Or is putting Argento in the same league as Hitchcock is a mistake?
Not putting that up to argue, I'd prefer some intelligent debate as to whether he should be in the same league and why etc... flaming is just pointless.
Oh it is for sure.
Argento is an above average B movie maker, but in return that means he's a below average film maker.
I'll admit visually his films can be very impressive at times but his scripts are horrible, filled with holes,unbelievable details and laughable plots.
He is not a very talented director in terms of working with actor and telling a coherent story.
Yes some of his films can be enjoyable to watch, despite the many flaws that they all have, but in a guilty pleasure sort of way.
To call him a master filmmaker or compare him to true greats like Hitch is just crazy. Like I said he makes B horro films that have great style and are more enjoyable than most other bad films but thats all there is to it really IMHO.
And Hitch's scripts were never filled with holes and unbelievable details?
A story isn't just what has been written in the script. The elaborate shots and murder set-pieces are the story in an Argento film.
You can't really say Hitchcock didn't tell the story using shots and mis-en-scene. Rear Window is a perfect example of that.
shareI didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth, plz k thnx.
share"A story isn't just what has been written in the script. The elaborate shots and murder set-pieces are the story in an Argento film."
You kinda did, yeah...
No, I didn't... nowhere did I say that Hitchcock does not use storyboards and elaborate shots to tell a story. I merely pointed out that Argento does it and that his films are usually style over substance.
shareNot necessarily a mistake, just something that requires a certain nuance.
Hitchcock came from a generation that made lots of films very quickly. Many of them are not very good because they were churned out on budgets to meet quotas. But when he had resources, scripts, actors, etc, he made great movies.
Argento had the luxury of directing rarely, so he didn't churn out a lot of quickies. He had control over his career earlier and made the movies he wanted to make, without interference.
So now the question becomes, how do we decide whether it is fair to regard the two in the same league? Do we average out the qualities of all their films, hits and misses? Or do we look at just a handful of their best titles?
And how much allowance do we make for their flaws? Do the obvious matte lines and blue screen effects in NORTH BY NORTHWEST and THE BIRDS weigh more than Argento's tendancy to sacrifice story for visual effect? Does the fact that FAMILY PLOT is an unfunny bore weigh more than the fact that PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is a ridiculous mess?
The only real mistake here is that the similarity between Hitchcock and Argento is rather superficial. Argento is as much influenced by Michaelangelo Antonioni (compare BLOW UP to DEEP RED), Mario Bava, Ricardo Freda, and others.
And then you have to deal with the American tendancy to think of their favorite filmmakers as the standard by which all others are judged in a sort of catch-22: To the extent that your similar to Hitchock, you're ripping him off; to the extent that you're different, you're doing it wrong.