The Hitchcock Haul: Rope (1948)

rope-hitchcock-poster-1948Ahhh, Rope. I really love this movie. The first time I saw it was back in undergrad. A friend of mine reserved the common room in his dorm and we, budding film students, watched it completely enraptured by the story. We also were a little nerdy about Hitchcock’s attempt at one continuous shot throughout. Sadly, without digital technology, he had to stop to swap out film rolls every once in a while. But the technique Hitchcock used to hide this necessity was great and really led to the illusion that it was just one long sweeping shot.

The reason (I’m assuming) Hitchcock wanted to go for this stylistic choice was because Rope is an adaptation of the stage play of the same name by Patrick Hamilton, which came out in the late 1920s. This is very interesting to me, because it hearkens back to Hitchcock’s earlier work (like Juno and the Paycock) when he would take on more stage play adaptations and shot a room from one angle, creating the illusion that the audience was simply watching a play. I am not really a fan of this style (just read my Juno entry above), but luckily for me that is not what Hitchcock did with Rope. While the entire story plays out in one small apartment in one fluid camera shot, there are many camera moves and angles that feel much more modern. It’s a brilliantly updated way to pay homage to the stage play and retain some of that feel while also making it clear that this is a film meant to be seen on the big screen in a theater. I love it!

Rope was my favorite Hitchcock for years. It might still be, but I love so many of his (and keep discovering more that I enjoy) that it’s hard to say I have a favorite anymore. However, I cannot stress enough how badly you need to see this movie. It’s fucking amazing. GET READY FOR THE SPOILER TRAIN COMING TO TOWN CHOOCHOO!

big_rope

Continue reading

The Hitchcock Haul: Rear Window (1954)

oXbT7vlLmZ76kWoHe5XJYuyJUgpI first must apologize for how bad I’ve been at my blog recently. My life has been quite crazy , so my poor blog has fallen by the wayside. But it is this exact craziness that made me think about Rear Window and want to rewatch it. Rear Window was one of the first Hitchcock films I saw in high school, and it remains one of my favorite. The simplicity paired with the high levels of suspense really get to me, and I think that’s why I enjoy all the Blumhouse films now (like Insidious and Sinister).

My boyfriend and I recently went through some rather large life changes, and grappling with the general logistics of all of it was incredibly stressful and had some interesting effects on me, such as an unexpected blossoming of paranoia and a touch of mind-numbing arachnophobia (I have never been deathly afraid of spiders before). Maybe the fact that I’m rewatching the entire run of the X-Files is contributing to all of this, but it’s more likely a side-effect of stress and recently being stuck in a disassembled apartment alone every day with mountains of work to do. Another strange development is that I started to notice the neighbors in my old neighborhood a lot more. I picked up on the comings and goings throughout my neighborhood before I left it, and was very invested in what everyone else was doing.

Do you see what’s happened here? My legs might not have been broken, but I was definitely channeling Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window. This is nothing new, however. When I was a kid, I became obsessed with Harriet the Spy. I started my own notebook and wrote down everything I saw going on up and down my street and in school. My mom found it and made me throw it away, but I never lost that mentality. Of course, Jimmy Stewart’s paranoia developed out of extreme boredom. My current encounter with it was stemming from stress and the need for escapism, but still, I feel like we’re kindred spirits.

Yup.

Yup.

Continue reading

The Hitchcock Haul: Vertigo (1958)

Vertigomovie_restorationWow, I’ve really been slacking with my Hitchcock this year. Whatever, I’ve been busy. I revisited an old favorite of mine recently: Vertigo. Arguably Hitchcock’s strangest film, Vertigo was not universally loved when it was released in 1958. Hitchcock had been known for his romantic thrillers, and people pretty much expected more of the same. Instead, they got a strange passion project that seemed to reveal more of Hitchcock’s inner psyche than anyone really wanted to know. Overwhelming obsessions, paranoia, busty blondes — it feels like a two-hour long therapy session with you as the therapist and Hitchcock your patient. Most publications said it was a good film and visually appealing, but too long and convoluted. The plot has a strange structure that rubbed some critics wrong, and it didn’t help that the mystery is revealed well before the end of the film. It ended up breaking even, but that could be marked as a failure for Hitchcock at that particular time in his career. It wasn’t until recently that the film has been hailed as a masterpiece and even said by some to beat out Citizen Kane as best film of all time.

If you have never seen Vertigo, do not read this post. It’s riddled with spoilers and will ruin the movie for you completely. But chances are you’ve seen Vertigo. It was one of the first Hitchcock’s I was introduced to, and also one of my favorites. It starts as a strange investigation into a seemingly paranormal case and ends up being an incredibly calculated scam.

Continue reading

The Hitchcock Haul: The Man Who Knew Too Much Double Feature

imagesHitchcock made The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1934 during his career in England. It starred Peter Lorre and was a hit at the box office and with critics. In 1956 while in America, he remade The Man Who Knew Too Much to fulfill a contract obligation with Paramount and cast Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day as the leads. He agreed with the studio heads that his original was a great film with room for wonderful improvement in the new era of filmmaking. This week I watched both versions of the film back to back, and came to the conclusion that the 1956 version may have been a better film at the time, but that ruling doesn’t stand today. Ultimately, I think the 1934 version is more engaging and a better example of storytelling.

Continue reading