“Intelligence. Nothing has caused the human race so much trouble as intelligence.”
Rear Window was my first Hitchcock film, and what a lasting impression it has had on me ever since. I remember watching scenes for it in a film course I was taking in college and I enjoyed it so much that I immediately decided to see it in its entirety. Alfred Hitchcock has been one of my favorite directors ever since. It helps that suspense is one of my favorite genres so leave it to the master to deliver plenty of thrills in all his films. In Rear Window the suspense was elevated to its highest potential and what a fun experience it was. The first thing that stuck out for me in this film was the voyeuristic nature that Hitchcock is exploring through the main character of the movie, played magnificently by James Stewart. Just like his character I remember spending some summers in the balcony of my apartment looking at the passing by neighbors in order to fight my boredom. In Rear Window I too felt I was alongside Stewart’s Jeff obsessing over the possibility that a horrendous crime had been committed. We also suffer with Jeff when he sends his beloved Lisa (played by the gorgeous Grace Kelly) to investigate the suspect’s apartment while we see that he is arriving, and just like Jeff there is nothing we can do about it other than hope she manages to hide before she’s caught. This film is so well made that it continues to thrill today without having to rely on impressive visual effects. There is a reason why Alfred Hitchcock is considered the Master of Suspense, and this is perhaps the greatest proof for that claim. I can’t think of another film that’s as involving as Rear Window is with its audience. We become participants in Hitchcock’s latest experimentation with voyeurism and that is its major appeal.
“I'm afraid my murders would be something like my bridge: I'd make some stupid mistake and never realize it until I found everybody was looking at me.”
Hitchcock loved to innovate and experiment with his films and some might argue that Dial M for Murder is his most straightforward mystery movie. But what we forget is that Hitchcock made this film in 3-D which explains why there are so many low-angle shots. Warner Bros forced him to do so, but in a way we can call this another experimentation from the Master of Suspense. It is by far his most wordy film and just like Rope the screenplay was adapted from a play. The film takes place almost entirely in a small British apartment where Tony (Ray Milland) and Margot (Grace Kelly) live. Over a year ago Margot had an affair with an American crime author named Mark (Robert Cummings) who is now returning to England. Mark meets with Margot and that is where we are introduced to their backstory. They had had a very torrid love affair and he continued to write to her after he returned to America, but she didn’t. She explains that after Mark left, her husband had decided to quit tennis to spend more time with her and that she didn’t want to leave him anymore. What Margot doesn’t know however, is that her husband discovered her secret affair and was simply waiting for the perfect opportunity to have his revenge. Tony blackmails one of his former schoolmates, Swann (Anthony Dawson), and convinces him to murder his wife while he goes to a guys reunion with Mark providing the perfect alibi. Tony has been planning this perfect murder for quite some time so he can inherit her money (she is the one with the wealthy family). But something unexpected happens and the film took some interesting and clever turns that had me at the edge of my seat.
I’ve mentioned before that in my opinion Hitchcock directed his best movies during the 50’s and this is yet another great example of a film that was made during the height of his career. There might not be as many innovative filming techniques here, but the heart of the film relies on its clever story full of unexpected twists. This is the very definition of a mystery film and it stands out for the story alone. If you don’t like wordy films then this isn’t one for you because it feels very theatrical considering it takes place mostly in one room and it relies heavily on explanations. It’s no secret that Hitchcock knows perfectly well how to create suspense and he manages to do so in this talkative movie relying on dialogue this time around more than on anything else. Although I do have to say that the confrontation between Kelly’s character and Dawson is incredibly tense and filmed perfectly. It’s one of the best scenes in the movie and very memorable as well. There is something about the mystery story here that feels like it was taken from an Agatha Christie novel or from Sherlock Holmes, and Hitchcock knew that he had a great story to work with and relied on the power of storytelling this time around.
Grace Kelly is perhaps one of my favorite Hitchcock leading ladies and this might be her best role. I loved Rear Window and she was wonderful in it, but James Stewart owned that film. Here Grace Kelly shines in every scene and she is wonderful in the surprise attack scene as well. Ray Milland, who was unknown to me, did a wonderful job in the lead villain role, while Robert Cummings also delivered. I expected his character to be the one to figure everything out, but Hitchcock does include some clever twists and it’s someone else who takes on the role of Sherlock Holmes, John Williams, who plays the Chief Inspector in this film. In a talky film like this, it is very important that you have convincing actors to play the roles and I felt that the cast delivered solid performances. This film may fly under the radar in Hitchcock’s astonishing filmography, but I had a really good time with the screenplay and enjoyed it more than some other beloved Hitchcock films.
“I've always wished for more artistic talent. Well, murder can be an art, too. The power to kill can be just as satisfying as the power to create.”
With the aftermaths of the effects of World War II, Patrick Hamilton’s play seemed like the perfect choice for Alfred Hitchcock’s next film. A plot which centers on two highly intellectual men that decide to commit the perfect murder. The victim being one of their classmates who they consider to be inferior to them. This concept of superiority is handled pretty heavily as there are several discussions about it through the film, and it is easy to compare it to Hitler’s ideal of the superior Nazi race. Rope isn’t subtle at all, but the film is still engaging and perfectly executed as a criticism for such a dangerous concept at the time. Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger) aren’t satisfied with having murdered their friend, David. They want to celebrate their perfectly executed plan by having a dinner party with David’s father (Cedric Hardwicke), his Aunt (Constance Collier), his girlfriend, Janet (Joan Chandler), Janet’s ex, Kenneth (Douglas Dick), and their former tutor, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart) as their guests. Brandon is convinced that no one will suspect that they murdered David for the sake of experimenting, and it would be great to have his body hidden there while his relatives and close friends dine next to it. Phillip on the other hand is a nervous wreck and thinks that inviting Rupert is a terrible idea and that they are going a bit too far with everything.
Of course the first thing that comes up when talking about Rope is the way that Hitchcock decided to film it as if it were one continuos take. The film is actually shot in 10 long takes, and the audience can easily spot those moments (it isn’t subtle as in Birdman) but for a film made in 1948 it was a feat to pull off. This is by far Hitchcock’s most theatrical film and shooting the scenes as if they were taking place in real time was a way for him to approach the material in a different way. He had to build the suspense without relying on the score or parallel action scenes. Rope has a very exciting climax, but it is very predictable for audiences today. It is also a very wordy film, but Hitchcock never misses an opportunity to include his morbid sense of humor. I love James Stewart, but in this film his character has several flaws, one being the way he rationalizes murder at first during a conversation with the rest of the guests and later the character seems to take a 180 degree turn. I still have to give Hitchcock a lot of credit for trying something new with Rope and continuing to innovate in his films.
Beside the experimental element of Rope there is a strong underlying homosexual vibe between the two murderers although it is never referenced directly by anyone. They are going to travel together to the country and they use that as an excuse to invite their friends for a farewell party. The performances are all strong in this film and it is by far the most stagey film in Hitchcock’s career. He may have just been playing with the concept, but there is no doubt that he also inspired future filmmakers to do the same. Rope is another rich legacy from Hitchcock. The performances in the film are solid and Farley Granger plays a very different character from the one he went on to play in Strangers on a Train. James Stewart was obviously the star at the moment, but he doesn’t appear until almost thirty minutes into the film. His screen presence does elevate the film once he arrives at the home. John Dall plays the main villain very well, but it was his only collaboration with Hitchcock. I’d probably rank Rope around the middle of Hitchcock’s filmography, but it sure was ahead of its time.
“I have the perfect weapon right here: these two hands.”
In my opinion, Hitchcock’s Golden Age was definitely the 50’s when he released some of his most beloved classic films: Rear Window, North by Northwest, and Vertigo. I’d include Psycho on that list as well which was released in 1960. But in 1951, the Master of Suspense directed a wonderful thriller which could’ve very well been considered among that group if it weren’t for some minor flaws near the end. Strangers on a Train hooks you from the very beginning as the camera follows the footsteps of two separate men getting on a train. Their feet bump into each other and the camera reveals who they are: Guy Haines (Farley Granger) and Bruno Antony (Robert Walker). Bruno instantly recognizes Guy, an up and coming tennis player who is currently dating Anne Morton (Ruth Roman), a Senator’s daughter. We hear this from Bruno’s mouth who tells Guy everything he’s read about him in the papers. Bruno introduces himself as a wealthy socialite and despite his psychotic behavior, Guy listens to him patiently while he waits for his next stop. The conversation serves as a very practical way to introduce us to the backstory of these characters. He claims to know that Guy is married to Miriam (Kasey Rogers) who has been unfaithful to him many times over the past and is waiting for a divorce settlement to be able to marry his new love. Bruno goes on saying that it would be much easier to simply murder his wife and he gives him the perfect solution: they can cross murders. Bruno wants his millionaire father out of the picture and believes Guy could do him the favor. Guy thinks Bruno is simply kidding and gets off at the next stop, but what he doesn’t know is that Bruno is serious about his offer and plans to stick with his own made up plan.
Watching the film today, the plot sounds very familiar to dozens of thrillers that have been released since, but I can’t say with certainty if in 1951 this was a unique idea. The screenplay was adapted from Patricia Highsmith’s novel and it is perhaps one of the greatest strengths of the film. What I can say is that Hitchcock handles the suspense in a very engaging way, building interesting characters and tense situations. Farley Granger and Ruth Roman play a believable and likable couple who the audience easily can identify with, but it is Robert Walker who steals the show. Walker plays his psychotic character to perfection, and during the first half of the film he is portrayed as a very clever and disturbed person that will keep you guessing as to what he might do next. His proposal during the beginning of the film is delivered in a very tempting way and he succeeded at creating an uncomfortable atmosphere on that train alongside Granger. The scene where he follows Miriam through a fair ground is also very memorable. Hitchcock set the perfect thriller during the first half of the film, but unfortunately he put too much effort in the climax making some of the suspense feel forced at times instead of letting the story unfold naturally. It is a shame that Walker passed away shortly after the film was released because it would’ve been interesting to see what he could do next working alongside Hitchcock. Bruno is one of the best psychotic characters I’ve seen on screen, but the ending did leave me unsatisfied.
Strangers on a Train doesn’t only deliver clever thrills, but it also has several moments of dark humor as well. His daughter, Patricia Hitchcock, plays Anne’s sister and she has some of the funniest scenes of the movie. The relationship between Bruno and his mother, played by Marion Lorne, is also full of dark humor especially during the first scene in which they are shown together. That is what I enjoyed the most during the first half of the film which managed to set an interesting (although familiar by now) premise and balance the suspense with Hitchcock’s sense of humor. That dark humor disappears during the second half and everything centers exclusively on the suspense where I believe Hitchcock tried a bit too hard to force things. Even Walker’s character loses some of his psychotic charm here and the film takes a much more predictable turn. Strangers on a Train is a very entertaining movie, but that first half had so much potential that this could’ve been one of Hitchcock’s greatest films if that balance weren’t lost in the second half.
“You could have stopped me with one word, but no, you wouldn't. You threw me at him!”
Alfred Hitchcock’s 1946 classic romantic spy thriller has tried to be imitated many times by lesser films over the decades, but nearly 70 years later its style and fabulous camerawork continues to leave its mark on audiences everywhere. The master of suspense lived up to his name once again with a slightly different film focusing more on the characters than on the thrills. Set in 1946, with the Second World War recently over, Ben Hecht’s screenplay captured the spirit of the era where the fear of a nuclear war breaking out was eminent. American spies were focused on hunting down the remaining German Nazis that had spread throughout the world. The story begins in court where Alicia Guberman’s (Ingrid Bergman) father is convicted of being a German spy. Alicia has a reputation of being a heavy drinker and dating many men, and she is ashamed of her father’s activities. During one of the parties she hosts at her home she meets Devlin (Cary Grant), an American spy who falls for her beauty and charm, but isn’t willing to admit it. He convinces her to travel with him to Rio de Janeiro using her father’s connections to spy on his friends. She’s asked to approach Alexander Sebastian (Claude Rains), an old family friend who they suspect is also involved with other Nazis in the area. Alicia wins his affection easily, but at the same time it distances her from Devlin who she has feelings for. Once she’s in Alexander’s home she begins uncovering their secrets, but risking her life at the same time.
Notorious relies heavily on the romantic chemistry between Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman, two of the most talented actors of their era. Honestly, I found the romance between the two of them was rushed, and I didn’t buy into it very easily. One has to consider the restrictions however (the Hayes Code for example which restricted kisses to less than three seconds on screen) so there wasn’t much more they could do. But that was what made the on and off kiss between the two actors all the more passionate for audiences at the time. Today, however it doesn’t have the same effect. I had a difficult time buying into the romance and that affected my enjoyment of the film during the first half. But once the plot settles in Rio de Janeiro, the film has a couple of thrilling scenes. The wine cellar scene was one of the most gripping moments of Notorious and Hitchcock masterfully combined different camera shot and edits to build the suspense accompanying it with Webb’s suspenseful score. The final ten minutes also had me at the edge of my seat so the second half of the film made up for the tedious first half. Notorious isn’t among my favorite Hitchcock films because he’s mastered the suspense in other better movies like Psycho, Vertigo, or Rear Window, while I found his work in Rebecca a more compelling character driven film.
Notorious does bank from the strong lead performances from Grant and Bergman, who despite not being able to sell the romantic element at first, they still give engaging performances. Devlin’s stubbornness and unwillingness to share his feeling for her, and Alicia’s attitude towards his indifference becomes the soul of the film. Claude Rains plays Alexander extremely well, and he gives the strongest performance in the film. He falls in love with Alicia very quickly and that prevents him from seeing what his mother has suspected all along. The influence of Alexander’s mother over him is a trademark from Hitchcock and in this film Leopoldina Konstantin plays the mother better than most. It’s a fascinating story that slowly builds up to a memorable finale.
Squeezed in the middle of Hitchcock's filmography, To Catch a Thief, is many times forgotten since it came out the year after Rear Window. Hitchcock also had greater success with his later films, Pyscho, The Birds, North by Northwest, and Vertigo so this film is easily discarded when we compare it to his other works. It is a shame because To Catch a Thief has many great things going for it which we now take for granted. For instance the love story mixed right in the middle of the mystery is captivating. Perhaps for modern audiences the mystery involving this copycat thief, known as the cat, may be way to easy to solve, but the heart of the story lies in the fantastic chemistry between Cary Grant's John Robie and Grace Kelly's Frances Stevens. The sparks fly between these two characters and their intense chemistry on screen is rarely equaled in modern films. This was my first Cary Grant film and only the second time I'v seen Grace Kelly on screen so perhaps that's why I enjoyed it so much. I was pleasantly surprised with this film and despite it not being at the same level of some of Hitchcock's other masterpieces it is a really enjoyable movie. The cinematography here is gorgeous and perhaps one of the best coming from Hitchcock. Deciding to film this on location in the French riviera was the best idea Hitchcock had and it really payed off. His cameo at the beginning of the movie just might be my favorite of his as well. There is also a spectacular car chase scene that is the highlight of the film. My only complaint lies in the fact that the resolution wasn't as strong as the opening and mid section of this film, but the pacing was well established and I enjoyed it. Cary Grant and Grace Kelly were magnificent on screen together and I look forward to seeing more of their classic work in the future.
The gorgeous scenery and the romance went perfect together in this charming film from Hitchcock. Grant and Kelly shared an incredible chemistry together and their witty remarks also added some comedy to the mix. The film might not be as artistic as some of his greater work, but this light weight romantic thriller shouldn't be disregarded when we consider Hitchcock's films because it showed his versatility as a director and his capability of directing less serious films and making them better than the actual material really was. It's an enjoyable film and it accomplishes its purpose of entertaining the audience as it takes us through the gorgeous riviera of France and introduces us to these beautiful beaches and mansions. Some of Hitchcock's better known films could have benefited from the two strong leads in To Catch a Thief because for a light film they really got the job done. It may be a forgettable film coming from Hitchcock but it is far more entertaining than most of the light movies we are exposed to in the theaters today. Despite not having heard great things about this film, I'm glad I had the pleasure to watch this and see the sparks fly between Grant and Kelly.
"Have you ever seen so many gulls? What do you suppose it is?"
After having surprised and shocked audiences with Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock followed it up with another horror film, The Birds, which is more straightforward and generic than the rest of his films, but he still did experiment quite a bit with some elements here. There are no surprises or unexpected twists in The Birds and it pretty much plays out as a standard thriller slowly building the suspense by introducing us to the characters so we can identify with them. He didn't use psychological suspense either like he did in so many of his films, he just let the narrative unfold gradually. This may sound like a standard horror film, but what Hitchcock experiments with here is the lack of a musical score to accompany the film. Most thrillers rely on eerie scores to help set the mood, and we know Hitchcock included them often such as in films like Vertigo and Psycho, but here rather than introducing music he uses the sound of birds to scare audiences. Many people complain that the effects are outdated, but it didn't bother me at all, I thought they were really well done and I felt the tension during some of these scenes that have become classic by now (such as the scene where Tippi Hedren's character is trapped inside a phone booth as the birds are attacking the town, and the climatic scene where the birds are surrounding Rod Taylor's home). Those were memorable scenes full of tension, but I did have some issues with the pacing of the story.
Hitchcock made sure we cared for the characters and during the first hour of the film he spends time building a possible romantic relationship between Rod Taylor and Tippi Hedren. This is where I wished the main characters were played by more charismatic actors such as James Stewart and Kim Novak where the chemistry between them would seem stronger, and that would have engaged me more with a story I kind of felt was silly otherwise. The premise is kind of out there since I really never believed the threat of the birds nor felt their presence haunting, but Hitchcock still managed to build in a few scares despite it all. The bay near San Francisco where this film mostly takes place was a perfect setting and I actually enjoyed the fact that it took place in an enclosed space like this. It sort of made the audience believe these characters were enclosed and surrounded by the birds. Hitchcock can build suspense out of nearly anything and despite my disbelief of the birds being a real threat there were times I did feel that tension. The way in which he exchanges shots from one scene to the next like he did in the phone booth with exterior shots exchanged with interior ones really helps build the suspense and create a tense atmosphere. The Birds may not have much psychological depth, but it plays out quite well as a generic disaster film and slowly builds its way up to a rather interesting climatic scene (I mean switch the birds for zombies and you realize where George A. Romero may have got his ideas for Night of the Living Dead). The Birds isn't amongst my favorite Hitchcock films, but I still had a fun time with it.
“Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere.”
Hitchcock’s Vertigo is considered by many critics as the best film ever, although this wasn’t always the case considering that when it was released in 1958 it was poorly received by audiences and critics alike. So much so that it marked the last time that Hitchcock worked with James Stewart who he blamed for not attracting audiences any more due to his age. Unfortunately it was the last collaboration between the two, but they left us a rich legacy. Hitchcock also blamed Kim Novak’s performance, but if he were alive today he would realize what a mistake those two claims were. First of all, I believe Kim Novak was enchanting in this film, she was the perfect femme fatale in this sort of film noir suspense thriller. She was attractive and hard to decipher. James Stewart was also great and once again is believable as this obsessed man who is following this mysterious women all over San Francisco. His fear of heights, which is a key part of this film, is also believable and thanks to Hitchcock’s technique (now known as the Vertigo shot) those scenes worked extremely well. However, the best thing about Vertigo is the strange twists it takes and how it surprises us with the direction it takes half way through the film. It is hard to classify this film and it goes places you never imagine. This is what Hitchcock does best in his films and that is why he is considered as the Master of Suspense. The psychological elements are always present and everything is so masterfully crafted in this film that it is hard to break out of the enchanted atmosphere created here.
The film’s theme of obsession is probably why it is called a masterpiece considering no other film has explored this subject as well as Vertigo does. I personally prefer Rear Window, another collaboration between Stewart and Hitchcock, as his masterpiece although that film is more generic and easier to classify. In Rear Window Hitchcock explores voyeurism, in Vertigo a man’s obsession over a mysterious woman who he feels attracted to. Actually there are two women who Stewart’s character relates to in this film. Other than Madeleine (Kim Novak) who is the woman he is assigned to follow around the city he also shares a close friendship with Midge (played by Barbara Bel Geddes) his former love interest from his college days. Midge is an intelligent women and the perfect one for Scottie (James Stewart), but as he becomes more and more obsessed with Madeleine she begins to be sidelined. The only issue I had with this film involved some of the dialogue scenes between Scottie and Midge during the beginning of the film which served to set up the story and their background. It never felt authentic but it accomplished its purpose. Once Kim Novak enters in the picture and the theme of obsession kicks in the film really picks up and seduces the audience into its mysterious and eerie atmosphere. It’s unpredictable, but I wouldn’t say this thriller is as scary as Psycho, another Hitchcock film I would rank above Vertigo. I really loved this film despite some pacing issues during the beginning and midway through the story, but other than that I agree with the claims that this is a masterpiece and a must see for film lovers everywhere. Just like Citizen Kane this is a film that was ahead of its time and one who the contemporary audience wasn’t ready to embrace.
"Beautiful, mysterious woman pursued by gunmen. Sounds like a spy story."
I have always considered Alfred Hitchcock among my favorite directors, and after hearing that The 39 Steps was one of his first masterpieces I decided to give it a watch. Several of his classic trademarks from his films in the 50's and 60's can be seen in this spy thriller although they lack a lot of polishing. The story was so rushed that the characters never felt fully developed, the romance felt forced, and the comedy never really worked for me. Despite how much critics revered this film, I had a hard time enjoying the story. The continuity from one scene to the next was a bit jumpy and important details of the story felt like they were left out. I know that for the time it was made (1935) it was highly considered for the fast pace that Hitchcock was introducing to the classic spy tale and for all the surprise and twists that he used here, but those elements haven't really aged well and Hitchcock himself would later go on to polish those issues I had in his following films. In my opinion Hitchcock's earliest masterpiece is his 1940 film, Rebecca, which has much more psychological suspense, better sound editing, and much better character development. The 39 Steps was a bit of a letdown for me, but I still understand why it is so highly regarded for the way in which Hitchcock was able to balance and mix genres such as this spy thriller with romance and comedy. I'm glad Hitchcock managed to polish these common trademarks and cemented his reputation over the following decades (considering my favorite films of his are mostly from the 50's).
Charles Bennett and Ian Hay adapted the screenplay from John Buchan's 1915 spy novel centering on Richard Hannay (Robert Donat). Hannay finds himself in trouble with the law when he helps a woman named Annabella Smith (Lucie Mannheim) after a disturbance broke out in a music hall. She is escaping from some secret agents and Hannay takes her to his home where she tells him about a potential national security breach. While she's telling him these things, she is murdered by the men who were following her and Hannay has to escape for his life. He not only has to run from the secret agents who don't want him to discover what they are up to, but from the police as well who suspect him for murdering Anabella. Hannay recalls that Anabella had mentioned something about Scotland so that's where he heads first in order to unlock the mystery of the 39 Steps. Several surprises and twists take place along the way as eventually he is forced to continue on the run handcuffed to a young woman named Pamela (Madeleine Carroll) who doesn't believe he's innocent.
The 39 Steps may have been the start of a new kind of thriller inexistent until then, but it hasn't aged as well as other Hitchcock films due its very rushed pacing and poor character development. I honestly can't recall any one character in this film with a definite personality as everyone seems to be playing a specific role to move along the story. There were several comedic moments that Hitchcock was trying to introduce in order to lighten up the mood and suspense, but they didn't work too well for me. The romance between Carroll and Donat's characters wasn't too believable either. I just didn't see the sparks that other critics have found in their performance. I usually tend to like Hitchcock's use of sound in his films and how they enhance the story, but in The 39 Steps it didn't work at all and I found several moments that instead of building the suspense simply felt misplaced. I still respect this film for how it helped form Hitchcock's career, but I can't call it a masterpiece. I will continue to claim Rebecca is his earliest masterpiece.
"You thought you could be Mrs. de Winter, live in her house, walk in her steps, take the things that were hers! But she's too strong for you. You can't fight her - no one ever got the better of her."
Without ever being physically present or having a line in the film, Rebecca's strange influence over everyone dominates the film in a way only Hitchcock could have pulled off. I still have a lot of Hitchcock films to catch up with, but so far I haven't seen one I disliked. Rebecca is a near masterpiece and Hitchcock once again proves his craft as a director by slowly building a psychological romantic thriller and then once we are hooked with the characters he pulls the rug under our feet and delivers some surprising twists we never expected. This may not be one of Hitchcock's most popular films, but it will always be regarded for being the only film of his that won him an Oscar. Rebecca isn't his best film (which in my opinion is Rear Window), but it deserves to be ranked amongst his best work thanks to a gripping screenplay, some wonderful performances, memorable characters, and above all its beautiful black and white cinematography. It is simply stunning and despite being made in 1940 it still manages to remain incredibly suspenseful and unique. Despite knowing that Hitchcock is going to come up with an interesting twist he completely catches me off guard every time and leaves me even more engaged with his work. My only complaint (a minor one) with his films is that despite being subtle throughout the story at the end he spells everything out for the audience trying to explain the twists (Psycho is the best example of this, but in Rebecca it's done again and it makes the film drag a bit near the end, but it's only a minor complaint considering we are talking about the Master of Suspense).
Rebecca is based on Daphne Du Maurier's celebrated novel (who also wrote The Birds which Hitchcock later went on to direct) and adapted by Robert E. Sherwood. The story centers on a shy unnamed woman (Joan Fontaine) who works as a paid companion to the wealthy Edythe Van Hooper (Florence Bates). While they are in Monte Carlo she meets a wealthy estate owner named Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier). Edythe mentions that Maxim's wife, Rebecca, passed away an year ago in a boating incident and he hasn't recovered from it. During their short stay in Monte Carlo however, Maxim falls in love with her and the two marry within weeks of having met. Maxim takes the new Mrs. de Winter to his beautiful country home known as Manderley and introduces her to the staff. Despite being in awe of the majestic home, she feels intimidated by the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), who remains obsessed with Rebecca. As the days pass, Mrs. de Winter begins to feel overwhelmed by everyone's affection towards Rebecca and somehow she feels that Maxim is still very much in love with her. Rebecca's shadow seems to interfere with everything she does and she begins to feel her relationship is doomed.
Rebecca is not simply a psychological thriller centering on relationships, it is a film focusing on identity. Despite never being seen, Rebecca's presence dominates this film and she seems to have a strange effect over everyone. In contrast, the second Mrs. de Winter only gets her name once she marries Maxim and she never really has an identity of her own. She is continually threatened by Rebecca's presence no matter what she does and despite wanting to overcome it she can't because everyone seems to have adored her. Hitchcock builds the tension and suspense very subtly with memorable characters. Despite being extremely beautiful Joan Fontaine pulls off an incredibly natural and believable performance as this shy and insecure pet-girl. Laurence Oliver also plays his role as the loving but distant character very well. However the two most memorable performances for me came from the supporting cast. Judith Anderson and George Sanders play the villains to perfection. Sanders delivers some comedic relief, while Anderson's mysterious and cold face uneases us from the moment she appears on screen. The gothic mood underlying the film mixes perfectly with the haunting ghost story as Rebecca's presence can be felt everywhere once we step into Manderley. Hitchcock has done it again.
¨I think I must have one of those faces you
can't help believing.¨
Psycho is the master of all suspense thrillers
and I will include it in my list of masterpieces. It was way ahead of its time
and continues to impress today. This is where the term Hitchcockian came from
to describe these psychological horror films that have been inspired by the
great Hitchcock. It`s been over 50 years since Hitchcock directed this film,
and horror directors are still trying to imitate what he did. One of the things
I enjoyed the most about this film is the way that Hitch fooled us all into
thinking that it was going to be about Janet Leigh`s character and ended up
killing her off in the first half of the movie. I hadn`t seen this film before,
but had seen the famous shower scene thousands of times before. It`s amongst
the greatest scenes in film history considering the way Hitch filmed every shot
taking the audience by surprise. I always thought that scene was the final one,
so I was surprised to see it only 40 minutes into the movie. From that moment
on I was sold and on board with what other unexpected turn the movie was going
to make. Anthony Perkins` performance as Norman Bates was the highlight of the
movie for me. He was excellent in his role and I was surprised he didn’t get
much credit for it. I think he was much better than the rest of the cast. I
also imagine what a surprise the ending must have been for most people during
the time since it was something totally unprecedented. I did see it coming now
of course since so many films have copied the format, but I can only imagine
the initial reaction. Psycho was also the perfect title for the film.
As for the story goes it deals with an office
worker from a small town in Arizona named Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) who is in
her early 30`s and single. She has to meet with her love interest, Sam Loomis
(John Gavin), in secret during lunch hours in a motel because he is from out of
town and buried in debts due to alimony payments. When she arrives at work from
her break she stumbles upon 40,000 dollars that her boss hands over to her to
deposit in the bank. During a moment of irrationality she decides to keep the
money and begin a new life in some other town. She takes off as soon as she can
and begins driving away from the city as fast as possible. Tired after the long
drive, Marion ends up staying at a motel off the highway for the night. The
motel is run by a friendly young man named Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who
tells Marion that they don’t get many visitors nowadays. He offers her
something to eat before she goes to bed, and she accepts. She later hears
Norman discussing with his mother about his invitation and discovers that he is
dominated by her. Her strong influence over him worries Marion, but she is
tired and just once to rest before continuing her trip. Norman may not be the
friendly young man who he seems to be after we see him watch her from a peeping
hole. What follows is the famous shower scene and then the story continues with
several twists and surprises.
I`ve heard many complaints about the final
scene of this great film which was adapted by Joseph Stefano, from Robert Bloch`s
novel of the same name. I can understand how this scene may seem out of place,
especially now because the audience is expected to piece everything on their
own, but I consider it necessary for the time because audiences weren’t familiar
with the psychotic term or connotation. Of course the explanation seems out of
place today because we all understand what has happened, but in the 60`s this
film was way ahead of its time and had no precedents so it was necessary to
spell everything out to the audience. I may be wrong, but I still don`t have a
problem with that scene although I do admit it is one of the only scenes in the
film that hasn’t aged well. Hitchcock is one of my favorite directors and I
wish more directors would make psychological thrillers as well as he did. Psycho
is probably one of his most recognized works, but I still think his best movie
all time is Rear Window. If you haven’t seen these movies by all means go watch
them because they are timeless.
