Jump to content

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

SCGuppy

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SCGuppy

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Daily Dose #10 1) The opening scene enters one of the main characters, Uncle Charlie Oakley. Boys playing ball outside--a normal day, possibly a Saturday. Uncle Charlie lying on a bed...the audience learns he is in trouble, serious trouble. In a frantic, half planned idea, he clears out of his rented room and lures the two men away...in a desperate attempt to lose him. Key question- "He has money slipped out onto the floor." And why "Break the glass."? What does this all mean? 2) An innocent setting: children playing, a tentative landlady, all in a quiet neighborhood. Yet, not all things are innocent and good...there's bad, evil things that could be happening behind closed doors...no one knows really. I have yet to watch Siodneck's "The Killers". I hope TCM will air it. Comparing "Shadow of a Doubt" to "Rebecca"...their opening scene...one being wholesome, bright, happy, joyous and there's a chase and the other, is dark, dreary, empty, eerie, and both movies--the music that is attached to each of these scenes gives the audience a sense of "fight or flight", "stay or go". We have questions and we need answers...so, we stay tune, sitting on the edge of our seats... 3)
  2. 1) More modern approach to the story--inviting...draws the audience more w/this setting-- a house and a woman reliving her memories... a gradual "pull" for the viewer, nothing that I have seen in previous films' openings. 2) Up to now, all of Hitchcock's films had either an innocent woman or a man who is on a quest or journey and these two types of characters come together and create a thrilling, suspenseful enchantment.To me, "Rebecca" does just that! 3) The cameras approach to the house (Manderley) itself-- it is a character in the story--it plays a part as it is meant to break or keep those who live inside it. The voiceover of Mrs. de Winter recalling her 1st time seeing it, as if it was waiting for her, yet in the flashback--She had a sense of dread, fear, and unhappiness.The camera focusing on the exterior of the house and yet, no one lives there anymore. It is just a mansion...a skeleton of bad experiences and an entanglement of sad and depressing memories...dead and buried.
  3. I felt fear, anxiety, and a sense of panic - being zeroed in as the dolly camera drew closer to the actors - almost like being singled out. Aside from the actor Ivor-- the overlap / Double Exposure type of filming - used as a flashback or a dream sequence - gay, happy, Carefree. Rules were loose or just followed along the border of reality. . I had some trouble interpreting in answering these questions
  4. 1) silliness of the actors and the actresses...their wildness during the party just the upbeat sound and music, the happy feeling, the warm environment, the laughter, and the being tense--curiosity from the boxer who was looking through a little window in a door and seeing his wife sitting on the knee of his opponent also a good friend. 2) Hitchcock uses the Double Exposure...the overlay of the film to give the illusion of a dream-- awake and not. Therefore second guessing himself about a possible affair occurring between his wife and their friend, his opponent. 3) the two separate rooms - the office and the living room creating two scenes with a window in the door - almost like it is protecting him from the possibility of losing his wife to a champion. Does he feel like a loser - a failure - or just a man wanting different things?
  5. In regards to Daily Dose #1, I have my input to the questions! 1) Do you see the beginning of the "Hitchcock touch" in the sequence? (I wished "The Pleasure Garden" was aired on TCM. It would have helped me a lot when it came to these questions.) The two gentlemen (con-artists) outside the theater wanting to rob anyone a woman with her pouch, I guess, were looking for money in the end n discovered then was not money that he had taken out of her purse it was a letter. A woman and her dream - a ticket to become famous, rich... to have that taken away from her is heartbreaking. The woman being at the wrong place at the wrong time? Perhaps she should have been more aware of her surroundings and knowing that she should have kept her purse close so it would not be pickpocketed. Hitchcock's touch is just that...being at the wrong place at the wrong time or being at the right place, just at the wrong time? 2) do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacover and Spato assessment that this sequence cautions elements, or approach then we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50 years (of his film) career? (I am reading from my notes of sloppy handwriting, so I apologize for misspelling of names.) * I believe thag directing one's attention, the audience's attention, to draw their focus to the actors'/actresses' facial expressions...their emotions draws the audience in...into the situation, something that we all can relate. I personally cannot agree or disagree because we have our own opinions, our own thoughts and the ability to express and share with others are different. 3) since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations or certain opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue? In my opinion I would say no, I cannot say that even a "talkie" could set the stage, so to speak, on how a director envisions the actors' performances - we all understand that a silent film makes you, the viewer, sees what the director needs you to see, a similar director did the same thing with his movies and TV series, the director's name is David Lynch. And yes even David Lynch's directing and Alfred Hitchcock's directing made the audience think, play, discover, become curious, wonder, panic, fear, sadness, happiness, anger-- with what they saw on the screen, how the actors and actresses reflected their performances back to us, the audience. The only real limitations is hearing the voices of the cast in the silent films. We watched how the story was being unfolded or refolded...twisted, jumbled, and yet at the end we see an outcome we hoped for!
  6. I, too, had nothing but problems logging onto the forum boards...I had to create a new login after I had posted abt 2 weeks ago. Now, I have to catch up!
  7. [Part of the free course through Ball University and TCM] - Daily Dose #1~ June 25, 2018: question do you see the beginning of the "Hitchcock touch" in the sequence (providing specific examples). In the scene, a woman and her dream--a ticket to become famous, even rich? The two men outside the theater wanting to rob anyone and they see a woman who's pacing back and forth for the door to the theater. One man nudges the other and says he's going to rob her and take whatever she has in her purse within reach. So he ends up taking a piece of paper from her purse. Now she goes into the theater having enough confidence to speak to the people that work backstage. She reaches into her purse to get the letter and finds out that the letter is not in her purse she takes everything out but no letter... where is it? how could she have lost that letter, which is probably going through her mind over and over and over. Where is this "Hitchcock touch" to this particular scene: you have a woman who is desperate who is just praying that she will get picked she will get out of that nasty rot that she might be in her private life and then to have it be taken away by two pickpocketers who were probably just really looking for money, but ended up taking the letter. There is a beginning of Hitchcock's touch the facial expression of the woman despair panic and then we see the facial expressions of the two men that were outside of the theater kind of sly and sneaky and having no regard for anyone especially a woman they only took care of themselves they only looked out for themselves the number one. Daily Dose #2- do you agree or disagree with Strauss,etc., assessment that this sequence contains elements or an approach that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50 yrs of his film career? I believe that all directors, including Hitchcock, needed to get the attention of the audience whether it is the hero and the heroine of the film a scene of landscape a beautiful mountain in the background or something happening off of the distance and they comes to the viewers' spectrum, or it could be an animal or an object something that needs to be focus on, but not really focus on it, and then once you get pulled in, drawn into the story, seeing it from the beginning or maybe right in the middle but you understand what is happening even just before the film starts. What Hitchcock does in each of his films especially the ones that I have seen the Black and Whites of the twenties and thirties, and the forties, the 50s and even the 60s through the 70s, wants to tell you what is going on just a little bit just a little piece of crumb, half of a piece of a pie, but not the whole pie he wants you to stick with his film watch every action at how each of the characters speak to each other, and with each other their facial expression changes when they have happiness or sadness or fear or anger or frustration and you too understand that the audience can relate to those characters that are on the screen that are being portrayed in the film with the storyline-- this is exactly how Alfred Hitchcock makes everyone feels or thinks about the film. But the viewer may have a question or curious thought about a scene or a character... #3 - since this is a silent film do you feel there was any limitation or an opening scene that was lacking synchronicity of the spoken dialogue? No, I cannot say that even a "talkie" could set the stage - so to speak, on how a director envisions the actors' performances we all understand that a silent film makes you, the viewer, see what the director NEEDS you to see and a similar director did the same thing with his movies and TV series, David Lynch. But this is about Hitchcock and not David Lynch. Perhaps TCM and Ball University would offer a free course about his film career? I, myself have not seen any of Alfred Hitchcock's silent movies, none. So beginning next week--next Wednesday I will be watching "The Lodger". The Lodger is going to be part of Tuesday June 27th daily dose and I will be talking about the the little snippet of the video of the story of the film, and then answer questions that were added to the daily dose.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...