MovieChat Forums > MizhuB > Replies
MizhuB's Replies
I think if they were to 'show' them, rather than just explain them, it would've been even more involved. And possibly labelled even more boring, longer. I remember reading a review from back in the day that said the shrink scene was a 'hat grabber'. So, among some, it's always had that reputation.
But c'mon. The scene isn't really that long at all. It's all done very succinctly. Chock full of info. There's a LOT more information that comes out during it, as ecarle said. You not only get an explanation about Norman, you learn a lot more about his past. The things he'd done.
Five minutes is a very short amount of time to get all that information.
Hitchcock knew how to do that. I've seen the word "hypnotic" applied to his movies, and it rather IS the sensation one feels -- pulled into a world and focused on it, absorbed in it, surrounded by it.
========
'Hypnotic' is the word I almost used to describe Vertigo. I find the scene where Scottie is following Madeleine around to be among my favorites in the movie. Hardly boring. Irks me when people start conversations during that scene, because as far as they're concerned, nothing's happening anyway.
Funny, when I was a kid watching Psycho on TV with my mom, sister and a friend, during Marion's voice-over scene in the car mom suddenly blurted out 'I remember when I saw this in the theater and thinking what a BORING movie this is!'. Mom was a great movie-lover, but she didn't really care for Hitchcock movies.
========
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate?
========
It's the notes. Short, choppy. Always going from higher to lower and back again. Seemed to me to be a musical representation of her state of mind. Fighting with her conscience. Sort of 'Do it --Don't do it'.
Much like the early scenes of 'Vertigo' (which many say are slow and boring, with all that following around), I find the early scenes of 'Psycho' to be intriguing. They draw me into the story at large. And the background music is a big part of it. I have a personal opinion of the music while Marion is packing in her room which is 100% incorrect but it's how I see it, anyway.
I had to ask an adult what a "black comedy" was -- and how could THIS horror story BE a comedy?
---------
I read an article where Hitch said about Psycho:
'Psycho is, in a sense, a comedy. The audience in the theater screams in terror, but they know they're actually safe. It's rather like taking a group of people through the haunted house at the fair grounds. While inside, they scream in terror, but when they get back outside, they're laughing about the very fear they just experienced, because they knew they were safe all along'.
He may have also called it something like 'fun terror', but I'm not 100% about that.
The film's director, Sam Peckinpah said that he watched this 1973 broadcast and it enraged him and he got drunk and passed out.
---------
I've never seen The Wild Bunch. That goes on my list. From what I've heard (maybe on the extras on the DVD?) about 'Straw Dogs' though, Peckinpah was quite known for getting drunk, passing out, and missing work.
Getting back to the OT of TV Guide ads and descriptions...
I remember one (maybe a half page ad) for Psycho, that said 'Alfred Hitchcock's terrifying masterpiece!'.
Problem was, the screen shot in it was of Norman running from the cellar door, knife raised, dressed as mother. I'd already seen the movie and remember thinking, 'Damn. That gives the whole secret away right off the bat.'
They also ran smaller ads at the bottom of the page. One was for 'Eye of the Cat'. It said, 'If you liked The Birds, this one will make you PURRR!' Giving the impression there would be random cat attacks, or something. I'd seen the film in the theater, so I knew it wasn't like that at all, although there were many cats.
To make it worse, there were two different versions filmed. One for the theater, and one for TV. I was surprised when there was no 'edited for television' caption at the beginning. No need. The TV version added some scenes, and deleted others. And CHANGED a major scene toward the end. Instead of dozens of cats pursuing Gayle Hunnicutt, there was ONE cat pursuing her. And no blood on her dress. Running through the house from one cat made it ridiculous.
---------
Torn Curtain(NBC, 1970): The Gromek murder was so heavily edited you couldn't tell HOW Paul Newman killed the guy. It seemed to be a struggle that ended with Gromek...disappearing. And Newman and the famer's wife looking shocked in the aftermath.
-----------
I first saw it on TV. I remember the 'edited for television' caption on the very first shot after the credits, below the shot of the ship. I agree. The Gromek murder made no sense. Even though I was seeing it for the first time, I KNEW it had been hacked to pieces. In fact, the first time I saw it intact was on YouTube!
I didn't get around to seeing Misty until quite recently, at which point my primary awareness of Jessica Walter was as unscrupulous, domineering, still very attractive matriarch Lucille Bluth on Arrested Development. Seeing Walter's hottie young self in Misty *after* Lucille was a lot like meeting Norman *after* first getting to know a powerful, up-to-no-good Mother/Norma.
---------
Indeed. I've always found Jessica Walter to be very attractive, and she was certainly a hottie. I've never seen Arrested Development but I've always heard it's very good.
Interesting side note about Eastwood casting her. The extras on the DVD are very good. There's a pretty long segment that cuts between interviews with Eastwood and Walter. On why he cast her, he said (paraphrasing, but it's on the mark):
"The studio wanted me to cast a bigger star, such as Lee Remick. But I'd seen Jessica Walter in The Group. There was one scene where a man slapped her, and her change in expression immediately from one to another made me think, 'Oh yeah. That's her. That's the girl I want for this part.' So I sent her the script, then met with her and said, 'So, do you want to play this part?' And she said, 'Oh, yeah!' It was really that simple."
---------
The film's one murder is definitely of the Arbogast variety-- plain clothes cop John Larch shows up to investigate a dark house, and gets a pair of scissors in his heart.
----------
And it's shot in the style of Arbogast's murder, with the camera following his face as he falls to the ground.
----------
The film presaged Fatal Attraction...
----------
There are many people who refer to PMfM as the original Fatal Attraction. Eastwood himself refers to that film as 'When they remade -- or attempted to remake -- Play Misty for Me' on the DVD extras.
I remember one for 'Play Misty for Me'.
'Clint Eastwood plays a disc jockey who has a female admirer -- with a penchant for knives.'
That was it. I'd seen the movie twice already in the theater, and I still like it. Have it on DVD.
I remember Judith Crist's reviews toward the front of TV Guide issues that ecarle mentioned. I almost never agreed with her. Hell, I still don't agree with most critics. Of Misty, she said 'even though Jessica Walter is just great as the gal, it's still a schlock shocker.'
I also remember that the week before the fall season started (new programming), there was always an article naming EVERY movie that would be shown for that season, with a short synopsis. I always scanned that article quickly, since the movies' names would be in bold print, looking for titles I was hoping would be there (No cable or VCR's in those days).
I'd be happy when titles I wanted to see again showed up. Dunno why though, since networks always censored material that was apparently 'objectionable', so it wasn't even really the same film. There was always that dreaded 'edited for television' caption after the opening credits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osKpR9MjA3E
I can't comment on Topaz, since as I've said I only saw it once, years ago, and only remember the one scene. I do remember that Roscoe Lee Brown was very good.
So I guess my post-The Birds films in order of worst to best would be:
Torn Curtain
Family Plot
Marnie
Frenzy
ONE: I generally like the spy stuff in those movies better than the melodrama of Marnie(which is GOOD Hitchcockian melodrama, with a bow to the Tennesee Williams movies that were popular in the 50s and 60s, but melodrama nonetheless).
---------
I agree that Marnie IS very melodramatic. At times it is overwrought. The reason I like it is because I tend to be drawn to movies with a psychological bent to them, even if Marnie is armchair Psyche-101.
---------
TWO: I generally find the color scheme of Marnie to be less engaging than those of Torn Curtain(with its experimental gray photography)...
---------
I have two thoughts about this. First, I find the color scheme of Marnie to be much more engaging, whereas the gray photography of Torn Curtain to be noticeably bland. And while I'm at it, I saw in Torn Curtain the same cheap Universal production qualities that you observed in Marnie. Which surprised me. Most of the sets were obvious, and the rear-projections were so inferior that they were worse than those in Marnie.
----------
THREE: I like the scripts for both Torn Curtain and Topaz better than that for Marnie, which seems very redundant and static(too much Connery bullying Hedren.)
----------
I 100% agree that Marnie is too talky. And I understand what you mean about so many of those scenes involve Connery's bullying of Hedren, over and over. But I don't MIND those scenes.
I've read that Evan Hunter was to write the script, but he refused to include the marital rape of Marnie. Jay Pressen Allen was hired. So she's responsible for the talkiness (and Hitchcock for filming it). I think Hunter could've provided a better script. Saying the same things with less words.
I'm amused by your description of the 'chalkboard duel' between Newman and the scientist, because that's the exact phrase I thought of before I also remembered that scene.
ecarle. Well, I watched it, and you're right. It ain't North by Northwest. I have mixed feelings about it. I didn't dislike it, but to me, it was a constant roller coaster of interesting parts, then boring, then interesting, then boring.
As it went on, I found I was remembering scenes even though, as I said, I'd only seen it once. And since I saw it so long ago, I thought it kind of significant that things were coming back to me. Such as the Countess' offer to help them in exchange for an American sponsorship. And I remembered that she wouldn't get it after all.
That part was played by Lila Kadrova, beautifully. She played basically the same part in Polanski's 'The Tenant' (a movie I like, despite the fact that I don't understand the ending at all. But I don't care. ;))
In fact I thought all the acting, including supporting characters, to be very good to excellent. Except for one. Here's where we differ. I thought Paul Newman was terrible. I never cared for him as an actor. I always thought Paul Newman played Paul Newman in every role, and this was no exception. I've read that much of the public disliked Julie Andrews' performance, but I differ there also. It wasn't much of a role, but given what she had to work with, I thought she did an excellent job.
I didn't like John Addison's overture during the opening credits, but I did like its use again over the bus sequence. Actually, I thought most of his background music was fine but I couldn't help but wonder how much better Bernie's would have been.
Yes, though I gotta tell you -- that line got laughs in some public screenings I attended. OF COURSE she'd rather stay with her rich husband than go to jail. I'm not so sure this wasn't a bit of puckish Hitchcock humor after all the trauma, though.
----------
Although I definitely see humor in that line now, I never took it as such before. I always tied it to part of the conversation they had while still in her mother's house.
After Mark smooths Marnie's hair back, she says, 'Mark, what's going to happen? Will I go to jail?'
He replies, 'No. Not after what I have to tell them.'
So I always thought when she said, 'I'd rather stay with you.', that was just an indication that she trusted him (a man) for the first time.
And of course, Marnie is about MARK(Connery) too. Just like Vertigo is about both Scottie and Judy.
Mark is a pretty twisted fellow
---------
I remember reading an excerpt from a Hitchcock interview where he said, 'Mark is as sick as Marnie is. What he really wants is to catch her in the act of thieving and rape her on the spot.'
And the only scene I recall from Topaz is when two guys are talking, walking back and forth in front of a building. You see them talking, but you don't hear any dialogue. I thought that scene was excellent.
I've looked on Amazon, and Torn Curtain is for rent, but Topaz is not. And the DVD is expensive. I've rented Torn Curtain and will watch it today.
Which is a cool observation and -- you can't just "throw that in there" if you are Hitchcock; the set has to be designed to reveal that, he WANTED that.
---------
I always believed that Hitchcock did that deliberately. As you said, he'd never just 'throw that in there'. Everything with him was so planned.
---------
How interesting, I suppose, that a sexual life(first with the boy whose letter sweater the mother coveted, and whose sexual appetite gave birth to Marnie; then as a hooker who brought sailors home)
---------
I read a book too many years ago to mention, when I was very young. I've been a fan of Hitchcock since I can remember. I don't remember the name of the book or who the author was. I think you probably would.
In this book, he explained his take on several of Hitchcock's films. One of them was Marnie. The only others I remember were Psycho, The Birds, NxNW, and maybe Rear Window.
He had an interesting theory of Marnie's kleptomania and her mother's prostitution.
-She would alter her appearance, getting a job for a new man.
-She would use a pseudonym.
-She would impress the man with her excellent job performance.
-When she had satisfied the man with her performance and gain his trust, she would take his money and disappear.
-Then she'd alter her appearance, change her name again, and get a new job working for a new man, then take HIS money. Repeatedly.
-What does that sound like?
I'm not saying I buy it, but I always thought it was an interesting theory. The similarities.
He also had an interesting theory about Marnie's reaction to the color red, but I won't go into that now.
I've only seen Torn Curtain and Topaz once, many years ago, so I have very little recall of them.
The only things I remember about Torn Curtain are the murder of Gromek(?), and the scene where the buses are getting closer and closer together. I remember feeling suspense at that scene.
Hi ecarle. We're all good for discussions here. At least, I believe so.
In addition to what I mentioned above (that we find out at the end that it's NOT a dead end street), I've always felt that the 'climax' of the film comes AFTER Marnie's recollection of what happened to her as a child. And it seems such a small thing.
After her recollection, she lays her head in her mother's lap. Her mother starts to reach out and touch it, but pulls her hand back and says, 'Marnie, mind my leg.' Her mother still can't display any physical affection, even though she's just told her, 'Why, you're the only thing in this world I ever did love.'
Marnie stands up, and her hair is hanging in front of her face. Mark reaches out and tenderly tucks it behind her ears and neck, says 'There. That's better.' And she just accepts it.
To me, even more than the flashback, this is the moment the entire film has been working towards. Rather than recoil from him, as she would have previously, she just accepts this gesture of physical kindness from a man. Probably for the first time.
I disagree with those who think that Marnie remembering what happened to her as a child supposedly 'cured' her. She's not cured, she's just freed from a past and still has a way to go. When she says to Mark, 'Oh, Mark, I don't want to go to jail. I'd rather stay with you.', it's only about a new beginning.
Thanks for that report, ecarle. Chappaquidick is the first movie I've wanted to go see in the theater in a while. I've always been interested in that story, and have researched it. Alas, I don't have a car, and the nearest theater is miles away, so I'd have to make an entire afternoon of it using public transportation.
I'd just like to mention that not only did Bruce Dern star in 'Family Plot', he also played the sailor during the flashback in 'Marnie'. So that's another connection to Hitchcock.
That's fine. Isn't that what movie message boards are for? Discussions, including differences of opinion?
By multiple accounts, do you mean me? Because the answer is unequivocally no.
I can understand people not liking Vertigo. Some of the reasons usually given are:
****POSSIBLE SPOILERS****
-It's too slow moving.
-The part in the beginning when Stewart trails Novak without dialogue is boring (It's one of my favorite parts).
-The murder plot is ridiculous because it depends on too many circumstances which can't be predicted in advance.
-Why Stewart doesn't realize Judy IS Madeleine right from the get-go.
-How willingly Judy allows Scotty to 'make her over' because she fell in love with him too quickly.
Objectively, I agree with most of the above. Subjectively, I always just sit back and let it unfold as it is. To me, it's all about the mood and pure escapism, not a reality check.
Regarding Psycho, I remember watching it on the 11:30 movie with a friend, my mom and my sis. Only mom had seen it at the time, I think. Uncut, in the theater.
During Marion's long drive away from Phoenix, with the voice-overs, mom commented, 'I remember thinking at this time, what a BORING movie this is!' And this from a movie lover.
I remember being enthralled at that point. As I've often said...to each, his own.