Nah, I have the opposite feeling. US Hitchcock is where he received the resources and money to do exactly what he wanted. UK Hitchcock had to struggle with the UK film industry, which wasn’t as kind to him. I don’t think Hitchcock could have made anything remotely resembling Vertigo while he was still in the UK.
Not to say that the UK film industry is lesser. If anything, Powell is a shining beacon of what can and has come out of that country. But Hitchcock always wanted to work in Hollywood, and once he made it, he shined. I think that’s another reason why so many prospective filmmakers want to have careers like Hitchcock—where they have all of the money and resources Hollywood has to offer, but still remain independent, willing to experiment, and creative.
—PolarisDiB
One thing i find with His films is that i never feel part of it. No matter the film and more with the latter films i always feel i am watching it.
i have the opposite feeling. hitchcock always tried to put the viewer in the middle of his films. through suspense, the constant use of point of view shots, the everyman-caught-up-in-extraordinary-situations story. hitch was the master of creating audience identification.
his british films dont even compare to his american ones. not even close. and hitch made some masterpiece british films. “the lady vanishes” to me is a perfect film. as good as anything he produced in america, but not better.
I agree. I remember after seeing Psycho in 1960 that I had wanted Marion to get away with the $40,000, I wanted to look through the peephole, I wanted Norman to remember the newspaper, I wanted the car to continue sinking, and on and on. I had been pulled into the screen and chose to become a criminal.
but really, hitchcock’s british period only produced a few masterworks. true ones. not flawed or semi-masterworks. “the lady vanishes”, “the 39 steps”, maybe “the man who knew too much” (which is certainly better than the remake). everything else great is a second-level of greatness from hitch (which can still make it leagues above others).
but man oh man, the string of classic top-notch masterpieces he had from the 40s to the 50s to the 60s. i dont even want to name them all again. i still say thats the most unparalleled burst of brilliance in the history of cinema. its like godard in the 60s + coppola in the 70s + wilder in his heyday all rolled into one.
I have to say I think my favorite Hitchcock films are US Rebecca (the most amazing character development for a women we never see but feel for an entire film and it was filmed in the US as an English film. Hitchcock hates the film but I think its one of his best and should be in the CC but I bet the rights are a pain in the ass) and Rope (a openly gay drama set in a limited space with a hard boiled James Stewart so great)
criterion released “Rebecca”. check their site again.
Robert Jahnke III
I have recently gone back and have been watching some of Hitchcock’s early films The Skin Game, Murder and the Ring.
After a few posts here I started to think about how I view his films. I find I have different feelings depending on how I consider them. If I look at him as a UK artist I am more impressed with his popularity and long career. But if I look at him as a US film maker I find him less so.
I find it more impressive I guess that a British director has been so influential. And that once he came to Hollywood (mostly late in his career) I find his film not so interesting or personal.
Anyone else have that feeling?