HITCHCOCK

ok. forget about bergman, welles, tarkovsky, godard, fellini, and any other of those major art filmmaker who are usually named. for my money, the greatest director who ever lived was alfred hitchcock.

he was certainly the best director in technical terms, as well as practical knowledge of the film medium. few enjoyed as long and successful a career, which stretched from the silent period all the way to the dawn of the postmodern period. his films weren’t self-consciously arty or obscure, but rather accessible on a mass scale, while still retaining an incredible about of thematic subtext and formal experimentation. few spoke of the modern human condition so eloquently through their films. one can label him the most virtuous of directors, because he made his films for his audiences first, and himself second. as he himself noted, “one must design his films as shakespeare designed his plays – for an audience.” and his films were charged with emotion in a manner i’ve never seen approached by another director.

Second.

I would not list him as the greatest director, but his career does in a sense tell the story of film in the first three-quarters of the 20th century, and he had an uncanny knack for blending art with commercial appeal in his films. I can think of no other director who, for me, places as many films in my top 100 as Hitchcock does.

if he places the most films in your top 100, but isn’t the greatest director for you, who is?

i bet a lot of people would agree with that statement about the top 100. that’s another reason i think he’s the greatest.

well he’s no kurosawa, but he’s pretty good. i love rear window, love shadow of a doubt, love vertigo. Great movies.

If not THE greatest, certainly one of them. He’s always been in my Top 5 (or less), and I suppose if I went by the sheer number of great films he made, the consistency of his output, he might rank #1. But I don’t always go by that criteria, and there are some other directors whose output, while smaller in numbers, is just as consistently great (like Stanley Kubrick, just to name one). Still, even Hitch’s “worst” efforts are worth watching, and his best, well, they are incomparable. The only criticism I might voice is a lack of range, overall. Though he did make some terrific comedies and straight-up dramas, he’ll always be known as the master of suspense. Anyway, this is coming from a guy who has never made up his mind as to exactly who his favorite director really is, so don’t mind me. Hitchcock rules, plain and simple..

i haven’t seen a kurosawa film yet that grabs you by the throat and sparks your emotions the way hitchcock’s films do. not “rashomon”, not “yojimbo”, not “high and low”. plus, hitchcock’s films are timeless. endlessly repeatable and endlessly enjoyable. i don’t know if we can say that about a majority of kurosawa’s work. i think the only edge kurosawa has on hitchcock is the ability to do big, sweeping, action pieces.

hitch has a ton of range. his work cut across suspense, comedy, drama, period pieces, horror, etc.

I think it is safe to say Hitchcock was the greatest American director. I think that is a more befitting title. You all speak of his films as artistic yet commercial, I guess he is somewhat of a Warhol of the film world. (some humor is involved in that statement)

Hitchcock was English.

I consider Kurosawa the greatest filmmaker of all time, so of course I’m biased, but I think films like Kagemusha, Ran, I Live In Fear, Seven Samurai, Scandal or, especially, Ikiru can be just as emotionally charging as anything Hitchcock ever did. Check Ikiru out and tell me he can’t spark your emotions. If you do, I will point out you are one cold bastard, ha. As for the timeless quality, I watch at least two Kurosawa films every month, no matter what the circumstances. I think that his portrayals of whatever time he’s setting the film in are so universal that they will never become less powerful, only moreso. Except maybe I Live In Fear, which I assume would’ve been much more effective in the years after the bomb dropped.

All that said, I love Hitch. I think when he’s on his game, he’s amazing. That crane shot from Notorious is one of the most beautiful and technically advanced shots this side of the opening to Touch of Evil.

I think the best part about Hitch was that he was never content doing ‘just’ suspense, or ‘just’ drama. He was always limiting himself in ways that made his films work in such spectacular fashions, like the limited number of takes for Rope, the box drama of Rear Window, the singular setting of Lifeboat. I don’t think you can say there’s a “typical” Hitchcock film because each is so clever in its own ways.

I also want to add a lot of people despise his comedies and some of his other works of the like. He is also quite frequently referred to by others as the most overrated director. Myself not being one of those people. Is it jealousy towards his success or people just trying to be “cool” by not likening something the majority of people do. Any thoughts or comments about this? Is anyone on here one of those people who do feel this way?

I cannot begin to debate whether or not Hitch is the greatest filmmaker ever; because he just might be. It is arguable.

Note that I said “overall” when addressing Hitch’s range. And I was mostly speaking about the general perception of him, what he’s most known for. I love his comedies, the few that there are, and his dramas. And, as you point out, he had a great way of combining many different elements and genres into a whole new type of film. I didn’t mean to pigeonhole him, I meant to say he’s been pigeonholed (not entirely without reason). Heck, I’m one of the few fans of his last film, Family Plot, which I believe did have some great comedic moments. And look at something like Notorious, which starts off as a sort of dark romantic comedy and becomes a lesson in how to keep an audience on the edge of their seat. Rebecca is pure (melo)drama on the surface, but underneath there is plenty of suspense. The Lady Vanishes is like 2 films in one, the first half hour being largely comic, the rest being a mish-mash of comedy, drama and suspense. Shadow of a Doubt is very unique for him, and The Birds was unlike anything he or anyone else had done up until that point. And don’t get me started on Rear Window or Psycho. I just wanted to make it clear that I don’t think he was limited, just that one argument people could use against him is his penchant for suspense. Even if that’s true, it doesn’t make him any less of a great director. He was always pushing boundaries and redefining the rules of cinema.

Bobby Wise: How right you’re in this topic.
Hitchocock is not only my favorite director, is a real ‘autor’. Each one of his films have something special… you can learn about moviemaking watching his films.

Hitchcock was from England sure, but he started making American films and then infiltrated US homes starting in the fifties with his TV show Alfred Hitchcock Presents, which contained some really quality material. Several of his films are my favorites, and he was an important part of my childhood. A million thumbs up for Hitch.

Point is he was a Filmmaker, an Auteur.
Not an American or an English Director, you could argue, sure, but I am with Bobby here; he transcended any of these labels we have put on him. He was an artist. Anyone and everyone subsequently involved in film, from his era or after, was influenced by him more so than anyone else, and it is that I have trouble refuting and it serves as testament.

Hitchcock is definitely a legend and an artist – and I’m also sure that at least five (if not more) of his films would also wind up in my top 100. He is the reason why I know what auteur theory is.

Hitchcock was a great film-maker, one of the greatest if you talk about influence. As he said, he enjoyed “playing the audience like a piano” and his ability to control and jerk an audience and their emotions was his greatest asset as a film-maker. One of my favorite things to do while watching a Hitchcock film in theaters is watching the reactions of other people in the audience, as you can completely understand how he “plays” an audience.

His style and technique bled through all of his films, you could truly see large parts of his creative vision within all his films. Hitch made Alfred Hitchcock films and could still transcend his stories to the masses and to large universal appeal. Which is really quite the dream of any director and is a testament to his legacy within cinema.

I wasn’t referring to his birth origin when I called him an American Filmmaker but where a vast majority of his films were made. that is my fault i guess. I love him and am probably more influenced by him that any other director, but I can’t decide between he and Kurosawa. That’s just me being honest..

I Personally am in love with Hitchcock’s style. His particular visual style is used maddeningly off the curve by Brian De Palma and Quentin Tarantino and to some degree by Spielberg and Scorsese

I don’t think any filmmaker expresses visually better than Hitch.

Incidentally, this shot from Tarkovsky reminds me of Hitch’s style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBZsj8FPSbo&feature=related

Cutler: I wouldn’t say that’s your fault by any means. Most of his films were American films, I don’t think his own ethnic background would change that in anyway. That’s like saying all Roman Polanski films are Polish films.

Cutler, I understood what you were saying.
You could say the same thing about Nolan.

But his style (and Nolan’s for that matter) is a fusion of American Studio and European New-Waves.
Hell, everyone was influenced by Hollywood, what, until the late 50s.

A great director, but I wouldn’t call him the greatest by any stretch. Of course, this may depend on what you call great, and it may get into an apples vs. oranges sort of debate. Is Vertigo greater than Tokyo Story? Two completely different kinds of film, both extraordinary.
Ozu doesn’t grab you by the throat, and who said a director is supposed to? By that measure Quentin Tarantino is better than anyone.

Is “The Wrong Man” better than “High and Low”? Not to me it isn’t.

Let’s keep in mind, too, that Hitchcock also made some stinkers. Stage Fright is awful. So is Jamaica Inn and Suspicion.

Hitchcock’s favorite director, by the way, was Luis Bunuel.

when did hitchcock say his favorite director was bunuel? i never heard that.

i actually think “jamaica inn” is an underappreciated masterpiece from hitchcock. like “secret agent”, “the trouble with harry”, and a few others that are starting to get their due in critical attention.

yes, hitchcock made plenty of bad films. but he also made over 50 films in all. and from the 40s and into the 60s, he had without a doubt the greatest string of masterpieces from any director living. i think that’s a fact. no one was on top of their game for so many decades straight like hitchcock.

The ratio of good films to bad ones in his oeuvre is amazingly high, and he was making quality movies right up until the end (Frenzy, for example).

Alfred Hitchcock is probably my favorite director (or really close to it) and i own all of his movies except for like a couple. and i love how his movies like Psycho and The Birds can still scare anybody to this day! i showed my 2 nephews (8 and 13) and my niece (10) Psycho and The Birds and they literally would not go to the bathroom or go outside lol

haha! yeah, i think it’s a safe bet to say that “psycho” and “the birds” are a bit too much for kids 10 and under. sheesh.

Actually, come to think of it, I don’t think Hitchcock said Bunuel was his favorite.

What he said was that Bunuel is the greatest director in the world, a comment he made a well-attended Hollywood for Bunuel in 1972. He was quite enthusiastic at the time about “Tristana.” He later told Donald Spoto that he was greatly influenced by Surrealism.

(Here’s a photo from the event: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3463944192/nm0000320)

I’d have to see “Jamaica Inn” again to see if I misjudged it, but “Secret Agent” was terrible, thanks largely to a badly miscast John Gielgud, who had not yet learned the difference between stage acting and film acting.

At one time or another, Hitchcock might have been the greatest living American director. I just wouldn’t say the greatest ever. How many truly great films did he make, accent on truly? By truly great I mean films that are unquestionably unique. Are “Notorious” and “Rebecca” great films of lasting immortal value, or just extremely good, highly enjoyable? Are they great art or just great pizza?

truly great films? more than any other director. hitchcock was a true artist. and his films weren’t slices of pizza, they were slices of cake.

we’ll start with his perfect films. films that are unquestionably flawless. “the lady vanishes”, “rear window”, “vertigo”, “north by northwest”.

now his masterpieces in general. brilliant, stunning films that are a shade below perfect. “the lodger”, “the 39 steps”, “sabotage”, “rebecca”, “shadow of a doubt”, “lifeboat”, “notorious”, “rope”, “strangers on a train”, “dial m for murder”, “psycho”, “the birds”, “frenzy”.

finally, his films that are great. some of them underappreciated masterworks, some of them slightly flawed jewels. “blackmail”, “the man who knew too much” (1934), “secret agent”, “jamaica inn”, “the trouble with harry”.

what director in the history of world cinema can top that canon?