davisfreeberg
Posts 113
|
5/5/2006 12:01 PM
posted awhile ago
What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?
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.
|
|
|
SkyPilot
Posts 437
|
5/5/2006 1:54 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?
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?
|
|
|
davisfreeberg
Posts 113
|
5/5/2006 8:10 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?
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.
|
|
|
tmoney
Posts 181
|
5/6/2006 5:26 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?
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.
|
|
|
paul
Posts 247
|
5/9/2006 12:31 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?
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.
|
|
|
davisfreeberg
Posts 113
|
6/2/2006 7:55 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?
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.
|
|
|
paul
Posts 247
|
6/6/2006 12:55 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?
Let me know how the reenactment effort goes, Davis. Maybe I can fly out and play the nun.
p
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 1532
|
10/13/2006 12:48 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?
 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.
|
|
|
SkyPilot
Posts 437
|
10/14/2006 12:47 AM
posted awhile ago
Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?
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.)
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 1532
|
10/15/2006 2:30 AM
posted awhile ago
Re: What If Hitchcock Could Use Today's Technology?
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.
|
|
|