So as my Hitchcock marathon finally comes to a close(a few weeks late) I wanted to give a run down with all the links.
Lifeboat(1944)
Vertigo(1958)
The Birds(1963)
Notorious(1946)
Strangers On A Train(1951)
North By Northwest(1959)
Frenzy(1972)
Rear Window(1954)
Psycho(1960)
This was so much fun, and really rewarding although I want to dig a lot deeper and see many of his British films and early American ones.
I hope you guys enjoyed it as much as I did.
Showing posts with label Alfred Hitchcock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alfred Hitchcock. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
PSYCHO-HITCHCOCK MARATHON
Warning: An extreme amount of spoilers are listed below. 
Psycho-1960-Alfred Hitchcock
In 1960 it seems that Hitch was at the top of his game. He had just come off a string of classics from Strangers On A Train, to Rear Window, to Vertigo, to North By Northwest. Everybody knew who Hitchcock was. Not only from his outstanding run of great films, but because of his television shows and celebrity status. So when Hitchcock released Psycho in 1960, everyone thought they knew what to expect, and they were wrong.
Because of his mother's lack of hospitality Norman decides to bring some food to Marion. He asks if it's alright that they eat in the office parlor of the hotel and she agrees. In this parlor we get, what I believe is the best scene of the film with some of the most heartbreaking dialogue ever said on celluloid.
Arbogast shows up and without suspicion asks Norman about Marion to which he first denies until further evidence proves that she was in fact there. We then get a series of close ups on Arbogast and Norman showing the fear of Norman and the hope felt by Arbogast that something might be gained. When Norman let's it slip that "She might have fooled me, but she didn't fool my mother." This gives Arbogast the realization that to gain everything he needs from Bates he needs to speak with Norman's mother. Norman won't allow this so Arbogast leaves feeling dissatisfied. While Arbogast pulls away we see Norman standing against the hotel wall, his face in half light, half shadow. Could his mother be taking him over? When he told Marion that "Mother is not quite herself today" was he really meaning that she isn't at all herself, but actually him?
Arbogast decides he's going to return to talk to the mother. He goes into the Bates house and begins yelling for Mrs. Bates. No answer. He looks around to no avail, but heads up the stairs to go to her bedroom where he has seen her sitting by the window. Once Arbogast reaches the top of the stairs he is attacked and murdered.
Norma Bates: It's sad, when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son. But I couldn't allow them to believe that I would commit murder. They'll put him away now, as I should have years ago. He was always bad, and in the end he intended to tell them I killed those girls and that man... as if I could do anything but just sit and stare, like one of his stuffed birds. They know I can't move a finger, and I won't. I'll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do... suspect me. They're probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching... they'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, "Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly..."
A creepy thing during this scene is while Norman holds a blanket around him with both hands a third hand sits on his lap. Could this be the hand of his mother with which he isn't going to swat the fly? creepy indeed. Not to mention the shot where Norman looks directly into the camera with the skeleton being slightly dissolved into the background.
Psycho-1960-Alfred Hitchcock .................................
Psycho.
The scenes are already popping into your head. The shower scene. The fruit cellar. The music. The creepiest ending ever put to film.
In 1960 it seems that Hitch was at the top of his game. He had just come off a string of classics from Strangers On A Train, to Rear Window, to Vertigo, to North By Northwest. Everybody knew who Hitchcock was. Not only from his outstanding run of great films, but because of his television shows and celebrity status. So when Hitchcock released Psycho in 1960, everyone thought they knew what to expect, and they were wrong.
Psycho opens with Marion Crane and Sam Loomis in a hotel room. They are having a premarital affair and Marion is upset because she so wants Sam to marry her. As a foreshadowing device Hitchcock places Marion in white underclothes as she is currently an innocent. She has hopes and dreams of love and marriage. The only problem is Sam's lack of money due to his debt and alimony payments.
Marion leaves the hotel with one last thing to say, when Sam asks if they can walk out together she replies, "I'm late and you have to put your shoes on." If only she knew how late she was.
Back at the office(real estate) Marion is a secretary. She works with another secretary who cannot stop blabbering on about her husband and their marriage. Suddenly her boss walks in with a customer. Tom Cassidy is his name and he is laying down 40,000 dollars to buy his daughter and her fiance a new place.
At this point, marriage has become a running theme. What is it about marriage that all these people will go to such drastic measures for? Is it love? Lust? Societal expectations? Everyone is putting themselves at risk for it. When Mr. Cassidy gives Marion the money to deposit for him she is supposed to take it to the bank, but as I said marriage is making these people do crazy things. Marion decides to take the money and run away.
We see Marion next changing and packing. We understand she is no longer innocent as she is now wearing black underclothing. At her most vulnerable now she has allowed evil to seep into her and given in to temptation. She's trying to, as Mr. Cassidy earlier states, "...buy out of unhappiness."
As Marion leaves her boss spots her at a stoplight but thinks little of it at the time. She is then talked to by a police officer who saw her asleep in her car on the side of the road. She acts suspiciously and gives him cause for concern. It seems almost as these are Marion's chances to turn back and not let this temptation take her over before it's too late. But Marion forges on, not knowing what lies ahead.
She takes her car to a used car dealership to trade it in for a different car as she fears the policeman will track her down. The policeman sees her there but says nothing, only watches. Once Marion gets the car and leaves in a hurry she can hear in her mind what she believes they are saying. Not only the policeman and car salesman, but her boss, Mr. Cassidy, her sister Lila, and Sam. This tool is later used by Norman Bates to a different degree.
Getting lost and tired Marion decides to stop at a little hotel called Bates Motel. Upon stopping there she is greeted by Norman Bates. A slightly shy, awkward fellow but seemingly nice as can be. He helps her with her bags and shows her her room. Something strange about the whole scene is Norman's inability to say the word bathroom. You can almost sense something isn't right about that bathroom, but the film goes on without another mention.
Norman offers to make Marion some dinner and hopes to have her come up to his place, but his mother doesn't approve. In fact, she is fuming with jealousy.
Because of his mother's lack of hospitality Norman decides to bring some food to Marion. He asks if it's alright that they eat in the office parlor of the hotel and she agrees. In this parlor we get, what I believe is the best scene of the film with some of the most heartbreaking dialogue ever said on celluloid.Norman Bates: You know what I think? I think that we're all in our private traps, clamped in them, and none of us can ever get out. We scratch and we claw, but only at the air, only at each other, and for all of it, we never budge an inch.
Marion Crane: Sometimes, we deliberately step into those traps.
Norman Bates: I was born into mine. I don't mind it anymore.
Marion Crane: Oh, but you should. You should mind it.
Norman Bates: Oh, I do,but I say I don't.
There happens to be so much honesty and vulnerability in the words that Norman says here. It also happens to be one of the only times he can say a complete sentence without stuttering or stammering while talking to Marion. Continuing on with Norman's relationship with his mother Marion finds the things she said to him would be hurtful if said to her. Norman can only say little things like "A boy's best friend is his mother" or when talking about the untimely death of his mother's lover and says she has nothing left, Marion replies with "Well, At least she has you" to which Norman states, "A son is a poor substitute for a lover." What we sense through his facial reactions and the way in which he says this is that he wishes he could be that substitute, or in fact, that lover. It is the Freudian aspect within all of Hitchcock's films reaching it's ultimate climax.
After their parlor conversation Marion is convinced she has to do something to get out of the 'personal trap' she has placed herself into. Even before leaving the Parlor, when Norman asks her name she tells him Mrs. Crane, allowing herself to be truthful again. Heading back to her room where she has the money wrapped on the nightstand in a newspaper, she is figuring out how to pay back what she has spent. She is now ready to regain her innocence and shed herself of this temptation. To do so, in a religious sense, she must wash herself of her sin. So Marion, in a moment of total honesty, sheds all of her clothing and lets the shower water wash away her transgressions. In the midst of this, she is smiling and it's obvious that she is going to change herself for the better. What transpires next is something truly and incredibly shocking. No longer today is a viewer surprised by what happens because it is a part of pop culture, but still in the context of the film, it shocks you and leaves you with a knot in your stomach. While Marion showers and washes herself clean, she is murdered by what seems to be Norman's mother. Her sins have caught up with her and she no longer has the ability to go on. Marion reaches out with one last hope grabbing nothing but the shower curtain which gives out, causing her to fall over, dead.
As Marion was finally allowing herself her innocence she had it stolen as we watch the blood run down the drain. A slow dissolve from the drain to Marion's eye shows us to total emptiness that now encapsulates her soul. As she already told Sam "I'm late and you have to put your shoes on." She's too late and he's too far behind to help her.
With Marion's death we are left with no one to empathize with. We are only halfway through the film and the only other character with whom we have had a chance to spend any time with and feel anything for is Norman. What Hitchcock does here is total and complete brilliance. With Norman's total shock of the murderer and his clean up, we see a son cleaning up his mother's mess. But when Norman lays the shower curtain on the ground and moves Marion to lay her on it, he looks at his hands, he has gotten blood on them. Is Norman guilty? Is the blood really "on his hands", as the metaphor so profoundly states. At this point we don't know, but we feel for Norman as he cleans up the mess. He wraps Marion up in the shower curtain just as she wrapped her sin(the money) up in the newspaper.
Norman has to throw Marion and all her belongings and anything to prove the murderer into Marion's car trunk and push the car into a pond outside the motel. After pushing the car into the pond we get a feeling of doubt and fear as the car stops sinking for a few seconds. Is it going to sink all the way? We hope it does because we are now rooting for Norman, in a sense.
From there we go to Sam's work where a woman is reading the label of an extermination tool; ""Guaranteed to exterminate any insect in the world", but is it painless? Every death should be painless whether it be insect or human." Could this be a foreshadowing of Norman's ultimate surmise? He, or his mother, didn't allow for Marion's death to be painless, but rather painful. Why else would this bit of dialogue be so strategically placed here, just after Marion's death?
When Lila confronts Sam about whether or not he knows where Marion is, they are both approached by a Private Investigator named Arbogast. He is after her to retrieve the 40,000 dollars. He tells them how he's looking for Marion as well, and then we see him go on a search from motel to motel, finally reaching Bates Motel.
Arbogast shows up and without suspicion asks Norman about Marion to which he first denies until further evidence proves that she was in fact there. We then get a series of close ups on Arbogast and Norman showing the fear of Norman and the hope felt by Arbogast that something might be gained. When Norman let's it slip that "She might have fooled me, but she didn't fool my mother." This gives Arbogast the realization that to gain everything he needs from Bates he needs to speak with Norman's mother. Norman won't allow this so Arbogast leaves feeling dissatisfied. While Arbogast pulls away we see Norman standing against the hotel wall, his face in half light, half shadow. Could his mother be taking him over? When he told Marion that "Mother is not quite herself today" was he really meaning that she isn't at all herself, but actually him?Arbogast decides he's going to return to talk to the mother. He goes into the Bates house and begins yelling for Mrs. Bates. No answer. He looks around to no avail, but heads up the stairs to go to her bedroom where he has seen her sitting by the window. Once Arbogast reaches the top of the stairs he is attacked and murdered.
After waiting for so long Sam decides to go to the Bates Motel to talk with Norman or Mrs. Bates and see if something is wrong. When he arrives he sees an old woman sitting in the window of her room, but she doesn't answer. He yells for Arbogast but again, no answer. We see Norman looking out at the pond as he had just pushed Arbogast's car out there. He looks over once he hears Sam, with his entire face now in shadow. The darker side of him has taken over.
When Sam finds nothing him and Lila go to the Deputy Sheriff who is of little help besides to inform them of Norman's mother's death. He lets them know she has been dead for 10 years now, she died with her lover, in bed. What he doesn't know at this time is at who's hands she died.
Feeling strange about the situation Sam and Lila decide to get a cabin for a night and look around to see if they can find anything incriminating. While Sam distracts Norman, Lila looks around the house for Mrs. Bates or some other type of evidence. She sees Mrs. Bates' room but no one in it. She then sees Norman's room which is still as a child's room with toys and a child's bed, that is unmade, as if it is still slept in.
In an earlier scene we see Norman hide his mother in the damp, cold cellar. This is just as he hides his victims in the damp, cold swamp.
When Norman figures out that she is in his house he knocks Sam out and runs to it. When Lila sees him she heads to the cellar and sees an old woman sitting there. She turns her around and screams at the sight of a skeleton. Norman runs down wearing a dress and wig, with a knife in hand only to be stopped at the last second by Sam. While all of this is happening a single light bulb swings back and forth through all the commotion showing the truth that has been revealed. We have finally been shown the light.
In a rather pointless but still interesting scene we are informed of Norman and his mother really being Norman in a split personality sense. Norman has, ever since her death, been half Norman half mother. We learn that he is no longer ever fully Norman, but is often fully mother. Even drifting in conversation from Norman to mother in sentence after sentence. This is heavily seen in the parlor scene with Marion and Norman.
Why I say this scene of exposition is rather pointless is because Hitchcock could have done without this scene and allowed the viewer to make up their own interpretation. While it is interesting to hear exactly what in the world just happened, I would have liked to be able to make that up for myself. I get the feeling this wasn't Hitch's decision but the studio's to which he conceded to in order to make such an outlandish film.
The final scene and monologue are greatly needed as they show the total and complete takeover of Norman by his mother personality.
Norma Bates: It's sad, when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son. But I couldn't allow them to believe that I would commit murder. They'll put him away now, as I should have years ago. He was always bad, and in the end he intended to tell them I killed those girls and that man... as if I could do anything but just sit and stare, like one of his stuffed birds. They know I can't move a finger, and I won't. I'll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do... suspect me. They're probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching... they'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, "Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly..." A creepy thing during this scene is while Norman holds a blanket around him with both hands a third hand sits on his lap. Could this be the hand of his mother with which he isn't going to swat the fly? creepy indeed. Not to mention the shot where Norman looks directly into the camera with the skeleton being slightly dissolved into the background.
This, to me, is Hitchcock's masterpiece. Even with the exposition(which I could do without) I feel this is a perfect film. The innovation and style are 100% Hitchcock and no one else could pull it off, as evidenced by the following sequels.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
"I don't know if you know it, Babs, but you're my type of woman." HITCHCOCK MARATHON
Frenzy-1972-Alfred Hitchcock.................................................
After Hitchcock made The Birds he went into a major decline as a director. While his films weren't bad, they tended to lack the intensity,polish and heart of so many of Hitchcock's classics. So it's not surprise that when Hitchcock made Frenzy it was said that it was "the picture of a young man."
Frenzy brings us into a story of mysterious connected neck tie killings. We meet Dick Blaney along the way, who is thought to be the neck tie murderer, but as usual in a Hitchcock film, is wrongly accused. All the evidence points to him as his ex-wife is murdered just minutes after he left her office. After that, his current girlfriend is also murdered. The film follows him on the run, but not getting very far.
The amazing thing that Hitchcock does here is give us a killer we originally grow to like. When we first happen upon Bob Rusk he is helping out Dick. He seems like a helpful and loving guy. He visits his mom, he sells fruit, he gives Dick tips on the races. What's not to like?
Something else that struck me was Hitchcock's visceral shooting style. While normally Hitchcock doesn't show us the gruesome stuff, here he allows us to see a woman be raped and murdered, there are multiple shots of nude woman(normally dead), but oddly enough it works because Hitch isn't exploitative. Hitchcock knows enough not to show too many murders, so he shows us the first one to bring us into just how terrible a thing was being done. After that we get the murderer's struggle. A darkly comical scene where Bob has killed off a main character and tried to throw her in the back of a potato truck, but realizes that something of his was in her hands and would easily incriminate him.
A thought that constantly has crossed my mind after watching Frenzy is; why neck ties? It could have just as easily been rope, belts, any number of things. Could this be Hitchcock's ode to the working class? Is he saying that the working man is somehow killing the working woman? The two woman who are murdered seem to be hard working woman(one has her own business, the other a bar tender). Is it an argument against sexism? One would have to examine more carefully to truly find out, but it is a question I have pondered.
Frenzy is definitely a very hard hitting film, but it does lack some of that Hitchcock quality. While it does have suspense, horror, humor, and many of Hithcock's usual themes and ideals, it doesn't come across as emotionally gripping and thematically deep as some of his earlier classics.
There's much more that could be said about Frenzy though. While it isn't a classic Hitchcock film, it is still far superior to most of the dreck that is released weekly.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
"If you had only once said that you loved me." HITCHCOCK MARATHON(GUEST AUTHOR)
Before getting to the review of Notorious I wanted to say a few words about the author. TS writes over at Screen Savour and does an excellent job over there. I have found his writing to be both insightful and entertaining. As one reader commented, he is like a professor and we are his students, ready and eager to learn some more. While I mainly have dealt with theory and theme throughout my marathon, TS will deal with both of those along with history, back story, production details, cast and crew details and much more. I hope you enjoy this glimpse of TS's writing and go check out his own Hitchock marathon throughout the month of October. He is going to be going through every Hitchcock film available for us to see. Anyways, without further ado...
..................
Notorius-1946-Alfred Hitchcock
................
"The story of Notorious is the old conflict between love and duty." - Alfred Hitchcock to François Truffaut
Notorious is Alfred Hitchcock's mid-career masterpiece. Yes, he had made great movies before it (The 39 Steps, Rebecca, Shadow of a Doubt) and would on to make great movies after (Rear Window, Psycho, North by Northwest, Vertigo, etc.), but Notorious is a stand-out addition to his canon. It is not only the best film he made in the 1940s, it's one of his greatest films overall.
In many ways, too, it might very well be considered his crowning achievement in terms of sheer synthesis. It combines the ostensible thriller with the love story, then the love story with film noir, and then the standard glossy Hollywood look with Hitchcock's overtly stylized visuals. It twists and complicates that "old conflict," which Hitchcock defined for Truffaut, into an ultimate statement on how far duty and love can drive two people apart and how much is stake when it seems like all might be lost. There is not a single moment in Notorious where you might mistake it for any of the multitude of films made in the post-war boom of the late 1940s; without a question, Hitchcock is in control of every single frame.
The story takes place shortly after the end of World War II in the waning months where Nazis still invoked fear. A German spy ring has fled to Brazil, and the U.S. government wants to infiltrate their organization with a spy. T.R. Devlin (Cary Grant), an espionage agent, drafts Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman), a patriotic America whose father was nevertheless recently found guilty of being a Nazi sympathizer. Just as Devlin feels himself becoming attracted to Alicia, he receives orders to have her begin socializing with a friend of her father's, Alex Sebastian (the great Claude Rains). Devlin and Alicia part ways – until, of course, Alex becomes wise to Alicia, and ...
Well, it wouldn't be a Hitchcock movie if I told you what comes next.
Notorious is not often credited with being among Hitchcock's most insidious explorations of his own internal issues – instead we cite Rear Window, for its voyeurism; Vertigo, for its obsessive makeover; Psycho, for its unrelenting mother issues; and lesser famous films like I Confess, for its religious tension, and The Wrong Man, for his fear of the authorities. But Notorious is surprisingly complex in its own internal turmoil. The film was Hitchcock's second collaboration with Grant (previously in Suspicion) and Bergman (previously in Spellbound). Both were stars by 1946, and both had their images manipulated by the director who was interested in burrowing into the darker elements of the human psyche. Devlin, played by former screwball actor Grant, is cold and calculating in his manipulation of Alicia. Hitchcock and the elegantly romantic Bergman bring Alicia to life initially as a promiscuous lush, then allow her to become self-destructively submissive and sacrificial, putting her in Sebastian's arms and bed, and she obliges, all for the sake of earning Devlin's love. They are phenomenally deep as lead characters: Alicia ignores her physical reality for the emotional lure of Devlin, and he ignores his emotional reality for the professional lure of what Alicia can access inside Sebastian's cadre of Nazis. The potential attraction is always immediately below the surface for Devlin, although the woman he pushes Alicia to become is not the sort of woman he thinks he could ever love. (Not to mention the film contains one of Hitchcock's earliest incidents of running afoul with the Production Code. At the time, the Code limited kisses to three seconds, so Hitchcock has Grant and Bergman keep with the merit of the Code by kissing for three seconds, then breaking, then kissing three seconds, then breaking, etc. The entire hint-hint-nudge-nudge sequence runs 180 seconds.)
The great screenwriter Ben Hecht was behind the richly layered script, which took an elementary scenario from a short story called "The Song of the Dragon" and transformed it into something original. His screenplay was nominated for an Oscar, one of the two nominations the film earned. (The other was Rains for supporting actor; neither won.) It is suspenseful and taut, particularly in its final twenty minutes. It is dense, but never confusing, and sly without being ostentatious. Production started only months after the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, and the use of uranium as the trafficked-element-of-choice for Sebastian and his German cadre is one of Hitchcock's all-time great "MacGuffins" (the item everyone is concerned with but that really doesn't matter in terms of anything but the gear that keeps the film rolling). As it places Alicia in harm's way, it makes a credible case that she is in a magnificent amount of danger. (Certainly Sebastian's mother, one of the great evil women in all of Hitchcock's films, has not qualms about slipping her a little something and attempting to solve the problem.)
And, oh, the look of this film: I could devote thousands of words to its elegant and evocative style. Anyone interested in the power of cinematography should settle into Notorious with one hand on the pause button and another devoted to a pen and a steno pad. Although Hitchcock experimented with the constraints of the camera through his entire career (shots with limited range, like in Lifeboat and Rear Window; long takes, like in Rope and Under Capricorn; obtuse angels, like in North by Northwest), his most effective camerawork might just be in Notorious. The famous ones are so famous it's as if no one has dared try to imitate them. There is the high-mounted wide shot of the gigantic foyer at Sebastian's mansion, which leads to an continuous zoom that ends outrageously close to a key in Alicia's hand. There is a party scene where a silhouetted head looms along the bottom of the frame, and although we cannot see the face of the man whose head we see, it is as if Hitchcock knows we will be able to identify it as Grant's. There is a shot where Alicia, just waking, sees Devlin in her doorway, and he walks toward her and she repositions herself, the shot in her point of view rotates in a perfect arc. There is an exhilarating shot near the end where Devlin carefully escorts Alicia to a car, and once inside, the camera zips and captures him as he smoothly locks the door and essentially gives another character a death sentence. No part of these miraculous technical achievements is done for pure flair; they are surprising, but slyly informative, and they build suspense while pushing the mechanics of the narrative along.
I could go on. Notorious holds a special place in my heart. I saw it for a film class years ago on my birthday – and what a gift it was. Later (and again, for my birthday), my wife gave me Criterion's magnificent release of the film, which proved so popular it quickly found itself out of print. Used copies of that edition can cost you sometimes as much as $50 or more, but – thankfully! – that is all about to change. While the Criterion version is not experiencing a reprinting, MGM is delivering the next best thing: many of Hitchcock's harder to find films, such as Notorious, Spellbound, Rebecca, and The Lodger, are reappearing soon on DVD. It is long overdue that this masterpiece be made widely available again.
"I admire people who do things." HITCHCOCK MARATHON
Strangers On A Train-1951-Alfred Hitchcock
..........................
So two fellows meet on a train eh? Bruno is the more effeminate one with a peculiar way about him, Guy seems confident, but only on the outside. Bruno just happens to know a lot about Guy. Guy is a tennis player with a wife named Miriam. He also has a girlfriend named Ann Morton, who is the daughter of a senator. Why is guy two timing his wife? Well his wife is a selfish, money grubber who could really care less about Guy. He wants a divorce but she doesn't because she can get more out of him without one. When Bruno, a self professed mama's boy(not in those exact words), proclaims his hatred for his father he lets a little plan slip out. If two strangers had someone they wanted to kill and they had each other do it, no one could fault them for it. It is a win-win situation. Bruno explains that he could kill Miriam and Guy can kill his father. Guy refuse's but Bruno insists. Does Guy give in to the temptation? Well Bruno goes ahead and forges on with the plan as if Guy had said yes, and expects Guy to follow through after he has in fact killed Miriam. How can he get Guy to give in? Well Guy happened to leave his lighter with a tennis logo and the phrase "A to G" engraved on it.
Hitchcock's 1951 film Strangers On A Train is a lot like his other work. We have someone with mother issues, we have a wrong man situation, we have murder and love and betrayal. So, as we see, in many ways, Hitchcock is using his by the numbers directing playbook here. He is a veteran at the time Strangers On A Train is released. But some things that struck me were the lack of a blonde female lead. The lack of a macguffin here is also interesting to note, unless you could argue that the lighter was in fact a macguffin.
This film's major aspect is that of the criss cross, or double cross. Constantly we see things like Guy talking about being able to strangle his wife and then a dissolve to Bruno making a strangling motion with his hands. In the scene after Bruno kills Miriam he takes a look at his watch and then a cut to Guy on a train looking at his watch. It builds the tension really well. What connects these two men?
"Everybody is a potential murderer" says Bruno on the train. Bruno furthers this point at a party when he discusses murderer with a Mrs. Cunningham, telling her the perfect way to murder someone in his eyes.
One of the most magnificently planned out and shot scenes in the film is the lead up to, and actual act of, Miriam's murder. While we see Bruno follow her to the amusement park with her two guys(neither of them her husband) she keeps looking back noticing him, but kind of smiles as if he's following her because he is attracted to her. After walking into the park a little boy walks up to Bruno going "Bang, Bang" and shaping his finger like a gun, pointing it directly at Bruno. This foreshadows the fact that Bruno will eventually murder Miriam, while also being a portrait of him. He is murdering for attention. He is murdering Miriam to in turn get his father murdered. He wants all the attention of his mother, and can only have that with his old man out of the way. Lastly this foreshadows Bruno's eventual end.
During the same scene we get another foreshadowing of a future scene in the film. Miriam and her boys get on the merry-go-round, while Bruno does so also. This is when Miriam really notices him following her, but thinks nothing strange of it. The Merry-Go Round plays a significant part in the ending of this film. Bruno then follows them onto the Tunnel Of Love. While on the ride we see Bruno's shadow catch up to Miriam's and then cut to the outside of the tunnel and hear Miriam scream, but then see her and her boys pop out. It turns out it was only a scream of excitement or just her having fun. They go to an island that the Tunnel of Love's river leads to and begin playing around, Bruno follows and waits in the bushes. While Miriam is running around she notices Bruno. She playfully says hello, and he says it back and then begins to strangle her. We are not seeing this first hand but as her glasses fall off we see her being choked through the reflection of the glasses.
Miriam's glasses and the reflection of her murder hold an important place in the film. Later on, when we meet Ann's sister Barb, it is noticed that her glasses are similar to Miriam's. When Bruno meets her he can see the murder happening in the reflection of her glasses. Is this Bruno's guilt being summoned, or does he feel guilty at all? Could this simply be reminding him of how his father has yet to be dead although he has done his side of what he thinks was a deal? We aren't told for sure, but when Bruno is explaining to Mrs. Cunningham the perfect way to murder someone he puts his hands around her throat playfully and tells her to try and make a noise. As soon as he begins play strangling her he sees Barb and becomes fixated on her. His choking of Mrs. Cunningham becomes real and he chokes harder and harder until he faints. Barb explains to Ann that it felt as if he was choking her, and Ann confronts Guy about it as she feels she has put two and two together. Guy tells Ann everything, but they mustn't let anyone else know he says.
Something I really noticed was this films major film noir use. While many of Hitch's films deal with film noir issues they are usually in color, or lack any other significant feature that would make it predominately noir. What we get here that really brings it into the noir mode is the chiaroscuro lighting. I especially noticed this in the scene in which Bruno tells Guy he has murdered Miriam. They are talking through a fence and it seems as if they are behind bars, trapped in a cell. The lighting shows both of their faces in half light, and half darkness. Sticking to that half theme, Strangers On A Train is said to have a doppelganger theme. Bruno is Guy's desire to kill Miriam, sort of a real life subconscious wish fulfillment fantasy. Bruno may represent Guy's inner mind. Guy obviously desires her dead, as he did scream on the phone with Ann that sometimes he wishes he could strangle her. Be careful what you wish for, some might say. I am more reminded of the Bible verse.Matthew 5: 21-22
'You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgement'
I know, Hitchcock's film is not religious by any means, but what I am saying is that thinking something in her your heart makes it basically a done deal in your heart and truly torments you, and this can be accounted for by anyone who has ever been alive. We all wrestle with daily grudges and arguments, and if we let them seep into our hearts they ruin our lives. This is a common thing whether you are religious or not. This basic theme is something I think Hitch was getting at. This point is more driven home when Bruno proclaims, "Everyone has somebody that they want to put out of the way. Oh now, surely Madam, you're not going to tell me that there hasn't been a time that you didn't want to dispose of someone. Your husband, for instance".
Bruno fulfilling Guy's desires can also be found in the ways they are constantly criss crossing. They are constantly crossing railroads to get to certain places. They meet by crossing their legs and accidentally bumping each others feet(although I suspect Bruno predestined it). Also the criss crossing of the tennis racquet's on Guy's lighter.
The tennis racquet's could be said to foreshadow the tense tennis match when Guy is trying to hurry and sneak past his shadow. I am completely amazed at how Hitchcock can make a tennis match tense and suspenseful in the midst of a murder mystery. This and Bruno's dropping of the lighter into the sewer drain and subsequently reaching to get it are some of the most heart pounding scenes in the film(and Michael Bay thinks explosions cause the same effect, watch some Hitchcock Mr. Bay).
"Since you're the one profiting from this I think you'll need to end up paying for it." Bruno shouts this at Guy near the end of the film, but what he doesn't know is that Guys hands are clean. Bruno eventually pays for what he has done.
Another element of foreshadowing was done at first with a picture Bruno's mother painted. It seemed to be a man burning in flames, Bruno thinks it's his father. It turns out it is really him. This is proven when he first lights the lighter and sees a flame in the reflection of Miriam's glasses just before he murders her. Through this it could be said to mean that when Bruno had the lighter it was the idea fermented in his mind. He was going to kill Miriam and frame Guy if he didn't go through with the side he never agreed to go through with.
When Guy does sneak out to go to Bruno's place and we think he is going to kill him, something strange happens. To get the full circle of what happens we have to go back to something Guy said to Barb about Hennessey, his shadow.
Guy: Doesn't that bloodhound ever relax? He sticks so close he's beginning to grow on me... like a fungusWhen Guy sneaks out and goes to Bruno's house, we see him check the map to find Bruno's fathers room. Hennessey is not Guy's shadow at this moment, Hammond, the more paranoid of the two is shadowing but doesn't see him leave. Guy walks into Bruno's house and around the corner to go up the stairs. He is carrying a gun. At the top of the stairs is a dog(a Great Dane, but to me the connection still fits) who at first growls at Guy but then licks his hand, as if to wash his hands of the situation. When he enters Bruno's fathers room we see Bruno appear and say his father is out of town. Guy explains that he wasn't going to go through with it, but he was going to tell his father of his psychopath of a son. Was he really planning on going through with it at first? I have my suspicions, but maybe the dog(Hennessey) saved him. Guy also refers to Hennessey as his guardian angel. In many scenes do we see Hennessey literally save Guy from being turned in by stopping Hammond from turning Guy in before it is revealed that Bruno is the murderer. Of course this is only a theory, I have recently read a completely different theory at everything2.com (the article is under the link) about the homo-erotic symbolism of Strangers On A Train.
"In this case, a long and narrow revolver represents Guy. Similarly, earlier in the same scene, a Great Dane represents Bruno. The dog's association with Bruno is set up earlier in the film, when Mrs. Antony chides her son, "You're a naughty boy Bruno"- more the sort of thing one would say to a dog than to a man- and then giggles and looks at the dog in the background. In addition, "Bruno" is typically a dog's name, and the dog itself is never named. As a result, the dog growling at Guy, but then inexplicably licking his hand, can be viewed as Bruno threatening yet desiring Guy. A slow motion shot as the dog licks Guy's hand draws attention to the sensuality of that act."
I truly found Strangers On A Train to be one of Hitchcock's best films. It isn't as often talked about as his other classics but I found it to withhold a lot of depth and emotional pull while still being entertaining.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
'It's For The Birds' HITCHCOCK MARATHON
The Birds-1963-Alfred Hitchcock.......................
As a lazy, midwestern suburbanite I have done the unthinkable. No, it is not what might come to mind, such as killing or something involving cannibalism. And before you even think it, yes I have seen Hitchcock's 1963 masterpiece The Birds. what I have done though or haven't might be the case, does involve that film. Alright, alright, I can hear your screams and whimpers "Get to the point!" I know, you don't read this blog to read blabbering, in fact you don't read this blog at all(This is my attempt at a Rodney Dangerfield type humor...not funny? I know, but I tried).
To get to the task at hand, answering the question I brought up in the first paragraph. While having seen The Birds, and trying to write a well versed in-depth analysis, I realized something. First, I must tell you, I did not get the chance to rewatch the film at hand. I thought to myself "Oh, Shawny boy, you've seen that film a few times, why would you need to rewatch?" "Well..." I said to myself, "We cannot simply go off a memory, and while I do some research ahead of time, such as names, dates and some incriminating plot details, I don't want to steal anyone's thoughts before I am able to assimulate my own." Then my wife walked in and saw me talking to myself in the mirror, totally nude, except my tube socks. It was a weird situation. So, where were we? Oh yes, The Birds. So I wanted to have my own clear and articulated thoughts, while also not taking the time out to rewatch the film. Why not rewatch the film? What's the harm? Well, while I am not the busiest person, I do have work, school, a wife, a friend or two, and various other activities I am involved in. This isn't to say I am not dedicated to this blog. Or is it? I guess that's up to the reader. But I do love to watch films and I really love to write about films, but there are so many I have not seen or ever written about that I wish to write about and see soon. I really need to catch up on those unseen films, and while I am working on that had decided not to rewatch The Birds.
So I will present you with some talking points I had already made up that I was already planning on writing about.
-While I do think that the woman of the story that surround the leading man have a major purpose in the story, also giving the name it's ironic title The Birds (in regards to the literal birds and the woman), I do not think that this is the main theme that Hitchcock is investigating. I simply say this because the story does not surround the man(as most Hitchcock films do).
-One major thing I always thought The Birds was was a metaphor for Melanie's guilt for the things she had done in the past. She seemed to be running away from something to follow this man to some random island, and her guilt followed her, and harmed other people. After her guilt finally got to her(in the famous bedroom attack scene) they were able to get away. I could be wrong about this though, but it was the first theme to manifest itself in my mind after initially seeing it a while ago.
-Hitchcock's uncanny ability to bring us in and not have to explain any extraneous details to us (i.e. where the hell these birds are coming from and why they are so hostile). Which is something many of his worshippers do not seem to understand(for a PERFECT example of this I give you M. Night Shayamalan's The Happening, which had a great premise and had to give us explanation after explanation leaving very little to the imagination).
-The atrocity that is Michael Bay(Armageddon)/Naomi Watts(Funny Games)/Martin Campbell(Casino Royale) planning a remake of The Birds for 2009.
This is only the tip of what I wished to speak of, but as you can tell, I was planning it out a bit and just ran out of time and well... just time really.
I hope this read was at the very least somewhat enjoyable.
I will for sure have a Strangers On A Train analysis up tomorrow as well as TS's (Screen Savour) analysis of Notorious.
Definitely be checking out TS's blog because for the entire month of October he will be going way, way in depth with Hitchcock and totally trumping anything I have done here.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
"Nothing has caused the human race so much trouble as intelligence." HITCHCOCK MARATHON
Rear Window-1954-Alfred Hitchcock.................
Rear Window is one of Hitchcock’s most interesting films. It does something that Hitchcock did often, it limits the film to a confined space that we are trapped in for the entirety, but it does so in a different way than films such as Rope, or Lifeboat do. Instead of focusing on what is in our little space we are trapped in, we are put into the point of view of one character that is also trapped and we look out at the world around us.
As said in my comparative essay of Rear Window and Disturbia (here), Rear Window is one of the few occasions that a peeping tom is actually rewarded for peeping. In general, peeping toms are viewed by society as a bad thing. This can be in the case of a man looking out his window at his neighbors, or the government peeping into it’s citizens business. Either way, it is never looked upon as healthy, or in good standing within anyone’s moral code. Somehow, despite all of this, Hitchcock finds some way to get us to truly sympathize with L.B. Jeffries, A photographer (interesting choice of profession for someone so interested in the lives of others) who has been injured and forced to spend some time in a wheelchair. Here we have the usual Hitchcock leading man, who has some limiting flaw that is the basic premise upon which the rest of the story is based around. Without this, just as in Vertigo, the film simply wouldn’t work.
The plot in short is about L.B. Jefferies, trapped in his apartment due to his impairment. He grows bored and with nothing else to do, stares out the “rear window” at his neighbors and becomes interested in their lives. Most of them live out ordinarily mundane lives, that Jefferies enjoys watching for its familiarity or dramatic conclusion (in the case of the arguing couple.) But when Jefferies grows suspicious of one of the people he peeps on, he has to wrestle with his own mind. Has he really seen what he thinks he has, or is he creating stories out of boredom, or basic human paranoia?
To me, Rear Window continues to be Hitchcock’s most entertaining work. I wouldn’t call it flawless, or his best, but on a mere entertainment level, I could watch this film over and over again.
What’s most interesting is the idea of peeping that is shown to us at the end with Jefferies girlfriend, Lisa , reading a book, and when noticing Jefferies is asleep she picks up a magazine. I found this to be her way of peeping on the lives of others, much as her beau was doing out the rear window.It seems to be a commentary, not only on the discernment between reality and fiction, but on the way our lives affect those who see them, and on the fascination we have with seeing other people live their lives.
This film couldn’t be more appropriate than for our current age. Reality TV has grown so popular it warrants its own cable station. The tabloids are our rear windows. But if in the end our peeping grew rewarding, as it does here in this film, than is Hitchcock really commenting on us in a bad way? Or could he be saying watching the lives of others is a good thing, as it keeps them on their toes?
This is merely a question, as to me, I find that he isn’t only saying that it could be good or bad, he is simply stating that we cannot help but do it. Being peeping toms seems to be in our nature, every person to their own extent. Some may even consider films, books, songs and plays as ways of us peeping on the lives of others, especially considering the amount of films, books and plays that are written about real people. In just a few weeks W. will open and I’m sure people will be watching it in anticipation of peeping on the current president’s life.
This film takes Hitchcock’s usual blonde bombshell, but uses it in a different way than usual. Jefferies is afraid of commitment and will not give in to her endless questions about marriage and relationships. One could make the assumption that Jefferies wheel chair is simply a metaphor for his fear of intimacy. It certainly says something about the public. I enjoy watching films and getting different perspectives on ways of life, but rarely do I ever go out and participate in all these forms of life, or even with the different types of people I fall in love with on screen. While Jefferies seems to be in love with the woman, he cannot overcome this fear.
This brings us back to paranoia. Just as he is paranoid that his neighbor has murdered his wife, he is paranoid that someone will screw up the relationship and it will end bad, or if he appears vulnerable, he may be unlovable. This is a common fear among men, due mainly to insecurity, which Jefferies obviously has a lot of. Notice Jefferies didn’t know these neighbors after all the time he lived there, but he did know them after watching them from a safe place without having to reveal any of himself or be intimate in any way.
Perhaps this is what Stella means when she says “We’ve become a race of peeping toms.”
This brings us back to paranoia. Just as he is paranoid that his neighbor has murdered his wife, he is paranoid that someone will screw up the relationship and it will end bad, or if he appears vulnerable, he may be unlovable. This is a common fear among men, due mainly to insecurity, which Jefferies obviously has a lot of. Notice Jefferies didn’t know these neighbors after all the time he lived there, but he did know them after watching them from a safe place without having to reveal any of himself or be intimate in any way.
Perhaps this is what Stella means when she says “We’ve become a race of peeping toms.”
"Not that I mind a slight case of abduction now and then, but I have tickets for the theatre this evening." HITCHCOCK MARATHON
North By Northwest-1959-Alfred Hitchcock
.....................
Mistaken identity.
Hitchcock's thrilling and totally entertaining chase film North By Northwest follows Roger Thornhill. A wealthy, but ordinary man, who is mistaken for a (fake) CIA officer named George Kaplan. He ultimately is chased throughout by foreign spies. The US must decide what to do, because they created the pseudonym of George Kaplan to throw off the enemy by booking hotel rooms across the country with such a name, without ever putting anyone into them. Thornhill happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and is not believed by anyone that he hasn't been to places or done certain things.
As in most Hitchcock films, Thornhill also has a mother complex, seemingly relying on her for everything and practically treating her like a girlfriend.
The thing I find truly interesting about North By Northwest though, is in how Hitchcock strips Thornhill of his identity little by little throughout the film. It begins with just a name being called and his response making it seem like he was 'Kaplan'. Then he takes his mother to the estate to prove to her he wasn't drunk driving on purpose, but the lady of the house calls him Kaplan and tells him he had to much to drink last night.
The strips come off even more when they head back to the hotel where Kaplan is supposed to be staying and break into his room. When the maid sees Thornhill she calls him Kaplan, not having ever seen Kaplan (since he is non-existent).
As the film goes on Thornhill is framed for murder. This is what allows the CIA to realize that someone has been mistaken for their non-existent decoy.
Professor: We do nothing...That's right, nothing. Oh, we could congratulate ourselves on a marvelous stroke of good fortune. Our non-existent decoy George Kaplan created to divert suspicion from our actual agent has fortuitously become a live decoy... What can we do to save him, without endangering our own agent?...We didn't invent our non-existent man and give him the name of George Kaplan, establish elaborate behavior patterns for him, move his prop belongings in and out of hotel rooms for our own private amusement. We created George Kaplan and labored successfully to convince Vandamm that this was our own agent hot on his trail for a desperately important reason...If we make the slightest move to suggest that there is no such agent as George Kaplan, give any hint to Vandamm that he's pursuing a decoy instead of our own agent, then our agent working right under Vandamm's very nose will immediately face suspicion, exposure and assassination, like the two others who went before
To which Mrs. Findlay add's; "Goodbye Mr. Thornhill, wherever you are."
Once Thornhill reaches the train and meets Eve, he lets us in on a major part of what his character is.
Eve: Roger O. Thornhill. What does the 'O' stand for?Roger (shrugs): Nothing. (He lights her cigarette) I'd invite you to my bedroom if I had a bedroom.
What we then happen to find here is that in Roger's heart of hearts he is an empty individual. As we see in earlier scenes where he explains to his secretary that lying isn't bad, or makes excuses when he steals a cab from someone else. His reasoning is always empty, and shows his own selfishness. This is a film about the death of the old self and moving on to be a better, more fulfilled person.
This then brings us to another Hitchcock regular. The lying woman. Eve is working for Townsend(the spy) and is only using him, but in turn, falls in love with him. Just as in other Hitchcock classics(most notably Vertigo).
It seems Roger cares not about lying to others, but when he is lied to, it hurts. He tells Eve she has "no feelings to hurt" and leaves her, until he is informed that she actually works for the CIA but is also Townsend's mistress.
I just find it fascinating the way in which Hitchcock directs his films. The themes of many of his films could be soft, slow-paced indie drama's, but he infuses them with such vigorous, dramatic relevance that draws the viewer into the story and makes the film enjoyable in two ways. Either for just entertainment purposes, or for thematic study. You can watch a Hitchcock film and see only surface and be entertained. Or you can look deeper and realize that Hitchcock has placed his heart in the center and has allowed the film's rhythm and beat to follow the beat at which his heart allows it.
North By Northwest is about finding your place in life. We, as humans, can get to a point where we just become empty and filled with routine. We make excuses for our selfishness and seem to have a good reason for anything we do, that we don't think right for others. But life has a way of stripping away the layers and making us who we are meant to be.
Thornhill goes through a struggle of identity in North By Northwest. Not just mistaken identity, but he faces an identity crisis.
It seems that maybe his mother complex has led him to be a grown man-child. He bottles everything up inside, and is afraid of being hurt. But after the layers are stripped we find a different tune being played by Thornhill.
Eve: You're supposed to be critically wounded.
Roger: I never felt more alive.
Eve: Whose side are you on?
Roger: Yours always, darling.
Not only this but during the final chase scene Thornhill spouts about his past, and how he's changed.
Roger: If we ever get out of this alive, let's go back to New York on the train together, all right?
Eve: Is that a proposition?
Roger: It's a proposal, sweetie.
Eve: What happened to the first two marriages?
Roger: My wives divorced me.
Eve: Why?
Roger: Well, I think they said I led too dull a life.
The final chase, with Mount Rushmore involved, just seems to make me think of how Thornhill and Eve and the spies were dwarfed by the monument. They are dwarfed by history, and the past. While the spies cannot survive Roger and Eve are able to make it through the past and realize that although the past is bigger than them, they are to move on from it and learn from it. Another way to look at it would be for them to also have grown to understand their significance in this life is small, but important. There are bigger things in life (the world, history, politics,etc.) than themselves (as Roger overturns his selfishness) and moves on to more rewarding things.
In typical Hitchcock fashion the title , North By Northwest, has a lot more to do with the plot than meets the eye. It relates to Thornhill's identity crisis, as it is not only not seen on a compass, but it cannot make up it's mind in which direction it is truly going. To further the theme Hitchcock constantly had his characters go north and then west. Not only this, but when Thornhill is traveling he travels north by Northwest.Hitchcock knew how to make smart, fun films that could be enjoyed by anyone and studied for ages to come, this is no exception.
Monday, September 22, 2008
"Dying together's even more personal than living together." HITCHCOCK MARATHON
Lifeboat-1944-Alfred Hitchcock
................
Lifeboat is easily read as a propaganda film. We were in World War II at the time and obviously the German’s were evil.
Upon watching I was hoping the German character would truly be noble, because it would be so unique for the time, so revolutionary. It’s just like today where we have Vantage Point or some other nameless action film with Middle Eastern terrorists. When are we going to realize that lumping a group of people together because of the foolishness of a few doesn’t do anyone any help?
Anyways, from ranting to reviewing.
Lifeboat begins with a boat being torpedoed by the Germans. The wreckage is monstrous and we get to see the aftermath. In the midst of all of this is a single lifeboat. On this lifeboat is a single woman. She seems to have no harm done to her whatsoever. Throughout the film, various people come aboard and leave, including a German Nazi. Those on the boat must try and trust the Nazi or give in to paranoia. They split on many decisions and just when you feel for the Nazi he does something horrible, but Hitchcock creates sympathy around this awful character, at least in my eyes, that I wanted to see him be good. Alas, he was not and the film was a bit worse off for it.
Lifeboat isn’t a bad film by any means. As a matter of fact it is a truly interesting character study. Much like 12 Angry Men, or The Mist, Or Dog Day Afternoon to some extent, we get characters thrown together in a tense situation forced to deal with one another. As usual it is an allegory for our lives, and the way we treat one another in the world.
The German isn’t always bad in the film. During a scene where a character needs a leg amputated, he is a trained surgeon and performs the surgery with the limited utensils they have. He doesn’t do anything wrong on purpose and actually performs it perfectly. It isn’t until later that we see this same character pushed into the ocean by the German. What is Hitch trying to tell us here? Did he have it all planned out when he was performing the surgery, or maybe he was just annoyed, or bored? The wonderful thing is that it isn’t telegraphed. We aren’t sure of every reason why every character does everything.
Something I loved about the film was the character Joe. Joe is a black man (played by Canada Lee) and although all the other characters were written by Jo Swerling, Canada Lee was able to write his own lines. This leads to some wonderful moments. One such moment happens when they are all trying to vote who the skipper of the boat is going to be, and when Joe is asked who he is going to vote for he simply replies “Do I get a vote?”
The suspense in this film is built between the tensions in the characters. Hitchcock uses the weather a lot, almost as a character itself. At their lowest moment, it suddenly rains, and they are forced to sit through it. This also brings the characters together, and some even fall in love (which seemed a bit forced to me.)
The truth is, while I did enjoy this film, and it does deserve some merit, Hitch just didn’t seem to pour his soul into this film as he did in his other classics. It seems like he had a lot he wanted to do that he kept at bay to make the audience happy. The overtones of science versus religion are also easily drawn. The German believes in science while the sympathetic, level headed Americans believe in religion. While this may have been true for the time, the way they paint the characters and the beliefs they uphold and then correlating that with the way the characters act, I am very disappointed. While I am a Christian myself, I do not stand by the belief that I am smarter than anyone who doesn’t follow my faith. I am actually positive there are many who know more than I do about any given thing, especially science. I also think we should be striving toward a world where religion and science can co-exist together, rather than being at each others throats. While this film was made over 60 years ago, I still think Hitch could have had better sense than to add silly little things such as these character traits into his film, that otherwise would have been pretty great.
In the end, I get the sense that Hitch used the medium of propaganda film to make a statement. While being paranoid is never a good thing, as shown by the way the characters act in the end when another German boards the ship, being gullible also is a terrible trait to have. The problem is we aren’t exactly shown a happy medium. Maybe there truly isn’t one. Maybe you either must be paranoid and realize that the world is a terrible place, with terrible people, or be gullible and think only the best of everyone. Could it be that when we think we are in between those two ends we are really tricking ourselves? These are the underlying questions that get pushed aside for the use of propaganda.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
"If I let you change me, will that do it?" HITCHCOCK MARATHON
Vertigo-1958-Alfred Hitchcock
...........
lfred Hitchcock’s films are at once entertaining and puzzling. He was able to draw things out of the cinematic language that so many directors forget, especially modern directors. All that needs to be done is a comparative look at Hitchcock’s Rear Window and DJ Caruso’s Disturbia to find out an idea can be portrayed differently through the language of cinema. Hitchcock uses subtlety and what the audience doesn’t see to create suspense and fear in the mind of the viewer.
For an example of Hitchcock and enigmatic I offer you Vertigo. A film that didn’t catch on in its own time, but is now required viewing for anyone interested in film.
If you don’t already know, Vertigo is the story of Detective John ‘Scottie’ Ferguson, played by Jimmy Stewart. He suffers an accident while on duty as a detective and is imbued with a case of vertigo. He retires from the force, but is asked by a friend (Gavin Elster) to follow his wife Madeleine, played by Kim Novak, to see where she goes all the time. He says she’ll be gone for hours and return and say she didn’t remember where she went. We find out she supposedly is being possessed by the her great grandma, Carlotta Valdes. After some convincing, Scottie, still hesitant agrees to help his old friend out. When it turns out that Madeleine’s real name is Judy and it was all a scam, Scottie tries to change Judy into Madeleine(his dream) and in the end realizes that life may really be “nothing but a dream”. What follows leaves the viewer asking what his vertigo has to do with the film, until the two key scenes where characters die.
Midge is Scotties only seemingly real friend in the film. Gavin uses Scottie for his own personal gain, but Midge just enjoys talking to Scottie and trying to help him out.
What Midge ultimately represents is a mother figure for Scottie.
Scottie: I'm a man of independent means as the saying goes. Fairly independent.
Lastly, Midge refers to herself as Scottie's mother in the Psychiatric ward scene.
What most stands out in Vertigo to me is the way Scottie goes from innocence to obsession to possession. The way the character shifts happens so seamlessly that it is hardly noticed at first. Some have said the woman in this film represent the typical Hitchcock woman; Blonde, beautiful, and mysterious. Could Hitchcock have been facing his own obsessions with this film. I like to think that directors choose, or write their work out of personal identification with that work. The easiest way to draw the line to Hitchcock is through the woman, as he always had a strong, blonde female lead.
Interestingly enough Scottie is obviously cured of his vertigo in the end because he is able to look over the edge and doesn’t seem slightly fazed by it at all. Could this mean that through the death of Judy, he is now able to move on from the past and onto something new?
I think a major underlying message of Vertigo is that fear is the cause of most death. Scottie’s fear of heights was hindering him, and led him into the situations he was in with Madeleine, Judy, Galvin. These things would not have happened had Scottie not been afraid of heights. The same goes for Judy, her fear of being without Scottie led her to her own death. But mainly her guilt and fear of what might happen caused her death when she thought she was seeing the grim reaper. Her fear led her to jump and lose her life, and it was foolish. Because of this maybe Scottie was able to get over his vertigo by realizing that being afraid of life only leads to death.
If you don’t already know, Vertigo is the story of Detective John ‘Scottie’ Ferguson, played by Jimmy Stewart. He suffers an accident while on duty as a detective and is imbued with a case of vertigo. He retires from the force, but is asked by a friend (Gavin Elster) to follow his wife Madeleine, played by Kim Novak, to see where she goes all the time. He says she’ll be gone for hours and return and say she didn’t remember where she went. We find out she supposedly is being possessed by the her great grandma, Carlotta Valdes. After some convincing, Scottie, still hesitant agrees to help his old friend out. When it turns out that Madeleine’s real name is Judy and it was all a scam, Scottie tries to change Judy into Madeleine(his dream) and in the end realizes that life may really be “nothing but a dream”. What follows leaves the viewer asking what his vertigo has to do with the film, until the two key scenes where characters die.
The first thing to notice again is Hitchcock’s use of subtlety. When we open and see Scottie hanging from the side of the building and his partner falls to the ground and dies, we don’t get a shot of him getting back up, we only see him hanging and then are brought directly into the next scene, which seemingly has little to do with the incident we just witnessed.
When Scottie is chasing Madeleine up the tower and suffers vertigo and cannot reach the top, we see a body fall, but we aren’t told how it fell until later. Did she kill herself? Did she slip? Was she pushed? These linger in the mind of the viewer. It is thought that she jumped on her own volition but it is never thoroughly examined until later on in the film. Here Hitchcock only shows us Scottie’s reaction to Madeleine falling(or so we think) and then he runs to his car and leaves. We aren’t told where he goes or what he does afterwards, next we see him he is in court.
Having examined the tiniest bit of Hitchcock’s filmmaking technique, not even bringing up the pan/zoom shot he created specifically for this film that has been used by every subsequent director in the history of filmmaking, I cannot help but wonder what this film is trying to say.
The Woman:
The first step to examining Vertigo lies in the woman of the film.
They are all blonde and they all play different roles in John’s life.
The first woman we meet in Vertigo is Marjorie ‘Midge’ Wood.
Midge-
They are all blonde and they all play different roles in John’s life.
The first woman we meet in Vertigo is Marjorie ‘Midge’ Wood.
Midge-
Midge is Scotties only seemingly real friend in the film. Gavin uses Scottie for his own personal gain, but Midge just enjoys talking to Scottie and trying to help him out.
What Midge ultimately represents is a mother figure for Scottie.
Scottie: I'm a man of independent means as the saying goes. Fairly independent.
Midge: Hmm, mmm. Well, why don't you go away for a while?
Scottie: You mean to forget? Oh now, Midge, don't be so motherly. I'm not gonna crack up.
She seems to be trying to help him mature as well. The scene in which they discuss the bra she is working on she discuss’ how he’s a big boy he needs to know these things.
What happens next in the arc of Midge is a little unexpected, but needed. We eventually find out, from little shots of her, that she is in love with Scottie. Which reminds me of another Hitchcock film, Psycho, where the mother and son have a very oddly close relationship. This only further becomes a problem when Scottie falls in love with Madeleine. We see her jealousy in a discussion between Scottie and Midge when she first hears of what Scottie has been up to.
Midge: Is she pretty?
What happens next in the arc of Midge is a little unexpected, but needed. We eventually find out, from little shots of her, that she is in love with Scottie. Which reminds me of another Hitchcock film, Psycho, where the mother and son have a very oddly close relationship. This only further becomes a problem when Scottie falls in love with Madeleine. We see her jealousy in a discussion between Scottie and Midge when she first hears of what Scottie has been up to.
Midge: Is she pretty?
Scottie: Carlotta?
Midge: No, not Carlotta. Elster's wife.
Scottie: Yes, I guess you'd consider that she would...
Midge: I think I'll go and take a look at that portrait.
Furthermore she sees Madeleine exiting Scottie’s house after he rescued her from San Francisco Bay, and the jealousy escalates.
Furthermore she sees Madeleine exiting Scottie’s house after he rescued her from San Francisco Bay, and the jealousy escalates.
Midge: Well now, Johnny-O. Was it a ghost? Was it fun?
We can feel in her turn that she isn’t to happy with what has transpired and in a subsequent scene get further evidence of her longing for Scottie.
Scottie walks into Midge’s place and they plan on having dinner, while Midge tells him she took up painting, which was her first love(which hints back to her love of Scottie, because she painted the picture for him). When he looks at the picture it is her face on Carlotta Valdes’ body. Scottie leaves upset. This also represents her longing to be Madeleine because Scottie is in love with her. Midge is to Scottie what Scottie is to Madeleine
Lastly, Midge refers to herself as Scottie's mother in the Psychiatric ward scene.Midge: Oh, Johnnie, Johnnie. Please try. Try, Johnnie. You're not lost. Mother's here...John
O, you don't even know I'm here, do you?
O, you don't even know I'm here, do you?
Madeleine-
What Madeleine ultimately represents is Scotties dream woman. We constantly see her in soft colors and seemingly surrounded by a glossy, fogginess. Scottie becomes obsessed with her from the get go, because she isn’t real. He falls in love with her, but does he even know her? He says things like “Once you’ve saved a persons life, your responsible for it forever.” But what exactly does he mean by these things? What has he saved her from? Yes he saved her from the Bay, but is he going to save her from Galvin, from her “illness”. Furthermore, she seems to fall in love with him just as easily, while knowing just as little about him. Are they each other’s dream?
What Madeleine ultimately represents is Scotties dream woman. We constantly see her in soft colors and seemingly surrounded by a glossy, fogginess. Scottie becomes obsessed with her from the get go, because she isn’t real. He falls in love with her, but does he even know her? He says things like “Once you’ve saved a persons life, your responsible for it forever.” But what exactly does he mean by these things? What has he saved her from? Yes he saved her from the Bay, but is he going to save her from Galvin, from her “illness”. Furthermore, she seems to fall in love with him just as easily, while knowing just as little about him. Are they each other’s dream?
When Madeleine comments about history repeating itself it is a comment on the film and how things will repeat themselves. The women in Scotties life, the longing for love where it cannot be found, the death of Madeleine and the death of Judy are all signs of repetition.
Even when Scottie and Madeleine kiss it is so obviously staged, it is as if God was making a play, with the waves crashing behind them with each kiss, it’s just so perfect.
Even when Scottie and Madeleine kiss it is so obviously staged, it is as if God was making a play, with the waves crashing behind them with each kiss, it’s just so perfect.
When the end of Madeleine approaches and she is running for the tower, Scottie yells, “No one possesses you.” What we may be able to gleam from this is Scottie’s ignorance to what is actually going on, or that no one but him can possess her. This is his dream getting away from him, just like his job did. He loses them both because of his illness. Or might they represent the same thing.
Judy-
Judy is reality. She is a pretty, brunette girl, who is a little shy and not as easily taken as Madeleine. But Scottie pursues her because he reminds her so much of Madeleine, his dream. He so desperately wants to relive his dream that he will go to any lengths to change her to make her the way he wants her to be.
While she reluctantly agrees to go out with Scottie we discover that Judy was Madeleine while she stares in the mirror contemplating what had just happened. She only wants Scottie to love her for her, as she loves Scottie. But once Scottie arrives and they start dating, she becomes a possession to him. He first wants to find the dress that Madeleine wore, and then he wants her to dye her hair blonde as Madeleine's. Is Judy the portrait of the average woman, she feels like to please her man that she must be something she isn’t.
While she reluctantly agrees to go out with Scottie we discover that Judy was Madeleine while she stares in the mirror contemplating what had just happened. She only wants Scottie to love her for her, as she loves Scottie. But once Scottie arrives and they start dating, she becomes a possession to him. He first wants to find the dress that Madeleine wore, and then he wants her to dye her hair blonde as Madeleine's. Is Judy the portrait of the average woman, she feels like to please her man that she must be something she isn’t. Judy is constantly seen in front of mirrors, whether it is when she is contemplating being with Scottie, or trying on what Scottie wants. It seems to always be when she isn’t being herself, but a mirrored image of herself.
When Judy finally makes the full transformation and she emerges for Scottie to see, we see her as we first saw Madeleine. The shot and her movement is precisely the same. Scottie is again enthralled with her, until he notices she is wearing the same necklace that Madeleine had. It was a one of a kind necklace that she received as a hand down from her family, he realizes this by looking at Judy in the mirror and seeing who she really is. Upon his realization, he decides to go back to the scene of the crime. Where his heart was broken and dreams shattered. When he tells Judy his reasoning, he is the one who is acting this time. The roles seem to have reversed. She is unwillingly going up the steps as he is making her, as it could be seen that Madeleine did to him in a sense.
When Judy finally makes the full transformation and she emerges for Scottie to see, we see her as we first saw Madeleine. The shot and her movement is precisely the same. Scottie is again enthralled with her, until he notices she is wearing the same necklace that Madeleine had. It was a one of a kind necklace that she received as a hand down from her family, he realizes this by looking at Judy in the mirror and seeing who she really is. Upon his realization, he decides to go back to the scene of the crime. Where his heart was broken and dreams shattered. When he tells Judy his reasoning, he is the one who is acting this time. The roles seem to have reversed. She is unwillingly going up the steps as he is making her, as it could be seen that Madeleine did to him in a sense.
When they reach the top of the tower and Scottie tells her he knew after he saw the necklace she is frightened, and although Scottie is hostile, nothing seems to be going wrong until a nun comes from the shadows. In the shadows the nun is shaped as the grim reaper, which because of Judy’s guilt, causes her to jump. Scottie again loses the girl. Could she have really been his dream girl if he let her? It lingers on.
……….
What most stands out in Vertigo to me is the way Scottie goes from innocence to obsession to possession. The way the character shifts happens so seamlessly that it is hardly noticed at first. Some have said the woman in this film represent the typical Hitchcock woman; Blonde, beautiful, and mysterious. Could Hitchcock have been facing his own obsessions with this film. I like to think that directors choose, or write their work out of personal identification with that work. The easiest way to draw the line to Hitchcock is through the woman, as he always had a strong, blonde female lead.Interestingly enough Scottie is obviously cured of his vertigo in the end because he is able to look over the edge and doesn’t seem slightly fazed by it at all. Could this mean that through the death of Judy, he is now able to move on from the past and onto something new?
I think a major underlying message of Vertigo is that fear is the cause of most death. Scottie’s fear of heights was hindering him, and led him into the situations he was in with Madeleine, Judy, Galvin. These things would not have happened had Scottie not been afraid of heights. The same goes for Judy, her fear of being without Scottie led her to her own death. But mainly her guilt and fear of what might happen caused her death when she thought she was seeing the grim reaper. Her fear led her to jump and lose her life, and it was foolish. Because of this maybe Scottie was able to get over his vertigo by realizing that being afraid of life only leads to death.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
"Always make the audience suffer as much as possible."
I know you all have been anxiously awaiting this moment, but my Hitchcock marathon has finally arrived. I have a few comments about my study first though.I have placed on the side the scheduled dates for each film's analysis. If they do not happen to appear on that date expect them a day later, and if that happens I will try and post two that day if another is due that exact day.
I was unable to get my hands on Notorious or Rebecca which makes me upset since those were the two I was most looking forward to seeing.
Notorious will be analyzed by a guest writer, TS from Screen Savour has agreed to do so, and it'll be in correlation with his own Hitchcock marathon he is doing in October. I'm glad I beat him to the punch. =)
I really recommend checking out his blog, he does great write ups of many classic films, and puts me to shame.
As for Rebecca if someone wants to send me an essay on that film, I will gladly post it, otherwise there will be no write up on it.
So starting this Sunday(the 21st) with Vertigo and going through to October 8th with my look at how I feel all of these films reflect parts of Hitchcock and why he is considered such a legend.
A review of Burn After Reading should be expected soon, as well as the marathon.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
"To me Psycho was a big comedy. It had to be..."
The title quote is a quote from the Master of Suspense himself. I come back to you so early with another little quick post on Hitch because while starting my study I decided I wanted to broaden the scope just a little with the films I am covering. Since Hitchcock's body of work is so large I am adding 3 more films to made it a total of 10. I will also be watching a little bit of Alfred Hitchcock Presents and recently had the pleasure of seeing a really interesting documentary on Hitchcock called Dial H for Hitchcock.Anyways, The study is coming along better than expected and I am getting more and more excited to write it all out for you guys.
Here's the new and improved list.
Rear Window (1954)
North By Northwest (1959)
Strangers On A Train (1951)
Vertigo (1958)
Rebecca (1940)
Notorious (1946)
Psycho (1960)
The Birds (1963) Lifeboat (1944) Frenzy (1972)
I don't like putting a finished date on things because I am a huge procrastinator but I am expecting to be finished sometime in mid-September. Keep me to my word.
Monday, August 4, 2008
And The Winner Is.....
Rebecca is the seventh film for my Hitchcock study. Thanks to all who participated in the polls as I wouldn't have known where to begin with such a huge body of work. So the final list includes:
Rear Window
North By Northwest
Strangers On A Train
Vertigo
Rebecca
Notorious
Psycho
This will take a little while for me to do if I really want to do it right, so in between now and then there will be the regular posts.
Thanks guys!
Rear Window
North By Northwest
Strangers On A Train
Vertigo
Rebecca
Notorious
Psycho
This will take a little while for me to do if I really want to do it right, so in between now and then there will be the regular posts.
Thanks guys!
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Alfred
So I have decided to end my Hitchcock films poll a day early and add a poll with the 3 films that are tied for 7th place. The top 6 seem to have it in the bag so I am giving them their due.
The for sure 6 films I am going to study are:
Vertigo (1958)
Rear Window (1954)
Notorious (1946)
Strangers On A Train (1951)
North By Northwest (1959)
Psycho (1960)
The final 3 spots:
Rebecca (1940)
The Birds (1963)
Rope (1948)
I am a little disappointed that Lifeboat missed the cut because it looks rather interesting, but to me all of Hitchcock's films have an aura of intrigue surrounding them.
Anyways, you have 1 day to vote.
Vote away!
The for sure 6 films I am going to study are:
Vertigo (1958)
Rear Window (1954)
Notorious (1946)
Strangers On A Train (1951)
North By Northwest (1959)
Psycho (1960)
The final 3 spots:
Rebecca (1940)
The Birds (1963)
Rope (1948)
I am a little disappointed that Lifeboat missed the cut because it looks rather interesting, but to me all of Hitchcock's films have an aura of intrigue surrounding them.
Anyways, you have 1 day to vote.
Vote away!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Looking Out The Window at Gods and Monsters
"Classic" directors are name dropped every second on IMDB and talked about to a great extent by anyone interested in film, but many directors considered classic haven't really proven their abilities with a classic film. Many directors have made great films, astounding films, but few have made classics.
Alfred Hitchcock certainly did quite a few times in his life, but one of the most notable efforts he ever accomplished was a film called Rear Window(1956). Other directors have tried to match it's suspense, thrills and wit but have yet to compare in either of those three categories.
Another filmmaker who knew how to draw out the best of suspense, thrills and wit was the great James Whales. He made many great films, but he had one masterpiece. The Bride Of Frankenstein(1935) still holds up on many levels today, possibly even more than it did back in its hey day.
When trying to look at classic films, we like to compare them with other classic films of the same time period, or even by the same director. Close Encounters(1977) and ET(1982) both brought us nice aliens for a change, while The Graduate(1967) and Bonnie and Clyde(1967) both fell in our laps in the same year and brought a major shift in cinema. As we often compare films like these, we rarely compare films from different time periods or completely different directors.
Rear Window came some 20 years after Bride of Frankenstein. They represent 2 very different times in history. In 1935 we were about to end The Great Depression and in between wars, while during 1956 we were just coming off the Korean War. The times were much better in the 50s, but there was one thing the country was worried about. The very thing we feared was nuclear war, this led to massive paranoia throughout the country.
Both of these films represent just that, paranoia. In The Bride, everyone is paranoid that The Monster is out to hurt them, but really all he needs is a friend. He is simply misunderstood and taken forgranted for the good he has in him. In Rear Window, LB Jeffries suspects a neighbor of killing his wife and becomes paranoid that he spends every waking moment checking on every move the man makes. The difference between the films is where the blame lies. In The Bride, the blame lies on the people who were too unaccepting of something they didn't understand that they would stop at no length to kill him. In Rear Window, the man really is who we are made to believe he is. Thus the paranoia is proven correct. What is with the sudden shift though? Why all of the sudden is the role changed and the monster really is a monster. It could very well just be that he was made that way by his terrible, complaining, naggy wife. That doesn't cover his actions. The murderer was still in the wrong obviously for killing her, but he may have been brought to the edge as The Monster happened to be at some points of The Bride.
Both films reveal a little something about the paranoia of the time they were made and both reveal themselves in the end to be films about humanity and the hope we have in ourselves and others.
Alfred Hitchcock certainly did quite a few times in his life, but one of the most notable efforts he ever accomplished was a film called Rear Window(1956). Other directors have tried to match it's suspense, thrills and wit but have yet to compare in either of those three categories.
Another filmmaker who knew how to draw out the best of suspense, thrills and wit was the great James Whales. He made many great films, but he had one masterpiece. The Bride Of Frankenstein(1935) still holds up on many levels today, possibly even more than it did back in its hey day.
When trying to look at classic films, we like to compare them with other classic films of the same time period, or even by the same director. Close Encounters(1977) and ET(1982) both brought us nice aliens for a change, while The Graduate(1967) and Bonnie and Clyde(1967) both fell in our laps in the same year and brought a major shift in cinema. As we often compare films like these, we rarely compare films from different time periods or completely different directors.
Rear Window came some 20 years after Bride of Frankenstein. They represent 2 very different times in history. In 1935 we were about to end The Great Depression and in between wars, while during 1956 we were just coming off the Korean War. The times were much better in the 50s, but there was one thing the country was worried about. The very thing we feared was nuclear war, this led to massive paranoia throughout the country.
Both of these films represent just that, paranoia. In The Bride, everyone is paranoid that The Monster is out to hurt them, but really all he needs is a friend. He is simply misunderstood and taken forgranted for the good he has in him. In Rear Window, LB Jeffries suspects a neighbor of killing his wife and becomes paranoid that he spends every waking moment checking on every move the man makes. The difference between the films is where the blame lies. In The Bride, the blame lies on the people who were too unaccepting of something they didn't understand that they would stop at no length to kill him. In Rear Window, the man really is who we are made to believe he is. Thus the paranoia is proven correct. What is with the sudden shift though? Why all of the sudden is the role changed and the monster really is a monster. It could very well just be that he was made that way by his terrible, complaining, naggy wife. That doesn't cover his actions. The murderer was still in the wrong obviously for killing her, but he may have been brought to the edge as The Monster happened to be at some points of The Bride.
Both films reveal a little something about the paranoia of the time they were made and both reveal themselves in the end to be films about humanity and the hope we have in ourselves and others.
Monday, February 4, 2008
"Oh Dear, Weve Become a Race Of Peeping Toms"
A peeping tom is defined as "One who derives pleasure, usually sexual, from secretly spying on others" by the Websters Dictionary. This is most notably looked upon as a terrible act. This story of the first ever recorded act of the peeping tom was found on http://www.dictionary.com/.
"In an age when we can speak of peeping Tom cameras or electronic peeping Toms we have indeed come far from the time of the legendary peeping Tom. Godgifu (fl. 1040-1080), Lady Godiva to us, pledged her legendary ride as a means of persuading her husband, Leofric, Earl of Mercia, to lower taxes. In the original version of the story she was observed by all the townspeople as she disrobed, but in a much later version of the story a tailor or butcher named Tom was the only person to observe her as she rode by, everyone else having shuttered their windows as they had been asked. Peeping Tom, first recorded around 1796, has become a term for a voyeur, not at all a pleasant fate for this legendary fellow. As W.H. Auden has said, "Peeping Toms/are never praised, like novelists or bird watchers,/for their keenness of observation.""
The line that struck me from this paragraph was the last one. I happen to know of two such films where the peeping tom is praised. In Alfred Hitchcocks 1954 classic Rear Window we follow L.B. Jeffries as he "peeps" on his neighbors through his back window, simply because his leg is broken and he has nothing better to do. Fast foward 53 years and we are brought Disturbia(2007, DJ Caruso) a film starring new "it" boy Shia Lebouf about a kid under house arrest who has nothing better to do than also "peep"on his neighbors.
These two films have more in common than mere peeping. We are made to believe through each films structure that the only time our protaganists have "peeped" is once brought to complete boredom, at least this is at the surface of each film. Both films explore the idea that we are all peeping toms. In Rear Window Stella, Jeffs nurse of sorts, states "We've become a race of peeping toms. What people oughta do is get outside their own homes and look in for a change." Is she merely critiquing Jeff for peeping out his back window, or making a statement about the human race? Furthermore Lisa, Jeff's girlfriend, is seen reading fashion magazines in the end, peeping on the lives of others. Jeff may have quit looking out his back window, but Lisa hasn't, maybe not through a window, but through the pages of a magazine it is her window to the lives of others.
DJ Caruso's Disturbia follows this same ideology but brings it to the new age of technology. We aren't simply looking through the pages of magazines, or out our back windows. We now have a beautiful thing called the internet. Youtube is constantly mentioned throughout the film as well, a website of note that is all about peeping on the lives of others. The last scene in this film also helps drive this point home. Although Kale has finished looking out his back window at the neighbors they aren't going to quit peeping. When him and Ashley are kissing,Ronnie comes around the corner with a camcorder and says "Soon to be the most popular video on YouTube".
While both films are made in completely different times they both drive the same point home, which is completely wrapped up in Stellas statement about we, the human race, being a race of peeping toms.
"In an age when we can speak of peeping Tom cameras or electronic peeping Toms we have indeed come far from the time of the legendary peeping Tom. Godgifu (fl. 1040-1080), Lady Godiva to us, pledged her legendary ride as a means of persuading her husband, Leofric, Earl of Mercia, to lower taxes. In the original version of the story she was observed by all the townspeople as she disrobed, but in a much later version of the story a tailor or butcher named Tom was the only person to observe her as she rode by, everyone else having shuttered their windows as they had been asked. Peeping Tom, first recorded around 1796, has become a term for a voyeur, not at all a pleasant fate for this legendary fellow. As W.H. Auden has said, "Peeping Toms/are never praised, like novelists or bird watchers,/for their keenness of observation.""
The line that struck me from this paragraph was the last one. I happen to know of two such films where the peeping tom is praised. In Alfred Hitchcocks 1954 classic Rear Window we follow L.B. Jeffries as he "peeps" on his neighbors through his back window, simply because his leg is broken and he has nothing better to do. Fast foward 53 years and we are brought Disturbia(2007, DJ Caruso) a film starring new "it" boy Shia Lebouf about a kid under house arrest who has nothing better to do than also "peep"on his neighbors.
These two films have more in common than mere peeping. We are made to believe through each films structure that the only time our protaganists have "peeped" is once brought to complete boredom, at least this is at the surface of each film. Both films explore the idea that we are all peeping toms. In Rear Window Stella, Jeffs nurse of sorts, states "We've become a race of peeping toms. What people oughta do is get outside their own homes and look in for a change." Is she merely critiquing Jeff for peeping out his back window, or making a statement about the human race? Furthermore Lisa, Jeff's girlfriend, is seen reading fashion magazines in the end, peeping on the lives of others. Jeff may have quit looking out his back window, but Lisa hasn't, maybe not through a window, but through the pages of a magazine it is her window to the lives of others.
DJ Caruso's Disturbia follows this same ideology but brings it to the new age of technology. We aren't simply looking through the pages of magazines, or out our back windows. We now have a beautiful thing called the internet. Youtube is constantly mentioned throughout the film as well, a website of note that is all about peeping on the lives of others. The last scene in this film also helps drive this point home. Although Kale has finished looking out his back window at the neighbors they aren't going to quit peeping. When him and Ashley are kissing,Ronnie comes around the corner with a camcorder and says "Soon to be the most popular video on YouTube".
While both films are made in completely different times they both drive the same point home, which is completely wrapped up in Stellas statement about we, the human race, being a race of peeping toms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Shawn's Blog
Posts
All Comments
