Final Thoughts on Hitchcock

Well I hope you enjoyed my month long tribute to Mr. Hitchcock. I was very happy I focused on him as it gave me a chance to view many of his films again after a long time, and it also gave me a chance to learn more things about him than I hadn't before. Plus as an added bonus I was able to view some new Hitchcock films I had never seen, these include "Sabotage", "The Young and Innocent" and his most famous silent film "The Lodger", I must say I enjoyed all of them and I have the new "Hitchcock Premier Collection" to thank for it, if you haven't already buy this box set now as it is a must for Hitchcock fans. As always as I close a book, I'm ready for another, so stay tuned tomorrow for the announcement for November's Director's Spotlight. Incidentally Happy Halloween!

Happy Hitchcock Halloween!!!!

Vertigo: A Series of Dreams

If you were to ask me what my favorite Hitchcock movie was about five years ago, I would've said "Rear Window", but now I have finally succumbed to the mystery, beauty, and majesty of "Vertigo". If you have been following my month long tribute to Hitchcock, I have mentioned more than once that this has been my chance to revisit many of his films which I haven't seen in awhile, "Vertigo" has been the one exception, I watch this film at least three times a year, maybe even more. Once it's in my DVD player, it doesn't take long for it to draw me in. I'm sure if I ever bothered to make a definitive top ten list of my favorite films, "Vertigo" would be on it.

"Vertigo" has been called Hitchcock's most personal film, he said he was intrigued with the idea of bringing the image of a dead girl back to life through another girl that is living. Hitchcock himself was a controlling director who would mould his lady stars into his own image of what they should be. There's an eeriness to the whole theme of "Vertigo" for as Hitchcock said himself in Truffaut's book, there is a kind of necrophilia to the whole idea.

The plot of the movie is very contrived if you were to think about it, a police detective Scottie Ferguson (James Stewart) develops a fear of heights after he is left dangling from a drain pipe and from watching a policeman who tried to save him fall to his death. Along with being afraid of heights, Scottie also carries a guilt about the policeman's death. One day an old school friend of Scottie's calls him up and wants him for a job, he wants Scottie to follow his wife who he thinks has become possessed by a former dead relative who killed herself. The husband now thinks the wife will turn suicidal and wants Scottie to make sure no harm will come to her. Scottie reluctantly agrees and begins keeping tabs on her.

The plot really doesn't matter in a Hitchcock film and for those who have seen "Vertigo" know that what I briefly described is nothing more than an elaborate hoax for an even grander and more seductive story. The moment Scottie sees Madeline, the man's wife, it's as if the film turns into a dream. Scottie becomes obsessed with Madeline, follows her everywhere, and he soon comes to love her. Madeline played by Kim Novak is an ideal image of a Hitchcock woman, she's glamorous, seductive, but almost cold, which gives her a sense of mystery. She remains illusive to Stewart's character, she keeps appearing, disappearing, then re-appearing again, much like in a dream. The one scene that has had me stumped each time I see it is the scene where Stewart goes into the hotel room where Madeline stays in. He sees her from the outside window, her car is there, but when he goes in the landlady has not seen her, and when they go up to the room, Madeline is gone, and so is her car. I can't quite wrap my head around it, was Madeline ever there? If she was, how come the landlady never saw her? Or did Stewart just think he saw her which deepens his obsession?

DO NOT READ FURTHER UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!

There is a moment when this film sort of breaks into two separate stories much like Hitchcock would do two years later with "Psycho", where everything you think you know is thrown out the window. Madeline does indeed die, but we soon find out this film was not leading up to that event even though you'd think that's where it would be headed, we also find out there was a murder, but uncovering it was also not what this film was about. This film was always about a man's obsession with one woman, and the second half of this masterpiece is some place Hitchcock had never delved into before or after. Scottie is full of guilt over Madeline's death, he sees her everywhere from women who resemble her.

He soon meets Judy (also Novak) who seems to be Madeline's twin. Scottie begins to take Judy out, and look after her, but he wants to change her into Madeline. Judy's clothes, shoes, and hair color are all changed to fit Scottie's image. Roger Ebert has called the shot of Judy coming out of the bathroom looking exactly like Madeline thus fulfilling all of Scottie's desires the greatest shot Hitchcock ever did, and I happen to agree. In a strange way we as the audience share Scottie's perverse satisfaction in this shot, he has changed one woman completely into the woman he loves, and the way Hitchcock shoots it using a green neon sign from the backgroud, it looks as if Madeline did indeed rise from the dead and has come out of a green fog, it's highly erotic and unsettling.

As I said before this film acts as if out of a dream, it doesn't seem to make sense in the real world. The score by Bernard Herrman which I think is probably the greatest score in cinema history adds to the dreamlike state as it punctuates all of Hitchcock's themes. Stewart has never had a darker more complex role than he does here, his last monologue in the church tower with Madeline is some of his most intense work. It's hard to believe Kim Novak was a quick substitute for the part of Madeline/Judy, even though Hitchcock only used her for this film, she probably gives the finest performance of all the Hitchcock women.

When I first saw "Vertigo" I was perplexed by it, I was very young and didn't quite understand where it was going, or maybe I just wasn't prepared with where it did go. I think I was looking for an easier film experience. I'd like to think my own personal experience has helped me understand "Vertigo" even more, Hitchcock was the kind of director who helped us understand the darker side of human nature, and in a way the film haunts me like no other, it begins like a pleasant dream but spirals into a nightmare. I cannot let go of "Vertigo" even if I wanted to, I will continue to hold on to its grasp for as long as my love of films stays with me, and also for fear that I will fall if I let go.

Someone put Condoleezza Rice back in her cage!!!

The title of this blog might be inappropriate I'm not sure, I don't mean any disrespect to the real Condoleezza Rice, in fact during this review it's best to keep my opinions of the current Administration to a minimum. The title of this blog was not meant for Condoleezza Rice the person but rather the grotesque caricature depicted by Thandie Newton directed as such by Oliver Stone, a sometimes great director who usually fills his films with big, unsubtle intentions.

Oliver Stone's "W." is a "Biography" of the current President and so I can get this out of the way the single worst President there has ever been, (just so we're clear on my opinion before you continue reading). Oliver Stone has said pretty much the same thing in interviews he has given for the film, but he has also stated that this film is an attempt to empathize with this man, which is pretty much the opposite of what I felt. "W" at times plays as an exploitative television Movie of the Week which might not be too hard to swallow if you take into consideration the film was rushed in order to make a pre-election release. If Stone felt this film might change any one's opinion of Bush he would be wrong, it doesn't matter if you agreed with Bush or not, this film plays like one more kick in the ass before he leaves office.

"W" begins with Bush in the early years as a beer loving frat boy who gets in trouble with the law and suffers some serious daddy issues. Stone dramatizes these very stylistically and in his usual way very grotesquely, the frenzied hand held camera in these early scenes make it seem like a surreal family circus. Of course Stone as a realist would be down right boring, however that is exactly what these intimate scenes need.

Soon Bush has aspirations to run for Governor where he meets his future wife Laura, and in their first encounter which might've been played romantically, Stone instead shows Bush acting rather rude and redneck scarfing down a burger, we are left to wonder what Laura ever saw in him. Stone doesn't stop to think about this, we are soon taken to the White House years which seem to be the scenes where Stone seems to shine.

The two best scenes in this film happen in the War Room with the administration where we see actors portraying the familiar faces of Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn), Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss), Colin Powell (Jeffery Wright) etc. They aren't playing characters so much as the liberal mind of who they are, but perhaps that is the best way to depict them in this kind of film, in fact it seems the whole film has been leading up to the point where they decide to declare war on Iraq. Stone revels in this scene, it is like a morality play, but curiously Bush is put into the background as Cheney and Powell take the spotlight. This scene by itself is a great Stone scene, and shows off his passion as a liberal filmmaker the best, it's almost worth the price of admission.

As Bush Josh Brolin gives a capable performance and I believe if he was directed differently he would be able to humanize the man better, but it does come close to just an impression, I felt wrong watching his performance with shades of Will Farrell popping up, I wouldn't say it's a complete performance, it's mannered and comes off more as an imitation. The other major imitation perhaps more so is Newton as Rice which just serves as a distraction, she is played for complete laughs and I don't see how we can come to empathize with any of these people if they are not fleshed out as complete characters.

I was mostly impressed by James Cromwell as Bush Sr. and Wright as Colin Powell, you get the feeling that Stone did feel these were the smartest guys in the room and deserved a certain amount of respect. Dreyfuss as Cheney and the wonderful Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush also stand out but again they weren't given much.

What was Stone going for? If he was going for empathy I'd say this was a failure, if he was going for unsubtle satire, then I would say he partly succeeded. The film left me unsatisfied, in fact I was angry, I wanted to see Bush as a human being and what I got was a circus freak, I don't blame Stone in his contempt for this man, like everyone he has seen Bush's legacy and it's not pretty, perhaps his anger clouded his judgement, or perhaps he needed more time to pass to make this guy look more human.

2 stars out of 4

The Perfection of "Notorious"

I would put very few films up there as perfect. While I think many films are masterpieces, there is always perhaps one or two flaws that stop them from being perfect. Hitchcock has made many masterpieces, but he might be the one filmmaker you could say who has made more than one perfect film. One of these films I will discuss next week, but another one is "Notorious". It's been years since I've seen this film, I missed the release when Criterion issued it on DVD, it has been difficult to find anywhere for the past few years, and now luckily it was re-released just a week ago. I have now just watched it again and it was like rekindling an old love affair.

Forgive me, I will get to the analysis of this film momentarily but let me just hearken back to that first love affair I had with this film. I was a very young man perhaps fourteen or fifteen, maybe younger, films were still a new and amazing discovery for me, I had seen Hitchcock films before, I had also seen Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Rains before too. I think I had also seen a film that was written by Ben Hecht although I am uncertain of that. But this was the first time I would see these talented people together. "Notorious" was a favourite of mine from the get go, it's a love story, it's a spy story, it's a suspense story, it's a political story, it has a perfect cast, a perfect writer, and a perfect director. It's the kind of film that belongs in its era and belongs in black and white, if I were to ever see it colorized I would take it as a sign of the Apocalypse. This film should be kept as is and not be touched.

Now that I've made my point, let's get to why this film is so wonderful. The story centres on the "notorious" woman Alicia Huberman (Bergman) who is the daughter of a famous Nazi spy. After it becomes known that Alicia's allegiance is for the United States and not for her father, she is recruited by American agent Devlin (Grant) to help the government out on a mission. Alicia agrees and a love affair begins between her and Devlin, this all happens without knowing what the actual mission is, when they find out it puts a damper on the romance. Alicia's job is to inform on one of her father's friends name Sabastian (Rains) a man who was once in love with her. It becomes clear that Alicia basically has to whore herself off to Sabastian in order to gain information, and Devlin would act the part of the pimp. A Hitchcock romance is never a clean romance and "Notorious" is no exception. Devlin becomes jealous of Alicia who is known for being somewhat of a loose lady, Alicia is resentful of Devlin for not defending her and for making her feel she needs to prove her love to him. It's all marvelously twisted, and kinky, but it all brings it to a most satisfying, suspenseful, and uplifting conclusion.

"Notorious" may be Hitchcock's most romantic film, it is full of passionate scenes while Grant and Bergman are falling in love, the two actors were probably considered two of the most beautiful people in the world at the time this film was made, and it almost seems too perfect to see them in their hotel room embracing in what has been claimed for a long time to be screen history's longest kiss (although this has been proven false, if you watch the film you'll see what they share is several kisses which are interrupted by lines of dialogue).

But along with this film being romantic, it contains some of Hitchcock's most intense moments of suspense. All through the film, we the audience are made aware of certain occurrences that the characters don't know of, such as the poison in a tea cup, or the key that is concealed in Alicia's hand which opens the secret wine cellar. Hitchcock lets us in on the secret and our empathy for these characters grow in the process, we care about what will happen to them. As I was watching this I tried to think of recent films that made me feel that the heroes were in real danger, and it was hard just to think of one.

Perhaps the most suspenseful moment comes near the end when Devlin and Alicia must pass through a house that is full of Nazis. It is a remarkable sequence that lasts till the very last shot where we see Sabastian going into his house and the door closes.

Hithcock has said that his films rest on his cast, and in his interviews with Truffaut he stresses how much he always needed the right actors; in "Notorious" he got it all right. Cary Grant is pure understated brilliance, this role is now seen as his best but was passed by at the time perhaps for being so subtle. Grant never once raises his voice in passionate anger towards Alicia sleeping with another man, he makes cruel remarks towards her character to cover up his pain. He's bitter, and lonely, had another actor played Devlin, the character might've been harder to relate to, but in Grant's hands every man can understand what Devlin is going through.

As Alicia, Ingrid Bergman perhaps has her one role to rival Ilsa in "Casablanca" for its immortality. Alicia is the main sympathetic character who must go through hell and back in order to gain her redemption, she's the one who is being put in danger in order to prove her love for Devlin and in order to gain his in return.

Claude Rains had terrific range and I love him in everything he's in but Sebastian may be his best performance. Sabastian is a classic Hitchcock villain, a momma's boy who does gain our sympathy simply because of his true and sincere devotion to Alicia who we know is betraying him all through the film. Rains makes Sebastian a villain for the ages and should be thought of as fondly as Norman Bates or Bruno Anthony.

Ben Hecht might be the unsung hero of this film as the screenwriter. His prolific career in Hollywood included the best gangster films, comedies, adventures, and melodramas ever made, he understood what Hitchcock wanted and gave it to him in spades.

Looking back at "Notorious" now after so many years, I feel like there is so much lost time to be made up, it's such a rich film, and complex, it deserves multiple viewings like all masterpieces should, perhaps in time I may see some cracks or flaws in the film, but right now I want to bask in all its glory.

Critical of the Critics

Who are you and what have you done to Ebert and Roeper? That was my first question when I went to my "At the Movies" link for the first time since its face lift and saw these two new fresh faced "NON-CRITICS" talking "CRITICALLY" about the movies. First is Ben Mankiewicz who is co-host of Turner Classic Movies and is related to practically every famous Mankiewicz in Hollywood. Then we have Ben Lyons who I guess is part of that classy network E-Entertainment and is the son of another "So-called" critic Jeffery Lyons.

So the major facelift that "At The Movies" pretty much changed from the "Ebert and Roeper" format was instead of having intelligent well-schooled critics talking about movies, we have a dumbed down version of that. I suppose the reasons for me not liking the "Two Bens" is their arbitrary reasons for not liking or liking the movies on their show. They're the kind of guys who might hate a drama for being too slow, or a foreign film for being too foreign. (Have they even reviewed a foreign film yet?) The show seems to pander to those who go to the movies for a cheap thrill.

After just reading two books from Francois Truffaut, and just starting a book by Pauline Kael, I've come to realize there is an artform to film criticism. These were books by people who were passionate about film and what each had to say. Lyons and Mankiewicz are too preoccupied with the sound bite, and I doubt they would have the skill to fend off any real critic such as Michael Phillips or A.O.Scott who were filling in for Roger Ebert.

Now this is not to say I don't like these two guys, for the record I'm enjoy Mankiewicz as a host on Turner Classic Movies, he's a nice contrast to the classical but stuffed shirt of Robert Osborne, and Ben Lyons, well I admire his hair style quite a bit. "Ebert and Roeper" and before that "Siskel and Ebert" stood for excellence in film and didn't dumb it down for the audience. They were intelligent, articulate and passionate which is why you tuned in. Their show was a simple one about the movies and I enjoyed it. If I wanted a bunch of talking heads with quick discussion points and no real insite (ala "THE CRITIC ROUND-UP") I would turn to CNN thank you very much.

Hitchcock by Truffaut

Of all the film books I've wanted to get my hands on, the one I wanted to read the most was "Hitchcock" by Francois Truffaut. Since I chose Truffaut as my Director's spotlight back in August, I have found a totally new appreciation of his work, both as a director, and a critic. For many, Truffaut's book on The Master is the ultimate examination of his work, so since this was my month of Hitchcock, I found it the appropriate time to seek out this book.

After having just read it, I must say, the book is essential reading for anyone who loves these two men or just love film in general. It was wonderful reading the extensive interviews as Hitchcock discusses all 53 of his films with Truffaut, himself being a walking Hitchcock encyclopedia. There were many favourite passages, but I think the film Truffaut was most passionate talking about was "Rear Window" which he describes as "pure cinema".

The book is both insightful and enjoyable and should be a required text book for any film student. After reading it, you not only get a better view of Hitchcock but of Truffaut as well. As I was reading it I had a deep feeling of sadness knowing that these two giants and film enthusiasts were now gone, and it is quite unlikely we'll see their kind again. I felt I was reading a part of their legacy, a written document about their contribution to film.

Although the book is about the work of Hitchcock, it can be said that it speaks almost equally about Truffaut, we get the sense about how both men viewed the world of cinema. Hitchcock might not have been as famous today or respected had it not been for Truffaut, the two helped each other in their film careers. After reading "Hitchcock" by Truffaut, I now cannot think of one without the other.

Criss Cross: Strangers on a Train

The beginning of "Strangers on the Train" shows two men walking into a train station, we don't see their faces, only their feet as they walk. They enter the train and sit across from one another, one of the men crosses their leg and bumps the other man's shoes, we now see their faces as they look at one another. This fateful meeting of these two polar opposites is so simple, yet in Hitchcock's hands it turns into a truly cinematic moment. Hitchcock was a master at showing people what they need to know through film and not through dialogue, here we are introduced to the two main characters without even seeing their faces, yet we know they are the main characters by Hitchcock's creative use of storytelling.

The two men are Guy Haines (Farley Granger) and Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker), they are opposite men but with a similar problem. Guy is a tennis star and is deeply involved with a politicians daughter whom he wants to marry, the problem is he's currently married to a woman who has been unfaithful and won't give him a divorce. Bruno's problem stems from his father who wants him to become responsible and get a job even though he's very well off. It seems both Guy and Bruno would be better off if these two people in their lives would disappear. Bruno is the more impulsive one who barges in on Guy's privacy, a man he has just met, and starts talking to him about about his philosophy and certain clever theories he has. The conversation soon leads to the problems with the wife and the father, which gives Bruno the opening for his theory of "The perfect murder". The theory goes as follows, two strangers meet, each of them has a person they would like to put out of the way, so in order for that to happen, the strangers agree to swap murders, the idea being that there will be no motive to connect them to it. "Criss cross" as Bruno puts it. At the time Guy just thinks this is just talk from the outrageous Bruno, but Bruno takes it seriously.

I've just rewatched "Strangers on a Train" again for the first time in a long time, and my appreciation for it has grown even more. The film remains part of Hitchcock's continuous themes of the perfect murder, other films like these include "Dial M for Murder", "Rope" and "Shadow of a Doubt" where the killer always believes their plan is foolproof and they could never be caught. Like in those films there is that little piece of evidence that always trips them up, and in "Strangers on a Train" that piece of evidence happens to be a cigarette lighter. The difference with "Strangers on a Train" is the murderer is always in possession of this little piece of evidence which makes him probably the smartest person in the film, even the police have the wrong man.

The problem with Bruno's theory is it takes two people to execute it and since Guy is unwilling to kill anyone, this leaves Bruno to use the cigarette lighter in order to frame Guy. This leads to one of the most suspenseful moments in all of Hitchcock films where Bruno drops the lighter in a storm drain. His attempts to grab it are cross cut with shots of Guy in a tennis tournament he must finish soon in order to stop Guy from planting the lighter. It's ingenious because we as the audience actually want Bruno, the bad guy to get the lighter before Guy is finished, if he gets the lighter, the film can go on. Hitchcock is known for getting on the villain's side in many of his films, just think of Anthony Perkins in "Psycho" when he attempts to bury a victim's car in the swamp. For a split second, the car refuses to sink, and we like Perkins are holding our breath to see if it does.

Robert Walker's Bruno is one of Hithcock's most likable and cunning villains, even though he's sadistic, there is a charm to him, we laugh when he pops a child's balloon with the end of his cigarette, and chuckle at the scenes with him and his mother, who is just as crazy as he is. The film is full of much dark humour even though it can't be confused as a thriller comedy like his "The Lady Vanishes". Hitchcock must've delighted in the conversations Bruno has with a dinner guest about the best way to murder someone.

The film is also full many of Hitchcock's most famous set pieces like the murder through the lens of an eyeglass, or the tennis match with the bobbing heads going back and forth, and of course the climactic merry-go-round fight near the end. I must say I found the merry-go-round too ridiculous to go along with when I first saw the film, but now I have come to accept it better, and have realized just how thrilling it all is.

My personal favorite part is a rather small scene but displays how Hitchcock plays the audience like an organ. It's the early amusement park scene where Bruno is following his soon-to-be-victim on a boat ride through the Tunnel of Love. We see nothing in the tunnel, but we hear the woman scream as if she is being attacked, when they come out of the tunnel, we see she is fine and the scream was actually from laughter. I loved that moment, and in a way it was a preview of red herrings to come in later films like "Psycho".

"Strangers on a Train" has been thought of as a return to form for Hitchcock after his "Stage Fright" and "Under Capricorn" came off as commercial and critical disappointments. Hitchcock was entering the 1950s, which many consider is his most creative decade, soon we would see "Rear Window", "Vertigo", "The Wrong Man", and "North by Northwest", but I think it was "Strangers on a Train" that showed for the first time Hitchcock was the master of the medium.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: Passion in Politics

With the Presidential election looming, and the Canadian election only two days away I thought I would post this scene from my favorite political film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Not only is it a tremendous powerhouse acting scene between Jimmy Stewart and Claude Rains, it depicts politics in a passionate way. Today with so many pundits and polarizing party principles, Frank Capra puts things in perspective by exposing a corrupt Washington, but also giving an idealistic view of what democracy could be. This was the idea behind Frank Capra's masterpiece, by depicting a world as what is was but suggesting it could strive to be something better. Don't forget to vote!

Thoughts on Hitchcock

I've spent the past few days concentrating on the work of Alfred Hitchcock, it has been awhile since I've delved into his body of work, I've almost forgotten just how wonderful his films are. It doesn't take long to remind one of Hitchcock's greatness, you just have to choose one of his films to make you realize why they call him "The Master of Suspense" or just simply "The Master".

My first personal Alfred Hitchcock experience I remember was when I was a kid and seeing him on TV introducing segments of his famous series "Alfred Hitchcock Presents". I loved watching his dry, dark humour, but since I was mostly a frightened child I never stayed to watch the actual program. My knowledge of Hitchcock as a director came later, I knew early on of his famous horror films "Psycho" and "The Birds", mother in fact was the first person to mention "The Birds" remembering she had nightmares as a child from the vision of the man who's eyes were pecked out. She just needs to hear the sound those birds made and it would bring back those memories, to this day I cannot get her to re watch "The Birds".

The first Hitchcock film I viewed myself was "Rear Window", which I viewed mostly because of my love for Jimmy Stewart. Stewart was responsible for introducing me to other directors such as Frank Capra and John Ford, so it would be the same for Hitchcock. Even before I watched "Rear Window" I heard of the plot before about a man who looks out his window and believes his neighbour has killed his wife. I probably knew the plot from watching some third rate imitation of it, all I remember thinking after watching the movie was "so that's where that plot came from" (I was very young). I didn't know much about film when I watched "Rear Window", I didn't know film had its own language and that Hitchcock was a master of that language, all I knew was I liked Jimmy Stewart.

It was not long after that however that I decided to give Mr. Hitchcock another try this time with his most notorious film "Psycho", I think it was here I realized the true majesty of the master craftsman. Again I didn't know much about film, but I remember being affected so much more than any other film, I remember the Bernard Herrman score captivating me right from the opening credits, I remember actually liking Norman Bates when I first met him and actually being shocked about the ending, which thankfully I knew nothing about before seeing it. Mostly I remember being totally uneasy about the ending and that feeling stayed with me for days. I think it was the first time I ever saw a horror film, but I remember being more excited than horrified, my first instinct was wanting to watch it again, I think it was that thrill that helped me have this need to understand how films work.

These past few days I've been re-watching some of my favorite Hitchcock films like "The Lady Vanishes", "Foreign Correspondent", "Strangers on a Train", and the underrated "The Wrong Man". Along with those I've rewatched some films like "Suspicion" and "Dial M for Murder" which I appreciate even more. You can tell there was something about Hitchcock films that separated them from most of the ones that were being made back then, even the ones that are being made today. Some filmmakers make it a current habit of ripping off Hitchcock in all of their work, I suppose it was a way of saying, you can't improve on perfection.

Hitchcock is the kind of filmmaker who is known by everyone, even if you've never seen one of his movies, you still know the name. Roger Ebert said of Hitchcock that even people who don't like classic movies like Hitchcock movies, and it's true perhaps it's because Hitchcock knew better than anyone what people wanted to see, and he knew better than anyone how to involve them in his stories.

Some movies I've seen recently

I've been rather busy lately so I've been unable to write individual reviews of the past films I've seen. Needless to say I've enjoyed all of them even though I wouldn't say any of them are masterpieces, but they do get that after taste of summer out of my mouth. Here are a few films I've seen recently in the theatre.

Ghost Town: Ricky Gervais might just be my current favorite person in the world right now, his british version of "The Office" and his follow-up series "Extras" are my idea of modern classic television, and here Gervais hits all the write notes as a sour dentist who despises conversation with people until a botched surgery causes him to die for seven minutes and when he wakes he can see dead people who want nothing but to talk to him. There really isn't nothing new here in plot as Gervais falls in love with the former wife of newly deceased Greg Kinnear. The charm in this movie is Gervais' performance who's transformation is quite heartening. The film was written and directed by David Koepp who's best know for writing action/adventure. He must've tailor made this film for Gervais. It's a star making performance, too bad not enough people saw it.
3.5 stars out of 4

Swing Vote: Another sweet comedy that past people by. This one was released in the summer back when "The Dark Knight" was still going strong, I was going to see it back then, but I guess I was too slow, it stayed in my local theatre for one week, so I saw this at the cheap theatre where films like these sometimes get a second chance. The film goes for a Capraesque quality on politics, but misses the mark on too many occasions. Kevin Costner has taken the Gary Cooper mantle many times in the past and his natural charm pays off big time in this film. I also thought the girl playing Costner's daughter was well done, in fact the scenes with them were the best ones in the film. This film also benefits from a strong supporting cast including Dennis Hopper, Kelsey Grammer, Nathan Lane, and one of my favorite Stanley Tucci. In fact I wish Tucci's manipulating campaign manager got more screen time. I'm gonna give this film a pass because of the performances and the fact that I'm a sucker for films that strive to keep Frank Capra's memory alive, even if they didn't succeed all the way.
3 stars out of 4

Appaloosa:Ed Harris and Viggo Mortenson bring the west alive in this long-winded, character driven tale of a couple of guns for hire who come into the town of Appaloosa to battle a murderous rancher (Jeremy Irons). The film is a slow boil, and might not attract those who come to westerns to see fancy gun fights, in fact most of the gun fights in the film don't last very long. Harris (Who directed) is more interested in these men as people, and I really enjoyed hanging around with them for a long period of time. Although most people are saying Renee Zellweger was miscast as the not-so typical damsel in distress, I think I understand why Harris cast her, especially after we find out she isn't all she's cracked up to be. But the film belongs to Harris and Mortenson who's relationship reminded me very much of Dean Martin and John Wayne in "Rio Bravo" which was another western that dealt more in the characters than the action. However the film does go on for one act too many and Harris' visual eye sometimes lacks the scope he was going for (Of course I might be biased since I just finished a month of viewing John Ford films). However "Appaloosa" was a film that stayed with me and in its own way is a unique entry in a genre that seems to be having another resurrection.
3.5 stars out of 4

Alfred Hitchcock on Dick Cavett

Here's part of an interview Alfred Hitchcock had with Dick Cavett. Here the master shows off his black humour where he talks about how slipping on a banana peel is very tragic. He also talks about what he likes most about creating a film, and a particular scene from "Foreign Correspondent" which is a film I just viewed again, I consider it to be one of Hitchcock's most underrated and entertaining films, right up there with "North by Northwest". He finishes off with talking about the famous shower scene in "Psycho".

An Autumn Afternoon: Ozu's Farewell

Life seems to stop for me when I watch a film by Yasujiro Ozu, the hubbub of the world turns off and it becomes quiet, reflective, and peaceful. Yasujiro Ozu is a filmmaker I hold in great regard, perhaps more than any other director, and I felt a bit of sadness when I viewed for the first time his final movie "An Autumn Afternoon". Criterion has been very good in releasing many Ozu films and very quickly I might add. It was only three years ago I first saw "Tokyo Story" and I can say without a doubt it is one of the few movies that changed my life. My appreciation for Ozu has only grown these past few years, though his films may seem similar in story and theme, Ozu approaches each very differently. Ozu didn't realize "An Autumn Afternoon" would be his last film, but it was a perfect note to end on. The story's main focus is a father who feels the need to marry off his young daughter who is coming to the age of marriage. The father is reluctant and he only agrees to marry her off after pressure from his friends.

But really the film takes its time to get to the momentous occasion, Ozu concentrates like he does in all of his films on the characters, and creates little vignettes about the people (no matter how unimportant) in the film. Another big difference in this marriage themed film is how Ozu shows us the down side of not marrying off the daughter. In other films like "Late Spring" we feel it was a pity the daughter had to leave her father who she loved dearly, but in "An Autumn Afternoon" we see a father who is now full of regret for not marrying off his daughter, now she is middle aged and left with no prospects, and we know she will be alone when her father dies. The film has its lighter moments but ultimately it is about loneliness and coming to an acceptance about it, the finale was quite touching and of course Ozu was a master of his craft by this point, no false steps were made, it sums up what Ozu cinema was all about, one year later Ozu would die on his birthday of cancer, but his work has remained.

October's Director Spotlight: Alfred Hitchcock

This month I'll be focusing on who many consider to be the greatest filmmaker ever, Alfred Hitchcock. I can't believe it's taken me this long to talk about him, but since October is the time for Halloween, I figured it would the perfect time to talk about the master of suspense. Plus this is also the month where many Hitchcock fans have been waiting for since a new box set is being released which includes films like "Notorious", "Rebecca", and "Spellbound", plus new special editions of "Vertigo", "Rear Window" and "Psycho" are all making there way to a store near you. So join me for a month long tribute to this great director!