Is Hitchcock "The Master of Suspence"?

jonno · 13-02-2003 4:31pm #1

Well I duno was this a topic before so here goes . . .

I've seen alot of his films (particularly over the season's RTE have had over the Xmas and a few years ago) but I like them 90% of them. I know there were a few duds and some of them look very dated these days but you can't beat a good old suspence story. Doesn't matter what the story is Hitch seems to be able to make it.

IMO he is "The Master of Suspence".

So now I'll refer back to my poll.

Asuka · 13-02-2003 4:45pm

I dont think so at all. In fact, I didnt like his movies much. I think he is one of the most over-rated directors ever.

A

Elmo · 13-02-2003 5:05pm

I dont think so at all. In fact, I didnt like his movies much. I think he is one of the most over-rated directors ever.

I am Disgusted at this statement. :mad: :mad:

Hitch is the best by far.

The season at christmas was brilliant.

I mean how many people could make a lifeboat interesting.

And Sabotage was just brilliant, way before its time.

I don't think he dates at all and I think he is the only director that doesn't.

Directors (Gus Van Saint, I am talking to you) have tryed to recreate his sense of suspence but usually fail. Did anyone see the remake of The rear window, staring Christopher Reeve (Superman). One word for that made for tv movie. ****.

Changes made sorry for my bad spelling I also changed Sence. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: as of next post

Icehouse · 13-02-2003 5:07pm

Hitchcock's movies are ace. Rear Window is one of my all-time favourites. Suspense is spelt like this <<<< and disgusted is spelt like this<<<

sceptre · 13-02-2003 10:41pm

Originally posted by Elmo
I mean how many people could make a lifeboat interesting.

Spot his "cameo"?

mike65 · 14-02-2003 12:40am

Anyone who thinks The Master is overrated is proberly appllying
contempory standards of frantic
editing techniques to a slower era.
Or they just can't appricaite how
his output informed pretty much everything that followed tension-wise.

Who could forget scenes like the tennis game with the bomb ticking away in Strangers On a Train or Rear Window with James Stewart, binocs in hand, watching Grace Kelly going back and forth between rooms as he fears for her life (the baddie is comming back), helpless.

Mike.

Mr. Fancypants · 14-02-2003 12:48pm

Hitchcock was amazing. North By Northwest, Vertigo, Rear Window and Psycho would all be among my favorite films of all time.

Tusky · 14-02-2003 1:50pm

wellll...u gotta remember he was before his time...so some stuff could be dated but he was great yes..

bonkey · 14-02-2003 3:16pm

I would agree that he is.

While his movies may seem simplistic (and the acting somewhat hammy) by today's standards, the storytelling is faultless.

OK, if you can't overlook the difference in styles which has occurred over time, you'll never see the suspense, but name one contemporary movie maker who consistently gets the suspense right?

Shyalaman (or however you spell it) might be the closest you get, but he's hardly got a record the size of Hitchcock's either.

In general its easy to say someone isnt the King of this, that or the other, but try naming someone better when you do

jc

ObeyGiant · 14-02-2003 3:56pm

Originally posted by bonkey
OK, if you can't overlook the difference in styles which has occurred over time, you'll never see the suspense, but name one contemporary movie maker who consistently gets the suspense right?

Shyalaman (or however you spell it) might be the closest you get, but he's hardly got a record the size of Hitchcock's either.

I think it's unfair to ask people to overlook some aspects of his filmmaking that might seem 'dated' whilst calling on them to name a contemporary filmmaker who 'consistently gets suspense right'. Films are made in an entirely different way to the way they were back then, with directors being called on to tackle many diverse subjects, and being criticised for staying with one particular style for too long. People get bored too easily.

Also, bear in mind the difference in time taken to make a film then, to the time it takes now - Hitchcock was churning out an average of 2-3 movies a year. Compare that to the average 18month turnaround of film from production -> release.

Personally, I haven't been too pushed by Hitchcock's stuff. Ironically, I really enjoy the works of directors, such as Shyamalan, who people claim are working in the 'spirit' of Hitchcock.

bonkey · 14-02-2003 5:47pm

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I think it's unfair to ask people to overlook some aspects of his filmmaking that might seem 'dated' whilst calling on them to name a contemporary filmmaker who 'consistently gets suspense right'.

Well, let me put it a different way.

You can only say with certainty that someone is not *the master* of suspense, if you believe that there is someone better.

So, to say that its not Hitchcock, surely you'd need to have though of someone better. My guess is that most people can pick individual movies which may be better than your opinion of Hitchcock's work, but finding a director.....not an easy task.

I'm just curious as to who is the King, if not Hichcock.

jc

Films are made in an entirely different way to the way they were back then, with directors being called on to tackle many diverse subjects, and being criticised for staying with one particular style for too long. People get bored too easily.

Also, bear in mind the difference in time taken to make a film then, to the time it takes now - Hitchcock was churning out an average of 2-3 movies a year. Compare that to the average 18month turnaround of film from production -> release.

Personally, I haven't been too pushed by Hitchcock's stuff. Ironically, I really enjoy the works of directors, such as Shyamalan, who people claim are working in the 'spirit' of Hitchcock. [/B][/QUOTE]

ObeyGiant · 14-02-2003 6:12pm

Originally posted by bonkey
My guess is that most people can pick individual movies which may be better than your opinion of Hitchcock's work, but finding a director.....not an easy task.

As I said before, the way films are made, and the way filmmakers approach films (or are expected to approach films) has changed dramatically in the past 40 or so years. Directors are criticised for staying in one genre for too long, or for using a particular plot device too often (to bring him up again - Shyamalan was criticised for re-using the 'twist' at the end of Unbreakable). This was not true in Hitchcock's days. As such, he was easily able to churn out thriller after thriller after thriller (thereby 'skewing' any possibly analysis). Today's audiences wouldn't stand for that. As such, I doubt we'll see another director with such a phenomenal output in one genre ever again.

Originally posted by bonkey
You can only say with certainty that someone is not *the master* of suspense, if you believe that there is someone better.

I can say with certainty that, for me, Hitchcock is not 'the master of suspense' because his films have never affected me in that way. At least, not yet. Following from this, I can safely say that Shyamalan's last three films, or Fincher's last four, have affected me greater than all of Hitchcock's movies.

But I wouldn't like to say that either of those directors I just mentioned is the 'master of suspense', either. However, I will be looking at Shyamalan's next move with great interest.

fester · 14-02-2003 9:40pm

Originally posted by bonkey
You can only say with certainty that someone is not *the master* of suspense, if you believe that there is someone better.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Right good point. But i voted that he's not the master because NONE of the films he's made (and i've seen all except two or three) gave me a sufficent level of suspence.

I love hitchcock films, but not for the suspence.

sceptre · 15-02-2003 4:58am

Like fester, I love Hitch movies but not for the suspense. Though having said that I watched Spellbound last week with GF and her sister. I've always had a thing for Spellbound (it's the Ingrid Bergman thing again). The one scene that gets me in a cinematographic sense is the scene where someone is lying down, another person comes into the room and the scene is sideways. I haven't come scross any movies earlier than that that have such a scene (tilting the camera in other words). Now, these days, so what? Everyone would do it if it hadn't been overdone since. I can watch an old movie and enjoy it all the more by ignoring any advances in technology or technique that came after though - it just makes the movies all the more enjoyable. Like appreciating the design of the Wright Flyer even though it was a pretty crappy plane (actually better than that as the movies are still good but you know what I mean).

Spellbound is one of the more suspenseful movies. Mysterious stranger, missing doctor, memory loss. Generally though, I've not found Hitchcock movies to be all that suspenseful (except for the obvious Psycho, Spellbound, Rear Window, Vertigo, maybe North by Northwest) but I really do enjoy them. I think it's the pacing - the movies usually seem to be going somewhere at a deliberate pace with very little fat that could be chopped (as opposed to many new movies, though of course just as much rubbish was made in the 40s-60s)

Pigman II · 15-02-2003 9:35am

Hitchcock is overrated IHMO.

Most of his films are dull and ponderous the only films of his that I would deem 'suspenseful' would be Psycho, Dial M for Murder, Rope and perhaps Strangers on a train. Anything else of his (especially anything with Cary Grant in it) is usually just a chore to watch.

Rear Window and Vertigo are good films but they don't grip you in the way the Ray Millands scheming in Dial-M does for example hense I wouldn't define them as suspenseful.

Cactus Col · 16-02-2003 11:53pm

Not anymore.

M. Night Shyalaman (sorry bout that spelling)
has anybody seen SIGNS, can't imagine anybody else make me feel so frightened watching the news footage of a childs birthday.

Is Hitchcock "The Master of Suspence"?

Is Hitchcock "The Master of Suspence" 17 votes

Comments