Classic Movies

[bearwiredpair]

Rope
Hitchcock

Plot: Two young men strangle their "inferior" classmate, hide his body in their apartment, and invite his friends and family to a dinner party as a means to challenge the "perfection" of their crime.

[TheDudeAbides]

Some great suggestions. Thanks all.

I did see Cool Hand Like recently and (bracing myself for the flaming) I just didn't get it. I guess I was expecting something different, or maybe it's a generational thing. But to me it just seemed like a huge letdown. Especially the ending. Then again, maybe I just didn't get it.

I've never seen Casablanca, so I think that'll be my first choice this weekend.

Just looked up Bridge on the River Kwai on imdb and it looks awesome. I'll definitely check that out as well.

Keep 'em coming!

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
Some great suggestions. Thanks all.

I did see Cool Hand Like recently and (bracing myself for the flaming) I just didn't get it. I guess I was expecting something different, or maybe it's a generational thing. But to me it just seemed like a huge letdown. Especially the ending. Then again, maybe I just didn't get it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, not flaming, but perhaps we have different tastes in movies (*spoiler alert*).

To me the theme of the movie was about human psychology, particularly in a vacuum. We all have things to do, goals to reach, in our daily lives. Write that paper to get the grade, do that project to get a paycheck, go out and try to shag someone, or maybe find a mate. But when people are placed in close proximity with nothing to strive for and nothing to do, what happens? Answer: pave roads really quickly, dig holes in the ground then fill them back in, and eat a lot of eggs. I like character driven movies.

Based on that maybe move Midnight Cowboy down your list a little bit (even though its truly one of my favorites). Patton, however, will deliver on all levels.

[Blarg]

I understand what you're getting at when you say you like Hitchcock, and I value him a lot. He knows how to tell a story and keep it going, with personable actors, and does that very well visually too. He doesn't tend to let a story sit around till its bottom gets soggy.

CLIFF NOTES: Picking some theme or time period or film author gives a purpose to what you do and makes it much more fun too. And it gives you much more of a chance to take away a developed understanding and appreciation rather than be left with scattered, unrelated memories of something that you may ultimately not understand that well. Why don't you pick Hitchcock and give it a shot?

STING TANTRIC STYLE: DA, I'd suggest you might find, if you're really developing an interest in movies and they're not just entirely quick entertainments that you have no curiosity about and would just as soon substitute with any other, that you can inject some intrigue into your movie watching by doing something I've found very rewarding with both books and movies. That is, pick a subject, and engage yourself on multiple levels with it by deciding to not just watch, but learn. That learning process will greatly broaden your interest in each movie and dramatically increase your anticipation of what's coming next. And your enjoyment, as well.

Example from books: Someone picks up a book of Raymond Carver short stories. He finds he loves the tremendous power of what is implied when the author writes, and likes that style more than something more florid or painfully elaborated so that nearly everything is spoon-fed to him. He finds himself engaged when dealing with Carver's somewhat eliptical style, and enjoying that style's demand that the reader be fully present and open to nuance if he expects to realize the full and sometimes shocking power of a story. Curious after reading the first book, he reads up a bit about him, then determines to start at Carver's beginning, with his first book, and keep going if he likes it. He does, and soon he has gone through everything Carver has done, and now moves onto his stylistic predecessors, Hemingway, and even a bit of Sherwood Anderson. Maybe he even picks up biographies of these guys, pays a couple bucks to the New Yorker to read a story in their archives about Carver, and reads some history from around the time these authors wrote to put them into context. Surprised to see someone writing about the segment of society Carver concentrates on, maybe he picks up a couple of Studs Terkel oral history books about working life. Maybe he sees some of the movies made from Hemingway novels. What he has done is, at an enjoyable pace, developed a broad, rich understanding of not just an author, but an influential and enjoyable writing style and its place in culture and history. In his own way, he has actually accomplished something. He has put some stuff in his head worth keeping, and that he may use as a buttress or springboard when learning about other things. Because of what he already knows, learning the next related thing becomes easier, too.

The more he learns, the more connections he begins to make between things, and the richer every further experience becomes. In this way, being exposed to new things, even when they suck, still doesn't seem entirely awful, because he can fit them into a solid context and use their failings to help him get a better measure of what he thinks and believes.

Example from movies: Why not see everything Hitchcock has ever done? Books about him are often pretty entertaining, too. Start with Francois Truffaut's and learn what a MacGuffin is, and instantly a lot about storytelling from just a quick anecdote. You like Hitchcock already, and he's well worth really exploring. Happily, so many other people do too that you won't have to look far to find people to talk about him with.

[TheDudeAbides]

Blarg - I really like this idea. I find that when I get into something, I like to take a similar approach (i.e. immersing myself in it). I did the same when I got into Vonnegut. Of course, there is a risk of burning out on one artist's work. But I think that generally comes at the tail end, when you've exhausted the 'quality' and are just working through what's left over.

Do you think it's worth it to view them chronologically? Are there other books or films about Hitchcock that I should be exploring?

By the way - did you cite Carver just an example? Or does he relate to Hitchcock in some way?

[Blarg]

Carver is unrelated. Just an example I felt I could be particular about pretty easily, because I have done the same thing. I tend to read in general that way, because I find it makes material so much more interesting and easy to retain. I do it with movies too.

With any little project like that that I give myself, I tend to like to start at the beginning, because it effects how I see the author eventually. I kind of feel along for the ride in his growth, and it becomes a bit of an adventure. I think when you do it that way, you get strong resonances you would have had no way at all of clueing into if you had done things randomly. I usually have bumped into the artist's later work, so I know a little of what's coming, and it gives me a sense of anticipation, too. I want all the more to know how he got there from his generally humbler beginnings.

However, I try not to make it too much of a chore. Anything that diminishes my enthusiasm too much means more chance of putting off going through an author's full works forever, and I don't want to do that. So maybe I will read a biography or a history book pertinent to the subject at hand to break up the movies or the novels, whatever. Or read the occasional imitator, protege, or stylistic descendent. That keeps me at the right happiness level if it starts to feel like I'm having to slog through a dull patch. Basically, just because I'm ambitious doesn't mean I don't have to be kind to myself.

Re: Hitchcock books, Donald Spoto has a well-regarded biography of him, but I didn't read it. He also has another book on him that is supposedly pretty good too. To tell you the truth, it's been so long since I've read anything about Hitchcock that I don't remember any specific book besides Truffaut's on Hitchcock, which strangely enough is listing the primary authory as Helen Scott on Amazon now. That's a fun book and a quick read, and the one I recommend you start with. It's basically one soon to be great filmmaker interviewing another already great one.

Here's an excerpt from a review I agreed with:

[ QUOTE ]
I would offer one caveat: after reading this book through several times, I confess that occasionally I suspect the veracity of a few of Hitchcock's remarks. Sometimes Hitchcock appears too agreeable to Truffaut's observations, endorsing statements that contradict what he's stated or suggested elsewhere. I don't mean to suggest that Hitchcock lied or behaved maliciously; I don't even mean this as criticism. I believe simply that in details that were of small importance to him, Hitchcock didn't bother to dissent, leaving Truffaut to believe as he liked. Also, they both occasionally get their facts wrong when talking about an older film, a mere failure of memory. It's helpful knowing these things going in; otherwise, no harm done-it's still a great book, one that should be read by every Hitchcock fan and anyone who's wanted to know a little bit more about any of his films.


[/ QUOTE ]

[John Cole]

Dude,

Keep in mind that Hitchcock is a bit of a prankster, so you can't always take him at his word--even in the Truffaut/Hitchcock book. Spoto's bio isn't bad, but Spoto is a real prig, and I didn't care for his style. A great book on Hitchcock is William Rothman's Hitchcock: The Murderous Gaze. It takes a scholarly approach in that it provides a close analysis of five films (although it refers to many more) and traces many of Hitchcock's signature shots and compositions in those films. Another classic is Robin Wood's Hitchcock's Films, an excellent and thorough introduction. Of the two, Wood's book is probably the best place to start.

[Blarg]

JC, I did that with Hitchcock and really enjoyed it. I was pretty much a lock for Hitchcock trivia contests for a long time. I want to see everything Herzog has done, too, that is available to an American audience, anyway, and I bought a book on him called I think Herzog on Herzog. I'm well on my way, there.

I'm not sure who my next project will be, but it might be Truffaut. And I could tie into that by reading his idol, Balzac, who wrote about a billion novels, to see if that gives me any greater insight into Truffaut. But I also may take some time and grind through Richard Dawkins first, as I bought a few of his books and they're just sitting on the shelf. His writing seems like the kind that if I can get into it at all, I will want to read a lot of. I've thought the same of Stephen J. Gould. And I have wanted to do that with V.S. Naipaul for a long time. We'll see. Right now I work so much I'm often too mentally tired for other than light reading.

[John Cole]

Blarg,

Have you had the chance to see Even Dwarfs Started Small? I did pretty much the same with Herzog, too, although I haven't seen many of his documentaries. My favorite is still probably Kasper Hauser.

[Blarg]

I love Kaspar Hauser! I love his encounter with the professor of logic. I saw Even Dwarfs Started Small partway through then gave up till I'm in a better mood. It didn't grab me at all, though the stories around it are great. I still have to see Cobra Verde and a few others. Little Dieter Needs to Fly is bought but packed up while I've been moving around lately, so is inaccessible. I might rent it. I have yet to see the current run flick with Christian Bale.