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.

Following (1998)

So I think by this point everybody’s on board that Christopher Nolan is the bad ass of the times.  The best of the best, the leader of the pack, a movie-lover’s dream.  This is everybody’s man’s debut film.  Following is probably the most similar to Memento of any of his other movies, but it is also completely different in its own right.  It’s almost Hitchcock-esque.  Not quite so trippy as Inception, but still as gripping.  It’s a low-budget gem.

Following is, initially, about a man named Bill who follows people to pass the time.  He’s a writer, but has no current job, and wants to learn about human nature from his followees.  He had to set rules for himself though, so as not to become too obsessive or, like, perverted, and his most important rule of all was never to follow the same person twice.  But why set rules unless you can break them, eh?

He follows a man named Cobb.  (More than once).  But this mysterious, handsome man in a dark suit knows that our guy’s up to something and confronts him.  They talk, and share their stories.  Turns out Cobb’s a serial burglar, and he invites our man to go on some jobs with him.  These ain’t your run-of-the-mill-steal-the-jewelry-burglars, though.  Cobb’s more interested in the personal items of their victims.  ”Everyone has a box.”  He drinks their wine, rummages through photos, takes a few things here and there.  His intention is that “you take it away, show them what they had.”

They become partners, and Cobb shows the young man what’s up.  The young man starts some burglary projects of his own, changes his appearance, starts a relationship with a blonde femme-fatale.  Things spin out of control soon enough however.  Never follow someone twice, kids.

The chronology is similar to Memento.  Awesome.  It’s not as systematic as that, however (color real-time scenes, black & white backwards scenes, etc.)  But it’s still out of order, and possibly even awesome-r in this modern film noir.  Who would have thought that this method of storytelling would be so epic?  It can so effectively reveal the "what's-up" of a mystery.  This remains true for Following.  The big end wouldn’t be half as cool were it not for the messed up timeline.  Hats off to you, Chris.

Its length (just over an hour) and detached feel are strengths as well.  The only character credited with a name is Cobb.  This also felt like something Hitchcock would do (and did).  It’s very straightforward, and lacks strong emotion.  You learn the facts about the characters, you learn about the victims.  You can’t always feel what the young man is feeling, however.  It’s hard to describe, because it’s a character story, or study rather, but it still has this edgy, detached feel.

The incomprehensible small budget of just $6,000 is put to perfect use in the gritty underbelly of London.  Everything feels dirty, creepy, and mysterious.  The excellent photography combined with the scenery contributes to the suspense and ambiance.  The no-name cast is also excellent, Jeremy Theobald, Alex Haw, and Lucy Russell.  It’s a surprise to me that they did nothing else, they’re quite good in this – especially Alex Haw as Cobb.. and he doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page!

If you’re just hopping on the Chris Nolan bandwagon, I’d check this one out.  If you loved Memento, this is his father.  Following is another excellent film that credits Nolan as good as any other mainstream effort of his. 9/10

I Confess (1953)

What a terrific plot!  A certain well known lawyer, Monsieur Vilette, is murdered in Quebec city and all the police have to go by is a testimony of two young girls who saw a priest out late the hour the crime was committed.  Under inspection, Father Logan (Montgomery Clift) feels tormented and looks guilty but not for the reason the police think.  In fact, Father Logan knows exactly what happened to Monsieur Vilette.  He had been visited by Otto Keller (O.E. Hasse), caretaker of his parish, very late the night of the murder.  Otto came to Father Logan to confess his guilt in murdering the wealthy lawyer.  And we all know that a priest cannot disclose what he has learned in confessional.

It worsens when the police (led by Inspector Larrue, Karl Malden) find a motive associated with Father Logan.  Monsieur Vilette was blackmailing an old friend and once lover of Father Logan, Ruth Grandfort (Anne Baxter).  Unable to find a suitable alibi (he was indeed out that night), Father Logan is put to trial.  Will he keep the confidence of Otto, only to be convicted?  Or will he succumb and rat out the murderer to save his skin?  The plot builds in suspense excellently, another of Hitchcock’s great “audience as voyeur” examples.

A few notes:  What is it with screen priests always being young and good looking.  Montgomery Clift is nothing short of gorgeous, extremely talented, and underrated.  In case you were wondering.

I find it difficult to take Anne Baxter seriously.  After All About Eve (one of my favorites) I can’t help but believe her motives to be anything but sinister, her eyes still have that calculating flicker.  But Eve set aside, she isn’t my favorite of actresses, nor is she the most talented.  Nothin’ special.

This is one of Hitch’s lesser-known productions, but I think it’s nonetheless worth watching – for die-hard fans, absolutely, but even for beginning Hitchcock students.  It doesn’t have the usual humor found in his movies, but it is captivating and suspenseful.  The DVD-version is excellent with beautiful black-and-white photography.  And did I mention that Montgomery Clift is gorgeous? 8/10