Late to the Movies! celebrates National Hitchcock Day

So, let’s be real: almost everyone ignores this blog. Even me. But then the other day I got this sweet email about it being National Alfred Hitchcock Day on 3/12 and I had to immediately “WHAT GO TELL IT TO YOUR BLOG” on my blog. And here it is.

Hitch

I adore Hitchcock movies. The dude was a creep but he is just the ultimate. As you may know by now, I’m a big fan of old movies. I spent many weekend nights at home with my parents in high school (and even my freshman year of college) watching old movies, and many of them were Hitchcock films. I loved the suspense, I loved being a little bit scared and I loved spending time pointing out his cameos in every film. I love the costumes, I loved the stars, I especially loved the music. I love Hitchcock, and I get a little sad when someone tells me they’ve never watched one of his movies. It’s probably how other people feel when they find out that the only Bond movie I’ve ever seen was “Casino Royale.” Yeah, whatever.

So to celebrate Hitchcock Day, I’m going to post an article by author Stephen Rebello about the awesomeness of Alfred Hitchcock, and I’m also going to tell you to see one of his movies today. I recommend “North by Northwest,” “Vertigo” or “Rear Window” for starters. If you’ve seen a few of his more popular movies, celebrate with a less popular (but still awesome one) like “Family Plot,” “Torn Curtain” or my very first Hitchcock movie, “I Confess.”

———————————————————————————

Great Reasons Why Hitchcock Is Still the Master of Suspense

by Stephen Rebello

Psycho. Vertigo. North by Northwest. The Birds. If Alfred Hitchcock had directed nothing more than that astonishing quartet, he’d still be considered the maestro of creating nail-biting suspense, romantic intrigue, and unforgettable thrills. But that incredible run of movies, released in theaters from 1958 to 1963, represents only a drop in the bloody bucket of Hitchcock’s masterworks, which stretch back to the 1920s and extend into the 1970s. If you need a reminder of why Hitchcock rules as the all-time master of suspense, and why he is considered the man who pretty much wrote the book on the genre, here’s your quick cheat sheet.

1) Hitchcock Made Us Scream in the Shower

From Boston to Bangkok, Hitchcock stunned 1960 audiences by doing the unheard-of in Psycho: brutally killing-off the film’s sympathetic heroine—and biggest star—less than half way through the action. Taking his cue from the source novel by Robert Bloch, Hitchcock blasted our notions of safety and privacy by staging the landmark murder scene in, of all places, the bathroom, that tight, white space where one feels most relaxed and vulnerable. Or, at least, used to. And not only did he film Psycho in black and white to help minimize all that blood-letting, but he and editor George Tomasini also employed then-revolutionary rapid-fire editing techniques that suggested nudity and violence. To put the whole thing over the top, he cranked up a shrieking all-strings musical score by Bernard Herrmann. Voila, Hitchcock, his star Janet Leigh, and his merry band of gifted collaborators set a standard for heart-stopping terror that has yet to be topped—but is endlessly imitated.

2) Hitchcock Brought Menace Out into the Open

Dark alleys? Shifty-eyed villains with twirling moustaches? Graveyards? Rain-slicked cobblestone streets? Haunted houses, rattling chains, and bats in the belfry? Hitchcock considered these clichés ripe for parody and, beginning with his British films of the 1920s, the director shone a bright light on terror and dark deeds. With Hitchcock, thrills can even erupt during a kid’s birthday party, as happens in Young and Innocent and The Birds. The sophisticated, stylish heroes and heroine of The 39 Steps and North by Northwest get chased by planes in broad daylight and open spaces; in those same films, and such other movies as Blackmail, Saboteur, and Hitchcock’s two versions of The Man Who Knew Too Much, dramatic action unfolds against the backdrop of tourist attractions and national monuments like the United Nations, Mount Rushmore, the British Museum, the Statue of Liberty, Radio City Music Hall, and the Royal Albert Hall. When violence erupts in and around shower stalls, ski runs, telephone booths, attics, and mountain roads, the lesson is simple: There is nowhere to hide. Chaos and terror will find you, personified by the charming, attractive, and seductive villains of such Hitchcock thrillers as Shadow of a Doubt, Notorious, Stage Fright, Strangers on a Train, Psycho, Topaz, and Family Plot. Other films, from Charade right up through the Batman and Mission: Impossible have been following Hitchcock’s lead ever since.

3) Hitchcock Made Us Walk a Mile in His Heroes’ Shoes

Hitchcock often bragged to the press about how his films grabbed audiences by “making the viewer sweat” and “really putting them through it.” One of the most groundbreaking ways he put us through it was his frequent use of traveling point-of-view shots—that is, moving the camera in a way that places the viewer in the same position as the character on-screen. It’s a technique that makes us uneasy right along with James Stewart when we walk with him down ominous London streets in The Man Who Knew Too Much or when he obsessively stalks Kim Novak up and down hilly San Francisco in Vertigo. We’re jittery when we move slowly up the hill with Vera Miles in Psycho or when we glide along with her toward old Mrs. Bates sitting in a chair under a naked light bulb in a basement. And how about when we walk down a dock with Tippi Hedren, expecting her to be pecked by the birds, or when we hover with her outside the closed door of a room in which she is about to be engulfed by our feathered fiends? Hitchcock isn’t content with merely making us spectators. We’re full-on participants. 

4) Hitchcock Tells His Audience More Than His Characters Know

Hitchcock and his screenwriters created some of the most dazzling moments in movie history by emphasizing agonizing suspense rather than simple, go-for-the-throat shock. The innocent little boy in Hitchcock’s ’30s thriller Sabotage thinks he’s carrying a harmless parcel through London; we know he’s carrying a bomb that is set to detonate at a certain time. In the Psycho shower scene, the audience is shown, through the opaque shower curtain, what Janet Leigh doesn’t see until it’s too late: the approaching shadow of a killer. Grace Kelly searches the empty apartment of a suspected wife killer in Rear Window while we, along with James Stewart, break into cold sweats watching the murderer make his way back home. The heroine of The Birds waits impatiently on a bench for a classroom of kids to be let out of school, unaware that flocks of malevolent birds are amassing slowly and silently behind her.

5) Hitchcock Kept Surprises As Surprises

It’s no exaggeration to credit Hitchcock with helping change the way we go to movies. Psycho was made back when the price of a movie ticket bought you a double feature, newsreel, short subjects, and trailers, and movie ticket-buyers tended to pop in and out of theaters whenever they pleased. With Psycho, Hitchcock wanted to create an event. So, he refused to hold any pre-release critics’ screenings, let alone a premiere. He forced movie-theater owners to sign contracts demanding zero tolerance of any moviegoer expecting to enter the theater once the film started. He launched the film’s release with a massive publicity campaign that stipulated in newspaper, radio, television ads, and posters in theater lobbies: “No one . . . but no one . . . will be admitted to the theater after the start of each performance of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho.” He recorded announcements  to broadcast on radio and through loudspeakers at theaters warning Psycho audiences not to reveal the ending to their friends. The public ate it up. They formed lines around the block, kept the movie’s secrets to themselves, and turned Psycho into a worldwide phenomenon. Can you imagine any of this happening in our era of wall-to-wall social media, instant gratification, and gleeful spoilers? Neither can we. 

6) Hitchcock Revealed More by Showing Less

Hitchcock may be known best for cinematic suspense and thrills, but he was equally superb at finding suspense and thrills in eroticism. That long, long, long nuzzle and kiss between Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in the ’40s spy thriller Notorious sizzles over six decades later. When gorgeous adventuress Grace Kelly slyly offers retired jewel thief Cary Grant his choice of leg or breast during a picnic above the French Riviera in To Catch a Thief, she’s offering a bit more than cold chicken. Sexy spy lady Eva Marie Saint seduces fugitive Cary Grant aboard a posh train, purring, “It’s going to be a long night . . . and I don’t particularly like the book I’ve started. You know what I mean?” Yeah, we do. And, without a bit of nudity or tawdry grappling, doesn’t Janet Leigh’s long lunch break tryst in a cheap hotel with boyfriend John Gavin in Psycho reek of backstreet eroticism? And the chilling spin Anthony Perkins as Psycho’s own Norman Bates puts on the line, “My mother and I were more than happy . . . ” tells you more than you need to know about that relationship.

Posted in 50s, 60s | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Late to Der Untergang! A review of Hitler’s Downfall

Magda Goebbels: Sleep tight, children.

So it’s been a while since I reviewed any movies on this little thing, and a while before the movie I reviewed before that, and so on and so forth. You see, I moved to Austin and took a job that keeps me quite busy. Also I’m getting married this June. Also I’m a very lazy person. I actually have quite a few movies that I’ve seen and need to review, and quite a few more that I really want to watch. So I promise, they’re coming. I love you. Please be patient with me.

Cover of "Downfall"

“Downfall”

In the meantime, I watched Downfall because Kevin (my roommate and father of my dog children) is reading The Last Days of Hitler and felt like watching it. Okay, actually he’s always trying to get me to watch it and I ran out of excuses to avoid watching it, so here we are.

There’s not really a great way to review this movie. It’s really good but it’s about Hitler. And Bruno Ganz is really phenomenal in his acting (as Hitler) but how good does it feel to be good at playing Hitler? I don’t know. I think I probably would have appreciated it a little more if I had a stronger background in history (this is embarrassing to admit). I got a bit distracted while we watched because every time I heard a new name, I did a Wikipedia search to find out more. This is how Wikipedia K-Holes get started. I have about twenty tabs open right now. Hey, want to hear more about Vasily Chuikov? I didn’t think so.

A few items of note:

  • It’s a little strange to me that Hitler is a vegetarian.
  • Somewhere I missed that Wagner was a racist. I’m not so good at the history, guys.
  • No matter how awful your mother is it’s likely that she’s not as horrible as Magda Goebbels.
  • Why do they always have to kill the dog?
  • I should really add and review more foreign movies. I love them.

To be honest, this movie made me feel a little uncomfortable. Bruno Ganz plays up the pain of Hitler’s downfall so well, and coupled with the fact that apparently Hitler had Parkinsons (I had no idea), I started to feel sorry (?) for him. I want to believe Hitler is the kind of man who would spit on anyone who dared to talk to him. I want to believe that Hitler is the kind of guy who doesn’t tip at a restaurant. But this movie made him seem like an actual human, and that’s just an uneasy realization to have as you’re watching a movie about, well, Hitler.

Also, Alexandra Maria Lara could be the most beautiful girl in the world. I immediately recognized her from Control (about Ian Curtis)– gorgeous.

And finally, if you’ve ever watched any of those “Hitler reacts to __________” videos on YouTube and wondered where the footage came from… well, now you know! Here’s one, plus another one that I like because it’s about pizza:

Posted in foreign, history, movie, movies | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Late to being stuck in Wichita! A review of Planes, Trains and Automobiles

Neal: Del… Why did you kiss my ear?
Del: Why are you holding my hand?
Neal: [frowns] Where’s your other hand?
Del: Between two pillows…
Neal: Those aren’t pillows!

Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987)

Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987)

So technically I saw this movie for the first time last year at Thanksgiving. This movie happens to be a Thanksgiving staple for Kevin’s family and I was almost un-invited to the family farm for the holiday when they realized I had never seen it. Unfortunately for me, watching this movie with twenty screaming kids running around meant that I missed out on 75% of the film. I left the movie viewing feeling frustrated and unimpressed.

This year Kevin’s family made me watch it again, and FOR REAL this time. Boy, it’s pretty good. And hey, it’s 25 years old this year which makes it a perfect time to review! Good timing, self!

I’ve always been sort of ambivalent toward John Hughes and his movies. I like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and some of his 90s movies (Beethoven, Home Alones 1 and 2) and –duh– Christmas Vacation. But then, you know, I don’t really love the Molly Ringwald movies which might be more because of my resentment towards constantly being called a Ringwald lookalike (IT MAKES NO SENSE). And the dude made Maid in Manhattan. I mean, seriously, have you seen that? It’s terrifying. But it’s hard to really judge John Hughes when you’ve missed out on all of his John Candy movies (remember how Spaceballs was my first John Candy movie? This is the second).

I get the love for John Candy after watching this movie. He is one funny dude, and his chemistry with Steve Martin (who I have always worshiped and adored after watching this as a little kid) is magical. Planes, Trains and Automobiles has some of the cheese moments that are such classic John Hughes moves, but the heart, the slapstick gags and the perfect comic timing from the two leads completely overshadow the cheese. There are some magical cameos– hello, Kevin Bacon? And the best part is, if you have ever traveled home for the holidays you can absolutely relate to parts of this movie. “Six bucks and my right nut says we’re not landing in Chicago.” Del, I’ve been there and I hear you loud and clear.

Face palm moment:  Even though Dylan Baker (who plays Owen) has starred in no less than one gazillion television shows and movies, I recognized him from a Law and Order: CI episode. What does that say about me? Don’t answer that.

Favorite part: Absolutely the scene in which the car drives in between two semis as it drives the wrong way and John Candy and Steve Martin briefly turn into skeletons.

Also the scene with the rental car lady is a favorite. Why? BECAUSE I LOVE SWEARING.

The “I missed that in pop culture trivia” moment: “Her first baby, came out sideways, she didn’t scream or nothin.” Kevin’s brother posted this quote on his Facebook page last week, and oh by the way his wife is eight months pregnant. I completely freaked out. Thanks, Planes Trains and Automobiles.

Regrettable tardiness scale (out of 10): 10 out of 10 for the quotability factor alone. Consider it now a Thanksgiving tradition. I loved it!

Posted in 80S, holiday, movies | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Late to the Scary Movies! A review of The Last House on the Left (1972)

Cover of "The Last House on the Left (Unr...

Last House on the Left (1972)

[Editor's note: since I like scary movies and I like October, I decided to continue on from Scary Movie October from last year. I haven't had a ton of time to watch movies this month, but figured I'd review what I had time to review.]

Fred “Weasel” Podowski: I wonder what the meanest, foulest, rottenest, woodsiest sex crime ever was? Hey, Krug, what do you think the sex crime of the century was?

When asking for suggestions of scary movies to watch, I get this suggestion a lot. It’s written and directed by Wes Craven, and it’s from the 70s. Of course I’d love it, right?

This turned out to be quite a  weird movie, and I wouldn’t completely define it as horror. Yes, there is an awful rape scene in the woods. Yes, there are people who are murdered with knives and guns. But it didn’t feel particularly tense, like movies with similar plots. For instance, the first time I watched Funny Games, I was completely terrified. I could barely watch as these two fairly normal looking dudes (except for the shorts) tortured and killed a family for no reason. My favorite types of horror movies tend to be the movies where the plot is completely possible– “it could be you!”– which is one reason I was really looking forward to seeing this movie. Instead, Last House on the Left felt goofy, which is not really a feeling I want from a horror movie. It completely missed the mark.

The three criminals and their “druggy” sidekick reminded me of something straight out of the old Scooby Doo cartoons, maybe mixed with soft core porn. I read on the Internets that many of their lines were improvised, and maybe that’s the issue– they suck at improv? I can definitely say that the choose of music was very curious. As the criminals sneak two women out of their home and into a convertible (sidenote: if you were on the run from the cops, would you ride in an open top convertible with a lady in your lap? I wouldn’t, but maybe that’s just me), very upbeat, almost circus-like music, plays. Is this what it’s like to watch the Three Stooges? I wouldn’t really know, but it’s what I imagine it is like. I know that Wes Craven can get a little goofy with his characters– I love Nightmare on Elm Street and I feel like Freddy Krueger always has his little one liner before slashing someone from limb to limb. It just didn’t work for me here.

The scenes in the woods where they brutally beat and rape two female characters are pretty brutal. But because of the setup of the characters I wasn’t particularly fearful, or even interested in what was happening. While these scenes happen, you see little clips with these two strange cops who may or may not understand what’s going on but also provide some completely unnecessary comic relief. Finally the characters rape and murder the main character. They cackle throughout the entire scene, and suddenly after the girl is dead their demeanor changes. Maybe they feel remorse? Maybe they want a do-over? Maybe they feel shame? I wouldn’t really know, because they don’t get into it any further.

By the time the viewer reaches the climax of the movie as the parents find their daughter, there is maybe twenty minutes left in the movie. You see a short little Home Alone-style montage as the parents realize that they’ve allowed these murderers to stay in their home and set up traps so they can more easily kill the trio. Why the parents let these strangers stay with them in the first place, I’ll never know. But they’re there, and the parents obviously must kill them. Boom, bam. It’s over. And then the cops walk in. Okay.

I hear this movie is a classic movie, and maybe it’s just because I’m particularly grouchy these days but I simply don’t get it. The good news is that it’s relatively short, but meh. I still wouldn’t waste your time on it.

Posted in horror, movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Late to turning violet! A review of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

Willy Wonka: If the good Lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn’t have invented roller skates.

In my lifetime, I have managed to break several rules of film watching. Some of my favorite movies (Casino, for example) are movies I watched on television only. When my dad showed me the Star Wars movies for the first time, he accidentally had us watch them out of order (Return of the Jedi before Empire Strikes Back– I was extremely confused). I’ve seen the more recently made Godzilla and King Kong movies but never the originals. What can I say? I’m a loner, Dottie. A rebel.

(Yes, I have seen that movie)

Watching a remake of a classic movie (especially when that remake is spectacularly terrible) before seeing said classic movie is probably the worst crime you can commit, according to many people I know. Unfortunately one night when I was just a young lass (22) and curious about the world and its meaning (I was wasted), I saw the movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory listed on the TV guide and decided to finally watch the classic movie I had never seen (lit’rally [Chris Traeger] I thought the quote “these snozzberries taste like snozzberries” came straight from SuperTroopers). It took me a few seconds to realize that this was, in fact, the terror created by Tim Burton and not the original movie starring my boyfriend Gene Wilder. Whatever. I decided to keep watching it and I was horrified. The movie was really creepy and, to put it eloquently, it made me feel like I had smoked crack. Dislike.

Fast forward to 2012. I’m still young (27) and curious about the world (not as wasted), and after getting teased by some people I trust and respect (RIP the WAVE) over the “snozzberries” comment, I decided to finally give in and watch Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

So as it turns out, the original movie is also pretty awful. The random musical numbers are very strange and awkwardly placed, and the set looked pretty busted, even for a movie that was made in the 70s. The acting— as I’ve already established, Gene Wilder is my boyfriend but I felt like he was very low energy in this movie. He seemed legitimately bored in most of the scenes, rather than playing bored. Contrasting this role to, let’s say, the role he plays in Young Frankenstein and he’s seems completely off his game. Maybe he had eaten too much candy? Maybe the sight of four grandparents living in a bed together and never moving affected his performance? Maybe it’s because he was acting alongside some of the worst child actors I’ve ever seen? That’s probably it. Yikes.

I’ve read the Roald Dahl book (along with James and the Giant Peach and Matilda– I’m extremely well-read, you see) and I understand that it wasn’t a feel good story to begin with. But something about seeing the story in action came off as creepy. I have to caveat this by saying that I have not seen Fantastic Mr. Fox and I’ve heard the movie is very good. But maybe Roald Dahl books just make really awful movies. Matilda was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen (partially because of that actress’s speech impediment, my god) and James and the Giant Peach was pretty terrible too. It’s just a theory I’m working on. Maybe I’ll watch Fox someday and realize that I’m completely wrong. Maybe.

(Probably not)

Face palm moment:
Gene Wilder is a perfect example of how someone who is not particularly attractive becomes attractive because of their sense of humor.

Favorite part:
I’m going to revise this to be “least favorite part” because I’m on a diet and this stupid movie made me really want candy.

The “I missed that in pop culture trivia” moment:
Obviously….

Willy Wonka: Try some more. The strawberries taste like strawberries, and the snozzberries taste like snozzberries.
Veruca Salt: Snozzberries? Who ever heard of a snozzberry?
Willy Wonka: [grabbing Veruca's mouth and pinching it a bit to hold it open] *We* are the music makers… and *we* are the dreamers of dreams.

Regrettable tardiness scale (out of 10):
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory joins movies on my list like Big, A Christmas Story and Princess Bride in that category of “movies people like as a kid that I didn’t like watching as an adult.” Some people (Kevin) believe these movies are made to be watched when you’re a kid and more innocent and/or naive, and once you become an adult you lose your imagination and your tolerance for candy and bubbles, you can’t possibly begin to appreciate them. Okay, but why did I enjoy Goonies? PeeWee’s Big Adventure? Karate Kid? These are all movies I first saw as an adult and wound up really enjoying them. So maybe it’s not me. Maybe it’s that these movies my friends enjoyed as kids are actually quite awful. Just a thought.

(Please don’t kill me)

Posted in 70s, comedy | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments