|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
It was the first film of his own production. Certainly not one of his best, but still a very good movie. And beautifully played! and how! Cotten is magnificent, not by prefered actor, but I must just bow under his performence, Michael Wielding is wonderful too, even Ingrid Bergman could cop with her role, even less so. She want to help Hitch ( at the time she was THE star ) in appearing in his first independ film. A nice gesture.
The film music is very romantic and very well conducted by Levy, who was already by his side in his " English period ".
Hélas, the studio builing don´t stand up to today standart bur never the less it reach some Shakespear high in his tragedy.
Heartly recommendé!
Follow Ups:
Available on DVD, thankfully..I have placed it in the Netflix queue.
"In this world, you must be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant. Well, for years, I was smart. I recommend pleasant".
-Jimmy Stewart, as Elwood P. Dowd
Say that the DVD is technically is a rip off ( I bought it ) the picture need a good restauration, the music over load. no extra of any kind ( undertitle-no ).
But I am glad to have it. ( what I am not quite certain if it is the original version, as there were two, one was shorter )
I have seen some pre-Hollywood Hitch films, but it was in the days when I was less wise than now, and don't remember what I thought thewn.
Just got a dvd of The Rope. If it goes well, I'll start revisiting his early days.
I think I knows almost every thing about him. He is the director I most love, and cherish. The one that always match 100% my pleasure for films.
The Rope was taken in one shot ( he let the filming going on as long there was was some material on the roll before changing it. The studio where the filming actually took place was very clevered prepared as never to be in the way of the camera.
The film is itself academic and more for a unconditional fan of the master.
An interresting study.
For certain reasons the inability to entertain is somehow considered to be significant, important and intellectual [like some Tarkovsky or much of Sokurov or some Greenaway films].
Hitch is a perfect example of being sublime entertainment and addressing the good and evil at the same time.
That's why many of us love him.
That´s true. He is just a genuis. And he is like an onion...Multi layered..That is why you can so often look at his work without getting tired. And his symbolics !
It makes me sad that Victor don´t appreciate him, and one of this day we will have to find out why...I will need much energy....
are the 3 I consider to be "must haves"
Grins
I'd take out "Rope" but definitely add "Vertigo".
...that gets better and better the more times you see it. It is also one of those films that is best seen on a big screen in a movie theater. I've seen nearly all of Hitchcock's films, and "Vertigo" is my favorite.
What do you think of the resorers using "modern" sound effects for the recent restoration? They chose a higher quality print(s) and
were then stuck with some incomplete sound tracks.
I didn't really get into "Vertigo" until after the restoration, so I have no opinion about the sound effects. I haven't heard the originals, and I do not find the ones in the restored version distracting at all.My one complaint about the restoration is that there are one or two very short segments that were not restored (the same applies to the restored "Parapluies de Cherbourg"). Maybe they were unable to find good quality original film? The unrestored bits really stick out.
Which parts? The flower shop?
There's a scene in Judy's apartment where suddenly the film becomes grainy and the colors faded. Very brief, but noticeable. The flower shop scene does seem a bit out of whack, but I think part of that may be caused by all of the reflections (mirrors and windows everywhere) and the intentionally fuzzy cinematography (dream sequence-like).You know, one Hitchcock film I hope to see revived is "Marnie." Some shoddy production values (the rear-screen projections, in particular, are very poorly done), but it is a fascinating film and unfairly dismissed by critics, IMHO.
Those short subjects were brilliant, elegant, and I think represent the best he ever produced.Together with the magazine.
What are in his TV films is what you will find in his bigger but much, of course , much more developed.
He was witty as one can be.
He was the master of the symbolism.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: