about the scene’s use of sound? Describe a specific sound or line of dialogue you hear and what you think it adds to the scene’s effectiveness.  I enjoyed when the wife said to her husband it's not difficult and walked to Chevalier to have him zip up her dress.  He does so easily and says "voila!"  Too funny and sweet.
    3. What themes or approaches might you anticipate from this clip in other Depression-era musicals?   Well, the romance and ease and grandness from the costumes and setting is a way for the audience to escape from the heaviness of the depression.  Also the glimpse we get of the made up country and the queen, the scandal and possible spy is alluring!
    1. What do you notice about the interaction between the characters in these two scenes? Please give specific examples.  In the first scene she is very confident and rather acerbic after he sings his heart out to her; in the second scene she is endeavoring to sing and make money, but cannot compete with the tart that hops up and steals her thunder; her confidence wanes and she leaves the bar.  He, however, is taken still by her and not with the shimmying lady even though he was sitting with her initially.  
    2. If you have seen either or both of these actors in other films or television shows, please share your perceptions about them.  I've not seen either of them, but I do hope to catch the films this summer!  
    3. What do these clips tell you about the male/female relationships as they are depicted in the films during this era? What norms might you expect are supported under the Hollywood Film Code?  It seems as if there are two types of women depicted in this movie - one that is prim but unsuccessful in trying to sing for money in a bar, the other woman is bawdy and getting the attention, but in an unseemly light.  The Production Code if perhaps trying to show that it is not good to be so sexy, but it may also be glorifying it in a way?
    1. Do you agree that the clip exhibits a brighter perspective of life than might be realistic? Why or why not? Yes, I agree that it does seem to give a brighter perspective - the topic of her song is suggestive of what the Follies were about - scantily clad women on a burlesque stage, "come and have your way with me."  During the depression, times were hard and buying orchids in such great number was probably unrealistic.
    2. What themes or approaches might you anticipate from this clip in other Depression era musicals?  The lighting is bright and clean; the lush costuming and the white decor; it all gives the audience a great escape from the daily life.  The music is bright and cheery as well.
    3. Since this is a musical that was made after the motion picture code was enforced, how might you imagine it might have been filmed or scripted differently if it had been pre-code? Give specific examples.  Again, the follies were a vaudeville and burlesque dance and the women would have been dressed in costumes that were scant and sexy - these were long and covered the girl from head to toe.  The speech is somewhat "high-brow" as well and perhaps not the type of speech one would find in this type of theater.
  2. So, I've been watching a lot of Hitchcock lately, but just tried to catch up on my other DVR favorites and GRANTCHESTER is one that I've come up with that is very Hitchcockian.  I love the POV shots and the high angle shots.  One shot in particular struck me where they had a close-up on a man's mouth as he stated a very snarky response to a woman in the show.

    • Like 2
  3. 1. How does the opening of Frenzy differ from the opening of The Lodger? Feel free to rewatch the clip from The Lodger (Daily Dose #2) for comparison. 

    In the Lodger, we are shown the dead girl quite quickly - in this we have a very lofty scene of London.  We seem to be seeing the "upper crust" of London and hearing the political talk regarding cleaning up the river - ironically as we find the dead girl floating in the water.  In the Lodger we see all the different groups talking about the many murders of the golden haired girls.  To our knowledge, this is the first murder in Frenzy.

    2. What are some of the common Hitchcock touches that you see in this opening scene? Be specific.

    We have a very long aerial shot, and he really enjoyed those.  He enjoyed daytime and the idea that this type of horror could occur to the common man and in very public and commonly visited places.

    3. Using Frenzy as an example, what thoughts do you have about the various purposes Hitchcock had in mind when he created his opening scenes? In the Daily Doses, we have focused on opening scenes, so there should be patterns or strategies you have noticed over the course of opening scenes spanning Hitchcock's 50 year career.

    He seems to enjoy taking us on a tour of locations - using maps and travel guides in some of his movie trailers and talking to the audience, telling them all the wonders that we will see in his films.  It is his fun tongue-in-cheek humor that he twists his suspense movies into the every man's trip.

    • Like 1
    1. Based on the opening sequence alone, what do you feel you already know about Marnie as a character? In what ways does Hitchcock visually reveal her character through her interaction with objects.


      She flips her head back with a sweet and sly smile, as if to say I succeeded.  As she was packing the suitcase, she really didn't seem to care how she packed them - while they were neat, the boxes were flipped over to the side like it was not a big deal.  The suitcase with her "used" items were thrown in willy nilly.  It was this case that she put into the locker at the station and the key for that locker that she tossed down the grate.  She doesn't want anyone to open it ever.

      It is as if she is starting over with a new identity - blonde and new clothes.


    2. How does Hitchcock use Bernard Herrmann's score in this scene?


      It has an ominous feel that sounds very thrilleresque and noir.  It doesn't have the happy go lightly sound that most of him films seem to have.


    3. Did you see any variation in what Hitchcock is doing with his cameo in this film, and what do you think that variation means? 


      He looks back at the camera - it almost seems like an accident!  Does he know he is almost done making pictures?  Perhaps he wants to shake things up a bit??


    • Like 1

    1. In what ways does this opening scene seem more appropriate to a romantic comedy than a “horror of the apocalypse” film? What do we learn about Melanie (Tippi Hedren) and Mitch (Rod Taylor) in this scene?


      Well, we see the two characters, presumably meeting for the first time, flirting as they discuss birds.  Mitch mistakes Melanie for a shop girl and asks her questions as she pretends to work and know (less than he does) about the birds in the shop.  The setting is in a public space (again Hitchcockian) and no frightening music.


    2. How does Hitchcock use sound design in this opening sequence? For example, how are the sounds of birds used to create a particular mood and atmosphere?


      The gulls outside look ominous; the sound from them is screechy and could be scary.  Inside the shop it isn't frightening, but the birds do take over the entirety of the background noise.  But the noise is something that you can overlook hear as you expect to hear the animals in a pet shop; you don't worry about it and basically put it out of mind.  You cannot but help to hear them; as stated in the lecture video, the birds are the stars of the movie - and even in this scene they do make themselves known.


    3. The opening scene contains a famous Hitchcock cameo. Describe the cameo and if you think it has any particular meaning in relation to this scene.


      Hitch is seen walking (his?) two dogs from the pet shop.  To me it may be something about leading the actors, or them leading him?  Perhaps the birds leading the movie and really how can you wrangle birds completely?  Two dogs, two main characters; a pair, a romantic pair.

    • Like 1

    1. Psycho opens with title design by Saul Bass and music by Bernard Herrmann. This is their third collaboration for Hitchcock, including Vertigoand North by Northwest. How does the graphic design and the score introduce the main themes of this film?


      Well, the titles are splitting apart which suggests a plot that will be tearing and rending something or someone...

      The music screeches and gives the sound of something horrific like screams.  

      The two together are perfect.


    2. As the titles end, we have three shots of Phoenix, Arizona, and a very specific day, date, and time: “FRIDAY, DECEMBER THE ELEVENTH” and “TWO FORTY-THREE P.M.” What is Hitchcock seeking to establish with such specificity? Also, why do you think Hitchcock elects to enter the hotel room through the semi-closed blinds from the outside? Does this shot remind of any other Daily Doses we have watched?


      I suppose the time and date are to establish the length of time that the events occur.  We need to have a base line to know how quickly things will progress.

      Entering through the blinds shows that the events inside are not to be disturbed; they are private.  The camera sneaks in just as these two characters are sneaky.

      Not really placing any other shots...??


    3. In the remainder of this sequence, we are introduced to Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) and Sam Loomis (John Gavin). The scene pushed the boundaries of censorship, especially considering our last Daily Dose for North by Northwest was edited for a line of risqué dialogue. Since this is the opening scene of Psycho, how does the hotel room scene function as a way to establish Marion Crane as a main character? Defend your answer.


      This scene is very steamy.  Interesting that it is only one year after NxNW.

      She is definitely the star/main character.  Her dialogue is interesting and leading.  We want to know the back story to the tryst.  Plus she is the "icy blonde" that Hitch likes.  


      Having seen the film so long ago, this opening scene is very interesting because I can only picture the hotel.  I look forward to watching it again, and I am also really nervous to see it since I am terrified!!!


    1. Even at the level of the dialogue, this film is playing with the idea that two Hollywood stars are flirting with each other (e.g. the line, "I look vaguely familiar.") How does our pre-existing knowledge of these stars function to create meaning in this scene. 


      Hitchcock was very aware of appearances and of his stars' appearances - no drinking from styrofoam cups; always acting the scene.  I feel like stars were meant to always be playing a part and audiences wanted that to be their actual persona.  It reminds me of the beginning scene in Singing in the Rain where Gene Kelly as Lockwood and Jean Hagen as Lamont, are supposed to behave as if they are a couple even off screen, but they really can't stand each other.


    2. There is minimal action in this scene, so any deviation from the overall pattern of focusing on the faces of the two leads will have increased significance. In that sense, discuss how Hitchcock uses the R.O.T. matchbook as an important piece of acting business (or as a prop) in this scene. 


      It may show how Roger is into appearances - but is assumed to be someone else.  He dresses just so, has a matchbook designed with initials that spell out a word that is not the nicest word, but could be a good conversation piece; he is suddenly thrown into a world where appearances are not what they seem.

      Another definition of "rot" is rubbish, nonsense.  This entire escapade across the country is based on a MacGuffin, which we never come to find out what it really is (film?) and so it is all nonsense.


    3. How is Hitchcock using sound design in this scene? Consider music and other background sounds in your answer. 


      The music is very soothing; train sounds in the background; again is very calming.  It is as if this scene can really happen to anyone - a simple dining car with pleasantries discussed over a dinner of brook trout.  The dialogue is taking precedence in this scene.  And so are the innuendos, such as her pulling his hand back to blow out the match.  I can see why they censured some of the dialogue - :)

    • Like 1

    1. Describe what you think this film will be about simply from the sounds and images in these opening credits. Even if you have seen the film, try to focus on these sounds and images themselves and “the story” (or if not "the story," the mood and atmosphere they are establishing) that this sequence is communicating to the audience. 


      It has a very science fiction sound and feel to the images and music together.  I can't help seeing slinkys and spirographs from when I was a kid.  Very trippy 70's designs.  


    2. In your own estimation, what is the single most powerful image in this title sequence? Defend your answer.


      The eyeball that we look at is very frightening.  You want to look away but are mesmerized by the looking eyeball.


    3. How do Saul Bass’ images and Bernard Herrmann’s score work together? How different would this sequence be with a different musical score?


      The two do complement each other and I can't imagine another score that would really work for the images.  It grounds the images and doesn't make them too silly like the toys I described above.

    • Like 2

    1. How would you describe the opening camera shot of this film? What is Hitchcock seeking to establish in this single shot that opens the film? Whose vantage point is being expressed in this shot, given that Jeff has his back to the window?


      Just a glorious first 3 minutes of a film!  He is providing so much in these two times around the back yard and Jeff's apartment.  We see the heat, the kids playing, the couples, apartments.  We are starting our voyeurism early.  Jeff has to catch up, or we are catching up with what he already knows.  Get comfy, there's more to come.


    2. What do we learn about Jeff in this scene without any pertinent lines of dialogue (other than what is written on Jeff’s leg cast)? How does Hitchcock gives us Jeff’s backstory simply through visual design?


      We see the broken camera and the action shots; the negative of the woman on the magazine - we learn that is his occupation.  Very clever!


    3. Does this opening scene make you feel like a voyeur or, at a minimum, remind you of being a an immobile spectator? What feelings does Hitchcock elicit from you as his camera peers into these other people’s apartments?


      I suppose it does make me feel like a watcher, not necessarily a voyeur at this point.  As Lisa puts later, we don't have a right to do this; both Stella and she say that we should look in at our own lives and see what we see there.  But people like to watch others - it has happened since the beginning of time: Roman gladiators, hangings, car accidents, etc.  It is human nature.


    4. Bonus question: if you have seen the entire film before, do you agree with Hitchcock that this film is his most cinematic?


      Well, since it is my favorite movie of all time, I suppose I would be inclined to say yes:)  Although after reading the article on Vertigo, I am looking forward to rewatching that.

    • Like 1
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...