Hitchcock wanted to release an artistic movie called Kaleidoscope in 1969, about a gay, deformed sex murderer. There was gonna be a shocking strangling scene at the climax, which we would think is a sex scene, but go inside to see a strangling scene. But Universal was shocked by the idea, and had him do Topaz instead.
I also know that Hitchcock bought the rights to a great story, where a man wakes up in the morning and for some reason thinks that his wife has been replaced.. The whole story revolves around the man trying to reason with his friends and the police detective about the truth.. I think the idea and script was sold at some point, cause I saw it as a theater reproduction at some point... Would have been one of his finest work, much like 'Psycho'..
If Hitchcock had been allowed to make Kaleidoscope in the mid 60s, we might have had a second golden age. Universal killed Hitchcock when it killed the movie.
@@RogerOThornhill That is ridiculously simplistic. He had carte blanc to pretty much make what wanted, he had sold his ownership in 'Psycho' and the Hitchcock TV shows to Universal for a huge chunk of shares, making him one of the wealthiest directors in the business. He also transmuted transmuted it into 'Frenzy'. The original had POV killings. It would probably have killed his career as it did Michael Powell's a few years earlier. And he was going through a really dark time, what with the Hedren mess and him destroying his relationship with Bernard Herrmann. I think he lost confidence, just like Preston Sturges in the '40s and Wilder in the '70s.
I saw Rear Window, Vertigo, Rope, The Trouble With Harry and The Man Who Knew Too Much at my local cinema in 1984 when the Hitchcock estate took them out of the vaults for the first time since 1961. My favorite of the bunch was Rope. I like films that take place in a single day and/or as few places as possible and the fact that Rope was all done with one angle was genius.
@@TheEternalOuroboros I just saw Rope last night. Totally not what I was expecting. It's an adaptation of a play and sometime you can really tell (one set, small cast)
I have just one request to the author of the essay : Do not get demotivated by a long and sometimes stressing journey to the mainstream. We know you get there and we feel what you are saying.
Frenzy is basically if Hitchcock made a movie but didn't have a censor button (not including the films of Brian De Palma). It sure would be interesting to see what he could do now
A lot of Herrmann’s music has similarities. Parts from for instance the non Hitchcock movies Beneath The 12 Mile Reef, The Man In A Grey Flannel Suit but especially The Bride Wore Black and Tender Is The Night are very similar to certain passages in Vertigo. Herrmann too was refining his craft of arrangement, writing and orchestration. Brilliant composer. The music he wrote for Psycho is often referred to as his signature sound. This is not only regrettable but severely missing the essence of Herrmann. Which is not about suspense at all but about romance, even when intended to accentuate scenes of suspense.
Great commentary - but I feel your analysis doesn't go deep enough. You leave out the most important explanation of why Hitchcock continued to make films past his prime - process and working habits. Over his long career, he'd developed a lifestyle of scouting new projects and developing them in long script meetings and storyboarding. That in fact was his major satisfaction with filmmaking, to the point at which he joked that filming the picture was merely the final and least enjoyable step. Though his partnerships with great writers certainly inspired him, it was his relationship with his wife Alma that was the most essential. A "Hitchcock" picture was ultimately the responsibility of both Hitchcocks - and Alma's failing health is no less momentous a factor in the falling-off of artistry in the final decade. But what I feel most absent in this analysis is the perspective of Hitchcock as a "production director" - a filmmaker employee of a studio who was always turning out a new film, good or bad, such as during his first two decades as a director. The obligation to keep working on things after a lifetime of habitual productivity, combined with an ingrained lifestyle of film development, meant that Alfred AND Alma had to keep going well into the 70's. Though they were aware like no other team of the mechanics of celebrity, they weren't ever convinced that such celebrity had stakes that required every film to be a smash. And they'd had their share of dreadful flops (like Under Capricorn, which is so much worse than Topaz that I wonder that you don't mention it) and kept working. If you look at the pacing of releases, then this so-called "Dark Age" isn't all that dark. Psycho and The Birds were both smashes, then Marnie was okay. Topaz and Torn Curtain were flops, but then Frenzy was a great picture, and Family plot was okay. That isn't a dark age, more of a slow bowing out in the face of new cinema.
The real dark ages are probably his early talkies, everything he did after Blackmail and before The Man Who Knew Too Much in my opinion. All other "ages" have at least one great film.
Really good observations on the importance of the filmmaking process to Hitchcock's whole lifestyle. As far as the relative quality of the late films goes, that's much more a matter of subjective opinion. I found "Topaz" and "Family Plot" almost unwatchable, "Torn Curtain" surprisingly enjoyable, and "Frenzy" overrated but fascinating. But your mileage may vary, as always.
@@yohei72 Frenzy is okay, but being based in London in the 1970s detracts somewhat - I would have preferred a U.S. setting. London in the 70s was pretty grim.
I've seen over 100 video analysis of Hitchcock & his movies. This one is the best: Concept, visuals, narration, pace & conclusions. A great job on it. Don't go into your 'dark ages'.
"Good evening" Alfred Hitchcock. Wow man, this man, this name man's means something to me and watching this synopsis made me realize Alfred Hitchcock has always meant something to me. Over all of these years, I've kept him with me. I've always loved movies and tv, they were the one thing that I really and truly enjoyed with my brother and our father. My father used to watch this show on tv with Alfred Hitchcock- he would do the intro to each of the short story that we'd watch. Apparently (now that I think about it) my father enjoyed mystery and horror based tv shows cause we used to watch The Twilight Zone, Perry Mason type shows and later on before his death we watched Tales From The Crypt together, me him and my lil brother- this was back in the mid to late 80s. I know Alfred Hitchcock is important to me now because he was important to my dad back then... Its crazy because i never really knew about all of the great movies he made, in the ghetto we just don't watch those sort of movies Psycho, Birds and his other great movies but I remember his show. It's so crazy because Im so deep into movies and writing stories now, I've always respected Alfred Hitchcock, believe it or not, that plump little British man was the most culture a hood bound kid could get in the ghetto. I know that Alfred Hitchcock is a classical OG director but I don't love him because of what other people said about him, I think he was always important to me because he was important to my father- I've never watched any of the movies he is most known for and I dont really love him for any of those movies. I love him for what he gave me my dad and my lil brother. Alfred Hitchcock and my dad are the reasons why I will one day be a great writer.
Most, if not all directors have nothing close to vertigo in terms of lasting power...let alone the rest of Hitchcock’s master pieces so he had a few not so amazing. Great video.
On a related note to the decline of directors. I would argue that Spielberg's "decline" is the most overstated. His work became less approachable for the blockbuster crowd, but no less emotionally engaging. Perhaps even more so, actually. His recent attempts to make the same straightforward blockbuster type movies from earlier in his career haven't been successful, sure, but that's the result of trying to play against his own natural evolution as an artist. The rest of his recent work is usually still excellent.
@JuniorX EastNY What? In addition to Bridge of Spies, Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can, War of the Worlds, The Adventures of TinTin, Lincoln, and The Post all came out after 2001. And that's just the stuff people generally agree to be good. There are a few others that are debatable. And few that could really be argued as outright bad. Sure he stopped doing the creative blockbusters of the eighties and nineties, but that doesn't make his more subtle recent movies bad. I definitely like his older stuff better overall, but to have gotten worse is not the same as to have become bad.
I would vote for "Duel"--a fine Spielberg film (1971--stars Dennis Weaver) done in only three weeks! The idea for the film came from a short story appearing in Playboy Magazine and is true to the plot. Has anybody seen this incredible movie? Hope you can stream it--highly recommended.
@@cate1657 I'm a little confused since the topic was more about Spielberg's later years but thanks for the recommendation nonetheless. I'll have to check that out.
Stanley Kubrick's level of quality never declined either. His first movie is by far his worst but it's still better than Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams' entire filmographies put together. Furthermore, Kubrick learned from his mistakes whilst he was making Fear and Desire and used those lessons to ensure that he always delivered high quality movies for the rest of his career. Several of them ascended to the level of outright masterpieces that most filmmakers would never be able to pull off.
@@tomnorton4277 "but it's still better than Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams' entire filmographies put together" sounds like you just wanted to trash the Star Wars sequel trilogy for whatever reason (don't worry, I agree it' still trash), also I would add Quentin Tarantino, I can understand his decission of wanting to make a 10th and final film because he dosen't want to decline like, let's say Hitchcock (Quentin declared in an interview he's not a fan of Alfred but still considerates him a great filmmaker).
I know you have heard this a lot but I had to write and thank you for this engaging, detailed and affectionate study of these final Hitchcock films I am a theatre director and lifelong Hitchcock obsessive and student - my theatre work has always been deeply inspired by cinema, especially the work of Hitchcock, Bergman and Kubrick I've read and seen all the books and studies on Hitch but never have had the pleasure of seeing one explore and discuss his final period with such care, intelligence and sensitivity It was a joy to hear your insights and feel your deep admiration, respect, passion and understanding of an artist who I have a feeling left us long before you were born In these times of disposable, vapid criticism and deep on the surface insight your piece is a breath of pure, exhilarating oxygen I was very moved by it and wish you the very best Never have I been more grateful for my library of films than I am during this challenging period - I hope this finds you safe and well enjoying the company of cinema
You're far too kind, John. I'm touched this spoke to you so powerfully. I hope you too are safe and as you so nicely put, enjoying the company of cinema.
@@EyebrowCinema it definitely did as few people have taken the time to look at these last works of his with care - they are usually just dismissive and facile in their judgement Your skill in expressing yourself in a non pedantic manner coupled with real, incisive insight was what drew me in, aside from beautiful editing and clever choices - esp loved the use of that deeply melancholy music from Hermann's sadly unused score for torn curtain Even as unfulfilled and ineffective as that film is I often wonder how more effective in every way it would have been with that disturbing and powerful original score I am fascinated with the final works of great artists - directors, painters, composers - and the depth and complexity that the shadow of mortality brings to their work It is haunting to explore Anyway sorry for another long message - I hope to have a chance to further talk film, theatre and art with you sometime - let me know if that interests you at all It a pleasure to connect
Oh My God , what an ABSOLUTELY perfectly constructed essay!!!! biblical length , intuitive visuals in complete unison with your commentary , and the script writing..... i kinda entered a daze while indulging myself in this video. But barely anything was left out!! you pinpointed every example expertly , and the overall resume and Thesis were -in my opinion- accomplished flawlessly across the board !! , whoever helped you make this video possible they way it is , seriously think about further developments. i see now , Malvolio's Movies , amazing job , cannot wait to see more of you or him or both , subscribed!! criminally underrated channel , this video seriously deserves more views and traction , *but i guess it wouldn't be a perfect little niche thing if otherwise......* You got great Talent! and a Big Brain no doubt , once you start work on another video let me know and i'll be one of the first to judge it!!! godspeed Eyebrow Cinema
I had to finally hit the stop button as I was yelling at the screen during the Marnie section so much I just couldn't watch/listen to another minute. The fact that you say certain statements about the relationship between Mark Rutland and Marnie that are fully explained in the film in more than one scene baffled me completely but then I thought this Eyebrow guy is probably just a kid who only saw the movie once, it's not one of his favorites, so no one will care or notice but for me, a lifelong Hitchcock fan, that was it as I figured if you were trashing Marnie you were only going to get worse discussing the final four, which with TC and Topaz there are major issues but Frenzy and Family Plot were amazing return to form from a man who was extreremly unwell at the time he made them BUT still created two films that still blow away most of his competition in the Suspense genre even today. Good Luck with this endevour as I'm sure you'll be succesful as your presentation does draw one in and engages but maybe call me The Man Who Knows Too Much as I realized these things aren't for Hitch Buffs like myself as they become an exercise in frustration versus an enjoyable delving into the work of a Master Film Maker.
Hey Michael, I'd encourage you to watch more of the video. Spoilers, but I quite like Frenzy and see it as a beacon for the work Hitch could have done in the 70s and 80s had he been in better health.
Speak for yourself - I've been a huge Hitchcock fan most of my life, and I found this video pretty much spot on (although I'm harsher on "Family Plot," which I think is garbage). A lot of this is just subjective opinion.
Excellent essay. This would make a great 3-hour café discussion. I've had major ideas about these final films for a long time so much so that I wish I could somehow reedit Family Plot and Torn Curtain into good films.
Hmmmm, lots to discuss, agree with and debate here. For starters, I'm with Robin Wood, William Rothman and other critics who find MARNIE to be one of Hitch's most sublime works-and TOPAZ holds up much better in the "director's cut" version. Was he in decline? Sure. He was getting older. And he did lose his dream team of collaborators. And his controlling interest as a stockholder in Universal Studios paradoxically put limits on his creativity. And his biggest complaint in the sixties was that he couldn't find any original material to bring to the screen. But also keep in mind that he had previous dry spells as well. As a result, I think it's a bit unfair to compare his late films with, say, the genius of REAR WINDOW. Instead, why not compare this late period with his struggle to find his footing in the late 1920s, or with various midcareer lesser efforts, like SABOTEUR, UNDER CAPRICORN and STAGE FRIGHT? It might also be worthwhile to compare his last four films with some of the truly innovative films he was thwarted from making during the late sixties, such as MARY ROSE, which might well have re-defined the ghost story, and KALEIDOSCOPE, which was to intended to put the Hitchcock touch on an Italian Neorealist style. FAMILY PLOT was an experiment in a looser, more modern approach to filmmaking. For instance, he encouraged his lead actors to improvise their scenes, resulting in a more "modern" spontaneous style-license he would have never allowed in previous years. Of course, that affected his filming methods, resulting in routine shot-reverse shot editing, which you (rather dismissively) noted. At times you seemed to equate financial success/failure with the film's inherent quality. I hope you realize that that's a problematic correlation to say the least, right? But here's my biggest beef with your video. I kept wanting to ask: who the hell are you to adjudicate whether or not this or that aspect of Hitch's or anybody else's films "fail" or "succeed?" You're a smart guy, but your video misses one essential point: This isn't the Olympics or a beauty pageant. It's art. Therefore, I think your efforts to be a movie critic would greatly improve if you were to take each work on its own terms and show more respect for the artistry on display.
Well, Eyebrow Cinema, were I a film professor and this your introduction to a thesis or dissertation, you would definitely get the go-ahead to put it into the canon on film critique. You've done an enormous amount of work in editing--what becomes central to your ideas: the film selections, music scores, actors, costuming, camera work, etc., all speak beautifully to your ideas! Bravo on this fine work--entertaining and enlightening. Something I'd like to say about the decline of "Hitch"'s work as time went on were basically the times themselves (mid-1960s to late 1970s) in which he was working (or attempting to, at least)--a decline of American film artistry began to seep in during the early-1960s--big screen coverage (loss of intimacy with the audience), Technicolor, Cinemascope, overt and explicit violence and cheapened sexuality all worked together to tether good filmmaking into a shallow lack of artistry...just as American life itself began to experience drastic decline from the social, cultural and economic combination of inflation, job loss & wage reduction, inner-city distress and growing income inequality--it all began during the early-to-mid 1970s (I was there). Hitchcock's personal style and ability to call up unique filmmaking was as diluted and finally destroyed by the mediocrity that was gripping so many aspects of mainstream American life--it's too bad he didn't live long enough to add his expertise to the Independent Film Movement which began to emerge during the late 1950s in Europe & finally became available to Americans during the mid-to-late 1960s. Anyway, thank you so much for this enlightening feature--thoughtful, well-executed and stands up strongly in its premises.
Just want to say congrats on becoming the next big “thing” in film TH-cam, whenever that happens. Probably the next couple months give or take, but it will happen, so congratulations. These videos truly are excellent
Well, if and when that happens, you're invited to the party. In all seriousness, thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you like my videos and I appreciate your enthusiasm.
Great overview and analysis. Thank you for all your work on this video. I'm always surprised that 'Vertigo' came before 'North By Northwest'. 'Vertigo' feels and looks the more modern of the two films. Did 'Torn Curtain' have a rejected Herrmann score? I can't remember. Composer/director partnerships are critically important. Franklin J. Schaffner and Jerry Goldsmith complemented each other wonderfully. I thought Hedren's performance in 'Marnie' was very good for a relatively inexperienced actress. Even average Hitchcock film's will still be watched for decades to come.
That's because Grant looks younger in NBN than Stewart does in Vertigo. I often said that Vertigos flaws were its length complimented by Stewarts performance. The character should have been younger, more rugged and violent.
Yeah, if I remember correctly, Hitchcock and Herrmann had their falling out during Torn Curtain. Hitchcock gave Herrmann very specific and very clear direction about the kind of music Hitchcock wanted and Herrmann completely ignored it. When Hitchcock heard the first examples of Herrmann's score, with Herrmann present, Hitchcock was so upset he turned right around without a word and walked out of the room. The two reportedly never spoke again.
Another fine video essay by you... Film careers, as any career, are like a rollercoaster: there are ups and downs. You just don't want to be falling over the edge at the end.
This is also true for most musicians. A bands 1-2 first albums are often not very good, then they find their style and they get their audience, then after a some years they get old and the youthful inspiration and energy runs dry (or there is just too much alcohol and drugs).
The directors that keep up their quality for almost their entire careers are the all time greats. I can only think of a handful off the top of my head. It's a rare thing.
@@pitbull635 david finches maybe, chris nolan(those 2 are more recent though so we'll see how theirs go), stanley kubrick, martin scorsese, sergio leone, paul thomas anderson etc
@@nateds7326 All of them have had hits and misses no matter what. No director is flawless and that's really the missing point from this entire discussion
That was worthy! Your insight sounds older than your voice and there wasn't a whole lot to disagree with. The choice of visuals & a very easy to listen to delivery of a well written script, mesh into a PBS worthy audition.
The end of Hitchcock's collaboration with Bernard Hermann, perhaps the most important collaborator of his career if you've read Hitchcock's theories of pure cinema, was over their differences regarding the actress Tippy Hedren. Hermann knew of Hitchcock's romantic / sexual obsession with Hedren and told his friend, ( Hitchcock would cook for Hermann and his wife, he never did that with any other members of his team), he was making a colossal mistake in casting her as the lead in this film. This enraged Hitchcock and he severed their relationship which crushed Hermann both as a friend and collaborator. He never worked with Hitch again even when he asked Bernard to score Frenzy. Although the film industry changed with their formula with hit pop songs attached to movie releases,( something antithetical to Hitchcock's work), that was the true beginning of the end for Hitchcock. He became in real life the very same character in one of his films. You can't talk about Hitchcock's sad career ending without Tippy Hedren, he destroyed her career as well with his pathetic sexual delussions.
Not to mention the Torn Curtain playing fiasco. Bernard Herrman wrote music for the action scene with no music, A furious Hitchcock shut it down. That was the last time the two ever spoke. One of the saddest friendship fallouts in the history of the industry
Well done. This was a terrific critical scroll through the work of Hitchcock. It's interesting to see how a director learned his craft, became a master at it, but couldn't really adapt with the times - while also being dependent on a particular group of artists that helped bring his visions to screen. (I have to add that it's always tickled me that I own an early print of one of the two Tretchikoff paintings that hang in the murderer's apt. in 'Frenzy'.)
When I was a kid I watched "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" every day(repeats)waiting for a Hitchcock cameo, not understanding that as he was already the host of the show a cameo would have been redundant.
I'd disagree that The Birds doesn't measure up to the three or four films that came before it...it's INCREDIBLY creepy and suspenseful. And it's funny that you should mention Bond's influence on Hitchcock...wasn't he toying with the idea of filming Casino Royale in the late fifties, with Cary Grant as Bond? (I wouldn't have had the Bond movies any other way than what we got, but sigh...a Hitchcock-directed Casino Royale with Cary Grant...sigh...)
I don't like The Birds as much as Vertigo or Psycho, say, but you're right, it is incredibly creepy and suspenseful. Some masterful set-pieces and Tippi Hedren doesn't get enough credit for a great lead performance.
The musical score for frenzy is fantastic, at the Covent Garden shop it's uplifting, joyful. The original composer Henry Mancini's opening for the film was very depressing, The new composer was hired and the new opening for the opening credits is very uplifting.
I just discovered your channel and I am loving your videos, very well done and researched. I will say that personally I will still take Hitchcock's bad films of his final decade over most modern explosion fests. This was an extremely interesting video, keep up the good work.
I agree. I much prefer a world with a few more, albeit inferior, movies by Hitchcock than one without the "decline period" final 4. At least (except for Family Plot, which is frankly awful and beyond help), they work on their own set of rules, are entertaining enough to keep me engaged, and are very much of their time, a time where I was beginning to discover cinema myself. In the case of Topaz, I'm fortunate enough to know the 'foreign' actors (they are French, and I'm in the francophony) very well and really love them. It has often been mentioned that 'Topaz' failed because of the "lack of stars". Well, it did have many stars for whoever knows French cinema even a little. I can function very well without any Hollywoodian actors, thank you!
I decided to watch all the Hitchcock films currently on Max. 39 Steps, The Lodger, Downhill, Foreign Correspondent, The Man who Knew too Much…watching them made me want to come back to this video. Hitchcocks early work doesn’t get that much praise but the ones I watched were just outstanding. The guy was a master of craft.
I've just watched 5 of your videos in a row. Subbed. Great content and I hope that you can keep producing such interesting long form content and manage to gain the audience you deserve.
Fabulous video. But it's funny, regarding "Frenzy" and your comment on Ron Goodwin's film score, that you didn't talk about Henry Mancini's discarded music for the film since you used the theme. Speaking of music I find it fascinating that John Williams scored Hitchcock's last film and one for Brian De Palma. But I digress. Thank you so much for this piece. It spoke volumes.
Frenzy is my fav6 Hitchcock movie. Probably my favourite "London" movie too. It's so unusual and quirky and dark and Funny...and has some amazing cinematographic moments.
Family Plot was fun, and a different take on the crime genre. Sure, it's not Psycho, but that's one of the best films of all times. Again, the premise fails here.
I've still never seen FRENZY in its entirety, but from all that I've gathered about it, I wonder if it's at all possible that the seemingly inappropriate score is part of the point? like I just started to consider that now. That it would perhaps be sort of disgusting that accompanying sort of element would be over top the machinations of the story. I mean, the guy's career has a litany of virtually perfect examples of a score going logically complimentary to the film. I could totally see, especially that late, if he'd wanted to try that sort of experiment.
Hitchcock's style was just too out-dated for the 60's, and desiring to shoot on sound stages instead of real locations contributed to this greatly. He wanted to stick to the control he was used to, and the old-timey Hollywood lighting techniques that were dying, rather than wishing to to evolve his approach. But even his earlier movies feel like products of their time rather than timeless. That doesn't take away their greatness, but only illustrates that even though he almost literally "invented cinema as we know it", his vision of the medium was narrower than its inevitable expansion. One could even make the argument that Hitchcock essentially stopped evolving his creative visual style in the early 1950's. He didn't change anything because what he was doing worked - then. It didn't work anymore in the 60's, not when younger filmmakers were emerging with fresh and creative ideas that helped evolve the medium as a whole. Compare The Birds to something like Ivan's Childhood. Ivan's Childhood is _older_ than The Birds, but The Birds looks and feels *far* more antiquated. I don't think Hitchcock had any desire to expand his approach to cinema, visually in particular, and I scarcely believe he even knew how even if he wanted to. The cinema he knew was what he created, not what he was going to inspire.
He was really good at giving people what they wanted, so he had the confidence of the financiers and was given artistic freedom to try out a few things over the years. But then he got old and tired and people kept offering money so he kept making films. And he probably still enjoyed some things about it, without the need to keep striving for artistic merit. I enjoyed The Birds mainly for the visual effects even though most of them look primitive now. They looked cheesy back then, but the whole birds-flying-into-your-face approach was impressive. It didn't stimulate any suspense that I remember, but that's probably because it was such a lame-arsed plot. The scene in the bedroom where Tippi Hedron is attacked was funny to watch, but the fact that she was really injured makes you wonder if it was worth doing.
I appreciate that you are not exactly doing Hitch a disservice here...but I think it's a shame you pick on something like the Birds, that is somewhat antiquated to us now purely because of the limitations of the visual effects that particular story demanded. Which obviously will jar to us in a CGI age...but was still an interesting experiment...I would argue the great Hitchcock films that are reliant on what he did best; identity crisis, psychological breakdown, the ordinary in the extraordinary, strange motivations and obsessions...I would argue these are pretty timeless. Which is why I think its unfair to pick on the Birds against Ivan's childhood, which is not bound by special effects in the same way as the premise of the Birds is. If you compare it to other Hitchcock films instead, like Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest, Shadow of a Doubt or Psycho. I would argue those (and many others of Hitch from his Mid point to 'Golden years) stand the test of time very well indeed; still feel fresh and not antiquated at all because they are not constrained by their technology in quite the same way as the Birds and all of Hitch's true skills in dealing with his medium as the ultimate auteur came to the fore. I would say it holds up against anything by Tarkovsky...that being said I have only seen Solaris in full (which, beautiful and insightful as it is, I would argue does have something of a pacing problem) and parts of Ivan's childhood and Stalker...and that's really about it, so I should search out more. I actually would like to see Stalker in full as it looks really interesting to me from the segments I have seen on TH-cam.
Just a fantastic, emphatically engaging piece of work my friend. I really appreciated the empathy and humanity you bestowed to the master film maker in your writing. Very moving. I was looking for a quick retrospective review for Torn Curtain but I got so much more. Thank you (your new subscriber 😉 And yes, I found Barbara Harris in Family Plot to be supreme delight too, her 'kooky' charm utterly disarming 😊).
As sorrowful as the theme of this visual essay may be - the gradual diminishment and fall of a marvelous talent - its points are well considered and the writing well thought out. It's a nice piece of work, with much food for thought, and takes on a little-examined and difficult-to-address stage of the master's career with clarity and even a kind of moxy. Thanks for making this! Time well spent. Cheers.
What a great summary of the works of one of cinema's defining directors. I was enamored with his films from an early age, watched them whenever I could on TV. To boot, to discover the then re-released Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Vertigo on the big screen in 1984. The latter one, I only learned to love more with every viewing. Couple of years ago, I had the good fortune to see Dial M for Murder in 3D at the Berlin International Film Festival. A treat! Last year, I took the effort to (re-)discover his 30s and 40s oeuvre - which I was less interested in as a youngster. How great 39 Steps, Saboteur, Young and Innocent and many more still hold up.... Hitch is one of the true masters.
Hitchcock is one of the top film makers of all time. Very few other film makers have produced as many great movies. I have seen almost all of his movies( not counting waltzes from vienna). I was pleased you mentioned Frenzy as good. However, i think it is great. It is one of his best movies. The edginess of the movie is something i would have expected from a much younger man. Consider billy wilder. In twilight years, he made the horribly mediocre Avanti. Frenzy has the best dialogue line ending of any movie. I would watch it over having to watch marnie again.
Frenzy is great, really really great. I watched it a lot of times. It’s a movie made on location on covent garden, where hitch spended his childhood, and his approach of making an agile mise en scene on location and letting the actors improvise and interact a lot with the sets for me works perfectly showing the conflict of the main character and the psicology of the assasin. I saw a making off of this movie in which I saw hitchcock enjoying the shooting and showing confidence in the team, I don’t buy the idea of the dream team of the fifities, hitchcock always worked with whoever was aviable and seemed right. Shure Hermann is a genius, but I doubt it was thought as a dream team at the moment, but more as top of the line professionals. I really don’t see a dark ages hitchcock in this one. Shure i find Topaz boring, but family plot terribly funny. I think we tend to see the movies from the past through some kind of romantic glasses, and then something like Vertigo is ultra cannonized for a Number of reasons. Vertigo is a masterpice, but frenzy is also a masterpice, both made of the same material: celuloid. I can’t agree with the tesis of the video, but nevertheless it’s well presented
I agree but i feel that the truffaut-hitchcock book has canonized the idea of the auteur theory. Hitchcock is always pointed to to defend this theory. The idea of a great film maker only makes great movies is a popular one. I have always said even great film makers make bad film (mr and mrs smith), a fan can make excuses to like them but it is isn't. good. I think a great film makers like Hitchcock or wilder,has made 3 to 4 great movies. The rest can be forgiven. A good film maker may only have one compelling story to tell and fill the rest of their career with mediocre films. Not a popular point of view for a society that wants to brand everything and everyone.
Well, it is my personal opinion, but I thought Avanti was somewhat above average, with Jack Lemmon having some funny scenes. Indeed, of his last 4 movies, I also think Frenzy is the best, but bowing out with Family Plot wasn't so bad after all. Even the worst AH movies have something, well .....Hitchcockian, ha ha.
Johannes Bluemink I agree, I try to be open to my own emotions watching a movie, and all I can say is that I find family plot awfully entrertaining. And for the few things I know about narrative structure, screenwriting, acting, cinematography, I think I can understand a little why I like it. I don’t care about the auteur theory, or if this not is what is considered Hitchcock’s prime, or if a fan can justify any movie. I love hitchock because of the cinema he gave us. I never watched Avanti, but I also love Wilder, you gave me something to watch !
Excellent, perceptive summary and analysis of Hitchcock that does not deserve a single down vote (76 at the time of this writing). Still have never been able to get through Torn Curtain.
I felt topaz wasn’t as bad as that. Just my perspective. I really enjoyed the film. True development was weaker than in say notorious. Story structure wise, I liked the first two acts. The last act not as much. And the ending was weird. I would have been fine with the film just being the first two acts with Andre returning home on the plane and being sad with Juanita’s death. But I also felt that they would have had to add more to Juanita’s story and character development. Make her a larger part of the story and introduce the idea of him cheating earlier. In general though, I was attentive in the first two acts and really enjoyed the iconic sequences
This was outstandingly good and so well done. Now I shall become a subscriber for more excellent content. Thank you very much. And now that I checked out your channel, I'm really looking forward to it.
Excellent summary. The ways in which a film can fail far outnumber the ways in which it can succeed by orders of magnitude. It takes a person with substantial vision and discipline to pull all of that together. I'm old enough and I can't imagine Hitch trying to hold all of that together at 73+ after a lifetime of being that overweight -- especially after losing his most important collaborators. One of the most important was his DP. You can see the quality of the shots, color, movement and composition just becoming more lifeless until eventually they start looking like episodic TV. Oh well, you do what you can while you can. God to Hitchcock (with a nod to Blade Runner) "You were made as well as we could make you... Hitch: But not to last. God: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very very brightly, Hitch. Look at you. You're the prodigal son. You're quite a prize! Hitch: I've done questionable things. God: Also extraordinary things. Revel in your time!"
Had Hitchcock been able to make *Kaleidoscope* in 1967, we wouldn't have had Topaz. With the film's intended use of handheld cameras, natural locations, unknown cast, and its pushing the boundaries of sex and violence would not only fit in nicely with the New Hollywood wave, but it would've reminded audience that Hitchcock was still a force to be reckoned with in his twilight years and would've solidified his stance as an artist in his final years. I blame Lew Wasserman for this tremendous blunder.
Frenzy and Family Plot may not be "classic" Hitchcock films, but are certainly memorable, good films overall, mainly the first one. Torn Curtain and Topaz, on the other hand, leave a lot to be desired.
I liked Topaz way better than Torn Curtain, I even thought it was pretty good tbh. Not at the level of his earlier heights, of course, but I like it well enough
Excellent presentation. My one disapointent was that Eyebrow Cinema neglected to incorporate To Catch A Thief (see @ 9:03, among others) into the overall narrative. Nevertheless, this EC presenation was an absolute delight. Thank you!
This will sound weird to some, but the shots I'm seeing from Hitchcock's early movies look like they were adapted from Indy Comic books. Like THIS shot, 4:25
I like Family Plot for Harris and Dern with their funny and modern dialogue. I think Hitchcock saw how they represented the 70s and new attitudes and used them well. Frenzy also shows that he was with the times and not doing "beautiful" 50s style productions anymore.
Let’s not forget Hitch was a several time contender to direct James Bond (directory contacted for the job by Ian Forming himself) but always turned them down for some reason. Ah well.
"Frenzy" is a great thriller. But it always makes British people cringe a bit. It seems like an American "tourist" version of London. Much like "Brannigan." I think the reason for this was that Hitchcock had left the city of his birth before it was transformed by W.W.2. "War socialism" had changed middle and working class culture. As had Attlee`s post-war "welfare state." The wealthy upper middle class were now mostly state functionaries or corporate executives. Rather than the small businessmen and professionals of pre-war days. There had been a massive expansion of further and higher education after the war. By the 1970`s almost half the population were "baby-boomers." The drift of working class "cockneys" into surrounding counties, which had begun during the great depression, had become a flood after the war. Whilst much of old "inner London" was repopulated by immigrants from former British colonies. Tens of thousands of Londoners had been killed in air and missile attacks during the war. The city depicted in "The Lodger" had burned in the 1940`s and been re-developed in the 1960`s. This gives "Frenzy" a strange, unsettling, nightmare quality for British audiences. Which American`s would not get. The characters talk, and act, like characters from a 1930`s movie. But it is the 1970`s. Feels really strange watching it. Still the scene in the potato lorry is brilliant and Barry Foster got his own T.V. series of the back of it. This time "playing the good guy."
What I like about Frenzy is that, despite the graphic violence and nudity, it is very like one of his 1930s films. This may have jarred a bit to people in London in 1973, but almost 50 years have gone past since. Barry Foster's TV series "Van der Valk" started the same year, and on watching it recently I was struck by the characters having the same sort of trendy early '70s male clothes and cocky attitude while on opposite sides of the law, and by the fact that Mrs Van der Valk was played by the same actress who was Rust's last victim in "Frenzy" (the one in the bed at the end). I can't remember her name now, but her mother played the woman having the affair with Cecil Parker in "The Lady Vanishes".
Extremely interesting and easy to watch. I'm not much interested in either film study or Hitchcock (too many of his movies are set around people with servants who spend their time at boring 'balls' and society page events). But.....this made me a lot more open to both. I'd love to see this kind of treatment on Fritz Lang
I would disagree with Daniel Simpson's categorization of Alfred Hitchock's Fourth Stage as lasting from 1948 until 1954. A better time frame would be his Transatlantic Films period that brought about his brief venture of being an independent producer and consisted of three pictures; that of "Rope", "Under Capricorn", and "Stage Fright". None of which were successful. His next movie was "Strangers On a Train" which he made for Warner Brother's and that he once referred to as his "second spring", and this began a remarkable run of thirteen great or very good pictures in a period of thirteen years which ended with "Marnie" and heralded many of his greatest and best known pictures. I believe that Mr. Hitchcock would appreciate that codification as the number 13 appeared quite frequently in his films, and maybe that was because he was born on August 13th, 1899.
My 96 year old grandmother hates him for some reason. I dont know if it is because of his work but I remember she used to turn his show off when it came on Nick at Nite. I personally think he's great. I noticed she didn't like a lot or people from the UK. I honestly think she didn't like him because her husband died in Normandy. They were only married 8 months but she loved him deeply from what everyone as well as her tells me. He was American and she seems like she blames British people just as much as all of Europe.
Remember the Tippi Hedren controversy. I think his success of Psycho, made him think he was invincible. The catastrophic outcome of his attempt to buy hinself a female slave with Hedren, destroyed him and his filmmaking. I also believe the censorship restrictions of esrlier days actually helped his creativity. The loosening up in the 60’s and on renoved that necessary creative barrier. Otherwise I completely agree with you on your assesment of his dark age. Except that I also consider Frenzy a failure :-)
28:00 Whew! I was worried that Leonard Maltin disapproved. He was always my favorite, (pre internet, I.e. TH-cam) reviewer. With his masterful review of, 'Laserblast' still haunting me, all these years later! ;)
I've long maintained Torn Curtain gets a bad rap; I think, other than the admittedly cornball "fire!" scene referenced in this video, that the film is far better than it's critical reputation suggests.
Hitchcock was obsessed with the loss of Grace Kelly. He tried to force himself on Tippi Hedren. He was suffering depression, self esteem issues, and other demons he could no longer suppress. Finally, his sex and gender views were behind the times with the exception of Frenzy. He fell into Giallo/Slasher on that one.
Losing Kelly definitely shackled him to some degree. I like what he did after she got married, and there are some great films in there, but I feel like he dropped off after a while and he wasn’t able to really get the type of female star he wanted.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Hitchcock wanted to release an artistic movie called Kaleidoscope in 1969, about a gay, deformed sex murderer. There was gonna be a shocking strangling scene at the climax, which we would think is a sex scene, but go inside to see a strangling scene. But Universal was shocked by the idea, and had him do Topaz instead.
He did made it with Frenzy just a little different.
I also know that Hitchcock bought the rights to a great story, where a man wakes up in the morning and for some reason thinks that his wife has been replaced.. The whole story revolves around the man trying to reason with his friends and the police detective about the truth.. I think the idea and script was sold at some point, cause I saw it as a theater reproduction at some point... Would have been one of his finest work, much like 'Psycho'..
If Hitchcock had been allowed to make Kaleidoscope in the mid 60s, we might have had a second golden age. Universal killed Hitchcock when it killed the movie.
@@ZoolGatekeeper That's fascinating and still by modern film standards a new & unique story that could be told.
@@RogerOThornhill That is ridiculously simplistic. He had carte blanc to pretty much make what wanted, he had sold his ownership in 'Psycho' and the Hitchcock TV shows to Universal for a huge chunk of shares, making him one of the wealthiest directors in the business. He also transmuted transmuted it into 'Frenzy'. The original had POV killings. It would probably have killed his career as it did Michael Powell's a few years earlier. And he was going through a really dark time, what with the Hedren mess and him destroying his relationship with Bernard Herrmann. I think he lost confidence, just like Preston Sturges in the '40s and Wilder in the '70s.
I saw Rear Window, Vertigo, Rope, The Trouble With Harry and The Man Who Knew Too Much at my local cinema in 1984 when the Hitchcock estate took them out of the vaults for the first time since 1961. My favorite of the bunch was Rope. I like films that take place in a single day and/or as few places as possible and the fact that Rope was all done with one angle was genius.
Rope is underrated af.
@@TheEternalOuroboros I just saw Rope last night. Totally not what I was expecting. It's an adaptation of a play and sometime you can really tell (one set, small cast)
I have just one request to the author of the essay : Do not get demotivated by a long and sometimes stressing journey to the mainstream. We know you get there and we feel what you are saying.
Frenzy is basically if Hitchcock made a movie but didn't have a censor button (not including the films of Brian De Palma). It sure would be interesting to see what he could do now
The climactic music in Vertigo and Marnie is similar but in Vertigo it is positive and affirming and in Marnie wistful and unsettling.
I think a lot of To Catch a Thief is also a precursor to Vertigo
A lot of Herrmann’s music has similarities. Parts from for instance the non Hitchcock movies Beneath The 12 Mile Reef, The Man In A Grey Flannel Suit but especially The Bride Wore Black and Tender Is The Night are very similar to certain passages in Vertigo. Herrmann too was refining his craft of arrangement, writing and orchestration. Brilliant composer. The music he wrote for Psycho is often referred to as his signature sound. This is not only regrettable but severely missing the essence of Herrmann. Which is not about suspense at all but about romance, even when intended to accentuate scenes of suspense.
Bernard herrman
L
Fantastic. The Egyptiah
You see I actually think it’s the other way round
Great commentary - but I feel your analysis doesn't go deep enough. You leave out the most important explanation of why Hitchcock continued to make films past his prime - process and working habits. Over his long career, he'd developed a lifestyle of scouting new projects and developing them in long script meetings and storyboarding. That in fact was his major satisfaction with filmmaking, to the point at which he joked that filming the picture was merely the final and least enjoyable step. Though his partnerships with great writers certainly inspired him, it was his relationship with his wife Alma that was the most essential. A "Hitchcock" picture was ultimately the responsibility of both Hitchcocks - and Alma's failing health is no less momentous a factor in the falling-off of artistry in the final decade. But what I feel most absent in this analysis is the perspective of Hitchcock as a "production director" - a filmmaker employee of a studio who was always turning out a new film, good or bad, such as during his first two decades as a director.
The obligation to keep working on things after a lifetime of habitual productivity, combined with an ingrained lifestyle of film development, meant that Alfred AND Alma had to keep going well into the 70's. Though they were aware like no other team of the mechanics of celebrity, they weren't ever convinced that such celebrity had stakes that required every film to be a smash. And they'd had their share of dreadful flops (like Under Capricorn, which is so much worse than Topaz that I wonder that you don't mention it) and kept working. If you look at the pacing of releases, then this so-called "Dark Age" isn't all that dark. Psycho and The Birds were both smashes, then Marnie was okay. Topaz and Torn Curtain were flops, but then Frenzy was a great picture, and Family plot was okay. That isn't a dark age, more of a slow bowing out in the face of new cinema.
The real dark ages are probably his early talkies, everything he did after Blackmail and before The Man Who Knew Too Much in my opinion. All other "ages" have at least one great film.
Really good observations on the importance of the filmmaking process to Hitchcock's whole lifestyle.
As far as the relative quality of the late films goes, that's much more a matter of subjective opinion. I found "Topaz" and "Family Plot" almost unwatchable, "Torn Curtain" surprisingly enjoyable, and "Frenzy" overrated but fascinating. But your mileage may vary, as always.
(I kinda like Topaz.)
@@filmnobelpreis It does have its fans, and there are some great scenes in it.
@@yohei72 Frenzy is okay, but being based in London in the 1970s detracts somewhat - I would have preferred a U.S. setting. London in the 70s was pretty grim.
I've seen over 100 video analysis of Hitchcock & his movies. This one is the best: Concept, visuals, narration, pace & conclusions. A great job on it. Don't go into your 'dark ages'.
"Good evening"
Alfred Hitchcock. Wow man, this man, this name man's means something to me and watching this synopsis made me realize Alfred Hitchcock has always meant something to me. Over all of these years, I've kept him with me.
I've always loved movies and tv, they were the one thing that I really and truly enjoyed with my brother and our father. My father used to watch this show on tv with Alfred Hitchcock- he would do the intro to each of the short story that we'd watch. Apparently (now that I think about it) my father enjoyed mystery and horror based tv shows cause we used to watch The Twilight Zone, Perry Mason type shows and later on before his death we watched Tales From The Crypt together, me him and my lil brother- this was back in the mid to late 80s.
I know Alfred Hitchcock is important to me now because he was important to my dad back then... Its crazy because i never really knew about all of the great movies he made, in the ghetto we just don't watch those sort of movies Psycho, Birds and his other great movies but I remember his show. It's so crazy because Im so deep into movies and writing stories now, I've always respected Alfred Hitchcock, believe it or not, that plump little British man was the most culture a hood bound kid could get in the ghetto. I know that Alfred Hitchcock is a classical OG director but I don't love him because of what other people said about him, I think he was always important to me because he was important to my father- I've never watched any of the movies he is most known for and I dont really love him for any of those movies. I love him for what he gave me my dad and my lil brother. Alfred Hitchcock and my dad are the reasons why I will one day be a great writer.
I saw "Family Plot" at a drive-in with "Smokey And The Bandit", which is a movie that Hitchcock adored.
Most, if not all directors have nothing close to vertigo in terms of lasting power...let alone the rest of Hitchcock’s master pieces so he had a few not so amazing. Great video.
Rope was definitely Hitchcock's most underrated film, in my opinion.
I like notorious a lot
Rope is my favourite movie ever. Brilliant film!
On a related note to the decline of directors. I would argue that Spielberg's "decline" is the most overstated. His work became less approachable for the blockbuster crowd, but no less emotionally engaging. Perhaps even more so, actually. His recent attempts to make the same straightforward blockbuster type movies from earlier in his career haven't been successful, sure, but that's the result of trying to play against his own natural evolution as an artist. The rest of his recent work is usually still excellent.
@JuniorX EastNY What? In addition to Bridge of Spies, Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can, War of the Worlds, The Adventures of TinTin, Lincoln, and The Post all came out after 2001. And that's just the stuff people generally agree to be good.
There are a few others that are debatable. And few that could really be argued as outright bad. Sure he stopped doing the creative blockbusters of the eighties and nineties, but that doesn't make his more subtle recent movies bad.
I definitely like his older stuff better overall, but to have gotten worse is not the same as to have become bad.
I would vote for "Duel"--a fine Spielberg film (1971--stars Dennis Weaver) done in only three weeks! The idea for the film came from a short story appearing in Playboy Magazine and is true to the plot. Has anybody seen this incredible movie? Hope you can stream it--highly recommended.
@@cate1657 I'm a little confused since the topic was more about Spielberg's later years but thanks for the recommendation nonetheless. I'll have to check that out.
Stanley Kubrick's level of quality never declined either. His first movie is by far his worst but it's still better than Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams' entire filmographies put together. Furthermore, Kubrick learned from his mistakes whilst he was making Fear and Desire and used those lessons to ensure that he always delivered high quality movies for the rest of his career. Several of them ascended to the level of outright masterpieces that most filmmakers would never be able to pull off.
@@tomnorton4277 "but it's still better than Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams' entire filmographies put together" sounds like you just wanted to trash the Star Wars sequel trilogy for whatever reason (don't worry, I agree it' still trash), also I would add Quentin Tarantino, I can understand his decission of wanting to make a 10th and final film because he dosen't want to decline like, let's say Hitchcock (Quentin declared in an interview he's not a fan of Alfred but still considerates him a great filmmaker).
I know you have heard this a lot but I had to write and thank you for this engaging, detailed and affectionate study of these final Hitchcock films
I am a theatre director and lifelong Hitchcock obsessive and student - my theatre work has always been deeply inspired by cinema, especially the work of Hitchcock, Bergman and Kubrick
I've read and seen all the books and studies on Hitch but never have had the pleasure of seeing one explore and discuss his final period with such care, intelligence and sensitivity
It was a joy to hear your insights and feel your deep admiration, respect, passion and understanding of an artist who I have a feeling left us long before you were born
In these times of disposable, vapid criticism and deep on the surface insight your piece is a breath of pure, exhilarating oxygen
I was very moved by it and wish you the very best
Never have I been more grateful for my library of films than I am during this challenging period - I hope this finds you safe and well enjoying the company of cinema
You're far too kind, John. I'm touched this spoke to you so powerfully. I hope you too are safe and as you so nicely put, enjoying the company of cinema.
@@EyebrowCinema it definitely did as few people have taken the time to look at these last works of his with care - they are usually just dismissive and facile in their judgement
Your skill in expressing yourself in a non pedantic manner coupled with real, incisive insight was what drew me in, aside from beautiful editing and clever choices - esp loved the use of that deeply melancholy music from Hermann's sadly unused score for torn curtain
Even as unfulfilled and ineffective as that film is I often wonder how more effective in every way it would have been with that disturbing and powerful original score
I am fascinated with the final works of great artists - directors, painters, composers - and the depth and complexity that the shadow of mortality brings to their work
It is haunting to explore
Anyway sorry for another long message - I hope to have a chance to further talk film, theatre and art with you sometime - let me know if that interests you at all
It a pleasure to connect
Oh My God , what an ABSOLUTELY perfectly constructed essay!!!! biblical length , intuitive visuals in complete unison with your commentary , and the script writing..... i kinda entered a daze while indulging myself in this video.
But barely anything was left out!! you pinpointed every example expertly , and the overall resume and Thesis were -in my opinion- accomplished flawlessly across the board !! , whoever helped you make this video possible they way it is , seriously think about further developments.
i see now , Malvolio's Movies , amazing job , cannot wait to see more of you or him or both , subscribed!!
criminally underrated channel , this video seriously deserves more views and traction , *but i guess it wouldn't be a perfect little niche thing if otherwise......*
You got great Talent! and a Big Brain no doubt , once you start work on another video let me know and i'll be one of the first to judge it!!!
godspeed Eyebrow Cinema
Much appreciated my friend. Not sure when the next video will be ready, but I can guarantee it won't be quite as long.
Shut up Flanders!!
For additional winners in this genre, check out Magnus + Criterion Retrospective on Sweet Smell of Success.
I came on here to say exactly the same thing.
Dude what! I just wanted to see basic 10 minute video, but i found this masterpiece channel... I subbed!
I'm glad you liked it. This video was a mammoth undertaking but it was a lot of fun to make.
I had to finally hit the stop button as I was yelling at the screen during the Marnie section so much I just couldn't watch/listen to another minute. The fact that you say certain statements about the relationship between Mark Rutland and Marnie that are fully explained in the film in more than one scene baffled me completely but then I thought this Eyebrow guy is probably just a kid who only saw the movie once, it's not one of his favorites, so no one will care or notice but for me, a lifelong Hitchcock fan, that was it as I figured if you were trashing Marnie you were only going to get worse discussing the final four, which with TC and Topaz there are major issues but Frenzy and Family Plot were amazing return to form from a man who was extreremly unwell at the time he made them BUT still created two films that still blow away most of his competition in the Suspense genre even today. Good Luck with this endevour as I'm sure you'll be succesful as your presentation does draw one in and engages but maybe call me The Man Who Knows Too Much as I realized these things aren't for Hitch Buffs like myself as they become an exercise in frustration versus an enjoyable delving into the work of a Master Film Maker.
Hey Michael,
I'd encourage you to watch more of the video. Spoilers, but I quite like Frenzy and see it as a beacon for the work Hitch could have done in the 70s and 80s had he been in better health.
@@EyebrowCinema OK, I will give it a shot.
Speak for yourself - I've been a huge Hitchcock fan most of my life, and I found this video pretty much spot on (although I'm harsher on "Family Plot," which I think is garbage). A lot of this is just subjective opinion.
Excellent essay. This would make a great 3-hour café discussion. I've had major ideas about these final films for a long time so much so that I wish I could somehow reedit Family Plot and Torn Curtain into good films.
Family Plot is already a good film.
@@filmnobelpreis it's a good film, but it has a scene in which in my opinion there are elements that should be removed, namely the opening scene.
Hmmmm, lots to discuss, agree with and debate here. For starters, I'm with Robin Wood, William Rothman and other critics who find MARNIE to be one of Hitch's most sublime works-and TOPAZ holds up much better in the "director's cut" version. Was he in decline? Sure. He was getting older. And he did lose his dream team of collaborators. And his controlling interest as a stockholder in Universal Studios paradoxically put limits on his creativity. And his biggest complaint in the sixties was that he couldn't find any original material to bring to the screen. But also keep in mind that he had previous dry spells as well. As a result, I think it's a bit unfair to compare his late films with, say, the genius of REAR WINDOW. Instead, why not compare this late period with his struggle to find his footing in the late 1920s, or with various midcareer lesser efforts, like SABOTEUR, UNDER CAPRICORN and STAGE FRIGHT? It might also be worthwhile to compare his last four films with some of the truly innovative films he was thwarted from making during the late sixties, such as MARY ROSE, which might well have re-defined the ghost story, and KALEIDOSCOPE, which was to intended to put the Hitchcock touch on an Italian Neorealist style.
FAMILY PLOT was an experiment in a looser, more modern approach to filmmaking. For instance, he encouraged his lead actors to improvise their scenes, resulting in a more "modern" spontaneous style-license he would have never allowed in previous years. Of course, that affected his filming methods, resulting in routine shot-reverse shot editing, which you (rather dismissively) noted.
At times you seemed to equate financial success/failure with the film's inherent quality. I hope you realize that that's a problematic correlation to say the least, right? But here's my biggest beef with your video. I kept wanting to ask: who the hell are you to adjudicate whether or not this or that aspect of Hitch's or anybody else's films "fail" or "succeed?" You're a smart guy, but your video misses one essential point: This isn't the Olympics or a beauty pageant. It's art. Therefore, I think your efforts to be a movie critic would greatly improve if you were to take each work on its own terms and show more respect for the artistry on display.
Well, Eyebrow Cinema, were I a film professor and this your introduction to a thesis or dissertation, you would definitely get the go-ahead to put it into the canon on film critique. You've done an enormous amount of work in editing--what becomes central to your ideas: the film selections, music scores, actors, costuming, camera work, etc., all speak beautifully to your ideas! Bravo on this fine work--entertaining and enlightening. Something I'd like to say about the decline of "Hitch"'s work as time went on were basically the times themselves (mid-1960s to late 1970s) in which he was working (or attempting to, at least)--a decline of American film artistry began to seep in during the early-1960s--big screen coverage (loss of intimacy with the audience), Technicolor, Cinemascope, overt and explicit violence and cheapened sexuality all worked together to tether good filmmaking into a shallow lack of artistry...just as American life itself began to experience drastic decline from the social, cultural and economic combination of inflation, job loss & wage reduction, inner-city distress and growing income inequality--it all began during the early-to-mid 1970s (I was there). Hitchcock's personal style and ability to call up unique filmmaking was as diluted and finally destroyed by the mediocrity that was gripping so many aspects of mainstream American life--it's too bad he didn't live long enough to add his expertise to the Independent Film Movement which began to emerge during the late 1950s in Europe & finally became available to Americans during the mid-to-late 1960s. Anyway, thank you so much for this enlightening feature--thoughtful, well-executed and stands up strongly in its premises.
Just want to say congrats on becoming the next big “thing” in film TH-cam, whenever that happens. Probably the next couple months give or take, but it will happen, so congratulations. These videos truly are excellent
Well, if and when that happens, you're invited to the party.
In all seriousness, thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you like my videos and I appreciate your enthusiasm.
Great overview and analysis. Thank you for all your work on this video. I'm always surprised that 'Vertigo' came before 'North By Northwest'. 'Vertigo' feels and looks the more modern of the two films. Did 'Torn Curtain' have a rejected Herrmann score? I can't remember. Composer/director partnerships are critically important. Franklin J. Schaffner and Jerry Goldsmith complemented each other wonderfully. I thought Hedren's performance in 'Marnie' was very good for a relatively inexperienced actress. Even average Hitchcock film's will still be watched for decades to come.
That's because Grant looks younger in NBN than Stewart does in Vertigo. I often said that Vertigos flaws were its length complimented by Stewarts performance. The character should have been younger, more rugged and violent.
Yeah, if I remember correctly, Hitchcock and Herrmann had their falling out during Torn Curtain. Hitchcock gave Herrmann very specific and very clear direction about the kind of music Hitchcock wanted and Herrmann completely ignored it. When Hitchcock heard the first examples of Herrmann's score, with Herrmann present, Hitchcock was so upset he turned right around without a word and walked out of the room. The two reportedly never spoke again.
"Torn Curtain" was originally going to HAVE a Herrmann score, but Hitch & Herrmann had a falling out over it, and they never worked together again.
Amazing work. It shows all the hard work and passion from this channel.
Much appreciated. This took a long time so I'm glad it plays well.
@@EyebrowCinema It's really great, It felt like a shorter video, but full with good information and good analysis.
I can promise that my next video, in addition to feeling shorter, will be genuinely shorter too.
Another fine video essay by you... Film careers, as any career, are like a rollercoaster: there are ups and downs. You just don't want to be falling over the edge at the end.
This is also true for most musicians. A bands 1-2 first albums are often not very good, then they find their style and they get their audience, then after a some years they get old and the youthful inspiration and energy runs dry (or there is just too much alcohol and drugs).
Thank you for this lovely, thoughtful and empathetic study on this complicated and great director.
The directors that keep up their quality for almost their entire careers are the all time greats. I can only think of a handful off the top of my head. It's a rare thing.
who??
@@pitbull635 david finches maybe, chris nolan(those 2 are more recent though so we'll see how theirs go), stanley kubrick, martin scorsese, sergio leone, paul thomas anderson etc
@@nateds7326 All of them have had hits and misses no matter what. No director is flawless and that's really the missing point from this entire discussion
That was worthy! Your insight sounds older than your voice and there wasn't a whole lot to disagree with. The choice of visuals & a very easy to listen to delivery of a well written script, mesh into a PBS worthy audition.
The end of Hitchcock's collaboration with Bernard Hermann, perhaps the most important collaborator of his career if you've read Hitchcock's theories of pure cinema, was over their differences regarding the actress Tippy Hedren. Hermann knew of Hitchcock's romantic / sexual obsession with Hedren and told his friend, ( Hitchcock would cook for Hermann and his wife, he never did that with any other members of his team), he was making a colossal mistake in casting her as the lead in this film. This enraged Hitchcock and he severed their relationship which crushed Hermann both as a friend and collaborator. He never worked with Hitch again even when he asked Bernard to score Frenzy. Although the film industry changed with their formula with hit pop songs attached to movie releases,( something antithetical to Hitchcock's work), that was the true beginning of the end for Hitchcock. He became in real life the very same character in one of his films. You can't talk about Hitchcock's sad career ending without Tippy Hedren, he destroyed her career as well with his pathetic sexual delussions.
Not to mention the Torn Curtain playing fiasco. Bernard Herrman wrote music for the action scene with no music, A furious Hitchcock shut it down. That was the last time the two ever spoke. One of the saddest friendship fallouts in the history of the industry
Well done. This was a terrific critical scroll through the work of Hitchcock. It's interesting to see how a director learned his craft, became a master at it, but couldn't really adapt with the times - while also being dependent on a particular group of artists that helped bring his visions to screen. (I have to add that it's always tickled me that I own an early print of one of the two Tretchikoff paintings that hang in the murderer's apt. in 'Frenzy'.)
When I was a kid I watched "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" every day(repeats)waiting for a Hitchcock cameo, not understanding that as he was already the host of the show a cameo would have been redundant.
I'd disagree that The Birds doesn't measure up to the three or four films that came before it...it's INCREDIBLY creepy and suspenseful.
And it's funny that you should mention Bond's influence on Hitchcock...wasn't he toying with the idea of filming Casino Royale in the late fifties, with Cary Grant as Bond? (I wouldn't have had the Bond movies any other way than what we got, but sigh...a Hitchcock-directed Casino Royale with Cary Grant...sigh...)
I don't like The Birds as much as Vertigo or Psycho, say, but you're right, it is incredibly creepy and suspenseful. Some masterful set-pieces and Tippi Hedren doesn't get enough credit for a great lead performance.
@@EyebrowCinema The third act is weak and the ending somewhat dissatisfying. It was originally longer in the shooting script, but got cut.
While Torn Curtain isn't one of his "greats", it has a number of golden moments that make it worth revisiting.
The musical score for frenzy is fantastic, at the Covent Garden shop it's uplifting, joyful. The original composer Henry Mancini's opening for the film was very depressing, The new composer was hired and the new opening for the opening credits is very uplifting.
Beautiful video man! Wonderful categorization and contextualizing of Hitchcock’s work!
I just discovered your channel and I am loving your videos, very well done and researched.
I will say that personally I will still take Hitchcock's bad films of his final decade over most modern explosion fests.
This was an extremely interesting video, keep up the good work.
I agree. I much prefer a world with a few more, albeit inferior, movies by Hitchcock than one without the "decline period" final 4. At least (except for Family Plot, which is frankly awful and beyond help), they work on their own set of rules, are entertaining enough to keep me engaged, and are very much of their time, a time where I was beginning to discover cinema myself. In the case of Topaz, I'm fortunate enough to know the 'foreign' actors (they are French, and I'm in the francophony) very well and really love them. It has often been mentioned that 'Topaz' failed because of the "lack of stars". Well, it did have many stars for whoever knows French cinema even a little. I can function very well without any Hollywoodian actors, thank you!
the man who knew too much also helps that Peter Lorre is the villain. hard to go wrong with that
IDK, I really like Family Plot. Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris have a really sweet and funny chemistry that made me root for them to succeed.
ITA. It's a really enjoyable film.
This channel really needs more subscribers. You do really good work.
Sir, youre doing Hitchcock justice right now with this essay!
I decided to watch all the Hitchcock films currently on Max. 39 Steps, The Lodger, Downhill, Foreign Correspondent, The Man who Knew too Much…watching them made me want to come back to this video. Hitchcocks early work doesn’t get that much praise but the ones I watched were just outstanding. The guy was a master of craft.
I've just watched 5 of your videos in a row. Subbed. Great content and I hope that you can keep producing such interesting long form content and manage to gain the audience you deserve.
This is such a fantastic documentary. Thank you for making it!
Fabulous video. But it's funny, regarding "Frenzy" and your comment on Ron Goodwin's film score, that you didn't talk about Henry Mancini's discarded music for the film since you used the theme. Speaking of music I find it fascinating that John Williams scored Hitchcock's last film and one for Brian De Palma. But I digress. Thank you so much for this piece. It spoke volumes.
Frenzy is my fav6 Hitchcock movie.
Probably my favourite "London" movie too.
It's so unusual and quirky and dark and Funny...and has some amazing cinematographic moments.
Family Plot was fun, and a different take on the crime genre. Sure, it's not Psycho, but that's one of the best films of all times. Again, the premise fails here.
Among the many commentaries
of Hitchcock's work, this is one
of the very best! Thank you.😊
I liked Marnie. It’s not quite as good as Vertigo, but it’s in the same ballpark.
This is a really underrated channel.
Cheers.
The only unbridled triumph from the independent years is Strangers on a Train?? Are you kidding me? What's Rope, then? Chopped liver?
36:35 Thanks for reminding me to rewatch The French Connection. God, is that movie amazing!
I've still never seen FRENZY in its entirety, but from all that I've gathered about it, I wonder if it's at all possible that the seemingly inappropriate score is part of the point? like I just started to consider that now. That it would perhaps be sort of disgusting that accompanying sort of element would be over top the machinations of the story.
I mean, the guy's career has a litany of virtually perfect examples of a score going logically complimentary to the film. I could totally see, especially that late, if he'd wanted to try that sort of experiment.
Excellent! Thank you for all the obvious work you put into it, I truly enjoyed it.
Hitchcock's style was just too out-dated for the 60's, and desiring to shoot on sound stages instead of real locations contributed to this greatly. He wanted to stick to the control he was used to, and the old-timey Hollywood lighting techniques that were dying, rather than wishing to to evolve his approach. But even his earlier movies feel like products of their time rather than timeless. That doesn't take away their greatness, but only illustrates that even though he almost literally "invented cinema as we know it", his vision of the medium was narrower than its inevitable expansion. One could even make the argument that Hitchcock essentially stopped evolving his creative visual style in the early 1950's. He didn't change anything because what he was doing worked - then. It didn't work anymore in the 60's, not when younger filmmakers were emerging with fresh and creative ideas that helped evolve the medium as a whole. Compare The Birds to something like Ivan's Childhood. Ivan's Childhood is _older_ than The Birds, but The Birds looks and feels *far* more antiquated. I don't think Hitchcock had any desire to expand his approach to cinema, visually in particular, and I scarcely believe he even knew how even if he wanted to. The cinema he knew was what he created, not what he was going to inspire.
You are up to something good
He was really good at giving people what they wanted, so he had the confidence of the financiers and was given artistic freedom to try out a few things over the years. But then he got old and tired and people kept offering money so he kept making films. And he probably still enjoyed some things about it, without the need to keep striving for artistic merit. I enjoyed The Birds mainly for the visual effects even though most of them look primitive now. They looked cheesy back then, but the whole birds-flying-into-your-face approach was impressive. It didn't stimulate any suspense that I remember, but that's probably because it was such a lame-arsed plot. The scene in the bedroom where Tippi Hedron is attacked was funny to watch, but the fact that she was really injured makes you wonder if it was worth doing.
I appreciate that you are not exactly doing Hitch a disservice here...but I think it's a shame you pick on something like the Birds, that is somewhat antiquated to us now purely because of the limitations of the visual effects that particular story demanded. Which obviously will jar to us in a CGI age...but was still an interesting experiment...I would argue the great Hitchcock films that are reliant on what he did best; identity crisis, psychological breakdown, the ordinary in the extraordinary, strange motivations and obsessions...I would argue these are pretty timeless. Which is why I think its unfair to pick on the Birds against Ivan's childhood, which is not bound by special effects in the same way as the premise of the Birds is. If you compare it to other Hitchcock films instead, like Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest, Shadow of a Doubt or Psycho. I would argue those (and many others of Hitch from his Mid point to 'Golden years) stand the test of time very well indeed; still feel fresh and not antiquated at all because they are not constrained by their technology in quite the same way as the Birds and all of Hitch's true skills in dealing with his medium as the ultimate auteur came to the fore. I would say it holds up against anything by Tarkovsky...that being said I have only seen Solaris in full (which, beautiful and insightful as it is, I would argue does have something of a pacing problem) and parts of Ivan's childhood and Stalker...and that's really about it, so I should search out more. I actually would like to see Stalker in full as it looks really interesting to me from the segments I have seen on TH-cam.
But Psycho and The Birds are modern films especially if compared with his earlier ones. Nevertheless your point is generally quite accurate
@Adrian At And T you're a company
Just a fantastic, emphatically engaging piece of work my friend. I really appreciated the empathy and humanity you bestowed to the master film maker in your writing. Very moving.
I was looking for a quick retrospective review for Torn Curtain but I got so much more. Thank you (your new subscriber 😉 And yes, I found Barbara Harris in Family Plot to be supreme delight too, her 'kooky' charm utterly disarming 😊).
Glad you liked it. This video was something of a passion project so it's nice to see others respond to it.
As sorrowful as the theme of this visual essay may be - the gradual diminishment and fall of a marvelous talent - its points are well considered and the writing well thought out. It's a nice piece of work, with much food for thought, and takes on a little-examined and difficult-to-address stage of the master's career with clarity and even a kind of moxy. Thanks for making this! Time well spent. Cheers.
What a great summary of the works of one of cinema's defining directors. I was enamored with his films from an early age, watched them whenever I could on TV. To boot, to discover the then re-released Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Vertigo on the big screen in 1984. The latter one, I only learned to love more with every viewing. Couple of years ago, I had the good fortune to see Dial M for Murder in 3D at the Berlin International Film Festival. A treat! Last year, I took the effort to (re-)discover his 30s and 40s oeuvre - which I was less interested in as a youngster. How great 39 Steps, Saboteur, Young and Innocent and many more still hold up.... Hitch is one of the true masters.
Well said. I enjoyed the introduction, and i think you are spot on with your observations. Bravo.
Hitchcock is one of the top film makers of all time. Very few other film makers have produced as many great movies. I have seen almost all of his movies( not counting waltzes from vienna). I was pleased you mentioned Frenzy as good. However, i think it is great. It is one of his best movies. The edginess of the movie is something i would have expected from a much younger man. Consider billy wilder. In twilight years, he made the horribly mediocre Avanti. Frenzy has the best dialogue line ending of any movie. I would watch it over having to watch marnie again.
Frenzy is great, really really great. I watched it a lot of times. It’s a movie made on location on covent garden, where hitch spended his childhood, and his approach of making an agile mise en scene on location and letting the actors improvise and interact a lot with the sets for me works perfectly showing the conflict of the main character and the psicology of the assasin. I saw a making off of this movie in which I saw hitchcock enjoying the shooting and showing confidence in the team, I don’t buy the idea of the dream team of the fifities, hitchcock always worked with whoever was aviable and seemed right. Shure Hermann is a genius, but I doubt it was thought as a dream team at the moment, but more as top of the line professionals. I really don’t see a dark ages hitchcock in this one. Shure i find Topaz boring, but family plot terribly funny.
I think we tend to see the movies from the past through some kind of romantic glasses, and then something like Vertigo is ultra cannonized for a Number of reasons. Vertigo is a masterpice, but frenzy is also a masterpice, both made of the same material: celuloid. I can’t agree with the tesis of the video, but nevertheless it’s well presented
I agree but i feel that the truffaut-hitchcock book has canonized the idea of the auteur theory. Hitchcock is always pointed to to defend this theory. The idea of a great film maker only makes great movies is a popular one. I have always said even great film makers make bad film (mr and mrs smith), a fan can make excuses to like them but it is isn't. good. I think a great film makers like Hitchcock or wilder,has made 3 to 4 great movies. The rest can be forgiven. A good film maker may only have one compelling story to tell and fill the rest of their career with mediocre films. Not a popular point of view for a society that wants to brand everything and everyone.
Well, it is my personal opinion, but I thought Avanti was somewhat above average, with Jack Lemmon having some funny scenes. Indeed, of his last 4 movies, I also think Frenzy is the best, but bowing out with Family Plot wasn't so bad after all. Even the worst AH movies have something, well .....Hitchcockian, ha ha.
Don’t forget that hitchock never tought of himself as an auteur, the concept wasn’t even a trend in film theory most of his life!
Johannes Bluemink I agree, I try to be open to my own emotions watching a movie, and all I can say is that I find family plot awfully entrertaining. And for the few things I know about narrative structure, screenwriting, acting, cinematography, I think I can understand a little why I like it. I don’t care about the auteur theory, or if this not is what is considered Hitchcock’s prime, or if a fan can justify any movie. I love hitchock because of the cinema he gave us.
I never watched Avanti, but I also love Wilder, you gave me something to watch !
Of the four listed, Family Plot was not a flop by my assessment.
Excellent, perceptive summary and analysis of Hitchcock that does not deserve a single down vote (76 at the time of this writing). Still have never been able to get through Torn Curtain.
I felt topaz wasn’t as bad as that. Just my perspective. I really enjoyed the film. True development was weaker than in say notorious. Story structure wise, I liked the first two acts. The last act not as much. And the ending was weird. I would have been fine with the film just being the first two acts with Andre returning home on the plane and being sad with Juanita’s death. But I also felt that they would have had to add more to Juanita’s story and character development. Make her a larger part of the story and introduce the idea of him cheating earlier. In general though, I was attentive in the first two acts and really enjoyed the iconic sequences
Oh, I don't know. I'd say The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes are both at least as well known as The Lodger.
I love your work, sir. You're a diamond in the rough. I'd love to see something done on Billy Wilder's dark age.
That would be a fun one.
Amazing analysis. I really enjoyed this and learning more about Hitchcock films. Thanks for making this. I’m sure it took a lot of work.
This was outstandingly good and so well done. Now I shall become a subscriber for more excellent content. Thank you very much. And now that I checked out your channel, I'm really looking forward to it.
There is a soundtrack by Herrmann for Torn Curtain. It's on CD somewhere. It's beautiful, with themes he would use later in Obssession.
Excellent summary. The ways in which a film can fail far outnumber the ways in which it can succeed by orders of magnitude. It takes a person with substantial vision and discipline to pull all of that together. I'm old enough and I can't imagine Hitch trying to hold all of that together at 73+ after a lifetime of being that overweight -- especially after losing his most important collaborators. One of the most important was his DP. You can see the quality of the shots, color, movement and composition just becoming more lifeless until eventually they start looking like episodic TV. Oh well, you do what you can while you can.
God to Hitchcock (with a nod to Blade Runner)
"You were made as well as we could make you...
Hitch: But not to last.
God: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very very brightly, Hitch. Look at you. You're the prodigal son. You're quite a prize!
Hitch: I've done questionable things.
God: Also extraordinary things. Revel in your time!"
Had Hitchcock been able to make *Kaleidoscope* in 1967, we wouldn't have had Topaz. With the film's intended use of handheld cameras, natural locations, unknown cast, and its pushing the boundaries of sex and violence would not only fit in nicely with the New Hollywood wave, but it would've reminded audience that Hitchcock was still a force to be reckoned with in his twilight years and would've solidified his stance as an artist in his final years. I blame Lew Wasserman for this tremendous blunder.
This is a great essay, I absolutely love the picture at 9:49.
When you said that an auteur director had to be a good directer I laughed out loud. Loved the video
Frenzy and Family Plot may not be "classic" Hitchcock films, but are certainly memorable, good films overall, mainly the first one. Torn Curtain and Topaz, on the other hand, leave a lot to be desired.
I liked Topaz way better than Torn Curtain, I even thought it was pretty good tbh. Not at the level of his earlier heights, of course, but I like it well enough
Torn Curtain had A LOT in common with Herg.'s album Tintin and the Calculus case.
Excellent presentation. My one disapointent was that Eyebrow Cinema neglected to incorporate To Catch A Thief (see @ 9:03, among others) into the overall narrative. Nevertheless, this EC presenation was an absolute delight. Thank you!
This will sound weird to some, but the shots I'm seeing from Hitchcock's early movies look like they were adapted from Indy Comic books. Like THIS shot, 4:25
I've never seen "Topaz" but I really enjoy the other 3, particularly "Family Plot."
Family Plot looks like a Wonderful World of Disney Sunday movie from the 70s.
I like Family Plot for Harris and Dern with their funny and modern dialogue. I think Hitchcock saw how they represented the 70s and new attitudes and used them well. Frenzy also shows that he was with the times and not doing "beautiful" 50s style productions anymore.
Let’s not forget Hitch was a several time contender to direct James Bond (directory contacted for the job by Ian Forming himself) but always turned them down for some reason. Ah well.
Zachary Antle he disliked this kind of film labeling as too obvious and superficial
He liked full creative control. After The Paradine Case he carefully chose and developed all of his films.
"Frenzy" is a great thriller. But it always makes British people cringe a bit. It seems like an American "tourist" version of London. Much like "Brannigan." I think the reason for this was that Hitchcock had left the city of his birth before it was transformed by W.W.2. "War socialism" had changed middle and working class culture. As had Attlee`s post-war "welfare state." The wealthy upper middle class were now mostly state functionaries or corporate executives. Rather than the small businessmen and professionals of pre-war days. There had been a massive expansion of further and higher education after the war. By the 1970`s almost half the population were "baby-boomers." The drift of working class "cockneys" into surrounding counties, which had begun during the great depression, had become a flood after the war. Whilst much of old "inner London" was repopulated by immigrants from former British colonies. Tens of thousands of Londoners had been killed in air and missile attacks during the war. The city depicted in "The Lodger" had burned in the 1940`s and been re-developed in the 1960`s. This gives "Frenzy" a strange, unsettling, nightmare quality for British audiences. Which American`s would not get. The characters talk, and act, like characters from a 1930`s movie. But it is the 1970`s. Feels really strange watching it. Still the scene in the potato lorry is brilliant and Barry Foster got his own T.V. series of the back of it. This time "playing the good guy."
What I like about Frenzy is that, despite the graphic violence and nudity, it is very like one of his 1930s films. This may have jarred a bit to people in London in 1973, but almost 50 years have gone past since. Barry Foster's TV series "Van der Valk" started the same year, and on watching it recently I was struck by the characters having the same sort of trendy early '70s male clothes and cocky attitude while on opposite sides of the law, and by the fact that Mrs Van der Valk was played by the same actress who was Rust's last victim in "Frenzy" (the one in the bed at the end). I can't remember her name now, but her mother played the woman having the affair with Cecil Parker in "The Lady Vanishes".
Extremely interesting and easy to watch. I'm not much interested in either film study or Hitchcock (too many of his movies are set around people with servants who spend their time at boring 'balls' and society page events).
But.....this made me a lot more open to both. I'd love to see this kind of treatment on Fritz Lang
You'd probably like north by north west the whole movie is a man on the run with dozens of twists
How are balls boring?
I would disagree with Daniel Simpson's categorization of Alfred Hitchock's Fourth Stage as lasting from 1948 until 1954. A better time frame would be his Transatlantic Films period that brought about his brief venture of being an independent producer and consisted of three pictures; that of "Rope", "Under Capricorn", and "Stage Fright". None of which were successful. His next movie was "Strangers On a Train" which he made for Warner Brother's and that he once referred to as his "second spring", and this began a remarkable run of thirteen great or very good pictures in a period of thirteen years which ended with "Marnie" and heralded many of his greatest and best known pictures. I believe that Mr. Hitchcock would appreciate that codification as the number 13 appeared quite frequently in his films, and maybe that was because he was born on August 13th, 1899.
Care to explain what happened to Billy Wilder at approximately the same time?
This is very well done. Thank you.
Fascinating and well done!
“Anyway, that’s the end of Psycho”
Newspaper: Killer in police custody
Jesus, your videos are so good! Keep it up man! I also loved your gangster film retrospective
Thank you for saying so! That video on this one were definitely the largest projects I've tackled so I'm glad you enjoyed them.
Wonderfully written and researched. Well edited and a treat. This could make up part of a bio on the director. Kudos!
9:40, what about Saul Bass?
Other than that, a really solid analysis of Hitch’s career.
My 96 year old grandmother hates him for some reason. I dont know if it is because of his work but I remember she used to turn his show off when it came on Nick at Nite. I personally think he's great. I noticed she didn't like a lot or people from the UK. I honestly think she didn't like him because her husband died in Normandy. They were only married 8 months but she loved him deeply from what everyone as well as her tells me. He was American and she seems like she blames British people just as much as all of Europe.
Remember the Tippi Hedren controversy. I think his success of Psycho, made him think he was invincible. The catastrophic outcome of his attempt to buy hinself a female slave with Hedren, destroyed him and his filmmaking. I also believe the censorship restrictions of esrlier days actually helped his creativity. The loosening up in the 60’s and on renoved that necessary creative barrier. Otherwise I completely agree with you on your assesment of his dark age. Except that I also consider Frenzy a failure :-)
28:00
Whew! I was worried that Leonard Maltin disapproved. He was always my favorite,
(pre internet, I.e. TH-cam) reviewer. With his masterful review of, 'Laserblast' still haunting me, all these years later!
;)
I've long maintained Torn Curtain gets a bad rap; I think, other than the admittedly cornball "fire!" scene referenced in this video, that the film is far better than it's critical reputation suggests.
Great video. Thank you for such a detailed work. Just found your channel. Need to watch more Hitchcock. Vertigo is one of my most favorite.
Sorry, Torn Curtain, Topaz are creatively FANTASTIC films. Commercial success only one measure.
Great video. Solid editing!
an actor friend claimed that his old buddy was in Family Plot and that Hitch rarely left his limo where he sat drinking cognac
Exc analysis and editing Eyebrow. You're good.
Great essay!
Family Plot and torn curtain are besides Rebecca my favourite hitch movies 🎬
Hitchcock was obsessed with the loss of Grace Kelly. He tried to force himself on Tippi Hedren. He was suffering depression, self esteem issues, and other demons he could no longer suppress. Finally, his sex and gender views were behind the times with the exception of Frenzy. He fell into Giallo/Slasher on that one.
Losing Kelly definitely shackled him to some degree. I like what he did after she got married, and there are some great films in there, but I feel like he dropped off after a while and he wasn’t able to really get the type of female star he wanted.
He also harassed a Brazilian actress for a Topaz role in their private interview
Wyatt Corbin I feel like losing grace Kelly was a huge loss for him. 😔 bloody Monaco. -.-