MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Tarantino, Hitchcock, Psycho -- the 50'...

Tarantino, Hitchcock, Psycho -- the 50's through the 90s


There's a thread about Tarantino(QT) and his new book but it is getting too long and compressed. So I thought I would start a new thread in a different context. Hitchcock and Psycho are part of it, and I think QT should get some points for putting some arguments in discussion, and stimulating thought.

I'll start here:

QT finds "the 50s and the 80s" to be the worst decades for movies -- before this one(the 2020s.)

He doesn't elaborate too much -- one ends up getting the gist and I suppose it goes like this(my opinion as much as QTs):

The 20s and the 30's : "Pre-code" til about 1934, the movies could be more sexy and salacious back then.
The 30's: OK in QT's book
The 40's: OK in QT's book(perhaps because of postwar noir?)
The 50's: Bad in QT's book(too "tame," run by Technicolor epics and musicals out to battle TV; perhaps too overseen by The Church.)
The 60's: Old Hollywood peaking at the beginning(Psycho, The Apartment, Liberty Valance), New Hollywood booming at the end(Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, The Wild Bunch.)
The 70s: That Golden Golden Age.
The 80s: Lucas/Spielberg. TV executives take over. (And something else, see below.)
The 90s: Indies arrive in a big way -- Harvey Weinstein(!) and QT and Soderbergh and Kevin Smith. And(says me) the greatest decade for crime and thrillers ever.

STOP.

Some elaborations, but only about SOME of those decades.

I'll start with the 50's. QT so hates that decade for its tameness, and yet: that was HITCHCOCK's biggest decade, with a caveat -- to fully get Hitchcock's incredible run of movies, you have to skip Stage Fright in 1950, start in 1951(with Strangers on a Train) and then roll on through to two movies from the EARLY SIXTIES: Psycho and The Birds.

If one confines Hitchcock's run to "just the fifties," it is missing its climax, so to speak.

Critic Richard Corliss wrote a piece - in 1973 -- on how Psycho was his favorite movie. He wrote (paraphrased) "Its as if the old pudgy possum (Hitchcock) spent the entire fifties making tame, mild little mystery thrillers so he could hammer everybody hard with this historic bloody shocker in 1960." Fair enough - -and true enough.

Psycho in its own weird way almost "invalidated" all the 50's Hitchcock greats that came before it. SUDDENLY, they all DID look tame and twee. The Man Who Knew Too Much,with Jimmy Stewart in his tourist hat and Doris Day in her matronly butch haircut and boxy suit -- looked ANCIENT (never mind that it had the great Albert Hall set-piece and a stylish, brutal knife murder.)

And yet, Hitchcock even in the fifties alone delivered nothing but the goods: classics that weren't hits(Vertigo), hits that weren't classics(Dial M) hits that WERE classics(Rear Window, Strangers on a Train.)

Moreover, Hitchcock sure got away with a lot in those "tame fifties." I think he single-handledly rebuked QT's theory. Consider:

Strangers on a Train: Guy's slutty wife Miriam goes on a date with TWO men, while pregnant from ANOTHER man, allowing herself to be picked up by YET ANOTHER man(Bruno)...who strangles her to death.
I Confess: A priest accused of murder. An affair.
Dial M: A very violent central murder scene in which Grace Kelly is practically raped while being strangled but manages to stab her erstwhile killer. Moreover, Kelly is an " adulteress" who will get her boyfriend in the end.
Rear Window: Raymond Burr chops his wife into pieces, carries her body parts to the East River in suitcases and hides her head in a flower garden and then his bedroom closet(nothing shown, all imagined, still: CREEPY.) Meanwhile: Miss Torso does some real gymnastic dancing in very little clothing.
To Catch a Thief: A lot of sexual repartee tween Grant and Kelly -- and those FIREWORKS.
The Trouble With Harry: A dead body becomes a thing of comedy..a bit sacreligious...and doesn't he smell? MORE sexual repartee and John Forsythe introducing himself to Shirley MacLaine thus: "I'd like to paint you in the nude."
The Man Who Knew Too Much: The terror of the kidnapping of a child(and a shot of a strangling rope being prepared to kill him.) A VERY violent stab to a victim's back(he continues walking on, trying to get the knife out of his back like a man trying to scratch an itch.)
The Wrong Man: Minimal sex(Vera Miles at the beginning), no violence, but the terrifying reality of being falsely accused, of losing your money, of losing your SANITY.
Vertigo: A man heavily kisses the wife of another man --that's sex in a Hitchcock movie. (He sees the wife naked, too.) Tragic ending and "hero" who pretty much goes insane.
North by Northwest: MORE sexual repartee(on a train.) And the biggest action in a thriller ever to that date -- all the way to Mount Rushmore. An early take on the "Evil CIA."

CONT


reply

And so..QT's "anti-fifties theory" may hold overall (look at some of the dull movies that won the Oscar) but one reason Hitchcock got so hot is that he pushed a lot of envelopes in the fifties --- violence, sex, anti-societal discussions(the justice system in The Wrong Man; the CIA in NXNW.)

And now a big jump to QT's dislike of the 80's.

Elsewhere I suggested that the 80's usually gets hit -- after the 70s -- as a time when the movies became "infantalized." Spielberg and Lucas were the culprits. Truth be told , Spielberg moved quickly to make more serious Oscar baity films(The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun) and Lucas pretty much retired. But still, a lot of OTHER filmmakers copied the Disney-centric formulas of Spielberg and Lucas. And Spielberg took producers credit on some of those(Poltergeist, Back to the Future, Gremlins).

But QT in his book specifies a different type of 80's movie for his dislike. He names these:

The Big Chill
Out of Africa
Ordinary People
Diner
Ganhdi
Stand By Me

...and hey...I GET it. Throw in Chariots of Fire and you're there. (Great theme song....I couldn't make it through the movie.)

You can see QT's point in naming THOSE movies. These were "important" films that really didn't have much staying power. Except one.

Diner...I'm picking it for the cast of players who went somewhere(Mickey Rourke, Kevin Bacon...Daniel Stern, Paul Reiser(hilarious), and even Steve Guttenberg...and one "girl," Ellen Barkin.) And for its great script, where one minor character goes around quoting scenes from Ernest Lehman's Sweet Smell of Success and another remarks on the poor quality of 1959 color TV: "I watched Bonanzo last night and it was not for me...the Ponderosa looked faked."

Bonanzo.

CONT

reply

I recall being shocked at how The Big Chill just suddenly ended in a minor key on a nothing line of dialogue. One key scene in the movie became a hilarous SNL sketch. In the movie: wife Glenn Close makes up to her husband Kevin Kline for her infidelity by letting HIM screw her friend Mary Kay Place upstairs while she beams in the kitchen down below(hubby Kline is making a baby for Place.)

In the SNL version, the real Kevin Kline was the guest host . He took "Mary Kay Place" upstairs for sex while "Glenn Close" beamed in the kitchen below...until the sex went on for 2, 3, 4, 5 hours(a clock arm in the kitchen spinning around) while "Glenn Close' stopped beaming and got pissed off. Funny. And better than The Big Chill.

So you can see QT's point. And I'm no fan of Gandhi(which beat ET for Best Picture and ET WAS the Best Picture) or Stand By Me.

But wait a minute...

"Diner" is from 1982, and that year had a LOT of great movies, you ask me:

ET (It RAN that summer of 1982 and I see it as one of the greatest tearjerkers ever made, a career near-best for Spielberg and for composer John Williams -- whose music made the tears flow and the heart soar.)
Gandhi(for some)
The Verdict(Paul Newman's great lion in winter performance)
Tootsie and Victor/Victoria("flipped" gender flipping movies; and Tootsie had an incredible cast led by Dustin Hoffman at his best.)
My Favorite Year(Peter O'Toole should have won Best Actor for this; too bad that Hoffman and Newman were up too -- and Ben Kingsley won!)
The Thing(Such a classic now -- truly John Carpenter's best and one of Kurt Russell's.)
The Road Warrior(Mel Gibson's star is born.)
Star Trek II Wrath of Khan(yep -- this second Star Trek movie undid the dull disaster of the first Star Trek movie, had plenty of action, a great villain, and a tearjerker ending that was betrayed when a dead man came back to life in the next movie. Which is a preview of the Marvel universe --nobody REALLY dies.)

CONT

reply

Now even if 1982 was a pretty good year at the movies...

....I would like to offer the movie year 1973 as a comparison.

This list I am about to do is roughly chronological, from the early part of 1973, through the summer(which wasn't a time of blockbusters in 1973) and into the fall and then the big Christmas season of the year. Here goes. See how many titles you recognize. Look them up, look up the STARS(we had more of THOSE back then too)

The Long Goodbye
Last Tango in Paris(a 1972 release in some countries)
Save The Tiger
Demon Seed
Slither
Soylent Green
Love and Pain and the Whole Damn Thing
Scarecrow
Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid
High Plains Drifter
Live and Let Die
The Last of Sheila
Cahill, US Marshal
The Train Robbers
American Graffiti
A Touch of Class
Blume in Love
Paper Moon
The MackIntosh Man
Westworld
The Paper Chase
The Way We Were
Charley Varrick
The Outfit
The Seven Ups
Mean Streets
The Friends of Eddie Coyle
Serpico
Magnum Force
Cinderella Liberty
Sleeper
The Last Detail
The Day of the Dophin
Papillon
The Sting
The Exorcist

...I mean...LOOK at that list! Movies indeed simply do not exist in that number, or at that level of quality, today. (Even the B's -- like John Wayne's movies of that year...had audiences.)

..but you can't say that the 80's didn't deliver some good ones, too.

In fact, here's something I noted -- once the 80's was over -- about the decade.

CONT

reply

For me, personally, the final three years of the decade -- 1987, 1988, and 1989 -- climaxed in the three summers of those three years with three GREAT action epics:

1987: The Untouchables
1988: Die Hard
1989: Batman

..I know I did other things with my life between those movies, but they will always stand as "a grand slam of summer action" that had me pretty giddy with memories when the decade ended and the nineties came along. With The Untouchables and Batman, I spent a year in anticipation waiting for them to be made and come out -- Connery and DeNiro in The Untouchables and Nicholson in Batman...true MOVIE STARS in vehicles I wanted to see them in. I was not disappointed.

But the year before that run -- 1986 -- was far less easy to pick a winner in. For many years, it was The Fly - which mixed a love story, stomach-turning grue and horror into one mix. In more recent years, it has become Ferris Bueller's Day Off, in honor of 80's giant John Hughes. But, truth be told, I don't much LIKE Ferris Bueller(the character, not the movie) and I find "Uncle Buck" (with the Great John Candy) to be the best of Hughes bunch.

So, I'm not sure I can go with QT's dire assessment of the 80's. Sure, TV executives ran it(that's why we got sequels -- including Psychos II and III, and movies from tv series ...like The Untouchables and Batman! and "kid movies" were the order of the day but....Raiders of the Lost Ark. Terms of Endearment(more tears just a year after ET..and a great Jack Nicholson supporting gig.) Scarface. Lethal Weapon and the cop buddy movies. And above all that Untouchables-Die Hard-Batman finale.

CONT

reply

On to the 90s.

In retrospect I do like the 90's better than the 80's. For one great big reason. Here was a decade when thrillers and crime movies reigned supreme.

Take a look:

1990: GoodFellas (Scorsese begins his new era as a pop star)
Misery(Kathy BATES wins an Oscar.)
Dick Tracy(no really)
1991: Silence of the Lambs (Wins all the Oscars that Psycho should have won, 31 years later.)
Cape Fear(Scorsese again, produced by Spielberg, with Peck, Mitchum and Balsam from the original joining
DeNiro and Nolte in the Mitchum/Peck roles.)
1992: Reservoir Dogs (a young man named Tarantino makes the scene -- the movie is taken to task for the blood but its the WORDS that make it great.)
1993: Carlito's Way (Pacino and DePalma return to do Scarface again, but more sad and tragic; Sean Penn's best entertainment role this side of Fast Times.)
Jurassic Park (Jaws was "Psycho at Sea," this is "Jaws on land" and the T-Rex chases Goldblum like the crop duster chased Grant.)
1994: Pulp Fiction: QT delivers on his promise and makes indiefilm history. Travolta gets a big comeback. Bruce Die Hard Willis gets a little one, Sam Jackson becomes a star.

CONT

reply

1995: Casino (Scorsese, DeNiro and Pesci do GoodFellas again, but this time the movie LOOKS a lot more expensive and its more fun.)
Heat (DeNiro and Pacino share the screen -- they didn't as father and son in Godfather II. But only for one scene. One of the greatest gun battles set to film. Tarantino doesn't like how the story ends -- and neither do I -- but its great getting there.)
Se7en: Pitt, Freeman, "the mystery killer" and the Biggest Downer Ending in American thrillers since Vertigo and Chinatown.
1996: Fargo. (The Coens get their first classic -- Minnesotans talking funny in the snow while innocent people get horribly murdered -- its a comedy.)
1997: LA Confidential (my favorite movie of the whole decade, against all of the rest, and I've got my reasons.)
Jackie Brown(my favorite QT movie; too bad it came out the year of LAC.)
Face/Off (Travolta gets to play the good guy AND then play the bad guy -- the better part -- and then gets killed and comes back as the good guy! Incredible. With Nicolas Cage as the other guy, John Woo at the helm.)
1998: Van Sant's Psycho. Surprise: I waited months for it to come out, and I DID like seeing this attempt: the experiment that succeeded by failing. Hitchcock matters in the 90s.
1999: I tell ya, after all those greats, its hard for me to remember a really good crime thriller in 1999...unless one stretches to let The Matrix in. What did I miss?

So anyway: the 90's sure was a great decade for thrillers. As an old Hitchcock fan, I TRIED to watch more non-thrillers and "widen my scope," but let's face it: Hitchcock got so rich, and Bogart and Cagney got so famous...because of thrillers and crime. Mix in Westerns(which are largely thrillers on horseback) and you got John Wayne's stardom and...Unforgiven(a Gothic of sorts) in 1992.

CONT

reply

I REALLY liked all that Oscar love for crime and thrillers in the 90's. Had Hitchcock released Psycho or Rear Window or Vertigo or NXNW in the 1990's, I'm sure he would have won a Best Director Oscar or two, and that Psycho would have won Best Picture. But Silence of the Lambs won instead. And Kathy BATES won for playing a psycho. And Anthony Hopkins playing a psycho beat Robert DeNiro playing a psycho(whom Robert Mitchum played better) in the Cape Fear remake.

Also: even as I left my 90's list of thrillers and crime movies behind, I suddenly remember MORE: like Warren Beatty as Bugsy. Or The Big Lebowski from the Coens besting Fargo.

It goes on and on.

Tarantino is an interesting case. I contend that he made his three best movies in the 90s -- the "LA crime trilogy" of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown but -- after 6 years off, he came back in 2003(Kill Bill 1) and launched a "second career" with all sorts of material. He's still good today, just not quite as unique and "hot".

But the 90s made him.

reply

1999: I tell ya, after all those greats, its hard for me to remember a really good crime thriller in 1999...unless one stretches to let The Matrix in. What did I miss?
Talented Mr Ripley? The Limey? Fight Club? Three Kings? Election? Frigging Audition? The Insider? Being John Malkovich?

Perhaps this speaks to the breadth of interesting films available in 1999 that were a lot of films that didn't quite fit into a single genre but that had crime and thriller elements. But maybe all of these are no less of a stretch than to The Matrix.

I was interested that you think that Fargo was the Coens' first "classic". Maybe Fargo is a little better than any of Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, (Cannes-winning) Barton Fink, Miller's Crossing, but for me they were all among the best of their years before Fargo and all are "must sees" in my view, so they're at least near-classics . I liked Fargo a lot right away but I remember it also felt a little tasteful and reigned in and yes 'classical' (cynically, The Oscars were going to love it and they did although, ha-ha, English Patient for the big awards.). The Coens' earlier films wanted to dazzle you at times (and did) and I missed that.

reply

1999: I tell ya, after all those greats, its hard for me to remember a really good crime thriller in 1999...unless one stretches to let The Matrix in. What did I miss?
Talented Mr Ripley? The Limey? Fight Club? Three Kings? Election? Frigging Audition? The Insider? Being John Malkovich?

---

Ha. I knew you'd have a few, swanstep. But honestly, I don't think I have the affection for any of those that extends to the ones from 1990-1998(OK maybe not Van Sant's Psycho.)

I think I'd pick The Talented Mr. Ripley because it IS a thriller, from a novel by the woman who wrote Strangers on a Train, and with a charming psychopath in Matt Damon(another of his few appropriate roles IMHO; he's creepy!) and a snobbish, dislikeable young Arbogast (who was none of these) in the great Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Fight Club is a bit too surreal and the rest aren't quite thrillers in my book. Except "Frigging Audition," by which I take it you mean "Audition"? Japanese film. I think I should stick to American studio films given my lack of depth and my actual memories of going to theaters and SEEING these films. Also, I hear Audition gets pretty gruesome...

CONT

reply

Perhaps this speaks to the breadth of interesting films available in 1999 that were a lot of films that didn't quite fit into a single genre but that had crime and thriller elements. But maybe all of these are no less of a stretch than to The Matrix.

---

"No less of a stretch than to The Matrix"...indeed. I knew it was a stretch. I think I tried it because of (a) that big gunbattle near the end(which is, inherently, "fake") and the idea (in my mind) that Keanu Reeve's Neo is a distant successor to John Hannay and Roger Thornhill.

I've mentioned there is a book out about how 1999 was the best movie year of the 90s and yet for me...it wasn't. 1994 was a bigger deal(Pulp Fiction, Ed Wood, True Lies, and yes, Forrest Gump and The Sawshank Redemption.) 1997 was a bigger deal(LA Confidential, Jackie Brown, er Titanic, Face Off and yes...As Good As it Gets.) And I'm not including just thrillers in my count. I just don't remember ONE particular movie "sending" me in 1999 like Pulp Fiction did, or LAC did, or -- aha! -- Fargo did.

---
---

I was interested that you think that Fargo was the Coens' first "classic".

--

I started to think "did I say that, really?" and then I saw that I did, and then I was ready with my usual excuse ("Typing too fast") and then I thought it over and it ended up like this: I saw ALL of those Coen brothers movies before Fargo -- except one(Miller's Crossing is still unseen by me) and...yeah...it took until Fargo for me to REALLY like The Coens, and then...I couldn't stop liking them. Its a bit like Martin Scorsese from GoodFellas on...suddenly he/they became more "entertaining," less hard edged and arty.

CONT

reply

Blood Simple then, now and always...is a disappointment to me(and I saw it recently to double check, and still: disappointing.)

Raising Arizona had style to burn (the footchase after Cage through supermarkets and the like is dazzling) but...the characters seemed too cartoonish and I could not STAND Holly Hunter in this(the character, not the actress.)

I remember Barton Fink as good Hollywood Gothic art; I recall The Hudsucker Proxy for its style and not well for Jennifer Jason' Leigh's accent choice.

It took until Fargo for the Coens to make a movie to which I could totally respond.

Funny thing: here was a movie where Siskel and Ebert(not much loved by me back then) actually DID influence me. Fargo came out early in the year(March) and they BOTH went nuts for it, and they BOTH said "no better movie will come out this year" and they BOTH kept talking about it all through 1996. I got excited for Fargo largely on those first Siskel/Ebert raves, then by the movie itself. That "The English Patient" (which I DID see in a theater) beat it just seems so Oscars to me.

Funny things: the axe-faced hooker picked up by Steve Buscemi, who dully repeats "I hear bells" as he has sex with her.

The two guys -- totally in parkas -- discussing the case in the snowy driveway. So deadpan.

The two girls -- also hookers -- being interrogated by Sheriff McDormand about the bad guys they slept with: "One looked like the Marlboro Man...because he smoked Marlboros."

And all the funny talk.

And yet, as the movie went on, all the murders were savage, very innocent people were killed, William H. Macy's "comedy character" proved a monster, Frances McDormand's moral cop stirred us ("All this over a little bit of money. Don't you know there's more to life than a little bit of money?")

---

CONT

reply

Maybe Fargo is a little better than any of Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, (Cannes-winning) Barton Fink, Miller's Crossing, but for me they were all among the best of their years before Fargo and all are "must sees" in my view, so they're at least near-classics .

---

I can't argue with any of that. In fact, while I tend to "lead" with Tarantino around here as a modern favorite, I'd say the Coens aren't too far behind. Some of their movies misfired("Intolerable Cruelty") but more often than not, they hit big. I even LOVE their most hated film -- "The Ladykillers" for its Hitchcock-like plot, its great Gospel score, and its great special effects falls of bodies onto a passing garbage scow, one by one by one. And Tom Hanks as a murderous villain!

By the way, with all this talk of "only one more film" from QT, we may have lost the Coens as a team ...permanently. Or so they say. "We might do another film" is the Coens version of "I'm only going to make one more film." Our auteurs are abandoning us! Our FUN crime-movie making auteurs.

And I loved the Coens' Ballad of Buster Scruggs...which now stands as their "last film together."

CONT

reply

As for 1973, don't forget Aldrich's Emperor of the North too! And 1973 was pretty hot stuff for foreign films. My fave for the year is a wondrous, small Spanish film, The Spirit Of The Beehive. Not withstanding his great Hitchcock Jones, Del Toro's whole career is built on trying to recreate the magic of that film! It really is something special. One proviso: there still isn't a definitive edition of Beehive and both color and amount of grain differ wildly between editions (I like Criterion's dvd edition, but there's no Criterion blu-ray).

Beyond that Scenes from a Marriage, O Lucky Man, Don't Look Now, The Wicker Man, Amarcord, (Tarentino fave and inspiration) Lady Snowblood, are all intensely pleasurable must-sees. And for more out-there viewers The Mother and The Whore, La Grande Bouffe, Paul Verhoeven's Turkish Delight (with a demented Rutger Hauer), and even Senegal's Touki Bouki (currently at #93 on the S&S critics poll and #132 on the directors Poll - good film but not in the top 20 from 1973 for me!) also represent 1973 with distinction. In principal, you could go to the movies every week in 1973 and see something fresh and amazing.

reply

And so..QT's "anti-fifties theory" may hold overall (look at some of the dull movies that won the Oscar) but one reason Hitchcock got so hot is that he pushed a lot of envelopes in the fifties --- violence, sex, anti-societal discussions(the justice system in The Wrong Man; the CIA in NXNW.)
--
Exactly. Tbh, I don't get how anyone could see Hitchcock's 50s movies as "Tame," unless you're looking at them from the shallowest possible level. There's so much subversiveness beneath the surface in them all. There's a reason that in my humanities department back in college, Hitchcock was called the Shakespeare of film studies, because of the sheer amount of interpretations he inspired.

Also, if noir is his reason for liking the still very Code-bound 40s, QT seems to completely ignore that noir was still very much a subversive force in the 1950s.

A sampling:

Sunset Blvd: A washed up screenwriter becomes the kept man of an egocentric ex-screen queen old enough to be his mother.
Kiss Me Deadly: Atomic age paranoia, complete with sadistic sequences and a strong sexual charge.
The Lineup: A psychotic thug tracking down smuggled drugs kills several innocent people and terrorizes a mother and child to get what he wants.
The Killing: Arguably the best heist movie ever made, and a pretty brutal one regarding human nature.
Gun Crazy: Young criminals getting an erotic charge off violence.
Ace in the Hole: A journalist movie so cynical and bleak that I can't even bring myself to rewatch it.

Also, QT ignores that the 1950s-- for all its Leave It To Beaver conformity on the surface-- is the decade where filmmakers started hitting back against the Code. A Streetcar Named Desire, The Moon is Blue, Carmen Jones, Anatomy of a Murder, Baby Doll, just to name a few, are movies that helped weaken the Code's influence bit by bit.

I'm not going to pretend the 50s are my favorite decade for Hollywood movies, but they deserve better than what QT dishes out.

reply

As for 1973, don't forget Aldrich's Emperor of the North too!

---

What a year. I'm sure I've forgotten others, on the American studio side.

Emperor of the North was an action drama set in the Depression(Strike One) with a climactic fight atop a train between two old ugly men (Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine, at least ugly HERE)(Strike Two) and with no women parts of note that I can remember(Strike Three.) And yet I saw it opening week. I recall seeing it with guys and how we all went to Marie Callendars afterwords for coffee and pie and I said "what are we doing having coffee and PIE after that macho movie at MARIE CALLENDARS"? Just a movie going memory.)

---

And 1973 was pretty hot stuff for foreign films.

---

I will yield now and for the foreseeable future, swanstep, to you on foreign film knowledge. And yet again, I KNOW all those titles below and I DID NOT KNOW Jeanne Dielman. Man.

--

My fave for the year is a wondrous, small Spanish film, The Spirit Of The Beehive. Not withstanding his great Hitchcock Jones, Del Toro's whole career is built on trying to recreate the magic of that film! It really is something special. One proviso: there still isn't a definitive edition of Beehive and both color and amount of grain differ wildly between editions (I like Criterion's dvd edition, but there's no Criterion blu-ray).

Beyond that Scenes from a Marriage, O Lucky Man, Don't Look Now, The Wicker Man, Amarcord, (Tarentino fave and inspiration) Lady Snowblood, are all intensely pleasurable must-sees. And for more out-there viewers The Mother and The Whore, La Grande Bouffe, Paul Verhoeven's Turkish Delight (with a demented Rutger Hauer), and even Senegal's Touki Bouki (currently at #93 on the S&S critics poll and #132 on the directors Poll - good film but not in the top 20 from 1973 for me!) also represent 1973 with distinction.

---
CONT

reply

In principal, you could go to the movies every week in 1973 and see something fresh and amazing.

---

You really could -- add in the foreign films and you could see about TWO movies every week.

I read an article yesterday that noted that "Christmas season 2022" -- whether because of COVID production problems or other reasons -- simply has nowhere near the QUANTITY of movies that such seasons used to have. Avatar 2 is running the table -- and I will grant that this is an important blockbuster of the year -- but Babylon tanked and there's not much else out there.

Christmas season 1973 had TWO totally original and unique blockbusters -- The Exorcist and The Sting -- PLUS Dirty Harry 2 and a Woody Allen when he was peaking and Serpico and Papillon(McQueen and Hoffman from a bestseller) and...more.

I must say that 1973 probably was the most populated movie year OF the 70s. I don't recall 1975 being quite so full up...Jaws and Cuckoos Nest ran the table. Nor 1972. The Godfather ran the table, Poseidon Adventure came in at the end to compete..Cabaret was somewhat of a hit, ditto What's Up Doc? Hey, 1972 saw Frenzy but even I will concede that wasn't much of a box office blockbuster(a hit, yes, but too sexually grim to play wide).

That said, oh, 1977 wasn't bad(Star Wars, Close Encounters, Saturday Night Fever.) Or 1971. Or 1970.

Eh, the 70's were pretty great.

reply

@Eliz. I'm completely with you on the cynical side of '50s cinema: it's really Sunset Blvd and then On the Waterfront that kicks off that whole cycle that would run up through Face in The Crowd, Sweet Smell of Success, and The Apartment. Kazan and Wilder really make the pace. Hitchcock's doing his thing, Hawks his, Mankiewicz his, Stevens his, Minnelli his, Sirk his. Kubrick and Lumet and Siegel and John Sturges and Aldrich are breaking through. And, let's face it, all of modern American screen acting really begins from the Acting Studio grads in those '50s movies. There are no Pacinos and De Niros and Nicholsons and Hackmans, etc. to make the '70s sizzle without that previous breakthrough generation of Brando, Clift, Newman, Wallach, Steiger, Woodward, Marie Saint, Caroll Baker, Geraldine Page, Kim Stanley, and all the rest.

1950s cinema in Europe and Japan has tons of good stuff too. When I was in college I completely bought the idea put forward by Godard and Truffaut that before *their* New wave in the 1960s, cinema in France and elsewhere was dead. But later I had to learn that there was much more continuity in French cinema than Godard in particular had seemed to allow. The 1950s in France sees Bresson, Melville, Clouzot, Ophuls, Becker all at the tops of their games, and there are solid breakthroughs from Varda and Malle and Chabrol in the years *before* 400 Blows, Hiroshima Mon Amour and Breathless all arrive in a rush in 1959/1960. Everything looks *very continuously productive* rather than a period of nothing nothing nothing followed by a big explosion. Beyond France, Fellini and Bergman and De Sica kill it through the '50s and in Japan Kurosawa and Ozu and Mizoguchi drop all sorts of classics.

reply

Everything looks *very continuously productive* rather than a period of nothing nothing nothing followed by a big explosion.
--
EXACTLY. The 60s and 70s represent the culmination of artistic movements rising during the post-WWII period. For someone who's supposed to be so film history literate, Tarantino has a very shallow perception of things.

reply

Tbh, I don't get how anyone could see Hitchcock's 50s movies as "Tame," unless you're looking at them from the shallowest possible level. There's so much subversiveness beneath the surface in them all.


---

Yes, he really "got away with a lot," but there can be no doubt that his movies were very multilayered and subversive. In Notorious, you pretty much have Cary Grant having to force the woman he loves, Ingrid Bergman, into a sexual relationship with a "lesser man"(Claude Rains) for spying purposes, and its nothing but pain for everybody (even the sympathetic little guy Rains -- no matter that he's planing a Nazi comeback with The Bomb.) Sex courses all through Notorious without ever really being shown or discussed, too.

Surfing Youtube, I found QT discussing Hitchcock with an interviewer. He calls Hitch "one of the greatest filmmakers to ever walk the earth"(maybe a little sarcasm there, like he KNOWS he has to say that) but indeed feels that the Hays Code stopped Hitchcock from ever really getting too intense about sex or violence. That said, QT goes on to praise ...of all things...Suspicion(not one of MY favorites) and makes an interesting case for it: yes, the studio made Hitchcock turn Grant the killer into Grant the good guy at the end, but QT says the way Grant puts his arm around Fontaine at the end -- hey, he still might BE a killer. QT says everybody should see Suspicion.

CONT



reply

Look, in certain ways, at this point in my life, I "get" QT about the tameness of Hitchcock. Back in the 60s and 70's when I first discovered Hitchcock, his movies from the 40s and 50's were "recent enough" -- and without competion in thrillers -- that movies like Foreign Correspondent and Saboteur and Shadow of a Doubt and Strangers on a Train were VERY exciting thrillers to me, "the only game in town" and not musty at all. But Hitchcock's work was done in 1976, and Star Wars was the next year and we''ve had DECADES of action and violence and thrills that have left Hitchcock's movies looking "old." Well they ARE old, but for a long time they ruled. And they are still great as classics.

reply

QT's complaint about Hitchcock not being able to be graphic about sex or violence begs the question, is that even necessary for a movie to be good? The idea that explicit violence and sex equals sophistication is just silly.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for censorship or defending the code at all-- God knows, I love a lot of gory schlock and there are movies were the lack of permissiveness in the code era hurt their ability to really delve into controversial adult subject matter-- but the idea that Rear Window would magically be better if we saw Thorwald hacking his wife to bits or that Notorious would be better if we got voyeuristic sex scenes or that Dial M would magically become a masterpiece if Grace Kelly's attacker got a geyser of blood from his back after her self-defense attack makes no sense to me. It seems juvenile to complain about it when the actual craft, acting, and writing are so fantastic.

Interesting that QT praises Suspicion. I recently rewatched that and was shocked that I liked it more than the first time. I agree about the ambiguous ending, even though I still find the conclusion rushed and mostly unconvincing.

reply

QT's complaint about Hitchcock not being able to be graphic about sex or violence begs the question, is that even necessary for a movie to be good? The idea that explicit violence and sex equals sophistication is just silly.

--

Great point! And it certainly comes up with regard to my own "movie musings" all the time -- particuarly since at heart, I'm not a movie buff...I'm a genre buff in general and a thriller buff in particular. But also Westerns.

Which brings me to my three favorite movies of all time, in this order:

Psycho
North by Northwest
The Wild Bunch

Its an oddly truncated list but I made it after a lot of thought over a lot of years.

Now with two of those movies -- Psycho and The Wild Bunch -- their violence was largely part of their legend. They were both sold as VERY bloody movies though, as we know, Psycho isn't really particularly bloody at all. But The Wild Bunch is. It was made at the very end of the 60s that Psycho inaugurated and now the R rating was available and The Wild Bunch went for it -- with some nudity , too.

Compared to Psycho and The Wild Bunch, North by Northwest is practically blood-free -- a I think we see some blood on Grant's fingers from climbing around Vandamm's Rushmore house.

And yet, five people get killed in North by Northwest...that's three more than get killed in Psycho. Only one of these deaths is an "innocent victim" (the extremely unfortunate Lester Townsend at the UN) but the rest are all...Vandamm's goons. Three of whom are killed by the amateur Thornhill(Licht and the pilot in the crop duster, Valerian on Rushmore) and one by the feds(Leonard on Rushmore.)

So there's a lot of killin' in North by Northwest, but it is all in the service of exhilaration and excitement and "good old fashioned action filmmaking" with no concern about blood or gore or being disturbed on the audiences' part at all.

CONT


reply

NXNW isn't bloody, but it is very TENSE start to finish because -- from the Glen Cove scene on, it becomes clear to Roger Thornhill - a non-trained, non-government, Very Innocent Man -- that Vandamm and his team have only one interest in him: to KILL him. That's all they want to do, all the time, all through the movie, and this creates not only suspense(Thornhill isn't the threat they think he is), it creates a certain TERROR. They never give up, they keep coming after him (at the Plaza, at the UN, on the train) and they keep trying to kill him(in a car, via crop duster, and on Rushmore.) THAT's terrifying in its own way, without blood and gore on the table at all.

And it is proof to ME that I personally do not HAVE to have blood as part of my thriller or Western menu.

This: I can easily recommend North by Northwest as thriller entertainment to anyone of any age, any gender. But I simply CANNOT recommend Frenzy as thriller entertainment to anyone of any age, any gender. I sometimes wonder how that movie made any money at all, and I figure audiences left the theater rather disturbed by what Hitchocck did that time.

The lure of Psycho and The Wild Bunch to me were all the tales (and reviews) citing their shock value and their blood, but when it was all over, that WAS important(they were "forbidden fruit") but not quite why I ranked them alongside the non-bloody NXNW as my favorites.

CONT

reply

I picked those three as my favorites because of all the movies I ever saw at that ripe young age, they were the ones that DELIVERED. NXNW with the car drive, the crop duster, Mount Rushmore at the glorious climax(Topaz ain't got THAT.) Psycho with the shower scene, the staircase murder, the fruit cellar. The Wild Bunch with the opening small town gunbattle and slaughter, the mid-film train robbery and bridge explosion and the final battle at the glorious climax(I have never seen a gunbattle in ANY movie -- before or after The Wild Bunch -- that comes close to the sheer size, intensity, excitement and emotion of that battle to the death(there's a reason: Warner Brothers gave Sam Peckinpah all the time, budget, fake ammo, costumes and effects to go all the way.)

(Key: notice in the three films above, each has THREE big set-pieces, no more no less. An opener, a mid-point, and a climax.)

(Key: but all three of these movies deliver so much more than just the big set pieces. The house in Psycho, The UN murder in NXNW. The long walk to the final battle in the Wild Bunch. These movies just deliver, and deliver, and DELIVER. Compared to so many movies where one leaves saying "that was IT?"

Those three films also hit my life within two years of each other in seeing them: 1967 for NXNW, 1969 for The Wild Bunch, 1970 for Psycho (yes, Psycho had been planted in my mind as early as 1965, but it took that long to see it.)

And that's the OTHER reason those three are THE three in my life. WHEN I saw them. Very young, when they had impact. In the years to come, maybe the action got bigger(Star Wars?) but I got older and movies started to lose that youthful allure.

CONT

reply

elizabethjoestar wrote:

To be clear, I'm not arguing for censorship or defending the code at all-- God knows, I love a lot of gory schlock and there are movies were the lack of permissiveness in the code era hurt their ability to really delve into controversial adult subject matter-- but the idea that Rear Window would magically be better if we saw Thorwald hacking his wife to bits or that Notorious would be better if we got voyeuristic sex scenes or that Dial M would magically become a masterpiece if Grace Kelly's attacker got a geyser of blood from his back after her self-defense attack makes no sense to me. It seems juvenile to complain about it when the actual craft, acting, and writing are so fantastic.

---

Great points all and that's why I started my answer citing how central Psycho, North by Northwest and The Wild Bunch are in my "movie life." Psycho and The Wild Bunch would mark me as a "gore hound," but not North by Northwest. Generally, I take my thrills however they might be developed -- with some blood, or not.

Truth be told, at a certain point -- and this is I expect what QT is aiming at -- blood in some amount became REQUIRED in movie thrillers. Or bloodless but disturbing violence. Think Laurence Olivier going at Dustin Hoffman's teeth in Marathon Man. Or Brenda Blaney being strangled in Frenzy.

I recall being impressed with Peter Hyams 1978 thriller Capricorn One that he set out to make one that had NO blood or ultra-violence, it was all chases and intimation and it was a pretty big hit. Hitchcock had a lesser hit with the same agenda when he bowed out with the non-violent Family Plot in 1976. And BOTH Family Plot AND Capricorn One featured a scene with a sabotaged car careering at high speed as the innocent drivers tried to save their own lives. No blood. Just thrills.

CONT

reply

The very fact that Family Plot and Capricorn One stood out for their "non violence" made them outliers in the 70's. The die was cast, and I suppose that QT is simply stating the obvious: at a certain point, movies HAD to become more violent to satisfy modern audiences.

Here's one: The WIld Bunch is famous for all those bloody bullet hits -- blood spurting out both the front and the back of victims as bullets hit them. Well, take a look at Westerns in the 40 years before The Wild Bunch. How much did gunfighters BLEED?

Not much, not much at all. I think in the 30s, 40s,and much of the fifties, there was no "bullet hit blood" at all. Victims just clutched their chests and fell over.

But in the final gunbattle in The Magnificent Seven(1960) amidst a bunch of bloodless bullet hits, Charles Bronson suddenly spurts blood from one hit to his arm. ONE HIT. I've always wondered: is that all that was allowed of blood in a shootout in 1960?

Paul Newman shoots a man in Hombre(1967) and a weird splatter of "red paint" appears on the IMAGE, but not on the man's face.

How about Clint's spaghetti Westerns? Do the bullets draw blood? (They would in later Clint Eastwood Westerns, in High Plains Drifter and the like.)

I linger on this because truly The Wild Bunch seemed to open the door -- forever -- to bullet hits REQUIRING blood spurts. Which added time and effort to these movies because the effects had to be done. As James Caan said of his Sam Peckinpah spy movie "The Killer Elite": "The blood bags were bursting all over the place on that one."

CONT

reply

Interesting that QT praises Suspicion.

---

Yeah. I would have assumed that if QT much liked Hitchcock at all, it wouldn't be for a "staid old oldie" like Suspicion.

But here he is revealing that he's seen it and he likes it and he thinks it WAS subversive at the end.

To the extent that Hitchcock invented OR perfected so many thriller tropes(the wrong man, child kidnapping, slashers, assasinations, etc) I guess we have to add "who have I REALLY married?" to the list. People in love get married without thinking about exactly WHO they are marrying. What secrets they might posess. How they REALLY feel. Well, Suspicion gets into that.

Suspicion also gets into..suspicion. Paranoia. Jumping to the worst conclusions. I suppose this is one reason the movie can be quite irritating. We WANT an answer at the end -- so, did Cary kill his old friend? Does he want to kill Fontaine? -- but we don't get it, and I think Hitchcock didn't like that. He liked CLARITY in his stories, he was pretty adamant about it, he told Truffaut.

---

I recently rewatched that and was shocked that I liked it more than the first time.

---

I guess I'd better watch it again too. Its my current "new thing" -- reassessing movies I didn't much like.

---

I agree about the ambiguous ending,

---

Suspicion went into "the Hitchcock history books" with the much later Topaz as having "no real ending." Various endings were written, sometimes shot, then discarded -- "compromise endings" were put in that just didn't satisfy.

You want an ENDING? North by Northwest, THAT's got an ending, from Rushmore into the honeymoon train.

---

CONT

reply

even though I still find the conclusion rushed and mostly unconvincing.

---

Yep. Again, the story literally doesn't seem to know how to end -- you can see an "overselling" of menace and the cliff and Grant's outstretched hand (pushing or grabbing.)

Meanwhile: You want great endings? Saboteur, Notorious, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much ("Sorry we're late -- we had to go pick up Hank.") Vertigo, NXNW, Psycho(the cell into the swamp.) The Birds(the end of the world in a great shot), Frenzy("Mr. Rusk, you're not wearing your tie.")

One other not so good ending: Strangers on a Train. A great climax(the runaway carousel). But we now have a DVD with two alternate endings. One is worthless: Ruth Roman telling Pat Hitchcock that Guy has just called and needs a change of clothes. The other is a nice little joke: a new stranger on a train(a priest) asks "aren't you Guy Haines?" and is rebuffed and walked away from. Both are weak and only the priest ending should stand -- as it was shot, to come AFTER the Ruth Roman scene. Very weird, that DVD. You don't HAVE to choose an ending. Simply put the scenes in this order: carousel, phone call from Guy, priest on the train.

CONT

reply

but the idea that Rear Window would magically be better if we saw Thorwald hacking his wife to bits

--

I think I've mentioned this before, but in the 80's, the hard-R rated HBO series "Tales from the Crypt" elected to go "all the way" with this concept - because it was the 80's and they could.

Some guy chops up HIS wife into pieces and throws everything in a trunk and near the end of the episode, somebody opens the lid on that trunk and we see it all: a jumbled mass of legs, arms, torso, and the staring head of the female victim.

"Be careful what you wish for." It was stomach turning, but I was amused: somebody went and gave us "Rear Window: The Gore Version."

reply

The Big Chill, Out of Africa, Ordinary People, Diner, Gandhi, Stand By Me
I'm surprised that QT doesn't have a soft spot for Diner. It's got great dialogue, great performances, and is more or less a great guys-hang-out movie, not a million miles removed from large chunks of Reservoir Dogs and Dazed and Confused. Out of Africa is a kind of film that's pretty rare - a period romance travelogue (see English Patient in the '90s) not a trend to be lamented. Gandhi is a kind of stuffy biopic that's always with us including plenty in the '90s (Chaplin, Hoffa, Nixon, Shine, Wilde, Hilary and Jackie, What's Love Got To Do With It, Selena, and even Braveheart). And, of course there are occasional, explosively good biopics like Amadeus which almost anyone would take over any biopic from the 1990s! Ordinary People is an Oscar-baity family drama much like stuff from the 1990s such as American Beauty or Coming Home and Kramer v. Kraner in the '70s or recent horses--t like Coda. Again, there's nothing very specifically '80s about OP. Stand By Me is pretty terrific [it has an IMDbscore of 8.1 currently, the same as Rebecca (1940) and .2 higher than His Girl Friday (1940)] and is certainly better than everything Rob Reiner did in the '90s not called 'Misery'. That leaves The Big Chill from QT's list of supposed horribles that I can't really defend. TBC has always been a mystery to me. Something about it and its soundtrack hit the spot at the time for millions of people, but not me. I finally caught it on TV some time in the late '90s IIRC. It's so Meh - and feels frozen in 1983 amber for sure. But surely that sort of slightly freakish, zeitgeisty, soundtrack-driven, outsize hit was a feature of the '90s too (The Bodyguard, Singles, Reality Bites come to mind). (Cont'd)

reply

QT is right that the strong point of '80s film is all its big, broad entertainments, but there were lots of old-fashioned "great films" too (just not as many as in each of the 3 previous decades). The following 50+ mostly non-blockbusters from the '80s are all killer no filler: Raging Bull, Elephant Man, Kagemusha, The Shining, Mon Oncle D'Amerique, The Stunt Man, Loulou, Diva, Possession, Das Boot, Gallipoli, Mephisto, Blow Out, My Dinner With Andre, Fanny and Alexander, Tootsie, Blade Runner, Diner, Missing, The King of Comedy, The Hit, Angst, Entre Nous, Videodrome, Spinal Tap, A nos amours, Amadeus, Paris TX, Full Moon in Paris, Blood Simple, Once Upon A Time In America, Broadway Danny Rose, Threads, The Company of Wolves, Brazil, A Room With A View, After Hours, Ran, Purple Rose of Cairo, L'amour braque, Vagabond, The Green Ray, Blue Velvet, Decline of the American Empire, The Year My Voice Broke, The Fly, Mona Lisa, Wings of Desire, Au Revoir Les Enfants, Withnail and I, Raising Arizona, The Vanishing, On the Silver Globe, High Hopes, 36 Fillette, A Fish Called Wanda, Akira, My Neighbor Totoro, Do The Right Thing, The Seventh Continent, Dekalog. I mean place all these on top of your broad spectrum entertainments from ET to Evil Dead to Dirty Dancing to Aliens to Die Hard to Back To The Future to Terminator to The Princess Bride and on and on, and there was certainly more than enough good stuff around in the '80s to keep movie-heads happy. (And my list doesn't include any of the Hong Kong stuff from the '80s that QT was actually deeply influenced by.)

reply

I'm surprised that QT doesn't have a soft spot for Diner. It's got great dialogue, great performances, and is more or less a great guys-hang-out movie, not a million miles removed from large chunks of Reservoir Dogs and Dazed and Confused.

---

Agreed. Hey, the way those guys talk to each other at the diner is very "pre-Tarantino" in the chatter and how this exchange:

Paul Reiser: You done with that sandwich?
Steve Guttenberg: You want it?
Paul Reiser: I'm just asking if you're done with it..
Guttenberg: If you want it, you can have it, but you've got to ask for it.
Reiser: No, I'm just wondering if you're done with it-
Guttenberg: Do you want it? Do you WANT it?

Or something like that..

As a West Coaster, I found that movie to be an interesting "flip side" to American Graffiiti, which was set in cars in California. Here were these guys -- in suits and ties -- gathering at the diner in the wee hours of an East Coast morning -- to eat and jabber away. (Who's better to make out to: Sinatra or Mathis? .....Presley.") A whole other world to me. 1959 Baltimore. The movies "transport us" to other people's lifestyles.

CONT

reply

Out of Africa is a kind of film that's pretty rare - a period romance travelogue (see English Patient in the '90s) not a trend to be lamented.

---

I saw Out of Africa as Sydney Pollack's career topper. He'd been directing big movie stars for a couple of decades -- mainly his pal Robert Redford, but also Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie and Al Pacino in Bobby Deerfield -- and here, finally was his chance to make an Oscar bait love story and win the Big Prizes.

The Redford/Streisand failed love affair of The Way We Were(and the spectacular tear-jerker failed reunion at the end) was a great 1973 memory for me(see, its not all thrillers) and here was Pollack 12 years later ALMOST recreating that feeling with Redford/Streep. There is the issue, in both films, that Redford is more of a beauty than the woman who woos HIM; he's the elusive prize. Though Out of Africa ends in greater tragedy(one of them dies), I find The Way We Were to sadder and to be the bigger memory in my life - but Out of Africa had Africa, a travelogue, and some history to grab the Oscar. Barbra Streisand presented Pollock with his, and sang a the opening words of The Way We Were to him.

CONT

reply

That leaves The Big Chill from QT's list of supposed horribles that I can't really defend. TBC has always been a mystery to me. Something about it and its soundtrack hit the spot at the time for millions of people, but not me. I finally caught it on TV some time in the late '90s IIRC. It's so Meh - and feels frozen in 1983 amber for sure.

--

There's a couple of nice pieces of trivia about that movie.

One is that Kevin Costner was set to debut -- in flashbacks -- as the friend who has committed suicide and brings everyone together at the home of Kevin Kline and Glenn Close for a "funeral reunion." Costner's scenes were shot but it was determined(rightly) that we should never SEE this tragic guy everybody is talking about . All we see is Kevin Costner's hairline as his corpse is prepared for the funeral. "To make it up to him", writer-director Lawrence Kasdan put Costner in the Western Silverado two years later, and recommended Costner to Spielberg for a TV show Spielberg was directing. Spielberg and Kasdan recommended Costner to DePalma for The Untouchables(after Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford turned it down) . Costner got launched BECAUSE he was cut from The Big Chill. And whaddya know, Costner became a bigger star than anyone on screen in The Big Chill(even William Hurt fell short.)

The other trivia is that The Big Chill was an early production of "Johnny Carson Movie Productions." Johnny actually reviewed the script and approved it to go to studio pitches, and watched a final version of it. Turns out, Johnny didn't much like the movie, or the experience of making the movie -- and "Johnny Carson Movie Productions" was dissolved.

Other than the (famous?) "Kline has sex with Mary Kay Place with his wife's blessing" scene; there's not much to The Big Chill except a dangerous amount of self-absorbed talk as a group of sixties activists wonder if they've sold out in their rich middle age. (The answer: yes and no.) And then the movie just "stops."

reply

If QT doesn't like the movies from the 80s, he needs to stay FAR away from the horror genre. He clearly doesn't understand anything about it. Horror peaked in the 80s. This cannot be disputed. That alone makes it a great decade for movies.

reply

WAY up top there, I mentioned "The Last of Sheila" as one of the many, many movies released in that overstuffed year of 1973.

It is a whodunnit murder mystery set among rich Hollywood jet setters, mainly set on an anchored yacht off the coast of...Italy? Sun-drenched. James Coburn is the Hollywood big wig who invites a group of fellow Hollywooders to a "murder mystery party" in which they are given cards with clues to figure out the mysteries(which end up being very private, personal and endangering to their reputations.) The very intelligent whodunnit script was by Anthony Perkins and Stephen Sondheim.

I mention this movie because it has been "informally remade" (in premise at least) as the recent release "Green Onion, A Knives Out Mystery" with Daniel Craig in his NEW franchise role as a great detective.

Stephen Sondheim(who died in 2021) is actually in the movie, though I couldn't find him, I'll be putting out an APB on its board.

Homage that it is, Green Onion only has the sunny setting, the ocean backdrop and a murder mystery party in common with The Last of Shiela (Edward Norton is roughly the James Coburn character, but here based evidently on Elon Musk.)

Still, the second you start watching Green Onion and see the characters gather in the ocean side sun...Last of Sheila enters the mind.

CONT

reply

There's a reason that in my humanities department back in college, Hitchcock was called the Shakespeare of film studies, because of the sheer amount of interpretations he inspired.

--

Yep. Hitchcock got compared a fair amount to Shakespeare in his day and...I'll buy it. He certainly became a "name" the same way(if not as a writer.)

---

Also, if noir is his reason for liking the still very Code-bound 40s, QT seems to completely ignore that noir was still very much a subversive force in the 1950s.

---

Oh, the noir thing was ME talking...MY guess as to why QT liked the 40's better and you have already convinced me that I was wrong in that assumption. There was plenty of noir in the 50's.

In fact , the great crime novelist James Ellroy(LA Confidential) was on TCM introducing some 50's noir films one night and he was asked when noir films ended. Ellroy replied "I think noir ended in 1960 with Psycho. It changed how thrillers would be." So there you go. We've had plenty of noir SINCE Psycho( Chinatown, Blue Velvet, LA Confidential) but I suppose one might call all of it "homage noir."

CONT

reply

A sampling:

Sunset Blvd: A washed up screenwriter becomes the kept man of an egocentric ex-screen queen old enough to be his mother.
Kiss Me Deadly: Atomic age paranoia, complete with sadistic sequences and a strong sexual charge.
The Lineup: A psychotic thug tracking down smuggled drugs kills several innocent people and terrorizes a mother and child to get what he wants.
The Killing: Arguably the best heist movie ever made, and a pretty brutal one regarding human nature.
Gun Crazy: Young criminals getting an erotic charge off violence.
Ace in the Hole: A journalist movie so cynical and bleak that I can't even bring myself to rewatch it.

--
That's some great ones, elizabethjoestar -- including 2 by Billy Wilder. The Killing (early Kubrick) IS a great one. Funny how , because of Sterling Hayden in the lead, it gets confused with ANOTHER great 50's noir about a heist -- "The Asphalt Jungle"; The two films share plot elements and character types, and John Huston helmed The Asphalt Jungle and it has classic cred. But The Killing goes other places -- the "flashbacks to the same scene from a different POV" (very much in QT , especially in Jackie Brown during the department store money switch); the roughness of the crooks(one calls an African American the n word, and in a 50's film, that's shocking), the weak link of the weak guy(Elisha Cook Jr, natch) with the evil cheating wife...

Ace In the Hole was so cynical that it got a title change on release to The Big Carnival , because the "ace in the hole" was a man trapped in an underground cave being exploited for news by tabloid reporter Kirk Douglas. Wilder wanted to open Ace in the Hole with the Paramount mountain dissolving into a rattlesnake striking out at the screen(the film has a New Mexico setting.) He was vetoed -- can't scare the audience! But what a beginning that would have been.

CONT

reply

Also, QT ignores that the 1950s-- for all its Leave It To Beaver conformity on the surface-- is the decade where filmmakers started hitting back against the Code. A Streetcar Named Desire, The Moon is Blue, Carmen Jones, Anatomy of a Murder, Baby Doll, just to name a few, are movies that helped weaken the Code's influence bit by bit.

---

Yes. Foreign films were doing things more directly, but American studio films got wider release across a big United States, so the bit by bit changes were more striking in how EVERYBODY saw them.

(Note in passing: I watched The Seven Samarai some weeks ago and one thing I noticed is that Toshiro Mifune's buttocks area was pretty much exposed through the whole film ---male nudity is different than female nudity as a come on, I guess, but THAT wouldn't have flown in American movies at the time.)

Also, note that all of those movies you mentioned except Carmen Jones, were in black and white -- this in a decade where Hollywood was pushing Technicolor hard to "beat" black and white TV programming. It was as if black and white 50's movies were DESIGNED to say "black and white means a tough storyline, noir, or depressing content..or sex."



CONT

reply

I'm not going to pretend the 50s are my favorite decade for Hollywood movies, but they deserve better than what QT dishes out.

---

Other than QT, I can't think of a known director-writer who has elected to actually "dive in" and write some critical essays -- with personal opinions -- about movies in recent years. Sidney Lumet wrote a really good book about HOW he made HIS movies(lots of good artistic details) and Scorsese did a "sort of" book about American films which I found rather lacking(it was more like a PBS-tie in picture book.)

But here is QT taking his time and reputation to talk -- perhaps in too sketchy a manner -- about the movies and to "smear" entire decades (the 50's and the 80s) in his remarks.

But hey, on boards at "Moviechat," QT has had his desired effect: getting some rebuttals to his ideas. Good for him!

QT doesn't really spend enough time in detail on why the 50s and 80's were so bad. It seems mainly to be a protest, indeed, against "tameness" and "family oriented" or middle-brow movies. Notice that with the 80's, QT goes past the Lucas-Spielberg stuff(which is really for "kids of all ages" as is Ghostbusters from 1984) but seems to have it out for all those "family psychodramas and historical movies" which, indeed, are hardly genre.
A big issue -- to me -- with Kramer vs Kramer(of 1979) and Ordinary People --is that there is no real "cinematic dazzle" to them at all. The camera just sits there and watches the actors(Ordinary People was famously directed by Robert Redford, who won a Best Director Oscar that Hitchcock never did.)

Kramer vs Kramer beat the Big Cinema of Apolcalypse Now; Ordinary People beat the Big Cinema of Raging Bull, and that bugged people at the time even as they were certainly good enough (Kramer was evidently the Number One box office of 1979.)

CONT

reply

A quick comparison of Hitchocck and QT with interviewers:

I found a 1959 interview of Hitchcock by a French critic on the release of North by Northwest, which is such a monumental movie in my life, but this critic says directly to Hitchcock:

Critic: The special effects and cinematography during the Mount Rushmore sequence seemed rather muddy to me.
Hitchcock: Well, I couldn't help that. The lab is responsible for that. I have to take what they give me.

I mean, this is an interview while Hitchcock was PROMOTING the film, and the critic is criticizing the technicals. And Hitchcock answers.

Meanwhile some interviewers came at QT about the violence in his movies and we got these responses(I am merging TWO interviews I read).

QT: I'm shutting you down right now. Listen, you need to UNDERSTAND something, OK? You are only here to help ME promote MY movie! That's your only job!

See, here's Hitchcock obliging one interviewer who dared to criticize him , but thin-skinned QT tore into his interviewers.

It got worse for Hitchcock with a famous spitfire named Orianna Fallaci, who punctured Hitchcock's usual stories, thus:

Hitchcock: You might have a cool blond who is quite nice in public, but get her in a taxicab with a man and she turns into a sexual animal.
Fallaci: And how would YOU know that, Mr. Hitchcock? You don't strike me as too familiar with blondes in taxicabs.
Hitchcock(irritated): One hears things from others!

Its a great interview because she never stops insulting Hitchcock and he never stops parrying her questions and insulting her back. Fallaci ends the interview by saying to Hitchcock's face something like: "I don't think I like the feeling I get about you, Mr. Hitchcock."

QT would have walked out two sentences in.

And thus: here's QT offering all these different arguments and...you just WISH you could see him in a room having to BACK THEM UP with other people.

(We have to, here.)

CONT

reply

Here's an argument that QT makes that I take a little issue with(but its just me):

QT doesn't much like the Marvel movies("I would if I was in my 30s") but then notes(paraphrased):

"I wish the Marvel movies would die out just like those big movie musicals like Paint Your Wagon and Hello Dolly died at the end of the 60's."

Rather apples and oranges.

All those late 60's musicals were the misfires born of the success of The Sound of Music, My Fair Lady and Mary Poppins. The studios just did what they ALWAYS do: copycat a trend. But it was really rather a "middle-aged trend," born of an older generation of moviegoers. It had no "youth audience" to pander to.

The Marvel movies DO pander to youth(and older) and always will and thus may NEVER die out as those movie musicals did.

But this: personally, I LOVED Paint Your Wagon, Hello, Dolly, and a specialty number from Francis Coppola called "Finian's Rainbow." 1968 and 1969 releases. I saw them all in big roadshow theaters. Hello, Dolly had Walter Matthau; I loved him. Paint Your Wagon had Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood, I loved THEM. These were expensive looking big screen movies, and they were a formative part of my youth. Given that Paint Your Wagon -- set in Gold Rush California -- used sweeping Oregon locations -- I was a bit underwhelmed when Cabaret mainly stuck to a claustrophic little Berlin club(except for the outdoor Future Belongs to Me song). I KNOW that Cabaret was the "bigger deal" but it didn't really pan out, either. We weren't flooded with "claustrophobic one room musicals with small orchestras."

I think the bottom line is that musicals IN GENERAL died out. As did Biblicals. As did most Westerns. Only the thriller has truly survived.

CONT

reply

The following 50+ mostly non-blockbusters from the '80s are all killer no filler: Raging Bull, Elephant Man, Kagemusha, The Shining, Mon Oncle D'Amerique, The Stunt Man, Loulou, Diva, Possession, Das Boot, Gallipoli, Mephisto, Blow Out, My Dinner With Andre, Fanny and Alexander, Tootsie, Blade Runner, Diner, Missing, The King of Comedy, The Hit, Angst, Entre Nous, Videodrome, Spinal Tap, A nos amours, Amadeus, Paris TX, Full Moon in Paris, Blood Simple, Once Upon A Time In America, Broadway Danny Rose, Threads, The Company of Wolves, Brazil, A Room With A View, After Hours, Ran, Purple Rose of Cairo, L'amour braque, Vagabond, The Green Ray, Blue Velvet, Decline of the American Empire, The Year My Voice Broke, The Fly, Mona Lisa, Wings of Desire, Au Revoir Les Enfants, Withnail and I, Raising Arizona, The Vanishing, On the Silver Globe, High Hopes, 36 Fillette, A Fish Called Wanda, Akira, My Neighbor Totoro, Do The Right Thing, The Seventh Continent, Dekalog. I mean place all these on top of your broad spectrum entertainments from ET to Evil Dead to Dirty Dancing to Aliens to Die Hard to Back To The Future to Terminator to The Princess Bride and on and on, and there was certainly more than enough good stuff around in the '80s to keep movie-heads happy.

--

Leave it to you, swanstep, to have "the data" to refute QT's more broad take. I think when you get right down to it, ALL decades have had good to great films made and available. The year to year QUANTITY does seem to be reducing in the 21st Century. COVID dealt a big blow to both production and attendance which may never be fixed...but maybe it will.

CONT

reply

I will note in passing that the 60's in some ways was kinda boring at the movies. I remember it well. My parents dutifully took us to get "educated on history" with movies like Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhviago..The Agony and The Ecstasy...55 Days at Peking. These movies were not exactly exciting...there was a sort of stodgy "take your medicine" aspect to them.

I recall one called "The Shoes of the Fisherman" that came out around 1968. It had Anthony Quinn in it, and Laurence Olivier as a "guest star" and -- nobody went to see it. The international producers started to pace American producers in making boring product that had no audience.

Hitchcock famously declined in the 60's and we had to get "new kinds of thrillers" in his place: Bond, overall (almost all Connerys -- the best! And Lazenby's at the end was very good.) But also "ersatz Hitchcock" like Charade, Mirage, Arabesque and Wait Until Dark. A lot of spy movies.

I think the influx of young talent in the 70's made for more exciting movies across all fields. Historical epics declined. Thrillers and "crime pictures" (Dirty Harry, The French Connection, Shaft) came in.

QT digs on a movie called Rolling Thunder, that starred William Devane(just one year after Family Plot) playing a Viet Nam POW returned to America only to have thugs kill his family and put his hand down a garbage disposal. He comes back with a hook for a hand, a shotgun and a POW buddy(Tommy Lee Jones) and kills all the bad guys -- in a whorehouse surrounded by naked women.

THAT's QT's kind of movie. He interviewed the director, who told him "the studio was hot on William Devane as a big new star...they thought he'd be a lot bigger than it turned out." In prasiing Devane, QT notes that "he was one/fourth of the quartet in Hitchcock's Family Plot" - a nice nod by screenwriter QT to Hitchcock's plot structure.

CONT

reply

I digress...but not quite. I think QT is very much proven to be a "Rolling Thunder" kind of guy...musicals and 50's movies in general (say, Around the World in 80 Days) and "Ordinary People" just don't do it for him.

BTW, QT notes that both Rolling Thunder and Taxi Driver had the same writer -- Paul Schrader -- and roughly the same storyline and climax. But one was done "prestige" and the other was done exploitation.

reply

I will note in passing that the 60's in some ways was kinda boring at the movies. I remember it well. My parents dutifully took us to get "educated on history" with movies like Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhviago..The Agony and The Ecstasy...55 Days at Peking. These movies were not exactly exciting...there was a sort of stodgy "take your medicine" aspect to them.
--
Oh wow, you found Lawrence of Arabia stodgy? I just saw that and adored it-- beautifully shot, it felt like an epic made for grown-ups, where the filmmakers aren't telling you how to feel about the titular character, who has both flaws and strengths that feel real. But then again, I'm 29 and not a kid being dragged to the theater...

I do think the 60s got bogged down with bloated epics, once again as a result of competing with television. My grandmother saw Cleopatra on a date at the time and she still recalls it with contempt ("What a boring mess! Good thing people didn't just go to the drive-in for the movie, if you know what I mean!"). It was a time of transition, with the old not going down easy and other filmmakers fighting for bold new visions (most of the time younger filmmakers, though not always).

Omg i've never heard of Rolling Thunder, but that sounds insanely entertaining-- and very Tarantinoesque lol.

reply

Oh wow, you found Lawrence of Arabia stodgy? I just saw that and adored it-- beautifully shot, it felt like an epic made for grown-ups, where the filmmakers aren't telling you how to feel about the titular character, who has both flaws and strengths that feel real. But then again, I'm 29 and not a kid being dragged to the theater...

---

Ha. Well, the first time, I WAS a kid dragged to the theater. I have a bleak childhood memory of seeing that movie. It was so LONG for a kid. I entered the theater with a sore throat, and came out with...the mumps(oh, I'm sure I had them anyway but I REALLY had them when the movie was over.) All that desert sand and heat and light with a SORE THROAT? (Mumps.) It was BAD.

I caught up with Lawrence of Arabia in re-release as an adult and saw much to admire but....still not my full cup of tea. I was always intrigued by the number of fairly uneducated studio execs who SWORE by Lawrence of Arabia. They wouldn't be caught dead calling Psycho a favorite.

---

CONT

reply

I do think the 60s got bogged down with bloated epics, once again as a result of competing with television.

---

And it was that "copycat thing" again. The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur were the box office templates. (Each of which had a strong religious element of course -- the whole ting in one movie, a little in the other.)

I've seen Ben-Hur about twice in my life. The chariot race stands as one of the greatest action scenes ever filmed of ALL TIME, very modern in its action and real stunts.

But the rest of the movie is very "old school," long and overstuffed and produced on a massive scale -- its not that I didn't like it, its that it just took a lot of time and effort to watch. And I couldn't CONCEIVE of how it was made -- Psycho was much easlier to figure out, much more compact.

An astute critic in 1960 on Psycho wrote, "Psycho is surely the sickest movie ever made...but perhaps this is the future of movies as opposed to Ben-Hur giganticism." He was, pretty much, right, given all the thrillers and action movies and horror movies that came along(especially in the 80s and 90s.) I often think of how doggone EASY Psycho was to make versus Ben-Hur.

---

CONT

reply

My grandmother saw Cleopatra on a date at the time and she still recalls it with contempt ("What a boring mess! Good thing people didn't just go to the drive-in for the movie, if you know what I mean!").

---

I recall my mother going to see Cleopatra with her best female friend...and disappearing for the day. Here's why: it was on a double bill with The Birds! And Cleopatra is like almost four hours long. But my mother and her friend were movie people, they "stuck out" both movies. (And she had already taken me to The Birds. I guess maybe she liked it. I never asked.)

Its funny to think that some theater owner felt that Cleopatra could USE a second feature. The Birds proved relevant, though -- Cleopatra beat The Birds for the 1963 special effects Oscar, which enraged Truffaut and rather irks me, too. Hah.

---

-It was a time of transition, with the old not going down easy and other filmmakers fighting for bold new visions (most of the time younger filmmakers, though not always).

----

Yes..."young filmakers" was a little harder to parse with guys( and it was guys) like Cassavetes Frankenheimer and Arthur Penn doing their thing. Sidney Lumet.

I read a book by producer Walter Mirsch a few years ago and it was eye-opening. One reason that "old" directors like Billy Wilder kept getting work after flop after flop after flop is that if Billy Wilder got work, Mirsch got work -- as a producer of a greenlit film. So these guy mutually propped each other up to keep everybody working. Not that I mind, I like having all the late Wilder films as much as all the late Hitchcock films.

---

CONT

reply

Omg i've never heard of Rolling Thunder, but that sounds insanely entertaining-- and very Tarantinoesque lol.

---

Its very interesting, the early part deals in a bleak way with a POW (Devane) come back to a wife who is now with another man(I think she divorced Devane) and a teenage son with whom he can't connect. There's a fair amount of "reality" before the grisly action kicks in.

The problem is that the Texas town where Devane has returned has gifted him a couple of thousand dollars in gold coins -- and the thugs come to steal them(NO respect for a POW, though I think one of the thugs is a Nam vet and tells our hero this.)

The family is killed, Devane loses his hand, gains a hook, and oh yeah, it satisfying when he gets his revenge, with a war buddy along(Tommy Lee Jones) to help.

Funny: QT gives one chapter in his book to Rolling Thunder and one to Hardcore(Midwestern church deacon George C. Scott searching for his daughter in porn world Los Angeles.) But ANOTHER critic -- Charles Taylor, I believe -- wrote about the same two movies in HIS book of some years ago on 70's movies, which I own. The connection between Rolling Thunder and Hardcore i Paul Schrader, who wrote both and directed Hardcore.

So we've got a lot of ink out there on Rolling Thunder and Hardcore. I've only seen Rolling Thunder and it IS good. And maybe William Devane SHOULD have been a bigger star -- but TV is where he ended up. (And he is Hitchcock's Final Villain, and a great one.)

reply

Re: Tarantino's thin skin

Yeah, it doesn't shock me either. Back in the 90s, I think he had a few scrapes with photographers and the like. He once got arrested for hitting one. And then there was his bad reaction to the horrible reviews he got when he tried acting on Broadway. He openly admitted in later years that all the bad press "got to him" and that he thought it was "f**ked up" that people were savagely mocking him.

Interesting how his characters talk so tough when he has such a thin skin. Not that I'd relish being torn to shreds in public either... but I assume when you work in Hollywood, that's to be expected, isn't it? And Tarantino himself doesn't exactly mince words when he criticizes other people.

reply

Re: Tarantino's thin skin

Yeah, it doesn't shock me either. Back in the 90s, I think he had a few scrapes with photographers and the like. He once got arrested for hitting one.

---

Yes, and I think he hit some lower level producer guy who was bugging him. Not very hard though. It was more of a "slap fight" and he was mocked: "Mr. Tough Guy" could only slap?

Reservoir Dogs has its hard-boiled robbers saying some tough things, some racial things, some sexual things -- but always with a realistic, amusing edge. When Harvey Keitel read the script and agreed to star and help fund it, he said to QT: "Do you know some people in the gangster world?" And QT said no, he pretty much just made that stuff up.

And WE like movies that talk that tough, even if we don't. As someone wrote, we enjoy hanging with the gangsters in The Godfather, GoodFellas, and The Sorpranos so as to be "a fly on the wall with gangsters," but in real life, we would avoid them, run away from them. (Sopranos creator David Chase noted of Tony and his gang, "You wouldn't want to attract their attention.") And that goes for QT. He WRITES tough people, but he's not really tough.

---

And then there was his bad reaction to the horrible reviews he got when he tried acting on Broadway.

---

Interestingly enough, that Broadway gig was as the psycho leader of thugs in Wait Until Dark -- Alan Arkin's role. Marisa Tomei took Audrey Hepburn's blind-lady-in-distress role.

---

CONT

reply

He openly admitted in later years that all the bad press "got to him" and that he thought it was "f**ked up" that people were savagely mocking him.

---

Well, he lives and works in an era where haters are given the same access as fans to the internet. Its a rough world. If I were him, I just wouldn't read that stuff.

On Youtube, you can find QT engaged in some angry interviews about the violence in his films. His answers range from "I've answered these questions before and I'm not going to do it anymore. Look at the old interviews" to "Because its FUN!" True, although the violence in his films often goes farther than in other people's films. Its sicker, and he prides himself in being a "heavy metal in movies."

---

Interesting how his characters talk so tough when he has such a thin skin. Not that I'd relish being torn to shreds in public either... but I assume when you work in Hollywood, that's to be expected, isn't it?

---

Yes, but perhaps not with the 24/7 wraparound hatred of social media.

---

And Tarantino himself doesn't exactly mince words when he criticizes other people.

---

No he doesn't. He has "entered the critical fray" with his new book and he's pretty tough on some people.

So...suck it up, QT!

---

CONT

reply

Other than QT, I can't think of a known director-writer who has elected to actually "dive in" and write some critical essays -- with personal opinions -- about movies in recent years.
--
Tuffaut and Godard started out as critics before becoming big filmmakers in the 60s, but I suppose that's not recent...
--
But hey, on boards at "Moviechat," QT has had his desired effect: getting some rebuttals to his ideas. Good for him!
--
Lmao yeah-- and the discussions are fun!!

reply

Other than QT, I can't think of a known director-writer who has elected to actually "dive in" and write some critical essays -- with personal opinions -- about movies in recent years.
--
Truffaut and Godard started out as critics before becoming big filmmakers in the 60s, but I suppose that's not recent...

---

Well, those guys used the easier entry of the French film industry for critics to work as directors, I think.

Peter Bogdanovich wrote film criticism before becoming a director, but it was more in the way of "monographs" for film retrospectives on people like Ford and Hitchcock.

As QT points out in his new book, "Old School" movie directors barely saw other movies let alone obsessed about them, wrote about them. Though I think Hitchcock "stayed current'(where John Ford, Frank Capra, and Howard Hawks did not) by watching all manner of movies in his private screening room ---- even Blaxploitation movies and Russ Meyers movies in the 70's. Hitchcock saw House on Haunted Hill in his screening room - that helped lead to Psycho. I'll bet that Douglas Sirk movies and Tenneesee Williams movies steered him to Marnie. Diabolique not only steered Hitchcock to Psycho, it steered him to Vertigo -- a movie made from the Diabolique novelists. And Hitch saw a fair amount of foreign films and R-rated sexual violence movies in preparing Frenzy. I would suggest there is some of The Sting in Family Plot(low level swindlers against more dangerous crooks.)
--
But hey, on boards at "Moviechat," QT has had his desired effect: getting some rebuttals to his ideas. Good for him!
--
Lmao yeah-- and the discussions are fun!!

---

Yes they are!

reply

Also, note that all of those movies you mentioned except Carmen Jones, were in black and white -- this in a decade where Hollywood was pushing Technicolor hard to "beat" black and white TV programming. It was as if black and white 50's movies were DESIGNED to say "black and white means a tough storyline, noir, or depressing content..or sex."
--
Yeah, the relationship between subject matter and color choice in movies made between the 40s and 60s is interesting.

Color was around for film as early as the silent era, but it was such a pain that it was rarely utilized for full movies or beyond special color scenes in otherwise fully B&W movies. In the 30s, we got three-strip Technicolor and that tended to be used for fantasies (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Wizard of Oz), adventures (The Adventures of Robin Hood), costume dramas (Becky Sharp), or sweeping historical epics (Gone With the Wind). In the 40s, musicals got added to the "tends to be in color" bunch. In the 50s and 60s, more and more comedies did as well, reserving monochrome for "grittier" works in the noir, horror, thriller, and drama genres.

Of course, color eventually won out, dark subject matter or no, largely due to TV competing for eyeballs. I'm reminded of a story told by director Terence Young in the early 70s. Before filming started on Wait Until Dark in early 1967, he told studio head Jack Warner he wanted to shoot the movie in black-and-white, feeling that would suit the story. However, Warner told him he was nuts because they NEEDED color to compete with television, which was still a largely B&W medium. Said Young ruefully, "Color is now obligatory under the rule of television."

reply

Color was around for film as early as the silent era, but it was such a pain that it was rarely utilized for full movies or beyond special color scenes in otherwise fully B&W movies. In the 30s, we got three-strip Technicolor and that tended to be used for fantasies (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Wizard of Oz), adventures (The Adventures of Robin Hood), costume dramas (Becky Sharp), or sweeping historical epics (Gone With the Wind). In the 40s, musicals got added to the "tends to be in color" bunch. In the 50s and 60s, more and more comedies did as well, reserving monochrome for "grittier" works in the noir, horror, thriller, and drama genres.

---

Some good history there. I'm always surpised, watching TCM, when an "old"(30s or 40s) movie comes on and is in color. It was obviously a big decision when that was done.

---

Of course, color eventually won out, dark subject matter or no, largely due to TV competing for eyeballs. I'm reminded of a story told by director Terence Young in the early 70s. Before filming started on Wait Until Dark in early 1967, he told studio head Jack Warner he wanted to shoot the movie in black-and-white, feeling that would suit the story.

---

Interesting -- might have made it look like more of a companion piece to Psycho. As we have the two films now, Wait Until Dark looks more expensive and plush and "studio bound" that the more raw Psycho - that I do find that Psycho is remarkably "crystalline" (see other thread) in its look, it does NOT look too cheap when the big house is on screen, inside or out.

---

CONT

reply

However, Warner told him he was nuts because they NEEDED color to compete with television, which was still a largely B&W medium. Said Young ruefully, "Color is now obligatory under the rule of television."

---

Yep, particularly COLOR television sets, which kind of crept in during the early 60s and then ended up in enough homes by 1966 to REQUIRE the switch to color films(1966 was the last year of the BLACK AND WHITE categories -- cinematography , art direction ) at the Oscars.

From then on, black and white became a "specialty choice" much as color had been in the 30s. Only the most successful directors could get clearance for black and white -- Mel Brooks, Woody Allen and Tim Burton; Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese.) Peter Bogdanovich made a splash by making his second film - - considered a "debut" by some -- in b/w(The Last Picture Show) but he convinced his hippie counterculture producers it was the right thing to do.

Its interesting with Hitchcock. All of the 20s and 30s, and most of the 40's in black and white. Then in 1948, his first color film -- Rope (did he choose color to juice up the one-set setting of the tale?). Then one more color film(Under Capricorn.) Then over to Warner Brothers and black and white for Strangers on a Train and I Confess. (A pondering: what if Strangers on a Train had been in color? The fairground sequences might have been something to see.)

Then Dial M for Murder in color(another one set film) and color to the end of Hitchcock's career (50s , 60s, 70s) with two exceptions: The Wrong Man (1956) for the grim semi-documentary look of the film, and Psycho(1960) mainly not to run afoul of the censors with red blood in the shower(is that like red sails in the sunset?) but also, I expect, to make sure the horror tale felt more like Diaboique, House on Haunted Hill, and every B-level horror movie of the 50s.

CONT

reply

Hitchcock's only psycho movie after the movie Psycho was Frenzy(1972), in color. If he switched to black and white, Frenzy might have seemed more of a "kissing cousin" to Psycho, but Hitch made the most of his FIRST Technicolor movie about a psycho:

The killer had bright and distinctive butterscotch-blonde hair, with a touch of red. He wore a big purple tie in one scene where he talked to his next victim -- a woman wearing a bright orange suit which ended up being evidence after he killed her and hid the clothes. Several scenes contraste the red-blond Rusk against blue backgrounds. And the Covent Garden fruit and vegatable market was a place of the various colors of FOOD.

No , color was as perfect for Frenzy as black and white was for Psycho. Even though Psycho ended up with nothing but color sequels and a color remake...

reply

If QT doesn't like the movies from the 80s, he needs to stay FAR away from the horror genre. He clearly doesn't understand anything about it. Horror peaked in the 80s. This cannot be disputed. That alone makes it a great decade for movies.

--

That's a very interesting point. QT has some connection to horror in his own work -- he wrote(and starred in) From Dusk Til Dawn and his ultra-violent movies like Death Proof and The Hateful Eight have horror elements.

In his sweeping diss of the 80's (mainly over movies like Ordinary People and The Big Chill), perhaps QT simply forgot about all that horror.

It was a big decade for the rebirth of the slasher movie, and for sequels(Psycho II/III) and remakes (The Thing, The Fly, The Blob.) Freddy and Jason and Michael Myers were joined by a returning Norman Bates...

I would like to note this: it has always felt to me like after the 70's, "low budget horror movies" stopped LOOKING low budget. Something about the film stock, cameras and technology of movie-making in the 80s, 90s, 2000s' and on to today can "fake it" so that the most cheap budget movie "looks good." (Maybe digital?) 70's horror and exploitation(like Walking Tall) looks gritty and rough and cheap in comparison.

reply

And I will add that the scene where Brad Pitt visits the ranch of loonies in Once Upon a Time shows QT could do horror if he wanted.

reply

I really wish he would make a horror movie. It would be fascinating at least.

reply

OK, I'm going to drop a quote from QT that I've never forgotten. It's at the end of this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/27/quentin-tarantino-next-film-western-django-unchained

Here's the key quote tho':

Last month [QT] was extolling the virtues of this genre-hopping, telling a South Korean film festival that, "When I make a film I am hoping to reinvent the genre a little bit. I just do it my way. I make my own little Quentin versions of them... I consider myself a student of cinema. It's almost like I am going for my professorship in cinema and the day I die is the day I graduate. It is a lifelong study." He added that he couldn't make a serial killer movie because it would "reveal my sickness far too much."
Around the same time, I recall QT saying to some journalist something like that if he made ever a horror movie it would be so sick and terrifying that it would 'break the world'. At any rate, I don't think QT has seriously talked about writing and directing horrors in the ten years since whereas he's never stopped with the 'ten films total' talk. Thus, it appears that QT thought about it for a while but decided not to make his final film or films anything as potentially exposing as horror would be.

reply