Thanks for elaborating in an even and respectful tone. It makes a lot of difference in how people on message boards react, although sometimes it’s hard to remember to do so.
Nevertheless, we still disagree on your fundamental points.
When i use the word dated with Hitch i try to say that, many of his "suspense" movies don't really carry that dramatic weight anymore to our times. The pacing, acting, script, and yes, direction doesn't feel like something that could produce a thrill anymore.
Hitchcock’s films were made between 85 and 36 years ago, in another century. And yet they do still have a suspenseful mood for a large number of modern viewers – not as big a percentage of viewers as they once did, but more than you might imagine.
In any case, the “thrill” in his thrillers was always merely the icing on the cake of his stories. He did not become famous or please large audiences in his time
only because his movies thrilled people; there were plenty of filmmakers in those days whose films were designed merely for shock effects, or just to scare people, who made a fast dollar and then disappeared from sight.
Hitchcock told fully rounded stories that offered much more than simple suspense and thrills. His recurring themes, and the widely varied ways in which he explored them, are what kept audiences and reviewers coming back for more, and what interest people even yet. Hitchcock’s movies say something about the human condition that no other filmmaker of his time was saying. In quite a few cases (
Notorious,
Rear Window,
Vertigo,
North by Northwest,
Psycho, to name the most famous examples), they’re still saying things about modern life that more recent filmmakers seem to have forgotten, or never knew.
Hitchcock stands the test of time because there is a richness in his storytelling style that speaks across generations, despite the fact that not everyone appreciates the depth of his characters and situations, and despite the fact that his films probably would not play for a general audience now. General audiences are
never interested in art; general
film audiences, in particular, are mostly interested in films that tell them what they want to hear right now, which is something no filmmaker from another era could possibly give them.
Besides all of this, Hitchcock was a pioneer in the art of film. His films may seem dated to some modern viewers because they don’t realize that he pioneered most of the techniques of film storytelling to which they are accustomed, techniques they take for granted. Whether or not that impresses a new viewer is immaterial and irrelevant. History is a one way street once it happens: no one gets to change the fact that Hitchcock was a great, innovative director, or that his films transformed the film industry. Because of him (and a handful of others) film storytelling took certain directions that are still with us, however much they may have been refined in the intervening decades.
Hitchcock’s techniques will be refined and tweaked until doomsday; it doesn’t change the simple, irrefutable fact that he was responsible for them, and thus, he helped to create the culture we live in.
Some of the them were indeed ahead of their times, like Psycho. Sadly, the power they might had just falls flat into any proper criticsm one could do, specially in the case of this film.
You’re not going to like this but: this is a case of you expecting the film to do all the work. It is not possible for a classic film to reach a viewer who is unwilling to change their modern mindset for films from another time and place, to look deeper than they have to with films from their own time.
And I still don’t know what you mean by “proper criticism.” Because proper criticism of classic film entails an awareness of film history, general history, different theories of film aesthetics, and a willingness to open your mind to these things when watching films of the past.
Critical thinking isn’t just about criticizing.
In Kubrick's case, his last two films are the ones who certainly have become "classics" only to his most devoted fans. Same with Scorcese and everything he has done since Gangs of New York.
I agree about Kubrick’s last two films; I’m actually on the fence about
The Shining, too. That is, I’m not convinced it is a great film, although it is very good. But every great filmmaker has fans who think that his/her entire body of work contains nothing but masterpieces.
I don’t agree about Scorsese.
So, once more, i don't diss Hitch just to for the sake of it, i truly think a lot of his work hasn't survived the test of time . . .
You did a good job of explaining your reasons.
However, I respectfully suggest that you are wrong, that you have a misconception of what it means for a film to “stand the test of time.” I think you are saying that Hitchcock’s films don’t scare people or keep them in suspense anymore, and therefore they have nothing to say to a “modern” audience. But a full examination of Hitchcock’s life and work shows that he had much, much more on his mind than simply keeping people in suspense, or merely entertaining them for a couple of hours.
A “classic” is not just an old movie, and it’s not some magical object that automatically evokes the same response in people everywhere and in all eras. A classic is something that still has something to tell us, but we have to know how to watch and listen.
We didn't exactly believe your story...we believed your 200 dollars.
reply
share
Dragon_Eye_Morrison
13 years ago
You made a lot of good points, sorry if my first reply was rather dry. I got used to answer like that in the internet, sadly a bad habit one picks in msg boards. Let's say i see Hitch like i see The Beatles: both highly inflential, but the people that got the influence ended up making the better work. Of course, that's open to debate for sure. In the case of Scorcese, i think critics and audiences alike are very inclined to give a free ticket to anything the man does, or someone like Clint Eastwood too, because they both represent another era of Hollywood that is long gone, that and the weight of their good films is just quite heavy.
Is not just a matter of me saying many films from Hitch don't cause thrills anymore, i've seen it. Of course, we are more into movies overall, so we already have a different sensibility from people that just casually watch movies to kill 2 hours. I also bring, once more, how the audiences of 50 years ago and the audiences of today are just not the same anymore. Bringing up Hitch's movies in the context of their historical importance, and impact in movie making is important, is something that can't be dismissed. I just think the "suspense" label doesn't apply anymore. I think we might agree (or not) that the man has some really forgettable movies (Torn Curtain for example, i could barely finish watching that one) Of course, we might just had to agree to disagree in that, but i want to make sure i'm not sounding like i'm dismissing the work of this director because of some trivial notion of what makes, or breaks, a suspense thriller.
reply
share
EricBarker
13 years ago
You made a lot of good points, sorry if my first reply was rather dry. I got used to answer like that in the internet, sadly a bad habit one picks in msg boards.
I know quite well what you mean. You never know to whom you are talking until you have exchanged a few messages. But I don’t think you have been unreasonable in any way, which is very important, and you’ve made your points clearly.
Let's say i see Hitch like i see The Beatles: both highly inflential, but the people that got the influence ended up making the better work. Of course, that's open to debate for sure.
I can’t help thinking this is a generational disagreement. Certainly, when one gets into arguments about whether or not new art is “better” or more advanced than previous art, you’re really starting to get into personal preferences. Once that happens, one side can always claim that the other side is naturally biased, and therefore unable to see what is good about the art they think is out of touch or dated. In other words, the IMDb syndrome of “You’re Too Young/Too Old to Appreciate the Real/Best Art.”
One point I’ve tried to make is that some change and improvement is inevitable over time. Just as a few select people have improved upon Hitchcock (Martin Scorsese, for one), Hitchcock was improving upon the work of the people who influenced him: D.W. Griffith, Charles Chaplin, F.W. Murnau, Fritz Lang, Lev Kuleshov, and dozens of novelists, playwrights, painters and other artists.
The fact that Hitchcock found a better way to tell certain kinds of stories, or a new use for techniques invented by these people, does not diminish the greatness of their work. In other words, it doesn’t make his movies “better.” You see what I mean? Their impact on the art of film remains, their films remain great for many reasons other than their influence on the art form, and Hitchcock would be the first to agree with me – that he owed some of the finer points of his art to them.
Just as a footnote: the Beatles' impact, not just on the world of pop music, but on the entire world, is something that will never again be duplicated. Part of this was an accident of their time and place – more than anyone before or since, they were in the right place at the right time. But part of it was also the chemistry between the four Beatles, particularly Lennon and McCartney. These guys didn’t mean to, but they changed the world. You’ve got to admit, it’s pretty hard to top that.
In the case of Scorcese, i think critics and audiences alike are very inclined to give a free ticket to anything the man does, or someone like Clint Eastwood too, because they both represent another era of Hollywood that is long gone, that and the weight of their good films is just quite heavy.
As I said before, these things are always true to some extent. Some people like Marty and Clint (or as you mentioned previously, Stanley) become iconic during the course of a long career, and yes, there are always going to be critics and fans who give them a free pass on everything they do. The trick is not to ever allow that to be a reason for dismissing them as finished. No one makes an absolute masterpiece every time they make a film; that is an absurd idea, because then how would we know when they made a true masterpiece?
But a filmmaker like Scorsese can make many excellent films, or films that are merely good, and stay pretty far out in front of the majority of directors because he almost always makes a movie that is worth watching, whether or not it is another masterwork.
No matter who you are, you really only get to influence or transform your art form a couple of times, if you’re lucky. But you never get to choose when it happens, or which of your films will become known as a masterpiece.
I just think the "suspense" label doesn't apply anymore. I think we might agree (or not) that the man has some really forgettable movies (Torn Curtain for example, i could barely finish watching that one)
I understand what you’re saying (and I don’t think much of
Torn Curtain, either; I watch it because I’m a student of Hitchcock, and I enjoy it on that level, and that’s all).
On the other hand, Hitchcock defined the suspense genre. He changed the way it was understood by audiences and filmmakers, and he was the first filmmaker to define its boundaries (“Suspense is giving the audience information that the characters don’t have . . . .”). If subsequent filmmakers have redefined it, that isn’t his problem, is it? We can’t judge his films by the standards of people who changed the rules. That’s like moving the goal every time the opposing team is about to score. Of course you win, if you can do that.
I do agree, however, that Hitchcock made some bad films along with the good. With a filmography more than 50 titles long, how could he not? But the bad films don't influence how I feel about him as a filmmaker overall, or what I think of the good films.
And
North by Northwest is most assuredly
not one of the bad ones.
We didn't exactly believe your story...we believed your 200 dollars.
reply
share