MovieChat Forums > MizhuB > Replies
MizhuB's Replies
Wow, you really thought that out, didn't you brux? As Hitchcock apparently said to Kim Novak, 'It's only a movie.'
People can love it or hate it for reasons of their own. I happen to love Psycho, in spite of 'shilling trolls'. It's for my own reasons, not others. And I don't think anyone is trying to convince anyone else that they should love stuff that is absolute garbage having some value in watching. I love everything about Vertigo. Others don't. It's all just about opinions. Don't take it so seriously.
Happy Easter, ecarle!
I always thought most of his endings were very succinct. Which I like. You've told the story, now wrap it up.
I have little tolerance for endings that go on for 10 minutes or so as a showdown between the protagonists. Back in the day, they could be suspenseful, but now they're just formulaic.
Hey, swanstep. If you do watch it again, there's another theory I have about its denouement that you might find interesting and may find interesting to discuss.
Hi ecarle. I've read with interest many of your posts over the years.
I'm aware that 'Marnie' isn't among your favorite of Hitchcock films. I remember telling you I always liked it. But...to each, his own.
One thing I'd like to mention here is your statement that the film ends thusly: "Marnie" chooses to fixate its final image on a matte painting of a ship parked near a Baltimore neighborhood and thereby ends in falsehood."
My intention isn't to be critical, but I'd like to point out one thing about the ending. That (horrible) matte painting of the ship at the end of the street had always indicated that the street was a dead-end. But in the final shot, as the car pulls away, it reaches the end and turns a corner, out of sight. We never knew it wasn't a dead-end until then. To me, it kind of says 'Things are not always as they seem, and there's a way out.'
I have a different story that I find somewhat more sad.
About five years ago, I was sitting in an office with several people. We were talking about movies. The conversation worked its way to Hitchcock.
One girl, who I knew was twenty-four years old, said, 'Who's Alfred Hitchcock?'
I couldn't believe my ears. My first thought was, 'WHO hasn't heard of Alfred Hitchcock?' My second was, 'Is this another example of how old I am? People in their twenties don't even know who he is?'
There were others in there who were also in their twenties. They looked stumped.
Fortunately, I wasn't the only person there in my age group. One said, 'Are you kidding me?'
She shook her head. I said, 'You know, Alfred Hitchcock. He directed many classic thrillers (I figured I'd use the term she'd most likely relate to), like Rear Window? North by Northwest? The Birds? Vertigo?'
She just sat there shaking her head. She'd never heard of them. Then I said, 'Psycho?'
She said, 'I saw Psycho!' I asked her which one. She didn't know what I meant. I asked her if it was in color and she said, 'Yes. I didn't like it. I thought it was boring. And the murders were, too.'
We told her that was the Van Sant remake, but the original was excellent. She said, 'So this Alfred Hitchcock made the original? Was it in color?'
We told her no, it was in black and white. She said, 'Oh, I don't watch black and white movies. They're so old.'
We told her Rear Window, NxNW, The Birds, Vertigo, etc. were in color. She said, 'But aren't the people in those dead now?'
The others in her age group agreed with her. Moral of the story seemed to be, If it's old, it's no good.
I realize not every young person is like this. But that conversation made me also realize that as years go by, this may become more and more the norm.
Hi movieghoul.
I HATE to sound like I'm always correcting someone, but to tell the truth, that's mostly when I speak up. I just don't want people to be talking about something I know to be false.
I read ALL of the posts on this board, because it's about Psycho which I've seen about a gazillian times. I've rarely felt the need to reply because whatever it is I'm thinking, you guys already got it covered. And it's also very informative.
Anyway, on to Dressed to Kill. Which I've seen several times, but not in years.
The killer does not enter the elevator with her. There may or not be a quick shot of the killer as the doors close (I'm not sure), but Angie is alone and hits the button for the lobby.
It's on her way down that she realizes she left her wedding ring in the apartment of the...er...'afternoon delight' guy. When she gets to the bottom, she presses the button to go back up. When the doors open on that floor, THAT's when the killer is standing there, enters the elevator and starts to slash her.
Here's proof (CAUTION: this is the uncut, more violent and bloody version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8_HfT2ndyg
Sorry I don't know how to make a link clickable if it doesn't show up that way, but you can always use the old method of copy and paste.
Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8_HfT2ndyg
Hi ecarle
I 100% agree that Stefano greatly improved upon Bloch's novel. I consider that his 'claim to fame'.
But you're right. He was basically a B-movie/TV writer, and in one of my earlier posts about Eye of the Cat, I considered saying that the script was basically a B-story written for TV, but produced as a B-movie.
Even though it would be considered 'mild' by today's standards, it would've been too intense for TV at the time. Hence, the two versions.
I still enjoy it though ;)
Aha. I really must look this up. The CAT started it, right? But on purpose, or was he forced into it by a villain?
*****SPOILERS AGAIN******
Neither. It was accidental. Long story short, she was a 'cat lady' who had hundreds in her mansion. When her favorite nephew comes back (who has a morbid fear of cats), she convinces his brother to get rid of them.
But cats have a way of finding their way home again. When her wheelchair malfunctions at the top of the hill, he runs out to save her, but a cat that came back lands in her lap, sort of paralyzing her nephew. It jumps out of her lap onto the nephew, who falls on the ground, hence her careening down the hill.
Hi again, ecarle.
*****SPOILERS, JUST IN CASE*****
I've seen it many times. Saw it in the theater a couple years after it was released, when I was young (perhaps when the 1971 trailer you saw was released?) I also own it on DVD, but it's VHS quality. I consider it one of my 'guilty pleasure' movies.
Stefano wrote it, but it's really not very good. Just enjoyable, interesting fluff, if you get my drift.
Parker wasn't old, maybe late 40s. And she still looked attractive. Her character was slowly dying of emphysema. Sometimes she could walk, sometimes she needed to be wheeled around. There were those who wanted her to die sooner, so they could get her money.
Octavia Street's curb does curve in and out along a brick road. Maybe that's why you misinterpreted it as Lombard St.
As far as an 'Arbogast fall' is concerned, I'm reluctant to say this, but I'd think of it more as the shower scene in Psycho. The scene in which she careens down the street is full of fast, quick cuts.
No, she doesn't die. Toward the end of the street, her nephew runs up and pulls her out of the wheelchair, which careens into the street below and is hit by a truck.
One thing you may find interesting. Overall, the plot is the same, but for the TV version, different shots and scenes were filmed to make it less 'intense'.
Here's the original trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG-qgoeCSvg
Thanks for your indulgence ;)
Edit: As much as I'm sick of hearing how every movie should have a 'twist ending' (I've even ready that Psycho's TWIST should have been that it was the mother, after all), this was back when they weren't so common. And it does have a twist ending.
Hi ecarle.
Just a couple corrections on 'Eye of the Cat' (which, you're correct, was made in 1969).
Eleanor Parker did NOT reel backwards on curvy Lombard St. That would have been impossible.
She actually reeled back on Octavia St., from the top at Washington St., which was literally right next to the mansion she 'owned'. It was a straight shot down to the street below.
Also, the shot was not done entirely against a process screen. Parker's wheelchair was actually attached to a round turntable kind of thing (sort of a Tilt-a-Whirl), with a small camera truck attached to it. The only process shot was the one where she slammed backwards into a wall, and the wheelchair turned around, facing forward. So the look of fear on Parker's face was real.
As ecarle said, it's a place for people who 'know' each other to talk about films in general, but especially how they can be compared to or were influenced by 'Psycho'.
I know I was a huge follower on IMdB, so I come here to see mostly the same people talking about all those films.
I know I've seen Psycho at least a hundred times, know every word of dialogue, every shot, every musical note...but I never say much because these guys already have it covered. So they may not know me as their 'friend', but I've definitely been a follower of all.
I've talked about 'Baby Jane' here in terms of how it relates to 'Feud'. But I've also seen that film more times than I can count. I'm a fan of 60's horror, even the schlocky ones. In addition to 'Baby Jane', there's 'Sweet Charlotte', 'Homicidal', 'Strait-Jacket'. Know them all well.
Besides, given that this isn't exactly the busiest board around, what harm does it do if someone posts something that's off topic? It's not as if it gets in the way.
One last thing about Drive-Ins. Sheets of corrugated metal is an excellent description of the look of the spaces. You parked on them so the car was facing slightly 'up'.
But there was music coming from those speakers, long before the sun went down and the picture came on. My parents would first drive around, looking for the speakers that had the best sound. They'd choose that one, though always somewhere around the center area.
As far as seeing the screen was concerned from the back seat, we would always lean forward and rest our heads on our arms on the back of the front seat. Sometimes I'd even lay on the panel behind the rear seat, but I could always see. Because unlike today's multiplexes, those screens were HUGE. And since it was the only technology available at drive-ins anyway, if the movie was good enough, you still got lost in it.
As far as the end of FEUD is concerned, I actually think this is the only episode I'll have to watch twice to decide. I almost feel it jumped too far ahead. Sure, Crawfish (hah!) was stuck on 'Trog', but the only mention of Davis' later work was failed TV shows. What about 'The Nanny'? Which was actually a good movie, IMO.
Well, I guess since they only glossed over Sweet Charlotte and all that entailed, The Nanny wasn't worth mentioning at all. But it was certainly better than Berserk! or Trog!
Funny you should mention Drive-Ins as easier for kid control. My sis and I were well behaved, but I get what you mean.
One sort of funny memory I have of seeing Sweet Charlotte as a kid: We saw it at the Drive-In.
Our mother had to use the rest room early in the picture, and as she was walking back to the car, she could hear through the other speakers Bette Davis screaming at deHavilland, 'You're a vile, sorry, little bitch!'
Mom got in the car and immediately asked Dad, 'Did she just call her a BITCH?' We all just said, 'Yes.'
Mom was flabbergasted 'cause she'd never heard the word 'Bitch' in a film before. But it meant nothing to the rest of us, because we'd heard mom refer to other women as 'bitches' plenty of times, so we barely even picked up on it!
That's funny. I was also there in '64 and '65, albeit a kid, and I remember Downtown and (I can't get no) Satisfaction, They're Coming to Take Me Away, and Eight Days a Week, Help!, etc.
I even remember Satisfaction going to Number 1, dropping down lower, then going back up to Number 1 again.
But I have absolutely no memory of Patti Page's 'Hush...Hush Sweet Charlotte'. And I remember my family going to the theater to see it. I ALSO remember, somewhat, the previews on TV. The one I specifically remember started with quick shots of everyone who screamed in that film, in succession. I actually thought that was one scene from it, and was a little disappointed when it didn't turn out that way. Stupid kid ;)
'I'd really like to know: where there really a Mamacita?'
-------
Since this series has been going on for 7 weeks now, and I'm very interested in it, I can say that I've seen pics on the 'net of JC with the real Mamacita. At least, that's how they were labelled.
------
'Davis is unleashing "total war" in retaliation and poor Joan is the loser who can't really win.'
------
I can't help but remember in the 80s, Davis was being interviewed. By who, I don't remember. It was a taped interview. But I DO remember her saying about Baby Jane something like: 'Joan was great. She just handed it to me on a silver platter.'
I didn't get the impression that it was the same kind of offerings of the dead bird and rat she served to JC in Baby Jane, but it was an interesting choice of words.
As for Olivia, here's a recent article with a statement by her:
http://www.vulture.com/2017/04/olivia-de-havilland-emails-about-how-she-doesnt-watch-feud.html
There are those who think she's not being exactly truthful.
Actually, swanstep, I notice the alternating titles for Lange/Sarandon in the second episode. And that's because I was surprised Lange got first billing in the first episode. When I saw Sarandon get first billing next, I thought, 'Ah! This is a variation of the old staggered billing, ala 'The Towering Inferno'. But since there are eight episodes, they can get four each.
I knew all about Crawford feigning illness and checking herself into the hospital to stop production, but I didn't realize it was this involved. I always thought Crawford feigned illness to get out of her contract and the picture. This episode depicted that she thought she could cause the entire production to be cancelled.
I'd really like to know...is that really when Mamacita left Crawford?
I've been iffy on CZJ playing DeHavilland since the beginning. At times I've thought she really caught her essence, at other times I've thought 'That's Catherine Zeta-Jones playing Olivia DeHavilland'.
I've seen 'Lady in a Cage'. Numerous times. And this series has mostly done an excellent job reenacting the actress' films from the past. But CZJ, even in those few short clips, didn't capture DeHavilland's performance at all. And I like CZJ.
I never thought Davis and OdH actually got a deal endorsing Coke. I know Davis had one installed on the set, but I figured you could just buy/rent one.
I almost hated to drudge this up again about the music, but I've been thinking since I wrote about Davis' song being a lyrical version of the instrumental played in the film that, what the hell? I might as well.
The excellent (in my opinion) opening theme during the credits also uses a lot (though not all) of the melody from 'I've Written a Letter to Daddy'. Including the opening notes. Then it resurfaces on and off throughout the theme.
Just thought I'd mention it, for those who may not have noticed.
I almost hated to drudge this up again about the music, but I've been thinking since I wrote about Davis' song being a lyrical version of the instrumental played in the film that, what the hell? I might as well.
The excellent (in my opinion) opening theme during the credits also uses a lot (though not all) of the melody from 'I've Written a Letter to Daddy'. Including the opening notes. Then it resurfaces on and off throughout the theme.
Just thought I'd mention it, for those who may not have noticed.