OT: Some thoughts(sight unseen) about the new "Star Wars" ("The Last Jedi") - Psycho (1960) Discussion

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

I'll get around to seeing "The Last Jedi" eventually, but I am self-amused that the draw for me is: Mark Hamill. What a nice great last burst of fame for him -- not unlike when Tony Perkins got the Psycho sequels in the 80s, except Hamill is in a MUCH bigger deal of a sequel here.

Perkins/Hamill is a surprisingly apt comparison... one I'd never thought of, so thanks. Perkins' stardom was a lot broader than Hamill's but, yeah, Hamill's at the core of one of the few cultural phenomena that's a lot bigger than Psycho, so it does kind of even out between them.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Perkins/Hamill is a surprisingly apt comparison... one I'd never thought of, so thanks.

---

Well...you're welcome. Its just one of those things that hit me in my musings. Its true that, for many actors, one big hit role rather defines them and even becomes a meal ticket -- Leonard Nimoy as Spock, for instance -- but with Perkins and Hamill, it feels like they were each allowed to cash in long-dormant stardom decades after they first had it.

I recall taking note, at the end of the 70s, that two entertainment phenonemnons -- one at the movies, one at TV -- had yielded the rather same result: one big male star emerged, and his male co-star rather didn't hit the same heights.

With Star Wars, Ford hit, and Hamill did not. With "Rich Man, Poor Man," tough guy Nick Nolte hit, and Peter Strauss did not(though he became a TV star of some note.) Hollywood moguls, working from a Clint Eastwood/Burt Reynolds mold, saw Ford and Nolte as tough guys because they PLAYED tough guys.

Intriguingly, Ford's first star roles from 1978 to 1980 were pretty weak, and he looked like a flash in the pan. Then Lucas and Spielberg cast him as Indy Jones(with some resistance on LUCAS's part -- and Tom Selleck had had to drop out), and THAT movie REALLY made Harrison Ford a star.

Nolte did something really commercial for his first big movie -- The Deep, from Jaws author Peter Benchley - -but rather quickly revealed a desire to do drama(North Dallas Forty, great film) and downbeat indiefilms. Only with 48 HRS did Nolte really go commercial again -- and Eddie Murphy stole the show(but only as part of a great buddy team.)

But I digress.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Perkins' stardom was a lot broader than Hamill's but, yeah, Hamill's at the core of one of the few cultural phenomena that's a lot bigger than Psycho, so it does kind of even out between them.

---

...and that's a great comparison. Unlike Mark Hamill, Perkins worked steadily in movies, as a second tier star and then as a character guy, for decades. He was bankable at a certain level. Hamill seems to have struggled -- I've only really heard of the Joker voice gig as a claim to fame.

Star Wars IS one of the few cultural phenomena that is bigger than Psycho, but as I think I've mentioned before, I once read an article that opined that Star Wars was the first movie AFTER Psycho to have the IMPACT of Psycho worldwide. I think the article felt that neither The Exorcist nor Jaws had the same impact, perhaps because the former film was too gross for mass consumption after a certain blockbuster payout and the latter just wasn't quite in the haunting class of Psycho (Norman Bates was a complex human monster; Bruce was a shark.)

Indeed, flashing on The Exorcist for a moment, THAT film is rather missing a solid villain on the order of Norman or Bruce. Linda Blair looks, sounds, and talks horrible as the possessed teen -- but the villain is an unseen demon, a FORCE rather than a corporeal being.

People could relate to Norman Bates. As a person.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

FYI Mark Hammill was excellent in "The Last Jedi", he was a highlight of a good movie! In the original trilogy he didn't seem to be so much playing a gormless kid as just being the gormless kid he really was, but somehow he's learned to act in his time away from the spotlight. Disney has really improved the quality of acting in the "Star Wars" films*, but Hammill is the film's standout.

If you haven't seen it, I won't tell you any more than that.

* How could they not, George Lucas has always been known as "The worst actors' director alive".

reply

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

How could they not, George Lucas has always been known as "The worst actors' director alive"

That's conventional wisdom now for sure. The funny thing is that after THX-1138 and American Graffiti I think that most people would have said that Lucas was at least as actor-friendly a director as peers Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Friedkin, etc..

It seems that making Star Wars with all its risk and unknowns about sfx workflows and their integration with live action followed by its mind-boggling success broke something in Lucas so that he wouldn't direct again until 1999 (imagine Spielberg not directing again until 1997 after the success of Jaws - you can't). And then he's back rusty as hell, surrounded by yes-men, distracted by the prospect of doing production digitally end-to-end, and doing everything except focus on script and performances and not making stinkers.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

Sometimes conventional wisdom is true, or based in truth, and I think Lucas's reputation is deserved. He doesn't really work with his actors the way most directors do, never discusses motivation or says what he wants from them, according to Carrie Fisher he never gave her any more direction than "speak faster" or "more intense". And this was on her first real job!

Of course that doesn't mean that all the performances in his films are bad, some actors are perfectly capable of giving good performances without much direction, or any (Hitchcock also paid the camera more attention than his actors). Personally I think the performances in the original trilogy work because the casting was spot-on, Carrie Fisher really was a clever and witty "princess", Mark Hamill really was a gormless kid, Harrison Ford really was a manly man of few words, etc. But some of Lucas's actors, notably Christiansen and Portman, were totally lost in the prequel films.

But yeah, Lucas reportedly doesn't like directing and certainly isn't great at certain parts of the job, but I'll always be glad get made the effort a few times.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Sometimes conventional wisdom is true, or based in truth, and I think Lucas's reputation is deserved. He doesn't really work with his actors the way most directors do, never discusses motivation or says what he wants from them, according to Carrie Fisher he never gave her any more direction than "speak faster" or "more intense". And this was on her first real job!

---

I think I kind of spoke to this in another post, but I remain intrigued by just how much actors do to get great performances out of actors. There is some director out there who is famous for getting Oscar nominations for somebody in each of his films(actually, probably more than one) but...could it be that he just got scripts with great ROLES?

As a Hitchcock buff, I've been intrigued to read of Hitchcock getting personally involved in the direction a few times, but in odd ways. After watching Jimmy Stewart play a scene in The Man Who Knew Too Much, Hitchcock called cut, took Stewart aside and said, "I dunno, Jimmy, it seems to be playing a bit flat, can you try it again with something more?" and that worked.

He told Kim Novak that she was over-acting with her face, drawing a few lines on a pad and saying "this is what I want" and then scribbling all over the pad and saying "this is what you are giving me."

He told Eva Marie Saint to lower her voice as Eve Kendall and to "always look deep into Cary Grant's eyes." Fair enough.

He told a young actress in Lifeboat to create fatigue and exhaustion by "taking a deep breath, and saying your lines until you run out of breath, and then keep trying to speak until you can't."

My favorite(if true): he felt that John Gavin wasn't acting sexual enough in his necking scene with Janet Leigh in Psycho. He asked Leigh to "take the matter in hand, so to speak." Leigh caressed Gavin and...well, he got sexy real fast.

He told Sean Connery "don't listen with your mouth open, it looks like you are not very smart.

MORE

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

And one much-used Hitchcock acting direction is what he called "draining the face of emotion." Example: John Anderson's California Charlie in Psycho. He's all smiles and chit-chat until Marion Crane too quickly accepts his first offer...and then his face "drains" from happy chappy to somber and suspicious.

---

So I know about how Hitchocck directed actors, and I don't know if all those techniques above really mattered or not. They probably helped.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

I like your examples, they're so precise and meaningful! They're actually examples of what goes on between good directors and good actors, the director knowing exactly what will work in the finished film, and the actors knowing what they're doing, and the director just offering suggestions that turn something from good to terrific. And if you're interested in how actors work with directors,well, I'm trying to remember where I read George Bernard Shaw's comments on how to direct actors. It was in the introduction to one of his plays (he directed some plays as well as writing them), and he said something like: "You can tell a good director from a bad director from looking at their notes. A bad director will write stuff like 'Play up the Oedipal implications in this scene', while a good director will have notes like "Emphasize THAT word" or "Turn to face the audience HERE'.".

But like I said, Lucas hardly directed his actors at all, which has resulted in... highly variable quality of performances in his films. Some of his actors can give very good performances without much direction as I said above, some of his old pros could give stellar performances - like Ian McDiarmid in the prequel films. But some of his younger actors were totally lost without any guidance, notably little Jake Lloyd and teenage Natalie Portman in the prequel films. I have to assume that they would have been much better if they'd had a director to help them decide what to do, because they couldn't have been worse.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I like your examples, they're so precise and meaningful!

---

Thanks. Reading as many books as I have on Hitchcock over the years, I just sort of absorbed these stories and considered them: so this is the "acting direction" side of the work. It does sound like Hitchcock DID get involved in motivation when he had to.

And I remembered a few more.

For Family Plot, Barbara Harris asked Hitchcock how to play her first scene in the cab with boyfriend Bruce Dern. Lovingly? Sexually? Said Hitchocck: "No. Like a business meeting." Harris said that helped.

Also on Plot, Hitchcock gave William Devane a succinct piece of direction. Devane's villain, Arthur Adamson, often wore dapper three piece suits. Said Hitchcock to Devane: "Play the clothes." I think I get that. You act sophisticated. You pop out your cuffs, adjust your vest, etc.

On Topaz, visiting director Curtis Harrington watched as Hitchcock directed the embrace between Rico Parra and Juanita de Cordoba(that ends with her death by gunshot) to every gesture and facial movement. Hitchcock even moved the actors hands around. Hitchcock told Harrington "These are unseasoned players, not like the established stars I work with. I have to show them what to do physically."

Unfortunately , the same story has been ascribed to two different Hitchcock players.

Evidently Martin Balsam(on Psycho) and Tippi Hedren(on The Birds) each asked the same question about climbing the stairs to their possible doom:

"What's my motivation, Hitch?"

Hitch's answer: "Your paycheck."

Sounds great, but I've read it both ways. So I think maybe it is made up.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

And if you're interested in how actors work with directors,

--

I am!

---

well, I'm trying to remember where I read George Bernard Shaw's comments on how to direct actors. It was in the introduction to one of his plays (he directed some plays as well as writing them), and he said something like: "You can tell a good director from a bad director from looking at their notes. A bad director will write stuff like 'Play up the Oedipal implications in this scene', while a good director will have notes like "Emphasize THAT word" or "Turn to face the audience HERE'.".

---

Well, sometimes acting is a very technical thing.

Actually, I have one more Hitchcock story, and I think it is on point:

At the end of Frenzy, killer Bob Rusk enters his flat and is confronted by Scotland Yard Inspector Oxford. Rusk has been caught red-handed as a killer(the body is nearby) and Oxford says:

"Mr. Rusk, you're not wearing your tie."

On "Take One," Alec McCowen(Oxford) barked out this line, and Barry Foster(Rusk) hung down his head in shame.

Hitchcock called cut, and "carefully, quietly" suggested that each actor should play the scene differently: Oxford should be cool, calm, collected reading that line. Rusk should not hang his head in shame -- a serial killer feels no shame. So we got a great deadpan final scene -- Oxford reads his line quietly, Rusk just sort of
chuckles and sputters, giving away nothing.

Hitchcock did the acting for them.

BTW, rumor has it that on movies like Some Like It Hot and The Apartment, Billy Wilder would act out entire scenes, with line readings, and ask his actors to imitate him.

He did this on "Kiss Me Stupid" with Ray Walston, and star Dean Martin said to Walston in front of Wilder, "Don't listen to that BLANK. Act it how YOU want to act it." I think Dino wasn't kidding.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

Thank you, I do like hearing stories about Masters at work! And it sounds like Hitchcock gave his actors exactly as much direction as they needed, actors must have liked working for him. He trusted them to do what they did best, and if he gave them the occasional nudge it was a nudge in the right direction. You've also made me realize he rarely worked with young actors, although there was the 30s Brit film "Young and Innocent" starring the teenage Nova Pilbeam and a few child characters here and there. But even his kid actors were old pros who'd made studio films, and none of them embarrassed themselves.

it really is interesting to compare Lucas to a really top director, because Lucas is a genius at some things (he invented the modern special effects industry), good at others (some of his films are damn good), and pretty terrible at others (working with actors and writing dialogue). IMHO he mostly got away with ignoring his actors by being very good at casting. He essentially discovered Harrison Ford and Richard Dreyfuss, and the lead performances in the Star WArs film work because the inexperienced kids he hired were very much the worst of people he wanted his characters to be. But when he hired a child with no experience to play a major role and didn't give him any direction... oy.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

But like I said, Lucas hardly directed his actors at all, which has resulted in... highly variable quality of performances in his films.

---

I yield to you on your knowledge of the Lucasfilms. Hitchcock's where I hang my hat...and I don't really know a lot of his work (especially the 30s/40s stuff.)

---

Some of his actors can give very good performances without much direction as I said above, some of his old pros could give stellar performances - like Ian McDiarmid in the prequel films. But some of his younger actors were totally lost without any guidance, notably little Jake Lloyd and teenage Natalie Portman in the prequel films. I have to assume that they would have been much better if they'd had a director to help them decide what to do, because they couldn't have been worse.

---

It seems to me that young actors without much of a sense of their personal character, are going to need some direction, some assistance as to what the tone of the scene is.

I noted elsewhere how Hitchcock gave Barbara Harris guidance on how to play one scene; an actor may well fumble if they don't know what the director wants, what vision he has.

Frank Capra wrote that, on his final film, Pocketful of Miracles, star Glenn Ford drove him nuts "bouncing into every scene like a fall-down funnyman," but Capra was too powerless(and ill; migranes) to stop Ford from giving that performance. So Capra let it go and hated that performance(he'd wanted Sinatra, Dino or Steve McQueen first, anyway. The first two said no and the studio nixed McQueen as not big enough at the time.)

Now Barbara Harris and Glenn Ford were established actors, so you can imagine what kind of guidance a young actor would need.

The proof's been in the pudding -- none of the young actors in the Star Wars prequels really went anywhere except Portman. And she had natural beauty on her side. And eventually, an Oscar.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Of course that doesn't mean that all the performances in his films are bad, some actors are perfectly capable of giving good performances without much direction, or any (Hitchcock also paid the camera more attention than his actors).

---

Hitchcock was accused of that, and with some performances(Bob Cummings in everything; Frederick Stafford in Topaz), one sees the poor results.

I listed a bunch of "Hitchcock acting direction stories" in other posts on this thread, but I think its true he was much more interested in his camera moves and angles and effects. Still, he solved that by hiring very good actors usually -- the best actors among established stars (Stewart, Fonda, Grant) and very good unknowns(everybody in Frenzy). Then he didn't HAVE to direct them.

Recall that Doris Day went berserk when Hitchcock gave her no direction on Man Who Knew Too Much. Finally , she demanded a meeting with Hitchcock and with her agent present to watch. Hitchcock said "I don't direct you because everything you are doing is great."

---

Personally I think the performances in the original trilogy work because the casting was spot-on, Carrie Fisher really was a clever and witty "princess", Mark Hamill really was a gormless kid, Harrison Ford really was a manly man of few words, etc.

---

I think directors including Kubrick, Coppola, Huston and Hitchcock all said "cast your film correctly and you've got a good chance at a great film." And Kubrick said that Coppola's casting of The Godfather, top to bottom, was the best he had ever seen.

Note in passing: both Al Pacino and Nick Nolte were under consideration for Han Solo. I expect that Lucas went with the guy he knew from Graffiti: Harrison Ford.

---

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

But some of Lucas's actors, notably Christiansen and Portman, were totally lost in the prequel films.

---

Yes, but they weren't given very interesting characters to play, either. Luke, Leia, and especially Han were meaty, fun roles.

This may have further reflected Lucas' lack of full commitment to the story when he came back for the prequels.

Note in passing: I vividly recall reading articles, when "Star Wars" hit so big in '77, where Lucas said his idea was for an epic that would "tell the story in prequels before Star Wars and then sequels after Star Wars." I thought he was talking crazy, didn't really have a game plan.

Its taken a 40-year voyage to see that Lucas was as good as his word.

---
But yeah, Lucas reportedly doesn't like directing and certainly isn't great at certain parts of the job, but I'll always be glad get made the effort a few times.

---

Well, he made the effort in the beginning, when it counted. Getting American Graffiti made was a hard sell -- and a Universal exec named Ned Tanen screamed at a sneak preview "This is horrible! Its not even a good TV movie" and threatened not to release it(the money men/executives seem to be incredible villains all the time -- they have the money, but they have no vision.)

And Star Wars was even harder to get greenlit, and Lucas had to make it fairly cheap and fairly fast or get fired. (Fox had more faith in its OTHER 1977 Sci Fi release, Damnation Alley with George Peppard, than Star Wars!)

With those two done and successful and "iembedded n the imaginations of the world," Lucas was entitled, I suppose, to quit directing for most of the rest of his life.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

How could they not, George Lucas has always been known as "The worst actors' director alive"
That's conventional wisdom now for sure. The funny thing is that after THX-1138 and American Graffiti I think that most people would have said that Lucas was at least as actor-friendly a director as peers Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Friedkin, etc..

---

I've never quite gotten how much direction can really matter TO an actor. Supposedly guys like Elia Kazan got deep into motivation with their actors, but Hitchcock did not. And in the final analysis, both directors got good performances and bad performances. But I'm sure that there are things I'm missing here.

One tip I got from an older "movie watching mentor" in my youth was that if an actor in a MOVIE overacted or said his lines woodenly, "that was bad direction," because the director should have told his actor to tone it down before printing a take , or done another take until the line reading was better.

American Graffiti famously launched a lot of star careers, but only one star: Richard Dreyfuss. And he needed Jaws to take it over the top. Harrison Ford needed Star Wars to turn the trick. Ron Howard was very limited -- Happy Days and movie directing were better career moves. (I always thought that too-boyish, geeky Ron Howard was miscast in American Graffiti as the BMOC that all the girls love the best -- but he was the most famliar face.) Candy Clark was the only Oscar-nommed actor in Graffiti, and did the best work, both in general, and in terms of "being in disguise." She didn't look or talk like that in real life.

Anyway, lots of good performances in Graffiti, but whether or not Lucas had much to do with them is debateable.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

It seems that making Star Wars with all its risk and unknowns about sfx workflows and their integration with live action followed by its mind-boggling success broke something in Lucas so that he wouldn't direct again until 1999 (imagine Spielberg not directing again until 1997 after the success of Jaws - you can't).

---

Though we were told that the 80's were the "Lucas-Spielberg Era," it was pretty clear that George Lucas had no interest in day to day, year by year, work as a director. Hell, he let Ron Howard direct Willow.

They had a little fun with this at the 2007 Oscar ceremony for 2006 Oscar films. Scorsese was a lock to win his first Oscar(for the wrong movie): The Departed. So Coppola, Spielberg, and Lucas came out to make the award. There was some patter where Coppola and Spielberg congratulated each other on their Best Director Oscar, and Lucas said: "What about me?" And things got silent. Key joke: Coppola, Spielberg and (now) Scorsese were Best Directors; Lucas was not. Never would be.

I recall, BTW, feeling the requisite surge of excitement and nostalgia in SEEING Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas, and Scorsese on the stage together. They were the Four Horsemen of the New Cinema, yes? And, even in 2007...Old Guys. Hitchcock was like from the Civil War era by then.

---
And then he's back rusty as hell, surrounded by yes-men, distracted by the prospect of doing production digitally end-to-end, and doing everything except focus on script and performances and not making stinkers.

---

All agreed. I dragged myself out to see all three prequels and I felt that Lucas had missed the key element of all great films, and even most good ones: a story and characters. Even Samuel L. Jackson seemed neutered and lost in those things.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Who knows what the triumph of billion-dollar earnings and worldwide impact does to the brain of a human being. It happened to Lucas, it happened to Cameron, it ALMOST happened to Hitchcock(with Psycho, but he dutifully kept on trying to make good and diverse films after it, and a BIG special effects challenge with The Birds right after.)

It even kinda/sorta happened to Spielberg. I don't think that his Jurassic Park films have the depth and edge of Jaws, and he has made too many films since the 80s that just don't much matter.

Of note with Spielberg recently: someone has pointed out that he has become a "historical filmmaker": his WWII films, his slave trade film, Munich, Catch Me If You Can, Lincoln(way back there), Bridge of Spies, now The Post. I guess that matters. Other filmmakers stick to the present -- or the future.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

FYI Mark Hammill was excellent in "The Last Jedi", he was a highlight of a good movie!

---

I like hearing that. Somehow, I'm just rooting for him to succeed. Its due.

---

In the original trilogy he didn't seem to be so much playing a gormless kid as just being the gormless kid he really was,

---

Great point, and I like the word "gormless." As Darryl Hannah says of the word "gargatuan" in Kill Bill, "I like that word, and its rare that you get to hear it used in a sentence."

---

but somehow he's learned to act in his time away from the spotlight. Disney has really improved the quality of acting in the "Star Wars" films*, but Hammill is the film's standout.

---

Excellent points. Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher seemed to have more gravitas in that last flim; of course, their characters had aged beyond the sharp-witted whippersnappers they had been in 1977 (what a great year that was at the movies!) Its Hamills turn.

BTW, in 2015, the same year as The Force Awakens, Mark Hamill had a short role(and the opening scene), as a middle-aged and bearded professor in "Kingsmen 1" -- it took me the longest time to recognize him. I remember thinking "Oh, so that's what he looks like -- can't wait to see him in The Force Awakens." And then he was barely IN The Force Awakens.

---

If you haven't seen it, I won't tell you any more than that.

---

I haven't, and it will be awhile before I do, so its my risk what I hear in between.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Here's something weird and personal to me:

I elected to see the first Star Wars sequel The Force Awakens in early 2016 at a newly opened movie theater that served booze and food, with waiters coming into the darkness to serve it to you. I found the booze a nice touch, but food service in the dark was not great, nor was the food, nor was my ability to eat in the dark(I put my hand into my salad.)

I have not been back to that theater since I saw The Force Awakens...but I have decided to see The Last Jedi there, because "its my Star Wars theater now." Ha. I'm not kidding. I'm a creature of habit.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

Can you please stop spamming the Psycho board??

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Can you please stop spamming the Psycho board??

---

I don't know what this means. I am enjoying reading all the posts here at the Psycho Board. They are exclusively about Psycho, exclusively OT, or often a good mix of both -- Psycho and Star Wars have many intersects.

Indeed recall that the original Star Wars has the "three notes of madness" that conclude Psycho written into the score on purpse by John Williams. They play when our heroes emerge from a grate in a hallway after some storm trooper walk over the grate and leave.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

I have to tell you, there's no good talking sense to this person.

And yeah, using the Psycho board for other things is a bit weird, but whatever works. This thread has turned into one of the most interesting discussions I've ever ahd on this site!

reply

[–] dt123 (704) 7 years ago

Yup. Pretty irritating. Not going to ask this person why they're doing it. They're doing it for attention. Or why they don't just post to the appropriate board. Note they are conversing with themselves, replying to own comments, etc. Pretty clear why they chose "Psycho" board.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

True, as a matter of fact I'm blocking them.

reply

[–] dt123 (704) 7 years ago

Me, too.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

True, as a matter of fact I'm blocking them.

---

Christmas comes early! What a present.

And since I am being blocked, I can speak freely to the human failure that this individual represents.

Can you imagine the moral depravity and gutter-level lack of manners and breeding that would compel a human being to spew such bile on Christmas weekend? Can you imagine the deprived childhood?

Scrooge lives!

Here is this individual's post about the original Star Wars:

Quote

I can't believe this ever succeeded, it is so ridiculous.

Unquote

i believe this is what is known as trolling. Scientific studies of trolls have revealed sad and abused childhoods grown to adulthood hatreds. Also, the quote reveals what we call "the intellectual capacity of a blocked punt."

Here is this individual's take on the Weinstein affair:

I have yet to find anything even remotely similar to Weinstein in the old days.

----

The lack of historical understanding and research in that quote is mind boggling. This individual is not worth talking to. By the way, i tried, on a non-Psycho thread, to converse with this individual and it went two discussion points before they fell back into bedrock rage-insult idiocy.

But I have been blocked by that individual so there is no need for them to read of their obvious shortcomings. Anger management would be helpful.

Merry Christmas to them anyway. Or good tidings if the holiday is not followed. Love is the answer, Let Them Eat Cake. Every chat site has its cross to bear, has its hate-filled rager, and I read enough of your posts to know that moviechat drew the crud-encrusted card of you. It comes with the territory.

---

Meanwhile, back to otter: wasn't it nice to be having a respectful intelligent conversation before those two in-bred apes showed up? Morons travel in pairs.

But I'm blocked, you see....

PS. I don't go to those other boards because these two are sometimes the quality of people you find there. I "talk to myself" because I am breaking one long post into smaller ones, as required.

reply

[–] mattjoes (53) 7 years ago

It's terrible to see the thread derailed over nothing.

Let's try and pay no attention to those people.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

Why criticize someone for posting about what interests them? If it offends you or bores you, then just don't read it. No need to make ad hominem attacks. No one puts a gun to anyone's head to read about any topic here. Just pick the ones you like to read and leave other people alone. Is that so hard?

I avoided this thread for several days because I don't have any interest in the new Star Wars films, but I don't begrudge anyone else's choice to talk about them. But I became curious and decided to read the posts.

I'm glad I did because I really enjoyed the way ecarle ties in Psycho and Hitchcock. He is my favorite director. I have a whole shelf of books about him and his work including all three books by Donald Spoto, the Truffaut interviews and three books on Psycho alone. I enjoy talking about him and the way he directed (or didn't direct) his actors.

There have been threads about TV shows or movies in which I have no interest. I may read a few posts and that's it. But I don't see the need to complain. Allow others to post and read what interests them and you do the same!

I've seen this on other boards. "WHY are you posting about such and such?" So go read something else! No one forces you to read what others have written. Start a thread of your own about something that interests you.

Why have the rules changed for internet boards? Does anyone go in a library and ask, "WHY does the library have so many dumb books about science fiction when I want to read biographies?" Geez, just live and let live.

reply

[–] dt123 (704) 7 years ago

The complaint is that he's posting off topic. SO many places to post Star Wars diatribes.. each SW film has a forum, Lucas has a forum, Scifi genre has a forum, etc. He even KNOWS he's posting off topic and names his threads OT. What's the point of that? He'd actually get READ if he posted in right place.

This forum is about the movie Psycho. Once I saw what the deal was, I was out of there. No one forces me to read these diatribes. I didn't. I got a few grafs in and saw it for what it was, then bailed. But I felt compelled to agree with LetThemEatCake.

If it were 99.9% of us, we'd post in appropriate place. I, too, am long-time Hitchcock fan. I, too, have shelf of books on Hitchcock, including Truffaut. As far as connecting Psycho with Star Wars... if it's there, it's WAY down in his diatribes, and as i say, I'm not reading some guy who doesn't understand where to post what. i.e., never never saw him link the two. If that's the guy's lede, he sure buried it.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The complaint is that he's posting off topic. SO many places to post Star Wars diatribes.. each SW film has a forum, Lucas has a forum, Scifi genre has a forum, etc. He even KNOWS he's posting off topic and names his threads OT. What's the point of that? He'd actually get READ if he posted in right place.

---

Perhaps I am still blocked by this individual. I trust if you read his original post from earlier today you will find that it was far more personal and insulting that he lets on in the paragraph above.

In the real world, people get beaten to a pulp for such talk. Or perhaps it is attempted, and the beating is reversed upon them. Jail cells are made ready, hospital beds may be necessary...the morgue could be the unintentional end game.

But where I live, it is Christmas Eve, and I'm among those who celebrate(understanding that not all do.) So...Peace on Earth and Good Will Toward Men.

Some thoughts:

As far as whether or not Psycho and Hitchcock were discussed in this particular Star Wars thread -- and even though it was marked "OT" I count these items as among the Hitchcock films discussed in this thread: Psycho, Frenzy, Family Plot, Vertigo, Lifeboat, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Marnie and North by Northwest. You see, sometimes I mark OPs as OT -- but Hitchcock still enters in. Evidently dt123 had "reading comprehension" difficulties on his SATs. Oh,well.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I regret pushing the rage button, but you see I DO visit other boards to read or sometimes post, and it was clear that Let Them Eat Cake is one of "those people" -- angry, trolling, personal attacks. When I saw that he/she/it had finally found the Psycho board, my irritation rose: "Oh, no -- that clown has found the Psycho board. Here it comes." The rage had been building for some time. Whatever the outcome is that lies ahead, the internet at once has no use for the Let Them Eat Cakes of this world...and yet nothing but them, in seems, in perpetuity.

It is true that there are Star Wars boards galore, but the truth of the matter is, I don't know that much about Star Wars, or remember much about Star Wars. I have some great memories of seeing it on the Fox lot in 1977 -- "I was there," and I will carry them forever. My main commentary (OT) was about how Mark Hamill ends up the focal point of this film. Its the kind of thing I like to discuss. And I've been doing it here.

But, evidently, no more. I don't particularly want attention -- how can I, when the OPs are rarely responded to. I figure perhaps these things are read, and that the stimulations from swanstep on things like the Oscars and indie film are interesting.

I don't think swanstep even much posts at all on Psycho here anymore. He has to my gratitude turned the board into a place where many things can be discussed -- and Psycho is either On Topic in connection or Off Topic by design(a design begun at imdb.)

I post on Psycho to " keep my hand in," but honestly, though I pride myself on thinking about something relatively new about Psycho from time to time, I don't post much anymore on Psycho, either. In fact, I don't post much here anymore at all. I trust you will note that many days separate my posts and that more often or not I am responding to someone else.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The "OT" experiment that is the Psycho board will perhaps come to an end -- but it will be moviechat administrators who will do it. People who talk to me in the manner that Let Them Eat Cake and dts1 have today, will never be the ones to win. They don't deserve the honor.

I'll note this. I'm very happy that moviechat exists, but it is pretty clear that it doesn't generate a lot of traffic on older films, or even Hitchcock films. The boards on Vertigo and North by Northwest and Frenzy and Family Plot and The Trouble With Harry are pretty much dead -- SO dead that I wonder why anybody cares to insult me about those boards where nobody is talking anyway.

I don't think I want "attention"(another mouth punching statement), but I think I do want to express myself. And I value the times when swanstep checks in(even hating The Music Man -- see, I'm not THAT sensitive) fairly regularly or old "friends" like telegonus and movieghoul check in.
But that said, any number of folks who used to check in with us at imdb aren't here, I realize this board is simply smaller, people wise, than good ol' imdb.

I offer this deal: I will refrain from writing on the Psycho board for a few weeks. Maybe months. Let's see if traffic and threads solely about Psycho develop. I will brave the other boards a little bit -- though the QT boards , Star Wars boards, and comix boards are where the ugliness of the internet thrives, I think -- and see if anyone follows me there. I kinda doubt its going to happen, but perhaps if it is therapy -- rather than attention -- that I seek in writing some posts, I guess that will do it.

I also realize that what I really should be looking to do is to create a blog. I'm going to figure out what's necessary on that, cost-wise and time-wise, in 2018. Then I can truly have my cake and eat it to. If they'll let me.

To those who celebrate: a Merry Christmas and a prosperous 2018.

To those who do not: I wish you the best!

reply

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

ecarle- gee, I hope you don't quit the Psycho board!! I finally got Psycho IV and I really was hoping to discuss it. I think you were the one who told me to watch all three of the sequels, so I bought the DVDs. Interesting movies! I had written them off when they first came out. But now I'd like to discuss them.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

ecarle- gee, I hope you don't quit the Psycho board!! I finally got Psycho IV and I really was hoping to discuss it. I think you were the one who told me to watch all three of the sequels, so I bought the DVDs. Interesting movies! I had written them off when they first came out. But now I'd like to discuss them.

---

OK, new deal , in the Christmas spirit...

I'll come here ONLY to post on Psycho and its "offspring." (Sequels, remake, both Bates Motels. And "Silence of the Hams," which should be seen by all buffs.)

Ironically, I used the OT posts to avoid talking about Psycho "all the time"(which I don't/cant) but...if I try to talk Psycho at the Star Wars board, I guess I'll be in trouble.

I won't always be around the next holidays, pjpurple, but you start posting on Psycho IV and I'll do what I can to respond.

reply

[–] [email protected] (5871) 7 years ago

dt 123----Well, okay, but I didn't see it as a diatribe anyway. For me, the simplest thing when I see an OT thread which I have no interest in, is just to ignore it. It's not worth getting upset over.

I think the OP was trying to connect the directors of the movies anyway, not making a connection between the films.

Why read it if it makes you mad? It's not as though it's ruining your day, is it?

reply

[–] dt123 (704) 7 years ago

Never said I was mad. Just annoyed. Never saw OT threads on imdb indiv film boards. True, discussions could get sidelined but not outright in OP.

Fixed typo.

reply

[–] mattjoes (53) 7 years ago

Well, now that these senseless complaints have sadly derailed the thread, I might just as well say what's on my mind.

The Psycho board has a stable roster of posters that discuss the film regularly. This has been the case since the IMDb days. Surely they are allowed to create off-topic posts in the same board when a) they try to find parallels and connections to Psycho to justify these off-topic posts being in the Psycho board, b) they actually engage in constructive, in-depth conversations, and most crucially, c) they don't bother anyone nor get in anybody's way, except those like you who find it so annoying to see the poster of Psycho turn up in the Trending list and see that the most recent discussion in the board is about Star Wars.

The Star Wars thread was posted here to get feedback from the Psycho board regulars, that's all. The OP doesn't need his post to be read by everyone, and isn't looking for everyone's attention.

This is the Internet. It's full of anger and nonsense. The Psycho board is one of a few places where people try to behave in a civilized way and you have to complain. Show some common sense.

reply

[–] mattjoes (53) 7 years ago

Well, now that these senseless complaints have sadly derailed the thread, I might just as well say what's on my mind.

The Psycho board has a stable roster of posters that discuss the film regularly. This has been the case since the IMDb days. Surely they are allowed to create off-topic posts in the same board when a) they try to find parallels and connections to Psycho to justify these off-topic posts being in the Psycho board, b) they actually engage in constructive, in-depth conversations, and most crucially, c) they don't bother anyone nor get in anybody's way, except those like you who find it so annoying to see the poster of Psycho turn up in the Trending list and see that the most recent discussion in the board is about Star Wars.

The Star Wars thread was posted here to get feedback from the Psycho board regulars, that's all. The OP doesn't need his post to be read by everyone, and isn't looking for everyone's attention.

This is the Internet. It's full of anger and nonsense. The Psycho board is one of a few places where people try to behave in a civilized way and you have to complain. Show some common sense.

reply