Noir Alley

[ChristineHoard]

44 minutes ago, CaveGirl said:

I have a tome, and it really deserves that word, that is so academic and deep about the meaning behind "Vertigo" that it can blow one's mind. It's all about that Scotty is shown to be a male who is a bit, shall we say, impotent, and all the French twist close-ups and burial holes and towers and stairway passages that one can fall into, are about falling in love. This is Scotty's first attempt at such sexual issues since he thinks of Midge as a mother figure. I think we know that towers and tunnels could be representing phallic issues, and there is a certain necrophiliac leaning by Scotty towards his paramour that is also deeply regarded by the author whose theories are really interesting to read. He even goes into the colors that are used by Hitch for scenes and what he might have been trying to telegraph to the audience. I could go on but my head is starting to hurt. It's actually a great book though, and is quite thought provoking. I think it is called "An Eye for Hitchcock" by Murray Pomerance and has some other nice chapters focusing on a few more of his films.

One final thing about "Vertigo". I've often thought that there is no way Scotty could have survived holding on to that gutter on the roof at the beginning. I doubt he was saved and the story of "Vertigo" is just a stream of consciousness effect occurring right before his life is ended when he falls. Again see, the fall is the most important issue in the film. Yes, none of it happened, and just like Ambrose Bierce's story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" a whole life is encapsulated in a few seconds of time, and we the audience get to share the downfall of Scotty as he is falling from the roof and he dreams about the love that he never experienced on earth and regrets missing.

Your comments are better than the movie.

[LornaHansonForbes]

**This really has nothing to do with anything, but in the spirit of keeping the thread alive during ALLEY's hiatus, I saw FRENZY! (1975?) this winter and *loved* it. Really, it doesn't get the praise it deserves for The innovations Hitchcock's shows late in his career

id also say it's an even better film than VERTIGO. 

[Vautrin]

1 hour ago, CaveGirl said:

I have a tome, and it really deserves that word, that is so academic and deep about the meaning behind "Vertigo" that it can blow one's mind. It's all about that Scotty is shown to be a male who is a bit, shall we say, impotent, and all the French twist close-ups and burial holes and towers and stairway passages that one can fall into, are about falling in love. This is Scotty's first attempt at such sexual issues since he thinks of Midge as a mother figure. I think we know that towers and tunnels could be representing phallic issues, and there is a certain necrophiliac leaning by Scotty towards his paramour that is also deeply regarded by the author whose theories are really interesting to read. He even goes into the colors that are used by Hitch for scenes and what he might have been trying to telegraph to the audience. I could go on but my head is starting to hurt. It's actually a great book though, and is quite thought provoking. I think it is called "An Eye for Hitchcock" by Murray Pomerance and has some other nice chapters focusing on a few more of his films.

One final thing about "Vertigo". I've often thought that there is no way Scotty could have survived holding on to that gutter on the roof at the beginning. I doubt he was saved and the story of "Vertigo" is just a stream of consciousness effect occurring right before his life is ended when he falls. Again see, the fall is the most important issue in the film. Yes, none of it happened, and just like Ambrose Bierce's story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" a whole life is encapsulated in a few seconds of time, and we the audience get to share the downfall of Scotty as he is falling from the roof and he dreams about the love that he never experienced on earth and regrets missing.

I haven't read the book, but I know there is a lot of high tone speculation about the various

meanings of Vertigo, which are enjoyable as far as they go. I guess one can take one's pick.

Another big one seems to be the meaning of identity, who is the I, who are we really, is

there a permanent personality or is it just made up of shifting feelings, etc. Hey, whatever.

Round and round the verti goes, where it stops, nobody knows. For someone who doesn't

have a lot of time before he falls from that gutter, he sure packed a lot of plot into it. I view

it more as just the usual Hollywood improbability, which is sort of covered over and then

forgotten, especially when viewers only saw the film one time. After seeing the film a number

of times the Carlotta subplot is kind of boring to me, though it is more noteworthy the first

time through when one is trying to puzzle out exactly what is going on. Speaking of the

obsessiveness of Stewart's character reminds me a bit of It's a Wonderful Life where he is

so obsessed with getting out of his small town and seeing the larger world. In a few scenes

he ls so frustrated that it looks like he is about to explode. Of course in that case things end

on a positive note.  

[laffite]

53 minutes ago, CaveGirl said:

I have a tome, and it really deserves that word, that is so academic and deep about the meaning behind "Vertigo" that it can blow one's mind. It's all about that Scotty is shown to be a male who is a bit, shall we say, impotent, and all the French twist close-ups and burial holes and towers and stairway passages that one can fall into, are about falling in love. This is Scotty's first attempt at such sexual issues since he thinks of Midge as a mother figure. I think we know that towers and tunnels could be representing phallic issues, and there is a certain necrophiliac leaning by Scotty towards his paramour that is also deeply regarded by the author whose theories are really interesting to read. He even goes into the colors that are used by Hitch for scenes and what he might have been trying to telegraph to the audience. I could go on but my head is starting to hurt. It's actually a great book though, and is quite thought provoking. I think it is called "An Eye for Hitchcock" by Murray Pomerance and has some other nice chapters focusing on a few more of his films.

One final thing about "Vertigo". I've often thought that there is no way Scotty could have survived holding on to that gutter on the roof at the beginning. I doubt he was saved and the story of "Vertigo" is just a stream of consciousness effect occurring right before his life is ended when he falls. Again see, the fall is the most important issue in the film. Yes, none of it happened, and just like Ambrose Bierce's story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" a whole life is encapsulated in a few seconds of time, and we the audience get to share the downfall of Scotty as he is falling from the roof and he dreams about the love that he never experienced on earth and regrets missing.

Good write up and it makes me think that I should break down and give it another try. I say this because I have had for some time a little 'resentment' or something against it and I always bought into and thought myself that the plot holes were too numerous to ignore. I felt that there was something a bit to overtly self-conscious about it, some of the scenes so heavy and milked. And does Scotty get a little creepy with the make-over the new Madelaine? But that wasn't the idea, we are supposed to feel like Scotty, this fascination that this might be the same woman. When I first saw this in the theater in the year it came out, the plot twist that this woman should reappear was perhaps my first real and unbridled fascination with an totally unexpected plot twist. When she reappears the movie is nowhere near done but I seem to remember that at the time I thought it was, oh the movie is over and then BAM the whole story comes to life suddenly (Is it the same girl?) and there was something decidedly eerie about it. My adolescent mind and being at that time was quite bowled over. I was about 14. But later I thought that the whole story was so overwrought and that maybe the movie cheated a little. It's vague now but the scene where he stalks her and sees her go into the hotel and he knocks on the door and searches the whole place but she's not there. W T F, but maybe I missed something. But I felt cheated. Not the early viewing, but later on. But I can't even comment on the more bona fide and decidedly weightier themes you discuss, I'm really out of the loop on that. Could be that i have never given it a genuinely serious take on the deeper issues for having perhaps denounced it so fervently and for so long.

==

.

[cigarjoe]

21 hours ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

Would any of you regard Hillary Brooke as a femme fatale?

I've always enjoyed her icy, dare I say spooky qualities, even when she was Bud and Lou's neighbor on their television show.

Yes, she is actually in Noir Ministry of Fear (1944) and one that's pretty close called Confidence Girl which is better than The Sting

[Bronxgirl48]

5 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Oh, so you're the one.

Well good for you! 

Do you by any chance periodically visit the animal shelter and say "you got any especially ugly ones missing legs or an eye or both ears or something?"

(I kid! I kid!)

LOL

There's a shrunken head waiting for you on your bed!

[Bronxgirl48]

4 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

**This really has nothing to do with anything, but in the spirit of keeping the thread alive during ALLEY's hiatus, I saw FRENZY! (1975?) this winter and *loved* it. Really, it doesn't get the praise it deserves for The innovations Hitchcock's shows late in his career

id also say it's an even better film than VERTIGO. 

Retroplex Channel has been running Hitchcock films for many months now.  I've seen FRENZY several times; as a matter of fact I just finished watching it this evening.  Barry Foster is fantastic.  (the only other actor who I think could have played that part is Michael Caine)

[Bronxgirl48]

TOPAZ just started!

I'm addicted to that martial music score.  I just lurv it!  Weird, I know....but you should see me -- I bob my head back and forth in tune, I go crazy!

[Bronxgirl48]

2 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

Yes, she is actually in Noir Ministry of Fear (1944) and one that's pretty close called Confidence Girl which is better than The Sting

Thanks!  I do remember her in MINISTRY OF FEAR.  Thank you also for the heads up on CONFIDENCE GIRL -- never saw it.  I think Hillary is also in several or at least one of the Sherlock Holmes films -- THE WOMAN IN GREEN.  

 

[Bronxgirl48]

VERTIGO.

Questions.

Why does Judy from Salina, Kansas speak with New Yorker-ish intonations? ("Yuh satis-FYED?")  Is it to dramatically distinguish her "real" voice from Madeline's fake posh tones?  

Scottie first casts his eyes on Madeline at Ernie's for what? 5 seconds before he becomes totally and irretrievably obsessed with her?  

Judy doesn't bat an eyelash when she opens her hotel room door and sees Scottie.  I'm thinking she is just very good at compartmentalizing.

After Scottie rescues Madeline from the water he calls Elster and tells him what happened.  There is a significant pause from Elster on the other end, enough for Scottie to ask "Are you still there?"  Why does Gavin hesitate? 

Why does coroner Henry Jones affect what sounds to me like an exaggerated Southern accent when he says:  "From that great city to the Nooooaaaath"?

 

 

[Bronxgirl48]

5 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

I so wish I could have shopped at Ransahoff's, Bronxgirl. Don't you just love the mannequin in the window as Scotty and Judy approach the store. So elegant! Oh, you are also so right about good old clean cut Harold Lloyd and his propensity for shooting models in 3-D. I think, suspicious person that I am, that he just tried to say he was so interested in the 3-D camera possibilities, to try to make it seem like it was the innovations of the camera that drew him to photography, when really it was all just a ruse to get these girls to come to his mansion for some hanky panky. If anyone questioned it, then he could just say "Hey, I am a photography buff [no jokes abou the buff, okay?] and the human body is beautiful and lends itself well to three dimensions. How dare you imply that I am doing this for salacious purposes!"

You may be right about Milland's superior skill in DMFM, but it would have been fun to see Helmore do a screen test right? 

Yes, I loved those old department stores!  We will never see their like again....

I was really shocked to learn about Harold's "proclivities"!  I saw a "This Is Your Life" with him on YouTube where he seemed so....normal, lol.   We all pretty much know the dark sides of Chaplin and poor Keaton, but I thought for sure Lloyd was different.

I agree about a screen test for DIAL M FOR MURDER with Tom!  

[CaveGirl]

15 hours ago, laffite said:

Good write up and it makes me think that I should break down and give it another try. I say this because I have had for some time a little 'resentment' or something against it and I always bought into and thought myself that the plot holes were too numerous to ignore. I felt that there was something a bit to overtly self-conscious about it, some of the scenes so heavy and milked. And does Scotty get a little creepy with the make-over the new Madelaine? But that wasn't the idea, we are supposed to feel like Scotty, this fascination that this might be the same woman. When I first saw this in the theater in the year it came out, the plot twist that this woman should reappear was perhaps my first real and unbridled fascination with an totally unexpected plot twist. When she reappears the movie is nowhere near done but I seem to remember that at the time I thought it was, oh the movie is over and then BAM the whole story comes to life suddenly (Is it the same girl?) and there was something decidedly eerie about it. My adolescent mind and being at that time was quite bowled over. I was about 14. But later I thought that the whole story was so overwrought and that maybe the movie cheated a little. It's vague now but the scene where he stalks her and sees her go into the hotel and he knocks on the door and searches the whole place but she's not there. W T F, but maybe I missed something. But I felt cheated. Not the early viewing, but later on. But I can't even comment on the more bona fide and decidedly weightier themes you discuss, I'm really out of the loop on that. Could be that i have never given it a genuinely serious take on the deeper issues for having perhaps denounced it so fervently and for so long.

==

.

I find your thoughts interesting, Laffite since I can totally relate. I first saw "Vertigo" when I was about 14 and also thought the film was kind of overly staged [not words I would have used at the time!] and corny, and hated Kim Novak in the roles. I also totally hated the part with the cartoonish like figures that assail Scotty when he is having his nightmare, and though they were childish and now it is one of my favorite parts of the film as are the bits by Saul Bass, which are very innovative. The fun thing with movies is, you can catch the same movie years later and relate totally differently to it, which is what happened to me. The next time I saw it, in college, I wondered why I had not liked Kim Novak the first time because by then I was warming to her performance. As years went by, each time I saw it, and it would be by accidental means like it was showing on tv, I was becoming more entranced by it. There seemed to be a depth that I had missed as a younger viewer. It became a sort of labyrinth to view and try to work my way out of. I can kind of understand why some fans of it want to visit all the places seen in the movie, and even dig references to Coit Tower oddly enough. Is it great or not, is a question you will decide for yourself but the hidden identity thing is a bit fascinating to me, as are the semi-necrophiliac tendencies which remind me of Poe on crack. If you ever decide to watch again, please post your latest opinion on it.

[CaveGirl]

22 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I haven't read the book, but I know there is a lot of high tone speculation about the various

meanings of Vertigo, which are enjoyable as far as they go. I guess one can take one's pick.

Another big one seems to be the meaning of identity, who is the I, who are we really, is

there a permanent personality or is it just made up of shifting feelings, etc. Hey, whatever.

Round and round the verti goes, where it stops, nobody knows. For someone who doesn't

have a lot of time before he falls from that gutter, he sure packed a lot of plot into it. I view

it more as just the usual Hollywood improbability, which is sort of covered over and then

forgotten, especially when viewers only saw the film one time. After seeing the film a number

of times the Carlotta subplot is kind of boring to me, though it is more noteworthy the first

time through when one is trying to puzzle out exactly what is going on. Speaking of the

obsessiveness of Stewart's character reminds me a bit of It's a Wonderful Life where he is

so obsessed with getting out of his small town and seeing the larger world. In a few scenes

he ls so frustrated that it looks like he is about to explode. Of course in that case things end

on a positive note.  

As usual, penetrating exegesis, Vautrin!

Not only am I obsessed by "Vertigo" as a movie, I am obsessed with the opening title sequence. Just who is the actress who we only see in bits and pieces. I once took screen shots of each part, the eye, the nose, the mouth and pieced them all together so I could see the lady's entire face assembled. If I recall correctly whoever played this small part in the film is not credited, though there are a couple names of women in IMDB who it could apply to, but I need to do more research. I thought at first it might be the lady playing Carlotta in the nightmare sequence, but it's probably not. No one much talks about the title sequence except for the swirling figures by Saul Bass, but to me there is a lot to speculate on since I think Hitchcock always had a motive for anything he filmed. How about, and I just thought of this...the woman is watching Scotty as he hangs onto the gutter and her shock as he eyeball opens up wide, is seeing him fall to his death. Okay, I think I am going to go with this theory now, until a new one comes to me. Thanks, Vautrin for your thoughts!

Addendum: My friend who is a script supervisor and mega film fan just informed me that the face used in the opening of "Vertigo" is of Audrey Lowell, a sometimes model who did appear in a few films like "Loving You" and "The Horizontal Lieutenant" and even later was in a "Cheers" episode.

[CaveGirl]

16 hours ago, ChristineHoard said:

Your comments are better than the movie.

You have just been added to my will, Christine!

What higher accolades could I ever incur in this lifetime?

[speedracer5]

I'm going to take the contrary position and say that I like Vertigo.  When I'd first seen it, I didn't like it, mostly because I found the plot convoluted and confusing.  I'd tried watching it multiple times here and there, but could never "get" the plot.  Then I saw the movie in the theater.  While watching the film, the plot "clicked" for me and I really enjoyed watching it.  I loved the colors in the film, the scenery, the music, the cast, I loved everything in the film.  I have also stayed at the Hotel Vertigo in San Francisco.  The hotel is in the building that was used as Kim Novak's Hotel Empire.  The hotel has a square spiral staircase that is fun to look down, through the center of it. 

I also like Kim Novak.  I agree that she can be a bit stiff in her films, but she has a certain screen presence or whatnot that I like.  I've enjoyed each of her films that I've seen. Kim also lives on a ranch in S. Oregon, so I like thinking that I only live 4.5 hours up I-5 North from Kim Novak!  

My Top 5 Hitchcock films (right now): 

1. Rear Window

2. Notorious

3. Psycho

4. To Catch a Thief

5. Rebecca

I didn't like Marnie, only because I didn't like the scene where Sean Connery rapes Tippi Hedren.  I don't find that type of content enjoyable to watch.  Parts of Marnie were fine, but the whole honeymoon scene just killed it for me. 

I have Foreign Correspondent (and own it on Criterion).  But I haven't watched it all the way through.  I keep falling asleep.  I don't think it's the film's fault though, sometimes it can be a struggle for me to stay awake once it starts getting late (those 5:00-5:30am weekday wake up times can really catch up to you, when you're not a morning person to begin with). 

[Bronxgirl48]

2 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

You have just been added to my will, Christine!

What higher accolades could I ever incur in this lifetime?

CaveGirl, I agree with Christine.

(no hidden agenda, lol)

[CaveGirl]

13 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

I'm going to take the contrary position and say that I like Vertigo.  When I'd first seen it, I didn't like it, mostly because I found the plot convoluted and confusing.  I'd tried watching it multiple times here and there, but could never "get" the plot.  Then I saw the movie in the theater.  While watching the film, the plot "clicked" for me and I really enjoyed watching it.  I loved the colors in the film, the scenery, the music, the cast, I loved everything in the film.  I have also stayed at the Hotel Vertigo in San Francisco.  The hotel is in the building that was used as Kim Novak's Hotel Empire.  The hotel has a square spiral staircase that is fun to look down, through the center of it. 

I also like Kim Novak.  I agree that she can be a bit stiff in her films, but she has a certain screen presence or whatnot that I like.  I've enjoyed each of her films that I've seen. Kim also lives on a ranch in S. Oregon, so I like thinking that I only live 4.5 hours up I-5 North from Kim Novak!  

My Top 5 Hitchcock films (right now): 

1. Rear Window

2. Notorious

3. Psycho

4. To Catch a Thief

5. Rebecca

I didn't like Marnie, only because I didn't like the scene where Sean Connery rapes Tippi Hedren.  I don't find that type of content enjoyable to watch.  Parts of Marnie were fine, but the whole honeymoon scene just killed it for me. 

I have Foreign Correspondent (and own it on Criterion).  But I haven't watched it all the way through.  I keep falling asleep.  I don't think it's the film's fault though, sometimes it can be a struggle for me to stay awake once it starts getting late (those 5:00-5:30am weekday wake up times can really catch up to you, when you're not a morning person to begin with). 

You contrarian, Speedracer!

Enjoyed reading your thoughts and thanks! Not to split any more hairs in Kim's French twist hair-do but I think for some reason, "Vertigo" has endless reasons to become obsessed about. Is this by purpose, or did it just happen? I tend to think that Hitchcock was quite involved in the evolution of his movies and that he really had some deep reasons for choices he made in "Vertigo". Now, just like Bunuel who often said that he did not intend all the symbols people found in his films, I'm not saying all ideas about "Vertigo" are relevant, but for example, Hitchcock has been reported to have wanted to make a film in San Francisco for a while. And what city is more hilly with up and down street than this one, and we hear Scotty in the aftermath scene at Midge's apartment disavowing that he cannot get over his vertigo, by him ascending the stepladder and saying "I look up, and I look down" which he repeats. In all of San Francisco he will be confronted by the up and down movements surrounding him as he trails Madeleine. I could go on and on, with more small things like that which seem prepared by Hitchcock to enthrall the audience, but I would bore everyone even more than I usually do and get banned so I will stop. I find the film endlessly ensnaring in a circular pattern of death, almost death, death, almost death and death.

[CaveGirl]

6 minutes ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

CaveGirl, I agree with Christine.

(no hidden agenda, lol)

Oh, you're so sweet! I really appreciate that, and I love the Bronx by the way!

[Bronxgirl48]

CaveGirl, my Bronx and I thank you so much!

I haven't been back there in a long, long time but want to so much.....tugs at my heart.  Bittersweet.

On a lighter note, I woke up last night with TCM still on and saw something that was apparently TIP ON A DEAD JOCKEY.  This was a film I knew nothing about.  There was squat Martin Gabel prattling on (and on) in some Hollywood "foreign" accent about international intrigue; Bob ruminating on life, marriage, and.....Balzac; little (he's really short!) Marcel Dalio -- who had such a distinguished career in France (GRAND ILLUSION, RULES OF THE GAME) before coming to America and being unfortunately known primarily as the croupier in CASABLANCA -- playing a character named Toto, "colorful" sidekick to Taylor.  The great Miklos Rozsa (one of my favorites; his scores are easy to identify) seemed to be phoning it in but who could blame him?  At one point Marcel and Bob get into a plane going (I think) to Egypt but (mercifully) I fell asleep.

 

[Bronxgirl48]

44 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

 

I didn't like Marnie, only because I didn't like the scene where Sean Connery rapes Tippi Hedren.  I don't find that type of content enjoyable to watch.  Parts of Marnie were fine, but the whole honeymoon scene just killed it for me. 

 

I agree with you.  I read Hitch was excited to film it, giving some, um, explicit directions.

I don't even want to imagine what he thought about the rape scene in FRENZY.

I cannot stand Connery's character overall in MARNIE.  I will also add Rod Taylor in THE BIRDS.  

[speedracer5]

1 hour ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

I agree with you.  I read Hitch was excited to film it, giving some, um, explicit directions.

I don't even want to imagine what he thought about the rape scene in FRENZY.

I cannot stand Connery's character overall in MARNIE.  I will also add Rod Taylor in THE BIRDS.  

I haven't seen Frenzy yet.  If there's a rape scene there, I'm not sure if I want to, though I try to see as many Hitchcock films as I can.

I agree with you about Connery's character in Marnie, he was a jerk.

Re: Rod Taylor in The Birds.  I like the film, but the whole dynamic between Rod Taylor and Jessica Tandy was just strange.  And why was Veronica Cartwright cast as his sister? It would have made much more sense for her to be his daughter. 

And while we're on the topic of The Birds, the one thing I've never understood: When the birds start gathering on the jungle gym outside of the school, why do Suzanne Pleshette and Tippi Hedren decide that the most logical thing to do is to take the kids outside and run? They should have stayed inside! 

I also really hate the annoying song that the kids sing in The Birds.  It ranks right up there with the annoying song that the kids sing in An Affair to Remember.   

[Bronxgirl48]

30 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

I haven't seen Frenzy yet.  If there's a rape scene there, I'm not sure if I want to, though I try to see as many Hitchcock films as I can.

I agree with you about Connery's character in Marnie, he was a jerk.

Re: Rod Taylor in The Birds.  I like the film, but the whole dynamic between Rod Taylor and Jessica Tandy was just strange.  And why was Veronica Cartwright cast as his sister? It would have made much more sense for her to be his daughter. 

And while we're on the topic of The Birds, the one thing I've never understood: When the birds start gathering on the jungle gym outside of the school, why do Suzanne Pleshette and Tippi Hedren decide that the most logical thing to do is to take the kids outside and run? They should have stayed inside! 

I also really hate the annoying song that the kids sing in The Birds.  It ranks right up there with the annoying song that the kids sing in An Affair to Remember.   

"He knows you inside, He knows you outside....."  Blech!!

As for THE BIRDS, there is no better review than one a good friend of mine once wrote:  "The birds are O.K., it's the people who are unbelievable.  Auteurs had a tough time with this one"   I can't state it better than that!

I must recommend FRENZY to you.  It's nasty on many levels but pure Hitchcock and as such well worth your time.  I think you will enjoy the gentle, frustrated police inspector and his gourmet obsessed wife.

[laffite]

4 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

If you ever decide to watch again, please post your latest opinion on it.

Well, thank you for that, and in the meantime I will say nothing more as it is clear to me by remarks from you and others that my grasp of even the basic plot points are anemic, to say nothing of the various cruxes within the film that are like dim memories or worse never contemplated. I invoke my ace-in-the-whole, one-size-fits=all excuse that "it's been a long time" which it has. I have it coming in the mail and I am surprised (but pleased) that I am looking forward to it ; I thought I had shut the door on this one.

[CaveGirl]

22 minutes ago, laffite said:

Well, thank you for that, and in the meantime I will say nothing more as it is clear to me by remarks from you and others that my grasp of even the basic plot points are anemic, to say nothing of the various cruxes within the film that are like dim memories or worse never contemplated. I invoke my ace-in-the-whole, one-size-fits=all excuse that "it's been a long time" which it has. I have it coming in the mail and I am surprised (but pleased) that I am looking forward to it ; I thought I had shut the door on this one.

I think one's visceral reaction to anything is worthwhile even if it is later revised. I mean, even though I had a professor of literature once who said a great book is one which you want to read more than once, still an immediate reaction to a film is usually what should be expected by its creators, and they should not assume someone is going to watch it over and over to get the point. I do think Hitch intended it as entertainment and not a scholarly and eclectic look that only some geeks would enjoy, so your new reaction to it will be fun to hear about also. Hopefully with all my off the wall comments about its mysterious intricacies, they will not ruin your new viewing of it. Thanks for a really enjoyable discussion. Isn't it fun to have real movie buffs to discuss such things with online!

[CaveGirl]

1 hour ago, speedracer5 said:

I haven't seen Frenzy yet.  If there's a rape scene there, I'm not sure if I want to, though I try to see as many Hitchcock films as I can.

I agree with you about Connery's character in Marnie, he was a jerk.

Re: Rod Taylor in The Birds.  I like the film, but the whole dynamic between Rod Taylor and Jessica Tandy was just strange.  And why was Veronica Cartwright cast as his sister? It would have made much more sense for her to be his daughter. 

And while we're on the topic of The Birds, the one thing I've never understood: When the birds start gathering on the jungle gym outside of the school, why do Suzanne Pleshette and Tippi Hedren decide that the most logical thing to do is to take the kids outside and run? They should have stayed inside! 

I also really hate the annoying song that the kids sing in The Birds.  It ranks right up there with the annoying song that the kids sing in An Affair to Remember.   

Add to your most horrible singing by children in films, those kiddies in Sam Fuller's "The Naked Kiss". The only thing that makes it all okay, is that it becomes apparent that Fuller meant for the children in the hospital to be icky, as he was upending all ideas of normalcy and decency being easy to ascertain in the film. But their singing is really creepy.