Back Projection... - The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) Discussion

[–] FortySecondStreetFreak 13 years ago

If there is one thing Hitchcock never really cared a spit about it was back projection/matte effects looking dreadful. Even for the times.
Not sure why.
"North by Northwest" and "Marnie" has some very bad background effects.

www.beardyfreak.com

reply

[–] Danusha_Goska 13 years ago

I've read some who argue that Hitchcock used obvious artificiality in Marnie on purpose ... not sure I believe that ...

reply

[–] lexusis 11 years ago

Hitchcock used it extensively in all of his movies that I've seen. It is very annoying and obvious to a discerning viewer. It's like they must have thought the technology was so new that people would buy it as authentic way back when these movies were made.

It seems like every time there's a dialogue scene outside, boom, rear projection.

I was a bit in awe during the scene at the beginning when they are at the market and the man had just been killed.

Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day are walking like 2 feet infront of the police officer and Daygert... Instead of just filming the scene right there, Hitchcock chose to use rear projection!

Stewart and Day are the only real things on screen while a crowd of fake projection people are walking right on their heels! Incredible.

reply

[–] buchan1965 11 years ago

Yeah -- Hitchcock preferred shooting in a studio whenever possible. He preferred having an environment he could totally control and didn't like shooting on location very much (too much could go wrong). But I'm always surprised how poor it looks, and now Hitchcock never seemed to mind.

And anyone saying "Oh, well, in Marnie it was on PURPOSE -- to show how disoriented she was" is full of it. When Tippi Hedren told him to *beep* off after he made a sick sexual advance, he stopped caring about the technical details, and it really shows.

reply

[–] LovingBooks 11 years ago

O, I'm so glad I'm not the only person that thinks about these things--these rear projection scenes were so bad they almost made the movies unwatchable for me. In otherwise fabulous, classic films, a simple-to-remedy problem like bad special effects or rear projections are just unfathomable.

Even if Hitchcock hated filming on location for whatever reasons (budget? Inconvenience? Lack of control?) it would not have been difficult to recreate a Morrocan marketplace inside the studio soundstage. It would have been a lot more palatable than the mess that he tried to pass off as realistic here.

reply

[–] buchan1965 11 years ago

Another factor in the horrid-looking rear projections is that most times his widescreen films are shown on broadcast network TV they are *not* letterboxed. Instead we get the extra-horrid "pan-and-scan" versions, which blow up the picture and make the awful rear projection look even worse.

reply

[–] info-110 11 years ago

Yes, it was atrocious, to say the least.

reply

[–] ptgoldfrappp 11 years ago

Yes in all of his films he uses rear projection like it was a student film but I believe it was on purpose. Yes Hitchcock wanted total control even "The Birds", but I believe he deliberately did so knowing full well the audience would see its artificialness as a little joke to his audience. A little Hitchcock trademark like him appearing in everyone of his films.
Yes we are so engrossed that we may believe its reality but boom the god awful rear projection! I believe this was his intention after watching a doco of him mentioning something to that effect?
Peace

reply

[–] bbpictures 11 years ago

Or, I dunno, maybe Hitch simply didn't care about realism.

I've always appreciated the fakeness of the rear projection shots. They add a stylized flourish to the shots, reminding us of cinema's artificial nature, etc.

reply

[–] rnmackenzie 10 years ago

One cost of watching a movie like this in high definition is that it really makes the rear projection stand out. If Hitchcock--who, as you say, probably didn't care that much about realism--could watch the films the way we can today, like in this excellent new Blu-ray version, I wonder whether he'd change his mind. In this film, we switch constantly in and out of back projection (especially in the outdoor Marrakesh sequences, but even in the London scenes too), and the switching really calls attention to itself.

reply

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

When you see the back projection you think its been shot in a studio back-lot or California and then they switch to Marrakesh so they did go on location.

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] Tashtago 10 years ago

the rear projection in this movie is indeed awful. in fact it is true of a lot of hitchcock. he liked to go on location but preferred the studio . it shows here but still doesnt distact from the final story.

reply

[–] fugazzi49 9 years ago

I have to agree with mmackenzie. I never noticed this problem so much before High Def/Blu Ray versions. It's really bizarre looking when within one sequence it shifts back and forth between location and rear screen projection.

reply

[–] masuka-fan 8 years ago

Noticeable but not annoying. I just wrote it off as an effect that once looked convincing but no longer does.

Isn't there one film where the projection is actually reversed and people are walking backward?

reply

[–] zzzoeb 8 years ago

You all people are a joke. I cannot simply understand what is so great about dissing the back projection technique. Just what were you expecting in the 1950s- special effects like 'Avatar' and '300'? If Hitchcock wanted to shoot preferably in studios, especially the dialogue scenes when he wanted the music and words to remain intact and audible, what is so terribly wrong with that? It does not take the punch out of the sequences. The Morocco scene is my favorite in the film. Don't just look at the technical aspects of it. It is a crucial moment in the film, the camera zooming to Bernard's face and then to James Stewart's eyes. The tension is all there. And all you are cribbing about is the back projection in the sequence. Did you not notice that brief suspenseful chase? Till then, we had no idea of guessing that it was Bernard disguised. The setup, the subsequent proceedings, the suspenseful setpieces and everything else are brilliant. And all you can notice is the back projection.

Just tell me one thing. Did not Kubrick use back-projection for 'The Killing' and 'Dr.Strangelove'? And if you end up noticing those things in that, will they affect your perception of these movie as well? Sure, why don't you check out how modern films like '300' and 'Life Of Pi' were made? You will almost feel that the computer effects guys actually made these movies rather than the directors themselves. Hitchcock might have used studio settings and sound-stages with back projection but that was a really innovative trick in my opinion.

Hitchcock has shaped the modern thriller genre. He did that with limited resources, technological constraints and lack of showy effects and he did that because he was a brilliant director who told brilliant suspenseful tales with his own trademark style. He invented many rules of photography and camera effects. He introduced a new flow of intelligence and coherence in even the most puzzling plots. He introduced tropes like the blonde female heroine, the damsel in distress, the plot Macguffins and the twist endings. Today's greatest directors doff their hats at him. And all you can think of is back-projection when more seasoned viewers discuss the influence of films like these.

Pathetic.

reply

[–] gottaluvafriend 8 years ago

Most of the people posting here are children who need to get a job.

reply

[–] Cristianos 8 years ago

Indeed, watching the film in high definition really exposes the artificiality of the rear projection and Patrick McGilligan in his biography, Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light explains why.

The VistaVision format that Paramount Pictures imposed on Hitchcock does not allow for close-up shots on the actors. And whenever the lenses are focused on the actors, the backgrounds looked blurred. So, in compromise, Hitchcock shot both footage for the rear projection plates and long shots on location, and filmed close-ups for the actors to play against the plates on the Paramount studio backlot.

What we do in life, echoes in eternity.

reply

[–] Doghouse-6 8 years ago

The VistaVision format that Paramount Pictures imposed on Hitchcock does not allow for close-up shots on the actors.

I haven't read the book to which you refer, but if that's the explanation the author gives, he's mistaken.

Moments in The Man Who Knew Too Much itself belie the claim. There are a number of extremely tight closeups: those of Stewart and Gélin as Bernard whispers of the assassination plot to McKenna, for instance. What made the VistaVision cameras unique was their horizontal, 8-perf pulldown which exposed twice the frame area on standard 35mm stock, but I've never read or heard anything suggesting they were restricted from use of the full range of focal lengths available in photographic lenses (as Cinerama cameras were with their fixed 27mm lenses).

Hitchcock shot both footage for the rear projection plates and long shots on location, and filmed close-ups for the actors to play against the plates on the Paramount studio backlot.

Again, the evidence of the film itself demonstrates otherwise. A number of long shots involving the actors in the early marketplace scenes, for example, were done on soundstage with rear projection. My guess (and it's only that) would be that Hitchcock made those determinations based primarily on the basis of the extent of dialogue recording necessary for each such scene or shot, and the ease with which they could be accomplished.

Poe! You are...avenged!

reply

[–] tieman64 7 years ago

Or, I dunno, maybe Hitch simply didn't care about realism.

I've always appreciated the fakeness of the rear projection shots. They add a stylized flourish to the shots, reminding us of cinema's artificial nature, etc.

Exactly. Hitchcock was influenced by German Expressionism and surreal art and even consulted Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali. His wacky back-projecting totally meshes with the tone of these films, which are also often tongue-in-cheek and proudly absurd.

Here's Hitch himself discussing this:

"And surrealism? Wasn't it born as much from the work of Poe as from that of [French surrealist] Lautreamont? This literary school certainly had a great influence on cinema, especially around 1925-1930, when surrealism was transposed onto the screen by Buñuel... Rene Clair... Jean Cocteau.... An influence that I experienced myself. I try to tell a perfectly unbelievable story with such a hallucinatory logic."

reply

[–] Doghouse-6 7 years ago

Thanks for your interesting thoughts, tieman, and the informative quote from Hitchcock, but I believe you meant your reply for bbpictures, whose post above you've quoted.

Poe! You are...avenged!

reply