Stories are unrealistic

>Stories are unrealistic
>Pacing is erratic
>Characters lack depth
>Camera work is boring
>Style is average, even for Television
>Dialogue is forced, even for the time period
>Settings are about the best of what he did
>Showboats himself like he was some grand spectacle to behold
>Hardly entertaining
>fatty/10

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DPFsuc_M_3E
youtube.com/watch?v=0WtDmbr9xyY
youtube.com/watch?v=gCfGmLvWu4A
traileraddict.com/backstory/trailer
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Gouold?

eh, this show has more great episodes than the twilight zone, because Hitch directed seventeen episodes himself.

The Case of Mr. Pelham is my favourite.

I liked Twilight Zone better, usually a more fantastical scope, and more realistic premises. I mean you don't see other shows referencing hitchcock material other then the few movies. And even then, Birds was probably the best one. It made no sense, and the sequel outshines it by 10 fold.

>the sequel outshines it by 10 fold

Wut.

the only good hitchcock movie you watch is the first one

They all mostly deal with suspense and psychology, but saying this just shows you have no taste.

i really tried to like hitchcock but couldn't. his work seems extremely dated (as opposed to works from the same time by visconti or fellini which have withstood the test of time imo). but then since everyone seems to love hitch i just shut up about it.

you have no taste

Rear Window, Dial M for Murder, and Psycho are all GOAT classics that stand up to this day.

Anything black and white can't be said to stand up to today.

Read Window does hold up fairly decently. But Dial M for Murder just seems campy, for so many reasons.

i liked psycho. rear window not so much. in fact, hitchcocks films have me convinced that james stewart is the worst actor of all time.

You screamed in terror at Hitchcock's movie, the master of fright? The king of horror? The duke of Macabre? The lord of shock! The fucking pope of shitting your pants?

fucking Are you Afraid of the Dark and Goosebumps were scarier, with more varied style and material that could at least string together better acting and pacing then the cheese musical stylings of a lumpy fucking bald guy.

>Stories are unrealistic
Psycho and Rear Window could easily happen nearly sure Psycho is based on Ed Gein and all

YA, it had a more realistic premise, but Birds 1, is more like Blade Runner, all style over content.

Oh no, he's got that hispter taste, cuz he read someone where online, or some teacher told him hitchcock is the master. It might have been before George Lucas and Speilbergo ripped him off and improved that same style.

Which is to say, the very normal, and conventional, and traditional, no risk maneuver of doing everything TEXTBOOK.

Read Window is maybe his best movie. Psycho is the least realistic, it doesn't portray realistic mental illness at all, even with real life Ed Gein to base it off of. That make it worse to be honest. At least if he made it up there could be an excuse for it, but he had both a psychotic that was also a sociopath.

Easy to say someone does psychological well when you just make up every fucking part of what psychology is, because EDGYLORD.

The only thing that's dated about Hitchcock are his green screens.

what about the extemely stiff acting?

>Eva Marie Saint isnt his favourite Hitch girl

Honestly, he would rely more on images to express feelings than rely on actors, which were used in a more pragmatical way.

I don't really see a problem with James Stewart's (the one I like the most, honestly), Henry Fonda's or Cary Grant's acting in his films given the circumstances; neither with the likes of Ingrid Bergman or Grace Kelly.

He wanted the actors to seem "REALISTIC" by making them act poorly. That's how real people act.

youtube.com/watch?v=DPFsuc_M_3E

This is him talking about a better movie, then explaining that he's just the guy "holding a balloon ready to pop, and never pops it"

Hitchcock was seen as great, because he had good branding and PR the way he would inject himself as a meta character. If you had the Director of the Threes company introducing each episode he would have been seen as a genius as well.

Now we call them YouTube famous.

Hitchcock is the PewDiePie of TV

This show is so comfy. Short, stage-play like noir-ish tales with charming intros and outros from Hitch. Absolutely perfect late night viewing. It's fun to spot a lot of old/dead actors in their youth.

>clinging to writing rules like they're the word of god
>not realizing the ability to undermine expectations and being able to surprise isn't a quality
Go watch your capeshit, pleb.

youtube.com/watch?v=0WtDmbr9xyY

Oh ya there's the famous scene, I bet people jerked off to this for years, and why there was so many fucked up psychos.
It was porn, but by todays standards don't stand up to anything less then some steady came Blair Witch quality.

That's the truth of it. It doesn't hold up today, and was surprised in the 70's easily as being dated.

>he doesn't get buildup and surprise

Yeah, watching a film's scene and criticising the rest of it based on it without any context is really interesting and meaningful

I like Hitchcock because I feel invested when I watch his movies. Also I like the fact that if you haven't figured out everything, at some point in the movie there is always a moment where you get it. So far I've watched North By Northwest, Rear Window and Vertigo and will move on to Psycho.

Is On The Waterfront a must watch too?

That scene is fucking horrible, but iconic. The final shot of her eye was really well done, except it ends with the camera panning away to just... like no where... like the camera itself just gets bored and fucks off.

He only made two horror movies brah. You gotta learn the difference between horror, mystery, and suspense.

>Anything black and white can't be said to stand up to today.

Retard.

I mean just the technical parts of it, it actually does surprisingly well, but the whole REEE REEE REEE is what we criticize movies of doing now, just making loud noises in place of real emotions. And unless you're a female it's not really as scary, and unless you're a sexually repressed male in the 60's it's not really exciting, and there was some good material in it, that is lost among the bulk of just useless footage in there trying to drag out the scene, mixed with her fucking horribly acting of a woman dying. Like that is so hard. Fucking hamming it up.

It was an iconic scene because critics LAMBASTED it for being smut, and pron, and that her tits were shown out of focus was the REASON that it's even given a notice, that until DEEP THROAT comes out, it's probably the smuttiest movie in cinema history.

But you know, that you're a keen hipster that knows what movies are good as a patrician.

He didn't do mystery, he did suspense, but most of that was just falling flat, and was mostly a family friendly version of suspense. It's the oatmeal of suspense.

>dated

I don't really get this as a criticism.

Cool story kid. Try to hide how underage you are next time.

OTW is great but it has nothing to do with Alfy.

Instead id reccomend Rebecca (1940)

how based is james stewart?

A lot of film teachers say you have to watch hitchcock to understand good cinematography, but frankly I think Kubrick is the timeless one.

Yeah, thanks Dad. What did I do wrong? Gimme one defence?

prety fucking based

youtube.com/watch?v=gCfGmLvWu4A

but what does that have to do with....?

>his wife was on the Rear Window set everyday because she knew of Grace Kellys reputation of fucking co-stars
poor Jimmy

>Rebecca
That movie made the name so fucking popular.

I think I haven't made myself clear. What I'm talking about is that you've got the iconic scene and you're only criticising the whole thing based on it.

Psycho was an interesting case because, outside of the smutness of that single scene, it was building up a plot before the scene that gets completely disrupted in the way through by, well, the iconic scene. It was a big shock that got skewed by the ominous presence of it. That's why I'm talking context when attempting to talk about it.

The technology of green screen looks pretty bad for special effects in most of his films, thing that gets the viewer out of the film, which is the main purpose of suspense. Vertigo's use holds up, though.

>green screen
It's not green screen, though, it's rear/back-projection. And he uses it so often I would say it is an essential part of the Hitchcock aesthetic,.

Pic related, from an interesting doc about a father and son who have done rear-projection plates for many movies, include Kill Bill and Rising Sun.

traileraddict.com/backstory/trailer

He's overrated, and just made movies in a time when a lot of shitty movies were being made.

>Psycho is a prime example of the type of film that appeared in the United States during the 1960s after the erosion of the Production Code. It was unprecedented in its depiction of sexuality and violence, right from the opening scene in which Sam and Marion are shown as lovers sharing the same bed, with Marion in a bra.[106] In the Production Code standards of that time, unmarried couples shown in the same bed would be taboo.

I don't doubt that there was tension before hand, that's all Hitchcock does, it's his one trick pony, but he just wanted to make suspense for families. His movies were at least more adult, but his TV shows were even more mild then Goosebumps.

I actually am more interested in the story of the rear-protection plates then of hitchcock himself. that's something that has more legacy in hollywood, IMHO. We still do it, but with green screens, it's truth.

>OTW is great but it has nothing to do with Alfy.

now I feel dumb
thanks for the suggestion

I couldn't call him a one-trick pony since he really worked the images and set pieces, but he even acknowledged the superficiality behind all his work at the end of his career. I'm not eluding the use of sexuality in the film (the bit you posted also misses that this film could be made that way because Hitchcock self funded, innovating the industry because of it), but the whole point of the first part of the film is to elude the main point of it, that would come with a shock.

Also, man, being revisionist just doesn't work either: Hitchcock worked in an America were Nicholas Ray, Billy Wilder, John motherfucking Ford, Orson Welles or Max Ophuls. Jesus, to say the American 40s/50s were full of shitty films is like saying ANY decade of films has had a lot of shitty films.

I'm defending his films, though. Everybody knows the blandness of TV series at the time, with few exceptions.

>>Stories are unrealistic

Stories are not supposed to be realistic chump. Realism and plausible are different things and within the genre expectations the stories where plausible.

>>Pacing is erratic

It is not erratic, it changes for dramatic porpoises to generate a tone and a build up.

>>Characters lack depth

It's part of Hitchcock's game. Characters act according to what's expected of the stereotype for that kind of movie at the time to reveal layers later on. It's subtle but it's there.

>>Camera work is boring

That's a personal comparative opinion. Again, tone and build up.

>>Style is average, even for Television

Disagree (at least on his movies). His movies are all about style. He took mediocre stories like Psycho's novel and created one of the greatest movies for the genre.
His style's the reference point for the genre and traces and re significations of it can be detected on De Palma, Coppola, Polanski and Scott.

>>Dialogue is forced, even for the time period

Study the genre. Classic noir is often refereed to as narrated cinema.

>>Hardly entertaining

His best films are still engaging. Psycho, North by Northwest, Vertigo, The birds, The rope...
Not every movie was a master piece or ground breaking, no director ever accomplishes that.

Bergman was right when he called Hitchcock infantile.

At least he respected how difficult it is for a fat person to make a movie though.

jesus this board is so pleb

>Directed by ALAN SMITHEE
Always a sign of a quality production.

that guy is a fucking hack

>unrealistic

Yup and he does so gleefully

Where is this from pls?

Hitchcock/Truffaut, has great anecdotes

underrated post

Poor guy. His wife was a cunt.

...

this entire thread

Thats hilarious

Did Hitch make any other outright comedic films like The Lady Vanishes? Preferably good ones and not some forgotten comedy failure I'm sure he's done

North by Northwest is really funny.

>first word in his pleb as fuck post is "LE STOREIZ"

You're a pleb beyond belief and have no idea how to talk about film.

>Hitchcock
>not talking about the stories

I mean, OP is a "stories have to be realistic" drone, which is far worse, but learn some context.

Rope is goat
North by Northwest is goat
Vertigo is great
Dial M for Murder is great
Strangers on a train is great

The Birds is fine
Psycho is fine
Rear Window is fine

>>Stories are unrealistic

the trouble with harry. but it's not funny, just cringeworthy.

>Psycho is fine

Mr and Mrs Smith is a screwball comedy

Just chiming in here
>Don't watch Hitchcock
>want to seem mysterious and interesting
>tell people who don't watch Hitchcock
>that you are into Hitchcock
>slightest reference to The Birds, Pycho and Vertigo
>"THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! CLASSIC HITCHCOCK RIGHT THERE!"

It's like Dr. Who, before it came back around.

hitchcock has become a bit too holy among cinefils i'm afraid. it's a bit laughable how people pretend his work is somehow flawless.

39 Steps is really similar to Lady Vanishes. I would still call Lady Vanishes a suspense/mystery film but it has a lot of light, adventurous elements.

To Catch a Thief is pretty light and entertaining as well.

Charade does the same thing as those early hitchcock films but does it much better and he wasn't in any way connected to the project.

Don't you mean rear screen projections?

He called it transparencies and though it was green screens, sorry.