MC Decade Consensus - 1950s

[Spinal]

Submit your ten favorite eligible films from this decade and in a week I will give you a top twenty.

The point system is as follows

1st Place-10 points
2nd Place- 8 points
3rd Place- 7 points
4th Place- 6 points
5th Place- 5 points
6th Place - 4 points
7th Place - 3.5 points
8th Place - 3 points
9th Place - 2.5 points
10th Place - 2 points

As you can see, the scale is weighted to give your top film a little bonus and to make sure that the difference between a 6th place and a 10th place is not too drastic.

Ten eligible films must be listed. Please make any edits by making a new post and telling me what changes have been made.

PLEASE READ:
In order to be eligible for this vote, a film must have placed in the top 10 for the Yearly Consensus Poll for the year it was released. Honorable mention films are not eligible. Since you only have ten slots to fill, I want you to focus on films that have a realistic chance of making the final list, so that we may achieve the most accurate results possible. My goal is to increase the influence of your vote. Please feel free to post an additional list that reflects your "true" top films of the decade. However, only lists with ten eligible films will be counted towards the final poll.

In order to add some suspense to the final results, you may (if you choose) PM your ballot to me instead of posting it in the thread below. Either method of voting will be acceptable. (But please do not do both.) "Secret" ballots will be revealed after the final poll is posted.

You may begin now.

Eligible films
12 Angry Men (Lumet)
A Man Escaped (Bresson)
A Movie (Conner)
A Streetcar Named Desire (Kazan)
Ace in the Hole (Wilder)
Alice in Wonderland (Geronimi/Jackson/Luske)
All About Eve (Mankiewicz)
Anatomy of a Murder (Preminger)
Animal Farm (Batchelor/Halas)
Ashes and Diamonds (Wajda)
Baby Doll (Kazan)
Big Deal on Madonna Street (Monicelli)
Bigger than Life (N. Ray)
Black Orpheus (Camus)
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Brooks)
Cinderella (Geronimi/Jackson/Luske)
Dial M for Murder (Hitchcock)
Diary of a Country Priest (Bresson)
Duck Amuck (Jones)
Early Summer (Ozu)
Eaux d’artifice (Anger)
Elevator to the Gallows (Malle)
Forbidden Games (Clément)
Gojira (Honda)
Gun Crazy (Lewis)
Harvey (Koster)
High Noon (Zinnemann)
Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais)
Ikiru (Kurosawa)
Imitation of Life (Sirk)
In a Lonely Place (Ray)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Siegel)
Ivan the Terrible II (Eisenstein/Filimonova)
Johnny Guitar (N. Ray)
Kiss Me Deadly (Aldrich)
La Strada (Fellini)
Lady and the Tramp (Geronimi/Jackson/Luske)
Les Diaboliques (Clouzot)
Los Olvidados (Buñuel)
Mon Oncle (Tati)
Mr. Hulot’s Holiday (Tati)
Night and Fog (Resnais)
Nights of Cabiria (Fellini)
North By Northwest (Hitchcock)
On Dangerous Ground (N. Ray)
On the Waterfront (Kazan)
Ordet (Dreyer)
Pather Panchali (S. Ray)
Paths of Glory (Kubrick)
Pickpocket (Bresson)
Pickup on South Street (Fuller)
Rabbit of Seville (Jones)
Rabbit Seasoning (Jones)
Rashômon (Kurosawa)
Rear Window (Hitchcock)
Rebel Without a Cause (N. Ray)
Rififi (Dassin)
Rio Bravo (Hawks)
Roman Holiday (Wyler)
Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi)
Singin' in the Rain (Donen/Kelly)
Sleeping Beauty (Geronimi)
Smiles of a Summer Night (Bergman)
Some Like It Hot (Wilder)
Strangers on a Train (Hitchcock)
Sunset Boulevard (Wilder)
Sweet Smell of Success (Mackendrick)
The 400 Blows (Truffaut)
The African Queen (Huston)
The Asphalt Jungle (Huston)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (Lean)
The Browning Version (Asquith)
The Burmese Harp (Ichikawa)
The Cranes are Flying (Kalatozov)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (Wise)
The Earrings of Madame de … (Ophüls)
The Hidden Fortress (Kurosawa)
The Killing (Kubrick)
The Life of Oharu (Mizoguchi)
The Music Room (S. Ray)
The Night of the Hunter (Laughton)
The Red Balloon (Lamorisse)
The Searchers (Ford)
The Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
The Seventh Seal (Bergman)
The Tell-Tale Heart (Parmelee)
The Thing from Another Planet (Nyby/Hawks)
The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice (Welles)
The Wages of Fear (Clouzot)
The Wrong Man (Hitchcock)
Throne of Blood (Kurosawa)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
Touch of Evil (Welles)
Touchez pas au Grisbi (Becker)
Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
Umberto D. (De Sica)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)
What's Opera, Doc? (Jones)
Wild Strawberries (Bergman)
Written on the Wind (Sirk)

[Irish]

Man, a ton of the movies on the eligible list really just take my breath away.

[soitgoes...]

The Burmese Harp (Ichikawa)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
Ikiru (Kurosawa)
What's Opera, Doc? (Jones)
Los Olvidados (Buñuel)
Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
Paths of Glory (Kubrick)
Strangers on a Train (Hitchcock)
Forbidden Games (Clément)
The Earrings of Madame de … (Ophüls)

[Spinal]

1. Los Olvidados
2. Sunset Blvd.
3. The Night of the Hunter
4. Ikiru
5. The Seven Samurai
6. Tokyo Story
7. Umberto D
8. All About Eve
9. The 400 Blows
10. Les Diaboliques

[Watashi]

1. Vertigo
2. 12 Angry Men
3. Rashomon
4. Ace in the Hole
5. Umberto D.
6. All About Eve
7. Seven Samurai
8. Rififi
9. The 400 Blows
10. Sunset Blvd.

[Watashi]

It's hard for me to include the Chuck Jones shorts amongst this list. I would have no idea where to place them so I left them off.

[Melville]

1. Ordet (Dreyer)
2. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
3. Ivan the Terrible II (Eisenstein/Filimonova)
4. Diary of a Country Priest (Bresson)
5. In a Lonely Place (Ray)
6. Touch of Evil (Welles)
7. Bigger than Life (N. Ray)
8. The Seventh Seal (Bergman)
9. Gun Crazy (Lewis)
10. Kiss Me Deadly (Aldrich)

HMs: All About Eve (Mankiewicz), Eaux d’artifice (Anger), Imitation of Life (Sirk), Pather Panchali (S. Ray)

This is the first decade in which all the films I'd want to list are eligible.

[baby doll]

Eligible:

1. Ordet (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1955)
2. Johnny Guitar (Nicholas Ray, 1954)
3. Life of Oharu (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1952)
4. Pickpocket (Robert Bresson, 1959)
5. Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot (Jacques Tati, 1953)
6. Ugetsu Monogatari (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1953)
7. The Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955)
8. Nights of Cabiria (Federico Fellini, 1957)
9. Baby Doll (Elia Kazan, 1956)
10. Early Summer (Yasujiro Ozu, 1951)

Ineligible:

All That Heaven Allows (Douglas Sirk, 1955)
Angel Face (Otto Preminger, 1952)
Early Spring (Yasujiro Ozu, 1956)
Guys and Dolls (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1955)
Limelight (Charles Chaplin, 1952)
Moonfleet (Fritz Lang, 1955)
Orphée (Jean Cocteau, 1950)
Party Girl (Nicholas Ray, 1958)
The Tarnished Angels (Douglas Sirk, 1958)
The Tiger of Eschnapur and The Indian Tomb (Fritz Lang, 1959)

[DavidSeven]

01. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
02. In a Lonely Place (Ray)
03. Rififi (Dassin)
04. Gun Crazy (Lewis)
05. Touch of Evil (Welles)
06. Touchez pas au Grisbi (Becker)
07. Rio Bravo (Hawks)
08. Throne of Blood (Kurosawa)
09. The Killing (Kubrick)
10. Les Diaboliques (Clouzot)

Maybe my favorite yet.

[Yxklyx]

1. Nights of Cabiria (Federico Fellini)
2. The Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman)
3. Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa)
4. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock)
5. Kiss Me Deadly (Robert Aldrich)
6. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray)
7. The Asphalt Jungle (John Huston)
8. Gun Crazy (Joseph H. Lewis)
9. North by Northwest (Alfred Hitchcock)
10. Rebel Without a Cause (Nicholas Ray)

[Duncan]

1. Ivan the Terrible II (Eisenstein/Filimonova)
2. Throne of Blood (Kurosawa)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
4. Ordet (Dreyer)
5. A Man Escaped (Bresson)
6. Los Olvidados (Buñuel)
7. Paths of Glory (Kubrick)
8. A Movie (Conner)
9. The Searchers (Ford)
10. Rabbit of Seville (Jones)

HMs:
Night and Fog (Resnais)
Nights of Cabiria (Fellini)
North By Northwest (Hitchcock)
Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi)
The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice (Welles)

[Weeping_Guitar]

01. Rear Window (Hitchcock)
02. The 400 Blows (Truffaut)
03. The Seventh Seal (Bergman)
04. Paths of Glory (Kubrick)
05. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
06. Wild Strawberries (Bergman)
07. Mon Oncle (Tati)
08. Rashômon (Kurosawa)
09. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
10. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Brooks)

[Ezee E]

1. The Searchers
2. A Man Escaped
3. 12 Angry Men
4. Touch of Evil
5. Sunset Blvd
6. Throne of Blood
7. Umberto D.
8. Sleeping Beauty
9. Anatomy of a Murder
10. The Killing

[eternity]

1. 12 Angry Men
2. Sunset Boulevard
3. In a Lonely Place
4. The 400 Blows
5. Ikiru
6. On the Waterfront
7. Some Like It Hot
8. Vertigo
9. Nights of Cabiria
10. Wild Strawberries

This is where I get all mainstream on everyone.

[Mysterious Dude]

1. The 400 Blows
2. Touch of Evil
3. The Night of the Hunter
4. Throne of Blood
5. Ikiru
6. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
7. Los Olvidados
8. Umberto D.
9. Ugetsu
10. Nights of Cabiria

All in my top 50 of all time. I hardly had to leave anything off due to non-eligibility (only Salt of the Earth). Massive apologies to Seven Samurai and Pather Panchali. I hope you both do well without me.

[Pop Trash]

1. The Seventh Seal
2. Ikiru
3. Vertigo
4. Sunset Blvd.
5. On the Waterfront
6. Los Olvidados
7. Rebel Without a Cause
8. The Wages of Fear
9. The Night of the Hunter
10. Forbidden Games

[Derek]

1. Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi)
2. Rear Window (Hitchcock)
3. The Seventh Seal (Bergman)
4. In a Lonely Place (Ray)
5. The Earrings of Madame de … (Ophüls)
6. Rio Bravo (Hawks)
7. A Man Escaped (Bresson)
8. The Searchers (Ford)
9. Written on the Wind (Sirk)
10. The Burmese Harp (Ichikawa)

Can't believe I had to leave off:

The Wrong Man (Hitchcock)
Nights of Cabiria (Fellini)
Pickup on South Street (Fuller)
Sweet Smell of Success (Mackendrick)
Throne of Blood (Kurosawa)
Touch of Evil (Welles)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)

[Ezee E]

I just happen to have The Wrong Man coming in from Netflix tomorrow!

[Derek]

I just happen to have The Wrong Man coming in from Netflix tomorrow!

Nice. You're already on thin ice with your last two ratings, so anything less than *** and I'm mentally neg-repping you.

[Raiders]

1. A Man Escaped (1956)
2. In a Lonely Place (1950)
3. Vertigo (1958)
4. Duck Amuck (1953)
5. Johnny Guitar (1954)
6. The Wrong Man (1956)
7. Ugetsu (1953)
8. Throne of Blood (1957)
9. Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
10. Sansho the Bailiff (1954)

HMs: Nights of Cabiria, Bigger Than Life, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Baby Doll, Rio Bravo, Kiss Me Deadly, Rear Window

[Dillard]

1. Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais)
2. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
3. Ordet (Dreyer)
4. Rebel Without a Cause (N. Ray)
5. Early Summer (Ozu)
6. 12 Angry Men (Lumet)
7. Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
8. Paths of Glory (Kubrick)
9. The Night of the Hunter (Laughton)
10. Wild Strawberries – Bergman (1957)

The River would be in my top 3 if it had been eligible!

[B-side]

1. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
2. The Searchers (Ford)
3. Throne of Blood (Kurosawa)
4. Ivan the Terrible II (Eisenstein/Filimonova)
5. Rear Window (Hitchcock)
6. The Seventh Seal (Bergman)
7. Strangers on a Train (Hitchcock)
8. The Earrings of Madame de … (Ophüls)
9. Singin' in the Rain (Donen/Kelly)
10. Ordet (Dreyer)

[jamaul]

1. Rear Window (Hitchcock)
2. The Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
3. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
4. Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais)
5. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
6. The Night of the Hunter (Laughton)
7. Touch of Evil (Welles)
8. In a Lonely Place (Ray)
9. Ordet (Dreyer)
10. Pather Panchali (S. Ray)

Damn, that was difficult. My top two are a toss-up: I could basically go either way. But I'm sure Kurosawa's film is going to top this list, and if not, Vertigo will, so I'm pushing for Rear Window to at least make the top ten.

Hell of a decade. Almost as hard to narrow as the 60s.

[Ezee E]

Nice. You're already on thin ice with your last two ratings, so anything less than *** and I'm mentally neg-repping you.
I'm due for a great movie I think.

[origami_mustache]

1. The Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
2. The Cranes are Flying (Kalatozov)
3. Nights of Cabiria (Fellini)
4. A Movie (Conner)
5. The Life of Oharu (Mizoguchi)
6. The Seventh Seal (Bergman)
7. A Man Escaped (Bresson)
8. Ivan the Terrible II (Eisenstein/Filimonova)
9. Los Olvidados (Buñuel)
10. The Burmese Harp (Ichikawa)

[B-side]

Alternate:

Invitation to the Dance (Kelly, 1956)
Statues Also Die (Marker/Resnais, 1953)
Forty Guns (Fuller, 1957)
All That Heaven Allows (Sirk, 1955)
Shadows (Cassavetes, 1959)
Wedlock House: An Intercourse (Brakhage, 1959)
La Ronde (Ophüls, 1950)
The Tarnished Angels (Sirk, 1957)
There's Always Tomorrow (Sirk, 1956)
Le plaisir (Ophüls, 1952)

[dmk]

1 . Ordet (Dreyer)
2 . Sweet Smell of Success (Mackendrick)
3 . Ashes and Diamonds (Wajda)
4 . The Music Room (Ray)
5 . Pickup on South Street (Fuller)
6 . The Killing (Kubrick)
7 . Harvey (Koster)
8 . Umberto D. (De Sica)
9 . Vertigo (Hitchcock)
10 . Johnny Guitar (N. Ray)

Films Match-Cut hates (um, I mean ineligible):
1 . Kanał (Wajda)
2 . The Singing Ringing Tree (Stefani)
3 . Aparajito (Ray)
4 . Susan Slept Here (Tashlin)
5 . Pozegnania (Has)
6 . Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (Tashlin)
7 . The Girl Can't Help It (Tashlin)
8 . Them! (Douglas)
9 . Time Without Pity (Losey)
10 . The Tingler (Castle)

[Mr. Pink]

1) Touch of Evil
2) In A Lonely Place
3) The 400 Blows
4) The Seventh Seal
5) The Killing
6) Paths of Glory
7) Kiss Me Deadly
8) The Seven Samurai
9) Invasion of the Body Snatchers
10) Ikiru

[StanleyK]

1. Paths of Glory (Stanley Kubrick)
2. In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray)
3. Rabbit of Seville (Chuck Jones)
4. The Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman)
5. Sunset Blvd. (Billy Wilder)
6. The 400 Blows (François Truffaut)
7. The Wages of Fear (Henri-Georges Clouzot)
8. Duck Amuck (Chuck Jones)
9. The Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa)
10. Rear Window (Alfred Hitchcock)

Last two are basically placeholders, as I haven't seen them in years.



This is probably the last consensus I will be able to participate in. I suck at early cinema.

[B-side]

This is probably the last consensus I will be able to participate in. I suck at early cinema.

I'll be lucky if I'm able to participate in the next one.

[Eleven]

1. Tokyo Story
2. Vertigo
3. Singin' in the Rain
4. The Searchers
5. Rashômon
6. Rio Bravo
7. The Night of the Hunter
8. The Wrong Man
9. Sansho the Bailiff
10. The 400 Blows

HMs: Duck Amuck, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, A Man Escaped, Mr. Hulot’s Holiday, Pickup on South Street, Rear Window, The Seven Samurai, The Seventh Seal, Throne of Blood, Ugetsu.

Not Eligible: The Bad and the Beautiful, Bob le Flambeur, Bonjour Tristesse, Casque d'Or, Feed the Kitty, French Cancan, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, The Steel Helmet, Voyage in Italy, Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?


These are only getting harder.

[Russ]

1. The Night of the Hunter (Laughton)
2. Umberto D. (De Sica)
3. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
4. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
5. Sunset Boulevard (Wilder)
6. Rear Window (Hitchcock)
7. The Searchers (Ford)
8. The Wages of Fear (Clouzot)
9. Pather Panchali (S. Ray)
10. Ordet (Dreyer)

[dreamdead]

1. Ordet (Dreyer)
2. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
3. Ikiru (Kurosawa)
4. In a Lonely Place (Ray)
5. Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais)
6. The Wages of Fear (Clouzot)
7. A Man Escaped (Bresson)
8. Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
9. Duck Amuck (Jones)
10. Sunset Boulevard (Wilder)

[MadMan]

I will be able to vote until the 1930s consensus, I think. But that won't stop me, really.

1. The Seventh Seal (1957)
2. Touch of Evil (1958)
3. Rear Window (1954)
4. All About Eve (1950)
5. Vertigo (1958)
6. In a Lonely Place (1950)
7. Seven Samurai (1954)
8. The Searchers (1956)
9. Sleeping Beauty (1950)
10. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

This consensus reminded me that the 1950s were also full of great westerns, too. Its also the first list since the 2000s to feature an animated film, and its sadly the one with the most foreign movies on it. I have much to see still from this decade, but the same goes for all the other ones.

[Ivan Drago]

1. Ikiru
2. Sunset Boulevard
3. On The Waterfront
4. Kiss Me Deadly
5. Throne of Blood
6. Wild Strawberries
7. The Searchers
8. Rashomon
9. Singin' In The Rain
10. Vertigo

[Boner M]

1. Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi)
2. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
3. The Night of the Hunter (Laughton)
4. The 400 Blows (Truffaut)
5. Ordet (Dreyer)
6. Les Diaboliques (Clouzot)
7. Bigger than Life (N. Ray)
8. The Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
9. A Man Escaped (Bresson)
10. In a Lonely Place (Ray)

[Dillard]

5. Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais)

Yay! Another vote! Not much love for this one around these parts?

Edit: Just kidding, Jamaul also voted for it. And more votes to come possibly.

[Lazlo]

1. Rear Window
2. The Searchers
3. The Bridge on the River Kwai
4. Sunset Boulevard
5. On the Waterfront
6. Paths of Glory
7. The Seven Samurai
8. Singin' in the Rain
9. The Killing
10. The Night of the Hunter

[Chac Mool]

Pretty poor list in terms of what I've seen -- there seems to be a hole labeled "50s cinema" in my life -- but here goes:

01. The Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
02. Rear Window (Hitchcock)
03. The Bridge on the River Kwai (Lean)
04. Rashômon (Kurosawa)
05. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
06. 12 Angry Men (Lumet)
07. The Seventh Seal (Bergman)
08. Sunset Boulevard (Wilder)
09. North By Northwest (Hitchcock)
10. Touch of Evil (Welles)

[Bosco B Thug]

Lots and lots of blind spots...

1. Vertigo
2. Hiroshima mon amour
3. Baby Doll
4. In a Lonely Place
5. The Wages of Fear
6. The 400 Blows
7. Nights of Cabiria
8. Johnny Guitar
9. North By Northwest
10. A Streetcar Named Desire

[Grouchy]

1. Vertigo
2. Rio Bravo
3. Throne of Blood
4. Touch of Evil
5. Sunset Blvd.
6. Hiroshima Mon Amour
7. In a Lonely Place
8. Los Olvidados
9. The Searchers
10. Ugetsu

[ledfloyd]

Rio Bravo
Some Like it Hot
Sunset Boulevard
Hiroshima mon amour
Rear Window
Touch of Evil
Baby Doll
Imitation of Life
Strangers on a Train
In a Lonely Place

[endingcredits]

1. Ordet (Dreyer)
2. Diary of a Country Priest (Bresson)
3. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
4. Man Escaped (Bresson)
5. Ivan the Terrible II (Eisenstein/Filimonova)
6. The Seventh Seal (Bergman)
7. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
8. Sunset Boulevard (Wilder)
9. Touch of Evil (Welles)
10. Pickpocket (Bresson)

I like Bresson.

[baby doll]

Films Match-Cut hates (um, I mean ineligible):
4 . Susan Slept Here (Tashlin)
6 . Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (Tashlin)
7 . The Girl Can't Help It (Tashlin)I saw Susan Slept Here on TCM last night, and I gotta say, I found it pretty insipid--more interesting for what it reveals about 1950s America than as a movie. (The thrust of the film is that a man needs to be a husband, and a 17-year-old girl needs a middle-aged sugar daddy to keep her out of trouble and buy her expensive clothes.) I suppose it's watchable enough as long as the two leads are onscreen together, but then the plot keeps them apart for most of the film's second half. And the fantasy musical sequence isn't funny enough to work as a parody, nor it is very accomplished as a dance sequence in its own right.

[dmk]

I saw Susan Slept Here on TCM last night, and I gotta say, I found it pretty insipid--more interesting for what it reveals about 1950s America than as a movie. (The thrust of the film is that a man needs to be a husband, and a 17-year-old girl needs a middle-aged sugar daddy to keep her out of trouble and buy her expensive clothes.) I suppose it's watchable enough as long as the two leads are onscreen together, but then the plot keeps them apart for most of the film's second half. And the fantasy musical sequence isn't funny enough to work as a parody, nor it is very accomplished as a dance sequence in its own right.
Was this your first Tashlin? Cos it’s just about the epitome of why the guy is so good. I was already a fan before I saw the film, so perhaps I had already “acquired a taste” for his impertinent satire, but it must suck to not find the devastatingly witty and charismatic Debbie Reynolds adequate enough. The dream sequence seeps with virginal sexual yearning, and for all its vulgarity I find it mostly sweet, if not particularly hilarious (as opposed to the rest of the film, which was). It’s to the greatness of the whole thing that a film about an under-aged delinquent who is charmed by a middle-aged bachelor and then subsequently married and abandoned and left yearning for his cock got made at all. “Good additional dialogue, huh?"

[baby doll]

Was this your first Tashlin? Cos it’s just about the epitome of why the guy is so good. I was already a fan before I saw the film, so perhaps I had already “acquired a taste” for his impertinent satire, but it must suck to not find the devastatingly witty and charismatic Debbie Reynolds adequate enough. The dream sequence seeps with virginal sexual yearning, and for all its vulgarity I find it mostly sweet, if not particularly hilarious (as opposed to the rest of the film, which was). It’s to the greatness of the whole thing that a film about an under-aged delinquent who is charmed by a middle-aged bachelor and then subsequently married and abandoned and left yearning for his cock got made at all. “Good additional dialogue, huh?"It was my sixth Tashlin, and based on what I've seen, if I were to pick the epitome of why he's so good, I'd go with either Artists and Models or Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?--in part because the impertinent satire in those films is more integral to their stories, whereas here one gets the feeling that Tashlin is doodling in the margins of an otherwise impersonal script. Of course, Tashlin generally does his best work in the margins rather than the story proper (for instance, the pre-credit sequence in the otherwise mediocre The Girl Can't Help It), which might help to explain why the quality of his work seems to vary so wildly from one film to the next, depending on whether he's working with a star who can carry the project on their charm (Tony Randall in Rock Hunter; Jerry Lewis, Shirley MacLaine, and Dean Martin in Artists and Models).

Furthermore, I don't think this is the daring political statement you make out to be, since the suggestion is that, without any parents around, a 17-year-old girl will invariably get into trouble (in this case, hitting a sailor on the head with a beer bottle), and what makes this film so creepy, at least for a contemporary audience, is that the older man is both a father to her (providing a roof over her head and keeping her out of jail) and a husband (buying her expensive clothes so she can look pretty, and in the final sequence, making a woman out of her). It's actually quite conservative in terms of gender roles, and the treatment of Reynolds' sexuality strikes me as more nervous than brazenly in your face, reflecting a certain patriarchal anxiety about teenage sexuality that's brushed aside completely once they get married.

All of this would've been fine of course had the film been funnier. The one gag which made me laugh was when the hero is lip-syncing to the additional dialogue in the movie, but as I said, one gets the feeling that Tashlin is just doodling in the margins. The problem is, even though one can easily imagine a marriage between a teenager and a middle-aged man leading to all sorts of comic situations (see Whatever Works), here the movie keeps them apart after their marriage in order to delay his making a woman of her.

[dmk]

Well, I wouldn’t exactly say it’s making any daring political statements. I would say the sexual overtones between an under-aged girl and a middle-aged man made lucid via recurrent persistent visual and aural gags do lean beyond an irreverence deemed acceptable in this modern era – or as you say, some may find the subject-matter creepy. Except you’d have to be an exceedingly thin-skinned dumbshit to find this execution so. It’s another thing if you find it funny or not and arguing that you’re wrong for not finding it funny (and visa versa) would be nearing fascistic, but I do find it funny; extremely so. And it’s probably a virtue that the film keeps them apart in the final 40 minutes, at least to contest to the predictability of what would be a generic principle- at the beginning of the film the Oscar statuette narrates, “Ever since he won me, he’d been stuck in a rut, writing the same kind of movie - light frothy comedies”, and in that sense abandoning the girl disconnects him what would be a conventional second act. Where could the film go after they got married? Turn into an odd-couple farce or hell that frothy romantic comedy he’s been trying to elude? I haven’t seen Whatever Works, but I can envisage the kind of unsurprising, infertile twaddle Woody Allen would take this material to, and that shit makes me sad.

I haven't seen Artists and Models since I was a kid, so I should probably get on with that, and Rock Hunter! probably is the most comprehensively Tashlinesque, but my point was that everything there’s to love about Tashlin in his other films are evident in Susan Slept Here – in essence or jam.

edit- “Tashlinesque” in the sense that it’s just as personal a film as any other.

[B-side]

I rather enjoyed it. And I don't think the film is reinforcing conservative gender roles. In fact, I'd say it's commenting on the fact that everyone seems so eager to jump into a "secure" role.

See: the marriage Mark was about to enter into with Isabella, Susan's anxiousness to be an adult and a housewife, Maude's desire for the same, Virgil's going back to the Navy, etc. I found her desire to consummate the marriage to be a sign of her desire to become an adult, as well as a ploy to keep Mark as a husband, and not only due to the consummation, but because she was hoping, perhaps naively so, that he'd enjoy the sex enough to stay with her. And I certainly don't think the film was saying a 17 year old will invariably get into trouble without a parent around. The film never made a connection between her parents' absence and her getting into trouble. For all we know, the guy really did deserve it. Additionally, I don't think everything is wrapped up as perfectly as you seem to think. Notice that their little happily ever after took place in the cage from her dream, which if you recall saw him leaving her for Isabella.

[Stay Puft]

1. Throne of Blood (Kurosawa)
2. Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
3. The Wages of Fear (Clouzot)
4. Nights of Cabiria (Fellini)
5. Gojira (Honda)
6. Night and Fog (Resnais)
7. The Life of Oharu (Mizoguchi)
8. Les Diaboliques (Clouzot)
9. Rashômon (Kurosawa)
10. In a Lonely Place (Ray)

[Spinal]

Busy times. This might need to wait until the weekend. Unless someone else would like to tally.

[Raiders]

Busy times. This might need to wait until the weekend. Unless someone else would like to tally.

I'll do it. I need you to PM me anyone's list not posted.

[Dukefrukem]

1. Rear Window
2. The Seven Samurai
3. 12 Angry Men
4. The Bridge on the River Kwai
5. Some Like It Hot
6. The Killing
7. Vertigo
8. Nights of Cabiria
9. Singin' in the Rain
10. North By Northwest

[Spinal]

I'll do it. I need you to PM me anyone's list not posted.

Done. Many thanks.

[MacGuffin]

1. The Night of the Hunter (Laughton)
2. Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
3. Touch of Evil (Welles)
4. In a Lonely Place (Ray)
5. Rear Window (Hitchcock)
6. Strangers on a Train (Hitchcock)
7. Ace in the Hole (Wilder)
8. On the Waterfront (Kazan)
9. The Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
10. Night and Fog (Resnais)

I hope I can still throw in my ballot! I'm instinctively putting The Night of the Hunter at number one even though I've only seen it once. I popped in the new Blu-ray shortly after picking it up and watched it a bit and it's really just as magical as I recall. The same can be said for In a Lonely Place over Rear Window; I think I'd just like it a tad more than the Hitchcock movie if I were to see it again.

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/pathsofglory.jpg

1957
Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Wikipedia says:
David Simon, creator of critically acclaimed series The Wire, has said that Paths Of Glory was a key influence on the HBO crime drama. The influence of the film comes in its depiction of the tribulations of "middle management," in the form of Dax's unsuccessful attempt to protect his troops against the inhumane ambitions of his superiors, which in turn influenced The Wire's depiction of various institutions acting against individuals.

Match-Cut says:
Kubrick gets accused frequently of being cold and pessimistic, but you just have to go back to Paths of Glory to see what he was up to; this is the first instance in which he introduces the concept of dehumanization through General Mireau, who talks about numbers of acceptable casualties and percentages to be executed to set an example- essentially, he sees the soldiers as figures, not individuals. This idea would come up several times later in Kubrick's work, with the protagonist usually falling victim to it. In this case, Colonel Dax is actively against it, and so we have his most transparently humane work, a great indictment of higher-ups breaking down and using 'lesser' men for their own indulgent purposes (not an exclusively anti-war film, Paths of Glory also asks some tough questions about religion and government), all this in a very concise running time that packs more than one emotionally draining moments.

Also, best ending to a movie ever? Possibly.
-StanleyK

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/ugetsu.jpg

1953
Directed by Kenji Mizoguchi

Wikipedia says:
Ugetsu won the Silver Lion Award for Best Direction at the Venice Film festival in 1953. The film appeared in Sight & Sound magazine's top ten critics poll of the greatest movies ever made, which is held once every decade, in 1962 and 1972. In 2000, The Village Voice newspaper ranked Ugetsu at #29 on their list of the 100 best films of the 20th century.

Match-Cut says:
I can't stop thinking about Ugetsu! Raiders might be right. [Editor's note: Naturally.] Just an absolutely incredible movie. Wow.
-MacGuffin

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/nightsofcabiria.jpg

1957
Directed by Federico Fellini

Wikipedia says:
At the time of the film's first release, New York Times critic Bosley Crowther gave the film a mixed review: "Like La strada and several other of the post-war Italian neo-realistic films, this one is aimed more surely toward the development of a theme than a plot. Its interest is not so much the conflicts that occur in the life of the heroine as the deep, underlying implications of human pathos that the pattern of her life shows...But there are two weaknesses in Cabiria. It has a sordid atmosphere and there is something elusive and insufficient about the character of the heroine. Her get-up is weird and illogical for the milieu in which she lives and her farcical mannerisms clash with the ugly realism of the theme."

Forty years later, the Times carried a new review by Crowther's successor, Janet Maslin. She called the film "a cinematic masterpiece", and added that the final shot of Cabiria is worth more than "all the fire-breathing blockbusters Hollywood has to offer."

Match-Cut says:
Nothing. So disappointing.

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/hiroshimamonamour.jpg

1959
Directed by Alain Resnais

Wikipedia says:
In Japan Journals: 1947-2004, film historian Donald Richie tells in an entry for 25 January 1960 of seeing the film in Tokyo and remarks on various distracting (for the Japanese) cultural errors which Resnais made. He notes, for example, that the Japanese-language arrival and departure time announcements in the train scenes bear no relation to the time of day in which the scenes are set. Also, people pass through noren curtains into shops which are supposedly closed. The noren is a traditional sign that a shop is open for business and is invariably taken down at closing time.

Match-Cut says:
I'm kind of having trouble grasping the main pursuits/concerns of the film... I don't want to label it as esoteric, but it was a bit baffling at times. Is it interested in the suffocating, threatening possibility of forgetting those moments that, at one time or another, mean so much to us? The fear of forgetting? Is Resnais imploring his audience to not forget about Hiroshima, by using this girl's painful struggle with the prospect of forgetting her moments with her German lover? Hiroshima and this German, both portrayed as these emblems of innocence, perhaps, and both destroyed by the violence of man ... and then swept up by the fact of transience and buried underneath the relentless movement of time. The transient quality of memories and moments as contained within a world swept up in chaos and violence?
-Amnesiac

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/amanescaped.jpg

1956
Directed by Robert Bresson

Wikipedia says:
The full translation of the title into English is A Man Escaped or: The Wind Bloweth Where It Listeth. The second part of the title comes from the Bible, John 3:8, and in English it is worded this way only in the Authorized King James version (more recent translations using words like "wants" (which is the title in French) or "pleases" instead of "listeth"). Bresson, like Devigny and the character Fontaine, was imprisoned by Nazis as a member of the French Resistance.

Hey Barty:
The soundtrack uses Mozart's Great Mass in C minor, K. 427.

Match-Cut says:
A Man Escaped is an amazing and compelling film that contains very little dialog and nothing beyond the means of a non-actor in the way of performance. Why don't first time directors make films like A Man Escaped? Such a film could be made for very little money with non-actors and only basic camera and editing skills. All of the filmmaker's energy can be focused on imagination and telling a good story -- as it should be.
-balmakboor

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/12angrymen.jpg

1957
Directed by Sidney Lumet

Wikipedia says:
At the beginning of the film, the cameras are positioned above eye level and mounted with wide-angle lenses to give the appearance of greater depth between subjects, but as the film progresses the focal length of the lenses is gradually increased. By the end of the film, nearly everyone is shown in closeup using telephoto lenses from a lower angle, which decreases or "shortens" depth of field. Lumet, who began his career as a director of photography, stated that his intention in using these techniques with cinematographer Boris Kaufman was to create a nearly palpable claustrophobia.

Match-Cut says:
I thought it required a lot more ambiguity. The case was just too simple, and all the non-Ford characters were just too stupid, for the film to really make any meaningful points about the justice system. And Fonda's schtick was kind of irritating.
-Melville

Finally saw 12 Angry Men and it certainly deserves its reputation.

Magnificent acting, direction, visual style.

Incredible film.
-megladon8

[Mysterious Dude]

Match-Cut says:
Nothing. So disappointing.
You're not even trying!


Nights of Cabiria is even better than Planet Terror. Yes it is! It's definitely my favorite Fellini.

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/ikiru.jpg

1952
Directed by Akira Kurosawa

Wikipedia says:
Ikiru ranks 459th on Empire magazine's 2008 list of the 500 greatest movies of all time.

Ranked #44 in Empire magazines "The 100 Best Films Of World Cinema" in 2010.

Roger Ebert included it in his Great Movies reviews in 1996 saying "Over the years I have seen Ikiru every five years or so, and each time it has moved me, and made me think. And the older I get, the less Watanabe seems like a pathetic old man, and the more he seems like every one of us." In his Great Movies review of Seven Samurai Ebert called it Kurosawa's greatest film.

Match-Cut says:
My wife & I watched Ikiru last night. Can't recall enjoying a Kurosawa film more than I've enjoyed this one, and my respect for Takashi Shimura has gone to a whole new level. Simply an amazing film.
-bac0n

Unfortunately, it seems all that great discussion about the second act shift was at the old site. Good times.

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/thesearchers.jpg

1956
Directed by John Ford

Wikipedia says:
Several film critics have suggested that The Searchers was inspired by the 1836 kidnapping of nine-year-old Cynthia Ann parker by Comanche warriors who raided her family's home at Fort Parker, Texas. She spent twenty-four years with the Comanches, married a war chief, and had three children, only to be rescued against her will by the Texas Rangers. James W. Parker, Cynthia Ann's uncle, spent much of his life and fortune in what became an obsessive search for his niece, like Ethan Edwards in the film. In addition, the rescue of Cynthia Ann, during a Texas Ranger attack known as the Battle of Pease River, resembles the rescue of Debbie Edwards when the Texas Rangers attack Scar's village. Parker's story was only one of 64 real-life cases of 19th-century child abductions in Texas that author Alan Le May studied while researching the novel on which the film was based. Moreover, his surviving research notes indicate that the two characters who go in search of a missing girl were inspired by Brit Johnson, an African-American teamster who ransomed his captured wife and children from the Comanches in 1865.Afterward, he made at least three trips to Indian Territory and Kansas relentlessly searching for another kidnapped girl, Millie Durgan (or Durkin), until Kiowa raiders killed him in 1871.

Match-Cut says:
As for The Searchers, I think its a great film because it does touch on and discuss racism as filtered through the Indian hating Ethan Edwards in what is John Wayne's best performance onscreen. Well that and the fact that the film is incredibly well shot, well acted and well made of course. The film's most powerful and chilling moment is when Edwards sees the white girls who act like Indians, turning towards them with a glance that is icy cold hate in its most basic and harshest form. That shot is simply brilliant.
-MadMan

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/the400blows.jpg

1959
Directed by Francois Truffaut

Wikipedia says:
The English title is a straight translation of the French but misses its meaning, as the French title refers to the expression "faire les quatre cents coups", which means "to raise hell". On the first American prints, subtitler and dubber Noelle Gilmore gave the film the title Wild Oats, but the distributor did not like that title and reverted it to The 400 Blows, which led some to think the film covered the topic of corporal punishment.

Match-Cut says:
Watched The 400 Blows. I was only mildly impressed by the film at first, but by the end it won me over due to Truffaut nailing its most important moments: the moments between Antoine and his parents (i.e. the slap, the weird moments when the mother is trying to be caring), the moments of Antoine at his most vacated (i.e. everything at the detention center, esp. the psychologist scene), and the inspired last scene.
-Bosco B Thug

I only need ONE worst movie with "artistic ambitions"*....The 400 Blows.

Went there.
- The Mike

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/tokyostory.jpg

1953
Directed by Yasujiro Ozu

Wikipedia says:
In Sight and Sound magazine's polls of directors and critics, Tokyo Story appeared twice among the greatest films ever made (it was 3rd in 1992 on the critics' poll and it tied at number 16 with Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho and Andrei Tarkovsky's The Mirror in 2002 on the directors' poll). It holds a 100% "Fresh" rating on the review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 34 critical reviews, with also the highest average critical score on the website at 9.6/10. John Walker, former editor of the Halliwell's Film Guides, places Tokyo Story at the top of his published list of the best 1000 films ever made. Tokyo Story is also included in film critic Derek Malcolm's The Century of Films, a list of films which he deems artistically or culturally important, and Time Magazine lists it among their All-Time 100 Movies. It was ranked #16 in Empire magazine's "The 100 Best Films Of World Cinema" in 2010.

Match-Cut says:
Tokyo Story was even more than I thought it would be. I'm sure everything I could say about it has been said before and better, but I was astonished at how accomplished, simple, and sympathetic it was.

Wow.
-Sycophant

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/throneofblood.jpg

1957
Directed by Akira Kurosawa

Wikipedia says:
Washizu's famous death scene, in which his own archers turn upon him and fill his body with arrows, was in fact performed with real arrows, a choice made to help Mifune produce realistic facial expressions of fear. The arrows seen to impact the wooden walls were not superimposed or faked by special effects, but instead shot by choreographed archers. During filming, Mifune waved his arms, ostensibly because his character was trying to brush away the arrows embedded in the planks; this indicated to the archers the direction in which Mifune wanted to move.

Match-Cut says:
Sat my dad down to watch Throne of Blood. I love the film, but this viewing reminded me that Kurosawa occasionally bludgeons a point, here when the two men are riding back and forth in the fog in the beginning about twenty times; and in Seven Samurai when drunk Mifune is hilariously staggering about while the men laugh at him, again almost ad nauseum.
-Wyan

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/thenightofthehunter.jpg

1955
Directed by Charles Laughton

Wikipedia says:
The Night of the Hunter was not a success with either audiences or critics at its initial release, and Laughton never directed another film.

The movie was filmed in black and white in the styles and motifs of German Expressionism (bizarre shadows, stylized dialogue, distorted perspectives, surreal sets, odd camera angles) to create a simplified and disturbing mood that reflects the sinister character of Powell, the nightmarish fears of the children, and the sweetness of their savior Rachel.

Match-Cut says:
A rewatch of Laughton's Night of the Hunter helped turn my ambivalence around on the film. Although the child actors for John and Ruby frequently grate and cannot adopt what we would call naturalistic acting, nor, for that matter, does Mitchum but his is a successfully stylized portrait of evil, the film nonetheless is anchored by a childlike simplicity of good and vice, one which Laughton builds out in the orchestrated stylistics of the filmmaking. One danger I noticed this time is that all of the women, save for Mrs. Hooper, are preternaturally weak-minded and given to falling for evil's designs. That kind of Biblical imagery might actually fit here, but it's still problematic and unable to suggest any positive sexual feminine energy.
-dreamdead

[Spinal]

Pretty great so far.

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/theseventhseal.jpg

1957
Directed by Ingmar Bergman

Wikipedia says:
Bergman originally wrote the play Trämålning (Wood Painting) in 1953/1954 for the acting students of Malmö City Theatre. The first time it was performed in public was in radio in 1954, directed by Bergman. He also directed it on stage in Malmö the next spring, and in the autumn it was staged in Stockholm, directed by Bengt Ekerot who would later play the character Death in the film version.

In his autobiography, The Magic Lantern, Bergman wrote that "Wood Painting gradually became The Seventh Seal, an uneven film which lies close to my heart, because it was made under difficult circumstances in a surge of vitality and delight." The script for the Seventh Seal was commenced while Bergman was in the Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm recovering from a stomach complaint. It was at first rejected and Bergman was given the go-ahead for the project from Carl-Anders Dymling at Svensk Filmindustri only after the success at Cannes of Smiles of a Summer Night Bergman rewrote the script five times and was given a schedule of only thirty-five days and a budget of $150,000. It was to be the seventeenth film he had directed.

Match-Cut says:
The Seventh Seal is really good (the climactic scene with Death being incredibly so), but it often feels deflated due to how accessible it feels, with conventional-feeling narrative beats, an unraveling journey and series of events, a big and flashy set piece involving a parade of flagellants, a motley crew of characters we're encouraged to like that don't break into performative-mode, and a casual helping of affable comedy relief.
-Bosco B Thug

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/sunsetboulevard.jpg

1950
Directed by Billy Wilder

Wikipedia says:
In Hollywood, Paramount arranged a private screening for the various studio heads and specially invited guests. After viewing the film, Barbara Stanwyck bowed to kiss the hem of Gloria Swanson's skirt. Swanson later remembered looking for Mary Pickford, only to be told, "She can't show herself, Gloria. She's too overcome. We all are." Louis B. Mayer berated Wilder before the crowd of celebrities, saying, "You have disgraced the industry that made and fed you! You should be tarred and feathered and run out of Hollywood!" Actress Mae Murray, a contemporary of Swanson's, was offended by the film and commented, "None of us floozies was that nuts."

Match-Cut says:
The outcome of the movie represents how movies came to be today. The only real problem comes with the hypothetical symbolic roles of the two leads, which both would be switched around by today's standards. Gillis' death in the pool represents the death of a more mainstream cinema, which of course, today these motion pictures are the core of what is released every Friday in America. Desmond represents the cinema that is devoted to being artful and devoted to art. She murders Gillis, and like that, murders mainstream cinema.

But perhaps Wilder's false symbolic characterizations are a part of what makes the movie so brilliant, and so historical. The movie evokes a time where cinema was an art. Even though less thoughtful movies were beginning to be produced, there was still a great need for atmospheric cinema or cinema that could appeal to the senses. Sunset Boulevard is truly a classic because it does all this, and in doing so, it represents what Hollywood movies used to be. While the mainstream side of the streets of Hollywood is taking over what little is left of the artifacts of its past, we'll always have Sunset Boulevard to remind us of what once was.
-MacGuffin

[Idioteque Stalker]

Japan own the 50s. Undoubtedly more to come as well. Cool list so far.

FYI, that shot your have for Hiroshima is actually from Woman In the Dunes.

[Bosco B Thug]

Bergman wrote that "Wood Painting gradually became The Seventh Seal, an uneven film

Match-Cut says:
The Seventh Seal is really good (the climactic scene with Death being incredibly so), but it often feels deflated due to how accessible it feels, with conventional-feeling narrative beats, an unraveling journey and series of events, a big and flashy set piece involving a parade of flagellants, a motley crew of characters we're encouraged to like that don't break into performative-mode, and a casual helping of affable comedy relief.
-Bosco B Thug Aha. Truths.

[Raiders]

Japan own the 50s. Undoubtedly more to come as well. Cool list so far.

FYI, that shot your have for Hiroshima is actually from Woman In the Dunes.

I thought it looked wrong, but the damn thing was tagged for Resnais' film. Oh well, I'm not changing it at this point.

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/ordet.jpg

1955
Directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer

Wikipedia says:
Kaj Munk's play I Begyndelsen var Ordet (In the Beginning was the Word) was written in 1925 and premiered in Copenhagen in 1932. Already the year before, however, Munk had himself finished a script for a film version, which he unsuccessfully tried to sell to the production company Nordisk Film. In 1943 a Swedish film version was made, directed by Gustaf Molander, which couldn't premiere in Denmark until after the war.

For Dreyer's adaption, only one third of the original dialogue was used. Another difference is the play's possibility of Inger just appearing to be dead, while the film is very clear about the resurrection being a genuine miracle. The film was shot at the village Vedersø, where Munk had worked as a priest.

Match-Cut says:
There are several instances throughout Ordet Johannes is portrayed as mad, and the film documents his family as they critique his madness. I thought the film paid attention to several levels of faith, sects, and secularism, which allows it to resonate all the more since it is so thorough before it finally commits to the act of a miracle. And forgoing the obvious concern over whether a miracle should be praised or not, I felt the moment was fully earned, and suggested not just blind innocence but quiet trust.
-dreamdead

Yeah, the ending of Ordet is probably the most moving thing I've ever seen on film.
-Melville

[MacGuffin]

I'm glad to see that The Night of the Hunter was able to grab a spot in the top ten.

[Spinal]

Ordet probably ranks right now as the film I'm most ashamed not to have seen.

[DavidSeven]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/nightsofcabiria.jpg

1957
Directed by Federico Fellini

Match-Cut says:
Nothing. So disappointing.

I've said things at other forums we were at. Those things were negative.

[Derek]

Ordet probably ranks right now as the film I'm most ashamed not to have seen.

Have you seen Gertrude? I could see you loving or hating* either of those.

*Or meh-ing or liking

[Derek]

I've said things at other forums we were at. Those things were negative.

See, some good things came from the other forums disappearing forever.

[DavidSeven]

[Re: Ikiru]

it seems all that great discussion about the second act shift was at the old site. Good times.

Indeed. Unfortunate when something so good ends up going so horribly wrong.

[DavidSeven]

Liking the overall list so far though. Think it's gonna end up cooler than the 60's. The banners are great, too.

[Spinal]

Have you seen Gertrude?
I have. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/search?q=gertrud)

[Derek]

I have. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/search?q=gertrud)

Ah, I remember reading that. Good stuff. You'll love Ordet then, stop waiting!

[Raiders]

http://www474.pair.com/raider83/images/misc/touchofevil.jpg

1958
Directed by Orson Welles

Wikipedia says:
There are two stories as to how Welles ended up directing Touch of Evil. Charlton Heston recalled that Welles was originally hired to act in the film only, not to direct or write. Universal was keen to secure Heston for the lead, but he wanted the studio to confirm the director before he signed on. After learning that Welles was in the cast, Heston expressed his greater interest in starring if Welles were directing. The other story is that Welles had recently worked with producer Albert Zugsmith, known as the "King of the Bs", on a film called Man in the Shadow and was interested in directing something for him. Zugsmith offered him a pile of scripts, of which Welles asked for the worst to prove he could make a great film out of a bad script. At the time, the script was called Badge of Evil, after a Whit Masterson novel on which it was based. Welles did a rewrite and took it into production. After a decade in Europe during which he completed only a few films, Welles was eager to direct for Hollywood again, so he agreed to take only an acting fee for the role of Quinlan.

Match-Cut says:
Touch of Evil was pretty good, but I really can't rank it as high as most people seem to do. Other than the spectacular opening shot, I thought it was pretty... I was going to say unremarkable, but what I'm trying to say is more "non-genius."
-Mara

[Spinal]

OK, this one kind of surprises me. I mean, it's pretty good, but #5?

[Raiders]

http://i52.tinypic.com/e13hfo.jpg

1954
Directed by Akira Kurosawa

Wikipedia says:
The film was the first 'samurai picture' Akira Kurosawa had ever directed. He had originally wanted to direct a film about a single day in the life of a samurai but discovered a story about samurai defending farmers in his research. According to actor Toshirō Mifune, the film was originally going to be called 'Six Samurai' with Mifune playing the role of Kyuzo, but during the six-week scriptwriting process Kurosawa and his screenwriters realized that "six sober samurai were a bore--they needed a character that was more off-the-wall." Kurosawa recast Mifune as Kikuchiyo and gave him creative license to improvise actions in his performance. After three months of preproduction, the film had 148 shooting days spread out over a year—four times the span covered in the original budget, which eventually came to almost half a million dollars. Toho Studios closed down production at least twice, but each time Kurosawa would calmly go fishing, reasoning that the studio had already heavily invested in the production and would have to allow him to complete the picture. The film's final battle, originally scheduled to be shot at the end of summer, was shot in February in near-freezing temperatures. Mifune would recall later that he had never been so cold in his life.

Match-Cut says:
This film rules. It's one of the greatest films ever made and I'm so glad I rewatched it. The direction, the cinematography, the pacing (those 200+ minutes fly by), but most of all... the Mifune. His performance carries this film through most of its hefty runtime and his goofy antics and barbaric expression gives a well-needed lighter tone from the central farmer tragedy. Despite Mifune's performance being the scene stealer, Kurosawa masters his perfection into giving each of the remaining six samurais a load of personality and depth so they never come off as simply background characters. For an ensemble epic, Kurosawa makes us care very deeply about every one of his samurai from the moment we meet them to the climatic stand-off at the end.
-Watashi

[DavidSeven]

but most of all... the Mifune. His performance carries this film through most of its hefty runtime and his goofy antics and barbaric expression gives a well-needed lighter tone from the central farmer tragedy. Despite Mifune's performance being the scene stealer
-Watashi

Scene stealer in the worst way. His performance is like the 50's equivalent of Bale's Batman voice -- something you just have to deal with because the movie surrounding him is too good. Everyone likes to say it was part of the era/culture, but you look at the performances in Ozu's films or even Mifune in Throne of Blood, and it's pretty clear that conscious choices are being made and that it was indeed possible to overact.

[Raiders]

http://i56.tinypic.com/91ij37.jpg

1950
Directed by Nicholas Ray

Wikipedia says:
The original ending had Dix strangling Laurel to death in the heat of their argument. Sgt. Nicolai comes to tell Dix that he has been cleared of Mildred's murder but arrests him for Laurel's. Dix tells Brub that he is finally finished with his screenplay, and the final shot was to be of a page in the typewriter which has the significant lines Dix said aloud to Laurel in the car (which he admitted to not knowing where to put) "I was born when she kissed me, I died when she left me, I lived a few weeks while she loved me." This scene was filmed halfway through the shooting schedule, but Ray hated the ending he had helped write. Ray later said, "I just couldn't believe the ending that Bundy (screenwriter Andrew Solt) and I had written. I shot it because it was my obligation to do it. Then I kicked everybody off stage except Bogart, Art Smith and Gloria. And we improvised the ending as it is now. In the original ending we had ribbons so it was all tied up into a very neat package, with Frank Lovejoy coming in and arresting him as he was writing the last lines, having killed Gloria. Huh! And I thought, shit, I can't do it, I just can't do it! Romances don't have to end that way. Marriages don't have to end that way, they don't have to end in violence. Let the audience make up its own mind what's going to happen to Bogie when he goes outside the apartment."

Match-Cut says:
In a Lonely Place is amazing. Easily the best Bogart performance and one of the most affecting classic Hollywood movies I've seen. Also, like Madman says, it reflects a year where the industry as a whole for some reason focused on itself and its own corruption.
-Grouchy

[Qrazy]

Scene stealer in the worst way. His performance is like the 50's equivalent of Bale's Batman voice -- something you just have to deal with because the movie surrounding him is too good. Everyone likes to say it was part of the era/culture, but you look at the performances in Ozu's films or even Mifune in Throne of Blood, and it's pretty clear that conscious choices are being made and that it was indeed possible to overact.

His 'overacting' fits the character's over compensating.

[DavidSeven]

His 'overacting' fits the character's over compensating.

And in Rashomon?

[Derek]

And in Rashomon?

Wasn't he a brute thief in that film?

[Derek]

But onto opinions that aren't absurd, seeing Touch of Evil and In a Lonely Place this high makes my heart skip a beat. Awesome.

[Watashi]

Scene stealer in the worst way. His performance is like the 50's equivalent of Bale's Batman voice -- something you just have to deal with because the movie surrounding him is too good. Everyone likes to say it was part of the era/culture, but you look at the performances in Ozu's films or even Mifune in Throne of Blood, and it's pretty clear that conscious choices are being made and that it was indeed possible to overact.
You're starting to turn into the Barty of movie tastes.

[Raiders]

http://i53.tinypic.com/2dhxjc0.jpg

1954
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Wikipedia says:
Hitchcock's fans and film scholars have taken particular interest in the way the relationship between Jeff and Lisa can be compared to the lives of the neighbors they are spying upon. The film invites speculation as to which of these paths Jeff and Lisa will follow. Many of these points are considered in Tania Modleski's feminist theory book, The Women Who Knew Too Much:

Thorwald and his wife are a reversal of Jeff and Lisa—Thorwald looks after his invalid wife just as Lisa looks after the invalid Jeff. Also, Thorwald's hatred of his nagging wife mirrors Jeff's arguments with Lisa.
The newlywed couple initially seem perfect for each other (they spend nearly the entire movie in their bedroom with the blinds drawn), but at the end we see their marriage deteriorate as the wife begins to nag the husband. Similarly, Jeff is afraid of being 'tied down' by marriage to Lisa.
The middle-aged couple with the dog seem content living at home. They have the kind of uneventful lifestyle that horrifies Jeff.
The Songwriter, a music composer, and Miss Lonelyhearts, a depressed spinster, lead frustrating lives, and at the end of the movie find comfort in each other: The composer's new tune draws Miss Lonelyhearts away from suicide, and the composer thus finds value in his work. There is a subtle hint in this tale that Lisa and Jeff are meant for each other, despite his stubbornness. The piece the composer creates is called "Lisa's Theme" in the credits.
Miss Torso, a beautiful dancer, initially seems to live a carefree bohemian lifestyle and often has various men over at her apartment. In the end, however, it is revealed that she has been waiting for her sweetheart, a soldier, to return. The characters themselves verbally point out a similarity between Lisa and Miss Torso (played by Georgine Darcy) — the scantily-clad ballet dancer who has all-male parties.

Match-Cut says:
It’s a film that’s ripe for all kinds of psychoanalytic readings, but the most fascinating reading for me is that Thorwald (Raymond Burr), the man who Jeff suspects of murdering his wife, is Jeff’s alter-ego. Consider the mild bickering of Jeff and his girlfriend Lisa (Grace Kelly) in the early stages of the film, and constrast it with the domestic squabbling from Thorwald's house that eventually culminate with the disappearance of his wife, and it’s easy to view Thorwald as Jeff sans the ‘crippling’, so to speak. It’s possible that Jeff’s investigation and ensuing stationary pursuit of Thorwald – that eventually leads to a devastating moment that acknowledges our complicity with Jeff’s actions – is the result of an unconscious bond shared between both men.

All this leads us to a conclusion that – in accordance with the film’s relentless self-referentiality – involves the blaring light of a camera used as a weapon. A singularly entertaining film, Rear Window at once explains why we spend so much time watching movies, while also justifying that time spent.
-Boner M.

[Watashi]

The top two are Hitchcocks then?

[DavidSeven]

Wasn't he a brute thief in that film?

So, if you play an insane character it is impossible to overact? Or, because it actually makes sense that Batman would want to disguise his voice, Christian Bale did a good job? Seriously, how about some objectivity folks.

But if you guys think that you would actually enjoy the films less if Mifune's performances were toned down, so be it. Different strokes.

[DavidSeven]

You're starting to turn into the Barty of movie tastes.

I'm not really sure how saying Mifune overacted in Seven Samurai and Rashomon necessarily equates to an absurd or crazy opinion. I get that people like the films; they're both really good. But we can call a spade a spade.

Edit: and before the Bresson fanboys get all "who gives a shit about acting" on me, I should make it clear again that I like both films very much.

[Qrazy]

I found that the flash bulb as a weapon scene detracts a little from the film with it's stupidity.

[Derek]

So, if you play an insane character it is impossible to overact? Or, because it actually makes sense that Batman would want to disguise his voice, Christian Bale did a good job? Seriously, how about some objectivity folks.

But if you guys think that you would actually enjoy the films less if Mifune's performances were toned down, so be it. Different strokes.

Actually, I don't think Bale was particularly good in either Batman films. It was the Cabiria/Mifune bash combo that did it.

I think Mifune's performance, particularly in Rashomon was deliberate, just as the one sword fight he gets in goes on for what seems forever. I think Kurosawa is deliberately presenting a heightened sense of reality, fragmented and expanded just as memory and time do to it. Been to long since I've seen Seven Samurai, so I can't really justify that one, though I do enjoy his performance there as well.


Edit: and before the Bresson fanboys get all "who gives a shit about acting" on me, I should make it clear again that I like both films very much.

I give a shit about acting, but I often think too much emphasis is put on it.

[DavidSeven]

Fair enough. I just thought it was a bit much to say a negative opinion of Mifune's performances in those films was "absurd" or "Barty-ish." But then, I failed to consider the wrath of Fellini-ites.

:)

[endingcredits]

I give a shit about acting, but I often think too much emphasis is put on it.

Amen.

[Spinal]

I'll take Strangers on a Train and The Wrong Man over Rear Window and The Film That is About to be Named.

[Raiders]

http://i53.tinypic.com/v999k.jpg

1958
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Wikipedia says:
In the 1950s, the French Cahiers du cinema critics began re-evaluating Hitchcock as a serious artist rather than just a populist showman. However, even Francois Truffaut's important 1962 interviews with Hitchcock (not published in English until 1967) mentions Vertigo only in passing. Dan Aulier has suggested that the real beginning of Vertigo's rise in adulation was the British-Canadian scholar Robin Wood's Hitchcock's Films (1968), which calls the film "Hitchcock's masterpiece to date and one of the four or five most profound and beautiful films the cinema has yet given us".

In 1996, the film was given a lengthy and controversial restoration by Robert A. Harris and James C. Katz and re-released to theaters. The new print featured restored color and newly created audio, utilizing modern sound effects mixed in DTS digital surround sound.

When such large portions of re-creation become necessary, then the danger of artistic license by the restorers becomes an issue, and the restorers received some criticism for their re-creation of colors that allegedly did not honor the director and cinematographer's intentions. The restoration team argued that they did research on the colors used in the original locations, cars, wardrobe, and skin tones. One breakthrough moment came when the Ford Motor Company supplied a well-preserved green paint sample for a car used in the film. As the use of the color green in the film has artistic importance, matching a shade of green was a stroke of luck for restoration and provided a reference shade from which to work.

Match-Cut says:
Raiders and Rowland Talk Vertigo (http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8028655)


.....


FIN.

[endingcredits]

I am ashamed to admit I've never seen Rear Window.

[Watashi]

It's one of the best movies ever made.

[DavidSeven]

Disappointing finish, but In a Lonely Place at #3 is pretty sweet.

[Raiders]

1. Vertigo
2. Rear Window
3. In a Lonely Place
4. Seven Samurai
5. Touch of Evil
6. Ordet
7. Sunset Boulevard
8. The Seventh Seal
9. The Night of the Hunter
10. Throne of Blood
11. Tokyo Story
12. The 400 Blows
13. The Searchers
14. Ikiru
15. 12 Angry Men
16. A Man Escaped
17. Hiroshima mon amour
18. Nights of Cabiria
19. Ugetsu
20. Paths of Glory

[Qrazy]

Personally I find the opposite. I find a lot of film buffs don't care very much about acting and there's nothing I like less than an otherwise solid film ruined by horrible dramatic direction (no sense of pacing, beats, etc). That said there are many different schools of acting which function differently and work in different ways to present specific worldviews... Bresson, Resnais, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Kazan, Welles, Tarr and Fellini all take extremely but equally effective approaches. Although Bresson's approach really only works about half the time.

[Watashi]

1. Vertigo ****
2. Rear Window ****
3. In a Lonely Place ***½
4. Seven Samurai ****
5. Touch of Evil ***
6. Ordet n/a
7. Sunset Boulevard ****
8. The Seventh Seal ***½
9. The Night of the Hunter ****
10. Throne of Blood ***½
11. Tokyo Story ***½
12. The 400 Blows ****
13. The Searchers ***
14. Ikiru ***
15. 12 Angry Men ****
16. A Man Escaped ***½
17. Hiroshima mon amour n/a
18. Nights of Cabiria n/a
19. Ugetsu n/a
20. Paths of Glory ****

[Irish]

A bit surprised Tokyo Story and 400 Blows are so low. Those are intimate, personal stories and have a kind of depth that's absent from some of the notable genre stuff.


Vertigo seems to be a kind of fan favorite, quintessential Hitch, but for my money Rear Window (and Psycho) are better movies. (Well, Psycho is you chop off the last 5 minutes).

Maybe I've seen it too many times, but it just seems so bland and generic compared to the other stuff in the top 20.

[Raiders]

Vertigo 144.5
Rear Window 95
In a Lonely Place 87
Seven Samurai 79.5
Touch of Evil 77.5
Ordet 74.5
Sunse Boulevard 73
The Seventh Seal 72.5
The Night of the Hunter 59
Throne of Blood 53
Tokyo Story 52.5
The 400 Blows 52
The Searchers 50.5
Ikiru 50
12 Angry Men 45
A Man Escaped 43
Hiroshima mon amour 40
Nights of Cabiria 37.5
Ugetsu 34.5
Paths of Glory 34
The Wages of Fear 33.5
Los Olvidados 32
Ivan the Terrible Part II 31
Rashomon 30
Rio Bravo 29.5
Umberto D. 26
Sansho the Bailiff 24.5
On the Waterfront 24
The Bridge on the River Kwai 22
The Killing 20
Johnny Guitar 19.5
Singin' in the Rain 17.5
Duck Amuck 17.5
Kiss Me Deadly 16.5
Some Like it Hot 16.5
Life of Oharu 15.5
The Burmese Harp 14
Diary of a Country Priest 14
Baby Doll 13.5
Strangers on a Train 13.5
All About Eve 13
The Wrong Man 12.5
Invasion of the Body Snatchers 12.5
Sleeping Beauty 12.5
Wild Strawberries 12
Diabolique 11.5
Gun Crazy 11.5
Rebel Without a Cause 11.5
The Earrings of Madame de... 10
Rififi 10
North by Northwest 9.5
Ace in the Hole 9.5
A Movie 9
Rabbit of Seville 9
Pather Panchali 8.5
The Cranes are Flying 8
Pickpocket 8
Sweet Smell of Success 8
Ashes and Diamonds 7
Bigger Than Life 7
Early Summer 7
What's Opera, Doc? 6
The Music Room 6
Night and Fog 6
M. Hulot's Holiday 5
Gojira 5
Anatomy of a Murder 5
Pickup on South Street 5
Forbidden Games 4.5
Touchez pas au Grisbi 4
The Asphalt Jungle 3.5
Harvey 3.5
Mon Oncle 3.5
Imitation of Life 3
Written on the Wind 2.5
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof 2
A Streetcar Named Desire 2

[Watashi]

Surprised that stuff like All About Eve, On the Waterfront, and Bridge Over the River Kwai didn't recieve more votes.

[Derek]

Personally I find the opposite. I find a lot of film buffs don't care very much about acting

Film buffs who watch a lot of foreign and art films perhaps, but I'd say a majority of MatchCutters care about acting and there's a wide array of film buffs here.


an otherwise solid film ruined by

Your opinions on 90% of the films you see could start with this phrase.


That said there are many different schools of acting which function differently and work in different ways to present specific worldviews... Bresson, Resnais, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Kazan, Welles, Tarr and Fellini all take extremely but equally effective approaches.

I'm completely with you here.


Although Bresson's approach really only works about half the time.

And you lost me.

[Winston*]

Only one person voted for Sweet Smell of Success? Strange.

[endingcredits]

Personally I find the opposite. I find a lot of film buffs don't care very much about acting and there's nothing I like less than an otherwise solid film ruined by horrible dramatic direction (no sense of pacing, beats, etc). That said there are many different schools of acting which function differently and work in different ways to present specific worldviews... Bresson, Resnais, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Kazan, Welles, Tarr and Fellini all take extremely but equally effective approaches. Although Bresson's approach really only works about half the time.

I semi agree with you here, despite my finding that Bresson's approach works way more often then 1/2 the time. Bad acting can kill an otherwise good film, and even really good acting can't do much for a film that's poor everywhere else. I recently watched Zulawski's A Public Woman, and remember feeling that the failure of the actors' part marred what had the promise of being a solid film.

[Melville]

This list is not in accordance with my taste.

1. Vertigo - 10
2. Rear Window - 7.5
3. In a Lonely Place - 10
4. Seven Samurai - 5.5
5. Touch of Evil - 10
6. Ordet - 10
7. Sunset Boulevard - 8.5
8. The Seventh Seal - 9.5
9. The Night of the Hunter - 6
10. Throne of Blood - 8
11. Tokyo Story - 6
12. The 400 Blows - 7
13. The Searchers - 8
14. Ikiru - 6
15. 12 Angry Men - 4
16. A Man Escaped - 8
17. Hiroshima mon amour - 5.5
18. Nights of Cabiria - 8
19. Ugetsu - 7
20. Paths of Glory - 7

[Derek]

14. Ikiru - 6

Yay for Ikiru indifference!

[endingcredits]

A bit surprised Tokyo Story and 400 Blows are so low. Those are intimate, personal stories and have a kind of depth that's absent from some of the notable genre stuff.


Vertigo seems to be a kind of fan favorite, quintessential Hitch, but for my money Rear Window (and Psycho) are better movies. (Well, Psycho is you chop off the last 5 minutes).

Maybe I've seen it too many times, but it just seems so bland and generic compared to the other stuff in the top 20.

Vertigo bland and generic? Please elaborate.

[endingcredits]

4. Seven Samurai - 5.5


-4.5 for endlessly boring? :D

[Melville]

Yay for Ikiru indifference!
I vaguely remember the thread Raiders mentioned, but I don't recall how people defended a film whose entire second half is devoted to painfully on-the-nose schmaltz. (Not that the first half suffered a shortage of schmaltz.)


Vertigo bland and generic? Please elaborate.
I foresee several pages of baffling posts.


-4.5 for endlessly boring? :D
5.5 for utter indifference.

[endingcredits]

I foresee several pages of baffling posts.

http://images.memegenerator.net/Jim-carrey/ImageMacro/2466581/oh-boy-here-we-go-again.jpg

[MacGuffin]

I wonder if Mara ever got around to seeing Touch of Evil a second time, since for me a second viewing really pushed it into transcendent greatness.

[B-side]

This list is not in accordance with my taste.

9. The Night of the Hunter - 6
11. Tokyo Story - 6
12. The 400 Blows - 7
19. Ugetsu - 7

:)

[B-side]

I wonder if Mara ever got around to seeing Touch of Evil a second time, since for me a second viewing really pushed it into transcendent greatness.

I've seen it twice and still don't think it's anything special.

[MacGuffin]

I've seen it twice and still don't think it's anything special.

Well, you're wrong, so there's that to consider. ;)

[B-side]

Well, you're wrong, so there's that to consider. ;)

You rascal, you.

[Qrazy]

Only one person voted for Sweet Smell of Success? Strange.

If I had voted I would have voted for it.

[Qrazy]

I semi agree with you here, despite my finding that Bresson's approach works way more often then 1/2 the time. Bad acting can kill an otherwise good film, and even really good acting can't do much for a film that's poor everywhere else. I recently watched Zulawski's A Public Woman, and remember feeling that the failure of the actors' part marred what had the promise of being a solid film.

Yeah for instance something like Mikey and Nicky. The drama in that film makes the film.

[Irish]

If I had voted I would have voted for it.

Me too. It's a hell of a film.

[Qrazy]

5.5 for utter indifference.

What are all the Kurosawa's you've seen again? I'm sure we can find one that will kindle your affections.

[Irish]

Vertigo bland and generic? Please elaborate.

There's better movies in this decade about obsession, romance, misplaced affection, murder, and, well, Stewart playing his nutjob best. There's also better personal stories, and I'd pretty much take any movie in the top 20 (some of which I have not seen) over Vertigo for a number on best-of-decade.

I think it's artificial and there's something about it that's emotionally cold and flat. The last sorts of thing you'd want in a movie about this subject matter.

Whatever else its merits, it's a movie built around a weak foundation, a ridiculous premise that plays out in a ridiculous way. Each time I see it, it gets harder to believe.

[Bosco B Thug]

1. Vertigo - 9
2. Rear Window - 8.5
3. In a Lonely Place - 9
4. Seven Samurai - n/a
5. Touch of Evil - N2R / 8.5?
6. Ordet - n/a
7. Sunset Boulevard - N2R / 8.5
8. The Seventh Seal - 8
9. The Night of the Hunter - N2R / 7.5?
10. Throne of Blood - N2R
11. Tokyo Story - N2R / 8?
12. The 400 Blows - N2R / 8.5
13. The Searchers - N2R / 8
14. Ikiru - N2R / 8?
15. 12 Angry Men - n/a
16. A Man Escaped - n/a
17. Hiroshima mon amour - 9
18. Nights of Cabiria - N2R / 8.5
19. Ugetsu - n/a
20. Paths of Glory - N2R / 8.5

Good list... I think...

[soitgoes...]

1. Vertigo ***½
2. Rear Window ****
3. In a Lonely Place ***
4. Seven Samurai ****
5. Touch of Evil ***½
6. Ordet ***½
7. Sunset Boulevard ***½
8. The Seventh Seal ***½
9. The Night of the Hunter ***½
10. Throne of Blood ***½
11. Tokyo Story ****
12. The 400 Blows ***
13. The Searchers ***½
15. 12 Angry Men ****
16. A Man Escaped ****
17. Hiroshima mon amour ***
18. Nights of Cabiria ***½
19. Ugetsu ***½
20. Paths of Glory ****

A lot of great stuff here so I can't be too unhappy. I would have loved for Tokyo Story and Ikiru to be higher. The Burmese Harp left far out of the running saddens me. Also is it wrong of me to claim the wrong Bergman film is represented? A great film, but maybe overrated? I'm sure more of that is due to The Seventh Seal being some sort of entry point into Bergman's canon or something (nearly everyone sees it when diving into old foreign films for the first time).

[Melville]

What are all the Kurosawa's you've seen again? I'm sure we can find one that will kindle your affections.
Stray Dog, Rashomon, Ikiru, Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood, Yojimbo, High and Low, Dersu Uzala, and Ran. Throne of Blood is my favorite of the bunch, though I also liked Stray Dog a lot (mostly for the ending, with the writhing and screaming at the unendurable beauty of the world). The others I'm mostly indifferent to.

[Qrazy]

Stray Dog, Rashomon, Ikiru, Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood, Yojimbo, High and Low, Dersu Uzala, and Ran. Throne of Blood is my favorite of the bunch, though I also liked Stray Dog a lot (mostly for the ending, with the writhing and screaming at the unendurable beauty of the world). The others I'm mostly indifferent to.

You should give Dodeska'den and Red Beard a shot. Throne of Blood is also my favorite. I"m also quite keen on The Lower Depths although many people view it as a lesser Kurosawa. I think it's very well done. Drunken Angel has a lot in common with Stray Dog also, I personally prefer Angel.

[soitgoes...]

You should give Dodeska'den and Red Beard a shot. Throne of Blood is also my favorite. I"m also quite keen on The Lower Depths although many people view it as a lesser Kurosawa. I think it's very well done. Drunken Angel has a lot in common with Stray Dog also, I personally prefer Angel.No Regrets for Our Youth! Madadayo! And yes, Red Beard! Humanism FTW! I would hold off on Dodesukaden. It fits the humanism mold of the other three, but is somewhat atypical of Kurosawa. I guess if one isn't a fan of Kurosawa though, atypical might be the road to go down.

[DavidSeven]

Whatever else its merits, it's a movie built around a weak foundation, a ridiculous premise that plays out in a ridiculous way. Each time I see it, it gets harder to believe.

Yeah, the plot of Vertigo is so utterly ludicrous that it threatens to overshadow some otherwise great cinematic work. [/Qrazy]. Still, that scene with the reveal, the neon glow and what not -- that's some good shit right there.

[Irish]

Still, that scene with the reveal, the neon glow and what not -- that's some good shit right there.

At the risk of being contentious --- maaaaan, I just watched this again and I like it even less now.

The reveal you're talking about is one of Hitchcock's major weaknesses. That is, he sucks at subtlety. He's great with story beats and plotting, but he's terrible at most other things. Everything in Vertigo just isn't telegraphed to the audience, it's repeatedly shoved in their face and shouted at them.

A lot of the stuff he employs in the editing and compositions here is obvious and overdone. Since the actors aren't allowed to perform for the first 90 minutes -- everybody walks around like some kind of automaton -- Hitch uses over-over shots and physical distance to imply emotion states and connections. In every scene without fail. Doing it once or twice in the course of a movie (see Welles and Scorcese) is clever and subtle. Doing it every time is ham handed and clumsy.

The first hour consists of dialogueless sequences of Novak and Stewart driving around San Francisco. To punch that up -- because man, it's boring as hell -- Hitchcock cranks up the meladramatic we-found-this-in-Douglas-Sirk's-garbage-can score to absurdly high levels. (Any time there's a moment that in other films might be called "human" the score pops up to let you know how to respond).

I also think Stewart was either brilliantly cast or completely miscast, depending on your interpretation. Scottie goes from caddish jerk to abusive boyfriend during the course of the film. Only Jimmy Stewart's aw-shucks persona could play that role and not have the audience hating him by the end of the picture. On the other hand, that same persona undercuts everything the story is trying to do. It's lurid and dark and ugly, and completely at odds with Stewart's mainstream image.

If he were alive today, Hitchcock would be making solid action movies but wouldn't be terribly noticeable to anyone but movie geeks. That's my problem with Vertigo: you do a kind of "blind taste test" on this thing, strip out the big name actors and the big name director, get by the photography and the overbearing score, get down to the bare essentials and ... there's nothing there. It's superficial and trite and tries to make something psychologically sophisticated out of grade-z material that would normally only be published in the most potboiler of pulp magazines.

It's generic. It's bland. Outside of the pretty photography and those "Vistavision" colors there isn't a whole hell of a lot about it to recommend.

[Winston*]

If I had voted I would have voted for it.

Me too. We could've accomplished something here Qrazy.

[Winston*]

If he were alive today, Hitchcock would be making solid action movies but wouldn't be terribly noticeable to anyone but movie geeks.
I think it would be pretty widely noticed if a 110-year-old man was making Hollywood action movies, regardless of the quality.

[Ezee E]

What I think are ****
5. Touch of Evil
7. Sunset Boulevard
8. The Seventh Seal
9. The Night of the Hunter
10. Throne of Blood
12. The 400 Blows
13. The Searchers
15. 12 Angry Men
16. A Man Escaped

Haven't seen these:
6. Ordet
11. Tokyo Story
19. Ugetsu

[Qrazy]

Yeah, the plot of Vertigo is so utterly ludicrous that it threatens to overshadow some otherwise great cinematic work. [/Qrazy]. Still, that scene with the reveal, the neon glow and what not -- that's some good shit right there.

I think Vertigo is great and the best Hitch has ever done... so take that backslash Qrazy!

[Qrazy]

At the risk of being contentious --- maaaaan, I just watched this again and I like it even less now.

The reveal you're talking about is one of Hitchcock's major weaknesses. That is, he sucks at subtlety. He's great with story beats and plotting, but he's terrible at most other things. Everything in Vertigo just isn't telegraphed to the audience, it's repeatedly shoved in their face and shouted at them.

A lot of the stuff he employs in the editing and compositions here is obvious and overdone. Since the actors aren't allowed to perform for the first 90 minutes -- everybody walks around like some kind of automaton -- Hitch uses over-over shots and physical distance to imply emotion states and connections. In every scene without fail. Doing it once or twice in the course of a movie (see Welles and Scorcese) is clever and subtle. Doing it every time is ham handed and clumsy.

The first hour consists of dialogueless sequences of Novak and Stewart driving around San Francisco. To punch that up -- because man, it's boring as hell -- Hitchcock cranks up the meladramatic we-found-this-in-Douglas-Sirk's-garbage-can score to absurdly high levels. (Any time there's a moment that in other films might be called "human" the score pops up to let you know how to respond).

I also think Stewart was either brilliantly cast or completely miscast, depending on your interpretation. Scottie goes from caddish jerk to abusive boyfriend during the course of the film. Only Jimmy Stewart's aw-shucks persona could play that role and not have the audience hating him by the end of the picture. On the other hand, that same persona undercuts everything the story is trying to do. It's lurid and dark and ugly, and completely at odds with Stewart's mainstream image.

If he were alive today, Hitchcock would be making solid action movies but wouldn't be terribly noticeable to anyone but movie geeks. That's my problem with Vertigo: you do a kind of "blind taste test" on this thing, strip out the big name actors and the big name director, get by the photography and the overbearing score, get down to the bare essentials and ... there's nothing there. It's superficial and trite and tries to make something psychologically sophisticated out of grade-z material that would normally only be published in the most potboiler of pulp magazines.

It's generic. It's bland. Outside of the pretty photography and those "Vistavision" colors there isn't a whole hell of a lot about it to recommend.

I'll let someone else tear you a new one for this because I don't have the energy this time.

re: Hitchcock being unnoticeable if he made films in this day and age. No. This is a man who had an incredibly high quality output of films spanning 6 decades. I somewhat agree he lacks subtlety (in a sense, at the same time his films are brimming with cinematic thoughts and flourishes). But I agree in the sense that his films are never truly profound or all that intellectually challenging. However, he had a singular style and he was probably the greatest craftsman the business has ever known. His films survive primarily on the basis of their style.

[baby doll]

His films survive primarily on the basis of their style.Let's not forget structure. Without the two part structure of Vertigo, in which Judy comes to replace Madeline, Jacques Rivette's Céline et Julie vont en bateau and David Lynch's Mulholland Dr. would have been inconceivable.

[Qrazy]

Let's not forget structure. Without the two part structure of Vertigo, in which Judy comes to replace Madeline, Jacques Rivette's Céline et Julie vont en bateau and David Lynch's Mulholland Dr. would have been inconceivable.

I meant style as sort of an umbrella term in this case incorporating structure but yes agreed, good point.

[Raiders]

At the risk of being contentious

Don't quit now. :P


The reveal you're talking about is one of Hitchcock's major weaknesses. That is, he sucks at subtlety.The very point of the reveal is to make the entire second half painful in Scotty's dominance over Judy. It's not about the plot (obviously if we want it to remain a mystery, the reveal can be edited out) but the pain in seeing Scotty destroy the very creature he so wants to recapture. The entire second half once he leaves the hospital is him destroying himself. He's very much a villain in the final act which considering what came before is hardly typical.


He's great with story beats and plotting, but he's terrible at most other things. Everything in Vertigo just isn't telegraphed to the audience, it's repeatedly shoved in their face and shouted at them.Not sure what this means. I didn't have any idea where it was going the first time I saw it. I took the mystery at face value, like you're supposed to, and then the narrative completely pulls the rug from under you. I don't think it is at all telegraphed, but I don't know how to "prove" this other than to recount the many people's opinions out there who clearly show that you are wrong.


A lot of the stuff he employs in the editing and compositions here is obvious and overdone.It's certainly not a quiet, understated film. Nothing wrong there.


Since the actors aren't allowed to perform for the first 90 minutes -- everybody walks around like some kind of automatonFactually wrong. Bel Geddes in particular is wonderful. Novak is intended to be fairly emotionless and enigmatic, and Stewart intended to be his typical "aw shucks" persona for the first couple acts.


Hitch uses over-over shots and physical distance to imply emotion states and connections. In every scene without fail. Doing it once or twice in the course of a movie (see Welles and Scorcese) is clever and subtle. Doing it every time is ham handed and clumsy.Can't much comment since I haven't seen it in a long while, but I don't remember the film seeming to be stretching for any emotion that I didn't already find.


The first hour consists of dialogueless sequences of Novak and Stewart driving around San Francisco. To punch that up -- because man, it's boring as hellI found the monotony and endless drives to be completely the point. It is leading Scotty into a web of allure and confounding events that puts him so deep into concern, confusion and gullibility to pull off the big shocker.


Hitchcock cranks up the meladramatic we-found-this-in-Douglas-Sirk's-garbage-can score to absurdly high levels. (Any time there's a moment that in other films might be called "human" the score pops up to let you know how to respond).I love Herrmann's score and the way it intrudes into the film. You are the first person I have ever encountered to say differently, so I'll let you Google a counter-argument to this. The film isn't quiet or subtle as you say and I think the score (which on its own is beautiful) is appropriately intrusive.


I also think Stewart was either brilliantly cast or completely miscast, depending on your interpretation. Scottie goes from caddish jerk to abusive boyfriend during the course of the film. Only Jimmy Stewart's aw-shucks persona could play that role and not have the audience hating him by the end of the picture. On the other hand, that same persona undercuts everything the story is trying to do. It's lurid and dark and ugly, and completely at odds with Stewart's mainstream image.Is this a complaint? I agree and it is part of the great last act horror.


If he were alive today, Hitchcock would be making solid action movies but wouldn't be terribly noticeable to anyone but movie geeks. That's my problem with Vertigo: you do a kind of "blind taste test" on this thing, strip out the big name actors and the big name director, get by the photography and the overbearing score, get down to the bare essentials and ... there's nothing there. It's superficial and trite and tries to make something psychologically sophisticated out of grade-z material that would normally only be published in the most potboiler of pulp magazines.There is a ton there, but do you really need me to tell you this? The film has been endlessly analyzed and its profundity (that is, the powerful way in which it reveals the pulsating heart and desires of its creator and the horrific ways in which his subconscious dominates his ideal women) so apparent. You seem almost willfully ignoring why people love the film. Not agreeing is one thing but to plainly ignore decades of analysis and cast it off so readily is just silly.


It's generic. It's bland.Whatever dude. You'll just have to accept it is you against the world. "Bland" is such a laughable adjective I can't seriously respond. You can dislike it all you want, but honestly, bland?


Outside of the pretty photography and those "Vistavision" colors there isn't a whole hell of a lot about it to recommend.Peace.

[endingcredits]

At the risk of being contentious --- maaaaan, I just watched this again and I like it even less now.

The reveal you're talking about is one of Hitchcock's major weaknesses. That is, he sucks at subtlety. He's great with story beats and plotting, but he's terrible at most other things. Everything in Vertigo just isn't telegraphed to the audience, it's repeatedly shoved in their face and shouted at them.

A lot of the stuff he employs in the editing and compositions here is obvious and overdone. Since the actors aren't allowed to perform for the first 90 minutes -- everybody walks around like some kind of automaton -- Hitch uses over-over shots and physical distance to imply emotion states and connections. In every scene without fail. Doing it once or twice in the course of a movie (see Welles and Scorcese) is clever and subtle. Doing it every time is ham handed and clumsy.

The first hour consists of dialogueless sequences of Novak and Stewart driving around San Francisco. To punch that up -- because man, it's boring as hell -- Hitchcock cranks up the meladramatic we-found-this-in-Douglas-Sirk's-garbage-can score to absurdly high levels. (Any time there's a moment that in other films might be called "human" the score pops up to let you know how to respond).

I also think Stewart was either brilliantly cast or completely miscast, depending on your interpretation. Scottie goes from caddish jerk to abusive boyfriend during the course of the film. Only Jimmy Stewart's aw-shucks persona could play that role and not have the audience hating him by the end of the picture. On the other hand, that same persona undercuts everything the story is trying to do. It's lurid and dark and ugly, and completely at odds with Stewart's mainstream image.

If he were alive today, Hitchcock would be making solid action movies but wouldn't be terribly noticeable to anyone but movie geeks. That's my problem with Vertigo: you do a kind of "blind taste test" on this thing, strip out the big name actors and the big name director, get by the photography and the overbearing score, get down to the bare essentials and ... there's nothing there. It's superficial and trite and tries to make something psychologically sophisticated out of grade-z material that would normally only be published in the most potboiler of pulp magazines.

It's generic. It's bland. Outside of the pretty photography and those "Vistavision" colors there isn't a whole hell of a lot about it to recommend.

You might find Hitchcock's Vertigo bland, unstimulating, lacking subtlety, or whatever, but it is definitely not generic.

[Qrazy]

Peace.

Yeah, I'm so tired of hearing that from people. 'I didn't like the film it was [insert here: lame, boring, nonsensical] but it looked pretty'. Recently I've heard this leveled against Tarkovsky, Valhalla Rising, The American, etc. In some situations I"m sure there's some truth to it but in the vast majority of cases people fail to recognize the vast degree of meaning compelling cinematography can bring to a film. In some situations sure it's just a pretty composition and not much thought was put into the mise-en-scene and meaning of the frame, but a lot of the time there is transformative meaning to be found in the cinematography. And I would argue that is certainly the case with Vertigo.

[Dead & Messed Up]

My list, pm-ed.

01. Rear Window (Hitchcock)
02. The Wages of Fear (Clouzot)
03. Sleeping Beauty (Geronimi)
04. Duck Amuck (Jones)
05. 12 Angry Men (Lumet)
06. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Siegel)
07. The Wrong Man (Hitchcock)
08. Rashômon (Kurosawa)
09. In a Lonely Place (Ray)
10. The Bridge on the River Kwai (Lean)

[DavidSeven]

I think Vertigo is great and the best Hitch has ever done... so take that backslash Qrazy!

Ha. Sorry, I was just referencing Derek's joke about the structure of 90 percent of your posts there. Though I, personally, never noticed such things.

As for Vertigo, while the plot is a mess, the craftsmanship is something else. I also appreciate the tone that Hitch establishes, sustains, heightens then sustains again. I'd give it a strong *** or a "like" on the Madman scale. Lot of other Hitch I prefer, but this one is definitely due for a rewatch.

[Derek]

Ha. Sorry, I was just referencing Derek's joke about the structure of 90 percent of your jokes there. Though I, personally, never noticed such things.

It's a pretty basic formula, but no one executes it with the frustrating acuity of Qrazy.

[Insert great film here] + [was okay or nearly great (optional)] + [minor, often ridiculous complaint] + [nothing positive].

Ex.
I found that the flash bulb as a weapon scene detracts a little from the film with it's stupidity.

[Qrazy]

It's a pretty basic formula, but no one executes it with the frustrating acuity of Qrazy.

[Insert great film here] + [was okay or nearly great (optional)] + [minor, often ridiculous complaint] + [nothing positive].

Ex.

That scene is the climax of the film and it's retarded dude.

[Derek]

That scene is the climax of the film and it's retarded dude.

http://publicmb.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/fail-3.jpg

[Spinal]

Non-voters don't get to bitch about the results. I thought this was clear.

[Qrazy]

Non-voters don't get to bitch about the results. I thought this was clear.

Not bitching about the results. Rear Window is great but that scene is awful.

In all it's glory. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz06t7PGD-E&feature=related)

2 Steps. Flash. Rubs eyes. What happened? Change light bulb. 2 Steps. Flash. Rubs eyes. What happened? Change light bulb. 2 Steps. Flash. Rubs eyes. What happened? Change lightbulb.AWFUL.

[Spinal]

2 Steps. Flash. Rubs eyes. What happened? Change light bulb. 2 Steps. Flash. Rubs eyes. What happened? Change light bulb. 2 Steps. Flash. Rubs eyes. What happened? Change lightbulb.AWFUL.

Oh, I totally agree. This is my problem with both Vertigo and Rear Window. The endings are absurd.

[Duncan]

Not bitching about the results. Rear Window is great but that scene is awful.

In all it's glory. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz06t7PGD-E&feature=related)

2 Steps. Flash. Rubs eyes. What happened? Change light bulb. 2 Steps. Flash. Rubs eyes. What happened? Change light bulb. 2 Steps. Flash. Rubs eyes. What happened? Change lightbulb.AWFUL.
Agree.


1. Vertigo **
2. Rear Window ***1/2
3. In a Lonely Place n/a
4. Seven Samurai ***1/2
5. Touch of Evil ***½
6. Ordet ****
7. Sunset Boulevard ***
8. The Seventh Seal ***
9. The Night of the Hunter **
10. Throne of Blood ****
11. Tokyo Story ****
12. The 400 Blows ***
13. The Searchers ***½
15. 12 Angry Men **
16. A Man Escaped ***
17. Hiroshima mon amour n/a
18. Nights of Cabiria ***½
19. Ugetsu ***½
20. Paths of Glory ****

My tastes really do start to diverge from the classic canon around 1960 and going back to the silent era. Lots of stuff there I love, but lots of stuff I'm indifferent to or outright dislike.

[Spinal]

Brilliant:
Seven Samurai
Sunset Boulevard
Tokyo Story
The Night of the Hunter
Ikiru

Excellent:
Paths of Glory
Ugetsu
The 400 Blows
Hiroshima mon amour
The Seventh Seal
Throne of Blood
12 Angry Men

Very Good:
Touch of Evil
A Man Escaped
Nights of Cabiria

Good:
Vertigo
Rear Window

No likey:
The Searchers

Haven't seen:
In a Lonely Place
Ordet

[Qrazy]

Agree.



My tastes really do start to diverge from the classic canon around 1960 and going back to the silent era. Lots of stuff there I love, but lots of stuff I'm indifferent to or outright dislike.

I definitely find a lot of silents very hit or miss. I have to watch all the early Griffith's for the 1001 films race and that's probably what I"m dreading most about the race.

[Melville]

1. Vertigo **
Wha?

[Irish]

re: Hitchcock being unnoticeable if he made films in this day and age. No. This is a man who had an incredibly high quality output of films spanning 6 decades. I somewhat agree he lacks subtlety (in a sense, at the same time his films are brimming with cinematic thoughts and flourishes). But I agree in the sense that his films are never truly profound or all that intellectually challenging. However, he had a singular style and he was probably the greatest craftsman the business has ever known. His films survive primarily on the basis of their style.

I'm conflicted on this -- how good of a craftsman was he? Because one hand I have to admit he did a great job concealing just how bad the core of Vertigo is. Watch it once, and it's compelling and bizarre. Watch it more than once and it becomes something less, each time.

But for the single viewing, he does get audiences to accept piles of absurdity that they wouldn't normally swallow hook, line and sinker they way they do with this film.

[Irish]

Let's not forget structure. Without the two part structure of Vertigo, in which Judy comes to replace Madeline, Jacques Rivette's Céline et Julie vont en bateau and David Lynch's Mulholland Dr. would have been inconceivable.

Similar to Mulholland Dr, the "two parts" aren't, so much. That "second part," the one everybody remembers, is only the final 30 minutes of the movie.

The madonna/whore dynamic the film plays with is hardly original to Hitchcock.

[Irish]

You might find Hitchcock's Vertigo bland, unstimulating, lacking subtlety, or whatever, but it is definitely not generic.

It's generic in its story. If you took this same movie, filled the roles with unknowns and shot it in black and white, you'd be laughing at it. You'd revel in the 50s noir cheesiness.



Yeah, I'm so tired of hearing that from people. 'I didn't like the film it was [insert here: lame, boring, nonsensical] but it looked pretty'.

I don't know what to tell you, dude. Those Vistavision colors really pop.

[Qrazy]

It's generic in its story. If you took this same movie, filled the roles with unknowns and shot it in black and white, you'd be laughing at it. You'd revel in the 50s noir cheesiness.




I don't know what to tell you, dude. Those Vistavision colors really pop.

They do pop but there's also a hell of a lot of meaning in Vertigo's imagery also.

[endingcredits]

It's generic in its story.
No.


If you took this same movie, filled the roles with unknowns and shot it in black and white, you'd be laughing at it.

But it's shot in color with great actors.



You'd revel in the 50s noir cheesiness.

Irrelevant. See above.

[Irish]

Don't quit now. :P
:P


The very point of the reveal is to make the entire second half painful in Scotty's dominance over Judy. It's not about the plot (obviously if we want it to remain a mystery, the reveal can be edited out) but the pain in seeing Scotty destroy the very creature he so wants to recapture. The entire second half once he leaves the hospital is him destroying himself. He's very much a villain in the final act which considering what came before is hardly typical.
I agree it's not about plot -- it can't be, because Judy lays out the mystery in a voice over monologue (my god!) about twenty minutes to half an hour before the movie ends. My beef with that shot is the green neon glow she steps out of. It's unsubtle, obvious and gaudy, just like everything else in this movie. Hitchcock doesn't trust his audience to get what he's going for at all, so he spoonfeeds everything to them.

His idea of showing a psychological horror is to insert a red, blinking, disembodied Jimmy Stewart head into a dream sequence. His idea of showing us this key revel is to overlay a green haze onto Kim Novak.

Instead of, you know, letting the actors perform their roles or letting to script speak for itself. If any other director tried to pull this stuff, we'd be screaming for his head.


Not sure what this means. I didn't have any idea where it was going the first time I saw it. I took the mystery at face value, like you're supposed to, and then the narrative completely pulls the rug from under you. I don't think it is at all telegraphed, but I don't know how to "prove" this other than to recount the many people's opinions out there who clearly show that you are wrong.
"Telegraphed" was the wrong word. I meant to say "spoon fed." One of my beefs with the movie is that way almost everything you learn is told to you directly in long, ponderous monologues by supporting players (the shipping magnet and bookstore owner about Carlotta Valdes, the coroner on just how big a bastard Scottie is, etc).

Nothing is revealed in performance. Nothing is revealed in dialogue. Nothing is revealed in action. (Well almost nothing. I mean, you have to get by Jimmy Stewart's innate affability to see Scottie for what he is).


It's certainly not a quiet, understated film. Nothing wrong there.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this is and of itself either. But this movie wants to have to both ways: It tries so damned hard to be refined and highbrow while depicting lowbrow seediness. I think that was a bad call. You going to play this material, you've got to play to it, instead of trying to dress it up. The old line about "lipstick on a pig" and all.


Factually wrong. Bel Geddes in particular is wonderful. Novak is intended to be fairly emotionless and enigmatic, and Stewart intended to be his typical "aw shucks" persona for the first couple acts.
Bel Geddes is the only one who approaches being human. Barely. But she's the comic relief character, too. The others are all so stiff that they come off more as department store mannequins than people.


Can't much comment since I haven't seen it in a long while, but I don't remember the film seeming to be stretching for any emotion that I didn't already find.
The stuff it plays up -- the shot compositions and the score -- has to be there because there's no emotion for 2/3 of the film. It's completely bloodless.


I found the monotony and endless drives to be completely the point. It is leading Scotty into a web of allure and confounding events that puts him so deep into concern, confusion and gullibility to pull off the big shocker.
It works in the way it messes with your head. Those scenes aren't anything special in themselves, but the entire time I imagine the audience is furiously wondering what the hell is going on.

The problem is, those scenese take up the first hour in a two hour film. And, because Hitchcock apparently believes his audience is composed of slack jawed yokels, he repeats everything two or three times. There's at least 3 explanations of Carlotta Valdes. There's two extended drive sequences and one shorter one.


I love Herrmann's score and the way it intrudes into the film. You are the first person I have ever encountered to say differently, so I'll let you Google a counter-argument to this. The film isn't quiet or subtle as you say and I think the score (which on its own is beautiful) is appropriately intrusive.
I wouldn't mind it being loud or overdone if the movie didn't relentless prompt me for an emotional response through the music. But it has to do that, Hitch and Herrmann have no choice because, for much of the movie, there's no emotion on screen at all.


Is this a complaint? I agree and it is part of the great last act horror.
Not a complaint, per se, just an observation. While watching it this time, I kept imagining how it would play with different actors of the period in the lead.


There is a ton there, but do you really need me to tell you this? The film has been endlessly analyzed and its profundity (that is, the powerful way in which it reveals the pulsating heart and desires of its creator and the horrific ways in which his subconscious dominates his ideal women) so apparent. You seem almost willfully ignoring why people love the film. Not agreeing is one thing but to plainly ignore decades of analysis and cast it off so readily is just silly.

I think people are reading so called profundity into a dime store novel. I like noir, I like pulp, I've read a few of those "Hard Case Crime" reprints. They're fun, but they're trash, trivial and of no consequence. There's a reason why they went out of print the first time around. (Let's remember that Vertigo is based off a French novel named In Between Death and co-scripted by a television writer.)

Loving this movie is one thing -- especially if you've only seen it once -- but voting it "best of decade" when it's up against stuff from the likes of Truffaut and Ozu is quite another.

[Qrazy]

If any other director tried to pull this stuff, we'd be screaming for his head.


Or we'd be saying 'Wow, this film is pretty Hitchcockian.' And praise it. Yes, I think this is what we usually do actually.

[Irish]

No.
But it is. It's a dimestore novel. I haven't read it, but based on Vertigo, it's a bad one.

If you've seen or read enough of this stuff, the story in Vertigo is pretty damned commonplace.


But it's shot in color with great actors.

You've got to use your imagination and take a bit of a cognitive leap with that one. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, we've reached a dead end.

[Derek]

You've got to use your imagination and take a bit of a cognitive leap with that one. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, we've reached a dead end.

If Vertigo were black and white, dealt with post-war issues, starred a man with a hook for a hand and was called The Best Years of Our Lives, you'd call it on of the best films of the 40s.

[Irish]

Or we'd be saying 'Wow, this film is pretty Hitchcockian.' And praise it. Yes, I think this is what we usually do actually.

No, I don't think you would. Because he's not good at it, and it's not what he's remembered for.

He's remembered for his pacing (that whole "master of suspense" stuff) and for the basic level of craft he brought to b-movie material.

[DavidSeven]

Or we'd be saying 'Wow, this film is pretty Hitchcockian.' And praise it. Yes, I think this is what we usually do actually.

Well, I thought Femme Fatale's plot was about as idiotic as Vertigo's. Actually a lot dumber, but at least the same gradation of stupidity. And found it less forgivable. I don't know what point I'm trying to make here -- that post just screamed De Palma to me.

[Irish]

If Vertigo were black and white, dealt with post-war issues, starred a man with a hook for a hand and was called The Best Years of Our Lives, you'd call it on of the best films of the 40s.

If this is the best you can do, you and I aren't going to find anything interesting to talk about.

Try harder.

[endingcredits]

But it is. It's a dimestore novel. I haven't read it, but based on Vertigo, it's a bad one.

If you've seen or read enough of this stuff, the story in Vertigo is pretty damned commonplace.

Sorry, I am not so well-read.



You've got to use your imagination and take a bit of a cognitive leap with that one. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, we've reached a dead end.

I am unwilling to stoop to your level of shitty analogies and crackpotism, that's for damn sure.

[Derek]

If this is the best you can do, you and I aren't going to find anything interesting to talk about.

Try harder.

If you're going to make pointless analogies and tell us that Hitchcock isn't remembered or revered for things we all know he is, then there's not much to talk about. It's almost as if you're ignoring everything intelligent ever written about Hitchcock, which is pretty tough since over the years, he's probably been written about more than any director ever.

[Irish]

Well, I thought Femme Fatale's plot was about as idiotic as Vertigo's. Actually a lot dumber, but at least the same gradation of stupidity. And found it less forgivable. I don't know what point I'm trying to make here -- that post just screamed De Palma to me.

I thought about DePalma while watching Vertigo this time around. And while he's a horse's ass most of the time, I think he out-Hitched Hitchcock with Dressed to Kill.

Now there's a movie that plays to its material, revels in a certain kind of seedy gaudiness and knows exactly what it's trying to do, and does it beautifully.

Femme Fatale is just about awful in every conceivable way, but I've read that it's supposed to play as a kind of "letter to the fans" of DePalma's work.

[Melville]

Vertigo is the most profound exploration of romantic obsession I've seen. To say that we'd be screaming for the director's head if he weren't Hitchcock is completely idiotic, since Vertigo is the only Hitchcock film I love (and it's generally his most acclaimed film).

EDIT: The Best Years of Our Lives is middlebrow, bland, and maudlin. Vertigo is explosive.

Another Edit: How can you criticize Vertigo for non-acting (Stewart's performance is one of my favorites: his unhinged everyman style is absolutely perfect for it) and then praise Tokyo Story?

[Spinal]

I'll agree that Vertigo is a superb piece of directing. It's really quite extraordinary in that respect. But I think Hitchcock runs up against the limitations of a dopey script. And I'm always surprised at how people so readily forgive that about the film.

[Melville]

I'll agree that Vertigo is a superb piece of directing. It's really quite extraordinary in that respect. But I think Hitchcock runs up against the limitations of a dopey script. And I'm always surprised at how people so readily forgive that about the film.
What was dopey about the script, other than the few minor (and mostly irrelevant to what the movie was getting at) plot holes? It's one of the most ingeniously structured plots in movies.

[DavidSeven]

Femme Fatale is just about awful in every conceivable way, but I've read that it's supposed to play as a kind of "letter to the fans" of DePalma's work.

And this is why you shouldn't read other people's mail.

[Irish]

I am unwilling to stoop to your level of shitty analogies and crackpotism, that's for damn sure.

Really? You've never watched a movie and wondered how it would play if it starred different actors or was shot in a different style, or used different film stock or editing or a different kind of score?

You've never thought about the material removed from the obvious trappings of the medium? Just the story as it might have read on the page, without the director's interpretation and without actor's performances?

You've never thought about different ways to play that material, or different interpretations of how something could be done?

If the answer is "no" to any or all of those questions, okay. That's fine. But don't deride anyone's attempt to do so, or offer contempt for that ability, when you won't or can't do it yourself.

[Spinal]

What was dopey about the script, other than the few minor (and mostly irrelevant to what the movie was getting at) plot holes? It's one of the most ingeniously structured plots in movies.

Eh, I haven't watched it recently enough to get into details, but I seem to remember there being a huge problem with the ending in the two times I've seen it.

[endingcredits]

Really? You've never watched a movie and wondered how it would play if it starred different actors or was shot in a different style, or used different film stock or editing or a different kind of score?

You've never thought about the material removed from the obvious trappings of the medium? Just the story as it might have read on the page, without the director's interpretation and without actor's performances?

You've never thought about different ways to play that material, or different interpretations of how something could be done?

If the answer is "no" to any or all of those questions, okay. That's fine. But don't deride anyone's attempt to do so, or offer contempt for that ability, when you won't or can't do it yourself.

Since you're attempting to corner me by dangling all these broad stupid high-school level critic-in-the-making generalities, I'll go with "no" out of pure spite. I'm going back to Derek's best of 2010 thread. This conversation is irritating.

[Irish]

I'll agree that Vertigo is a superb piece of directing. It's really quite extraordinary in that respect. But I think Hitchcock runs up against the limitations of a dopey script. And I'm always surprised at how people so readily forgive that about the film.

Agreed, and I think he knew just how dopey that script was and worked his ass off to get around it.

The way he plays with physical space, holding on wide shot after wide shot and not cutting away, the way he nails the actor's feet to the floor (watch it and notice how nobody moves within the frame. When they do, Hitchcock cuts away from them), they way he shoots dialogue scenes so that no two actors faces are seen at the same time, except in moments where he wants to highlight emotion --- all that is interesting to me. He does it consistently, it's methodical, it's obviously been thought out.

That alone raises the material above standard b-level fare. So I'm a little conflicted on whether that all accounts for some grande level direction, or it's too overworked, purposeful, overthought for this kind of material.

On one level, he's putting a turd in a Tiffany box. And I wonder if that was the right decision, instead of, I don't know, enjoying the scat for what it is. :P

[Irish]

Vertigo is the most profound exploration of romantic obsession I've seen. To say that we'd be screaming for the director's head if he weren't Hitchcock is completely idiotic, since Vertigo is the only Hitchcock film I love (and it's generally his most acclaimed film).

I think if JJ Abrams or Michael Bay spoon fed you in the way that Vertigo does, you'd be insulted.

Hitchcock basically talks down to his audience during the entire running length of the film in a way that I've not seen other directors get away with.


Another Edit: How can you criticize Vertigo for non-acting (Stewart's performance is one of my favorites: his unhinged everyman style is absolutely perfect for it) and then praise Tokyo Story?
Vastly different. Tokyo Story lives and dies by subtlety, ie what's not said is just as important if not more important that was is said.

There's that, and the enormous culture difference between Japan and the United States, where there's a completely different rule of etiquette and expectation between adults and family members interacting with one another.

[Melville]

Eh, I haven't watched it recently enough to get into details, but I seem to remember there being a huge problem with the ending in the two times I've seen it.
Hm. I love the ending. In terms of the narrative and character progressions, it's the perfect culmination: In the first part, the film follows Scottie down into his mad obsession, ending with the dream. Then in the second part, it suddenly wrenches into Judy's perspective with the voiceover, and then it offers a global perspective, one in which we see the tragedy of his obsession and of her submitting and giving herself over to it, her wanting to become what he sees her as because she really does love him. In the ending, he wants to free himself from his obsession, to break back into the world he had been in prior to it (the top of the tower nicely physicalizes this, representing a space he could not get to before), and he does so by again trying to force her into a role, her 'true' role as deceiver. He wants to destroy what she was to him, overcome it, because she's not that and he can't tolerate it. And so he does destroy her. It does reveal a basic plot hole (how did Judy and the killer get out of the tower?), but nothing I was concerned about.

The extended ending is even better, I think.

[Melville]

I think if JJ Abrams or Michael Bay spoon fed you in the way that Vertigo does, you'd be insulted.
As usual, you bypassed my entire point. Your argument is factually wrong. If I like Hitchcock, it's because of Vertigo, not the other way around. If Abrams or Bay made a movie of the same quality, I would love it equally. I have literally no idea what you're talking about with the spoon-feeding. Everything you described is stylization, not spoon-feeding.

EDIT: also, I fail to see how the unemotional acting on Novak's part is problematic. It's an essential part of the film's structure. Stewart's acting never seems unemotional to me, but the progression from the relatively subdued style at the beginning to the rampant emotions later on is again essential.

[Irish]

What was dopey about the script, other than the few minor (and mostly irrelevant to what the movie was getting at) plot holes? It's one of the most ingeniously structured plots in movies.

The movie delivers absurdities in the first five minutes and never lets up. We're asked to accept, at face value, silliness after silliness.

Scottie is a middle aged police detective living in a city built on enormous, steep hills. Yet the rooftop is the first time in his life he ever experienced vertigo?

Gavin Elster's (the shipping magnate) plot relies solely on Judy never going to the police. And he's apparently fine with Judy staying in town and ... dying her hair to conceal her identity?

Scottie has to be the worst police detective in the entire world of movies. He never corroborates anything at all. He never does any actual "detecting." All he does is follow Madeline around and take everything he's told at face value. He does this because the plot requires him to do it.

After Madeline falls into the San Francisco Bay, she wakes up in Scotties apartment, in his bed, either naked or half naked. She never asks how she got that way, it's not addressed at all by any of the characters present. (This isn't really a plot hole, but more 1950s propriety gone silly).

Scottie "falls in love" with Madeline pretty damned quickly, and based on .. what, exactly? All he does is follow her around. Even after they hook up, he knows next to nothing about her.

We never see the "real" wife who got murdered. She's mentioned in passing, one line of dialogue, as "living in the country." Presumably, Gavin is on the outs with her and wants her money (he married well). So, how did he convince her to go to a mission 100 miles south of San Francisco and climb up a bell tower?

When did Gavin murder her? After he convinced her to climb the tower? How did he do that without anyone seeing or hearing anything? If he did it before he got to the mission, how did he carry the body up to the bell tower without anyone noticing? Keep in mind all of this is going down in broad daylight.

In other words, that plot is completely dependent on everyone -- especially Scottie -- behaving in precise, specific ways. It requires exact timing to work at all. It requires that Judy performs her role perfectly, accepts her payoff money, never say anything, even though she has zero reason to be loyal to Gavin. (She later says she fell in love with Scottie, but if that's the case, then why didn't she call off the plot?)

Edit: And oh yeah, the "shocker" ending depends on a nun coming up to the bell tower out of the blue and startling Judy so badly she falls out a window and dies.

It's an enormously complex plot for something as simple as a single murder. On top of that, the movie continually plays to this plot as if it's meaningful, meanwhile completely ignoring just how awful the people involved really are (as opposed to a James M Cain or Jim Thompson kind of way).

[Qrazy]

Well, I thought Femme Fatale's plot was about as idiotic as Vertigo's. Actually a lot dumber, but at least the same gradation of stupidity. And found it less forgivable. I don't know what point I'm trying to make here -- that post just screamed De Palma to me.

Nah I'm with you, screw De Palma. Maybe a few of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchcockian) films.

[endingcredits]

It's an enormously complex plot for something as simple as a single murder. On top of that, the movie continually plays to this plot as if it's meaningful, meanwhile completely ignoring just how awful the people involved really are (as opposed to a James M Cain or Jim Thompson kind of way).


But it's not a simple murder mystery. It's a highly stylized and structured exploration of neurosis, obsession, and phobia, all of which are meaningful.

[Irish]

Since you're attempting to corner me by dangling all these broad stupid high-school level critic-in-the-making generalities, I'll go with "no" out of pure spite. I'm going back to Derek's best of 2010 thread. This conversation is irritating.

Let's pause for a moment and consider this line:


I'll go with "no" out of pure spite

and then that you're essentially taking your toys and going home.

And you're accusing me of making high school moves? Okay.

[Irish]

Nah I'm with you, screw De Palma. Maybe a few of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchcockian) films.

But .. none of the "Hitchcockian" characteristics named are the hyper-stylized psychological gaudiness of stuff like Vertigo and Spellbound that I was talking about in an earlier post.

[endingcredits]

And you're accusing me of making high school moves? Okay.

Okay? It was you who laid out the laundry list of douchy, finger pointing questions.

[Qrazy]

But .. none of the "Hitchcockian" characteristics named are the hyper-stylized psychological gaudiness of stuff like Vertigo and Spellbound that I was talking about in an earlier post.

Hitchcockian often refers to pacing and tonal similarities but I've also seen it used in reference to more direct similarities and plenty of directors have employed imagery which is either similar or references the disembodied head or haze/character reveals amongst other psychological signifiers... birds on the wall in Psycho, locked doors, etc.

[DavidSeven]

OK, everyone.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTp1IiAHypB7 0OmxaBXDEgHYBgQPkqs59MXQSVSNU9 hBDffc4kN

Simma down now.

[Qrazy]

OK, everyone.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTp1IiAHypB7 0OmxaBXDEgHYBgQPkqs59MXQSVSNU9 hBDffc4kN

Simma down now.

DavidSeven what's your favorite film? I want to know what Irish thinks of it. :P

[DavidSeven]

DavidSeven what's your favorite film? I want to know what Irish thinks of it. :P

I'll let you know right after I finish waving my hands in front of a bear.

[Spinal]

In other words, that plot is completely dependent on everyone -- especially Scottie -- behaving in precise, specific ways. It requires exact timing to work at all.

Yes, this is jogging my memory. Though I don't remember exactly how it plays out, I remember that there were several instances in which actions that couldn't possibly have been anticipated were somehow anticipated.

[Bosco B Thug]

No one's going to even out all the matter-of-fact Femme Fatale dismissals? Bawk bawka bawk bawkaa, Match-Cut. Guess I'll just lower my score to a 5 in realization that the plot and half of Rebecca Romijn's performance is pretty stupid...

[Irish]

Vertigo is the most profound exploration of romantic obsession I've seen. To say that we'd be screaming for the director's head if he weren't Hitchcock is completely idiotic, since Vertigo is the only Hitchcock film I love (and it's generally his most acclaimed film).

As usual, you bypassed my entire point.

You're smart enough to see the problem here.


I have literally no idea what you're talking about with the spoon-feeding. Everything you described is stylization, not spoon-feeding.

Watch the movie again more carefully.

Everything you need to know about this story is told to you directly in long expositional monologues.

The resolution of the mystery is told to the audience in a voice over monologue and a flashback.

Scottie's big realization at the end is, again, told through a flashback.

Every big moment is handed to you on a platter. Almost nothing comes from performance, dialogue, or character action.

A majority of it is long shots. When Hitchcock needs you to notice something, he dramatically pushes it and holds the shot or he cuts to a medium shot (and blares the score -- dunh dunh dunnnnnnnnh! -- to be absolutely sure you notice).

Watch the initial scene in the museum when Madeline is looking at the painting of Carlotta Valdes. Hitch first pushes in on the flower bouquet next to Madeline, holds. Then he cuts to the painting, pushes on the flower bouquet in Carlotta's hands, holds. Then cuts to Madeline, and pushes in on Madeline's hair style, holds. Then cuts to the painting and .. you can guess what he's pushing in on if you don't directly remember it. Keep in mind this association he's painfully pointing out has already been told to you in monologue form once. But hey, in case you somehow (!) missed it, don't worry. Because Hitch is going to repeat this information at least twice more, if not three times.

This is what I'm talking about when I say Hitchcock spoon feeds the audience. It's the kind of pandering you do when you don't trust them to be awake and attentive at all.

Again, fine in a mainstream popcorn movie, one with limited ambitions and one that studiously requires nothing from the viewer. But "best of decade"? There I take issue.

[Ezee E]

I really need to watch Vertigo again. Don't care for the DVD transfer it's gotten so far, and it's not on Instant Watch... So I'll patiently wait.

[Irish]

Okay? It was you who laid out the laundry list of douchy, finger pointing questions.

All I'm going to say about this is: Dude, what you put out there is what you get back. It's disingenuous to become shocked and defensive after you've shown nothing but contempt for any idea I try and throw out there.

[Watashi]

Your favorite movie sucks, Irish.

[Melville]

You're smart enough to see the problem here.
Who are 'we'?


Watch the movie again more carefully.
:lol: I've seen it dozens of times. I'm pretty sure I was paying attention. I'm supposed to have written a paper about optical conductivity in the resonating valence bond model by tomorrow, so I'll get back to you later.

[Irish]

Hitchcockian often refers to pacing and tonal similarities but I've also seen it used in reference to more direct similarities and plenty of directors have employed imagery which is either similar or references the disembodied head or haze/character reveals amongst other psychological signifiers... birds on the wall in Psycho, locked doors, etc.

I have to disagree with that, at least part of it. There's a difference between shooting real world objects or intercutting them into a scene and using colored filters and animation.

The first, I see as Hitchcockian. The second I .. I don't know what the hell it is, but it's not something I think Hitch is primarily known for.

[Watashi]

:lol: I've seen it dozens of times. I'm pretty sure I was paying attention. I'm supposed to have written a paper about optical conductivity in the resonating valence bond model by tomorrow, so I'll get back to you later.

A paper on what?

[Irish]

Your favorite movie sucks, Irish.

You know what? You're right.

It's shitty of me to tear into this movies and break them down and not give anyone a chance to do the same for my favorites.

Maybe I should start an ego-thread laying out some movies so everybody else can get a chance to do what I've been doing in these consensus threads.

[Irish]

:lol: I've seen it dozens of times. I'm pretty sure I was paying attention. I'm supposed to have written a paper about optical conductivity in the resonating valence bond model by tomorrow, so I'll get back to you later.

I'm sorry -- that sounded condescending as hell. I had a lot of respect for your opinions and really enjoyed reading your posts on David Lynch (I didn't agree with any of it, but I loved reading it), so I look forward to anything you have to say about Vertigo.

[endingcredits]

All I'm going to say about this is: Dude, what you put out there is what you get back. It's disingenuous to become shocked and defensive after you've shown nothing but contempt for any idea I try and throw out there.

Sorry if I single you out for derision. But you piss me off, man.

[Qrazy]

You're smart enough to see the problem here.



Watch the movie again more carefully.

Everything you need to know about this story is told to you directly in long expositional monologues.

The resolution of the mystery is told to the audience in a voice over monologue and a flashback.

Scottie's big realization at the end is, again, told through a flashback.

Every big moment is handed to you on a platter. Almost nothing comes from performance, dialogue, or character action.

A majority of it is long shots. When Hitchcock needs you to notice something, he dramatically pushes it and holds the shot or he cuts to a medium shot (and blares the score -- dunh dunh dunnnnnnnnh! -- to be absolutely sure you notice).

Watch the initial scene in the museum when Madeline is looking at the painting of Carlotta Valdes. Hitch first pushes in on the flower bouquet next to Madeline, holds. Then he cuts to the painting, pushes on the flower bouquet in Carlotta's hands, holds. Then cuts to Madeline, and pushes in on Madeline's hair style, holds. Then cuts to the painting and .. you can guess what he's pushing in on if you don't directly remember it. Keep in mind this association he's painfully pointing out has already been told to you in monologue form once. But hey, in case you somehow (!) missed it, don't worry. Because Hitch is going to repeat this information at least twice more, if not three times.

This is what I'm talking about when I say Hitchcock spoon feeds the audience. It's the kind of pandering you do when you don't trust them to be awake and attentive at all.

OR.

OrorORHe is pointedly drawing our attention to this spiraling symbol to convey Stewart's obsession. The repetition is the point.

[Duncan]

Wha?

I share Spinal's and, I'm afraid, Irish's position to a certain extent. Too often I felt the suspension of disbelief was stretched beyond credibility, mostly due to too-perfect timing or a reliance on fortune telling. I'm with it up until the wife's murder. There's just no way to predict that his vertigo will stop him like 5 stairs from the top. No murderer would go through such a ridiculously elaborate setup and then bet his life on that. It's just, to me, a stupid plot device. And so I lose faith in the film at the halfway point and the rest seems a little silly. Also, I'm not nearly as big a fan of Jimmy Stewart as you are. I actually find him kind of annoying most of the time. Sorry. Evocative cinematography, some wonderful grace moments, and I like what it's saying in theory, but not convinced by the execution.

[Irish]

OR.

OrorORHe is pointedly drawing our attention to this spiraling symbol to convey Stewart's obsession. The repetition is the point.

But that point -- the initial scene in the museum, he's not obsessed. He's just an ex-detective following around a woman he doesn't know.

Overall, I don't think it's an artistic choice. I think it's a commercial one. Somebody (the studio? The producers? Hitch himself?) realized the plotline was convoluted as hell, and it needed to be explained several times or the audience would be lost.

They still make that kind of call today (see also: The Matrix, Inception, etc).

As for the spiral, on the nose much? If Hitch has to rely on overt graphics to get his point across -- instead of using dialogue, action, or performance -- he's failed.

I liked what you did there, with the nested spoiler tags. That was clever. How's that working out for you, being clever?That last bit is a riff on a line from Fight Club.

[Raiders]

Watch the initial scene in the museum when Madeline is looking at the painting of Carlotta Valdes. Hitch first pushes in on the flower bouquet next to Madeline, holds. Then he cuts to the painting, pushes on the flower bouquet in Carlotta's hands, holds. Then cuts to Madeline, and pushes in on Madeline's hair style, holds. Then cuts to the painting and .. you can guess what he's pushing in on if you don't directly remember it. Keep in mind this association he's painfully pointing out has already been told to you in monologue form once. But hey, in case you somehow (!) missed it, don't worry. Because Hitch is going to repeat this information at least twice more, if not three times.

The shots in the museum are obviously intended as first person perspective; hence the establishing shots looking at Scottie then cutting back to his perspective. It is to allow himself further proof that the fantastical may in fact be real; to further develop the mystery and immersion of Scottie into the story that has been sold to him. It's not about Hitchcock unnecessarily reminding us in case we forgot, but to show Scottie's own (mis)confirmation of the bull he's been fed.

[Raiders]

As for the spiral, on the nose much? If Hitch has to rely on overt graphics to get his point across -- instead of using dialogue, action, or performance -- he's failed.

This is perhaps the most wrong statement I have read you say yet. Though it may in fact explain why I rarely agree with you.

[Qrazy]

But that point -- the initial scene in the museum, he's not obsessed. He's just an ex-detective following around a woman he doesn't know.

Overall, I don't think it's an artistic choice. I think it's a commercial one. Somebody (the studio? The producers? Hitch himself?) realized the plotline was convoluted as hell, and it needed to be explained several times or the audience would be lost.

They still make that kind of call today (see also: The Matrix, Inception, etc).

As for the spiral, on the nose much? If Hitch has to rely on overt graphics to get his point across -- instead of using dialogue, action, or performance -- he's failed.

I liked what you did there, with the nested spoiler tags. That was clever. How's that working out for you, being clever?That last bit is a riff on a line from Fight Club.

I'm not sure how dialogue action or performance could in any way shape or form convey the motif of madness and vertigo as well as the image of a spiral can and does... visual storytelling for the win.

[Melville]

I share...Irish's position to a certain extent.
I never thought I'd read such a crazy statement from you. :P

I really don't care about the plot implausibility. For me the plot is a device to convey the film's meanings. Plausibility doesn't seem relevant to that.


If Hitch has to rely on overt graphics to get his point across -- instead of using dialogue, action, or performance -- he's failed.
If a movie uses dialogue, action, and performance at the expense of overt graphics, it's failed...to be the kind of movie I'm likely to be interested in.

[Spinal]

It's not that Hitchcock's visual storytelling doesn't help. Or isn't welcome. It's that the plot's core flaws remain regardless.

[Raiders]

It's not that Hitchcock's visual storytelling doesn't help. Or isn't welcome. It's that the plot's core flaws remain regardless.

Well, not to you perhaps, but Irish said otherwise. Also, I see no plot flaws, at least not with respect to the ultimate themes and points of the film... but damn we're just going in circles now.

[Spinal]

Well, not to you perhaps, but Irish said otherwise.

Yes, I'm aware. And I was distancing myself from that position.

[baby doll]

It's not that Hitchcock's visual storytelling doesn't help. Or isn't welcome. It's that the plot's core flaws remain regardless.Plausibility is overrated.

[Spinal]

Plausibility is overrated.

This is where I inevitably get into the 'plausibility vs. internal logic' conversation.

[Duncan]

Yes, I'm aware. And I was distancing myself from that position.

Also distancing.

[Irish]

I'm not sure how dialogue action or performance could in any way shape or form convey the motif of madness and vertigo as well as the image of a spiral can and does... visual storytelling for the win.

Wait, when you're talking about the spiral, are you talking about the "vertigo" special effect on the bell tower stairs? Or are you talking about the animated stuff in the dream sequence?

Because to be honest, I wasn't thinking of the special effect stuff (which is a shortcut, kinda cheesy, but not worth getting riled about in b-movie noir).


The shots in the museum are obviously intended as first person perspective; hence the establishing shots looking at Scottie then cutting back to his perspective.

That's a good point about Scottie's perspective, but good god is it labored and ponderous.

He pulls the same "push in on this physical detail" stuff a few more times in the film, too (like on the necklace). It's just as labored then as it is in the museum.


Plausibility is overrated.

It is when you're talking about something like Roman Holiday or La Dolce Vita or even Casablanca.

But in a suspense/mystery/thriller? Those are built around plausibility. If they don't have it, the entire effort suffers.

[Irish]

If a movie uses dialogue, action, and performance at the expense of overt graphics, it's failed...to be the kind of movie I'm likely to be interested in.

http://i.imgur.com/SPrJE.png

When I'm talking about overt graphics, I'm talking about this kind of thing.

That's a poor substitute for performance, dialogue, or character action.

[B-side]

That's a poor substitute for performance, dialogue, or character action.

http://i56.tinypic.com/23wp4x0.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

That's a good point about Scottie's perspective, but good god is it labored and ponderous.

He pulls the same "push in on this physical detail" stuff a few more times in the film, too (like on the necklace). It's just as labored then as it is in the museum. Is it labored and ponderous, or, since it's so much the sensibility and sense of pace of the film, it's actually wonderfully theatrical and rhetorically pointed hmmm?

Naw, I accept it's your personal opinion, just thought I'd chime in that I myself love how pedantic it is. I will contend with you on the point that, if Hitchcock is being didactic and ponderous (in this moment and in all the other moments being discussed), no way it's because he's trying to be accessible, or spoon-feed his audience, or making commercial concessions. There's a big difference.

[Irish]

I will contend with you on the point that, if Hitchcock is being didactic and ponderous (in this moment and in all the other moments being discussed), no way it's because he's trying to be accessible, or spoon-feed his audience, or making commercial concessions. There's a big difference.

See, yeah, this is the part I just don't know. I'm undecided. In some sense it's difficult and odd to think of "classic" movies having commercial needs.

But Vertigo obviously had a big budget, what with the large number of locations, setups, and costume changes involved (it's amazing how large the movie feels when you realize that the male lead mostly interacts with just 3 characters).

Removed from the oppressive context of "Hitchcock" and "classic," some of the stuff he pulls here would feel condescending in a television movie of the week today. It makes the movie feel, at odd moments, really dated. It adds to the stiffness and artificiality of the first 90 minutes.

I think it's also important to remember Vertigo is a mainstream studio film, made by a mainstream studio guy. If anybody had an eye on the market, it's the people that made this movie.

That's the way I'm leaning, anyway. I'd accept that it's some kind of artistic touch, but then .. wow, what a completely shitty creative choice.

[Spinal]

http://i.imgur.com/SPrJE.png

When I'm talking about overt graphics, I'm talking about this kind of thing.

That's a poor substitute for performance, dialogue, or character action.

I dunno. That's pretty much my favorite part of the film.

[Irish]

I dunno. That's pretty much my favorite part of the film.

Boy, when you pull back you really pull back. What about it makes it your favorite?

[soitgoes...]

"[Insert well loved film] sucks." :yawn:

What do you love Irish? I get that you hate stuff. A good percentage of your posts are on how much you dislike certain films. Point me in the direction of a post you've made where you expend as much energy as you do to call attention to the fact that you don't like Inception, Lynch, Vertigo etc.

[B-side]

"[Insert well loved film] sucks." :yawn:

What do you love Irish? I get that you hate stuff. A good percentage of your posts are on how much you dislike certain films. Point me in the direction of a post you've made where you expend as much energy as you do to call attention to the fact that you don't like Inception, Lynch, Vertigo etc.

To be fair, they were the topics of conversation at the time, so he wasn't exactly bringing them up to troll anyone.

[soitgoes...]

To be fair, they were the topics of conversation at the time, so he wasn't exactly bringing them up to troll anyone.No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just asking for him to put energy into writing something positive about a film. Not a line how Tokyo Story isn't well enough represented. Bash a film. Great! Everyone has idiosyncratic likes/dislikes. I just want to hear about his likes too.

EDIT: Maybe they're there, but they get hidden by all these other posts. If so, sorry Irish!

[B-side]

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just asking for him to put energy into writing something positive about a film. Not a line how Tokyo Story isn't well enough represented. Bash a film. Great! Everyone has idiosyncratic likes/dislikes. I just want to hear about his likes too.

I sympathize. I would like to see him write about some of his favorites, but I can't say I blame him as he's been on the defense pretty much his entire time here, stuck attempting to justify his opinions to a mass of people who seem to disagree with just about everything he says.

[soitgoes...]

I sympathize. I would like to see him write about some of his favorites, but I can't say I blame him as he's been on the defense pretty much his entire time here, stuck attempting to justify his opinions to a mass of people who seem to disagree with just about everything he says.But that's kinda the point, he puts himself on the defensive by arguing over well loved films and unpopular views. I don't want this to come off as an attack. I don't really care if he likes Vertigo or not. It isn't going to change my viewpoint of the film. I just want to read that passion for something positive too.

[B-side]

But that's kinda the point, he puts himself on the defensive by only arguing over well loved films. I don't want this to come off as an attack. I don't really care if he likes Vertigo or not. It isn't going to change my viewpoint of the film. I just want to read that passion for something positive too.

I think we've all expressed similar frustration and surprise when we discovered we were one of the only ones amongst a large group of cinephiles that felt a certain way about a certain film. But yes, I would like to see the same passion put to discussing something he loves.

[soitgoes...]

I think we've all expressed similar frustration and surprise when we discovered we were one of the only ones amongst a large group of cinephiles that felt a certain way about a certain film. But yes, I would like to see the same passion put to discussing something he loves.There really can't be much surprise when you use television movie of the week as a way to describe Vertigo. I mean, it isn't as if Vertigo is Torque. Again, if he wrote something positive about a film that isn't well loved, that would be like a cool breeze on my face on a hot summer day.

[B-side]

There really can't be much surprise when you use television movie of the week as a way to describe Vertigo. I mean, it isn't as if Vertigo is Torque. Again, if he wrote something positive about a film that isn't well loved, that would be like a cool breeze on my face on a hot summer day.

I can sympathize with both of your frustrations, so it's hard for me to take a side here. Obviously my bleeding heart wants me to back Irish up, but my more reasoned side wants to stay ambivalent.:P

[Irish]

But that's kinda the point, he puts himself on the defensive by arguing over well loved films and unpopular views. I don't want this to come off as an attack. I don't really care if he likes Vertigo or not. It isn't going to change my viewpoint of the film. I just want to read that passion for something positive too.

That's a more than fair point (Watashi made a similar one earlier in the thread).

I missed out on talking about a lot of stuff because I'm new to the boards. I might do the vanity thread thing so at least it'll give people a chance to respond to some of my own favorites, since a lot of my posts here are, as you've noted, negative.

Short version, three movies viewed for the first time this year that knocked me on my ass and that I loved unconditionally:

- Greenberg
- La Dolce Vita
- Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans

Two other movies, again viewed first time this year, that I had big problems with, borderline hated, couldn't stop thinking about, but now if anyone asked, I'd have to admit that, yeah, I'm a fan, and could this, sentence have more, commas:

- The Road
- Aeon Flux

(Good luck trying to figure out my sensibility from those examples, though :P)

[Bosco B Thug]

I'd accept that it's some kind of artistic touch, but then .. wow, what a completely shitty creative choice. Great! This is the ideal impasse to be at. Haha.

[Qrazy]

Wait, when you're talking about the spiral, are you talking about the "vertigo" special effect on the bell tower stairs? Or are you talking about the animated stuff in the dream sequence?

Because to be honest, I wasn't thinking of the special effect stuff (which is a shortcut, kinda cheesy, but not worth getting riled about in b-movie noir).


I was talking about the close-ups of the painting and her hairbun which are themselves spirals.

[Qrazy]

I dunno. That's pretty much my favorite part of the film.

His waving tuft of hair makes the scene.

[Qrazy]

I think we've all expressed similar frustration and surprise when we discovered we were one of the only ones amongst a large group of cinephiles that felt a certain way about a certain film. But yes, I would like to see the same passion put to discussing something he loves.

Well I don't think that's what he's doing that causes problems for people. He's making statements such as... "This is what the film script is a piece of B-movie trash, I will not accept that anyone got something deeper from this film, one of the best films of the decade? Come on." Instead of say... 'I don't like this film or I had issues with this film, here's why.'

[Russ]

"[Insert well loved film] sucks." :yawn:

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/6985/1271760918catyawn.gif

[balmakboor]

Oops. I spaced this one out and never voted. But here is my list anyway:

1. The Searchers (Ford)
2. Forbidden Games (Clément)
3. Mr. Hulot’s Holiday (Tati)
4. Rear Window (Hitchcock)
5. Ikiru (Kurosawa)
6. What's Opera, Doc? (Jones)
7. 12 Angry Men (Lumet)
8. Early Summer (Ozu)
9. Some Like It Hot (Wilder)
10. The Night of the Hunter (Laughton)

[StanleyK]

Late to the party, but:

1. Vertigo - Need to rewatch
2. Rear Window - N2R
3. In a Lonely Place - ****
4. Seven Samurai - N2R
5. Touch of Evil - N2R
6. Ordet - N2R
7. Sunset Boulevard - ****
8. The Seventh Seal - ****
9. The Night of the Hunter - N2R
12. The 400 Blows - ****
14. Ikiru - N2R
15. 12 Angry Men - N2R
16. A Man Escaped - ***
18. Nights of Cabiria - N2R
19. Ugetsu - ***½
20. Paths of Glory - ****



Basically there's a bunch of movies that I should watch again as soon as possible.

[MadMan]

Skipping through the rest of the thread, although I'll go back through later and read the posting of each of the top picks instead.

Ratings (out of 10):

1. Vertigo-10
2. Rear Window-10
3. In a Lonely Place-10
4. Seven Samurai-10
5. Touch of Evil-10
6. Ordet-N/A
7. Sunset Boulevard-Going to watch it tonight
8. The Seventh Seal-10
9. The Night of the Hunter-8.5
10. Throne of Blood-N/A
11. Tokyo Story-N/A
12. The 400 Blows-N/A
13. The Searchers-10
14. Ikiru-N/A
15. 12 Angry Men-10
16. A Man Escaped-N/A
17. Hiroshima mon amour-N/A
18. Nights of Cabiria-N/A
19. Ugetsu-N/A
20. Paths of Glory-9.5

Hey, I saw half of the list. Not bad, all things considered.