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

Recommended Posts

As for the clinical ending of the film:  yea, that is another can of worms and I'm sure it will be discussed as part of the course (with some saying the film would have been better without the Oakland character).    Was this ending designed to take away the horror aspects of the film?     I.e.  by explaining all the spooky events in such a straight forward,  clinical manner,  was Hitchcock telling us;  what looked like horror was just the works of mental illness?    

Well, Hitch being Hitch, the clinical ending may have been meant to serve more than one function. I recall reading (in Stephen Rebello's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, I think) that the psychiatrist's speech was basically meant to be empty filler inserted to give the audience time to recover from the previous shocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the best film noirs feature voice-over narration.  Hitchcock was not a fan of this technique. In fact, I cannot think of any film that features voice-over (and I have seen nearly all of his movies).  Let me know if you can point out a voice-over in Hitch's body of work.

 

Voice-over usually works really really well in film-noir.  I think it is the best genre for this technique.  But Hitch being Hitch, I'm sure he viewed voice-over as anti-cinematic 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the best film noirs feature voice-over narration.  Hitchcock was not a fan of this technique. In fact, I cannot think of any film that features voice-over (and I have seen nearly all of his movies).  Let me know if you can point out a voice-over in Hitch's body of work.

 

Voice-over usually works really really well in film-noir.  I think it is the best genre for this technique.  But Hitch being Hitch, I'm sure he viewed voice-over as anti-cinematic 

 

The opening of Rebecca (but this is NOT a 'noir').   So yea,  Hitchcock didn't use this technique, which I define as one of the noir elements.     I highly recommend the noir sub-forums at this site where the noir nerds (and I say this with love) have come up with 16 or so noir elements and 'rate' films for having or NOT having each of these elements.

 

These nerds covered films from many eras (classic noir 1940s - 1959),  neo-noir etc,   as well as many Hitchcock films. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yey, Rebecca, which does not seem very noirish.  I have not seen this one in decades, but I did tape it and will be watching it again soon.

Somewhere in his lecture notes, Dr. Edwards refers to Rebecca as a proto-noir, but I just don't see it. It's certainly shadowy and doom-laden in spots, but, as far as genre is concerned, I'd say these elements spring from the Gothic rather than the Noir.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in his lecture notes, Dr. Edwards refers to Rebecca as a proto-noir, but I just don't see it. It's certainly shadowy and doom-laden in spots, but, as far as genre is concerned, I'd say these elements spring from the Gothic rather than the Noir.

 

While there is the noir theme of obsession (yea, that would be you Mrs. Danvers!),   there are not enough noir elements in Rebecca for me to classify it as a noir (and I don't recall any of the noir books labeling it as such).

 

Note that if the film remained true to the book's ending,  where Max actually did kill Rebecca, and meets his end for this crime,  it would get a lot closer to being a noir with Rebecca being a femme-fatale from the grave!   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

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