Made over 50 films

>Made over 50 films
>only 5 were good
Why is this guy an acclaimed director?

Hitchcock is a fucking hack. The Christopher Nolan of his time. Everything he makes has the same gimmicks and is filled with poor acting, exposition and lame devices. Welles was a far better director from his time.

Why do dumdums like American Hitchcock over British Hitchcock

Because British Hitchcock isn't entirely suspense. British Hitchcock isn't visceral. British Hitchcock requires necessarily more thought than American Hitchcock

Rofl... "only 5 were good"

Oh you.

wtf im english and i didnt know hitchcock was english

>hack. The Christopher Nolan of his time
Are you trying to get yourself killed by the CIA?

>only 5 were good
which five?

Psycho, North by Northwest, Rope, Rear Window and Strangers on a Train.

>Welles

By being the most attention-grabbing he could possibly be, Welles, boy magician, predicated the past several decades of filmmaking. He erased ambiguity and clever communication and instead replaced it with overprecise blocking, sweeping telegraphed camera gestures, and abusively simplified mise-en-scene. Welles is the prototypical Paul Thomas Anderson

I wish they'd kill me. I'm too much of a coward to kill myself.

What's your opinion on Hitchcock, Griffithfag?

Which five were good?
Also, can you quantify "good" with a number? Is anything 6/10 or above good? Anything above a 7/10? 10/10?

Notorious
Rebecca
Vertigo
Psycho
Foreign Correspondent

NxNW is too silly

Nobody without Griffith

I don't care how much praise he gets, this fucking faggot ruined Strangers on a Train. The original story so much fucking better than the Michael Bay tier ending we got.

Spellbound, Rebecca, Marnie, Jamaica Inn

do you only enjoy silent films?

Cactus Flower is the greatest work of art ever made, with great use of the entire toolbox of artistic techniques. Plenty of peak-ins, clever uses of irises, soft focus, and depth for profundity to play out. And it executes flawlessly one of the hallmarks of immaculate art, unpredictability under the guise of believability. It's a culmination of the entire history of humanity.

Thanks for the recommendation. Will check it out!

You're a faggot

Decent:
The Lodger
Blackmail
Murder
The Man Who Knew Too Much (both versions)
Sabotage
Foreign Correspondent
Suspicion
Saboteur
Rope
Dial M for Murder
To Catch a Thief
The Wrong Man
Marnie
Frenzy

Good:
The 39 Steps
Rebecca
Shadow of a Doubt
Lifeboat

Great:
The Lady Vanishes
Spellbound
Notorious
Strangers on a Train
The Birds

Masterpiece:
Rear Window
Vertigo
North By Northwest
Psycho

Battle of the Sexes > Vertigo

Battle of the Sexes > Battle of the Sexes

My dic got crushed by watching this! Never saw Emeiley kissing other girl! Very hot im saving this on my harddrive!

Vertov > Griffith

Why was Dziga Vertov called a hooligan in his time, but now is in the top 10? Why was Flaherty considered the peak of film art in his time, but isn't in the top 250 now? Why is a holocaust propaganda piece in the top 250 now? Why are there several holocaust propaganda pieces in the top 250?

Flaherty: I was an explorer first, then I was an artist.

Vertov: *screeches about kino*

>The 39 steps
>Rope
>Strangers on a train
>North by Northwest
>Rear window
>Vertigo
>Psycho
>The birds
The only films of his that I've seen and all 8 were very good

All his movies suck today. Made great impact but shit movies.

Making art to venerate your fellow worker > Making up shit about eskimos

Because he was a sexual harasser and talked funny for an Englishman.

>Making up shit about eskimos
Robert Flaherty was not merely the ‘father’ of the documentary but also one of its few justifications. Actually, his films slip so easily into the stream of fictional cinema that they hardly seem like documentaries at all. From the beginning, Flaherty intuitively sensed the limitations of the impersonal camera and the restrictions of the formal frame. By involving himself in his material, he established a cinematic principle that parallels Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in physics, namely, that the mere observation of nuclear (and cinematic) particles alters the properties of these particles. One of the most beautiful moments in the history of the cinema was recorded when Nanook smilingly acknowledged the presence of Flaherty’s camera in his igloo. The director was not spying on Nanook or attempting to capture Nanook’s life in theraw.
He was collaborating with Nanook on a representation rather than a simulation of existence. What Flaherty understood so well was the potential degeneration of the documentary into voyeurism when the images of the camera were not reprocessed in the mind of theartist. Flaherty was written off by some schools of documentary in the thirties for his presumed exoticism. The charge made more sense in the days when people believed that documentaries could reform the world. Today Flaherty seems touchingly romantic in his desire to find people who have escaped the corruption of civilization. Flaherty’s cinema is one of the last testaments of the “cult of nature”, and, as such, is infinitelyprecious.

>muh dishonest filmmaking

LITERALLY Spielberg tier. What a fucking joke. All Cinema made under a capitalist system is inherently shit.

Oh look it is a crazy communist fag lol sperging out on a capitalist computer.

>Why is this guy an acclaimed director?
Because the ones that were good were really good. Derp.

>dishonest
Ah, just a Sup Forumseditor. Dismissed.

How does Griffith deal with the fact that Eisenstein's montage is the birth of modern cinema while he himself dealt in theatrical tableaus?

Eisenstein is largely TRASH, certainly no Griffith as his emphasis on the complementary for his "intellectual montage" suggests, but October has always remained in the canon. Spectacle as anti-spectacle. Abstraction of context. October is Eisenstein finally beginning to understand Griffith. Eisenstein didn't invent montage. Griffith and Stroheim exploited all elements of montage before Eisenstein even made his first film. Intolerance was studied in the first Soviet film schools. Eisenstein worshipped Griffith and wanted to thank him in person for showing him everything. Griffith also acknowledged the divergent limitations of psychology for photographic representation. When he mastered it, he rejected it in favor of distilling essence to ideology and motivation, what Eisenstein learned and contracted. Eisenstein wouldn't have existed without Griffth.

Eisenstein had a far more sophisticated understanding of stark imagery than Griffith did. He refined Griffith's theatrical style down to perfection in pic related.

>5
thats a little generous. Only 3 were good.

>Rear Window
>Psycho
>Stranger on a Train

>Stranger on a Train
The Patricia Highsmith novel is so much better. Hitchcock steamrolled over the interesting psychological elements of the book to make a fucking spectacle ending about a perilous merry-go-round.

Go to bed Genevieve

What makes Griffith and Flaherty vastly superior is that their scenes are independent but contrasted and paralleled through intellectual crosscutting and camera movements. And what idiots think is great "irony" by matchcutting opposites or playing the opposite feeling music or playing opposite narration, etc. is really just that. Doing the opposite. It's not bold, it's not genius. What Griffith and Flaherty did is genius. They don't immediately show you their irony. You have to pay attention and recall to know the irony in their works. Nearly every age in Intolerance ending in bloodshed and death while the boy gets a trial is ironic. The heft given to the boy's trial in comparison to literal ancient civilizations at war is ironic. The idea that Flaherty's subjects in Nanook or Moana never really existed is the greatest irony ever put on screen because it's an irony that takes place OFFSCREEN, you have to know that with your own knowledge.

Kill yourself commie faggot.

pure ideology

>Rear Window
>everything is stupid about it
Thank you, Orson. That movie is absolute trash. That ending where he defeats the big, bad mummy guy by flashing a camera bulb in his face looked like something out of an Ed Wood movie.

Ill sleep soundly tonight knowing commies never get laid.

>NxNW is too silly
It's not nearly silly enough.

>Rear Window
The twist is that there's no twist. Fuck this movie for wasting my time.

>Eisenstein had a far more sophisticated understanding of stark imagery
No, Eisenstein is a dynamist and worked in dynamist means which appeals to you, but apparently his self-critiquing dialect applied from Griffith that he explored in October moving forward is lost on you. Whether that means he failed is debatable.
>He refined Griffith's theatrical style
You're conflating objectivity with theatricality, the association itself is ludicrous and needn't refutation. Griffith's content-formal dialect is already proven an all-too subtle one that requires sociological education as well as visual to cover the metadynamics and their overarching connection.

>How does Griffith deal with the fact that Eisenstein's montage is the birth of modern cinema
You can tell when someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

Vertigo is alright, not even CLOSE to greatest film of all time though.

>Made over 50 films
>only 5 were good
This reminds me of a story I once heard. In 1986, Bob Dylan released what’s considered his worst album, Knocked Out Loaded. A music critic reviewing the album said it “only had one song that could be called a masterpiece on it.” Leonard Cohen, a close friend with Dylan, showed him the review in disbelief. “How can they complain that this album only has one masterpiece?” The point is, if someone made a masterpiece (and Alfred Hitchcock made many masterpieces) it’s strange and entitled to say they have a bad body of work overall

>All Cinema made under a capitalist system is inherently shit.

He was a Zionist shill

Explain

Fuck you, Alfred is the one classic director who isn't overrated beyond belief. I've seen like 15 of his movies and the only one I didn't care for was To Catch A Thief.