Classic Movies

[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 ]

[Peter666]

The early Hitchcock films, "The 39 Steps" and "The Lady Vanishes" are both great and entertaining.

Also, check out these Billy Wilder classics: "Some Like it Hot" and "Sunset Boulevard".

[mrbaseball]

Too many to recommend! But by all means watch Casablanca as soon as possible! Do you have TMC (Turner Movie Classics)? It has the greatest lineup of movies ever, some famous and some not but with that channel and a DVR you are set for life.

[J.A.K.]

Hard to go wrong with Bogart IMHO. The man is quintessential "cool". Casablanca is the holy grail, but Key Largo is a close 2nd. To Have And Have Not will make you fall in love with a 19 year old Lauren Bacall. Hell, just pick one.

[Blarg]

Here's a good alternative that's rarely seen and has one hell of a provenance: Glen Ford in Fritz's Lang's remake, Human Desire. Originally, it was a French movie, La Bete Humaine(the human beast), with Jean Gabin, who to me is at least as good as Bogart. Great noir of the desperate type that I think best defines the genre's virtues.

Ossessione is also a fantastic movie, an Italian neo-realist version of The Postman Always Rings Twice, and the first version on screen. That story was a little over the top for the America of the day.

And I always have to give a shout out for The Night of the Hunter and Trouble In Mind.

[Stagger_Lee]

The Best Years of Our Lives
Sunday Dinner for a Soldier
Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry
Dog Day Afternoon
Shane
High Noon
The Sundowners
Horse Feathers
A Day at The Races

[midnightpulp]

The Big Heat (another Ford/Lang collaboration.)
The Haunting
The Hustler
A Streetcar Named Desire
Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf
The Killing
The Asphalt Jungle
Since someone suggested the Marx Bros. and Keaton, I'll add WC Fields into the comedy mix. Really can't go wrong with any of them for guaranteed laughs.

[Stagger_Lee]

The Day of the Jackal