Realism
FilmGene
<<But what I am applying it to is the
audience's ability to take at face value things like process screens, matte
fringing, obvious studio sets, "period" settings that look like when the
movie was made, not when it was set, and so forth.>>
And I am saying that audiences were indeed aware of such things but
accepted them willingly as part of the movie process. I also suggest that
the films were engaging enough so that they didn't mind the artifice.
<<Oh, but it does -- in terms of these technical matters. Which is what I
was talking about, Gene. And the only thing I was talking about. Everyone
else here realized that. Why do you have a problem with it?>>
Because if you limit your remarks in that way, what meaning do they have?
Clearly "naive" means what it means. What point are you trying to make?
That today's audiences notice technical matters more? if so, so what?
What's the point?
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
BillyBond
>The point, as I understand, is that audiences today expect a higher tech
>audiovisual experience than in the days of 78 rpms and no TV. You are
>of course correct. The shots of Tippi Hedren riding in MARNIE,
>obviously sitting on a prop horse, provoked laughter when I saw the
>picture...in 1965, too. Hitchcock was aware of this, as my Howard Fast
>quote in a previous post indicates.
But you see, I do not believe that Hitchcock was aware of this. I think
that he felt that audiences would still buy lousy process screen shots like
that one. Those who claim that he DELIBERATELY employed shots that look so
artificial are, I think , completely wrong.
But thanks -- you did understand what I was trying to say otherwise.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>Several scenes in MARNIE do indeed signal their confronting nature
I think you missed my point. Someone was quoted as saying that the lousy
process shots in MARNIE, the flat, washed-out colors and the obviously
phony sets were all deliberate on the part of Hitchcock. It is THAT idea I
was taking exception to.
Bill Warren
FilmGene
<<The story, Tippi Hedron and the colors in *MARNIE* are dull.
Has anyone seen her since the equally poor *BIRDS*?>>
While "The Birds" and "Marnie" are not among my favorites, to say that the
color was dull is incorrect. Both films were IB Technicolor. Anyone who has
seen an original print of either of these films couldn't possibly say this.
It's like saying a Xerox of a great painting represents the artists wishes.
Tag Gallagher
BillyBond wrote:
>
> >While "The Birds" and "Marnie" are not among my favorites, to say that the
> >color was dull is incorrect. Both films were IB Technicolor.
>
> today, there were >no< IB Technicolor prints after 1956 -- at least for 40
> years or so. Like all other Technicolor films of the time, THE BIRDS and
> MARNIE were both shot in the inferior one-strip Technicolor process, one
> reason why the negatives even NEED restoration.
>
> Bill Warren
IB Technicolor refers to the process of making the positive release
prints, not to the camera neg. Most Technicolor films were shot with
Eastman negs after 1948, and then printed with the 3-strip process. The
prints of THE BIRDS and MARNIE are both IB Tech (I've held lots of them
in my hands) and the colors were definitely NOT dull or washed out. You
simply saw a lousy Eastman print.
RFCSAC627N
>
>I think you missed my point. Someone was quoted as saying that the lousy
>process shots in MARNIE, the flat, washed-out colors and the obviously
>phony sets were all deliberate on the part of Hitchcock. It is THAT idea I
>was taking exception to.
>
>
> Bill Warren
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
There was certainly nothing "washed out" about the color in "Marnie" when
it was first released in 1964.
Richard Carnahan
George Shelps
Regarding the Carnahan/Warren dispute,
when Bill refers to "This Island Earth,"
he is talking about Technicolor Process #4, which used the tri-strip
"beam-splitter" camera introduced in feature films with
"Becky Sharp" in 1935. The subsequent triple negatives were used as the
basis for printing positives via the dye-transfer or
"imbibition" process. Hence the name IB Technicolor--a *printing*
process.
When the rise of television in the Fifties required Hollywood to upgrade
to more and more and eventually to *all* color
films (specifically around the mid-sixties when the networks started to
go all color), Technicolor faced a problem.
There were I believe only 36 "beam-splitter" cameras in existence. Each
was leased by Technicolor to the studios. It would have been impossible
to increase color production significantly with so few cameras.
So in the '50s, a compromise with Eastman Kodak was reached whereby
standard Mitchell cameras were used and Eastman color film was used to
produce a negative from which three separation negatives were extracted
to produce the three strips covering red, green, and blue portions of
the spectrum.
One of the first films to use EastmanColor with an IB print was Hitch's
TO CATCH A THIEF. It was also found that you could not use the
beam-splitter camera and an
anamorphic Scope lens effectively....another reason for the use of
Eastmancolor.
These seps (as they are called) were used as the templates for using the
dye transfer process in the printing phase...hence the IB process that
was used until "The Godfather Part II" and now is being revived....It
was tested with some screenings of "Batman and Robin" at Mann's Chinese
and elsewhere. This is known as Technicolor process #5
And, of course, Technicolor is also a lab that processes all types of
color stock.
"Marnie" was definitely originally in Tech Process #5. Perhaps you saw
a non-IB dupe on a reissue,a tape,or 16mm.
(The first three Tech processes were two-color. Technicolor #3 was the
first IB process and was introduced in MGM's
"The Viking" (1928) directed by Roy William Neill.)
I believe this is a fairly accurate outline.
More expertise, please, to refine it.
George Shelps
edgar m twamley
>
> (The first three Tech processes were two-color. Technicolor #3 was the
> first IB process and was introduced in MGM's
> "The Viking" (1928) directed by Roy William Neill.)
>
> I believe this is a fairly accurate outline.
> More expertise, please, to refine it.
>
> George Shelps
thanks for the erudition, George. a small aside: many years ago I
viewed The Black Pirate at the Silent Movie in a b/w print. I asked Mr
Hampton if this hadn't been in 2 -color Technicolor at one time, and he
answered that indeed it was, but his own Color print was in no shape to
show. As he stated it, the red and blue transparencies were bonded
together, and as they aged, they shrank at uneven rates, pulling apart in
places and buckling, so the print would jam in the projector, and he
hadn't been able to secure another color print.
On another point, I heard that in the 70s, all the technicolor (3strip)
technology was sold to China, and at least at that time, there was no way
we could process it, because the equipment was now in Asia. Is this
accurate?
BillyBond
>
>There was certainly nothing "washed out" about the color in "Marnie" when
>it was first released in 1964.
Well, we disagree.
Bill Warren
FilmGene
<<Gene Stavis (?) said:
>Actually I'd go as far to say that Hitchcock intentionally emphasized
the
>artificial nature of the medium, especially in a film like Marnie
where
there
>are several shots (Marnie "riding", Marie's childhood residence with
the
>incredibly bad backdrop of a cargo ship, the red pulsing light, etc.)
that
>are so patently phoney looking as to call our attention to them->>
Actually, Ken, I didn't post this -- but I certainly agree with your view.
BillyBond
RFCSAC627N
>No, Gene, they were not IB Technicolor; as I said in another message
>today, there were >no< IB Technicolor prints after 1956 -- at least for 40
>years or so. Like all other Technicolor films of the time, THE BIRDS and
>MARNIE were both shot in the inferior one-strip Technicolor process, one
>reason why the negatives even NEED restoration.
>
>
> Bill Warren
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Not true. There were IB Technicolor prints being produced as late as 1974
(for "The Godfather, Part II), and with the "restoration" of "Giant" last
year the process has been revived.
Richard Carnahan
FilmGene
<<Other than that possibility, I must agree with Richard Carnahan. The
>film was was in IB Technicolor.
>
That is definitely not true.>>
Well, Bill, the ball is now in your court. I have given you two books
which flatly contradict you. What are your sources?
FilmGene
<<No, Gene, they were not IB Technicolor; as I said in another message
today, there were >no< IB Technicolor prints after 1956 -- at least for 40
years or so. Like all other Technicolor films of the time, THE BIRDS and
MARNIE were both shot in the inferior one-strip Technicolor process, one
reason why the negatives even NEED restoration.>>
This is completely false. Technicolor produced dye transfer prints with
three matrices until approximately 1974. There never was a "one-color"
Technicolor process. Eventually Technicolor changed over to Eastmancolor,
but that is a different matter.
And most Technicolor negatives (or, more properly, matrices) do not need
any kind of restoration unless the matrices have decomposed or have
shrunken to varying degrees.
As I said in another post, I have dozens of Technicolor prints, most made
in the fifties and the sixties. As late as 1973, Technicolor New York was
producing and selling true Technicolor prints. I bought one in the early
seventies. I can assure you that they are true dye transfer prints, vastly
superior to the one negative Eastmancolor process.
Frankly, I recommend two books on Technicolor, by Fred Basten and Richard
Haines which will give you some facts to deal with.
George Shelps
Regarding Edgar's question about THE BLACK PIRATE, this was shot in
Technicolor Process #2 and Mr Hampton was correct...the red and
green(not blue, as this was the missing primary) strips were cemented
together and this was a projector hazard as John told you. Also, a
focus problem, because one strip would always be a tiny bit out of
focus.
It was to correct this problem that Dr Kalmus (Technicolor's inventor)
came up with the dye-transfer/IB process. When we refer to "two color
Technicolor" in early sound films, it is this Process #3, two-strip IB.
The process was sold to China. I believe the Chinese closed the plant.
The new version of IB is, I am reliably informed, a bit different in
some respects. Perhaps it may become known as Technicolor Process #6.
Thanks for the comment about my erudition. My summary is a composite of
reading and my own research over the years, but many people are more
well-versed in the subject than I am.
George Shelps
BillyBond
>There were IB Technicolor prints being produced as late as 1974
>(for "The Godfather, Part II), and with the "restoration" of "Giant" last
>year the process has been revived.
GIANT is why I referred to "at least 40 years." Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg
and others had personal-use prints done in the IB process over in China,
but they certainly were not general-release prints -- including THE GODFATHER.
Bill Warren
Jeff Weisend
film...@aol.com (FilmGene) wrote:
><<On another point, I heard that in the 70s, all the technicolor (3strip)
>technology was sold to China, and at least at that time, there was no way
>we could process it, because the equipment was now in Asia. Is this
>accurate?>>
>This is true. Richard Haines and Brad Dunker in the eighties attempted to
>bring American business to the lab in Peking and a few tests were done and
>one feature. However, the project foundered. There are conflicting reports
>as to whether the Peking lab is still in existence.
>Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
I seem to recall that, fairly recently, Technicolor was considering
reviving the dye transfer print process at their L.A plant. Sorry,
but I can't remember where I read this.
Jeff
BillyBond
>IB Technicolor refers to the process of making the positive release
>prints, not to the camera neg. Most Technicolor films were shot with
>Eastman negs after 1948, and then printed with the 3-strip process.
I know what IB means. And if you held IB prints of THE BIRDS and MARNIE
in your hands, you held something unique. The IB plant next to Universal
stopped doing prints like that in 1956 or so. Or so I was told by
someone who worked there from before that time until he retired. And so I
was told by others in the biz.
IB prints don't fade; the prints of THE BIRDS and MARNIE did.
Bill Warren
RFCSAC627N
>GIANT is why I referred to "at least 40 years." Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg
>and others had personal-use prints done in the IB process over in China,
>but they certainly were not general-release prints -- including THE
>GODFATHER.
The "Giant" prints were *new* IB Tech prints made last year, and IB Tech
prints were commonly made through the release of "The Godfather Part II" in
1974.
Richard Carnahan
Tag Gallagher
Universal stuck with IB Tech release prints into the 1970s--and some of
their printing got pretty wretched. Neither THE BIRDS nor MARNIE are
rare in that format (nor is TOPAZ, although many prints are partly
Eastman) and I have never seen a bad IB of either title. Yes, there are
also faded Eastmans, as you say. Alas, some IB prints do fade.
FilmGene
I know what IB means. And if you held IB prints of <<THE BIRDS and MARNIE
in your hands, you held something unique. The IB plant next to Universal
stopped doing prints like that in 1956 or so. Or so I was told by
someone who worked there from before that time until he retired. And so I
was told by others in the biz.
IB prints don't fade; the prints of THE BIRDS and MARNIE did.>>
Are you completely incapable of admitting that you are wrong? I am holding
in my hands an IB print of "The Birds". It is as sharp as the day it was
printed. Indeed I am also looking a print of "Topaze", made later than "The
Birds", which is also an IB print.
Your "someone who worked there" is an inaccurate source. Clearly SOME
prints of the films in question were made in Eastmancolor -- and they have
probably faded. OTHERS were made in IB and they have not. Live with it!
BillyBond
>Other than that possibility, I must agree with Richard Carnahan. The
>film was was in IB Technicolor.
>
That is definitely not true.
Bill Warren
Ken Mogg
BillyBond wrote:
>
> >Several scenes in MARNIE do indeed signal their confronting nature
>
> process shots in MARNIE, the flat, washed-out colors and the obviously
> phony sets were all deliberate on the part of Hitchcock. It is THAT idea I
> was taking exception to.
>
> Bill Warren
Hey, wait a minute. Who is missing the point? You quoted Gene Stavis
(I think it was - you didn't give an attribution) thus: 'Actually I'd
go as far as to say that Hitchcock intentionally emphasized the
artificial nature of the medium, especially in a film like MARNIE where
there are several shots ... so patently phoney looking as to call our
attention to them.' I simply added that I agreed with Gene totally in
this, and gave other examples (e.g. from MARNIE's dialogue) to show that
the film was DELIBERATELY confronting in all kinds of ways.
Nor is this the first time lately that you've yourself missed the point
- or tried to change it - Bill! :) You wrote of some shots in REAR
WINDOW (e.g., closeups of Miss Lonely Hearts and Miss Torso that weren't
from Jeff's point of view), that they broke the rules 'for no good
reason that I could see'. When I offered you good reasons (and even
gave another critic's opinion to the same effect), you wrote to me that
'I don't feel the shots accomplished what they were intended to [do]' -
which is a different matter.
Good thoughts - Ken M.
BillyBond
>
>> >Several scenes in MARNIE do indeed signal their confronting nature
>>
>> I think you missed my point. Someone was quoted as saying that the lousy
>> process shots in MARNIE, the flat, washed-out colors and the obviously
>> phony sets were all deliberate on the part of Hitchcock. It is THAT idea I
>> was taking exception to.
>>
>> Bill Warren
>
>
>Hey, wait a minute. Who is missing the point? You quoted Gene Stavis
>(I think it was - you didn't give an attribution) thus: 'Actually I'd
>go as far as to say that Hitchcock intentionally emphasized the
>artificial nature of the medium, especially in a film like MARNIE where
>there are several shots ... so patently phoney looking as to call our
>attention to them.' I simply added that I agreed with Gene totally in
>this, and gave other examples (e.g. from MARNIE's dialogue) to show that
>the film was DELIBERATELY confronting in all kinds of ways.
I do not see how you get from "deliberately phony" to "deliberately
confronting." And you're NEVER going to convince me that the lousy process
work (and phony horse, etc.) in MARNIE were intended to look that way.
Hitch was often pretty sloppy with his effects.
> When I offered you good reasons (and even
>gave another critic's opinion to the same effect), you wrote to me that
>'I don't feel the shots accomplished what they were intended to [do]' -
>which is a different matter.
You offered me >reasons<. A reason can be promulgated for almost anything
in a movie; that doesn't mean I have to >buy into< the reason, even if I
think it's interesting. I feel that my guess, that Hitchcock was trying to
emphasize the tragic nature of the death of the little dog, is every bit as
logical.
And I still don't like the shots. They remind me of the first time I
saw BONNIE AND CLYDE. The audience was >deeply< into the movie, loving
every second -- and then someone pulled out money from the wrong period.
The audience made a kind of "oh, shucks" noise. That's how I feel about
those intrusive closeups in REAR WINDOW.
I think Hitchcock was a terrific filmmaker, or I wouldn't have most
of his movies on tape or disc, and wouldn't be participating here. But I
think even Jove nods.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>You clearly do NOT see. I never present my opinions as facts. You did.
Gene, you can't possibly be suggesting that we add "in my opinion" to
every statement that could obviously ONLY be an opinion, are you?
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>
>Universal stuck with IB Tech release prints into the 1970s--and some of
>their printing got pretty wretched. Neither THE BIRDS nor MARNIE are
>rare in that format (nor is TOPAZ, although many prints are partly
>Eastman) and I have never seen a bad IB of either title.
Awright awready, I was wrong, wrong, wrong. I will slash my wrists now.
But those shots in REAR WINDOW still don't belong there, and MARNIE still
stinks. So there.
Bill Warren
FilmGene
<<And you're NEVER going to convince me that the lousy process
work (and phony horse, etc.) in MARNIE were intended to look that way.
Hitch was often pretty sloppy with his effects.>>
I never thought I would see the words Hitchcock and sloppy in the same
sentence.
Hitchcock was trained in the German studios of the twenties. The whole
point of the German film was control and artificiality. Hitchcock was not,
with rare exceptions like "The Wrong Man", a realist. He was a fantasist
who accepted the conventions of film of his time and revelled in them. What
to you seem sloppy effects are acceptable artifacts of filmmaking to
Hitchcock. They were also more than acceptable to his audiences.
It is only we who are living through a time of slavish realism and zero
content in films who could possibly be concerned in films as great as
Hitchcock's with something so clearly untrue as saying he had "sloppy"
special effects. They were not sloppy -- they were the accepted practice at
the time he used them.
FilmGene
<<I seem to recall that, fairly recently, Technicolor was considering
reviving the dye transfer print process at their L.A plant. Sorry,
but I can't remember where I read this.>>
They are well along the way in doing this. One print of the re-release of
"Giant" and two prints of "Batman and Robin" (God help us) were made up as
experiments. I saw the IB print of "Batman and Robin" at the Astor Plaza in
NYC. The colors were gorgeous, but the film was so godawful, it was hard to
compare it with anything else.
There is clearly a future once again, after more than 20 years, for IB
Technicolor.
FilmGene
<<I'm not so sure. I, too, saw the original-release print many times.
And I recall that the flashback was noticeably given a bleached look,
and its sound had a hollow, 'interior' (remembered?) quality.>>
Our friend Bill was not talking about any given sequence in the film, but
the film as a whole. I will never forget the intensity of the reds in the
film -- a color you can only get to that degree with Technicolor.
BillyBond
>I never thought I would see the words Hitchcock and sloppy in the
samesentence.
Perhaps you've lived a sheltered life.
>He was a fantasist
>who accepted the conventions of film of his time and revelled in them.
He was hardly a "fantasist." And he simply let sloppy process work go by
because he felt that having it better wasn't >important<. Also, in his
last years, from TOPAZ on, he was aging and in ill health; he simply paid
less attention to the films he directed, except in those sequences that
engaged his imagination most fully.
On FAMILY PLOT, he wasn't even there every day of shooting.
Bill Warren
Ken Mogg
> There were absolutely no washed-out colors. If anything, the film was
> rather garish in its palette. Unless you have seen an original print, your
> disagreement doesn't seem to be based on fact.
>
> Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
I'm not so sure. I, too, saw the original-release print many times.
And I recall that the flashback was noticeably given a bleached look,
and its sound had a hollow, 'interior' (remembered?) quality.
- Ken M.
BillyBond
>To reiterate:
>
>1) His process work was no more "sloppy" than others at the time.
>
Oh, but it was. When you had the likes of Farciot Eduoart (sp?) up on a
ladder measuring with calipers the spectral separation in a process shot,
you really are dealing with a degree of attention paid to such shots.
Hitch's process work, particularly from around 1965 on, was >notably< worse
than that of other filmmakers of the period.
>2) You're right. He didn't care. His audiences didn't care. The critics
didn't care. You seem to be the only one who does.
(a) Not true. (b) If true, so what? That does not mean my perceptions
are wrong or invalid, unless you are going to say that the majority is
always right. Which would make HOME ALONE the greatest comedy of all time.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>Oh? That's precisely three films: "Topaze", "Frenzy" and "Family Plot".
>Two out of three of these films have very few special effects.
Gene, we're talking here mostly about things like back projection and
other >in camera< effects, not postproduction effects. The effects over
which hitchcock himself had direct control tended to be sloppy in those
films -- which have a fair amount of them.
>However, he was far from the only craftsman in the field. Hitchcock never
>cut corners in hiring the best craftsmen. Albert Whitlock was associated
>with many of Hitch's later films -- a man equal in prestige and
>accomplishments to Edouart.
In a completely different field, over which Hitchcock did not have direct
control. Whitlock was one of the greatest matte artists of all time, and
so closely associated with Hitch that Mel Brooks used him in HIGH ANXIETY
as an actor. But I am not talking about post-production effects.
>Of course it does not mean that your perceptions are wrong or
>invalid. But they are not criticism-proof either.
Nor did I suggest they should be regarded that way. However, when you try
to prove me wrong by citing >numbers< on the other side of the question,
you're doing your own point of view a disservice by implying that those who
do not agree with the majority are automatically wrong, and that their
ideas can be discarded.
Bill Warren
Iksnamhcok
I may be nuts (my wife certainly thinks so), but I concur with those who
note that Hitchcock films are usually most artificial at their moments of
greatest emotion. What Hitchcock seems to be saying, I think, is that
emotions themselves are artificial, learned, conditioned by the culture.
This, for example, seems to me to be a crucial point of so many of his
most outwardly "romantic" films, like Rebecca, Suspicion, Vertigo, etc. --
that the quest for a romantic ideal is certainly hopeless and in fact
ridiculous.
I agree that Hitchcock was often a lazy filmmaker. (He clearly preferred
the control of the studio to natural locations.) But I also believe he
intentionally pursued a sometimes extreme theatricality in his pictures
because he thought this made them more universal (i.e., less specific),
which was in keeping with his "big" themes. The fact that we're still
scrutinizing his highly artificial old films today, while others that more
realistically represented their times and locations are now ignored,
provides some testimony to the rightness of his approach.
But, hey, what do I know? This may be total rationalization.
Thoughts?
FilmGene
<<I agree that Hitchcock was often a lazy filmmaker. (He clearly preferred
the control of the studio to natural locations.)>>
There is nothing "lazy" about choosing studio over location. It is an
artistic choice. A man who made the sheer number of complex films as did
Hitchcock could certainly not be called lazy. He was trained in the studio
method, had a hand in creating it and felt most comfortable there.
However, it should be noted that he used locations frequently when they
were necessary.
I think Hitchcock had an ambivalence about Romanticism. He could portray
it better than almost any other filmmaker, yet he distrusted it deeply.
BillyBond
>From: iksna...@aol.com (Iksnamhcok)
> This may be total rationalization.
>
I don't think you can talk about Hitchcock for very long without getting
into >some< kind of rationalization...
Bill Warren
ok...@webtv.net
There is nothing "odd" about calling yourself names. Many people do it
so that they can hear people, tell other people, that the label is
somehow unfair and untrue. I would have imagined that he would have
expected an argument.
okhap
Tag Gallagher
Its curious that we all object to a bit of poetic realism in MARNIE, but
do not object to the poetic realism (the extremely unnatural
stylization) of the acting in, say, VERTIGO.
FilmGene
<<Its curious that we all object to a bit of poetic realism in MARNIE, but
do not object to the poetic realism (the extremely unnatural
stylization) of the acting in, say, VERTIGO.>>
Speaking for myself, it is not the poetic realism as such that I object to
in "Marnie". It is the lacklustre (in my opinion) manner in which it is
presented that ruins the film for me. "Vertigo" seems to me sheer
perfection as a Hitchcock film. "Marnie" has always seemed to me like
Hitchcock consciously trying to make a "Hitchcockian" film out of severely
inferior material.
I don't deny that there are interesting things in "Marnie", but it always
comes off as annoyingly superficial to me.
FilmGene
<<That's odd. He called himself lazy, and many of those who worked with him
regarded him that way, too. Gene, can't anyone make >any< negative
judgment about Hitchcock without you refuting it?>>
Nothing odd about it. He often said things in jest as you well know.
And I am a little tired of your taking everything I say as a personal
affront. The fact is the post I responded to attributed his choices of
studio over location as laziness. I just think that is plain wrong. You
seem to require affirmation in all things. That is your problem, not mine.
RaQuEl 7
>film...@aol.com (FilmGene) wrote:
>>bill...@aol.com wrote:
><<That's odd. He called himself lazy, and many of those who worked with him
>>regarded him that way, too. Gene, can't anyone make >any< negative
>>judgment about Hitchcock without you refuting it?>>
>>
>Nothing odd about it. He often said things in jest as you well know.
>
Everyone must know Hitchcock's quote about having a film so perfectly
worked out in his head ahead of time, that having to go through the process
of *making* the movie almost seemed bothersome and he wished he didn't
have to do it. I don't know to what extent he actually meant that
statement. . .I certainly believe that it was true he *did* have it all
worked out in his head before he ever even got near a storyboard.
Maybe that's what he meant by laziness. As Gene pointed out, he said
*alot* of things in jest, some of which were taken far, far, too seriously
by many people.
I do know from anecdotes I've heard from actors that Hitchcock was very
fond of his creature comforts, but that's hardly the same as being "lazy."
RaQuel
*****************************************************************
"How perfectly God damned delightful it all is, to be sure."
- C. Crumb
*****************************************************************
BillyBond
>From: film...@aol.com (FilmGene)
>"Marnie" has always seemed to me like
>Hitchcock consciously trying to make a "Hitchcockian" film out of
>severely inferior material.
>I don't deny that there are interesting things in "Marnie", but it
>always comes off as annoyingly superficial to me.
I feel that way too (and then some). I find your opening remark
particularly interesting, and on the nosey: MARNIE looks like a mediocre
>fake< Hitchcock movie made by someone who studied Hitch's style and
recurring concerns/motifs/obsessions (whichever you prefer). I wonder if
Hitchcock had begun to listen to his most devoted commentators too much, or
if he was so lost in his fixation on Hedren that the movie kind of got away
from him?
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: film...@aol.com (FilmGene)
>And I am a little tired of your taking everything I say as a personal
>affront. The fact is the post I responded to attributed his choices of
>studio over location as laziness. I just think that is plain wrong. You
>seem to require affirmation in all things. That is your problem, not mine.
But >I< didn't say that his choice of studio sets rather than location
work indicated laziness; that was someone else. And you do seem to find it
very hard to see even toenails of clay in any of the filmmakers you admire
the most. I'm not sure why you thought I was referring to a >personal<
affront; I was not.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: Tag Gallagher <t...@sprynet.com>
>Its curious that we all object to a bit of poetic realism in MARNIE, but
>do not object to the poetic realism (the extremely unnatural
>stylization) of the acting in, say, VERTIGO.
I do not object to "poetic realism." I object to lousy effects work. And
I don't see >any< comparison between VERTIGO and MARNIE in this regard; the
bell tower, for example, in VERTIGO is at once fully realistic and
stylized. The horse prop in MARNIE is just a fake horse.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: raq...@aol.com (RaQuEl 7)
>Newsgroups: alt.movies.hitchcock
>I do know from anecdotes I've heard from actors that Hitchcock was very
>fond of his creature comforts, but that's hardly the same as being "lazy."
True enough -- or rather, not necessarily false. John Huston was a very
hard worker, never to be considered lazy, and he loved his creature
comforts, too.
But ye gods, suggesting that Hitchcock was lazy is not the equivalent
of suggesting he slaughtered babies in their cribs.
Bill Warren
Tag Gallagher
BillyBond wrote:
There is no doubt. My point is merely that the people in VERTIGO are
fake people. James Stewart behaves like a wind-up doll. I don't say
this as a put-down. Hitchcock obviously wanted to delete all of
Stewart's normal body language, and the result is, I think we all agree,
quite interesting. But it's at least as far from "reality" as Marnie's
fake horse.
Tag Gallagher
Iksnamhcok wrote:
> I may be nuts (my wife certainly thinks so), but I concur with those who
> note that Hitchcock films are usually most artificial at their moments of
> greatest emotion. What Hitchcock seems to be saying, I think, is that
> emotions themselves are artificial, learned, conditioned by the culture.
Art by its nature is artificial. The more style, the more artifice, the more
art, and therefore the greater the emotion. "Realism" does not produce
emotion. Artifice produces emotion.
But your second sentence doesn't follow from the first. Yes, emotions are
conditioned by culture -- how could they not be? -- but this does not make
them artificial, unless you are suggesting that all human reality (i.e.,
culture) is artificial. In fact, human reality is the only reality we have.
Unknown Subject
In <19970914050...@ladder01.news.aol.com> bill...@aol.com
Er, no, I didn't think it was. Just a comment.
RaQuel
Iksnamhcok
Hmmm. Yeah, I probably didn't express that thought correctly.
Why do YOU think Hitchcock reserves his most artificial treatments for his
most emotionally intense scenes? Is it maybe because our personal
PERCEPTIONS are heightened in emotional states, and emotion-driven
perceptions rarely reflect reality?
I'd like to get to the bottom of Hitchcock's intense artifice, and so
would appreciate any meaningful input.
BillyBond
>From: iksna...@aol.com (Iksnamhcok)
>Why do YOU think Hitchcock reserves his most artificial treatments for his
>most emotionally intense scenes?
But I don't think he does.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: Tag Gallagher <t...@sprynet.com>
> James Stewart behaves like a wind-up doll. I don't say
>this as a put-down. Hitchcock obviously wanted to delete all of
>Stewart's normal body language, and the result is, I think we all agree,
>quite interesting. But it's at least as far from "reality" as Marnie's
>fake horse.
First of all, I radically disagree that James Stewart behaves like "a
wind-up doll" in VERTIGO; in fact, I don't even know what you could be
referring to. Secondly, Hitchcock almost never "directed" Stewart; both
men said so many times.
Secondly, a live man walking around on screen is infinitely more real,
wind-up doll or not, than a fake horse.
Bill Warren
Iksnamhcok
>derstanding towards life's outsiders and/or losers (and by extension,
>us, the audience).]
>
>- Ken M.
>
>
Ken, have I seen your name in The MacGuffin Website?
Tag Gallagher
Iksnamhcok wrote:
>
> Hmmm. Yeah, I probably didn't express that thought correctly.
>
> PERCEPTIONS are heightened in emotional states, and emotion-driven
> perceptions rarely reflect reality?
>
> I'd like to get to the bottom of Hitchcock's intense artifice, and so
> would appreciate any meaningful input.
Art is at its most emotionally intense when it is most stylized. My
meaningful imput is that if you want reality, look out the window; if
you want art, embrace artifice.
Tag Gallagher
I don't understand what you mean by real. How can one thing be more
real than another? And how can one locus of light on a screen be more
real than another? You really make absolutely no sense!
BillyBond
>From: Tag Gallagher <t...@sprynet.com>
>I don't understand what you mean by real. How can one thing be more
>real than another? And how can one locus of light on a screen be more
>real than another? You really make absolutely no sense!
>
I'm starting to feel that you are arguing solely for the sake of argument,
and that I will regret even CONSIDERING answering the above question, much
less actually doing so.
James Stewart was a real person.
The horse in MARNIE was not a real horse.
Do I need to explain further?
Bill Warren
ha...@hotmail.com
In Article<19970915011...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, <film...@aol.com> writes:
> Path: news1.stny.lrun.com!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
> From: film...@aol.com (FilmGene)
> Newsgroups: alt.movies.hitchcock
> Subject: Re: Realism
> Date: 15 Sep 1997 01:19:45 GMT
> Lines: 18
> Message-ID: <19970915011...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder02.news.aol.com
> X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> References: <19970914232...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> SnewsLanguage: English
>
> <<James Stewart was a real person.
> The horse in MARNIE was not a real horse.
> Do I need to explain further?>
>
> Well, yes.
>
> Both James Stewart in "Vertigo" and the fake horse in
"Marnie" are
> illusions and shadows. They are not actually the "real"
things, but are
> images on film which can be manipulated and rearranged.
This may seem
> obvious to you, but it is not reflected in your responses.
Care to try again?
>
> The point is that they are both illusions manipulated by
filmmakers to
> convince you that what you are watching is, if not "real",
at least a
> convincing illusion. Whether you think it is effective or
not is your
> opinion. The fake horse, on film, is just as "real" as
James Stewart.
>
>
> Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
HAT 45 RESPONDS......
A 5 year old child can tell you that any film has a certain
percentage of professional manipulation. "Gone With the
Wind" to "Star Wars" all employed trickery to convey an idea
or moment...not to trick the viewed. Films are not real.
One of the cheapest is in the very early moments of "The Lady
Vanishes"....the minature train and car running through the
snow bound village. If you missed that one, your sense of
reality is on low speed>
mack twamley
ok...@webtv.net wrote in article
<5verlq$65r$1...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...
=============
sort of like a very obese matronly lady telling a friend - Oh I'm Sooo Fat!
- and expecting her friend to reply - Oh, no dear, you're just pleasingly
plump......and I suppose we could both stand to lose "a pound or two..."
...........kind of a sad way to gain a compliment, or an affirmation of
what your scale and your mirror are NOT telling you.
Martin Koolhoven
Tag Gallagher wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean by real. How can one thing be more
> real than another? And how can one locus of light on a screen be more
>
> real than another? You really make absolutely no sense!
O please.....
Martin
FilmGene
FilmGene
<<Hitchcock was a director that wanted to control every element of film,
therefore his film became artificial looking.
All highly stylized and controlled films look artificial even with
modern techniques, but especially in those days.
He didn't want to make them look artificial, it was a side-effect.>>
What director does NOT want to control every element of the film? And
remember - all films are artificial. The most realistic film is an illusion
of reality. We are in the midst, in my opinion, of a misguided obsession
with what is "real-looking". I suspect this is because there is nothing
else to think about except whether it is real or not. There are certainly
precious few ideas in many modern films.
Izzo111
>The most realistic film is an illusion
>of reality. We are in the midst, in my opinion, of a misguided obsession
>with what is "real-looking". I suspect this is because there is nothing
>else to think about except whether it is real or not. There are certainly
>precious few ideas in many modern films.
>
Stewart on the screen is not a real person. And neither is a "live" or
"fake" horse. But doesn't the obviously fake horse (the prop horse) break
the illusion in a way that a "live" actor (one doing a credible job, at
least) will not. Doesn't the prop horse serve to break our willing
suspension of disbelief?
FilmGene
But aren't we really talking about degrees of reality? <<Obviously, James
Stewart on the screen is not a real person. And neither is a "live" or
"fake" horse. But doesn't the obviously fake horse (the prop horse) break
the illusion in a way that a "live" actor (one doing a credible job, at
least) will not. Doesn't the prop horse serve to break our willing
suspension of disbelief?>>
A fair point.
However, in general, very few films try consciously to break our
suspension of disbelief. Some are more convincing than others. And, of
course, over the years, audiences have been more forgiving of artifice than
at other times. That, to me is the key.
If the ideas and skill of the film is there, then the audience is not so
much concerned with the artifacts of illusion. When there is nothing else
to engage the mind, such matters take center stage.
Martin Koolhoven
Tag Gallagher wrote:
> Martin Koolhoven wrote:
>
> >
> > I have said this before, but I will say it again.
> > Artifice was NOT Hitchcock's goal. It was a side-effect on his way
> of
> > making films. He wanted to control every aspect of the film. Every
> > colour has a meaning, every prop has too.
> > His mise-en-scene would reflect the emotional state of the
> characters as
> > well as the way the characters would emotionally interact.
> > Background projection meant that he could control what was were and
> on
> > what moment in the shot. I have already given the example of the
> two
> > people kissing (I can't remember what film it was). Hitch put them
> in
> > front of the sea and when the lips touch - WHOOSH- there is the big
> wave
> > in the background. This could only been done by
> backgroundprojection.
> > Hitch loved working in a studio, because that way he could control
> > everything. The camera could be put everywhere (everything, even
> walls,
> > were portable).
> > How could Hitch have made that shot in the beginning of 'The Lady
> > Vanishes' if it wasn't a model?
> >
> > Hitchcock was a director that wanted to control every element of
> film,
> > therefore his film became artificial looking.
> > All highly stylized and controlled films look artificial even with
> > modern techniques, but especially in those days.
> > He didn't want to make them look artificial, it was a side-effect.
> > Remember how upset he was with the background projection shots in
> Torn
> > Curtain, that could have been much better (even in those days). He
> > wanted it to look as realistic as possible, but still be able to
> control
> > everything.
>
> There is no doubt of any of this. But your use of the word "artifice"
>
> confuses matters and leads inevitably to the problem you pose. When
> you
> write, "Artifice was NOT Hitchcock's goal. It was a side-effect on his
>
> way of making films. He wanted to control every aspect of the film" to
>
> me it is as though you wrote: "x was not Hitch's goal; his goal was
> x." If color has meaning, that is artifice. If mise en scene
> reflects
> emotional states, that is artifice.
It should be x was not the goal, his goal was y, creating y + x.Artifice
was NOT the goal. Hitchcock wanted to tell the story on every level he
could. In cutting, framing, music, etc. If artifice was the goal it
should not matter wheter a certain dress was red or blue. In Vertigo he
uses red versus green a lot. If artifice was the goal it could also have
been blue versus yellow.
Using a studio created the possibility of putting the camera everywhere
(The famous shower scene in Psycho could not have been made on
location). That is not an urge to be artificial, it is the urge to be
totally free and taking the artificy along.
> If he didn't want to make his films look artificial, what did he want
> to
> make them look like?
He wanted cinematic depth. He wanted to make the film look like the
story he was stelling.
> If you reply, "reality," then I say, well then he
> was wasting his time, because we have all of that outside the window
> and
> Hitch can't compete. It is a contradiction to say he wanted to look
> realistic and also wanted each color to be meaningful.
I do not say he wanted to make it lokk realistic by all means. He wanted
backgroundprojection to look as realistic as possible. he wanted his
models look as real as possible.If realism was his goal he would not
have used those techniques in the first place.
But saying he wanted to make the film look artificial is completely
ignoring what it was all about.
Telling a story with all means possible. The means are NOT the goal,
though they show the true artist.
Martin
BillyBond
>From: film...@aol.com (FilmGene)
>The fake horse, on film, is just as "real" as James Stewart.
>
Maybe you were fooled, Gene, but I doubt that as many as 2% of the rest of
the audience was. The horse is >patently< fake.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: izz...@aol.com (Izzo111)
> Doesn't the prop horse serve to break our willing
>suspension of disbelief?
Bless you my child.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: film...@aol.com (FilmGene)
>If the ideas and skill of the film is there, then the audience is not so
>much concerned with the artifacts of illusion. When there is nothing else
>to engage the mind, such matters take center stage.
Talking about horses, you seem to want to beat this particular dead one
utterly flat. How about talking about Hitchcock, and not your deep
disappointment in the artificiality of the storylines of movies today? How
about the rest of us just grant you are utterly and forever right on this
subject, and move on?
Bill Warren
Martin Koolhoven
Tag Gallagher wrote:
I have said this before, but I will say it again.
Martin
Martin Koolhoven
FilmGene wrote:
> <<James Stewart was a real person.
> The horse in MARNIE was not a real horse.
> Do I need to explain further?>
>
> Well, yes.
>
> Both James Stewart in "Vertigo" and the fake horse in "Marnie" are
> illusions and shadows. They are not actually the "real" things, but
> are
> images on film which can be manipulated and rearranged. This may seem
> obvious to you, but it is not reflected in your responses. Care to try
> again?
>
> The point is that they are both illusions manipulated by filmmakers to
>
> convince you that what you are watching is, if not "real", at least a
> convincing illusion. Whether you think it is effective or not is your
> opinion. The fake horse, on film, is just as "real" as James Stewart.
>
> Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Very smart Gene, but you also see a difference between Jimmy and the
fake horse.
Martin
Martin Koolhoven
FilmGene wrote:
> If the ideas and skill of the film is there, then the audience is not
> so
> much concerned with the artifacts of illusion. When there is nothing
> else
> to engage the mind, such matters take center stage.
>
> Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Wise words. The running gag on my sets is already for quite a while: 'If
they'll notice, the movie sucks'.(but off course there is a limit to
what you can get away with, even in a good film)
Martin
Martin Koolhoven
FilmGene wrote:
> <<Hitchcock was a director that wanted to control every element of
> film,
> therefore his film became artificial looking.
> All highly stylized and controlled films look artificial even with
> modern techniques, but especially in those days.
> He didn't want to make them look artificial, it was a side-effect.>>
>
> What director does NOT want to control every element of the film? And
> remember - all films are artificial.
Almost all directors do NOT take control over every element. Many of
them like the documentary feeling of things or go for authenticity. Most
directors do not bother about the difference in putting a character in
the right or in the left of the frame.Do you know a lot of directors
that find a shape to symbolize the content of the film and model
everything after that? (Last time I saw that was Coppela's Dracula)
Off course they will SAY they want control over every aspect, but very
seldom they TAKE control.
> The most realistic film is an illusion of reality.
So?
> We are in the midst, in my opinion, of a misguided obsession
> with what is "real-looking". I suspect this is because there is
> nothing
> else to think about except whether it is real or not. There are
> certainly
> precious few ideas in many modern films.
>
> Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
When did modern film making start according to you?(I think I agree with
you on the few ideas statement, BTW)
Martin
FilmGene
<<Very smart Gene, but you also see a difference between Jimmy and the
fake horse.>>
Martin,
I spent a long post describing what I really thought. Please take me at my
word. I take you at yours.
FilmGene
<<Almost all directors do NOT take control over every element. Many of
them like the documentary feeling of things or go for authenticity.>>
I said most directors WANT to control, not that they are successful at it.
And, besides, a sweeping generality such as you make is strictly a matter
of opinion.
<<When did modern film making start according to you?>>
Obviously any definition of "modern cinema" is going to be flawed.
However, I would say that it began at around the same time the major
studios began to be successful again at marketing their films to mass
audiences. Around the time of "Jaws" perhaps.
FilmGene
<<Maybe you were fooled, Gene, but I doubt that as many as 2% of the rest of
the audience was. The horse is >patently< fake.>>
I really think that the drift of this thread is getting beyond you, Bill.
Try reading the messages again.
FilmGene
<<Talking about horses, you seem to want to beat this particular dead one
utterly flat. How about talking about Hitchcock, and not your deep
disappointment in the artificiality of the storylines of movies today? How
about the rest of us just grant you are utterly and forever right on this
subject, and move on?>>
Continuing on with the horse metaphor, you seem to be giving a fine
impression of the back end of one. This discussion will go on as long as
the participants want it to go on, despite your disapproval.
There is a pattern developing in your debating style -- when you run out
of arguments, you post something like this. You're fooling nobody.
Tag Gallagher
Perhaps it breaks YOUR suspension of belief. But I bet most people
still haven't noticed it -- perhaps because they were looking at Marnie
rather than the horse. The question is: why were you looking at the
horse rather than at Tippi?
In almost every movie, there is something like a dead horse: some flaw,
a shadow of the camera, a microphone, a mismatched scene. Inevitably
someone comes along and starts shouting about this. The whole movie is
ruined for them, because they've found a flaw, and now they want to ruin
it for everyone else as well.
To me the key phrase here is "our WILLING suspension of disbelief."
Obviously, when you see MARNIE, your WILL is NOT WILLING. Because you
are selective. You suspend disbelief on a whole long list of things
(cutting, acting, lighting, music, etc.) but you draw the line at wooden
horses and a fake background. Fine. That's your will.
But it seems to me that your bigger philosophical point is that you CAN,
if you are WILLING, draw the line so as also to accept the horse and the
background. Your point seems to be that, on these matters, you do not
CHOOSE to suspend belief. You contend that you know better how to make
a Hitchcock film than did Hitchcock. It is not conceivable to you that
Hitch wanted the wooden horse and wanted the fake background. You do
not trust Hitch; obviously he was an idiot, a cretin, an asshole even.
You think he would have been a better filmmaker if only he had had you
there to correct his mistakes.
I recall watching SNOW WHITE and PETER PAN as a child. I assure, the
issue of whether they were "real" never disturbed me for a moment.
FilmGene
<<A 5 year old child can tell you that any film has a certain
percentage of professional manipulation.>>
Well, to paraphrase Groucho, "Quick, get me a 5 year old child." Several
others here seem to have missed the point.
Izzo111
>But it seems to me that your bigger philosophical point is that you CAN,
>if you are WILLING, draw the line so as also to accept the horse and the
>background. Your point seems to be that, on these matters, you do not
>CHOOSE to suspend belief. You contend that you know better how to make
>a Hitchcock film than did Hitchcock. It is not conceivable to you that
>Hitch wanted the wooden horse and wanted the fake background. You do
>not trust Hitch; obviously he was an idiot, a cretin, an asshole even.
>You think he would have been a better filmmaker if only he had had you
>there to correct his mistakes.
But the point, of course, as was noted earlier in this thread, is that
there are degrees of reality. Would you agree, regardless of how highly we
think of him as a director, that had Hitchcock actually appeared on screen
and jiggled the fake horse to make it appear to move that our willing
suspension of disbelief would have been destroyed? Would that have
disturbed that particular film moment for you?
BillyBond
>From: film...@aol.com (FilmGene)
>I really think that the drift of this thread is getting beyond you, Bill.
>Try reading the messages again.
Great, Gene. Now you're stooping to cheap insults. I know PRECISELY
where the thread was heading; evidently, you paid no attention to where it
>started<.
Bill Warren
Tag Gallagher
BillyBond wrote:
>
> The origin was this: in his later years, Hitchcock settled for FAR
> worse effects, partricularly rear-screen work, than he did in his earlier
> years. Partly this is a function of the increased visual knowledge of the
> audience, partly it is a function of Hitchcock settling for less than he
> used to. (Fortunately at Universal, he did usually have Albert Whitlock,
> so the matte work tended to be good.) But there really is a decline in the
> quality of his films on this level.
I recall someone pointing out that his British films were full of
obvious process shots. Except for MARNIE, what other evidence is there
of such decline? Yes, when MARNIE came out, critics objected to the
backdrop, but I don't recall anyone objecting to the birds.
> Some people seem loathe to accept the very idea that Hitchcock could
> have been lax, or sloppy, or lazy, in ANY regard, and choose to believe
> some starry-eyed view of him as an artiste, not just an artist. Convoluted
> rationalizations (not here, really, but in some books) are devised to
> explain away his very human blunders and oversights.
Yes, it may be that he blundered. But we don't know. Meanwhile, we
only have the MARNIE we have. So, even if we are wrong, we should try
to experience that MARNIE the way it is -- which unfortunately involves
accepting the horse and backdrop.
My point is still that you are willing to accept any number of
grostesque distortions of reality (e.g., cutting, music on the street,
the wind-up-doll acting style in VERTIGO, etc., etc.) but that you
choose not to accept this horse because it goes against a convention of
realism that happens to be in vogue at the moment (which was not so much
in vogue in the 30s and 40s).
The problem is more in you than in the film, no?
ok...@webtv.net
Frankly, I don't think anyone would wade through all this spitting at
each other like bad-tempered children and wait for the really worthwhile
statements if Hitchcock was not revered and loved by ALL that are
here-----no matter what noises are made.
Great show guys! Learning a lot....about Hitch, too.
But is anyone ever going to tell me what the significance of those
staircases are?
I checked dejanews, zilch. I need a reference, I'll do the rest. And
if I STILL don't get it, I'll be back.
okhap
Tag Gallagher
Izzo111 wrote:
>
> But the point, of course, as was noted earlier in this thread, is that
> there are degrees of reality.
I don't agree that there are degrees of reality. If you have two dogs,
can one be more real than the other -- even if you love one and hate the
other?
Would you agree, regardless of how highly we
> think of him as a director, that had Hitchcock actually appeared on screen
> and jiggled the fake horse to make it appear to move that our willing
> suspension of disbelief would have been destroyed? Would that have
> disturbed that particular film moment for you?
If Hitch had done that, I would have assumed that he wanted to do it.
He does, as you know, appear in his films and does do similar things.
But in that case it would have been a different movie.
My point is that it is your CHOICE to bestow or suspend belief as you
will. Whenever an artist simply follows the conventional, everyone says
he is "realistic." But no sooner does an artist do something a little
in violation of convention, than we say he is not realistic. Myself, I
don't give a hooey whether he or she is realistic or not. I don't know
BillyBond
>Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
>There is a pattern developing in your debating style -- when you run out
>of arguments, you post something like this. You're fooling nobody.
And once again you turn to personal insults, after all your pious claims
you never do anything of the sort.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: Robert...@teleport.com
>In ancient Greek theater the actors wore masks to indicate to the audience
>that they were representing "Zeus" or "Artemis" or whoever. No one really
>sincerely believed that it was, in fact, Zeus or Artemis on stage; what was
>required was >suspension of disbelief<, a convention required to enjoy
>art, which is a representation of ideas/emotions/situations. To require art
>to "look" exactly like life is absurd and rather childish.
>
You're coming in very late on this argument, and as you are missing what
went before, you're reacing some pretty unlikely conclusions. Many of my
very favorite movies are highly stylized -- I adore Fellini, for example --
and I do know the difference between real real and drug, I mean movie,
real. (Will anyone get that reference? Will anyone even RECOGNIZE it as a
reference?)
This was not the basis of the discussion.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: Tag Gallagher <t...@sprynet.com>
>Perhaps it breaks YOUR suspension of belief. But I bet most people
>still haven't noticed it -- perhaps because they were looking at Marnie
>rather than the horse.
Well, since most people didn't see the movie -- it did poorly at the
boxoffice -- this question is moot going in.
And the rest of your comment is a the verbal equivalent of a straw man:
you decide why I pointed this out in the first place, and somehow manage to
imply that >I< am failing >the movie<.
>To me the key phrase here is "our WILLING suspension of disbelief."
>Obviously, when you see MARNIE, your WILL is NOT WILLING. Because you
are selective.
Yes. Absolutely. Just like everyone else, including you. For reasons
that are unclear to me, you are trying to form an entire theory about >my
opinions of movies< based on that lousy fake horse in a bad Alfred
Hitchcock movie.
>But it seems to me that your bigger philosophical point is that you CAN,
>if you are WILLING, draw the line so as also to accept the horse and the
>background.
I would have no objections whatsoever to the fake horse and lousy
rear-screen if the movie really engaged my attention in other ways; I'd
notice them -- I have the kind of mind that simply DOES notice such things
(like most people commenting here, I suspect) -- but I wouldn't hold them
against the movie.
I don't even hold them against MARNIE. Evidently you came in late on
this discussion, or have forgotten how it began, or are willingly
disregarding the origin.
The origin was this: in his later years, Hitchcock settled for FAR
worse effects, partricularly rear-screen work, than he did in his earlier
years. Partly this is a function of the increased visual knowledge of the
audience, partly it is a function of Hitchcock settling for less than he
used to. (Fortunately at Universal, he did usually have Albert Whitlock,
so the matte work tended to be good.) But there really is a decline in the
quality of his films on this level.
Some people seem loathe to accept the very idea that Hitchcock could
have been lax, or sloppy, or lazy, in ANY regard, and choose to believe
some starry-eyed view of him as an artiste, not just an artist. Convoluted
rationalizations (not here, really, but in some books) are devised to
explain away his very human blunders and oversights.
>You contend that you know better how to make
>a Hitchcock film than did Hitchcock.
This is insulting bullshit.
>It is not conceivable to you that
>Hitch wanted the wooden horse and wanted the fake background
This, however, is absolutely true.
>You do
>not trust Hitch; obviously he was an idiot, a cretin, an asshole even.
This is an incredibly grotesque exaggeration not borne out by anything
that I, or anyone else here, has said. Why not stick to what people have
said, instead of inventing this preposterous -- and thoroughly stupid --
lies about what they said?
Bill Warren
Tag Gallagher
Robert...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> The more literal-minded, the more materialistic people become, the more
> they demand that art appear "realistic", i.e. like they see in everyday life.
Two comments:
I'm curious about the connection between materialism and desire for
realism. Can you give some examples, say, from art history?
"Realistic" doesn't mean "like they see in everyday life." It means
what they see in everyday representation. In art history, to
illustrate, it's clear that most artists, if they wanted to draw a human
ear, did not go and get a human and try to draw what they saw as though
for the first time. No. They drew an ear that looked like all the
other ears being drawn. After about fifty years, someone came along and
drew an ear differently. Everyone shrieked and hollered that the ear
looked artificial and the artist couldn't draw (e.g., French
impressionism). But after a few years, the new ear caught on, and
everybody started drawing ears that way. Now it became obvious that the
old ears look "fake" and "artificial" and that the new ear looks
"realistic." Then another fifty years go by, and someone draws a new
ear...
The interesting thing is that every change of style, every new way of
drawing an ear, is initially judged as a deficiency. as an
impoverishment, as an artifice and an abandoment of realism.
Anyone who has ever tried to teach moviewatching to college students
can testify to the fact that most of them initially have problems with
virtually ANY "old" movie (now meaning anything made before 1990!)
because "old movies aren't realistic."
This is the problem in MARNIE. Hitchcock used conventions which were
not in fashion at the moment. What strikes me powerfully in the
infamous horse scene is the emotions Marnie is experiencing; perhaps the
false background or wooden horse is part of what makes those emotions so
strong in that scene. Similarly, the Baltimore harbor background...I
mean, it's really a beautiful beautiful shot and if it had occurred in a
1928 German silent, everyone would be hailing its "psychological
realism" as a bold innovation or something. In fact in 1964 the
emotions are more powerful. Some self-impoverishing viewers may only
experience "artifice" or "not real" or shock or disapproval. For
myself, it's one of my favorite shots in the movie. I can't articulate
why. There's a mix of deep emotions connected with Marnie, The Past,
her childhood, her mother, this street, which works like a kind of
vertigo climaxing in that harbor---a harbor as escape, as a greater
world, and therefore looming BIGGER than it could have loomed if it were
an actual harbor.
Worrying about the "artifice" of these scenes strikes me as a
misdirection of energy and, worse, as a tragedy. You guys are missing
something really and truly wonderful.
Robert...@teleport.com
> film...@aol.com (FilmGene) writes:
[snip]
> However, in general, very few films try consciously to break our
> suspension of disbelief. Some are more convincing than others. And, of
> course, over the years, audiences have been more forgiving of artifice than
> at other times. That, to me is the key.
> If the ideas and skill of the film is there, then the audience is not so
> much concerned with the artifacts of illusion. When there is nothing else
> to engage the mind, such matters take center stage.
>>>>
Excellent point.
The more literal-minded, the more materialistic people become, the more
they demand that art appear "realistic", i.e. like they see in everyday life.
One upon a time it was sufficient to show someone who had been shot
falling down and expiring- now one must show blood splattering, organs
exploding, brains smearing across walls- next, they'll have to show shit
and piss draining because that's what "really" happens when someone
dies violently. SO WHAT? What does this really add to the ability of an
artist to convey an >idea<? Ansolutely nothing. It's only cheap titillation
akin to the "games" presented in the Roman Coloseum at the "height"
of the Roman empire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert...@teleport.com
> bill...@aol.com (BillyBond) writes:
> >From: film...@aol.com (FilmGene)
> >The fake horse, on film, is just as "real" as James Stewart.
> the audience was. The horse is >patently< fake.
>>>>
You're missing the whole point.
In ancient Greek theater the actors wore masks to indicate to the audience
that they were representing "Zeus" or "Artemis" or whoever. No one really
sincerely believed that it was, in fact, Zeus or Artemis on stage; what was
required was >suspension of disbelief<, a convention required to enjoy
art, which is a representation of ideas/emotions/situations. To require art
to "look" exactly like life is absurd and rather childish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BillyBond
>From: us03...@mindspring.com (Peter)
>I think this is once again a distraction from the original points that
>were being made.
It's very easy to get shunted off onto a trunk line around here -- on any
newsgroup, BBS or whatever. The problem is that this form of communication
is >radically< different from any other, but it's not immediately obvious
that that's true. It's instantaneous, intimate and impersonal all at the
same time. We -- and I include myself -- can end up failing to regard the
people at the other end of the conversations >as< people. They're just
words on a screen. And we can talk to them in ways that we would never
>ever< consider in other forms of communcation -- face to face, in letters,
over the phone, on the radio, on television, etc.
Somehow, many of us -- and again I include myself -- don't regard the
>typing< of insults as somehow as meaningful as >speaking them aloud<.
Conveying a tone of voice is well-nigh impossible in this format. It
encourages impulsive, careless responses. And those responses are often
very difficult to take back.
Anyway, back on the subject of Hitchcock, fake horses and such: there
were two questions here that kind of got tangled. One was >why< Hitchcock
put up with lousy effects work particularly later in his career. The other
was he doing this sort of thing (and others) >deliberately< to somehow
emphasize the artifice of his films? A problem is that NONE of us knows
the answer to EITHER question; several here, including me, consider it to
be highly likely that he >wasn't< trying to make his movies look "more"
like movies, more artificial.
> He
>used process shots and miniatures and rear projection and matte
>paintings from almost the very beginning of his career as a director.
That's true, he did. Someone mentioned that large miniature used for the
opening of THE LADY VANISHES; I referred to the many clever uses to which
he put process screens int he same movie.
>However, I
>don't personally believe it detracts in any way from the film, which I
think is underrated Hitchcock.
I don't think the phony backdrops, the (to me) unpleasant and unattractive
pastel color scheme, or even Tippi Hedren's uneven performance seriously
detract from MARNIE. But I also think it's the worst movie I ever saw from
my favorite director.
I realize there are many who do not share that opinion.
> I
>honestly think that this has colored the opinions of many today who
>tend to view Hitchcock as the macabre host of a TV show and the guy who
brought us "Psycho" and "The Birds".
If you're making that as a generalized comment, I suspect you're right; if
you are trying to suggest that any of us here, including me, fell victim
to that folly -- well, I can speak only for me, and I assure you that
you're very much mistaken in my case.
>
>
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: ok...@webtv.net
>
>But is anyone ever going to tell me what the significance of those
>staircases are?
I guess you missed the comment. If you're referring to the similarity
between staircases in A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE and I CONFESS, it's not
likely to be because Hitchcock was making a reference to another movie --
the only time I can think of in which he did that was to use the Disney
cartoon in SABOTAGE, and that's not really a reference -- but rather
because both New Orleans and Montreal are basically French cities.
Bill Warren
Martin Koolhoven
Tag Gallagher wrote:
> Izzo111 wrote:
> >
> > But the point, of course, as was noted earlier in this thread, is
> that
> > there are degrees of reality.
>
> I don't agree that there are degrees of reality. If you have two
> dogs,
> can one be more real than the other -- even if you love one and hate
> the
> other?
A fake dog is less real than a real dog.This turns out be an arguement
with statements like 'objectivity doesn't exist' .
Martin
FilmGene
<<A fake dog is less real than a real dog.This turns out be an arguement
with statements like 'objectivity doesn't exist' .>>
Not so fast. In a film there cannot be a "real dog", only an image of a
dog, which is susceptible to many kinds of manipulation before it is sent
to the viewer. Yes, all things being equal, an image of a stuffed dog will
probably look less real than an image of a real dog.
But all things are seldom if ever equal and the aim of all films is not
necessarily to convey what appears to be "real".
Peter
film...@aol.com (FilmGene) wrote:
><<Very smart Gene, but you also see a difference between Jimmy and the
>fake horse.>>
>
>Martin,
>
>I spent a long post describing what I really thought. Please take me at my
>word. I take you at yours.
>
>
>Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Just for the record, and not that it seems to matter to this
particular line of discussion: Tippi is **NOT** riding a fake horse
in the infamous scene. She is sitting on a *real* horse with a rear
projected background. The horse moves his head, twitches his ears,
etc. All in all the shot only lasts a few seconds.
I think this is once again a distraction from the original points that
were being made. Hitchcock liked working within the confines of a
studio for control purposes - it was how he was most comfortable. He
used process shots and miniatures and rear projection and matte
paintings from almost the very beginning of his career as a director.
Some worked better than others. I remember upon seeing "Marnie" for
the first time noticing the rear projection immediately. However, I
don't personally believe it detracts in any way from the film, which I
think is underrated Hitchcock. It's psychological leanings are no
more sophisticated than they were in "Spellbound" but the film boasts
some remarkable set pieces - Hitchcocks touches (Marnie robbing the
safe, the party scene, etc.). These more than make up for a few
obvious matte shots and rear projections. Does anyone really believe
the "shot" off the top of the UN Building in "NxNW" is realistic? We
don't tend to denegrate that film because of it (I certainly don't).
To portray "Marnie" as sloppy because of a couple of shots lasting
only a few seconds belies its overall beauty and importance.
Everone is certainly entitled to his/her opinion about the film but I
think on the whole it is a far better film than most give it credit
for. We must remember that it followed a string of very successful
films (from both box office and a critical point of view). It was
very different and didn't have the action or excitement or glamour of
many of the films that preceded it (excluding "The Wrong Man"). I
honestly think that this has colored the opinions of many today who
tend to view Hitchcock as the macabre host of a TV show and the guy
who brought us "Psycho" and "The Birds".
Peter Durbetaki
Iksnamhcok
>He
>wanted it to look as realistic as possible, but still be able to control
>everything.
You may be right -- cetainly in the case of Torn Curtain -- BUT....
Hitchcock also talked much about preferring dream logic to realism, and I
recall reading of the pre-production meetings on Marnie that he fought his
production designers over the painted backdrop of the ship at the end of
Marnie's mother's street. He WANTED it to look fake. Maybe not as
fake-looking as it turned out, but still fake.
Have you read the Rutgers Films in Print book on North by Northwest? The
editor, James Naremore, puts forth an interesting view: "The fascination of
(Hitchcock's) work derived in part from a conflict between his sinister
irony and his pellucid syntax, which gave each sequence the bold, stylized
look of a storyboard or a cartoon." (I really like that phrase "pellucid
syntax." It puts into words a feeling about Hitchcock's work I've had but
could never quite articulate.)
The fakeness of many of Hitchcock's effects may indeed have been due to
his need to use such methods as back projection and painted backdrops to
achieve this "pellucid syntax" or dreamlike state. Do you think if
Hitchcock were working today he'd be a big-time user of computer animation?
BillyBond
>From: iksna...@aol.com (Iksnamhcok)
> Do you think if
>Hitchcock were working today he'd be a big-time user of computer animation?
Not computer animation per se, but I think that he'd find other forms of
digital/computer manipulation of the image to be very useful indeed. Aside
from anything else, it would >further< reduce his requirement to actually
be on the set. He'd probably love Coppola's "Silver Fish" and would use it
in the ways Coppola is falsely reputed to.
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: Tag Gallagher <t...@sprynet.com>
>I recall someone pointing out that his British films were full of
>obvious process shots. Except for MARNIE, what other evidence is there
of such decline?
The process shots in the British films were obvious -- but they were ALSO
state-of-the-art for the period, and Hitchcock had what seems to be great
fun fooling around with such things. He had sections of sets in front of
process screens, moving in time with them; he intercut intricately between
miniatures, process work, full scale on process, miniatures on process,
etc. (There's a fantastic sequence in YOUNG AND INNOCENT,which I watched
yesterday, that involves all of this stuff.)
And when he was at Paramount, the process work was still
state-of-the-art. When he moved to MCA, it simply >was not<. Other
Universal films at the time had better such work, sometimes radically
better. It seems to me that he may have been standing still while the rest
of the movie world accelerated around him; if so, he would be VERY far from
the first director to do that/have that happen to them (look at A COUNTESS
FROM HONG KONG). To me, the amazing thing about Hitchcock is how well he
recovered from what might have been career-killers in lesser men (MARNIE,
whatever its value as a movie, did not do well; TORN CURTAIN was greeted
with critical and boxoffice indifference; TOPAZ was actively disliked --
even by Hitchcock) to bounce back with two films that, while they weren't
among his BEST work, were still good, solid Hitchcockery.
>Yes, when MARNIE came out, critics objected to the
>backdrop, but I don't recall anyone objecting to the birds.
I do, but that's neither here nor there. The thing is that THE BIRDS
simply >couldn't< have been done at all without resort to special effects
trickery; MARNIE could have been shot on real locations, etc. Also, THE
BIRDS was such an unusual movie for >anyone<, particularly Hitchcock, that
I think a lot of its flaws were forgiven and/or overlooked.
> My point is still that you are willing to accept any number of
>grostesque distortions of reality (e.g., cutting, music on the street,
>the wind-up-doll acting style in VERTIGO, etc., etc.) but that you
>choose not to accept this horse because it goes against a convention of
>realism that happens to be in vogue at the moment (which was not so much
>in vogue in the 30s and 40s).
I really do not understand why you think it is fair to make a
>declaration< about me. You don't say that I seem to accept such and such,
you say I DO. And all you have to go on is what was said about MARNIE --
and even then, you came in late.
ALL of us are inclined to accept more technical flaws in movies we
really love (the cockatoo with the hole in its head in KANE, the glowing
leopard's eyes in 2001, the mediocre matte work in NORTH BY NORTHWEST,
etc.) than we do in movies we don't care for, but that wasn't what I was
doing with MARNIE.
>
>
Bill Warren
BillyBond
>From: Robert...@teleport.com
>The more literal-minded, the more materialistic people become, the more
>they demand that art appear "realistic", i.e. like they see in everyday
life....
. It's only cheap titillation
>akin to the "games" presented in the Roman Coloseum at the "height">of
the Roman empire.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't recall more explicit blood in movies
as a sign of the collapse of western civilization.
>
>
Bill Warren
Tom Davidson
BillyBond <bill...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970918213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> ALL of us are inclined to accept more technical flaws in movies we
> really love >snip, e.g.,<, the glowing leopard's eyes in 2001,
> Bill Warren>
What makes you think those glowing leopard eyes was a
technical flaw?
Oops! I thought I was on alt.movies.kubrick ;^).
Tom D.
Iksnamhcok
> it's not
>likely to be because Hitchcock was making a reference to another movie --
>the only time I can think of in which he did that was to use the Disney
>cartoon in SABOTAGE,
Maybe I'm going off on a tangent here, but I just gotta believe that
Psycho was very heavily influenced by Touch of Evil. Not just the obvious
stuff (e.g., Janet Leigh terrorized in a cheap motel), but just the whole
idea of a top filmmaker working in a shabby milieu, but doing it in an
extraordinary way.
I understand that Hitch was even trying to start Psycho with a similar
extended tracking shot -- the sweep over the Phoenix skyline to the hotel
and through the window into Leigh's room -- but the helicopter shots
weren't working and he was so determined to keep costs down, he finally
gave up on the idea.
Many also think Hitchcock was trying to top Les Diaboliques with Psycho.
True, Hitchcock rarely, if ever, made "direct references" to other films,
but I'm sure he was greatly influenced by some.
Now that I think about it, Shadow of a Doubt has a Wellesian feel. After
seeing it a couple of times, my wife was convinced it was an Orson Welles
flick.
BillyBond
>From: iksna...@aol.com (Iksnamhcok)
>Maybe I'm going off on a tangent here, but I just gotta believe that
>Psycho was very heavily influenced by Touch of Evil. Not just the obvious
>stuff (e.g., Janet Leigh terrorized in a cheap motel), but just the whole
>idea of a top filmmaker working in a shabby milieu, but doing it in an
>extraordinary way.
>
It's possible, but it doesn't seem that way to me. Hitchcock's style is
lean and efficient, mostly; Welles' was baroque, particularly in that film
(which I love, before someone decides that by calling it "baroque" I was
somehow attacking Welles).
>
>True, Hitchcock rarely, if ever, made "direct references" to other films,
>but I'm sure he was greatly influenced by some.
I think that in the late silent and early talkies, he was strongly
influenced by Fritz Lang -- and I think the influence went the other way as
well.
Bill Warren
FilmGene
<<I think that in the late silent and early talkies, he was strongly
influenced by Fritz Lang -- and I think the influence went the other way as
well.>>
I couldn't agree more. Lang was the King of UFA when Hitchcock worked
there. The evidence is plain in Lang's silent "Spies".