I know this isn’t original to say. But Hitchcock is the reason I fell in love with the process of movie making it makes the experience of watching a movie so much richer to hear of all the skills it takes to film a shot.
1:10 - such a pity Arbogast is filmed so badly, with the silly dolly forward as he falls backwards down the stair. I've seen Psycho twice in theaters, and it's so awkward a sequence that both times the audience laughed derisively at it. ---There are other blunders, such as Tony Perkins shaking his head wildly to ensure the wig dislodges and 'mother' is revealed.
Awesome video! Imagine how difficult it was to shoot some of the scenes with those ultra heavy and bulky Mitchell BNC rack over cameras. No reflex viewfinder during the shot and focus pulling was done blindly after rehearsing. Rack over had to be aligned frequently with special tools. Unthinkable nowadays. These were the finest craftsmen (-people). Hitchcock filmed "Rope" with a technicolor camera, the size of a truck....
Hold your cine-capable iPhone in your hand and stand next to your refrigerator, similar in size and weight to 35mm cine-camera in 1950's . How far we have come!
check out the camera movement in Under Capricorn. the dinner arrival to Bergman's entrance. there is a special credit to the four guys who worked the dolly and crane with that monster BNC.
Wow after this explanation it can be simpler to understand how Hitch was doing it so good! The PSYCHO stair scene is a classic and the shower scene, they are terrifying and have been inspirational in stuff like SALEM'S LOT and slasher movies. Amazing videos as usual from you Wolfcrow - Thank you.
Tracking shots work well for suspense because they're weird, especially when they appear to change the scene. A camera spinning around a subject is actually less eerie because the scene doesn't appear to change, meanwhile the way that Hitchcock shot the guy going up (and down) the stairs in Psycho drastically changes the scene, you see the floor fall away from the foreground into the background.
Good video. I'm a cinematographer. In all honesty, you were perhaps a little biased in this video. It's a no brainer that Alfred Hitchcock is an amazing storyteller in "building" suspense. Most of this aura around him came not entirely from his movies but the time he existed in. His treatment to a story was something that people at the time had never heard of, we can only truly understand if he was successful in his artistic pursuit if a person on his own feels what you've been explaining. No good story, no good shot, "needs" to be explained. The best example of his mastery, in my opinion is The Rope. That scene you explained from Birds, the shot taking was sub optimal. It failed to communicate the danger, the torment the character was feeling at the moment of the scene. In the Shadow of a Doubt, the last scene had so much more potential. Purely on the basis of shot taking, the slow tilt down was an absolute distraction. Each significant event in a scene has a peak heat moment, in these moments the camera has to be *motivated* by action and nothing else. It all goes back to what Einstein said, "You are a master of something only if you can explain it to an 8yr old". Have an amazing day! Keep up the good work!
Excellent material, thank you for sharing. It makes sense to use static, claustrophobic shots when the scary stuff happens because it induces a state of freeze in audience. The viewers are held there, cannot move and cannot leave. The viewers are allowed to move and breathe after that through wide shots and camera panning.
Obviously it's completely subjective, but I don't even consider Vertigo to be Hitchcock's best film. For me, it barely even scrapes into the top 10 best Hitchcock Movies.
I don’t think it’s completely subjective. Vertigo appears on the top 10 lists of more movie directors and critics than almost anything except perhaps Rules of the Game and Citizen Kane.
@@mickmcq Sorry to disagree with you, Michael, but it really is subjective. These directors and critics you speak of, are just human beings expressing their opinions. Therefore, it is subjective. It's not definitive. The quality of a film cannot be measured scientifically. There are no weights and measures involved, no quantifiable experiments that prove the greatness or quality of a film. Even an Oscar is merely one group of people endorsing one movie over another. Hence my assumption that it is, and always will be, subjective.
Another video shows how Hitchcock built the suspense in the schoolyard scene. It's chilling when Raymond Burr sees her flashing the ring and looks directly into the camera. Frenzy was an absolute masterpiece. I enjoyed the humor when the inspector was discussing the case with his wife. Her exotic dishes were hilarious!
Fantastic video as always! I feel that nearly all camera movement shots in Hitchcock’s masterpieces are reveal shots. He mastered with great technique how to make the perfect reveal and did it over again!
I'm a Hitchcock scholar. But I haven't had time to watch one in years. Your vid analysis makes me want to watch 5 or 6. The shots are constructive, yes ...but I never noticed how gorgeous.
So many well-decribed points about "The Master of Suspense" and his amazing filmmaking ability! The shame of it is only those who remember and grew up with Hitchcock can or will appreciate this because this sort of filmmaking is all but gone these days! "Vertigo" may well be one of THE BEST films ever made and yet I've spoken with fairly yung people who I suggested watching it and in each case I got comments like "yeah it was pretty good but a little boring" or "it was okay"!.........people today just don't know about the "art" of good movie making!
0:32 "Dolly: camera moves towards or away from the subject. Tracking: camera moves to the right or left of the subject." Really? I think many cameramen would disagree with the basis of the distinction being which axis of movement the camera follows.
Hitchcock is a brilliant and a true, genuine pioneer BUT if you said that he could "direct a movie while he was sleeping".. is a truly an overstatement
1:03 Damn. Even by today's standards this scene is creepy as fuck. The unassuming nature of Mother coming out of nowhere. No jump care. Just slow inevitable pain.
great video essay but slight misuse of the term "Khuleshev effect" in generic reaction shots. an actor's horrified facial reaction to something horrifying their character just observed is not necessarily "Kuleshov effect".. Kuleshov effect is specifically when the audience imparts their own meaning to an actor's blank facial expression depending on what the audience knows or believes the character has just seen
Although I agree with your points about how each of those climactic scenes were done masterfully in terms of editing, camera movements, etc; I actually dont see the pattern you mentioned (i.e. movement - static - movement).
Someone made the good point that mother being total shadow when the whole scene is lit by an uncovered light bulb is illogical from a physics standpoint. But it had to be done. Otherwise the movie would have been over. Sometimes you have to take liberties for a movie to work.😮
3:25 I recomend a joke sketch where they have working class men gathering instead of birds, features Simon Pegg 'Alfred Hitchcock Spoof | Big Train | BBC Studios '
Alfred Hitchcock's largest payday came from the film Psycho. He deferred his salary in exchange for 60% of the movie's profits. This resulted in an estimated $15 million payday, which adjusted for inflation is around $120 million today.
So basically, "move into" a scene with a camera move, then "sit inside" the scene as the moment you build up to unfolds, then "move out" of the scene with another camera move.
It's not the type of shots, it's the temporal shots, to either anticipate the future or be in the present. "Psycho" Present: following the man up the stairs. Future: The camera already makes room for the incoming action, frame the entire floor including the open bedroom door. Present: seeing the woman shower. Future: The camera is already set up for Norman, leaving room on the left for us to see the incoming threat.
In suspense, I added this content, about the obsessive but iconic Alfred Hitchcock to the Playlist Linguaggio Cinema - th-cam.com/play/PLCHo6MAUWUJaQgo4EtsQq_ZW93g0YRC2j.html
The Birds sucked. The girl was hot as hell but the story was lame of her driving 2 hours then jumping into a boat to cross the sound like a pro fisherman and the ending was ...WTF? You walked to the car and drove away.....wow.
I am definitely an outlier but I think Hitchcock is hugely overrated. He's obviously more than competent but I find his style obvious and corny. I'm not saying others should feel the same.
You sound like a smart kid, Wolfcrow. I hope you're at least thinking about making movies in the future. The world needs more William Monahan's, more Scorsese's, more Fincher's, more anything besides overdone comic book movies and unrelatable romantic comedies and buddy movies that very, very rarely age well.... The future is going to be slow, boring, tedious, and occasionally breathtaking and horrifying in equal measure. Good luck.
Dude, what are you doing ? you've released content yesterday, two weeks ago and 1 year ago. You're getting thousands of views in 1 day, keep uploading more regularly or else your channel will die out. What are you thinking ?
This is interesting for another reason. I don't think this was well understood during Hitchcock's lifetime. Up through the 1970s "Hitchcockian" invariably meant - 'Failed thriller.' Except for Gaslight, maybe Night of the Hunter (some of the French thrillers) no one else seemed able to 'Do Alfred Hitchcock' except Hitch. Until Brian DePalma in the 1970s - he got it and (at least at the time) his movies were scary, thrilling, passionate, nail biters. Also the mechanics. As a nerd with good spatial sense I can recognize a poorly written or an overly written action sequence in a book, movies are better (copying existing scenes and of course editors.) 'Overly written' is explaining every move so it's very clear not only what happened, but how it happened, how the lighter smaller weaker person was able to.... Hitchcock understood that while we might be able to remember having seen this in real life, in a movie it's just too much trouble and too much movement information interferes with the emotional impact. With the Birds I'm sure somewhere in that sequence was planned to see one bird, then two then four.... Maybe they got those shots, but Hitchcock has everything story boarded in advance. The Birds was also considered at the time more of a spectacle than a thriller. (Johnson's snarky remark comparing women preachers to dogs walking on two legs, not that it's done well (a Hitchcock thriller) but that it's done at all (look at all those birds)).
You were doing well until that last paragraph, when you ran off at a tangent. Who is Johnson? Like DePalma, I would also add Argento and Richard Franklin, to the list of directors who were clearly influenced by Hitchcock. Although DePalma and Argento (when you watch their movies back to back) also seem to have influenced each other.
@@Geese-farting-in-the-wind Ben Johnson the guy who made the first English Dictionary . He's also famous for his snarky remarks. “Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.” ― Samuel Johnson. So it's not that Hitch made a great thriller/horror movie where birds were the villains, but that he was able to make a movie with a lot of birds. In Hitchcock by Truffaut Hitch says he didn't consider the technical problems with the birds at all. During the interview he says he did some improvising while shooting which he says he's almost never done. The discussion is mostly about the emotional issues between the main characters. They never talk about the technical problem of training all those birds. (I also read that all the birds were destroyed after the shoot. I doubt anyone would ever admit to that today.) The Truffaut interview book with Hitchcock is really insightful about making movies. When I started trying to write a novel, I set out to figure out how novels (and writing) work. Not 'What timeless thoughts did Jane Austen communicate through her novels...." but How did she tell a joke? Are there more jokes we're missing? (Yep) How does she move the story along - the plot is just the beginning. Who's point of view is a scene written from? Hitch talking about the Birds says he shifted the POV of a scene to 'the mother,. which worked better for the story and had more impact.
Fundamentally, actors are a race apart. This group is divided into two sections: first, those who have talent and have never received any recognition for it, and, second, those who have received recognition without having any talent. Either way, they're cattle- Alfred Hitchcock
Tarantino was saying he wasn’t a fan of Hitchcock..perhaps because Hitchcock reminds him what it takes to rise above sophomoric film making. Subbed.
His was only a provocation, because in fact in interviews he has always shown himself to be a profound connoisseur and admirer of Hitchicock's works
I smell BBQ
@@fearofaflatearth That being said…Tarantino the sophomore is the only thing that is left who resembles a filmmaker in today’s Hollywood.
@@gokhanersan8561 cause he diddles kids, right?
@@fearofaflatearth The contemporary Hollywood “auteur” diddles grownup kids. Ryan Johnson, Nolan, etc. are even cheaper diddlers than Tarantino, imho.
I know this isn’t original to say. But Hitchcock is the reason I fell in love with the process of movie making it makes the experience of watching a movie so much richer to hear of all the skills it takes to film a shot.
1:10 - such a pity Arbogast is filmed so badly, with the silly dolly forward as he falls backwards down the stair. I've seen Psycho twice in theaters, and it's so awkward a sequence that both times the audience laughed derisively at it. ---There are other blunders, such as Tony Perkins shaking his head wildly to ensure the wig dislodges and 'mother' is revealed.
Awesome video! Imagine how difficult it was to shoot some of the scenes with those ultra heavy and bulky Mitchell BNC rack over cameras. No reflex viewfinder during the shot and focus pulling was done blindly after rehearsing. Rack over had to be aligned frequently with special tools. Unthinkable nowadays. These were the finest craftsmen (-people). Hitchcock filmed "Rope" with a technicolor camera, the size of a truck....
Hold your cine-capable iPhone in your hand and stand next to your refrigerator, similar in size and weight to 35mm cine-camera in 1950's . How far we have come!
@@kmlgraph Yep, and also ease of use. But small, lightweight and ease of use doesn't equal talent.
@@truefilm6991 ...so true!
@@kmlgraph "cine-capable" iPhone 😂
check out the camera movement in Under Capricorn. the dinner arrival to Bergman's entrance. there is a special credit to the four guys who worked the dolly and crane with that monster BNC.
Wow after this explanation it can be simpler to understand how Hitch was doing it so good! The PSYCHO stair scene is a classic and the shower scene, they are terrifying and have been inspirational in stuff like SALEM'S LOT and slasher movies. Amazing videos as usual from you Wolfcrow - Thank you.
Tracking shots work well for suspense because they're weird, especially when they appear to change the scene. A camera spinning around a subject is actually less eerie because the scene doesn't appear to change, meanwhile the way that Hitchcock shot the guy going up (and down) the stairs in Psycho drastically changes the scene, you see the floor fall away from the foreground into the background.
The shower scene and the steps one was excellently done along with that music playing loud .
Good video. I'm a cinematographer. In all honesty, you were perhaps a little biased in this video. It's a no brainer that Alfred Hitchcock is an amazing storyteller in "building" suspense. Most of this aura around him came not entirely from his movies but the time he existed in. His treatment to a story was something that people at the time had never heard of, we can only truly understand if he was successful in his artistic pursuit if a person on his own feels what you've been explaining. No good story, no good shot, "needs" to be explained. The best example of his mastery, in my opinion is The Rope. That scene you explained from Birds, the shot taking was sub optimal. It failed to communicate the danger, the torment the character was feeling at the moment of the scene. In the Shadow of a Doubt, the last scene had so much more potential. Purely on the basis of shot taking, the slow tilt down was an absolute distraction. Each significant event in a scene has a peak heat moment, in these moments the camera has to be *motivated* by action and nothing else. It all goes back to what Einstein said, "You are a master of something only if you can explain it to an 8yr old". Have an amazing day! Keep up the good work!
I'll never view a Hitchcock classic the same again. Thanks for the insight.
Wow! You've got me hooked. I'm an old Hitch fan from childhood and I've seen several documentaries on his work. This is one of the best.
Excellent material, thank you for sharing.
It makes sense to use static, claustrophobic shots when the scary stuff happens because it induces a state of freeze in audience. The viewers are held there, cannot move and cannot leave. The viewers are allowed to move and breathe after that through wide shots and camera panning.
I love your videos man
Thanks for sharing such high quality content
Great video my man. You might say that the secret 5th step is the personality and heart of the craftsmen and women who make a film possible.
Your videos have taught me so much, a BIG thank you, Sir!
Great episode. Love Hitchcock movies.
I'm proud of the fact that I've watched all the movies used in this analysis. And I consider Vertigo to be the greatest movie ever by anybody
Obviously it's completely subjective, but I don't even consider Vertigo to be Hitchcock's best film. For me, it barely even scrapes into the top 10 best Hitchcock Movies.
I don’t think it’s completely subjective. Vertigo appears on the top 10 lists of more movie directors and critics than almost anything except perhaps Rules of the Game and Citizen Kane.
@@mickmcq Sorry to disagree with you, Michael, but it really is subjective. These directors and critics you speak of, are just human beings expressing their opinions. Therefore, it is subjective. It's not definitive. The quality of a film cannot be measured scientifically. There are no weights and measures involved, no quantifiable experiments that prove the greatness or quality of a film. Even an Oscar is merely one group of people endorsing one movie over another. Hence my assumption that it is, and always will be, subjective.
It is subjective, but I don't personally agree. It's on my top 10, but I wouldn't put it at number 1
Vertigo is third best movie by Hitchcock. Psycho and birds comes at first and second respectively
Another video shows how Hitchcock built the suspense in the schoolyard scene. It's chilling when Raymond Burr sees her flashing the ring and looks directly into the camera. Frenzy was an absolute masterpiece. I enjoyed the humor when the inspector was discussing the case with his wife. Her exotic dishes were hilarious!
Fantastic video as always! I feel that nearly all camera movement shots in Hitchcock’s masterpieces are reveal shots. He mastered with great technique how to make the perfect reveal and did it over again!
Another GREAT video. I will implement point four more
lucky that I found this on youtube! thank you so much
I'm a Hitchcock scholar. But I haven't had time to watch one in years. Your vid analysis makes me want to watch 5 or 6. The shots are constructive, yes ...but I never noticed how gorgeous.
I lost interest in modern movies after watching movies by Alfred Hitchcock. Such a fantastic filmmaker.
He is inspired every filmmaker in the world
i lost interest in alfred hitchcock after watching movies by alfred hitchcock
@@theseoldhomes Oh, really? Then why did you bother watching this?
@@histubeness spite
@@theseoldhomes Well, his legacy will survive, in spite of your spite.
So many well-decribed points about "The Master of Suspense" and his amazing filmmaking ability! The shame of it is only those who remember and grew up with Hitchcock can or will appreciate this because this sort of filmmaking is all but gone these days! "Vertigo" may well be one of THE BEST films ever made and yet I've spoken with fairly yung people who I suggested watching it and in each case I got comments like "yeah it was pretty good but a little boring" or "it was okay"!.........people today just don't know about the "art" of good movie making!
Shower scene: "There's lots of cuts".
0:32
"Dolly: camera moves towards or away from the subject.
Tracking: camera moves to the right or left of the subject."
Really? I think many cameramen would disagree with the basis of the distinction being which axis of movement the camera follows.
Hitchcock is a brilliant and a true, genuine pioneer BUT if you said that he could "direct a movie while he was sleeping".. is a truly an overstatement
This is a phenomenal video.
Incredible, thank you
1:03 Damn. Even by today's standards this scene is creepy as fuck.
The unassuming nature of Mother coming out of nowhere. No jump care. Just slow inevitable pain.
great video essay but slight misuse of the term "Khuleshev effect" in generic reaction shots. an actor's horrified facial reaction to something horrifying their character just observed is not necessarily "Kuleshov effect"..
Kuleshov effect is specifically when the audience imparts their own meaning to an actor's blank facial expression depending on what the audience knows or believes the character has just seen
You learn something new everyday.
Although I agree with your points about how each of those climactic scenes were done masterfully in terms of editing, camera movements, etc; I actually dont see the pattern you mentioned (i.e. movement - static - movement).
......thanks for brilliant analysis....
This is an excellent observation.
Someone made the good point that mother being total shadow when the whole scene is lit by an uncovered light bulb is illogical from a physics standpoint. But it had to be done. Otherwise the movie would have been over. Sometimes you have to take liberties for a movie to work.😮
Excellent video
INTERESTING!
🎥🎞️📽️🎬
3:25 I recomend a joke sketch where they have working class men gathering instead of birds, features Simon Pegg
'Alfred Hitchcock Spoof | Big Train | BBC Studios '
Music pays a lot to do in a suspenseful scene to create anxiety to whom is watching it .Hitchcock knew how to use that along with editing.
Make A Video On Orson Welles ! Surely One Of The Greats !!
1:17 “Note: The shot changes here. I’ll explain that later.”
Is there an explanation of that specific change in shot later? I didn’t catch it.
Great video! Loved the ending! LOL!
Alfred Hitchcock's largest payday came from the film Psycho. He deferred his salary in exchange for 60% of the movie's profits. This resulted in an estimated $15 million payday, which adjusted for inflation is around $120 million today.
All classics
So basically, "move into" a scene with a camera move, then "sit inside" the scene as the moment you build up to unfolds, then "move out" of the scene with another camera move.
5:00
Simply using dolly shots does not really constitute a formula.
What if I want the blueprint, but I do t want to subscribe to anything. Is that possible?
Where is the Link for Blueprint please?
Hitchcock was a perfectionist. Every single scene was choreographed to his demanding standard. There will never be another.
Thanks
0:51 is zoom, not dolly, imo
wow
It's not the type of shots, it's the temporal shots, to either anticipate the future or be in the present. "Psycho" Present: following the man up the stairs. Future: The camera already makes room for the incoming action, frame the entire floor including the open bedroom door. Present: seeing the woman shower. Future: The camera is already set up for Norman, leaving room on the left for us to see the incoming threat.
1:14 Damn, why'd she do him like that?
Now the master is Torantino
Torantino😂
Scary and intense. But when they made Psycho II 25 years later it was bloody and gross and unwatchable.
💕🤎💚
In suspense, I added this content, about the obsessive but iconic Alfred Hitchcock to the Playlist Linguaggio Cinema - th-cam.com/play/PLCHo6MAUWUJaQgo4EtsQq_ZW93g0YRC2j.html
So Brian DePalma was doing it all wrong all these years!
The Psycho scene with Martin Balsam falling down the stairs is way too corny and does not hold up.
You spoiled the film with the middle phot in the thumbnail.
The Birds sucked. The girl was hot as hell but the story was lame of her driving 2 hours then jumping into a boat to cross the sound like a pro fisherman and the ending was ...WTF? You walked to the car and drove away.....wow.
I am definitely an outlier but I think Hitchcock is hugely overrated. He's obviously more than competent but I find his style obvious and corny. I'm not saying others should feel the same.
Cray
You sound like a smart kid, Wolfcrow. I hope you're at least thinking about making movies in the future. The world needs more William Monahan's, more Scorsese's, more Fincher's, more anything besides overdone comic book movies and unrelatable romantic comedies and buddy movies that very, very rarely age well....
The future is going to be slow, boring, tedious, and occasionally breathtaking and horrifying in equal measure. Good luck.
This is stretching at its worst.
Dude, what are you doing ? you've released content yesterday, two weeks ago and 1 year ago. You're getting thousands of views in 1 day, keep uploading more regularly or else your channel will die out. What are you thinking ?
Thanks for the video but this show that you obviously don't know nothing about Hitchcock and his modus operandi and cinematography..
This is interesting for another reason. I don't think this was well understood during Hitchcock's lifetime. Up through the 1970s "Hitchcockian" invariably meant - 'Failed thriller.' Except for Gaslight, maybe Night of the Hunter (some of the French thrillers) no one else seemed able to 'Do Alfred Hitchcock' except Hitch. Until Brian DePalma in the 1970s - he got it and (at least at the time) his movies were scary, thrilling, passionate, nail biters.
Also the mechanics. As a nerd with good spatial sense I can recognize a poorly written or an overly written action sequence in a book, movies are better (copying existing scenes and of course editors.) 'Overly written' is explaining every move so it's very clear not only what happened, but how it happened, how the lighter smaller weaker person was able to.... Hitchcock understood that while we might be able to remember having seen this in real life, in a movie it's just too much trouble and too much movement information interferes with the emotional impact.
With the Birds I'm sure somewhere in that sequence was planned to see one bird, then two then four.... Maybe they got those shots, but Hitchcock has everything story boarded in advance. The Birds was also considered at the time more of a spectacle than a thriller. (Johnson's snarky remark comparing women preachers to dogs walking on two legs, not that it's done well (a Hitchcock thriller) but that it's done at all (look at all those birds)).
You were doing well until that last paragraph, when you ran off at a tangent. Who is Johnson?
Like DePalma, I would also add Argento and Richard Franklin, to the list of directors who were clearly influenced by Hitchcock. Although DePalma and Argento (when you watch their movies back to back) also seem to have influenced each other.
@@Geese-farting-in-the-wind Ben Johnson the guy who made the first English Dictionary . He's also famous for his snarky remarks.
“Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.” ― Samuel Johnson. So it's not that Hitch made a great thriller/horror movie where birds were the villains, but that he was able to make a movie with a lot of birds.
In Hitchcock by Truffaut Hitch says he didn't consider the technical problems with the birds at all. During the interview he says he did some improvising while shooting which he says he's almost never done. The discussion is mostly about the emotional issues between the main characters. They never talk about the technical problem of training all those birds. (I also read that all the birds were destroyed after the shoot. I doubt anyone would ever admit to that today.)
The Truffaut interview book with Hitchcock is really insightful about making movies. When I started trying to write a novel, I set out to figure out how novels (and writing) work. Not 'What timeless thoughts did Jane Austen communicate through her novels...." but How did she tell a joke? Are there more jokes we're missing? (Yep) How does she move the story along - the plot is just the beginning. Who's point of view is a scene written from? Hitch talking about the Birds says he shifted the POV of a scene to 'the mother,. which worked better for the story and had more impact.
Stanley Donen did pretty well in 1963.
gross oversimplification
Laughable acting
Fundamentally, actors are a race apart. This group is divided into two sections: first, those who have talent and have never received any recognition for it, and, second, those who have received recognition without having any talent. Either way, they're cattle- Alfred Hitchcock