MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Quentin Tarantino Dumps on Alfred Hitchc...

Quentin Tarantino Dumps on Alfred Hitchcock -- Four Times


Quentin Tarantino may be a lot of things, but one thing he is, now in 2023 as I post this, is:

A famous auteur filmmaker, and not a 'cult" filmmaker, either. His movies are big hits all over the world. His movies are nominated in the big Oscar categories, and sometimes win: Best Supporting Actor for Christoph Waltz twice and Brad Pitt once. Two Best Original Screenplay Oscars.

QT rather shares his fame, I think, with that grand old master of the 1920s through the 1970s: Alfred Hitchcock.

Both men worked in "thrillers" or genre pieces; people die violently in almost all of their films. QT branched out into Westerns and a WWII movie but maintained Hitchcock's sense of style and violence and perversity.

Both men have followings -- Hitchcock had more then, but QT has plenty now.

And I think this: both Hitchcock and QT were strange looking, strange talking men whose personalities "in person" don't really fit the grand cinematic style and power and sophistication of their movies. In short, two weird guys who excited the world with their movies, not their personalities(though QT landed a supermodel wife and plenty of chicks before her, looks didn't much matter if you are as rich and famous as QT in todays hollywood.)

QT rather sidestepped talking about Hitchcock in the beginning. Sometimes he could be a bit snarky ("I don't get why Hitchcock is like God, OK?") sometimes he would be more conciliatory. QT's biggest "bad quote" on Hitchocck is that he preferred the cheapjack 1983 sequel "Psycho II"(directed by the little-known, little-active Richard Franklin) to the original. Balderdash.

But I've gone looking recently and found QT to be a bit more over-all insulting about Hitchcock, and I think its worth some rebuttal.

Here are the QT quotes I have found so far:


ONE: "People discover North by Northwest at 22 and think its wonderful when actually it is a very mediocre movie."

TWO: "I've always felt that Hitchcock's acolytes took his cinematic and story ideas further. I love Brian De Palma's Hitchcock movies. I love Richard Franklin's 7and Curtis Hanson's Hitchcock meditations. I prefer those to actual Hitchcock."

THREE: "The 50s held him down, Hitchcock couldn't do what he, left to his own devices, would've wanted to do. By the time he could do it in the late 60s and early 70s, he was a little too old. If he could have gone where he wanted to go in the early 60s and through the 50's, he would have been a different filmmaker."

FOUR: "While DePalma liked making thrillers(for a little while at least), I doubt he loved watching them. Hitchcockian thrillers were, for him, a means to an end. That's why when he was forced to return to the genre the mid-eighties, they were so lacklustre. Ultimately , he resented having to make them Hitchcock's Frenzy might be a piece of crap, but I doubt Alfred was bored making it."

Hmm.

CONT

reply

ONE: "People discover North by Northwest at 22 and think its wonderful when actually it is a very mediocre movie."

--

OK. Here, QT is nsulting an IMAGINARY (to him) audience who discover NXNW at 22 and think its wonderful. (Such, silly, naive young people.) Hey I discovered NXNW a lot younger than 22 and it excited me for LIFE. And no WAY it is a very mediocre movie. It has landed on the Top 100 films of all time list of the AFI and Number 4 greatest thriller (AFI) and all sorts of critical lists and the reviews were even great in 1959 (not so Psycho and Vertigo, as much.)

Forget about the Rushmore climax and the classic crop duster scene(mediocre? my ass)...try the intricate camera movements and angles and great dialogue and acting of the early , tense "Glen Cove library scene."

Methinks that QT is a "content over style" guy, or something and while he's certainly entitled to his opinion, it just strikes me as so wrong on North by Northwest that he has lowered my opinion of him for CRITICAL thinking( it has not lowered my love of HIS movies.) (I know, like I matter -- he's world famous, and I'm not famous at all; he's superrich, and I'm not rich at all...but I get to have an opinion!)

CONT

reply

TWO: "I've always felt that Hitchcock's acolytes took his cinematic and story ideas further. I love Brian De Palma's Hitchcock movies. I love Richard Franklin's and Curtis Hanson's Hitchcock meditations. I prefer those to actual Hitchcock."

---
Well with Richard Franklin, that would be Psycho II, of which, QT's idol Brian DePalma told an interviewer, "Its not worth talking about" and which includes among its murder scenes a boyfriend/girlfriend episode lifted directly from...Jaws 2. I hear that Franklin's "Road Games' is pretty good, but the guy simply didn't have the longevity or following of the Main Man.

DePalma DID, almost, and I know that ALL of his movies were allowed to be gorier than Hitchcock's (the first thriller, Sisters, came a year after Hitchcock's brutal but not bloody Frenzy), but many of them are severely flawed in the script department -- plot, dialogue -- and DePalma always seemed to fumble his set-pieces. DePalma also never really got the Oscar respect that his peers Coppola,Spielberg, and Scorsese got. DePalma directed some of MY favorite movies(The Untouchables is my favorite of the 80's) but Hitchcock has a more lasting imprint.

QT cites Curtis Hanson as a Hitchcock copycat better than Hitchcock. Well, Hanson wrote and directed my favorite of the 90s -- LA Confidential -- but that's not terrribly Hitchcockian (well, a particular surprise murder was rather Psycho like.) I guess QT is talking of Hanson movies like The Bedroom Window(with Steve Gutenberg!) Bad Influence, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, and The River Wild -- all of which were rather OK but no preparation for the greatenss of LAC. Oh, wait, The Silent Partner with Elliott Could and villain Chris Plummer. Pretty damn good but...no Rear Window or Psycho.

CONT

reply

THREE: "The 50s held him down, Hitchcock couldn't do what he, left to his own devices, would've wanted to do. By the time he could do it in the late 60s and early 70s, he was a little too old. If he could have gone where he wanted to go in the early 60s and through the 50's, he would have been a different filmmaker."

---

Well, isn't that TRUE of ALL filmmakers from the censored era(30s, 40s, 50s?) Maybe not Frank Capra, but Wilder's movies and Preminger's movies would have had more blatant sex and Hitchocck would have upped the sex AND the violence but...that's not when they worked so QT can hardly blame the directors in question, Hitch included.

I've noted that Hitchcock actually got away with a LOT of sex and violence in the 40's and 50s.

Violence: the opening (sexual) gay strangling in Rope; the raw brutality of the killing of Walter Slezak in Lifeboat(and the implied amputation scene); the diplomat shot in the face in Foreign Correspondent; the young boy impaled on an iron-spiked fence in Spellbound, the rape-like attack on Grace Kelly in Dial M(and the scissors in the back close-up as her assailant dies); the lingering knife in the back death of Louis Bernard in The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Sex: Ingrid Bergman's trampy ways in Notorious(and pretty direct references to sex with both Cary Grant and Claude Rains on her part); Miss Torso's gyrations in Rear Window; the sexual banter twixt Grace Kelly and Cary Grant in To Catch a Thief; James Stewart having see Kim Novak nude in Vertigo; Eva Marie Saint's blatant come-on to Cary Grant on the train in NXNW...EVERYBODY's sexual banter in The Trouble With Harry(plus "I'd like to paint you in the nude" on first meeting.)

CONT

reply

QT knows what we all know: eventually the movies could show more violence and more sex(though QT has recently given an interview about why he does NOT film sex scenes in his movies, on balance -- less DeNiro and Bridget Fonda in Jackie Brown, a seconds-long sex joke.) Eventually, Hitchcock's movies could NOT compete with modern films for blood and horror and action and sexuality -- but they sure DID run the table in their time, and Psycho, The Birds, Marnie, Torn Curtain and Frenzy were damn shocking in their violence with Psycho, Marnie and Frenzy taking on sex.

QT in suggesting that by the 70's Hitchcock was too old to do what he wanted to do reminds us: Hitchcock DID manage to get that sexual and horrific rape-strangling scene into Frenzy-- t that's Hitchcock at his WORST (sexual volence graphic wise, not as cinema) and QT sort of built his career from that kind of content for the WHOLE career(except for jackie Brown.)

QT re-staged at least the strangling part of Frenzy in Inglorious Basterds; and staged some dismemberment murders of young women in Death Proof, and gave us wall to wall samarai sword carnage in Kill Bill (complete with spurting blood and flying limbs) much of it girl-on-girl killings; and had Sam Jackson narrate a particularly lurid sexual torture of a white man by a black man in "The Hateful Eight" and showed Sam Jackson entering a scene of a white man torturing a black man in Django Unchained...

...is there where QT regrets that Hitchcock could not go?

CONT

reply

[deleted]

FOUR: "While DePalma liked making thrillers(for a little while at least), I doubt he loved watching them. Hitchcockian thrillers were, for him, a means to an end. That's why when he was forced to return to the genre the mid-eighties, they were so lacklustre. Ultimately , he resented having to make them Hitchcock's Frenzy might be a piece of crap, but I doubt Alfred was bored making it."

---

Before reaching the main point of contention (Frenzy might be a piece of crap), consider QT's take on DePalma (this entire passage is from his new book).

QT is basically saying that after DePalma flopped with a comedy("Get to Know Your Rabbit") he started making HItchcock homages to survive(and if QT thinks that DePalma's Obsession is better than Vertigo...ay ay ay.) QT contends that DePalma actually switched to action in the 80's(Scarface, The Untouchables) but that's not entirely true; he kept making his Hitchocck copycat stuff in the 80's and 90's and then added more action in the 90's(Carlito's Way, Mission Impossible.)

In any event, it begs the question: DePalma seems to have gotten STUCK with his Hitchcock copycat label even as his peers Coppola and Spielberg and Scorsese "branched out" and were taken more seriously.

CONT

reply

Ultimately , (DePalma) resented having to make them(Hitchcock copycats.)

---

Does QT KNOW that? Did DePalma personally TELL him that? Or is that just QT's guess?

---

Hitchcock's Frenzy might be a piece of crap, but I doubt Alfred was bored making it."

-- So QT is saying that whereas DePalma's heart wasn't in making Hitchcock movies, Hitchcock's WAS. Makes sense, doesn't it? Gives Hitchcock the edge, doesn't it?

"Hitchcock's Frenzy might be a piece of crap" suggests to me that QT THINKS that. It would be nice to know WHY. My guess is that even though the movie had one ultra-violent sex strangling to "forecast the QT era," a lot of it was probably too staid and tamped down and expository for QT's taste: any of the scenes with Blaney and Babs together, probably even the twee British comedy of the Oxford dinners.

No matter. I think by the time we get through with all of QTs quotes, a guy who thinks North by Northwest is mediocre, a guy who likes Psycho II better than Psycho, and a guy who has no use for HItchcock's 50's films ...is never going to be brought over to Hitchcock fanhood.

His loss. But I still like his movies pretty much as much as I liked Hitchcocks. They are both genre auteurs, whose movies have great scripts AND great cinematic style.

PS. QT is some years younger than me and was raised in a pretty turbulent hardscrabble household and saw his movies in some tough places and perhaps just never had reason to connect to Hitchcock's omnipresence on network TV in the 60's. Maybe QT never experienced "the hype of Hitchcock" like I did in my more settled childhood.

reply

My mom took me to all Hitchcock films when they came out, beginning when I was six. I saw North by Northwest when I was ten. I have seen it and the others many times since then. I have loved them all these years. Any respect at all that I might have had for Quentin Tarantino is gone. He's a pompous jerk.

reply

And I think this: both Hitchcock and QT were strange looking, strange talking men whose personalities "in person" don't really fit the grand cinematic style and power and sophistication of their movies.

Neither Hitchcock nor QT are *that* educated, Hitch because Film Schools didn't exist when he started and film was completely a practical trade back then, and QT proudly because he was a high school drop-out and 'working in a video store was my film school'. Compare either of them with Coppola/Scorsese/Lucas/Spielberg/De Palma/Spike Lee generations who all went to film school.

I was thinking about this recently when I saw (Hereditary, Midsommar, Beau is Afraid) Ari Aster's recent 'Criterion Closet' vid.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psV-DcsnU1Y
with details about his picks here:
https://www.criterion.com/shop/collection/544-ari-asters-closet-picks

Aster's breadth of reference in World- and Art-cinema is breathtaking (more what I myself aspire to, I admit, than QT's garbage-pail trash-cinema and tv-completism) and, for me, exemplifies one extreme of contemporary movie-culture. While more young people are more cut off from film history and maybe film itself than ever before, there's a small minority who have used all the resources that are out there now (at least if you have enough dough) to become more educated about film than any group of people before them.

reply

And I think this: both Hitchcock and QT were strange looking, strange talking men whose personalities "in person" don't really fit the grand cinematic style and power and sophistication of their movies.


Neither Hitchcock nor QT are *that* educated, Hitch because Film Schools didn't exist when he started and film was completely a practical trade back then, and QT proudly because he was a high school drop-out and 'working in a video store was my film school'.

----

The education of many in the movie business is rather a "dirty little secret" OF the movie business.

Consider Jennifer Lawrence("J-Law.") A Best Actress Oscar winner at a young age. A franchise(The Hunger Games) which, while now completed, made her rich enough to retire NOW if she wanted to. A certain amount of good press for her acting in movies like "Winter's Bone."

And, she quit high school at FOURTEEN. Which pretty much means she has a Junior High education. But she's far richer than most of the people in the world and she commands respect.

Many major movie stars dropped out of high school. Some graduated high school(Jack Nicholson comes to mind)...and that was it. Some have college educations(rich Kirk Douglas put Michael Douglas through college). But for the most part...not much education. And yet they can play doctors and lawyers and computer genuises and rocket scientists and archeologists.

CONT

reply

I think film DIRECTORS have more education. Some college, at least.

And with screen writers, usually some college. Though Joseph Stefano -- screenwriter of Psycho -- was a high school dropout. His "Psycho" script isn't necessarily high art, but the phraseology was quite good as was the inherent wit of the dialogue("Mother's..not quite herself today.")

Tarantino said that he considers Robert Bolt to be the greatest screenwriter, "because John Milius told me he was." Well Bolt was certainly the most LITERATE screenwriter(some college?) The dialogue in "A Man For All Seasons" sounds close to Shakespeare, and Bolt was the "go-to guy" for David Lean's coffee table movies of the 60's and 70s: Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, and Ryan's Daughter.

QT may be informed by TV series I never even watched once ("The Virginian") and perhaps he stole some lines from that show ("Two measly bullets and that's the end of Mexican Bob") , but he has had, from the start, an innate "genius"(there's THAT word) for keeping up a constant stream of entertaining patter for his characters unmatched by anyone. And from Kill Bill on, he demonstrated a knack for filming action(WITHOUT dialogue) that only further enhanced his auteur credentials.

Figure that regardless of education, writers and directors can be "self taught" if they watch enough movies, read enough books, read enough SCREENPLAYS. I think that both Brian DePalma and William Friedkin said this: "Don't go to film school to learn about making movies. Just watch ten of the best Alfred Hitchcock movies." The "education" is from film itself.

CONT

reply


Aster's breadth of reference in World- and Art-cinema is breathtaking (more what I myself aspire to, I admit,

---

And through a lucky bit of alchemy, that interest on your part in those kinds of movies is gracing the pages here at moviechat. Most of us don't have that ....(finishing the sentence is hard)...ability to connect to such films? As a college art professor once spat out at us art heathens in his class: "You don't know what you like...you like what you KNOW."

I"ve often felt that I personally, am not really a "film buff' at all. For most of my life, my favorite films were ONLY ...thrillers. Action movies. Westerns. "Genre pictures for entertainment." I'm not even sure comedy really makes my list -- I want action and excitement more than gags.

I did TRY to see more important works in the 70's...got a book of the main international directors, tried to see some of their key films(and I am STILL working on that goal via the extensive foreign film collection at HBO Max.)

---

than QT's garbage-pail trash-cinema and tv-completism)

---

See to me, QT favoring Psycho II over Psycho is an example of "garbage pail trash cinema" and yet NONE of his movies are as mediocre and poorly written as Psycho II -- what gives? I think maybe the guy is just a bit jealous of Hitchcock -- clearly Hitchcock's movies are too mild for today's film marketplace bu his reputation LASTS.

CONT

reply

QT's knowledge of TV series disturbs me FOR me. I know ALL of the titles of those TV shows he references(The Rebel, The Virginian and its spin off The Men From Shiloh; Get Christie Love; Land of the Giants.) But I never watched a single episode of those series, I guess I just saw commercials and read TV Guide(usually looking for MOVIES.)

I mainly watched TV series in the 60's...action for kids: The Man From UNCLE, The Wild, Wild, West(both referenced by QT in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), I Spy...Batman(for the villains)...and that great Rat Pack/Hef whodunnit Burke's Law. And even THEN, I rarely watched any episode all the way through. I liked to watch the opening titles, go do homework and then come back and watch the fight at the end.

From the 70's on, it was the movies for me, with a few exceptions: Columbo(for the villains.) A triad of 80s precursors to the HBO era (Hill Street Blues, LA Law, St. Elsewhere.) Seinfeld for laughs(Larry David IS a legitimate comedy genius and boy did he expose Seinfeld for merely fronting his genius.). Friends for domestic tranquilty with the Sig Other.

And that's it. So again, I ask: did QT actually WATCH all those TV shows he references? Or did he just read TV Guide archives?

CONT


reply

and, for me, exemplifies one extreme of contemporary movie-culture. While more young people are more cut off from film history and maybe film itself than ever before,

---

I showed the 2007 movie Charlie Wilson's War to some people the other day. One was a 20-something female relative and she had no idea who either Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts WERE. And those two were two of the biggest stars ever...of the 90s, I suppose.

--

there's a small minority who have used all the resources that are out there now (at least if you have enough dough) to become more educated about film than any group of people before them.

---

Its a great big heavily populated world and "the movies" have enough depth and breadth to accomodate all tastes.

I remain stuck in the middle -- I used to call myself "Mainstream Man" and that still fits. Doris Day movies are too dumb for me; Ingmar Bergman is too smart for me. Its Hitchcock and LA Confidential and Silence of the Lambs -- INTELLIGENT thrillers ....and a solid crop of "non thrillers" which have captured me over the decades: American Graffiti, Network(though murder figures in that); North Dallas Forty, ET, Terms of Endearment, Margin Call.

But I do appreciate the links to the Criterion stuff...I'll keep occasionally reaching out and grabbing one of those.

reply

Ari Aster is at it again (as part of his Beau Is Afraid media push), this time in a video store in Paris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEH0CRi50-A
He picks one Hitchcock to discuss (maybe too charitably?): Marnie.

reply

"People discover North by Northwest at 22 and think its wonderful when actually it is a very mediocre movie."

--

I've been stewing a bit over QT's quote above on North by Northwest; I answered it in a post above but i wish to elaborate here.

I've written before of a "revelatory" full-house college screening of Psycho that I caught in 1979 in which most of the room screamed long and hard and often -- it TRANSFORMED a movie I had only seen on TV or with small groups into EXACTLY what it was in 1960: a movie that turned the audience into a screaming mass of terrified customers(the screams from when Lila Crane simply DECIDED to go down into the fruit cellar, all the way to the climax, were constant, unending and only got LOUDER when the two Mrs. Batess revealed themselves. Hell they were still screaming when the shrink started talking -- you couldn't hear him)

I consider that Psycho screening to be the "movie miracle of my life." Without it, I never would have REALLY experienced Psycho.

But I got two great public screenings of North by Northwest in the 70s, too. One at a college, one at a revival theater. Full houses, both times. And complete and total audience involvement -- noisy, vocal, all the way through.

Much of it was LAUGHTER -- NXNW is somewhat of a comedy even with its life and death stakes.

Those LA/Hollywood audiences really got into screenings, I think. Almost TOO MUCH.

Example: When Cary Grant on the train ducks out and the cops run past him, he tells Eva Marie Saint:

"Seven parking tickets."

Now with at least one of those full houses, THAT line got a HUGE laugh, followed by sustained applause, followed by more laughs as Eva Marie deadpanned her response.

Hey, I don't think it was THAT funny. But that full house crowd still did.

CONT

reply

More famously: at the end of the Mount Rushmore climax, as Leonard falls dead off the mountain and it is revealed that he has been shot down by a ranger on Leo G's orders, James Mason's Vandamm gets a great curtain line:

"Not very sporting, using real bullets."

Well, at BOTH full house screenings, we could never HEAR James Mason's line because the crowd was cheering and applauding and whooping it up at "Roger and Eve being saved." The emotional commitment had been two strong. There WERE some laughs at the shot of the little group of men up there on Rushmore looking down -- but overall, the audience was simply going nuts and -- when we suddenly ended up in the honeymoon train car going into the tunnel -- the cheering got even louder and on "The End"(with Berrnard Herrmann's thunderous score reaching its climax)...standing ovations. Both screenings.

I don't think that QT ever experienced North by Northwest THAT way.

BTW:

James Mason said "I just couldn't get that final line in." I guess he knew from the applause?

Cary Grant -- who had been dubious about NXNW as being too incoherent in plot -- attended a preview of the movie in Santa Barbara and experienced all that roaring and the standing O at THAT screening and promptly phoned the film's screenwriter Ernest Lehman after the screening: "It was incredible, Ernie -- the cheering and applause! I'm happy for me, for you, for Hitch."

So Mason and Grant "got it" in a way that I'm afraid QT did not. Decades later, Grant saw NXNW henchman Martin Landau at some event and said, "You know Martin, I don't know what I did, or you did, or Hitch did, but somehow we all did something right on that movie. That movie hit a nerve with audiences that none of my other movies did."

---

So QT all wet.

I still support his work and I believe that he has gotten some of what Hitchcock got as a popular filmmaker showman.

But I'm going to go after QT one more time...

CONT

reply

OK, so QT likes Psycho II better than Psycho, fair enough but what the hell? (I"d like his explanation of that finale in which Meg Tilly is dressed like Mother to convince Norman to be n ice, and accidentally stabs Robert Loggia in the heart and he plummets off the staircase and lands EXACTLY to drive it deeper nto his heart and then Perkins -- in a total refutation of his nuanced 1960 performance -- slobbers and jibber jabbers his way down the stairs into the fruit cellar arguing with Tilly -- and...aargh.

But meanwhile, I some years ago noticed something about a famous -- and celebrated -- scene in QT's Inglorious Basterds, which, I think , paled in comparison to a similar Hitchcock scene overall -- even though the QT scene finally ended in triumph on its own.

Inglorious Basterds: "Jew Hunter" Nazi Chris Waltz enters the home of a French farmer and slowly interrogates him about the whereabouts of a missing Jewish family in the region -- reaching his key point: is the farmer hiding them?

Psycho: Private eye Arbogast enters the office of Norman Bates and slowly interrogates him about the whereabouts of a missing woman from Phoenix -- did she stop here? Is she still here?

When I bought the Inglorious Basterds DVD, I noted that the opening Waltz interrogation actually took up TWO chapter stops...it runs well over ten minutes, or feels like it. It sure gets suspenseful at the end(as the farmer gives up the family and only one escapes) but it sure is LONG getting there. Two chapter stops.

I think the issue -- which also surfaced in Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight -- is that QT does love the sound of his own voice and lets his characters talk on and on and on and SOMETIMES it works(Pulp Fiction, Sam Jackson) and sometimes it doesn't.

There is also the business of Waltz producing a giant smoking pipe to "outrank" the farmer's little pipe. Funny but a bit self indulgent.

CONT

reply

Meanwhile, over at Psycho: Hitchcock, perhaps cognizant of his audience not wanting to have to listen to Arbogast and Norman THAT long, gets their conversation up and running much more quickly, with great lighting(its getting to be nighttime and Arbogast fades into darkness) camera angles(under Norman's bobbing bird-like throat) and banter. Then out of the office and onto the porch for a final confrontation. Then over -- Arbogast leaves, for now.

I rather support QT's being allowed to let his characters talk all they want to, as long as they want to -- I liked ALL the long monologues in The Hateful Eight where others didnt -- but I think his lack of discipline over scene length puts him a bit behind Hitchcock in professinoalism and craftsmanship.

No matter. I like Hitchcock. I like QT. I'm sorry that QT -- rather than saying "Hitchcocks movies are just too old and mild for me" said "North by Northwest' is a medicore film or Psycho II is better than Psycho.

One more thing: when you are as superich and superfamous as QT you can dump on Hitchcock and NXNW all you want and us little folks out here will never get the chance to meet him and rebut him -- and what if we DID? He'd just say "welll, I think you're wrong. North by Northwest IS mediocre." And that would be all.

But QT at least puts his ideas into the MARKETPLACE for other to discuss among themselves. And I guess that's a public service.

Still, here's to Martin Scorsese who is ALWAYS respectful of the movies of others and of the past, in his comments.

reply

Ari Aster is at it again (as part of his Beau Is Afraid media push), this time in a video store in Paris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEH0CRi50-A
He picks one Hitchcock to discuss (maybe too charitably?): Marnie.

---

I'll take a look. And I must admit this:

As excited I"ve always been about NXNW and Psycho(above all) in the Hitchcock canon, and as surprisingly supportive as I am of ALMOST all of Hitchcock's post-Psycho films, there is one that just stops me dead every time: Marnie.

Its hard to be so enthralled and warm and supportive of NXNW and Psycho when Marnie always feels to me like it is as "anti-entertaining" as those other two are.

And here is a point: I much prefer the two "films of decline" AFTER Marnie -- Torn Curtain and Topaz -- cold war spy thrillers both -- to Marnie.

I mean its like Marnie sticks out like a sore thumb when I read through the list of Hitchcock movies from Strangers on a Train through Family Plot. I like I Confess better.

What's interesting is that "in the larger Hitchcock critical world," Marnie seems to sometimes get billing as "the last great Hitchcock movie." One beyond The Birds. Now Frenzy did better in reviews and box office, but Truffaut put it out there in a late 70's article: "I much prefer Marnie to Frenzy."

And one can see why. Frenzy is heartless at heart, cold and mean and -- to some --misogynistic (though not to me.) Marnie is a love story at heart -- between two twisted people -- and it DOES have a happy ending with hope for the couple(unlike its direct forbear, Vertigo, which does not.)

And I like individual Hitchcock moments in Marnie: the opening shot (very Eurofilm) of a black-wigged Marnie and her yellow purse walking on an empty train platform -- FLASH CUT TO: Martin Gabel: "Robbed! Cleaned out!" Both the silent Eurofilm imagery and the sudden cut to a modern boss man in America snarling his lines, seem very wonderfully Hitchcockian to me.

CONT

reply

I like the silent burglary at the closed office -- all silent, the cleaning woman's sudden appearance, the high heel slipping slowly out of the purse -- classic Hitchcock suspense with a twist -- the cleaning woman is near deaf. I also like, to start this sequence, the very long and extremely "tactile" scene of Marnie hiding in a darkened restroom stall and listening to everyone else in the office leaving for the day, until silence. Pure Hitchcock.

I like the camera swoop at Connery's mansion past all the dinner guests til it reaches: Martin Gabel.

I like the harrowing horse ride which leads to disaster and Marnie having to mercy kill the horse -- one of the few tearjerker moments in Hitchocck (and there are sometimes tears for me at the end, too.)

Its the old story: Hitchcock simply could NOT make an uninteresting movie.

But my beefs with Marnie lie in the overall "package": the script is just too long and endlessly expository and "bogs down" into one scene after the other of the bullying Connery catching Marnie in lies(its Arbogast versus Norman with none of the fun, and done in scenes back to back to back.) I don't like the LOOK of the movie -- the Universal interior sets look cheap, like their TV show sets. I don't like the overt yellow color scheme -- its a hard movie to LOOK at. (Even Frenzy had some great colors in the costumes, Rusk's hair, the blue night sky.)

Marnie got a lot of hits for "bad matte paintings and process" but...I think Torn Curtain is just as "bad" and not NECESSARILY bad. Its clear that when Gromek tails Paul Newman through those museum rooms, we are MEANT to be in a fantastical Expressionistic world. So too it is with Marnie, but -- after the great effects of The Birds and the great house shots in Psycho...its lesser.

I dunno. There is just something about Marnie that rubs me the wrong way -- not the least of it Tippi Hedren's brittle, pissed-off performance (Connery is already the commanding movie star he will be past Bond, but fighting his character all the way.) Marnie surely would have been more interesting with Princess Grace Kelly in the role...but if not her, some more professional actress would have helped.

CONT

reply

And this: the two murders in Psycho are historic, classic, shocking and WELL MADE(I'm fine with Balsam's fall) but the final killing in Marnie seems totally botched and amateuristic in comparison , and Bernard Herrmann's music misfires to match the misfired murder scene: the expressions on the faces of the mother and daughter; the light touch of poker to victim(DePalma-esque in "screwing up the set piece.) Just terrible.

I sorta/kinda like the emotion of the mother's confession to Marnie about her past --- as a hooker, as a teenage girl who gave up her virginity to get a football players's letter sweater -- but it is rather too late in a movie that is overall just not good and embarrassing in comparison to the four Hitchocck movies ahead of it. No, five. No, six. No, ten.

Hitchcock famously harrassed Tippi Hedren (in SOME way) on the Marnie shoot and they barely spoke and that may explain its problems.

I read an even BETTER rationale given by one of Hitchcock's assistants for the Marnie failure: "He tried to make a movie too soon after making The Birds...and The Birds had physically exhausted him and he wasn't ready to go back on the set of a new movie. He should have rested for some months first." Fair enough...Marnie looks like the movie of a distracted man.

Heh. Well, every movie maker has to miss sometime. But I'll respect those who like/love Marnie...and I'm glad we have Sean Connery in at least one Hitchcock movie.

reply

I sorta/kinda like the emotion of the mother's confession to Marnie about her past --- as a hooker, as a teenage girl who gave up her virginity to get a football players's letter sweater
It's a pretty raw scene but the way it functions as 'the big solution' of all Marnie's problems cuts against that rawness I find. It all feels a bit 'too Hollywood' for me. Some people, of course, feel that way about Simon Oakland's character and scene in Psycho, but it's not affected me that way. Rather, I've always been impressed by the turn Psycho takes immediately after Oakland's speech when we return to Norman/Mother and grapple with the limits of Oakland's tidy explanations. Marnie has no counterpart of the return-to-Norman/Mother moment and instead sends us out with something like a 'problem solved!' spring in our steps. Counter-argument: final 'Goodbye Sugar-pop' from Marnie's mother (Mark's promised to bring Marnie back but maybe the Mom knows better) plus the creepy/Village-of-the-Damned kids playing in the street outside singing about ladies with Alligator purses plus the slightly uncanny matte painting at the end of the street all add up to *something* not being so great at the end. Mark's smoothed over a lot of stuff in that climactic scene with Marnie's mother but maybe things are going to blow up again. People who really like Marnie (like Aster) definitely think about the end of Marnie in this much more Psycho/Vertigo-ish way.

reply

(Cont'd) A side thought about Marnie's Mother's big scene. I guess that as a guy growing up I radically underestimated just how many women have had something sexually traumatic in their lives, and that because of the shame involved and the complexity of the situation and the anticipated difficulty of prosecuting most women try to be tough, to just dust themselves off and move on. I suspect that the ending of Marnie probably works better for a lot of women than it ever did for me because they've got a bone-deep understanding of this well of female suffering and suppressed anger/guilt that I've only slowly discovered intellectually.

I'm still easily shocked by stuff. Karina Longworth, podcaster extraordinaire, recently covered 'Indecent Proposal' (a film I missed at the time and still haven't seen) and its star Demi Moore in Longworth's epic Erotic '90s series (the twice-as-long sequel to her Erotic '80s series). Longworth read extensively from Moore's auto-biography on the show including the details of a rape by a family friend (one that Moore claims was partly facilitated by her mom) that Moore suffered when she was 15. The details recounted by Moore are horrific and indeed have a kind of Indecent Proposal meets Marnie angle. I never used to think about this sort of stuff really happening but it jolly well does. For a lot of people, then, especially lots of women, Marnie feels a lot more realistic and a lot less of a melodramatic contraption than it has always struck me as being.

reply

It's a pretty raw scene but the way it functions as 'the big solution' of all Marnie's problems cuts against that rawness I find. It all feels a bit 'too Hollywood' for me. Some people, of course, feel that way about Simon Oakland's character and scene in Psycho, but it's not affected me that way.

---

I recall reading some 1964 review of Marnie(on library microfiche) where the critic wrote, "Hitchcock seems to be in a psychological period." Which fits, in order: The Wrong Man(a shrink is in it, from Hogan's Heroes), Vertigo(a shrink is in it, from The Beverly Hillbillies); Psycho(a shrink is in it) The Birds(no shrink, but the family/Freudian content is in overdrive) and Marnie(a shrink in the book was deleted and his lines given to -- Connery!)

It is perhaps no wonder that Wasserman pretty much forced Hitchcock into doing a spy thriller next -- Torn Curtain.

---
Rather, I've always been impressed by the turn Psycho takes immediately after Oakland's speech when we return to Norman/Mother and grapple with the limits of Oakland's tidy explanations.

---

True, that final scene -- which you have explored nicely in a recent post -- "undoes the shrink scene" (somewhat, it also is informed by it) and ends the movie on a truly classic for all time final match of image, actor, and music.

---

Marnie has no counterpart of the return-to-Norman/Mother moment and instead sends us out with something like a 'problem solved!' spring in our steps

---

With Marnie's rather misfired line: "I don't want to go to jail, Mark. I want to stay with you." Well, duh.

reply

Mark's smoothed over a lot of stuff in that climactic scene with Marnie's mother but maybe things are going to blow up again.

---

Well, I would say that the ending is at least hopeful...which, famously, the ending of Vertigo was NOT. (And I see Marnie as Hitchcock's attempt to do "Vertigo" yet again, with the hits NXNW, Psycho and The Birds -- as his justification to "go arty and deep again.")

I rather like Marnie "on paper" more than in the playing: a love affair between TWO damaged people -- the "hero" is just as nutty as the "heroine" in certain ways, and perhaps they can normalize as a couple.

But that LOOK. That SCRIPT. (By a woman, Jay Presson Allen, who went on to script Cabaret and said of the "Marnie" script -- "I wrote it, but I think it is in his bottom third.")

Famous: Marnie is the last time that Hitchcock had Herrmann on music, Tomasini on editing and Burks on cinematography. "The gang was all here, one last time." And not served well by the movie. Herrmann's opening music and the opening "turn the pages" credits seemed like a refutation of Saul Bass modernism(in the look) and even of Herrmann's shock-modern Psycho score.

Tougher still: while Hitchcock "dumped" Herrmann (firing him off of Torn Curtain), Tomasini died of a heart attack while camping (in 1965) and Burks died in a house fire -- sudden death ends for two of Hitchcock's chief collaborators -- and Burks did NOT get to photograph Torn Curtain; Hitch had dumped him BEFORE making that movie.

CONT

reply

suspect that the ending of Marnie probably works better for a lot of women than it ever did for me because they've got a bone-deep understanding of this well of female suffering and suppressed anger/guilt that I've only slowly discovered intellectually.

--

Something to consider in considering a movie like Marnie -- keep in mind that Hitchcock opineI will opine that he, along with George Cukor perhaps, could sometimes be seen as "a male director of women's films."

----

Karina Longworth, podcaster extraordinaire, recently covered 'Indecent Proposal' (a film I missed at the time and still haven't seen)

---

I saw it. Can't say I wanted or needed to see it again, but the premise WAS important I think. Would a husband let his wife have a night of sex with ANOTHER MAN if the couple got $1 million in payment? Lots of folks seemed to jump right in in articles(the internet wasn't quite ready yet): "Sure, I would -- one million bucks?") But the movie made the most of the aching scene in which hubby Woody Harrelson has to watch rich guy Robert Redford take off with Woody's wife in a helicopter for their night of sex. You could FEEL the agony and yet -- not really a profound film.

BTW, I've noted that Robert Redford first played a villaln in Captain America 2 but I suppose I'm wrong. He was pretty villainous in Indecent Proposal, and already into that period where his great face was mottled from the sun, which added to the villainy. There was a press report that Redford actually beat out Dustin Hoffman for the rich guy part. Hmm.is it worse to give up your wife for the night to Redford or Hoffman?


CONT

reply

A friend of mine at Paramount gave me the script of Indecent Proposal to read, and one element was hilariously off: for a final celebrity auction scene the screenwriter had just thrown in the name of "Jimmy Stewart" as the celebrity auctioneer, all the way through "Jimmy Stewart asks for the first bid," "Jimmy Stewart asks for final bids," etc. In the movie "Jimmy Stewart" became that Scottish comedian Billy Connolly(who would also play a late era Columbo villain as a movie composer who plays the Psycho and Jaws themes for the detective! Such connections!)

One more on the Paramount guy I knew(I still know him, but he's not at Paramount anymore.) He also gave me a script for a movie about to go into production with Harrison Ford called "Night Train Down." 1930's period piece with Ford as a Pinkerton detective fighting bad guys on the train with the help of a black porter (not yet cast). Kind of "1930's Lethal Weapon on a train." Very exciting script, big multi-train collision at the end. The head villain gets attached by his pocket gold watch chain to a train and plunges to his death. I could PICTURE the movie.

And Paramount got a new studio boss, and he CANCELLED Night Train Down, and moved Harrison Ford into Patriot Games, and fired Alec Baldwin(as Tom Clancy's hero Jack Ryan) from that movie and...

..that's how Hollywood works. Night Train Down I've only seen on paper, in my mind.

CONT

reply

Longworth read extensively from Moore's auto-biography on the show including the details of a rape by a family friend (one that Moore claims was partly facilitated by her mom) that Moore suffered when she was 15. The details recounted by Moore are horrific and indeed have a kind of Indecent Proposal meets Marnie angle.

---

Some actresses in Hollywood come from wealth or comfortable upper class families but some actresses -- just as with some male actors -- come up the hard way. Hardscrabble roots. Utter poverty. We probably wouldn't want to know that kind of trauma they endured in their young lives. Word is that Demi Moore indeed had a horrible upbringing, but she made it to the top, big money, superstsar husband(Bruce Willis), star husband(Ashton Kutchner) and yet....what was it LIKE, that childhood? I guess we don't want to know more...but she did write about it, eh?

---

I never used to think about this sort of stuff really happening but it jolly well does. For a lot of people, then, especially lots of women, Marnie feels a lot more realistic and a lot less of a melodramatic contraption than it has always struck me as being.

---

Gee, you're making me re-think Marnie (which has its points.)

Here is a weird childhood memory of Hitchcock's movies after Psycho.

I saw The Birds first run at a theater in 1963. I saw Torn Curtain first run at a theater in 1966. Topaz first run in 1969. Frenzy first run in 1972. Family Plot first run(at its PREMIERE) in 1976.

But I'm sure that I did NOT see Marnie in 1964. And the novel was on our living room coffee table (I thought it read "Marine." ) I suppose my parents just saw that one on their own. I remember thinking it was a new James Bond movie because of Sean Connery.

Anyway, I have affection for everything from The Birds through Family Plot because I saw them all first run -- EXCEPT Marnie.

CONT

reply

I think the issue -- which also surfaced in Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight -- is that QT does love the sound of his own voice and lets his characters talk on and on and on
I agree. Sorkin shares this problem. And goodness knows, in novels, people like Pynchon and Delillo and Foster-Wallace and Franzen and Martin Amis have it in spades. A closely related problem that many, undoubtedly very talented writers often have is that their very distinctive voice and personality shines through all their characters' mouths ultimately undermining their characters' supposed distinctiveness. I'm currently in the middle of trying to get through Thor:Love and Thunder. Among its most trying features is that Kiwi Oscar-winning writer/director Taika Waititi's jokey voice (he also plays rock-monster Korg in the film) has usurped every other character's voice! Even Natalie Portman's Jane Foster top scientist is now a quip-monster and half-wit-if-the-joke-requires-it. Waititi's previous Thor film, Ragnarok (a big hit), was pretty silly but very fun and, pointedly, still had very separate characters - not everybody sounding like everyone else. Love and Thunder, however, make every character Waititi's comic puppet and mouthpiece (at least so far, hafl way through, I haven't finished the film yet). You're constantly rolling your eyes at the weightlessness and silliness overload, and at the thought that anyone seriously green-lit such a project. Rather Waititi *must* have been given essentially free rein with a $200 million budget. Amazing that that's even possible!

reply

I think the issue -- which also surfaced in Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight -- is that QT does love the sound of his own voice and lets his characters talk on and on and on

---

I agree. Sorkin shares this problem.

---

Somewhere recently, QT said that "Aaron Sorkin is the best screenwriter in Hollywood." I bet he meant "...except for me," but he was clearly honoring that OTHER guy who made his name with his scripts and his dialogue.

And I must admit, though Sorkin wasn't the SOLE writer on these scripts, he wrote or co-wrote my favorite movies of 2007(Charlie Wilson's War), 2011(Moneyball), and 2017(Molly's Game.) And in all three cases, "the seams were showing." For instance, in Charlie Wilson's War, Tom Hanks' Congressman says "I may just be the son of lumber company manager" and Phil Hoffman says "I may just be the son of a soda popl maker" --- Sorkin's style is rather blunt, yes?

Worse: he repeats himself:

The Social Network:

Zuckerberg: If you had invented the internet, you would have invented the internet!

Charlie Wilson's War:

CIA boss: If you had gotten his job in Finland, you would have been in Finland!

Oops.

Still, I like Sorkin's style -- as long as its not his movies about Silicon Valley. Just depressing how rich those guys and gals are.

CONT

reply

And I love the argumentative pitter-patter banter of Sorkin's best scripts, it entertains me "-- an action sequence using words insteads of bullets." Every scene with Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War is gold -- he gets the best lines or helps Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts with THEIR great lines.

And this goes back in time to "the beginning" Nicholson versus Cruise in "A Few Good Men." ("You can't HANDLE the truth!" put Sorkin on the map, but actually, Nicholson has a LOT of great lines in his only-three scenes in the movie. Said Nicholson about that short part: "It was still worth the money to pay me for those scenes, wasn't it?" Gleeful. He knew he scored those lines perfectly.

But I guess that's the thing: if QT is going to go after North by Northwest(and by inference, its screenwriter Ernest Lehman) he and Sorkin should be called out for THEIR weaknesses. By somebody. And yet most years they put something out...I loved it. QT and Sorkin have quite a few of my Number One of the Year movies. And quite a few Number Twos.

CONT

reply

A closely related problem that many, undoubtedly very talented writers often have is that their very distinctive voice and personality shines through all their characters' mouths ultimately undermining their characters' supposed distinctiveness.

---

Yeah, its noticeable when it happens, isn't it?

I recall back when Woody Allen started using Diane Keaton in all his movies(roughly 1972 through 1979), she always sounded like HIM.

Also with Paddy Chafesky as the "true auteur" of Network, you could say that all the main characters spoke in his voice -- male and female alike.

---

I'm currently in the middle of trying to get through Thor:Love and Thunder.

---

I elected to put a thread on this board -- with some Psycho/Hitchcock references about "my favorite comic book movies," because I have quite a few. But not THAT many. The flood of Marvel/DC movies in the last decade has buried me -- either with movies I "see once and forget" or see not at all. I have not seen Thor: Love and Thunder but I understand it is comedy-heavy. Maybe I see it, maybe not.

--
Among its most trying features is that Kiwi Oscar-winning writer/director Taika Waititi's jokey voice (he also plays rock-monster Korg in the film) has usurped every other character's voice! Even Natalie Portman's Jane Foster top scientist is now a quip-monster and half-wit-if-the-joke-requires-it.

---

Ha.

---

Waititi's previous Thor film, Ragnarok (a big hit), was pretty silly but very fun

--

Yeah, I recall THOSE reviews for ITS humor, too -- and the trailer was pretty funny. Never saw it.

---

and, pointedly, still had very separate characters - not everybody sounding like everyone else.

---

Well, all it takes is one hit and as you say "free reign" for someone to run their talent into the ground.

CONT

reply

One more thought on North by Northwest based on a recent musing and with, as I've been prone to lately, some memories attached(for posterity?)

I saw North by Northwest on the CBS Friday Night Movie in 1967 and it just excited the hell out of me as a movie can do to a person of a young age. With Psycho floating out of reach(unable to see it), NXNW scratched another itch: I just thought it was the most exciting movie i'd ever seen, ESPECIALLY how everything and everybody came together on Mount Rushmore at the end.

Skip ahead a year-plus. 1968. I saw Planet of the Apes at the theater, and i recall being intrigued and somewhat in suspense over the human's inability to speak for so long and where the story went from there.

But Planet of the Apes never reached the pace and excitement of NXNW, and when, at the end, after some "so so action" between Charlton Heston and the "bad apes" and the famous twist ending-- the Statue of Liberty in the sand and the fade out, I thought: "That's it? This movie is just STOPPING? No big chase?"

I think Lady Liberty's presence further invoked memories of the great final chase across Rushmore. I continue to make my case: the Rushmore chase was the most exciting thing in movies for quite some time. And here was Planet of the Apes ending with a nifty twist, but no action, no music. Fade out.

And "Planet of the Apes," I'm afraid, reflected where the action-adventure movie would go for quite a few years in 1967-1970 Hollywood: "prestigous," overblown, serious -- a bit "tight with the budget"(its an A movie, but not much happens on a big scale in POTA.) Ice Station Zebra comes to mind. (But "The Dirty Dozen" does NOT. THAT movie had an action packed explosive finale.)

It would take Dirty Harry, and Jaws and Star Wars to get things rolling up to speed again...and then we never looked back. And I see NXNW more in alignment with THEM than with Planet of the Apes.

reply

QT is a good writer

Other than that he is over-rated

The actors get the awards because THEY knew how to do their job and didn't rely on QT direction

reply