Good evening. I have to first confess that I Confess slipped through the cracks for me. I had not only never seen it before, but I also don't remember ever having heard of it before either. I am glad that I stumbled upon it.
In the film, Father Michael Logan finds the church handyman, Otto Keller, praying in the church late one night. The distraught Keller asks the priest if he can speak to him in confession. While in the confessional, Keller reveals to Logan that he has murdered a lawyer, Mr. Villette, while trying to rob him and getting caught. Unfortunately for Logan, that happens to be the same lawyer who was blackmailing his ex girlfriend Ruth, now the wife of a prominent politician, about their past relationship. Suspicion for the murder naturally falls on Logan, who, bound by the vows of confession, cannot reveal what he knows about Keller.
I am surprised that this film is not better known, because it is very representative of Hitchcockian style. The symbolism is powerful, from the very opening sequence, which shows several "direction" street signs pointing towards the body. Those signs later symbolize Logan's inability to turn his poor fortune around, his inability to do anything but allow himself to stand trial for a murder he did not commit.
The acting and camera work are also classic Hitchcock. There are countless shots of various characters revealing their own personal moral dilemmas by the pain and conflict apparent in their eyes. The sense of suspense, of not knowing whether the priest will betray his vow, or whether someone else will discover the truth, is captivating.
Montgomery Clift delivers a solid performance as Father Logan, but every bit as impressive is Karl Malden as the police officer investigating the murder. O.E. Hasse steals the film as Keller, though. His transformation from broken man searching for peace after committing murder, to an empowered antagonist thriving off of Logan's vow to silence, back into a broken man struck in the circumstance he created was lovely to watch.
My criticism in this film lies in the character development of Ruth, played by Anne Baxter. Baxter's performance itself is fine, but her character seems so unlikeable that I don't sympathize with her at all. Furthermore, Hitchcock chose to reveal her past relationship with Logan in a very romantic, dreamy, flashback that seemed fairly boring and dragged on for far too long, distracting from the pressing storyline. Despite this drawback, it was a good film overall.
Hitchcock worked on the film for this script with 12 different writers for eight years, longer than any of his other films. He was obviously very dedicating to seeing it through. It was based on a play he had seen by Paul Anthelme called Nos Deux Consciences.
He and the screenwriter, George Tabori, decided to make a few changes from the original script. He added in the past relationship with Ruth to create a stronger motive for Logan to have killed Villette, even creating a child they had out of wedlock. They also chose to stay true to the play's ending, having Logan die at the end of the film. The censors ultimately shot down both of these decisions. Tabori refused to make the changes, so Hitchcock brought in another writer to do so.
It is highly reported that Hitchcock had trouble working with Clift, the original "method" actor in Hollywood. His acting method and drinking on set slowed the filming. He would often have to have many takes on Clift's scenes when he would refuse to take Hitchcock's direction and apply it. One well known, amusing instance of this was a scene where Hitchcock asked him to walk down the stairs and look up in the sky, so Hitchcock could cut to a shot focusing on the top of a building. Clift told him "I'm not sure that I would look up." Hitchcock responded "Well, if you don't look up, then I can't cut to the shot I want." Hitchcock and Clift definitely butted heads, though in the end the film was still successful on both of their parts.
I believe this film was probably dear to Hitchcock's heart, since he was raised strictly Catholic. I wonder if the Catholic overtones somehow contributed to this film being not as well known or liked as some of his other works. He once said about this film "We Catholics know that a priest cannot disclose the secret of the confessional, but the Protestants, the athiests, and the agnostics all say, 'Ridiculous! No man would remain silent and sacrifice his life for such a thing."
Despite his concerns in that area, though, I think that all people can appreciate the position Logan was in. The moral dilemma reads well to the audience, no matter what their religious beliefs. Though it was not by any means his best work, I think it is underrated and definitely worth watching.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
Week 2: The Lodger (1927)
Good evening.
In Hitchcock's the Lodger, a serial killer is terrorizing London, murdering young blonde girls every week. Daisy, a young blonde dress model, lives with her parents and is dating one of the police officers assigned to finding the killer, known as "the Avenger." They rent out one of their rooms to a young, eccentric, mysterious man. As Daisy's mom notices that the lodger behaves strangely and sneaks out on the nights of the murders, she begins to suspect that he is the killer. Daisy does not see anything suspicious about him, and they develop a relationship. The police officer grows jealous and also starts to suspect the lodger.
The film is based on the book the Lodger by Marie Belloc Lowndes. Lowndes claimed that she heard a story from a woman once who believed that Jack the Ripper had rented a room in her house. After hearing the story, she developed the idea for the book.
I had never seen this particular film, but it is a fast favorite. It is one of his silent films, and I have always been impressed by his ability to create a creepy, suspenseful setting without audible dialogue between the characters. This film is certainly no exception. I found myself panicking throughout the entire film.
Furthermore, I could not figure out how the film was going to end until the very last moment. I won't give away how it ended, but I will say that if you watch the film, you will most likely change your opinion on the lodger at least three or four times and not decide for sure until the last scene. The novel itself apparently had an ambiguous ending, which Hitchcock wanted to preserve. The studio, however, insisted that he not leave it up in the air, so he does reveal to us whether or not the lodger is indeed the killer.
Ivor Novello deserves great attention for his performance as the lodger. That ambiguous feeling that the film preserves until the end is largely because of Novello. He plays the character as dark, brooding, yet sympathetic. In a way, you believe that he is the killer but you want him to get the girl. In another way, you believe he must be innocent. Then you remember that this character is based on Jack the Ripper, and you want him to die. It is testimony to his talent that Novello could inspire this range of emotions, particularly in a silent film, where everything is facial expression and body language.
I also have to give some attention to June Howard Tripp as the beautiful Daisy. Her ability to switch between a sassy, flirtatious model, to a concerned lover, to a frightened woman was very believable. And when I looked her up later, I discovered, much to my surprise, that she was only in four films in her life. Needless to say, I was very impressed.
Now on to the background of the film: This is a very important film in Hitchcock history, being one of his earliest films. It was made in 1927, and was his third film to direct, although he considered it to be his first real film.
Hitchcock wanted to open the film with a body being dragged out of the Thames River, with the Charing Cross Bridge visible in the shot. Scotland Yard told him he could not film the bridge. He sent them so many requests that they told him if he could film it in one night, they would unofficially turn a blind eye and ignore it. He did so, but later discovered that the scene had not been filmed properly due to a mistake of the cameraman. So he had to give up that idea.
The best fun fact about this film though, is that it is his first film with his trademark cameo. This was actually an accident, due to a lack of extras at the time of filming a particular scene in a newsroom. He needed someone, and decided to do it himself. This gave him the idea of making it a trademark. Hitchcock lovers such as myself can be very grateful that there weren't enough extras, as spotting the cameo is one of the fun parts of watching a Hitchcock film.
I highly recommend checking this film out. It is in several of the Hitchcock silent film DVD combos, and those are more than worth their cost. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
In Hitchcock's the Lodger, a serial killer is terrorizing London, murdering young blonde girls every week. Daisy, a young blonde dress model, lives with her parents and is dating one of the police officers assigned to finding the killer, known as "the Avenger." They rent out one of their rooms to a young, eccentric, mysterious man. As Daisy's mom notices that the lodger behaves strangely and sneaks out on the nights of the murders, she begins to suspect that he is the killer. Daisy does not see anything suspicious about him, and they develop a relationship. The police officer grows jealous and also starts to suspect the lodger.
The film is based on the book the Lodger by Marie Belloc Lowndes. Lowndes claimed that she heard a story from a woman once who believed that Jack the Ripper had rented a room in her house. After hearing the story, she developed the idea for the book.
I had never seen this particular film, but it is a fast favorite. It is one of his silent films, and I have always been impressed by his ability to create a creepy, suspenseful setting without audible dialogue between the characters. This film is certainly no exception. I found myself panicking throughout the entire film.
Furthermore, I could not figure out how the film was going to end until the very last moment. I won't give away how it ended, but I will say that if you watch the film, you will most likely change your opinion on the lodger at least three or four times and not decide for sure until the last scene. The novel itself apparently had an ambiguous ending, which Hitchcock wanted to preserve. The studio, however, insisted that he not leave it up in the air, so he does reveal to us whether or not the lodger is indeed the killer.
Ivor Novello deserves great attention for his performance as the lodger. That ambiguous feeling that the film preserves until the end is largely because of Novello. He plays the character as dark, brooding, yet sympathetic. In a way, you believe that he is the killer but you want him to get the girl. In another way, you believe he must be innocent. Then you remember that this character is based on Jack the Ripper, and you want him to die. It is testimony to his talent that Novello could inspire this range of emotions, particularly in a silent film, where everything is facial expression and body language.
I also have to give some attention to June Howard Tripp as the beautiful Daisy. Her ability to switch between a sassy, flirtatious model, to a concerned lover, to a frightened woman was very believable. And when I looked her up later, I discovered, much to my surprise, that she was only in four films in her life. Needless to say, I was very impressed.
Now on to the background of the film: This is a very important film in Hitchcock history, being one of his earliest films. It was made in 1927, and was his third film to direct, although he considered it to be his first real film.
Hitchcock wanted to open the film with a body being dragged out of the Thames River, with the Charing Cross Bridge visible in the shot. Scotland Yard told him he could not film the bridge. He sent them so many requests that they told him if he could film it in one night, they would unofficially turn a blind eye and ignore it. He did so, but later discovered that the scene had not been filmed properly due to a mistake of the cameraman. So he had to give up that idea.
The best fun fact about this film though, is that it is his first film with his trademark cameo. This was actually an accident, due to a lack of extras at the time of filming a particular scene in a newsroom. He needed someone, and decided to do it himself. This gave him the idea of making it a trademark. Hitchcock lovers such as myself can be very grateful that there weren't enough extras, as spotting the cameo is one of the fun parts of watching a Hitchcock film.
I highly recommend checking this film out. It is in several of the Hitchcock silent film DVD combos, and those are more than worth their cost. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Week 1: Psycho (1960)
"We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?" -Norman Bates
Psycho was the perfect film for me to choose as the first of this Hitchcock journey I am embarking on. It is, arguably, his most well known and remembered film. And I had the wonderful chance this evening to see it on the big screen at the movie tavern's retro cinema night. It was an excellent experience, and I am so glad that I got the chance to see it in that capacity.
There is really no way I can give a summary for this film because of the twists and turns that it takes, so I will simply assume if you are reading this, you have seen it. If you haven't seen it, then I suggest you close the browser immediately and go to Blockbuster to rent it. Seriously, don't read this if you haven't.
Psycho is one of those few films that chills me every time I watch it. I saw it for the first time when I was around eight years old, and it terrified me. It is a true classic piece of horror in a way that is superior to modern scary movies.
What makes it so special? Part of it is the score. Hitchcock himself said that 33% of the effect of the film was the score, and he doubled composer Bernard Hermann's salary because it was so well done. From the very opening scene, the suspense is created by the fast-paced, panicked, repetitive music, which only intensifies throughout the film. Ironically enough, the iconic shower scene, one of the most well-known in film history, was originally supposed to be silent. But when Hitchcock heard what Hermann had written he decided to put it in.
Another great appeal of Psycho is that the cheap thrills, while definitely present, take the back burner to a truly satisfying and creepy plot. You might only jump three times in the movie, but the amount of time you think about it later, and the unsettling feeling you are left with, more than make up for it.
And of course, the acting is phenomenal. There have been few better performances over time than Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates. His ever flickering eyes convey an uneasiness in the audience from the moment we meet him, though his kind and timid demeanor lead us to hope that he is actually a good guy. As he spirals out of control, he is so utterly pathetic, yet so very disturbing. It's one of those roles that I simply can't imagine anyone else playing.
Psycho is probably most horrifying because of the infamous shower scene. I could go on and on about the brilliant film editing, splicing together 78 little sequences into the well put together finished product, but everyone knows how amazing that was, so I will focus instead on the suspense.
When Janet Leigh's character is showering, everyone knows something bad is more than likely going to happen. But Hitchcock wouldn't miss the opportunity to torture the audience. We see the door open, we see Bates walk slowly to the shower, and we see the hand reach around the curtain. The whole time we see it coming, but it is still so devastatingly suspenseful. And in the shower, we see a vulnerability that each of us has every single day. That is why Hitchcock is so successful at horror and suspense. He chooses situations that we cannot avoid and exploits the vulnerability in them to terrify us.
What truly attracts me to psycho, however, is the backstory, full of fascinating trivia. Hitchcock wanted to make a really good horror movie. He was so determined to shock the audience in fact, that he not only filmed the trailer to showcase Janet Leigh's character as the main character, but he wrote letters to all the movie theaters instructing them to not allow anyone in after the movie had started, so that they would not wonder where she was if they came in after she died. He even had cardboard cutouts of himself warning the audience to not enter late placed in all of the theater lobbies.
Hitchcock held casting calls and spread rumors about the actress that would be playing Mrs. Bates. He even left a chair for her on set. The actors were not clued in on the ending of the film until the time came for them to prepare to film the final scenes of the movie. Hitchcock wanted to keep everyone in the dark. His determination resulted in a very widespread curiosity and interest in the film.
Another interesting aspect of Psycho is the audience reaction. Many people were offended and revolted by the film. Though it may seem timid in today's gore-filled world, that shower scene was very disturbing at the time. Walt Disney, in fact, was so offended by the film that he would not let Hitchcock film at Disney a few years later.
Perhaps the most interesting audience reaction, though, is that many people reported remembering the "bright red blood" going down the drain. This is of course, impossible, because not only was the fake blood created by chocolate syrup, but the film was obviously black and white. The reports truly show exactly what Hitchcock always firmly believed--that the audience could be manipulated into feeling exactly what he wanted them to feel and see what he wanted them to see. He was a magician of a filmmaker.
And now, I'm off to take a shower. Good evening.
Psycho was the perfect film for me to choose as the first of this Hitchcock journey I am embarking on. It is, arguably, his most well known and remembered film. And I had the wonderful chance this evening to see it on the big screen at the movie tavern's retro cinema night. It was an excellent experience, and I am so glad that I got the chance to see it in that capacity.
There is really no way I can give a summary for this film because of the twists and turns that it takes, so I will simply assume if you are reading this, you have seen it. If you haven't seen it, then I suggest you close the browser immediately and go to Blockbuster to rent it. Seriously, don't read this if you haven't.
Psycho is one of those few films that chills me every time I watch it. I saw it for the first time when I was around eight years old, and it terrified me. It is a true classic piece of horror in a way that is superior to modern scary movies.
What makes it so special? Part of it is the score. Hitchcock himself said that 33% of the effect of the film was the score, and he doubled composer Bernard Hermann's salary because it was so well done. From the very opening scene, the suspense is created by the fast-paced, panicked, repetitive music, which only intensifies throughout the film. Ironically enough, the iconic shower scene, one of the most well-known in film history, was originally supposed to be silent. But when Hitchcock heard what Hermann had written he decided to put it in.
Another great appeal of Psycho is that the cheap thrills, while definitely present, take the back burner to a truly satisfying and creepy plot. You might only jump three times in the movie, but the amount of time you think about it later, and the unsettling feeling you are left with, more than make up for it.
And of course, the acting is phenomenal. There have been few better performances over time than Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates. His ever flickering eyes convey an uneasiness in the audience from the moment we meet him, though his kind and timid demeanor lead us to hope that he is actually a good guy. As he spirals out of control, he is so utterly pathetic, yet so very disturbing. It's one of those roles that I simply can't imagine anyone else playing.
Psycho is probably most horrifying because of the infamous shower scene. I could go on and on about the brilliant film editing, splicing together 78 little sequences into the well put together finished product, but everyone knows how amazing that was, so I will focus instead on the suspense.
When Janet Leigh's character is showering, everyone knows something bad is more than likely going to happen. But Hitchcock wouldn't miss the opportunity to torture the audience. We see the door open, we see Bates walk slowly to the shower, and we see the hand reach around the curtain. The whole time we see it coming, but it is still so devastatingly suspenseful. And in the shower, we see a vulnerability that each of us has every single day. That is why Hitchcock is so successful at horror and suspense. He chooses situations that we cannot avoid and exploits the vulnerability in them to terrify us.
What truly attracts me to psycho, however, is the backstory, full of fascinating trivia. Hitchcock wanted to make a really good horror movie. He was so determined to shock the audience in fact, that he not only filmed the trailer to showcase Janet Leigh's character as the main character, but he wrote letters to all the movie theaters instructing them to not allow anyone in after the movie had started, so that they would not wonder where she was if they came in after she died. He even had cardboard cutouts of himself warning the audience to not enter late placed in all of the theater lobbies.
Hitchcock held casting calls and spread rumors about the actress that would be playing Mrs. Bates. He even left a chair for her on set. The actors were not clued in on the ending of the film until the time came for them to prepare to film the final scenes of the movie. Hitchcock wanted to keep everyone in the dark. His determination resulted in a very widespread curiosity and interest in the film.
Another interesting aspect of Psycho is the audience reaction. Many people were offended and revolted by the film. Though it may seem timid in today's gore-filled world, that shower scene was very disturbing at the time. Walt Disney, in fact, was so offended by the film that he would not let Hitchcock film at Disney a few years later.
Perhaps the most interesting audience reaction, though, is that many people reported remembering the "bright red blood" going down the drain. This is of course, impossible, because not only was the fake blood created by chocolate syrup, but the film was obviously black and white. The reports truly show exactly what Hitchcock always firmly believed--that the audience could be manipulated into feeling exactly what he wanted them to feel and see what he wanted them to see. He was a magician of a filmmaker.
And now, I'm off to take a shower. Good evening.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Intro and Why I Chose to Do This
"What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?" -Alfred Hitchcock
Good evening. If you are here, then I can safely assume you are at least vaguely interested in Hitchcock.
Alfred Hitchock, the Master of Suspense. Amazing filmmaker, director, auteur. At one time I was an aspiring director myself, and I always looked up to him. He was my inspiration for directing. The way he creates suspense, is absolutely breathtaking.
I grew up on Hitchock. I watched Alfred Hitchcock Presents and the Alfred Hitchcock Hour on TV Land and such. My dad showed me Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, the Rope....so many wonderful fims...so many wonderful hours spent observing his style, his wonderful technique, the way he has this power to know exactly how the audience is going to react and to manipulate that to his advantage.
2012 was a year of honoring Hitchock in a way, with two films about him coming out, Hitchcock and the Girl. So he has been on my mind lately. And, his birthday being August 13 and his first directorial work being titled the Number 13 and his affinity for superstition and suspense, I thought 2013 was a good year for me to really get in touch with my Hitchcockian side.
I will be watching 52 of Alfred Hitchock's film and blogging my thoughts about them. I will do some well known favorites, some more obscure, and several of the in between. I will be analyzing direction, cinematography, editing, writing, acting, and overall atmosphere of the films.
My intention was to start at the beginning of this year, but time got away from me, so I am having to play catchup. I will watch two this week and two next week to make up for the two weeks of January that have already flown by. First up will by Psycho, which I incidentally will have the wonderful fortune of going to see on the big screen at the Movie Tavern Thursday.
I invite you to join me on this journey of suspense and excitement as we delve into the majority of the films made by the Master of Suspense. If we try, I think we can cut out a few of those dull bits and leave just the best drama in our lives.
Good evening. If you are here, then I can safely assume you are at least vaguely interested in Hitchcock.
Alfred Hitchock, the Master of Suspense. Amazing filmmaker, director, auteur. At one time I was an aspiring director myself, and I always looked up to him. He was my inspiration for directing. The way he creates suspense, is absolutely breathtaking.
I grew up on Hitchock. I watched Alfred Hitchcock Presents and the Alfred Hitchcock Hour on TV Land and such. My dad showed me Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, the Rope....so many wonderful fims...so many wonderful hours spent observing his style, his wonderful technique, the way he has this power to know exactly how the audience is going to react and to manipulate that to his advantage.
2012 was a year of honoring Hitchock in a way, with two films about him coming out, Hitchcock and the Girl. So he has been on my mind lately. And, his birthday being August 13 and his first directorial work being titled the Number 13 and his affinity for superstition and suspense, I thought 2013 was a good year for me to really get in touch with my Hitchcockian side.
I will be watching 52 of Alfred Hitchock's film and blogging my thoughts about them. I will do some well known favorites, some more obscure, and several of the in between. I will be analyzing direction, cinematography, editing, writing, acting, and overall atmosphere of the films.
My intention was to start at the beginning of this year, but time got away from me, so I am having to play catchup. I will watch two this week and two next week to make up for the two weeks of January that have already flown by. First up will by Psycho, which I incidentally will have the wonderful fortune of going to see on the big screen at the Movie Tavern Thursday.
I invite you to join me on this journey of suspense and excitement as we delve into the majority of the films made by the Master of Suspense. If we try, I think we can cut out a few of those dull bits and leave just the best drama in our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)