Showing posts with label alfred hitchcock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alfred hitchcock. Show all posts

Sometimes Less is More


When I was 13, I saw Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho” for the first time. Like many others, I loved this horror classic for its creepy intensity and fascinating psychological themes. Afterwards, my mom asked me when I thought the film was made.

“I don’t know, like 1950?”
My mom responded, “What in the film makes you feel like it’s made in the ‘50s?”
“Um, I guess because it's black and white?”
“Lauren, what year was ‘The Wizard of Oz’ made?”
To be honest, I’m feeling a little sheepish at this point, but I respond, “Like, 1960?”
My mom laughs and says, “And why do you think—“
“Because it’s in color!”
“Would it surprise you to learn that ‘The Wizard of Oz’ was made over 20 years before ‘Psycho’?”

Yes. Why yes, it would – and did – surprise me.

In this amusing exchange between my mother and myself, I started to think about film and the way it is perceived by my generation. Black and white photography, silent films, and blue screens automatically label a film as “old” and “dated.” Many may think that the black and white Holocaust movie “Schindler’s List” was made in the ‘40s or ‘50s based on its cinematography when in fact it was made in 1993. Perhaps this has something to do with the ignorance of ~some youth in the 21st century. But this skewed perception of filmmaking has less to do with ignorance and more to do with a filmmaker’s deliberate decisions to make his or her film communicate something.

Like I said, I loved “Psycho.” The more I thought about the time in which it was made, the more I thought about what a genius Alfred Hitchcock was. Besides his many innovations in the suspense genre, he understood one key thing: he didn’t need to utilize all technology to tell a story just because it was available to him. The further into the 2000s that we go, the more we lose touch with the past in the entertainment industry. It may surprise some of you to learn that “Gone with the Wind” and “The Wizard of Oz” were both released in 1939 in full color – over 75 years ago. Naturally, with the innovation of color technology it would make sense that there was no going back for most directors and they would continue moving forward in Technicolor. However, what is most fascinating about any new invention is that it does not erase what you already had available to you. In fact, with an increase of options also comes the freedom to do more with less.

In the 1950’s a stream of science fiction B-movies were released. Movies like “Creature from the Black Lagoon” or “I Married a Monster from Outer Space” are hardly remembered by today’s audiences except through the occasional parody. These movies tried to make use of all technology available to them without much thought of effective storytelling. I could compare this to Michael Bay – a name most of us are familiar with. Nowadays, because technology has advanced so much in the last 20 years, there is a lot more you can do with film and Michael Bay has a knack for manipulating CGI to create some fascinating and mesmerizing eye candy. Movies like “Transformers,” or even others like “Avatar” or “The Avengers” have some incredible special effects that make these movies fun and enjoyable. But will those movies pass the test of time like “Psycho” has been able to?

Alfred Hitchcock chose to make “Psycho” in black and white despite it becoming more obsolete in the 60’s. The Master of Suspense – as he is known – knew how to captivate an audience with this throwback cinematography – reminding everyone of the film noir that took the 40’s and 50’s by storm and creating a mood that was dark and psychologically tormenting. He didn’t need color technology. But having color technology available to him helped to tell the story better.

Even Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar” of this past year employs a lot of great special effects to captivate the audience and engage them in an exciting ride. But what Nolan and Hitchcock have in common are their selective usage of technology and the ability to transport an audience to another time. “Interstellar” pays homage to “2001: A Space Odyssey” – the classic sci-fi opus of the 60’s and effectively brings the audience to a different mindset than usually induced by the likes of other 21st century action or science fiction films.

Many young filmgoers in today’s society may be thrown by a film deciding not to use every special effect available to them just as it would be a foreign concept for one of their peers to choose a flip phone over an iPhone. But as we learn to appreciate the filmmaker’s perspective more we can realize that with more options also comes the option to use less. And more often than not, less is more.

Disturbia (2007)

“…It’s too close for comfort ahhhh put on your break lights, you’re in the city of wonder… “
What, this isn’t the Rihanna song? Oh.
An ornery troubled teen (Shia LaBoeuf) on house arrest gets a little bit bored, turns into the nosey neighbor, goes all lewd/perverted over the new girl with the hot bod and the pool, and suspects someone to be a serial killer.  All in a day of boredom and people-watching.
This story is loosely based off of one of my all-time favorite Hitchcock’s: Rear Window.  I never realized just how perverted that show was until now…. but no.  It’s Jimmy Stewart.  And Grace Kelly was not such a deadbeat bikini chick.  Hitchcock was so crazy, how could you possibly make a movie that intense without the camera ever leaving one room…? Oh wait, was this review about that Shia LaBoeuf movie?  Shoot, I’d much rather talk about Jimmy Stewart.
LaBeef isn’t such a bad actor.  I love him in Holes.  Lately I’ve just been disappointed in the films he’s been in.  Transformers? Eagle Eye? Oh jeez.  Anyway, he ain’t bad in this either.  A little annoying, but I attribute that more to the script than the acting.  Basically it’s a lot of teenage puppy dog CRAP, with a little suspense thrown in there.  The amazing thing about Rear Window is its ability to allude to the obvious temptation Jimmy Stewart has of staring at the half-naked girl across the way without being overbearing.  In Disturbia: Here’s the girl doing yoga.  Ooh, here’s here walking slo-mo into the pool, oh NOW she’s tossing her hair back, and how cute – she’s reading a book on her roof while sunbathing in booty shorts.  It didn’t make it much better that I watched this with a group of immature guys who were loving all the skin they could get.  I’m not a boy.  I don’t care.
The two adults in the movie were decent, David Morse and Carrie-Anne Moss.  The girl (Sarah Roemer) sucked.  A Megan Fox wannabe, and I don’t even like Megan Fox.  LaBeef’s friend (Aaron Yoo) was pretty funny though.  There were some enjoyable things too, (twinkie towers?) and LaBeef’s restraining anklet made for an interesting turn.  It IS a pretty okay-crafted thriller for a teen movie, I’ll give that to D.J. Caruso.  It did get pretty intense late in the climax, I’ll admit that as well.  But it wasn’t enough to convince me to enjoy this ridiculously cliché, terribly written, knock off of a classic. 3/10

The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)

Much like Blackmail, The Lodger looks and feels like a Hitchcock piece.  But The Lodger is even better.
It’s about a series of murders committed by the neighborhood’s Jack the Ripper type killer called “the Avenger.”  Seven golden-haired girls have already bit the dust and the culprit is still at large.  Then, at the Bunting residence, a new tenant (Ivor Novello) arrives interested in their room for rent.  He’s very reserved, pays in advance, and is oddly frightened by golden-haired lady pictures  donning the walls.  Then, after first glance of golden-haired daughter Daisy (June Tripp… though apparently her screen name is simply “June”), this duo are instantly attracted to one another.  (There is no short supply of golden-haired chicks floating around, hence the periodic “To-night ‘Golden Curls’” memo – where, in fact, the blondies attempt to hide their golden locks for fear of being labeled as potential victims).
Daisy’s policeman beau Joe (Malcolm Keen) is assigned to the Avenger case and is definitely into Daisy’s new interest.  One evening Mrs. Bunting (Marie Ault) catches the lodger sneaking out in the middle of the night and the next morning another dead golden-haired girl is discovered – around the corner from their home.  Could the Avenger be the lodger? (he does have a name, by the way – Jonathan)
The Lodger is an excellent silent ranking in my top 3 early Hitchcocks.  It’s suspensful and excellently sets an apprehensive mood.  Our leading lady is an interesting character though at times a little much.  The other actors are quite good, particularly Ivor Novello.  The musical score (though better than Champagne) felt like the same three themes on repeat, but at least it was applicable.  Where history is concerned, this is the true molding for the master’s future career as it is his earliest to have survived in its entirety.  All in all a really great piece of work. 8/10

Number Seventeen (1932)

Subtitles, guys… subtitles… Any admirable qualities are washed away in a wave of ambiguity.  We’re talking a BIG hole when you can hardly understand the dialogue.  Or maybe I’m just stupid.
Number Seventeen, based on a stage play by J. Jefferson Farjeon (thanks Wikipedia), takes place in an old house by a railway.  Detective Gilbert (John Stuart) is looking for a valuable necklace that was robbed.  While searching the old house, he and an old man named Ben (Leon M. Lion) stumble upon a dead body.  Throughout the film more characters show up including a woman who falls through the roof named Nora (Anne Grey), and the actual gang of thieves responsible for the robbery, Mr. and Mrs. deaf-and-dumb Ackroyd (Henry Caine and Ann Casson) and a third.  The dead body soon disappears, guns are being pulled at everyone, people keep getting locked into different rooms, the sought-after necklace is recovered, and everybody ends up on a train.
First of all, I would love to see a remake.  It’s an idea with great potential, and although this production is not gold-star worthy I was really interested.  Second, Leon Lion is really funny to watch on screen – he’s that bad.  Can one man move their face that many different ways in the space of twenty seconds?  Yes, he can.  Third, the sound and music meshes together much better than Champagne (aka it was actually intentional).  Fourth, the mood and pace are quite good.
Hitchcock cites this film in his famous interview with Truffaut as being a disaster.  I beg to differ, Champagne was a disaster.  Number Seventeen is unrealized potential.  I enjoyed it, and there’s definitely some solid material to build upon.  5/10

Champagne (1928)

What is this: name that tune classical edition?  I heard some “Liebestraum,” some “Clair de Lune” … Beautiful stuff.   Too bad it does absolutely nothing for the story.  I was already very opinionated about the importance of music and sound to affect the mood of the film.  This film reiterates my position.  Without the usual musical cues, the mood gets lost in translation.  The march begins while the characters laugh in a bedroom.  It’s light and airy when she’s obviously depressed.  I never knew when to be happy or sad or worried.  So I usually just laughed.
Champagne is about a spoiled heiress Betty (Betty Balfour) (also the only character with a name) who uses her father’s (Gordon Harker) airplane to meet up with her lover (Jean Bradin) on a ship and run off together.  Though apparently she’s not supposed to do the marriage arrangements otherwise groom-to-be will get angry and lose the desire to get hitched.  Our fourth character is a mysterious man (Ferdinand von Alten) whom Betty had met while her boy was seasick and stuck in bed and revisits the scene many times throughout the movie.
The tables definitely turn when her disapproving father announces that he has lost their entire family fortune.  Betty attempts to sell all her jewelry only to be robbed in the process.  Totally broke, they have to rough it and unfortunately for the father, little Betty can’t cook well enough for a dog.  She ultimately finds work at a restaurant where she meets up with the mysterious man and boyfriend one last time…
Etc. I’m having a hard time writing this review because I was as far from interested as I could be.  Don’t get me wrong – I gave it my all, I sat through the entire thing and tried my best to appreciate what little I could.  My biggest irritant was by far the music, though I can’t really blame Hitchcock for that.  I’m sure he had no intention of placing nearly 50 classical pieces to play at random throughout his entire work.  I suppose there’s nothing terribly wrong for the story, just the pace.  The acting is fair.  The only thing commendable is innovative visual technique.
I really hope I don’t have to watch this again.  That’s all. 2/10

Blackmail (1929)

It took me fifteen minutes to figure out what the hell was going on… but once I finally found my whereabouts I was pleasantly surprised.  It began (both the film itself and production) as a silent but was later changed into a sound feature film, one of the very first British talkies.  (It was later released as a complete silent, something I have yet to see).  Blackmail is based on the play by Charles Bennett of the same title and the plot is just that.  Blackmail.  Starring the ever enchanting and delightful Anny Ondra as well as John Longden, Blackmail starts cooking when Alice White (Ondra) ditches her boyfriend detective Frank Webber (Longden) for a date with a Mr. Crewe (Cyril Ritchard), an artist she had agreed to meet.  Their “meeting” takes them to Mr. Crewe’s private studio where Alice naively flirts the night away, unaware for much too long of Mr. Crewe’s obviously lewd intentions.  Unaware, that is, until he attempts to take advantage of her and she stabs him to death.
The following day Frank is assigned to investigate the mysterious murder case.  He immediately discovers Alice’s connection after finding her glove in the studio.  He, unfortunately, is not the only one who knows of Alice’s involvement.  Local thief Tracey (Donald Calthrop), who had seen her with Mr. Crewe the previous evening, comes to confront Alice and Frank at her father’s shop in attempts to, you guessed it, blackmail them.  The film concludes with a surprisingly intense chase-scene and a satisfying end.
Chronologically speaking this is my “first” favorite.  For a film made in 1929, I was genuinely invested, genuinely frightened for our leading lady, and genuinely intrigued by its plot.  One scene in particular stands out to me.  After Alice has returned from her rather horrifying evening, she’s sitting at the kitchen table with her parents.  Another woman in the room is commenting on the murderer’s choice of a knife, and each time the word is uttered Alice’s eyes get a little wider.  The word is emphasized to the point that you can practically see it typed in bold-face on the screen.  Soon all we (and Alice) hear is “knife… Knife, KNIFE…” until she drops a knife onto the table.  It’s so perfectly tense.
I think the thing I’m most impressed with is how gripping the story is.  Many other films of this time period are far from that (The Farmer’s Wife for one).  And, I mean, if we’re comparing this to something like Speed of course it isn’t similarly jam-packed with action.  Nevertheless, from beginning to end it moves quickly and captures your attention.
Though stunted by awkward lip-syncing (talkies were too new to dub over in post production, and her Czech accent was too thick to suit), I am delighted with Anny Ondra.  She’s as cute as they come, I also enjoyed her in The Manxman.
Overall, Blackmail is a well-made early talkie, worthwhile to any film historian or movie lover and essential to a Hitchophile. Hitch-storian? Hitchmaniac? We'll work on that later. Anyway, the beginning is misleading, but stick with it for fifteen minutes.  It picks up.  7/10
p.s. Hitchcock’s trademark cameo in this is a new personal fave.