PulpFiction1975

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

joem18b — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:34:20 GMT

He didn't like to work on location, so there would always be the temptation to use latest effects in the studio.

Also, he had a lot of trouble with the mechanical crow in The Birds. I think Tippi Heddren had to be hospitalized by the time she was done on the shoot. Or at least she went home and strangled her parakeet.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

billymcbrie — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:54:42 GMT

I think Hitchcock would be a director who would not over-use CGI, if at all. He was a geek as far as film goes, using tricks and sfx, like the one-camera gimmick for Rope, but it was always the story that led him. It was he who said "You need three thing to make a good film: a good script, a good script, a good script." (some directors seem to have misread this as meaning you have to rewrite the script entirely at least three times.).

I think Hitchcock would be using some CGI, and definitely using digital cameras, but only as an route to tell the story better, not just because he could. I don't think he'd be shoving a CGI dinosaur in the middle of a film, but definitely to make a stunt look more real, or to remove wires and shodows etc.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

joem18b — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:19:41 GMT

One more where the original director remade a movie: The Ten Commandments.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

Risselada — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:32:15 GMT

I thought of a few more films that directors remade from their own short films. Wes Anderson's Bottle Rocket and P T Anderson's Boogie Nights.

There's some like Sling Blade that were remade by a different director but essentially had the same people involved.

There's another one I was thinking of before too, but I've forgotten it now.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

joem18b — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:09:34 GMT

Interesting! I'd love to know how this generally comes out; that is, do the directors end up liking their latest version best or wishing they hadn't bothered? I wonder if the foreign directors have to make so many changes to their films to accommodate US audiences that the films end up being something different (I saw both El Mariachi and Desperado; seems like they both had the same vibe, if memory serves...)

I can almost remember that a US director went to France and remade a movie of his... but maybe not. I wonder how often that happens, if at all.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

Risselada — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:33:53 GMT

There actually have been a huge number of instances of directors remaking their own work.

Yasujiro Ozu essentially remade most of his movies over and over from what I hear, some officially like A Story of Floating Weeds (1934) and Floating Weeds (1959)

Quite recently it seems as though directors of foreign movies that are successful, often remake their films in English with American stars. Here's a few examples.

Robert Rodriguez
El Mariachi (1992)
Desperado (1995)

George Sluizer
The Vanishing (1988)
The Vanishing (1993)

Takashi Shimizu
Ju-On: The Grudge (2003)
The Grudge (2004)

Michael Haneke
Funny Games (1997)
Funny Games (2008)

Hideo Nakata
Ringu 2 (1999)
The Ring Two (2005)

Consider the fact that Evil Dead 2 is essentially a remake of The Evil Dead. I hear that is because Raimi wanted to use footage from The Evil Dead in the beginning of Army of Darkness but he lost the rights. So he decided to just remake the whole movie first. I'm not sure if this is actually true.

A lot of filmmakers end up turning a short films into full length films such as George Lucas: THX 1138 and I'm sure countless more that I can't think of at the moment.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

joem18b — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:20:59 GMT

Westworld was a lot of fun when it came out. The robot POV might have been the first use of CGI. And speaking of mechanical critters:

"Originally Hitchcock planned to use mechanical birds and spent $200,000 on automated crows and gulls. The final cut did include a few wind-up birds, like the ones struggling frantically in Jessica Tandy's hair. Most of the bird footage features live birds, some of whom spent off-camera hours in pens near Bodega Bay, where they consumed $1,000 worth of bird seed, anchovies and shrimp."

If Hitchcock had had CGI when he made The Birds, I'm sure he would have used plenty of it...

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

SkyPilot — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 06:38:18 GMT

Right or wrong, this is an interesting idea anyway. Reminds me of a 1&1/2 year-old spoutblog post Paul did about how to improve movie theatres, and how he'd like to see multiple cuts of the same film in the theatre, consecutively.

But a director actually remaking his own film is a very interesting idea. We can see a watered-down version of this: ie as I've said elsewhere, Jurassic Park is a revamped Westworld. Crichton wrote both of the screenplays, and by the way, I just saw on imdb that a remake of Westworld is coming out in 2009! How ironic! Or predictible, I can't decide!

But that sounds fun. Any of you guys seen Westworld? Yul Brynner is my favorite character: "Sloppy with your drink, boy."

But I think my favorite line delivery in that movie belongs to the buzzed, effete Richard Benjamin: "John... this place is a lot of fuuu-uhn!"

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

joem18b — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:57:54 GMT

Hitchcock is the only major director that I know of, off the top of my head, who remade one of his own movies. He had a hit with The Man Who Knew Too Much as his first talkie (?) after being active in the silent era. He remade it in the 50s in VistaVision. It's interesting to see what he changed and what he kept the same (left as an exercise for you to look up, if you're interested).

So if he were alive today, he might well be working on a remake of one of his hits, using a lot of CGI.

[btw, anything I say might be wrong.]

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

Risselada — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:30:50 GMT

SkyPilot:
I see your point about restrictions promoting creativity, but are you ready to claim Duel is a better film than Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Well, I'm not one for claiming one movie is objectively "better" than another. But of my personal appreciation and enjoyment, YES, I am ready to claim that Duel ranks higher than Raiders of the Lost Ark. Although I like Raiders very much, I also prefer Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, and Jaws as well. Although I think I've only seen about half of the movies Spielberg has directed.

SkyPilot:
I'm a counter-example kind of guy, and I'm also thinking of The Thin Red Line: a non-popcorn, big-budget movie that rivals Malick's earlier work. (I'm not a fan of The New World, though I know some would cite this as another example.)

You probably won't like me saying this, but I just saw The Thin Red Line again recently and found it to be not as intriguing as I had remembered. Maybe it's just because I've become so infatuated with Badlands since then that it just can't live up to it.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

SkyPilot — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:47:24 GMT

I see your point about restrictions promoting creativity, but are you ready to claim Duel is a better film than Raiders of the Lost Ark? I think Duel is a prime example of a story that works especially well with a low budget--a one trick pony of sorts. The conflict allows for minimal characters, dialogue, budget, everything... and there is much to be admired in this kind of movie.

But what makes that categorically superior to a masterfully executed "popcorn" movie? I find Raiders to be endlessly re-watchable, a veritable smorgasbord of adventure that is compelling as a whole and within the smaller parts (as is The Last Crusade).

I'm a counter-example kind of guy, and I'm also thinking of The Thin Red Line: a non-popcorn, big-budget movie that rivals Malick's earlier work. (I'm not a fan of The New World, though I know some would cite this as another example.)

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

Risselada — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:48:10 GMT

paul:
I think so many brilliant directors have been seduced by the harlot of special effects wizardry, which just defies reason for me. Think of any great director (besides George Lucas, who's really a glorified FX technician) and their best work is virtually empty of special effects, in my opinion

Even Peter Jackson. Ever seen Heavenly Creatures? I love the LOTR trilogy for its mythic scope and sheer spectacle, but the dramatic aspect is ham-fisted compared to that previous work.

Having restrictions is often what promotes the most creativity. Most directors would be put at a disservice to have access to a massive budget and the supposed newest and latest effects technology. I'm lookin at you Mr. Spielberg. Everything was downhill since your masterpiece, Duel.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

paul — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:55:49 GMT

Let me know how the reenactment effort goes, Davis. Maybe I can fly out and play the nun.

p

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

davisfreeberg — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:55:42 GMT

I actually work in the same building where Vertigo was filmed. I keep bugging the security guy to let me up in the tower, but he keeps putting me off, but I'll figure out a way to re-enact that scene.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

paul — Tue, 09 May 2006 16:31:37 GMT

Hitchcock's effects were state of the art at the time. Now the datedness of the effects always pull me out of an otherwise state of suspended disbelief. Bummer. I honestly think scenes like the nightmare sequence in Vertigo should be memorialized as a reminder to avoid special effects at all costs. Inevitably they won't hold up.

However, an excellent use of CGI were the establishing shots in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Subtle, deliberate, and didn't try to play within the story so much as just give a sense of place.

I think so many brilliant directors have been seduced by the harlot of special effects wizardry, which just defies reason for me. Think of any great director (besides George Lucas, who's really a glorified FX technician) and their best work is virtually empty of special effects, in my opinion

Even Peter Jackson. Ever seen Heavenly Creatures? I love the LOTR trilogy for its mythic scope and sheer spectacle, but the dramatic aspect is ham-fisted compared to that previous work.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

tmoney — Sat, 06 May 2006 21:26:40 GMT

Hitchcock talked a lot about his work actually. There is a great book of interviews with him by French director, Francois Truffaut. Hithcock always talked about how he just wanted to entertain audiences. So I am sure his films would be chock full of special effects, or at least more spectacle. He did effects often, just not very advanced effects. Like the flash bulb scene in rear window, the falling scene in rear window, the flashbacks in vertigo, etc.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

davisfreeberg — Sat, 06 May 2006 00:10:05 GMT

Here is an interesting article on Hitchcock's influence. Interestingly enough in his day his work was fairly controversial.

Hitchcock explained the reason for filming a woman wearing only her under garments in the opening sequence of Psycho: "Audiences are changing....The straightforward kissing scene would be looked down at by the younger viewers....Nowadays you have to show them as they themselves behave" (Hitchcock 1). The director was keenly aware of how audiences responded to his films (Rebello 163) and sought to maintain their interest.

This raises the question of if he still kept up with the times would he now be filming serial murders or would his classic suspence thrillers still focus on the tradegy of even a single death. Hitchcock was a true artist, I think that he could do multiple deaths and still have it be just as terrifying, but his horror was built on what could happen and not the act itself. Birds was horrifying because the audience felt like they were trapped in the middle of it, not because of the body count. I'm not sure that the film world ever found a modern replacement for Hitchcock's style.
For all of his influence I'm not sure if I can think of anyone who has really captured his artistry.

Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

SkyPilot — Fri, 05 May 2006 17:54:26 GMT

This is a good question. It made me realize that I've never heard Hitchcock talk about his work. I would like to know more about him. I wonder if he, like Shakespeare later in his career (I'm thinking specifically of Hamlet & Macbeth), understood that murders can affect the audience more if they're committed off-screen? And then modern technology wouldn't change his treatment of murder, but of other aspects?

What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?

davisfreeberg — Fri, 05 May 2006 16:01:56 GMT

I've always been fascinated by Hitchcock because he had a way of making a single murder seem particularly grusome without needing to resort to in your face graphic violence. He always made just a single death seem so much more important then any of the killings in the slasher films.

I think part of what made Hitchcock the master of suspense was what he didn't show not what he did show. The only scene that Tarantino ever filmed twice in Reservoir Dogs was the infamous ear scene. The first time that they filmed it they actually show the ear being cut off, but Tarantino went back later and had the camera pan off to the side so that viewers had to imagine the ear being cut off. This was a lot more disturbing and was what made the final cut.

I wonder if Hitchcock was still alive today if his films would include the fancy special effects and digital manipulation that we see in so many of today's films or if his movies would be filmed more like live plays with limited effects.