I mean compared with beautiful films like Rebecca, Vertigo and Rear Window. Didn't he have any Monew his laer years. I think this film could have been better and more fun to watch if it did not look like something an amatour could have filmed. The story was quite interesting.
shareI just saw it on HDNet and it looked pretty good. Lots of interesting crane shots and the pullback down the stairs during one of the murders was brilliant (of course that was Hitch's idea). The cinematography may not be on the level of Rear Window but it certainly wasn't amateur.
shareGoing to presume English is not your native language
Cinematography is perfect in this movie. Exactly what Hitchcock wanted. Not sure if you ever saw this movie projected onto a big screen. If you saw a cheap video knockoff...well then that would explain your comment...
Robert Burks filmed all the Hitchcocks from Strangers on A Train through Marnie -- except for Psycho, done by Hitch's TV DP, John Russell.
Burks established a clean, glossy, almost "3-D" like clarity to Hitchcock's movies that was hard to beat after Burks died in 1968.
I'll agree that the opening Thames shot of Frenzy looks a little "seventies cheap"(particularly with Ron Goodwin's rather tinny-sounding credit theme), but honestly, Hitchcock had one of the best cinematographers ever on Frenzy: Gil Taylor.
Taylor had done A Hard Day's Night and would do Star Wars and knew his way around how to make a movie look either "cinema verite"(Night) or "fanciful"(Star Wars.) Taylor also did the great cinematography for Dr. Strangelove, which mixes cinema verite(the battle scenes) with gloss(the War Room.)
Though I have a little trouble with the opening shot over the Thames(which has aged badly, too) much of the rest of Frenzy is quite clear, quite glossy. The opening shot of the politican speaking. All the shots of the gleaming fruit in Covent Garden.
And I would single out the color scheme in the two most notorious scenes: Rusk's murder of Brenda Blaney and his nighttime ride on a potato truck. Both scenes make the most of constrasting Rusk's bright "butterscotch blonde red hair" with soothing BLUE backgrounds (the mottled Glass on Brenda's office door; the blue night sky and blue truck of the potato truck scene.) These grim scenes are, perversely, quite pleasing to the eye.
I agree.
indoor scenes are cheap and amateurish, outdoor scenes are as hitchcock's classics as they can get
Cinematography is lighting.
Nothing wrong with it in this film and I have seen a cleaned up version.
It's that man again!!
There is a cheaper look at times but that is for many reasons. Most of what Hitch did in the states was studio work where you can have LOADS of light and perfect Art direction. This film is a lot more on location and you have to use limited lights so getting that glossy look is much harder plus the budget was much lower and Hitchcock was trying to move away from his stylistic look and be more contemporary.
shareI saw this on an HD channel and there is nothing wrong with the cinematography. If you compare it to the 50's Hitchcock films they used a different color film system then. It was a much more saturated color look in the 50's.
shareThe colour system used in the 50's and the 70's was pretty much the same. The TECHNICOLOR look came to a stop in the USA in 1974 and the UK in 1978.
Most of Hitchcock's films in Hollywood were shot on film rated at 25iso and slow lenses requiring huge amounts of light and that's why they were mainly shot in studios along with most other films. On Frenzy he was using faster film 100iso and faster lenses which will make any film look inferior plus he had to shoot in real locations in grey London and getting vast amounts of light onto film in real locations was virtually impossible so achieving the high contrast, saturated look was virtually impossible.
Most of Hitchcock's films in Hollywood were shot on film rated at 25iso and slow lenses requiring huge amounts of light and that's why they were mainly shot in studios along with most other films. On Frenzy he was using faster film 100iso and faster lenses which will make any film look inferior plus he had to shoot in real locations in grey London and getting vast amounts of light onto film in real locations was virtually impossible so achieving the high contrast, saturated look was virtually impossible.
---
Very helpful technical discussion.
While I think a few shots in Frenzy are "classic Hitchocck"(notably the high shot of Rusk pushing the wheelbarrow with Babs in it towards the potato truck, which requires a matte painting of London at night), much of the film is bracingly "real" and very much in accord with what movies were supposed to be in 1972.
Irony: movies got back to looking fake in the Spielberg/Lucas period, right up to today. Hitchcock would have been at home again.
But with Frenzy, he was gritty.
Irony: movies got back to looking fake in the Spielberg/Lucas period, right up to today. Hitchcock would have been at home again.Interestingly, however, it was Gil Taylor's insistence on shooting the Tatooine scenes in Star Wars not only with very classical western framing but also with a very hard-edged look to it (whereas Lucas wanted diffusion filters to soften everything) that grounded the whole series. Arguably Star Wars doesn't become Star Wards without Taylor getting his way over Lucas on this. I've linked to this interview with Taylor before because it's such a classic:
Oh, for goshsakes! This was shot by Gilbert Taylor, one of the all-time great cinematographers. When you have a film composed of simple interiors and exteriors, you aren't going to get gorgeous vistas, etc. The whole point of this film is to get you into the claustrophobic world of the characters and situations, and Taylor does that beautifully!
I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood
Oh, for goshsakes! This was shot by Gilbert Taylor, one of the all-time great cinematographers. When you have a film composed of simple interiors and exteriors, you aren't going to get gorgeous vistas, etc. The whole point of this film is to get you into the claustrophobic world of the characters and situations, and Taylor does that beautifully!Exactly.
Getting Taylor, however, was key.
---
One thing I have read somewhere is that Gil Taylor assisted Hitchcock as almost a "back-up director" during the making of Frenzy, with Hitchcock sitting nearby as Taylor got the camera ready and subtly helped with the direction of actors.
There is, thanks to a 2012 book on "Frenzy," a good record of Hitchocck almost always being on the set for Frenzy, but it would seem at a time in his life when age and health were getting him down(plus the stroke of his wife Alma IN London, during this production), having some pros around to "do the hard work" was helpful.
Aside from the assistant director who actually directed a few second unit things, it looks like Gil Taylor was the pro.
If you want to see a cheap looking Hitchcock watch Topaz, it looks like a TV movie, Frenzy looks dark and gritty which is appropriate for the film.
shareI agree with ecarle. The gritty look seems to work very well for Frenzy. It's one of Hitch's most violent and - by far - most sexually graphic film. The dialogue is also racy and blunt. There's a grimy dirt-under-the-nails quality about this film we aren't used to seeing, and that's what made it both shocking and wholly refreshing for a Hitch film. I don't think having that Marnie studio gloss would work as well here.
And the times were changing anyways in the 70s, and Hitch knew his films had to move away the traditional look.