Saturday, May 07, 2005
Time to defend Hitch
Hello! I was reading one of my favorite blogs today and was incited to comment on Alfred Hitchcock. Actually, I am being called on to defend his honor a bit.
The blog I speak of is the project of a very nice woman who is watching the Top 100 movies of all time, and writing reviews. It is a great site, you should blogmark it. Anyway, she recently reviewed three of my favorite movies... Blade Runner, Yojimbo, and the Hitchcock thriller Strangers on a Train. (I instantly fell in love with her... any lady who is a movie buff, and that would sit through Kurosawa is pretty much my dream girl).
Her site also offered a link to a salon.com article which criticizes Hitch and the endings of his movies in a rather snarky way. I immediately searched the net and found similar anti-Hitch sentiments, even a few anti-Hitch websites. I was shocked! While the accusations are founded, I sort of feel the need to defend the honor of a true artist.
1. When discussing the merits and history of Hitchcock, you are not allowed to bring up The Birds. Ever. It is his worst movie, and is probably on the "worst ever"list of Hollywood in general. It was obviously a pet project of his own, with meaning that never quite translated to the rest of us. It was his Barry Lyndon or Amistaad (except those were good, just boring).
2. Does Hitch use hokey endings? Well, yes. But they weren't as hokey as they seem now. With a great director like Hitch, by the time the ending comes around his message has been sent... so what is left is to just wrap things up for Joe Cinema to feel some closure. The message of Strangers was that the idle comments (such as desiring to kill someone) we make are actually very ugly when they manifest into real actions. Hitch had made this point, and was just trying to end yet another pointless "found the real killer, chase him down" scene. The merry-go-round scene was wacky, but it was also dreamlike (which helped reinforce the movie's themes of reality vs. fiction)... and for a movie that featured a psychic girl we shouldn't cast too many stones.
3. Is Hitch wrongly deified in the pantheon of Hollywood? Nope. Did he have some shortcomings? Yeah. Looking back, he did seem to underplay acting in favor of set pieces and camera-work. But that was his craft. Acting and cinematography aren't mutually exclusive (see The Third Man, for instance), but Hitch chose to take the focus off of actors and actresses and their often self-righteous "craft." It was no surprise that William H. Macy (who is undeniably a great actor) has a bad taste in his mouth for Hitch; Hitch would have hated working with him and actors like him. Hitch had an ego, and wanted the story to be the star of the show, which indirectly made him the star.
4. Were Hitch's films marred by a lack of realism? Not really, when you consider that in Hitch's movies, he was trying to establish two things; that a simple misunderstanding/chain of unrelated events can lead to a horrible situation, and that the "wrong man" can and does get blamed/involved in awful situations. Hitch got off on seeing how people react to situations furthest from their mind... an attack by nature(The Birds), accusations by the community(Shadow of a Doubt), spy plot (North By Northwest), murder plot (Rear Window), and so on. Hitch's movies did three things: establish a premise, drop in innocent bystanders, and watch how they react. The unrealistic elements of the movies were excusably done, as if Hitch himself was a puppetmaster God testing his subjects (think about the Bible's Job... or The Truman Show).
Hitchcock's movies aren't perfect, but they were done to the extent that they were able to be done, and to the high standards of a mastermind. If Hitch was happy, then they must have been fully developed in his eyes. He may have even been aware of the B-movie like qualities of each "flaw," hoping to disarm the viewer, forcing them to look closer for the true message. He is in no way wrongly beloved and honored in Hollywood. Rather, he paved the way for future directors to knowingly approach a plot/screenplay that has some holes, and yet make it sing.
Horns up.
The blog I speak of is the project of a very nice woman who is watching the Top 100 movies of all time, and writing reviews. It is a great site, you should blogmark it. Anyway, she recently reviewed three of my favorite movies... Blade Runner, Yojimbo, and the Hitchcock thriller Strangers on a Train. (I instantly fell in love with her... any lady who is a movie buff, and that would sit through Kurosawa is pretty much my dream girl).
Her site also offered a link to a salon.com article which criticizes Hitch and the endings of his movies in a rather snarky way. I immediately searched the net and found similar anti-Hitch sentiments, even a few anti-Hitch websites. I was shocked! While the accusations are founded, I sort of feel the need to defend the honor of a true artist.
1. When discussing the merits and history of Hitchcock, you are not allowed to bring up The Birds. Ever. It is his worst movie, and is probably on the "worst ever"list of Hollywood in general. It was obviously a pet project of his own, with meaning that never quite translated to the rest of us. It was his Barry Lyndon or Amistaad (except those were good, just boring).
2. Does Hitch use hokey endings? Well, yes. But they weren't as hokey as they seem now. With a great director like Hitch, by the time the ending comes around his message has been sent... so what is left is to just wrap things up for Joe Cinema to feel some closure. The message of Strangers was that the idle comments (such as desiring to kill someone) we make are actually very ugly when they manifest into real actions. Hitch had made this point, and was just trying to end yet another pointless "found the real killer, chase him down" scene. The merry-go-round scene was wacky, but it was also dreamlike (which helped reinforce the movie's themes of reality vs. fiction)... and for a movie that featured a psychic girl we shouldn't cast too many stones.
3. Is Hitch wrongly deified in the pantheon of Hollywood? Nope. Did he have some shortcomings? Yeah. Looking back, he did seem to underplay acting in favor of set pieces and camera-work. But that was his craft. Acting and cinematography aren't mutually exclusive (see The Third Man, for instance), but Hitch chose to take the focus off of actors and actresses and their often self-righteous "craft." It was no surprise that William H. Macy (who is undeniably a great actor) has a bad taste in his mouth for Hitch; Hitch would have hated working with him and actors like him. Hitch had an ego, and wanted the story to be the star of the show, which indirectly made him the star.
4. Were Hitch's films marred by a lack of realism? Not really, when you consider that in Hitch's movies, he was trying to establish two things; that a simple misunderstanding/chain of unrelated events can lead to a horrible situation, and that the "wrong man" can and does get blamed/involved in awful situations. Hitch got off on seeing how people react to situations furthest from their mind... an attack by nature(The Birds), accusations by the community(Shadow of a Doubt), spy plot (North By Northwest), murder plot (Rear Window), and so on. Hitch's movies did three things: establish a premise, drop in innocent bystanders, and watch how they react. The unrealistic elements of the movies were excusably done, as if Hitch himself was a puppetmaster God testing his subjects (think about the Bible's Job... or The Truman Show).
Hitchcock's movies aren't perfect, but they were done to the extent that they were able to be done, and to the high standards of a mastermind. If Hitch was happy, then they must have been fully developed in his eyes. He may have even been aware of the B-movie like qualities of each "flaw," hoping to disarm the viewer, forcing them to look closer for the true message. He is in no way wrongly beloved and honored in Hollywood. Rather, he paved the way for future directors to knowingly approach a plot/screenplay that has some holes, and yet make it sing.
Horns up.
Comments:
Thanks for defending the master. I didn't buy my 34 DVD set for nothing! Hitch did the best with what he had. Vertigo still kicks my butt every time I see it. Nice write up.
Hitchcock's films, made as they were between 35 and 70 years ago, showed that you don't need all those over-the-top, and cliched, special effects to create tension.
For what it's worth, my favourite Hitchcock film is "North by Northwest", his homage to America, as well as a film that keeps one on the edge of one's seat when watching it - even today, forty-five years on.
Post a Comment
For what it's worth, my favourite Hitchcock film is "North by Northwest", his homage to America, as well as a film that keeps one on the edge of one's seat when watching it - even today, forty-five years on.