The World of Alfred Hitchcock

[johnm001]

As much as I love Bernard Herrmann (and film scores are my favorite form of music), I'm glad he was removed from *Torn Curtain*. I much prefer John Addison's music. Some of Herrmann's finest scores lay ahead, with his 2 De Palma films, *Sisters* and *Obsession* and *Taxi Driver*, as three of my favorite scores!

[konway87]

Yes, this was the music that was abandoned. I thought it was a brilliant score. I didn't like John Addison's music. I didn't find anything special about Addison's score.

[JackFavell]

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

> > Och, good evenin' to ya, girl! Yes, poor Clo-Clo, he can't hold a candle to my Richard, but I was shocked (oops, poor choice of word, sorry Claude)

> > to find that YouTube YANKED Francois's "Belinda" clip (the one with the clumsy go-go girls) But luckily I found another one. (whew)

> >

>

> They also yanked Fritz Lang's Secret Beyond the Door, which I had been

> planning to watch for months and missed my chance. All that's up is the opening

> credits. So, I'd say watch things while you can!

 

MissG - I think they just went through recently and yanked a whole bunch of movies...I have a few that I have been waiting to watch that are no longer there.

 

I am mad at Netflix too, because they stopped streaming the D.W. Griffith shorts. Grrrr. At least from them I can rent the dvd.

 

_Konway-_

 

I noticed even in the Thirty Nine Steps, the daughter of the fingerless man has glasses.

 

_Bronxgirl -_

 

You should watch the old 1969 Forsyte Saga. It is still one of the best things I have ever seen on TV. I went back and rented it recently and it holds up great. Kenneth More is the heart of the show. Upstairs, Downstairs has my heart, but I would say that the Forsyte Saga is even more well done. It's quite fascinating to watch just from a technical standpoint - it's directed very well.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Jun 11, 2010 9:06 AM

[misswonderly3]

"I've always been interested in people, but I've never liked them." Henry James

 

Thought in the interests of fair play, it was time to give Henry James a voice. No wonder he wasn't as much fun as Oscar! Can't imagine any of his stories being made into Hitchcock films. (Not that his work wasn't a rich mine for film ideas; look at Washington Square - The Heiress

The Turn of the Screw - The Innocents )

 

Back to Hitch: I've decided I am in no position to discuss him any further until I have seen Stage Fright again (little known fact that Stage Fright is actually based on Karl Marx's "Wage Labour

and Capital". )

 

Edited by: misswonderly on Jun 11, 2010 10:57 AM

[C.Bogle]

Henry does deserve his own quote. He wasn't as pithy as Mr. Wilde, but probably as

psychologically acute, though in a longer form. Perhaps if he hadn't been so deep in the

closet, he might have been a bit livelier. Life is a cabaret, old boy.

 

I could see Hitch doing a Henry James adaptation, perhaps The Golden Bowl or

The Aspern Papers. He could play up the suspense aspects of the story. It would

be something akin to Rebecca, instead of his 1950s color work. Going back to

Hitch's manly heroes, Jimmy didn't cut much of a manly figure when he was out clothes

shopping with Judy, at least not 1950s style. He was in control, but he looked a bit silly

in the dress shop, with the sales woman saying something along the lines of-Well, the

sugar da-I mean the gentlemen certainly knows what he wants. Gulp.

 

Now here's another example of multiple Hollywood stories. I've always heard that

Stage Fright was based on The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Who

really knows the true Tinseltown story?

[MissGoddess]

> MissG - I think they just went through recently and yanked a whole bunch of movies...I have a few that I have been waiting to watch that are no longer there.

>

> I am mad at Netflix too, because they stopped streaming the D.W. Griffith shorts. Grrrr. At least from them I can rent the dvd.

>

 

 

It really peeves me when they yank movies that are not available anywhere

else in any format! And that aren't anticipated to be released on DVD. What

is the point? What a gyp. What if we could go to the public library and

see them? Isn't that the same thing? Maybe they need to invent a public

library of film online.

[JackFavell]

I think that's a superb idea - I have been waiting for something like that for years - every once in a while I think someone has done it, but then I find that I have jumped to conclusions and the site is no more than a list of what's available, or not what I originally thought.

[konway87]

SPOILERS

 

I want to post something about Suspicion (1941)? When I watched the film, I was a bit confused. This is because Hitchcock wanted Cary Grant's character Johnnie to be villain. But the studio refused. Somehow I had the difficulty of believing Johnnie as the villain. I watched the film again and started thinking what if Johnnie wasn't the murderer? When I started thinking like that, the film made much more sense to me. The film ended becoming much more psychological, because of the current ending. Here are some interesting reasons I collected from the film.

 

1) Most of the movie is in Lina's point of view.

 

2) If he was looking for money, then he would have married a woman who was far more rich. Not only that Lina's father didn't like Johnnie. And Johnnie knew that. We even see Lina saying this in the beginning of the movie "Oh, I know you didn't marry me for my money. You could have done much better elsewhere."

 

3) Beaky was a good friend of Johnnie since his childhood. And Johnnie was broken all of his life financially. Lina's suspicion starts only after her marriage with Johnnie.

 

4) If Johnnie was responsible for the death of Beaky, then he would have been focusing on getting the profits from Corporation. The Corporation is still in place, because Beaky wasn't able to sink the corporation. So if he was the murderer, he wouldn't have applied for a "loan" out of Lina's life insurance policy.

 

5) As for the testimony of the French waiter, it isn't clear if Johnnie is the murderer. This is because French waiter only has a slight understanding of English.

 

If Johnnie isn't a murderer, then what is the reason for the increase of Suspicion?

 

Lina's Suspicions increase only after her father's death. Her father didn't like Johnnie. He says "Pity, he turned out to be so wild." Her father's sudden death was very shocking for her. After her father's death, she possibly started fearing that her father may have been right about Johnnie. So this might have led to the increase in her Suspicion.

 

There is an internal conflict between Lina and her father. After Beaky's death, we see Lina talking to her father's portrait - "He didn't go to Paris. He didn't go to Paris I tell you." The audience should also notice that it was Lina, who bought "Murder on the Footbridge." And it was Lina who spelled "Murder" (Anagram). And Suddenly, she started imagining Johnnie killing Beaky. Audience completely travel with Lina after that.

 

What do you think about it, everyone?

[JackFavell]

So in other words, the whole movie is more of a psychological portrait of Lina, who is experiencing a traumatic stress type reaction? rather than a murder mystery? I like that slant. I'll have to go back and watch again, it's been forever since I've seen that one.

[konway87]

SPOILERS

 

As you know, Hitchcock's vision of Suspicion(1941) was different. But the film somehow ended up becoming something like you mentioned "Psychological Portrait of Lina."

[misswonderly3]

Well, I finally re-watched Stage Fright. But now I feel I have to go read The Ambassadors before I can comment. Or maybe Salome .

[C.Bogle]

I'd go with Salome. By the time one finished The Ambassadors , one might

have to go back and watch Stage Fright all over again. I saw it many years ago

and didn't think too much of it, but most films deserve a second look.

 

Cary was definitely a cad, bounder, and blighter in Suspicion, but not a murderer.

Not romantic hero Cary Grant. But if one didn't know that before one saw the picture

for the first time, it seemed possible. His wife was right not to trust him after all his

lies and subterfuge. Taking it a step further to murder was a possibility. One of the

secondary things to enjoy about this movie is the comfy, cozy, English cliches that abound,

including Nigel Bruce, who is superb, once again, as the bumbling gentleman. He seems

a bit more intelligent than Watson, which isn't saying much.

[konway87]

SPOILERS

 

I agree. Nigel Bruce was wonderful in the film. In Hitchcock's less known films especially 1940s, I think secondary characters got a lot of attention from the audience. In Suspicion, we have Nigel Bruce. In Foreign Correspondent, we have Robert Benchley. In Shadow of A Doubt, we have Hume Cronyn. In Saboteur, Jack Favell pointed out there are lots of interesting characters like the Blind Man, People in Circus Caravan, Truck Driver, and several others. In The Paradine Case, we have Charles Laughton, Charles Coburn, and Joan Tetzel. In Stage Fright, we have Alastair Sim who gave a wonderful performance.

 

I think this was something that was missing in films like Spellbound, Notorious, North by Northwest, To Catch A Thief , and The Man Who Knew too Much (1956).

[C.Bogle]

Nigel Bruce as "Beaky" Thwaite. It does have a definite ring to it. Sometimes the

supporting players do seem to make more of an impression, for whatever reason.

Hume Cronyn was a hoot as Herb, the ultimate in nosy, especially around dinner

time, neighbors. Two others I think stand out are Barbara Bel Geddes as second

place Midge in Vertigo, and Thelma Ritter in Rear Window. She makes a great

comic trio with Jimmy and Grace, one that seems very natural.

[JackFavell]

Mildred Natwick and Edmund Gwenn in *The Trouble with Harry.*

 

Dame May Whitty, Cecil Parker, Linden Travers in *The Lady Vanishes* - not to mention the great Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne who were so popular that their characters, Charters and Caldicott, showed up in movies for YEARS afterward.

 

I've always particularly liked Albert Basserman as Van Meer in Foreign Correspondent as well.

 

*Lifeboat* is just chock full of great performances - it's hard to pick out any one over another, since they are all standouts. But the format of this one is different - it's supposed to be ensemble, rather than leads and supporting players.

 

*To Catch a Thief* does have the wonderful Jessie Royce Landis. She makes the movie as far as I am concerned.

[CineMaven]

"...In Hitchcock's less known films especially 1940s, I think secondary characters got a lot of attention from the audience...I think this was something that was missing in films like Spell-

bound, Notorious, North by Northwest, To Catch A Thief , and The Man Who Knew too Much (1956)." < konway87 >

 

You've made a good point there konway. But these last movies you mention seem very much more star driven. For my money, looking at Grant & Bergman & Peck & Stewart & Day is just fine...I don't need anyone else.

[konway87]

I forgot about Jessie Royce Landis. I agree with you Jack Favell about her performance. I also agree with CineMaven. Later Hitchcock films are more star driven. But still great to watch. Another great thing about later Hitchcock films are Herrmann's scores.

[MissGoddess]

Konway, I'm rewatching SUSPICION right now with all you wrote in mind. I've already got the feeling that based on how Hitch depicts the way Johnny meets Lina the first, then the second time, he is interested in her personally, apart from her money. I do think he's toying at first, and that he is attracted by the fact she's so proper, so well brought up and he delights in picking apart her well brought up defenses. He's a player alright. He's relishing playing the "big, bad wolf".

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Jun 16, 2010 8:46 PM

[konway87]

SPOILERS

 

Interesting post, MissGoddess. One thing that interested me is how Johnnie changes his mind for Lina whenever she makes a disagreement. When Lina says to Johnnie she wouldn't have sold those 2 chairs, he brings them back. When Lina disagrees about the idea of the corporation, Johnnie becomes angry with her. But he later changes his mind for her.

 

And in the current ending, Johnnie changes his mind when Lina begs him to turn the car around.

[MissGoddess]

> {quote:title=konway87 wrote:}{quote}

> SPOILERS

>

> Interesting post, MissGoddess. One thing that interested me is how Johnnie changes his mind for Lina whenever she makes a disagreement. When Lina says to Johnnie she wouldn't have sold those 2 chairs, he brings them back. When Lina disagrees about the idea of the corporation, Johnnie becomes angry with her. But he later changes his mind for her.

>

> And in the current ending, Johnnie changes his mind when Lina begs him to turn the car around.

 

I just noticed this very same thing! He always comes round to her thinking. I've just finished the part when the police come to question Lina (in Johnny's absence) about his relationship to Beaky in connection with the investigation of his death. They ask if she can enlighten them as to the corporation the two of them formed. She says yes, and then tells them only that Beaky died in Paris before he could dissolve the corporation. She says this, believing already Johnny was the other Englishman with Beaky the night he drank himself to death, and believing this, fails to inform the police that it was Johnny who decided to dissolve the corporation, not Beaky. She almost incriminates Johnny. And when she does this, Hitch has just put her in a two shot with her father's portrait, glowering menacingly beside her.

[konway87]

SPOILERS

I always felt that her father was like a villain figure. He becomes far more menacing after he dies. Another interesting point is that Johnnie knew Beaky's reaction to the Brandy. When Beaky gets reacted to the Brandy, he tells Lina that he has seen this happen before. So he is well aware of Beaky's reaction to the Brandy. So he doesn't really need a book like The Trial of Richard Palmer to kill Beaky.

[MissGoddess]

> {quote:title=konway87 wrote:}{quote}

> SPOILERS

> I always felt that her father was like a villain figure. He becomes far more menacing after he dies. Another interesting point is that Johnnie knew Beaky's reaction to the Brandy. When Beaky gets reacted to the Brandy, he tells Lina that he has seen this happen before. So he is well aware of Beaky's reaction to the Brandy. So he doesn't really need a book like The Trial of Richard Palmer to kill Beaky.

 

Great points! Yes, I felt like the General was reaching out from the grave,

controlling his daughter's perceptions. She broke free in the beginning,

but once the scales fell from her eyes and she realized Johnny was not

entirely Prince Charming, all of a sudden she reverted back to the kind

of thinking she'd been raised in. Johnny was irresponsible, ergo, Johnny

was capable of almost any villainy. I am even tempted to suspect that

there is an element of class prejudice to it. Johnny may have come from a

respectable background, but he broke from it and has lived a wastrel's

existence and therefore the thinking of people in the General's set is

that he's capable of all manner of badness.

 

Lina has to decide whether to think for herself and her husband, or

to be enslaved by the ideas impressed on her by her father.

 

Everything Johnny says or does is seen through a filter of prejudice

and fear on Lina's part. Watching the movie this last time, I was a little

out of patience with her hysteria. She was too quick to leap to a conclusion

that her husband was a murderer. It seemed so childish. Even that murder

mystery writer said Johnny couldn't commit a murder in a 100 years, and

she's something of an expert. Yet, Lina doesn't believe her.

 

Did you notice how Johnny gradually becomes more and more morose

and serious in the film? This time, it seemed to me in direct proportion to

Lina's withdrawal and disapproval of him. It's like he was suddenly waking

up to the fact she saw him as a loser and now he was beginning to believe it.

He, who'd probably never had a seriously self-reflective moment in his life,

was now beginning to appraise himself and finds himself lacking in the balances.

He starts to flounder about, trying desperately to right the wrong he did to

Melbeck, to raise himself in Lina's eyes.

 

Before, I was never quite convinced that Johnny ever could seriously

consider suicide, but this time I saw the progression of his depression

more clearly. His slide into self-doubt and fear as he witnessed his wife's

shrinking affection and respect for him drove him to desperation.

 

Nice to find something much more in a movie I had always rather

under-appreciated.

[traceyk65]

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

> Mildred Natwick and Edmund Gwenn in *The Trouble with Harry.*

>

> Dame May Whitty, Cecil Parker, Linden Travers in *The Lady Vanishes* - not to mention the great Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne who were so popular that their characters, Charters and Caldicott, showed up in movies for YEARS afterward.

>

> I've always particularly liked Albert Basserman as Van Meer in Foreign Correspondent as well.

>

> *Lifeboat* is just chock full of great performances - it's hard to pick out any one over another, since they are all standouts. But the format of this one is different - it's supposed to be ensemble, rather than leads and supporting players.

>

> *To Catch a Thief* does have the wonderful Jessie Royce Landis. She makes the movie as far as I am concerned.

 

 

I agree with all the above, Jack. And I love The Trouble with Harry especially. I don't understand why people don't get it. It's hilarious.

[konway87]

SPOILERS

 

All great points.

 

"She was too quick to leap to a conclusion that her husband was a murderer. It seemed so childish."

 

That is interesting. When we see Lina for the first time, she is reading a book on child psychology. It seems to me that her parents (especially her father) controlled her so much that she wasn't completely mature in thinking. To a degree, she can be connected to Norman Bates in Psycho.

[JackFavell]

> {quote:title=traceyk65 wrote:}{quote}

 

> I agree with all the above, Jack. And I love The Trouble with Harry especially. I don't understand why people don't get it. It's hilarious.

 

I love it. But I have a dark sense of humor....