Pageviews from the past week

Showing posts with label Alfred Hitchcock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alfred Hitchcock. Show all posts

Friday, 17 October 2014

How Spectacle Conveys Narrative


There has always been a delicate relationship between narrative and spectacle on film. Many Hollywood movies struggle to balance a compelling story with special effects to create a spectacle. Some of the earliest films, such as those of Méliès, were made as almost pure spectacle. Later films would prefer to focus on telling a story. Sometimes, as is shown with the famous “biplane scene” in Alfred Hitchcock’s North By Northwest, the spectacle is used as a driving force for the narrative.


While this scene is clearly meant to be a visual spectacle, it is created in such a way as to stand out in the mind of the viewer because it is an extremely pivotal moment in the story. The scene marks the beginning of several drastic changes, including the general tone of the narrative and in the character of Roger himself. This is set up through the scene’s deviation from the film’s previously established patterns.

This famous scene happens roughly at the mid-point in the film. The build up is simple enough: Roger is led to an isolated crossroads in the middle of open mid-western farmland. He has been told at this location he will be able to meet the man he has been confused with, George Kaplan, whom the audience already knows does not exist.

Instead of finding the agent, he is attacked by an unseen pilot in a biplane. A chase ensues in which Roger desperately tries to evade his attackers. The plane attempts to shoot him, run him down, and pour crop-dust all over him. Finally, Thornhill sees a passing gas truck, stands in front, and falls under it as soon as it stops. The plane crashes into the back of the truck and explodes, creating a spectacle of destruction.

This scene is a very famous cinematic moment that no doubt served as an influence on later action films such as Clint Eastwood’s The Gauntlet. Even the helicopter chase scene in From Russia With Love clearly took a few cues from this iconic sequence. Why is it such a great scene? Why did Alfred Hitchcock make the choices he did when putting this sequence of events together? That's what we will be discussing in this article.


As far as narrative goes, there is only one obvious function filled by this scene—giving Roger a reason to suspect he cannot trust Eve, the woman who sent him to this location. This end could have been accomplished by a much shorter scene. For instance, instead of a plane, Roger could have encountered a man he thinks is Kaplan who ties to kill him. A simple chase scene would have sufficed The scene as it was presented could have ended with Roger simply evading the plane instead of causing it to explode.

Simpler alternatives would have served the same narrative function and advanced the story but not have had the same impact on Roger’s character. Up until this point, Roger has been doing little more than attempting to run away from the villains, hoping to eventually find the man he is being confused for. After this scene, Roger starts to gain control over his situation, pursuing the antagonists himself and setting in motion the events that ultimately allow him to become Kaplan.

As a result, Roger becomes much more daring in the second half of the film. While in the first half, he simply runs away from the villains, the biplane scene marks the point where he realizes he must take more drastic measures to survive such as standing on a road in front of a moving truck and falling under it. The fact that the plane explodes shows how much of a risk he was taking. He could have easily been injured or even killed by the blast.

This scene is just the first of many creative and unusual methods Roger uses to get out of dangerous situations; he no longer simply runs away. The biplane scene marks the point in which Roger decides he is no longer going to tolerate the antagonists pursuing him and instead of simply trying to evade them instead decides to stand up for himself. As the film progresses, Roger goes on to do even more dangerous stunts, culminating in the climactic scene of him and Eve climbing down Mt. Rushmore’s face.

If the biplane scene had ended with him simply evading his attackers instead of outwitting them, Roger’s personality would not have changed from the first half of the film. His later actions would confuse the viewer. If Hitchcock had ended the biplane scene with Roger simply hitching a ride with a passing motorist and getting away from the airplane, he would simply be running away again, instead of taking a stand as is set up by this sequence. This change in character is vital to concluding the narrative. Without this particular scene the shift from an urban mystery to an espionage thriller would have been completely unexplained.

There is a very good reason Hitchcock would have wanted his scene to be a spectacle. Most of the film is extremely chaotic. Even before Thornhill is abducted, people are running around, pushing and shoving each other. One of the few calm moments of the film happens when Roger sneaks onto a train and meets Eve. Because this scene is so calm, it puts the viewer into a false sense of security. It seems as though Roger is safe from any danger. Him being attacked in such an unusual manner compared to earlier in the film is Hitchcock’s way of reminding the viewer that he is in fact still in trouble.

In addition, this scene also marks a very drastic change in tone to the overall narrative. The biplane scene marks a specific change in the tone of the story. The first half sees Roger trying to run from the antagonists, while the middle transitions the viewer into the events set off by this scene. The scene with the biplane marks the beginning of the second half, in which the narrative changes from being a chase film to more closely resembling an espionage thriller. This scene begins the transition and in turn leads directly into the final episode where Roger actually becomes a spy.

Another aspect that is worth noting is the jarring change of environment. The exotic locations used in older Hollywood films have often been used as a source of spectacle, but in this case Hitchcock opts for exactly the opposite. Instead of utilizing an impressive landscape, he chooses mid-western monotonous, flat, open fields . The spectacle is instead in the chase between Roger and the plane itself. The reason Hitchcock does not opt to include a more attractive environment is because he wants the viewers to focus purely on the central action.


Up until this point, the action has been set in populated urban environments. Roger has been pursued on foot through city streets, but here he is alone in the middle of open farmland. There are fewer places to hide, and almost no other people beyond the occasional passing motorist. The choice to use a biplane adds a layer of tension. The confrontation is obviously an unfair fight, thus alerting the viewer that Roger could be killed and creating a great sense of relief when he escapes.

Like the rest of the film, Hitchcock avoids crosscutting between Roger and the pilot chasing him, allowing the sudden arrival of the plane to startle the viewer. However, this remains the only scene in the movie where the antagonists are kept anonymous as they are never clearly visible inside the plane. This scene also marks the only point in the movie where Roger is directly responsible for anyone dying (you could argue that Mr. Townsend might not have had a knife in his back had Roger not tried to talk to him, but even that wasn't entirely his fault). By not allowing him or the audience to see the pilots, it eliminates the emotional repercussions that would otherwise come from him killing one, possibly two people.


North by Northwest has many memorable scenes, but Hitchcock has specifically crafted this particular moment so that it burns itself into the mind of the viewer. This scene is a pivotal moment in the film that marks a drastic shift in narrative tone and the main character’s role in the overall story. By creating this particular scene as a visual spectacle, Hitchcock forces the viewer to recognize these changes as they happen.

Tuesday, 2 September 2014

September 2014 Blindspot Challenge: Psycho



I have a confession to make. Up until now, despite being a self-proclaimed horror fan, I had never gotten around to seeing Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Back during my failed stint at college I developed a few questionable spending habits, and when a guy showed up to sell a bunch of low-priced DVDs I could hardly resist buying a whole pile of them. One of those was a copy of Psycho that I had put off watching for some time. Naturally when I decided to do the Blindspot Challenge it seemed a perfect option, and I eventually decided to save this one (along with Alfred Hitchcock's other famous horror film The Birds) for the fall in keeping with the spirit of Halloween.

Janet Leigh plays the role of Marion Crane, a secretary who is trusted with depositing a large sum of money but ends up deciding to steal it instead. She gets out of town, and everything seems to be going okay. She almost gets caught by a police officer but manages to barely evade him. Finally, she ends up at the Bates Motel, run by a young man named Norman who seems nice enough but has something not quite right going on with his mother. Crane settles in and... well, if you don't already know the famous twist, I won't give it away. Let's just say that there's a few... disturbing occurrences that follow.

It is an interesting narrative, although admittedly I do feel it may have had greater impact had I gone in without knowing about what happens halfway through the film. Alfred Hitchcock was very determined to make sure that nobody found out. Supposedly he forced theaters to refuse late admissions to the movie and even went out of his way to buy as many copies of the original book as he could find so that people couldn't read it and find out the twist. Sadly, it's become a pretty well-known turn of events since then, and if you somehow don't already know what I'm talking about I suggest you watch the film right away before someone spoils it for you.

There are a few good scares in this film to be sure. The violin screeching that accompanies the murder scenes alone can make you jump (it turns out it's actually used in several other scenes besides... the famous one). Anthony Perkins is fascinating in the role of Norman Bates, constantly alternating between seeming an ordinary and at times even likable guy and displaying signs of mental instability.

Even if you can see the murder scenes coming a mile away, the violin screeching can take you by surprise, and it is worth it for the disturbing reveal at the very end where we see just what the deal is with Bates' mother. Matters are also helped by how little we see of her, allowing for the story to mess with your expectations. There are clues toward the truth but also several that will throw you off though they make sense in the end.

Psycho is a very interesting film. I don't know if I would go as far as to rank as one of my all-time favorite horror films, but it is a well-done movie with some good scares and a compelling narrative. If you want a good horror film it is worth your time. Just a word of advice, if you really need to take a shower I would recommend you try and do so before you watch this movie and not after.


Tuesday, 3 June 2014

Snoopathon: North By Northwest


I already submitted my article on James Bond for Movies Silently's exciting spy-themed Snoopathon, but I also felt like I owed him a good spy film. I wanted to find something a bit more unusual, something that as far as I can tell nobody has written about. What better choice than Alfred Hitchcock's North By Northwest. I know what you're thinking; "That's not a spy film"... well, the main character gets mistaken for a spy and there is a spy in it so it therefore counts.

If you've seen any of Alfred Hitchcock's films, the basic plot of this films should hardly be new to you: everyday sales executive Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) is just going about a normal day and taking care of a business deal when two thugs mistake him for a government agent named George Kaplan. Subsequently Thornhill is kidnapped and brought by force to a mansion apparently belonging a man who identifies himself as Mr. Townsend (played by James Mason) who stubbornly resists all of Thornhill's attempts to explain who he is.

Things only escalate from here as poor Thornhill just barely escapes a murder attempt only to be charged with drunk driving, framed for murder, and eventually ends up travelling across the country trying to escape both the police and the crooks all while trying to clear his name and find the man he has been mistaken for (who doesn't exist). The only person he can turn to for help is a young woman named Eve Kendell (Eva Marie Saint), who he may or may not be able to trust. Oh, and Alfred Hitchcock makes a cameo as a guy who misses the bus. So pretty much a typical day in his movies.


Cary Grant is a lot of fun in the role of Thornhill, providing the right mix of emotions; charm, confusion, fear, concern, determination. He does get to show a more humorous side in this case as well, something helped by the fact that the film never seems to take itself too seriously while at the same time never getting too crazy or over-the-top. It's a difficult balance but one that they manage rather well.

Naturally, this being a film from 1959, there are some social differences, but nothing too serious. The biggest concern I could bring up is that Grant does adopt the sort of "alpha male" persona I have criticized in the past (amusingly, Grant's reputation as the "ideal American male" by the standards of the time was a pure fabrication by Hollywood; in real life he was exactly the opposite). Fortunately, unlike say... James Bond, Roger Thornhill is able to control his sexual urges enough to make that aspect of his character tolerable.

James Mason is also great, as always. His performance as the villain provides a strange balance of acting like a gentleman and persistently scheming to kill the protagonist. (Fun fact: this was only the third film I saw James Mason act in, and the first that was not adapted from a Jules Verne novel; having previously been introduced to him through the 1959 version of Journey to the Center of the Earth and the earlier 1954 Disney film 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea). Meanwhile, Eva Marie Saint provides an interesting spin on the classical "femme fatale", bringing in a few strange twists and turns to her character.


Still, since this is a spy-themed blogathon let's look at North By Northwest as a spy film. It certainly becomes one by the end, even if it might not seem to be at first.  The story goes from an ordinary man trying to clear his name to a love story to a desperate race against time to stop an internationally operating criminal. Roger Thornhill starts off as an everyday man but he has to assume the identity of a spy named George Kaplan for most of the film, which forces him to sometimes get really creative when the bad guys seem to have him cornered (one of the best scenes in the film is when he is stuck in an auction, with all obvious exits being guarded... so he deliberately causes enough trouble to warrant the staff calling the police to escort him out).


North By Northwest is a compelling and interesting variation on the spy genre, and Roger Thornhill is worthy to join the ranks of some of cinema's greatest spies, even if he never wanted to be one in the first place. This is a guy who stumbled into an international criminal syndicate thanks to a slight misunderstanding and on his own managed not only to constantly remain one step ahead of experienced killers but also went on to play a crucial role in finally taking them down. 

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

How Rear Window Should Have Ended


Rear Window is a very interesting film, and there is no doubt it is a classic in the thriller genre. Jimmy Stewart of course is great in the role of the unfortunate protagonist, as are his co-stars. It also takes a fair bit of talent to be able to tell an entire story with the perspective almost never leaving a single room (outside of a few shots at the very end), and there is some suspense to be found in how he catches the villain. There is just one thing that I've always been a bit critical about, and that is specifically the ending. I've heard a few different justifications for why the movie ended the way it did, but I still feel as though it could have been more interesting.


For those of you not familiar with this film, it was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and released in 1954, starring Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly. My colleague Johnny has already done a review of this film which you can see here, but the basic plot is that Jimmy Stewart is a professional photographer who has been confined to a boring apartment after breaking his leg and getting stuck in a wheelchair. The only thing he can do to occupy himself is look out his rear window into the courtyard and watch other people's daily lives, which all goes fine until he sees clues that lead him to suspect that a neighbor may have murdered his own wife.



All this is interesting, but I found the ending somewhat predictable. Basically, the short version is that Jimmy Stewart figures it out, the bad guy shows up and tries to stop him but ends up getting arrested. What I've always thought is that it might have been more interesting if the plot had taken a different turn. Since the actual murder itself occurs offscreen, and for much of the movie Jimmy Stewart struggles to find any solid evidence, I've often thought it might have been a more interesting twist if it turned out the neighbor hadn't actually committed any murder. I feel like it would be a lot more of a memorable ending if perhaps instead every "clue" the narrator found turned out to have a perfectly mundane explanation, and if anything it was the protagonist himself who drove the neighbor to attempt a murder. Another angle I have considered (though it would be hard to get away with in Hollywood during the 1950's) would be if it was kept ambiguous, perhaps with clues both ways and leaving the audience to speculate. In fact there is even a bit of that in the actual film (we never do find out what the mystery item the neighbor buried in his garden was, or what insight it provided into the murder).


Now granted, I have heard reasons for why the movie went this particular route, and most of them are fair enough. Still, I do wonder if the movie would have been more interesting with the neighbor being a well-meaning individual who is driven insane by the misunderstanding of a stranger. Perhaps if someone ever gets hired to do a remake, these alternative twists might be worth considering.