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

Top 5 Hitchcock films


konway87
 Share

Recommended Posts

Saboteur is a good film. Otto Krueger's performance was very good. Hitchcock liked Cummings, because he was a light comedian. And he was an actor who was willing to take when actors like Gary Cooper refused to play the role.

 

I liked Priscilla Lane in the film. But I always wanted to see Margaret Sullavan in the role.

 

Also I decided to write the difference between Hitchcock's The Paradine Case and released The Paradine Case version. Here are the differences.

 

1) Many of the interesting long take technique scenes in the film were removed in the released version.

 

2) In the Hitchcock's Version, Ethel Barrymore's character was half crazy and scary. But now, we don't see anything extraordinary about Ethel Barrymore in the released version.

 

3) There are missing scenes like Art Gallery Scene and a conversation between Anthony Keane and Sir Simon Flaquer.

 

4) In the released version, the questions in the courtroom scene looks pretty dull, because Selznick cut many of the interesting scenes in the courtroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who reads novels on holidays? Girls who are bored with the same stale lines.

 

I'm in the Rebecca is good not great camp. I prefer Saboteur.

 

I understand they are quarantining that camp. Good.

 

Rebecca just doesn't feel like a true Hitch story to me. The film is very Hitchcockian, but the story isn't.

 

Here is where I disagree with most auteurists---why does a director have to limit himself to a particular genre, style, story type or anything in particular? I think Hitch can ONLY be considered great because he did so much more than "thrillers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I liked about Rebecca is Hitchcock's ability to direct a Gothic thriller. I thought the film had lot of Hitchcockian elements.

 

I love the scene where Mrs. de Winter goes to the morning room. I also liked what Hitchcock did with Mrs. Danvers. According to Imdb Trivia, Mrs. Danvers is hardly ever seen walking; she seems to glide. Alfred Hitchcock wanted her to be seen solely from Joan Fontaine's character's anxious point of view, and this effect tied in with her fear about Mrs. Danvers appearing anytime unexpectedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider Rebecca as an important film. And it is first film that Hitchcock made in U.S.

 

What is everyone's opinion on Suspicion (1941)? This is my favorite Hitchcock. And its Hitchcock's first film with Cary Grant in it. I love the scene where Cary Grant bringing the milk. But I wasn't satisfied with Hitchcock's Original Ending. I love the current ending, because it is an open ending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider Rebecca as an important film. And it is first film that Hitchcock made in U.S. What is everyone's opinion on Suspicion (1941)? This is my favorite Hitchcock. And its Hitchcock's first film with Cary Grant in it. I love the scene where Cary Grant bringing the milk. But I wasn't satisfied with Hitchcock's Original Ending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoy *Suspicion* alot. I like the look of the sets, how Hitch made it the perfect embodiment of what Americans think English country-life is like. The interior decor and Lina's wardrobe are exquisite. It's cute how in this movie and in *Rebecca* Hitch gets in a "dig" about how people perceive modern, abstract art. I don't think Joan Fontaine was ever more beautiful than in Suspicion.

 

I have to have the ending the way it is, even though it's a little on the anti-climactic side. I could not live with "Johnnie" ending up any other way. I also adore Nigel Bruce as "Beeky"---he's so cute!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Dearest MissG --

 

Similarities between Rebecca and Citizen Kane? No, I hadn't even thought about it. But how intriguing! Now you make me want to sit through that abominable film again just for this.

 

I assume that your gracious reference to "that abominable film" is intended to be a reference to Rebecca. I should watch it again, too, and continue to until I figure out who portrays Rebecca. It was probably Gloria Grahame. See, FrankieG, your opinion is the one that really counts.

 

I'm really starting to feel lonely. I never thought that I'd feel compelled to defend Citizen Kane as my favorite film, or read a post calling Killer of Sheep (one of my Top 10 faves) "independent junk", or sense that my integrity is being questioned (not on this Board) by listing Tourneur's *Stars in My Crown* as my favorite Western.

 

Such a price to pay for not worshipping at the feet of Hitchcock. But, hey, I really enjoyed The Informer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol!! I just wanted to see if you were paying attention, ChiO me boy-o. ;) Are the meanies criticizing your favorites? That's not nice. I love Stars in My Crown, by the way, so I know it wasn't moi. :D You just have to be patient with philistines I guess. You don't sit at Hitchcock's feet? I didn't know that. I'm not sure that's a position I would envy, either.

 

But, hey, I really enjoyed The Informer.

 

Ooof! Enough with your blarney now! ;)

 

So, are there any similarities in the films of Hitchcok and Sam Fuller we can discuss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPOILERS

I agree. Samson Raphaelson (Screenwriter of Suspicion) said to Hitchcock that his ending is great. But there is one major flaw. Why would Cary Grant's character Johnnie go and mail Lina's letter? He knows that Lina is going to die. Some people say that this is the major reason why Hitchcock's original ending wasn't used.

 

But I did noticed lots of things. When the current ending was used in the film, I thought the film became more intense. The film asks the question "Who is Johnnie?" In the film, we see him as a playboy, romantic boyfriend, Wonderful friend to Beaky, Immature husband, A Liar, A Thief, Mysterious husband, A Murderer, and we see him as a loving husband in the end

 

But the question is "Who is Johnnie Really?" A Critic around 1941 asked this question about Suspicion (1941) "If Johnnie murdered Beaky, then why would he apply loan out of his wife's insurance policy? If Johnnie murdered Beaky, then he would have been waiting for the profits from the Corporation. "

 

So I found the film very mysterious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPOILERS - I agree. Samson Raphaelson (Screenwriter of Suspicion) said to Hitchcock that his ending is great. But there is one major flaw. Why would Cary Grant's character Johnnie go and mail Lina's letter? He knows that Lina is going to die. Some people say that this is the major reason why Hitchcock's original ending wasn't used.

 

But I did noticed lots of things. When the current ending was used in the film, I thought the film became more intense. The film asks the question "Who is Johnnie?" In the film, we see him as a playboy, romantic boyfriend, Wonderful friend to Beaky, Immature husband, A Liar, A Thief, Mysterious husband, A Murderer, and we see him as a loving husband in the end

 

But the question is "Who is Johnnie Really?" A Critic around 1941 asked this question about Suspicion (1941) "If Johnnie murdered Beaky, then why would he apply loan out of his wife's insurance policy? If Johnnie murdered Beaky, then he would have been waiting for the profits from the Corporation. "

 

So I found the film very mysterious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPOILERS - I agree. Samson Raphaelson (Screenwriter of Suspicion) said to Hitchcock that his ending is great. But there is one major flaw. Why would Cary Grant's character Johnnie go and mail Lina's letter? He knows that Lina is going to die. Some people say that this is the major reason why Hitchcock's original ending wasn't used. But I did noticed lots of things. When the current ending was used in the film, I thought the film became more intense. The film asks the question "Who is Johnnie?" In the film, we see him as a playboy, romantic boyfriend, Wonderful friend to Beaky, Immature husband, A Liar, A Thief, Mysterious husband, A Murderer, and we see him as a loving husband in the end.

 

But the question is "Who is Johnnie Really?" A Critic around 1941 asked this question about Suspicion (1941) "If Johnnie murdered Beaky, then why would he apply loan out of his wife's insurance policy? If Johnnie murdered Beaky, then he would have been waiting for the profits from the Corporation. " So I found the film very mysterious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPOILERS - I agree. Samson Raphaelson (Screenwriter of Suspicion) said to Hitchcock that his ending is great. But there is one major flaw. Why would Cary Grant's character Johnnie go and mail Lina's letter? He knows that Lina is going to die. Some people say that this is the major reason why Hitchcock's original ending wasn't used. But I did noticed lots of things. When the current ending was used in the film, I thought the film became more intense. The film asks the question "Who is Johnnie?" In the film, we see him as a playboy, romantic boyfriend, Wonderful friend to Beaky, Immature husband, A Liar, A Thief, Mysterious husband, A Murderer, and we see him as a loving husband in the end.

But the question is "Who is Johnnie Really?" A Critic around 1941 asked this question about Suspicion (1941) "If Johnnie murdered Beaky, then why would he apply loan out of his wife's insurance policy? If Johnnie murdered Beaky, then he would have been waiting for the profits from the Corporation. " So I found the film very mysterious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPOILERS - I agree. Samson Raphaelson (Screenwriter of Suspicion) said to Hitchcock that his ending is great. But there is one major flaw. Why would Cary Grant's character Johnnie go and mail Lina's letter? He knows that Lina is going to die. Some people say that this is the major reason why Hitchcock's original ending wasn't used. But I did noticed lots of things. When the current ending was used in the film, I thought the film became more intense. The film asks the question "Who is Johnnie?" In the film, we see him as a playboy, romantic boyfriend, Wonderful friend to Beaky, Immature husband, A Liar, A Thief, Mysterious husband, A Murderer, and we see him as a loving husband in the end. But the question is "Who is Johnnie Really?" A Critic around 1941 asked this question about Suspicion (1941) "If Johnnie murdered Beaky, then why would he apply loan out of his wife's insurance policy? If Johnnie murdered Beaky, then he would have been waiting for the profits from the Corporation. " So I found the film very mysterious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point about if he murdered Beaky why would he need to kill his wife, too. One murder is dangerous enough and only a psychotic would move on to murder number two and I didn't think they were implying Johnnie was psycho, just desperate. If Hitch had kept the other ending it would have also been too predictable in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about the continous posts. Sadly, I don't know how to remove those posts. I cosider Suspicion (1941) as developing Hitchcock. I consider it as a masterpiece. For Example, the whole audience started believing that Johnnie is a murderer when police reads the testimony. But the testimony isn't really clear. "According to the French waiter "who has a slight understanding of English", his name appear to be Olbie or Holby." French Waiter only has a slight understanding of English. Anyway, I forgot to mention more similarities of Rebecca and Citizen Kane. For Example in Rebecca, Diary where we see the name "Rebecca de winter." In Citizen Kane, Reporter reads name "Charles Foster Kane" in the Diary.

 

Here is the Filmsite website of Citizen Kane - http://www.filmsite.org/citi.html

 

In Filmsite website of Citizen Kane, it mentions like this "More importantly, the innovative, bold film is an acknowledged milestone in the development of cinematic technique, although it 'shared' some of its techniques from Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940) and other earlier films."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the innovative, bold film is an acknowledged milestone in the development of cinematic technique, although it 'shared' some of its techniques from Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940) and other earlier films."

 

Namely, the earlier films of John Ford, John Ford and John Ford. :D:D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the innovative, bold film is an acknowledged milestone in the development of cinematic technique, although it 'shared' some of its techniques from Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940) and other earlier films."

 

Namely, the earlier films of John Ford, John Ford and John Ford.

 

Well...there you go again, MissG. The reality is -- and believe solid research would bear me out -- that Greg Toland hired John Ford to direct The Grapes of Wrath in order to prepare for working with a Genius the following year. :-) :-) :-)

Link to comment
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
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...