The World of Alfred Hitchcock

[rohanaka]

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}

> Is everyone invited to participate in this chat or is it a private club meeting?

 

Gee Miss Wonderly, that almost sounds confrontational. I hope I am misreading you.

 

From looking through this thread, I thought you already were participating in the discussion of this film (not to mention several others). And I would like to also point out that in my most recent post on The 39 Steps I was responding to comments made by a specific person who had asked me a specific question.

 

But in answer to your question to me, I think anyone who posts on this message board is entitled to post on whatever the topic of conversation is at hand, in any particular thread (so long as they are respectful and operating within the code of conduct) . So no, in no way would I qualify this chat or any other that I am aware of in any other thread here as a "private club". We are all equally free to post on any topic here, as far as I know.

 

But I will also say that as far as I know, no one is ever obligated to answer anyone either. We are all equally free to respond, or not respond as we choose. No one is under any obligations (that I am aware of) to talk to anyone else.

 

My goodness.. there is even an "ignore" option here, so people don't have to even read or see every post made in any given thread if they choose not to. How can one even know if their post is even being seen and/or read by every participant in any conversation since no one really knows for sure if they have been placed on someone else's "ignore" button or not.

 

I guess a polite way to participate in any thread would be if you start chatting on the given topic and only some people respond back to you, but not others... feel free to keep chatting with those who are talking with you, and leave the ones who are not to talk with whomever they so choose.

 

So again, to answer your question, to the best of my knowledge, we are all free to particpate in any conversation as long as we are polite and are within the guidelines of the code of conduct and as far as I know, there are no private clubs. But also (again) keep in mind that whatever posts are made do not obligate anyone (and/or everyone) to respond. We are all free citizens here.

 

And to show you how sincere I am that no one is ever under any obligation to reply to anyone's posts here, I see no reason to carry this particular conversation any further... so you truly are not obligated in any way to reply to me. I think there are far more interesting and productive sorts of discussions to be a part of on this board (as I am sure you would agree).

 

PS: Miss Goddess: To bring this back around to The 39 Steps, did I mention: "Oh that Robert Donat... woowee?"

 

Edited by: rohanaka on May 31, 2010 3:58 AM

[misswonderly3]

Rohanaka, I apologize. I admit, I did sound "snippy" -more so than I meant to. I don't want to start anything on this fun thread.

You're right, people have every right to respond or not to whatever anyone says about anything on these boards. I guess I was just trying to say, though, that sometimes I feel there are some threads where a few people get chatting together on them, and newer people (or new to that thread) are not always, welcome, almost like interrupting a group deep in discussion at a party. I've been reading this thread from the beginning because I love Hitchcock, but I never posted anything til a few days ago because everyone was having fun on it, and I didn't want to "break in". When I did, the reason was just to ask a question.

Again, I'm sorry I sounded kind of confrontational. All I was trying to say was, sometimes it does feel like one group is happy with the people they already chat with, and arent' necessarily happy about outsiders coming in. I'm quite possibly wrong about that.

I do enjoy reading your posts, and have read a lot of your "A Walk on the Noir Side" thread. Fun to read. I truely regret my snippy post, and wish I'd taken the time to word what I wanted to say more dipolomatically. No hard feelings?

[MissGoddess]

> PS: Miss Goddess: To bring this back around to The 39 Steps, did I mention: "Oh that Robert Donat... woowee?"

>

 

Do tell us more!

[rohanaka]

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}

> All I was trying to say was, sometimes it does feel like one group is happy with the people they

> already chat with, and arent' necessarily happy about outsiders coming in. I'm quite possibly

> wrong about that.

 

I am sure that you are.

 

And gee.. I know you are not trying to sound "confrontational" or as you put it, "snippy", but now you are almost sounding rather accusatory. Again, I hope I am misreading you.

 

Far be it from me to attempt to know the true motives of anyone here except myself, but as far as I can tell, there are no posters here who resent any genuine person posting about anything anywhere on the board (again, so long as they are polite and respectful) If one is truly wanting to honestly participate here, I am sure that person can find numerous threads to enjoy on this board, (as you seem to have already been doing, by the way).

 

And again.. I see no reason to carry this particular conversation any further.. so no need to respond.

 

Let's move on, shall we? As you say, this is a fun thread, Hitchcock is waiting.

 

> No hard feelings?

 

Well, of course not.

[rohanaka]

> {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote}

> > PS: Miss Goddess: To bring this back around to The 39 Steps, did I mention: "Oh that Robert Donat... woowee?"

> >

>

> Do tell us more!

 

OH me, oh my. What a guy. ha. I loved him in this film. He was funny, endearing, a bit boyish and "bumbling" almost... and yet he was also rather rugged and quite manly all at the same time. In fact this whole film was a nice mix of comedy, suspense and adventure all rolled into one.

 

But I have to confess that with Donat, I have a pretty limited frame of reference for him. I think he must have had a knack for those sorts of roles. But I am not as familiar as some, with all of his films, so I can't say for sure. I will say that up until now, I THOUGHT A Knight Without Armor was IT for him with me.. from what I have seen of him... that was my absolute MOST favorite.. now I am torn, ha. The two roles (and the two films for that matter) were very different.. and yet not so different in some ways.

 

Oh gee.. ha. it has been an upsetting weekend for my "favorites" list..ha. First this film and now more recently.. Four Sons too.. (OH I don't think I like having to reexamine my already TOO hard to choose from lists.. ha... Oh the drama, oh the agony.. oh brother.) HA!!!

 

As for your earlier question about where I would rank this among the other Hitchcock films. Well first of all... I am NOT the Hitchcock expert that you and some of the other folks on here are.. so I would not be a good person to answer that in any sort of "official" way. I will say that I thought it was a very good representation of what makes so many of his films so enjoyable ( interesting characters, fun plot twists, suspense, very creative use of the camera, etc)

 

And secondly (with regard to where I would rate it): HA!!! Did I not just mention I am anguishing over having to re-examine some of my favorites?????????????????? aaagghh... WHAT are you trying to do to me????????????? ha.

 

I will have to think about it some more and get back to you.

 

PS: you may have already mentioned this earlier here, but I would be interested in knowing where YOU would rank this film on your list for Hitchcock, little lady. (inquiring minds wanna know)

[MissGoddess]

> PS: you may have already mentioned this earlier here, but I would be interested in knowing where YOU would rank this film on your list for Hitchcock, little lady. (inquiring minds wanna know)

 

I actually have it kind of lower down on my list. For some reason, it's not one of my favorites but I am doubtless missing something. That's why I like to see what others find in it and how it compares to my own impressions. I think it's very entertaining and I like all the performers (though I'm not quite as big a Robert Donat fan as others). I think I have a little trouble following the plot...all those music and lecture halls, ha! But it's a very well crafted film. I especially like the part in Scotland with the sinister farmer and his lonesome wife...that's my favorite part, in fact. He reminds me of the farmer in The Farmer's Wife, only a more sinister version. I felt sorry for his wife. I like that Hitch made something deeper and unusual about this encounter beyond what it serves the plot.

 

I also like the conflict between Madeleine Carroll and Robert Donat, they're fun to watch.

 

So, all in all, while I admire the film it's not a tippy top favorite, at least not yet.

[rohanaka]

Hey there little missy,

 

actually have it kind of lower down on my list.

 

Now that does not surprise me. I think this particular "Hitch" is not so "deep" and thought provoking and some of the story is a bit "gappy" in places.. so I can see that you would not rate it as high as others. I also thought the ending was a bit "short". I wanted more "intrigue" about how "Mr. Memory" really fit into the story. But maybe I am being too critical.

 

I think it's very entertaining and I like all the performers (though I'm not quite as big a Robert Donat fan as others). I think I have a little trouble following the plot...all those music and lecture halls, ha! But it's a very well crafted film.

 

It is very entertaining. And I think I may have liked it a bit more than you (maybe because of how well I did like Donat in it.. but also because I guess I was just in the mood for something easy and enjoyable) I don't think this is one of those "Hitch's" that has to be thought about a lot. But it is more a "just for fun" adventure.

 

And PS: ha.. I enjoyed the lecture hall scene a lot. I thought it was one of the funnier (and more ironic) bits in the whole story.

 

But I did also like the scene you mentioned (the Scottish farm house) Although to me that part seemed the least believeable too.. ha. WHAT were the chances that one guy could have such a hard time "disappearing" into the landscape.. ha. It was such a remote spot.. and yet here come the authorities tearing up the countryside looking for him.. RIGHT THERE. (ha.. I started singing "It's a small world, afterall" just to be a smart alec, because I found it so hard to belive..ha)

 

OH.. and what about that innkeeper's wife.. ha. (mini-spoiler...I loved that bit with her coming in just as her husband is about to spill the beans I loved how her "mushy" romantic heart saves the day, ha) .

 

I think one of the other things I liked about this entire story was that Donat was not a "purposeful" hero. I guess I am meaning that he sort of fell into his situation and had a lot of "dumb luck" (like the bullet in the hymn book) and also a lot of BAD luck (what are the chances he'd fall into the hands of THE one bad guy he was trying to avoid in the whole country of Scotland???) ha... all of it working for and against him as he went. I guess those are the "interesting plot twists" I was mentioning though.

 

I also liked the conflict you mentioned between him and the woman (who also sort of accidently fell into his misfortune with him) I thought her part of the story fit in very nicely with his and her reactions to him were one of the more believable parts of the story.

 

All in all, I found it to be a very enjoyable film and am glad I got to watch it. (FINALLY)

 

Edited by: rohanaka on May 31, 2010 4:10 PM

[Bronxgirl48]

THE 39 STEPS was my first introduction to Robert Donat, and it was love at first sight! I'm enjoying the discussions and will chime in later. (I just saw another Hitch silent, EASY VIRTUE, last night, and want to throw in my two cents on that one as well)

 

 

 

 

Henry Jones was in a few "Alfred Hitchcock Presents".

[CineMaven]

Pardonne me....quien es Alfred Hitchcock?

 

It is 2 am in Barcelona...and while everyone in the house is asleep...i have the chance to grab the computer, check my e-mails, change my return flight (i?m staying here until June 7th) and finally catch

up to my favorite wacky wonderful message board: the Turner Classic Movies Message Board.

 

I?ve got a lot more reading to do throughout the board before sleeps sets in...did I mention it was 2 am?

I see there might soon be talk of The Thirty-Nine Steps.

[JackFavell]

Awesome to hear from you all the way from Barcelona, Miss Maven!

[scottman1932]

As I remember it, EASY VIRTUE is another interesting early Hitchcock film. I haven't watched it in a while, so I will try and view it again soon and comment on it.

[rohanaka]

quien es Alfred Hitchcock?

 

Sr. Hitchcock es un cineasta muy excelente (oh me.. ha. I hope that is correct.. My Spanish is more than a little rusty) ha.

 

HOWDY there Senorita Maven.. wow... a post from you all the way from Spain.. Ole! ha. Hope you are enjoying yourself out there in lovely Barcelona. Will look forward to hearing all about your trip and also to hear your thoughts on The 39 Steps too.

 

PS: Miss Bronxie and Ms Favell... hope you will dive on in soon as well.

[MissGoddess]

> {quote:title=Scottman wrote:}{quote}

> As I remember it, EASY VIRTUE is another interesting early Hitchcock film. I haven't watched it in a while, so I will try and view it again soon and comment on it.

 

It's not one of his best, but pretty interesting, at least when you consider it's about society's "situational" morals, as opposed to a tale of suspense. I believe the material was written by Noel Coward, so you get two of England's most famous artists collaborating.

[JackFavell]

Well, I started watching this afternoon, but family stuff came up and I had to stop. But I did realize that one of the all time most pleasurable aspects of Hitch's movies (for me at least) is beautifully illustrated in *The Thirty Nine Steps.*

 

To me, there is NOTHING better than those scenes in *TTNS*, *Sabotage* and *Saboteur* that take place in theaters (Yes, I left out *Torn Curtain* on purpose). I love Hitch's relationship with theatre, and his differentiation between it and real life. He is fascinated with us, the audience, and with crowds; and he is supremely interested in theatricality - what happens to us in public and what happens in private? How do we behave in a situation when we thought we were in private but find out differently? What happens when we become the lead actor in a play we only thought we were watching? It reminds me of Christopher Durang's play, *An Actor's Nightmare.* You can guess what that's about by the title.

 

Hitch's films almost always deal with people on public view for the first time, or in the spotlight for the wrong reasons, or even in the spotlight through another's suspicion. It gets to the very heart of Hitchcock - the man or woman thrust into the public eye mistakenly, pitted against the man who literally gets away with murder in front of a huge audience of unknowing people. You can name scenes in all his movies that deal with a person made hyper aware of their own actions by being thrust into the spotlight.

 

My favorite is in *Saboteur*, and it deserves a mention simply because it's brilliant, and if I don't say it someone else will, so forgive this slight digression. I will try to bring it all around somehow.

 

Fry, the minor villain in *Saboteur*, and the only man who can prove Barry's innocence, enters a movie theater followed by Barry, our hero. A movie is playing on the gigantic screen, and Hitch obviously had some fun creating the film within the film. It's pretty bad and also hilarious. As the movie is playing, a shot rings out from the screen, but also from Fry's gun in the theater. In his attempt to escape, he has shot an innocent bystander. The audience in the theater does not understand that a real murder has been committed. They sit complacently (I can't remember if they are laughing? I think they are) as the real victim's wife screams out that her husband has been shot. Fry escapes, in full view of these unwitting people. Confusion reigns as the crowd realizes that something violent has really happened, and they bolt to the door, almost trampling one another to get out of the movie theater. On the screen, the movie's bad dialogue blithely continues.... and as we see the crowd of panicked people running up the aisles toward the exit, a character on screen yells out, "Run, run for your lives!". It's a wonderful, surreal moment and I should probably be ashamed for unabashedly enjoying a murder scene so much. I would probably cite it as my favorite Hitch scene.

 

Anyway, I remembered all this as I sat back, enjoying the theatricality of *The Thirty Nine Steps*. Once again, we have a young man, thrust into that spotlight he is so enjoying seeing someone else in at the beginning, merely by helping an attractive lady out of that crowded music hall. It's catching, the theatre bug, so beware!

 

The way this movie is filmed is a delight, filled with little flourishes and theatrical tricks - like the mirror shot in Hannay's apartment, giving away Miss Smith's position. She is being watched like an actor - the morror shows her full figure, just as if she were on a stage. Hannay will take up her role as soon as she dies, for the show must go on.The scenes in the train to Scotland are filmed especially well. Look at the way Hannay discovers his very public situation - that he is a murder suspect. The too-chatty man in his train compartment is babbling along, talking about the murder that Hannay has just lived through. Chatty man is an audience member as well as an actor - He is reading out of the newspaper to his captive audience, and just as we are getting to the meat of the article, he suddenly digresses, talking about football scores. We NEED to know what that paper says! Hannay tries to read the paper upside down in chatty man's hands but finally must draw attention to himself by asking to borrow the paper. We, the audience, don't know if his picture is on the front page until Hannay flips the paper up in front of our eyes. Whew! It's quite suspenseful. Hannay's photo isn't there, but there is chatty man, peering at us over the edge of the paper. We (Hannay) have become the lead actor. From here on in, we are watched, spotted and chased all over the train, hounded; until finally a bold move helps him/us to get away - we become the man hiding in full view of the public.

 

That's what I've got so far. Sorry if it seemed a little roundabout, but it helps to explain why I really love this movie, and I think about these things every time I watch it.

 

More to come. Oh, and BTW, Ro, did I say, "woo-hoo! Robert Donat...... Oh, Lordy!" yet?

 

Edited for spelling again by: JackFavell on Jun 1, 2010 10:10 PM

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Jun 1, 2010 10:15 PM

[rohanaka]

Look at you, Jackie!! Wow, when you dive right in... you dive right IN!!

 

I love Hitch's relationship with theatre, and his differentiation between it and real life. He is fascinated with us, the audience, and with crowds; and he is supremely interested in theatricality - what happens to us in public and what happens in private? How do we behave in a situation when we thought we were in private but find out differently? What happens when we become the lead actor in a play we only thought we were watching?

 

Now that is something... you always have such a great perspective on filmmaking... I have learned a lot from your posts. Nice work tying this film to the other films (and the theater) And PS... I liked Saboteur a lot too... I do remember the scene you mentioned. (Ha.. "Run for your life" indeed) :-)

 

We NEED to know what that paper says! Hannay tries to read the paper upside down in chatty man's hands but finally must draw attention to himself by asking to borrow the paper. We, the audience, don't know if his picture is on the front page until Hannay flips the paper up in front of our eyes. Whew! It's quite suspenseful

 

(spoiler)

 

Oh my golly, I literally let out a sigh of relief when I saw that his photo was NOT in the paper.

 

but there is chatty man, peering at us over the edge of the paper. We (Hannay) have become the lead actor.

 

I loved that shot of the "chatty man". It was a part of that "creative" camera use I mentioned that you come to expect from Hitchcock. It was a great shot.

 

I wonder what would have happened if Donat's character had just sat there and not drawn any attention to himself after that??? I think that was one of the parts that made me a bit frustrated with the storyline. I wonder if he'd have just been able to give a false name to the authorities (as he tried to do often throughout the rest of the film) and if he had just sat still and calmly smiled while looking out the window the rest of the trip.. he MIGHT not have gotten chased so quickly and then maybe at least had bought himself some time. But then.. where would the movie have gone from there?? I don't know.

 

We (Hannay) have become the lead actor. From here on in, we are watched, spotted and chased all over the train, hounded; until finally a bold move helps him/us to get away - we become the man hiding in full view of the public.

 

Which brings me back to that "It's a small world afterall" comment I made earlier. ha. He really did take us on quite a run... and it was frustrating how sometimes it was harder than others for him to hide... in remote places and out in the open in plain sight too. I think it goes back to what I mentioned about him not being a "purposeful" hero. What DOES the average person (who is NOT a spy) know about how to covertly move through a crowd or travel from place to place and not be seen?? And yet there he was (and us along with him) trying not to stick out like a sore thumb.. yet getting thrust into the limelight time and again. I guess all the world really is a stage, ha. :-)

 

That's what I've got so far. Sorry if it seemed a little roundabout, but it helps to explain why I really love this movie, and I think about these things every time I watch it

 

Not round about at all. I like how you are tying this all together. Just like a pretty package.

[JackFavell]

> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote}

> Look at you, Jackie!! Wow, when you dive right in... you dive right IN!!

 

I do get carried away....

 

> Now that is something... you always have such a great perspective on filmmaking... I have learned a lot from your posts. Nice work tying this film to the other films (and the theater) And PS... I liked Saboteur a lot too... I do remember the scene you mentioned. (Ha.. "Run for your life" indeed) :-)

 

Oooh, I wasn't sure if you had seen it or not - I'm so glad you did! I really love that movie.

 

 

> Oh my golly, I literally let out a sigh of relief when I saw that his photo was NOT in the paper.

 

So how did Hitch get us to identify with or like Hannay so much that we instinctively want to safeguard him? I mean , that is pretty early in the film, we barely know the guy! He really does a great job building our feelings for Donat, I think it's because he adds those scenes of common decency in without making them too special - this man just does the right thing as a habit. He's a good guy. He saved Miss Smith from the theatre crush, and he tries to tell the cops about the murder.... but we see his struggle, back and forth, should he tell or not? and the way people look at him.... he hasn't got a chance. Oooh, and the suspense.....agggghhhh! it kills you here....Hitch really builds it up in this one so well.

 

> I loved that shot of the "chatty man". It was a part of that "creative" camera use I mentioned that you come to expect from Hitchcock. It was a great shot.

 

I liked that the film continued with more of those great shots - it's really a pretty beautiful and beautifully made movie. Oh, to walk along the Scottish countryside, with the fog rolling in, and the sky and the cliffs....AND ROBERT DONAT..... :x

 

> I wonder what would have happened if Donat's character had just sat there and not drawn any attention to himself after that??? I think that was one of the parts that made me a bit frustrated with the storyline. I wonder if he'd have just been able to give a false name to the authorities (as he tried to do often throughout the rest of the film) and if he had just sat still and calmly smiled while looking out the window the rest of the trip.. he MIGHT not have gotten chased so quickly and then maybe at least had bought himself some time. But then.. where would the movie have gone from there?? I don't know.

 

I didn't feel bad about that, but I do see what you mean. I kept thinking, "Why didn't the killer just kill Robert Donat when he killed Miss Smith? Much better. But of course, then no movie.

 

> Which brings me back to that "It's a small world afterall" comment I made earlier. ha. He really did take us on quite a run... and it was frustrating how sometimes it was harder than others for him to hide... in remote places and out in the open in plain sight too. I think it goes back to what I mentioned about him not being a "purposeful" hero. What DOES the average person (who is NOT a spy) know about how to covertly move through a crowd or travel from place to place and not be seen?? And yet there he was (and us along with him) trying not to stick out like a sore thumb.. yet getting thrust into the limelight time and again. I guess all the world really is a stage, ha. :-)

 

Oh you are so on it here - it is a small world! He learned pretty quick how to deal with the situation - what is it? Behavior modification? On the job training....I liked that scene with the milkman - he actually had to lie to him to get him to believe him! That scene seemed so real, so human to me! So I guess the average person has to learn to lie cheat and steal. And really, he didn't have to go through with the mission - his innate goodness made him want to help save his country, even if it made him look like a murderer.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Jun 2, 2010 12:12 AM

[movieman1957]

Pardon the interruption but----

 

If anyone has been looking for it "Strangers On A Train" airs Sat. the 6th at 10:15am ET. I know some points have been touched but maybe there is more to be mined,

[JackFavell]

Thanks for the info, MM! you are good to mention it, I hadn't seen it in the schedule yet.

 

When I was writing about Hitch's fascination with characters being spotlighted, one of the scenes I was thinking about was how Miriam behaves in public - when she is followed by Bruno at the amusement park. She even watches herself being watched in the fun house mirrors...

[redriver]

As I'm sure everyone is sick and tired of hearing, 39 STEPS is my favorite Hitchcock film. It's fast, exciting, romantic and witty. I imagine this approach was fairly rare at the time of release. This is also my favorite "type" of the director's many contributions. The man on the run, needing to find the real bad guys so that...you know the rest. If ever there was a concept tailored for a visual medium...As someone stated, this movie shares that theme with NORTH BY NORTHWEST, SABOTEUR and the superb YOUNG AND INNOCENT. That one doesn't get a lot of play; until ten years ago, I'd never heard of it. But it's a brilliant filmmaker at his British best. The title sounds like a Debbie Reynolds comedy, but I assure you, it's all Hitchcock!

 

Our friend, Holden Caulfield does like 39 STEPS, and remembers fondly seeing it with his sister. He also refers to a scene in THE GLASS KEY, but not by title. This is worth noting, as Holden generally expresses disdain for "lousy movies."

[JackFavell]

I haven't heard your feelings about The Thirty Nine Steps before, red.

 

I thought it was visually stunning - one of the most beautiful and visual of his films. I was wishing I could screencap it, there were so many scenes and set ups that caught my eye. They were all appropriate and never so over the top as to be distracting. Hitch really was the master, letting the eye of the camera describe everything to us - letting us know who is looking at some particular seemingly insignificant detail from across a room, or a moor.

 

But what I love most of all about the movie is watching Hitchcock watching us watching him.

 

I just can't get over the sheer romance of the movie. The point of the whole film is Richard lightly brushing Pamela's silky smooth leg with the back of his hand. True love is right at the end of your fingertips, if you you have fingertips. Back to those stockings.... ooooh....their love hate relationship and silly banter is sooo fantastically light and breezy and comfortable. Donat is superb at tossing off goofy dialogue as if it were the most normal thing in the world for him to be handcuffed to a beautiful blonde in a Scottish Bed and Breakfast. He puts her at her ease, and I love him for it. I love the way the final shot of the film shows the camera dollying away from Mr. Memory (his ending speech always makes me tear up - "Thank you sir. Thank you. I'm glad it's off my mind, at last." - with the dancing girls, and happy music playing in the background) - and again we see the handcuffs, and Richard and Pamela's hands reaching out to find each other. sigh.

[konway87]

I think Some People don't like The 39 steps, because Some DVD prints of The 39 steps are really DVD. I remember watching a DVD print of The 39 steps. And it was really horrible, because you can hardly hear any sound and the visual form of the film was bad too. But I was able to get a good print and I loved the film. This is the same situation with Under Capricorn. Some Prints are absolutely horrible.

 

I agree with what you said, Favell.

[DownGoesFrazier]

UNDER CAPRICORN could have the greatest print in the world, and people still wouldn't like it.

[misswonderly3]

The only two Hitchcock films I actually don't like are *Topaz* and *Under Capricorn.*

[johnm001]

> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}

>

>

> To me, there is NOTHING better than those scenes in *TTNS*, *Sabotage* and *Saboteur* that take place in theaters (Yes, I left out *Torn Curtain* on purpose). I love Hitch's relationship with theatre, and his differentiation between it and real life. He is fascinated with us, the audience, and with crowds; and he is supremely interested in theatricality - what happens to us in public and what happens in private? How do we behave in a situation when we thought we were in private but find out differently? What happens when we become the lead actor in a play we only thought we were watching? It reminds me of Christopher Durang's play, *An Actor's Nightmare.* You can guess what that's about by the title.

>

>

You also left out *The Man Who Knew Too Much*. Twice!

[konway87]

I wouldn't say it that way. Under Capricorn is considered among Hitchcock's best films in France. But in U.S, it is considered as a weak effort from Hitchcock. Just like the expression "One man's treasure is another man's trash." Its really a matter of opinion. Here is an example. Many people consider Citizen Kane as one of the best films. But I am not of them.

 

I am still confused why it is considered as a great film. But this is just my opinion.