Which Is Your Favourite Hitchcock Movie?

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:44 am

My favourite Hitchcock film is "Rear Window." He gets so much action within that tiny little apartment setting and that narrow alley. I like everything about it but Kelly's acting when she say's: "Tell me everything from the beginning and what you think it means" was a bit sloppy.

I like all of his films except "Family Plot."

He did something to the camera lens that really bugs me. In some films it looks like he was shooting through a piece of gauze stretched across the lens. It kicks the lens out of focus and when he pans you can see "microscopic dots" that travel with the lens, as if the lens had dust on it. It is most noticeable in "The Birds." It gives the same effect you get when you press your face against your screen door. I was always tempted to write and tell him to "take that thing off the lens and focus your camera." That just bugs me to no end. Where's my hatchet!

He had a strange way of making a film. They really get under your skin. He was not afraid of going outside the box and tell a story in an unusual manner. Hitchcock's wicked sense of humor came through in many of his films. TCM recently showed an old (1972ish) Dick Cavett interview with Hichcock that was very interesting. Too bad he destroyed Tippi Hedrin's carrear.

Which is your favourite film?

-1bigsteve (o:

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:08 pm

If I saw "Rear Window" in the theatre I don't remember much. More from seeing on TV (PBS?) in the late 1980s or early 1990s. What struck me is the staticness of this film, as if it was taken from a stage play. Like "Dial M for Murder".
Raymond Burr played the part of the villain: a man who kills his wife and tries to dispose of the body in a trunk.
Remarkable too is the photographer and his lover, who are said to be wealthy people who just play at working! The 1950s politics?
I once read the photographer was based on a real news photographer who had been killed in a war. Ditto his lover. Any comments?

"Shadow of a Doubt" is more scary because it takes place in an ordinary neighborhood, with people that could be your neighbors. A close relative who often disappears on "business"?

Kashesan · Post by **Kashesan** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:11 pm

Hitchcock is beyond compare!

I loved "Shadow Of A Doubt" too. Also "Vertigo" and "Strangers On A Train" I can't think of one Hitchcock film that I actually dislike-

I even liked "Family Plot" but the book it was based on "The Rainbird Pattern" was much darker. "Family Plot" was cute.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:14 pm

Psycho, The Birds, and Rear Window

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:30 pm

I love "Vertigo" because the beginning is so romantic and mysterious. It shows all the places in San Francisco that I used to know when I lived there as a young girl falling in love for the first time, so it makes me very nostalgic. Even the old mission I remember because my husband to be and I went there on a trip.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:35 pm

Angel @ Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:30 am wrote:I love "Vertigo" because the beginning is so romantic and mysterious. It shows all the places in San Francisco that I used to know when I lived there as a young girl falling in love for the first time, so it makes me very nostalgic. Even the old mission I remember because my husband to be and I went there on a trip.

Me and my brother-in-law visited that mission, San Juan Batista, a few years ago, Ellen, and that wagon that Novak sits in is still there in the same shed in the same spot and does not look like it has moved an inch since '58!

Ironicly, Novak had a custom home built not too far from that mission about 15 years ago and my brother-in-law helped build Novak's house. He said she would not enter the house to check on the progress until all the workers went outside. He said that was so "up posh" he wanted to puke!

Vertigo is a good film. I love watching it. I remember many of the San Francisco scenes from my visit in '64. I can almost smell those crabs cooking now.

-1bigsteve (o:

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:37 pm

Number 17, an interestingly offbeat early film with a haunting musical score; Rich and Strange, an early comedy about a nouveau riche couple who go traveling; The Man Who Knew Too Much (the 1934 version, of which older editions of Leonard Maltin's book said, "added bonus: nobody sings 'Que Sera Sera'"); The 39 Steps; Secret Agent; Sabotage; The Lady Vanishes (a special favorite, rich in both suspense and comedy); Spellbound (though questionable in its psychology); Rope; Vertigo; North by Northwest.

Some clinkers: Mr. and Mrs. Smith (a comedy that starts well, but has a singularly lame and abrupt ending); The Trouble With Harry (definitely not our Harry), a rather endearing misfire; and Frenzy, a truly ugly film.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:50 pm

Frenzy, a truly ugly film

Wasn't that last great film from Hichcock made in England and "based on" a real crime? A simplified version of that 1948? trial where a man was hanged for killing his wife where the chief prosecution witness was the real murderer?
"10 Rillington Place" is a book and a movie. Murder is ugly.

In one early case in France a detective was told that a man was guilty of murder. When they couldn't find any evidence against him, the accuser went to a hiding place and found the murder weapon. "There's your proof of guilt!". This person was then arrested for the murder. The Man Who Knew Too Much?

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:30 pm

Wasn't that last great film from Hichcock made in England and "based on" a real crime? A simplified version of that 1948? trial where a man was hanged for killing his wife where the chief prosecution witness was the real murderer?
"10 Rillington Place" is a book and a movie. Murder is ugly.

Of course murder is ugly. But a murder mystery is not a real murder but only a depiction of one (or more), the circumstances of which vary and must be judged accordingly. Frenzy graphically depicts a particularly sick murder involving severe humiliation of the victim.

Ugliness in itself does not discredit a film, of course. Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer, for example, is an ugly film and a brilliant one. I find Frenzy rather clumsy. (Its attempts at comedy, for example, are laughable in the wrong way.) No doubt I was imprecise in my objections to it. Many disagree with me, of course. I will admit it has its good points. If I saw it again, I might or might not find my reaction different.

Frenzy is not based on the Rillington Place murders, to which it bears only a slight resemblance. (See crimelibrary.com for a detailed account of the case.)

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:41 pm

Ooooo, I love Hitchcock's work; Psycho, Marnie, The Birds, Rear Window and Vertigo have all been favorites of mine.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:27 am

I am partial to North by Northwest.

I was working at the Sach 57 Cinema in Boston when Hitchcock had his *World Premiere* there of Frenzy.
I met the man personally, and had some kek! What more could you ask for!
He was very large, tall and very red.

I saw the movie again last year and was very surprised to see nudity. There wasn't any nudity in Boston in 1972!
I thought it was a pretty interesting film anyway- about a serial killer.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:56 am

Constantine @ Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:30 pm wrote:
Wasn't that last great film from Hichcock made in England and "based on" a real crime? A simplified version of that 1948? trial where a man was hanged for killing his wife where the chief prosecution witness was the real murderer?
"10 Rillington Place" is a book and a movie. Murder is ugly.
Of course murder is ugly. But a murder mystery is not a real murder but only a depiction of one (or more), the circumstances of which vary and must be judged accordingly. Frenzy graphically depicts a particularly sick murder involving severe humiliation of the victim.

Ugliness in itself does not discredit a film, of course. Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer, for example, is an ugly film and a brilliant one. I find Frenzy rather clumsy. (Its attempts at comedy, for example, are laughable in the wrong way.) No doubt I was imprecise in my objections to it. Many disagree with me, of course. I will admit it has its good points. If I saw it again, I might or might not find my reaction different.

Frenzy is not based on the Rillington Place murders, to which it bears only a slight resemblance. (See crimelibrary.com for a detailed account of the case.)

Yes, a person's reaction to a movie will tend to change over the years. "Frenzy" would be censored locally, I believe. It marked the new freedoms in the film since the mid 1960s and the end of the "Legion of Decency" and other groups. Why that happened is another mystery!

There are theories about mixing comedy and horror, the better to impress the horror after the comedy. 'Frenzy" mixes the usual Hitchcock theme of a wrong man entrapped as a suspect in a criminal or murder (the bottom line in most of his movies). Some say it marked some personal history.

Too much horror is bad for commercial success, which requires a happy ending. Remember "Rollover"? 'Slasher' films like "Scream" don't count, we know the good guy will somehow survive.

But what can be more horrible for an average person than to be wrongly accused? If you are cleared, there will be some who say you made a deal or the jury was wropng (Lizzie, OJ). You will never live it down, even if you move. Erle Stanley Gardener's "The Queenly Contestant" mentioned that old new could be considered libelous if you were a private person. But those days are gone.

PS I am not very knowledgable about "10 Rillington Place", saw the B&W movie about 25 years ago on TV. WHAT true crime is it based on?
I do not read many True Crime books, only the ones that are significant due to wide publicity. Ever read "Frame-Up" by Curt Gentry?

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:22 pm

10 Rillington Place was based on a series of murders that took place in London in the 1940's and early 1950's. In early 1950, Timothy Evans was convicted of and executed for the murders of his wife and infant daugher. He accused a neighbor, John Reginald Christie of the murders. Six more bodies were subsequently discovered, three in a cupboard behind a wall, one (Christie's wife) under the floor and two more buried in the garden. Christie was convicted and executed for these. It is disputed whether Christie committed all the murders or whether Evans was in fact guilty of the murders of his wife and child. See the website I mentioned for a fuller description.

Incidentally, I watched Number 17 again last night. I found it muddled and hard to follow, and so withdraw my recommendation.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:29 am

VERTIGO is #1.

i watched it last week -- it's been about a year since i last saw it. i wrote an essay on it for a film class once.

i realized i could do a better job of it now.

voyeurism, obsession, "falling in love" as in "going insane." i'm struck by how personal it is, and he managed to slip it into the mainstream. i don't think it did that well at the time, but this is one of those that grows over time.

secondarily, i would say Psycho and Rear Window and Shadow of a Doubt.

But he never exceeded "Vertigo" as an artist. that was his hight point.

Wordweaver · Post by **Wordweaver** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:27 pm

RayS @ Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:50 pm wrote:
Frenzy, a truly ugly film
Wasn't that last great film from Hichcock made in England and "based on" a real crime? A simplified version of that 1948? trial where a man was hanged for killing his wife where the chief prosecution witness was the real murderer?
"10 Rillington Place" is a book and a movie. Murder is ugly.

In one early case in France a detective was told that a man was guilty of murder. When they couldn't find any evidence against him, the accuser went to a hiding place and found the murder weapon. "There's your proof of guilt!". This person was then arrested for the murder. The Man Who Knew Too Much?

You're thinking of Timothy Evans (the man who was hanged for killing his own child), and his demonic co-tenant John Reginald Christie, who raped and murdered half a dozen women, possibly including Evans's wife and child.

And yes: these are vicious, horrible, brutal crimes.

Lynn

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:22 am

I just remembered an early movie Hitchcock did that I saw a few months ago called "The Lodger" from 1927 (Silent). It was a kind of "Jack The Ripper" type and really showed the strong Hitchcock style that we see in his latter films. His first film was unfinished from 1922 called "Number 13."

"The Lodger" was a real good, creepy film. I'd like to see it again.

-1bigsteve (o:

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:50 am

Kat @ Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:27 am wrote:I am partial to North by Northwest.

I was working at the Sach 57 Cinema in Boston when Hitchcock had his *World Premiere* there of Frenzy.
I met the man personally, and had some kek! What more could you ask for!
He was very large, tall and very red.

I saw the movie again last year and was very surprised to see nudity. There wasn't any nudity in Boston in 1972!
I thought it was a pretty interesting film anyway- about a serial killer.

I saw North By Northwest a few nights ago on TCM(?).

For years I had wondered where that odd house was located, the one on "Mount Rushmore." I found out that the producers wanted Frank Lloyd Wright to design a house for them but Frank wanted half the movies profits so they had someone else design one. It was built on a sound stage, just the facade and the interior rooms. The dirt road Grant walks on that leads to the house was shot outside LA and was spliced into the matt painting/photo of the house. The crop duster scene was shot in California not too far from the spot where James Dean was killed.

I saw "Frenzy" on a local channel in California in 1973-74 and the nudity was shown. I saw the film on another local channel about 2 years ago and the nudity was still seen. Maybe the editor was sleeping. I think nudity ruins a film. People say it "helps tell the story." My foot it does! We can use our imagination, we don't need it in our face. That is my feeling anyway.

-1bigsteve (o:

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:42 pm

1bigsteve @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:50 pm wrote:
Kat @ Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:27 am wrote:I am partial to North by Northwest.

I was working at the Sach 57 Cinema in Boston when Hitchcock had his *World Premiere* there of Frenzy.
I met the man personally, and had some kek! What more could you ask for!
He was very large, tall and very red.

I saw the movie again last year and was very surprised to see nudity. There wasn't any nudity in Boston in 1972!
I thought it was a pretty interesting film anyway- about a serial killer.
I saw North By Northwest a few nights ago on TCM(?).

For years I had wondered where that odd house was located, the one on "Mount Rushmore." I found out that the producers wanted Frank Lloyd Wright to design a house for them but Frank wanted half the movies profits so they had someone else design one. It was built on a sound stage, just the facade and the interior rooms. The dirt road Grant walks on that leads to the house was shot outside LA and was spliced into the matt painting/photo of the house. The crop duster scene was shot in California not too far from the spot where James Dean was killed.

I saw "Frenzy" on a local channel in California in 1973-74 and the nudity was shown. I saw the film on another local channel about 2 years ago and the nudity was still seen. Maybe the editor was sleeping. I think nudity ruins a film. People say it "helps tell the story." My foot it does! We can use our imagination, we don't need it in our face. That is my feeling anyway.

-1bigsteve (o:

I don't remember that from seeing it on a local TV years ago. But "Frenzy" was perhaps the "darkest" movie made by Alfie H. It was a few years before he died, made in England (Continental manners?), and had no censorship.
In "Shadow of a Doubt" the murders were off-scene. I think having a woman strangled on camera is not pretty (but it happens, watch AMW).
The stabbing sounds in "Psycho" were also upsetting to me.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:22 pm

That whole shower scene was upsetting, it's one of the scariest scenes filmed I think. Even the music makes your hair stand up!

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:19 pm

I think what made the shower scene so unnerving was the facts that she was naked, trapped in a small three sided room (shower stall) and could not get past the killer, she had no weapon and had nothing to protect herself with. Hitchcock made her completely defenseless against an unknown killer with a knife. That, I feel, is a position the audience can personally relate to.

Hitchcock had an uncanny way of getting into the viewer's mind and play with their emotions. I think that is what made him so good at what he did.

-1bigsteve (o:

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:54 pm

I know what you mean, I think anyone who saw the movie had trouble with taking a shower when it had a clear plastic shower curtain!!! lol pyscological fear with all of the trappings!

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:55 pm

Yes! I loved Psycho, and Dial M for Murder. Not to change the subject of this Hitchcock thread, but I was thinking about it today for some reason. The movie "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson really freaked me out. I remember watching it in my 7th grade English class, and writing a paper on it. I was really shocked and upset at the time over this movie. I couldn't believe that poor woman had to be stoned to death! I bet they wouldn't dare show that movie to 7th graders now, things are so different regarding school and the times we live in now. Some parent would probably file a lawsuit saying it was representing violence or something......
I bet Tracey could tell us if this is still in any school curriculum.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:09 pm

I must have missed that one, when did it come out?

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:20 pm

1966 I believe

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:54 pm

I remember we read the original story by Shirley Jackson when I was in ninth grade back in the Jurassic period.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:07 pm

The Lottery? I remember watching that in grade school as a 16mm sound film.

The morning of June 27th was clear and sunny, with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day; the flowers were blossoming profusely and the grass was richly green.

Even Hitchcock couldn't match that one - the creeping undercurrents of evil....

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:15 pm

Another Shirley Jackson story (this one a novel) made into a film (in fact, two films) was The Haunting of Hill House. The first one, with Julie Harris and Claire Bloom, was understated and quite effective. The second, made many years later, was a travesty that dotted every t and crossed every i. The only thing it had going for it was Lili Taylor, who was marvelous in the Julie Harris role.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:48 pm

you're right, the first one dealt more in the psycological asspects, leaving alot to be imagined, the last one did it for you. I still remember the scene in the bedroom where she thought she was holding on to her friends hand and when the lights came on, there was no one there........totally terrified me!

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:50 pm

It is funny you mentioned it Constantine, but "The Haunting of Hill House" was on my local cable provider 2 or 3 weeks ago on a Saturday afternoon, and I stopped everything I was doing to watch it again. What a great movie, although Julie Harris got on my nerves towards the end of the movie. Why do they always show these wonderful movies at odd times during the day, week by week, most people want to watch something entertaining in the evenings after work instead of your local sitcoms that are mindless, boring, and meaningless?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:59 pm

We read Jackson's We Have Always Lived in the Castle back in 1968, junior year. I was surprised a nun would let us have such a good contemporary novel. Thanks Sr. Marian Frances! I do not think it was ever made into a movie.

My favorite older Hitchcock is Vertigo- more recent, Frenzy, which nobody seemed to like too much. That scene when the murdered gal is in the potato truck is just the limit for me!

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:10 pm

The Lottery is one of my all-time favorites.

Tracy...

Dr_OBoogie · Post by **Dr_OBoogie** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:19 pm

I've always had a soft spot for North by Northwest; it starts off exciting and never lets up. I've warmed to Vertigo in the last few years.

One thing that irks me about Hitchcock is his overreliance on process shots and back projection. That shot in Psycho where the detective is stabbed and falls backwards down the stairs is a good example. It's so plainly fake that I can never resist chuckling when I see it.

Apart from that, I admire his technique.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:09 pm

Dr_OBoogie @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:19 pm wrote:I've always had a soft spot for North by Northwest; it starts off exciting and never lets up. I've warmed to Vertigo in the last few years.

One thing that irks me about Hitchcock is his overreliance on process shots and back projection. That shot in Psycho where the detective is stabbed and falls backwards down the stairs is a good example. It's so plainly fake that I can never resist chuckling when I see it.

Apart from that, I admire his technique.

I agree with you, John. Hitchcock's special effects were not that special. Other directors of his day had better effects. I understand what he was trying to accomplish but I wish he would have spent some money and perfected his special effects. I also wish he had taken that %*@$*!# thing off his lens!!!

But I love his work. He could sure get under your skin!

-1bigsteve (o:

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:40 pm

That shot in Psycho where the detective is stabbed and falls backwards down the stairs is a good example. It's so plainly fake that I can never resist chuckling when I see it.

I doubt very much that it was intended to look realistic. For one thing, he falls in an impossible manner.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:36 am

I still can't figure out why Hitchcock would premiere a movie with nudity in Blue Boston, early 1970's, and let them take out the nudity of his brand new film!
There, at the same time, was I think "Hair" to open in Cambridge and was totally banned, and the theatre closed temporarily. You've heard of "Banned in Boston" I bet?
It's true. *Blue Laws*

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:39 am

The publicity of nudity being taken out of a new release can generate publicity for the film and people will flock to see it. People always have to see what the fuss is about. "Ca-ching$" for Hitchcock.

During high school my teacher put up a photograph on the wall with a overlay sheet over it that said "DON'T LOOK AT THIS!" Naturally we all had to take a look.

-1bigsteve (o:

Dr_OBoogie · Post by **Dr_OBoogie** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:33 pm

Constantine @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:40 pm wrote:
That shot in Psycho where the detective is stabbed and falls backwards down the stairs is a good example. It's so plainly fake that I can never resist chuckling when I see it.
I doubt very much that it was intended to look realistic. For one thing, he falls in an impossible manner.

It's not so much that it doesn't look realistic - surreality appeals to me - as that it's so laughably fake. He appears to be floating down the stairs rather than falling.

I think the idea for the shot is brilliant: tracking someone as they fall down a flight of stairs. It would likely be impossible to really do, even using a stuntman and a Steadicam. But the effect could have been better executed.

Ah well, that's just a minor gripe about an otherwise brilliant director.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:35 pm

I worked there and never knew there had been nudity in the original. I think I would have known because of that- behind the scenes, so to speak. They must have agreed to it before it ever was decided to bring it to Boston.
It was 2006 before I ever knew of those nude scenes.

But I understand what you mean...

Dr_OBoogie · Post by **Dr_OBoogie** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:39 pm

1bigsteve @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:39 am wrote:The publicity of nudity being taken out of a new release can generate publicity for the film and people will flock to see it. People always have to see what the fuss is about. "Ca-ching$" for Hitchcock.

During high school my teacher put up a photograph on the wall with a overlay sheet over it that said "DON'T LOOK AT THIS!" Naturally we all had to take a look.

-1bigsteve (o:

Absolutely right. Even the most prudish among us are drawn to the taboo -- I daresay the prudish are more drawn to the taboo.

I've used this argument about profanity on television. By bleeping the offending word, the censors only draw more attention to it. Rather than being momentarily shocked by some four-letter word, the audience is now trying to figure out what the word was.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:44 pm

Could those closeups have been added later?
I'm wondering....

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:24 pm

Kat @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:44 am wrote:Could those closeups have been added later?
I'm wondering....

I imagine the close-ups were in the film from the beginning and Hitchcock let the Theater edit out what they want. I once clicked on a link in a Frenzy web site and up popped this gigantic blow-up of the actresses nipple, the one who was strangled in the office. It nearly filled my whole monitor. I don't know how someone could make a blow-up so big from a 35mm frame without any grain. I doubt Hitchcock would bring in the lens that close. I'm guessing some idiot took that 35mm death frame and somehow zeroed in on her nipple just for his web site. I don't remember that huge blow-up in the movie.

I can imagine the things that went out on live TV before video tape and editors. Bloopers, gaffs, flubs. I've seen video tapes of TV shows that went out live and they are full of funny bloopers. It's fun to watch just for the mistakes.

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

That Is in the movie!
Yes a big long closeup while the strangling takes place. It doesn't seem like any commercially acceptable segment that I've ever seen in a Hitchcock film.
That's one thing that had me wondering if it was filmed, cut by the master, and maybe added later in a more accepting American modern film market.

However, I have to admit that *Europe* is more used to that kind of thing even back then, so what we see now may be the uncut British version. A website said it came out in Britain first- but the event in Boston was by invitation only and was touted as a "World Premiere."

There is also the nudity when the first floating body is found. A completely naked female white white white body floating in the river. It is graphic, but not too close.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:34 am

I read that body doubles were used for the nude scenes in place of the actresses who played both major victims (Barbara Leigh-Hunt and Anna Massey).

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:35 am

Oh yeah, the nudity was definitely there when I saw it during its first release in New York.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:22 am

The gigantic blow-up I am refering to was taken from the death scene but it was just the nipple and areola, not the rest of the breast or the actress. I remember the scene of her with her tongue hanging out with the scarf around her neck. In the blow-up you could count the Montgomery glands and see the red microscopic viens, the ridges and valleys of the surface of the nipple and the tiny blond hairs around the areola. You could see the individual threads that made up the edge of the bra cup. My guess is that Hitchcock brought the lens within 2" of her nipple as a "gag" of some sort and someone got ahold of that footage. I just don't see how someone could isolate that tiny part of the anatomy from a 35mm frame that had so much more image in it and blow it up with such a high degree of clairity. I don't remember seeing a 24" diameter areola on my TV screen when I saw the film in '74 and more recently. There may be two different prints out there.

Many of the people who worked with Hitchcock commented that he was a bit odd. There is no telling what he has done. He sure had an odd sense of humor. I recently saw a 1971 Dick Cavett interview and Hitchcock was funny but it was out in right field somewhere, off the wall. As long as he put out movies like he did who cares how strange he was?

He said there is a scene in "Psycho" that he wanted to leave in, the scenes of Janet Leigh in her bra, so he put in a scene he didn't want but knew the censors would jump on and remove. So while the censors were busy taking out the scene Hitchcock didn't want in anyway they overlooked the scene Hitchcock did want to keep in. I can just see the censors mouths drop open on premiere night, as they see Leigh in her bra, saying, "How in the world did we miss that!!??" Too late.

-1bigsteve (o:

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:32 am

Constantine @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:34 pm wrote:I read that body doubles were used for the nude scenes in place of the actresses who played both major victims (Barbara Leigh-Hunt and Anna Massey).

Barbara Leigh-Hunt's face and naked breast were in the same scene so it was her but I imagine a stunt-double was used in the fight scene. They can't afford to have her hurt. I don't know about the other actress. It's been awhile since I saw it.

My favorite part of the film was where the detective is talking with his wife, who is in the other room, while he is trying to eat that seafood soup she cooked. That was classic!!

-1bigsteve (o:

Dr_OBoogie · Post by **Dr_OBoogie** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:35 am

1bigsteve @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:24 pm wrote: I can imagine the things that went out on live TV before video tape and editors. Bloopers, gaffs, flubs. I've seen video tapes of TV shows that went out live and they are full of funny bloopers. It's fun to watch just for the mistakes.

There's a very funny scene from the old Red Skelton show involving a cow. Live animals on live TV are always a risky proposition; in the middle of the scene, the cow starts doing number two right on the stage.

Skelton sees this and, barely missing a beat, says "Not only does she give milk, but also Pet-Ritz pies!"

Ms. Jo · Post by **Ms. Jo** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:28 am

The thing I've always liked about "all" of his films (and Stephen Kings' of course) is the cameo appearances they have both made in all their films....

It was always fun trying to spot A.H. in the movies he directed..

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:29 pm

Bumping this thread only because I love so many of Hitchcock's films.

If I had to choose a favorite, it would be "Vertigo" followed closely by "North by Northwest".

Others that deserve honorable mention would be "Notorious", "Shadow of a doubt", "Rear window", "Rope", "Strangers on a train", and "The man who knew too much (remake)", thanks to Doris Day's wonderful performance. I really like "Strangers on a train" mostly because of the character of Bruno Anthony. I think he's one of Hitchcock's best "villians".

I dislike "Frenzy" and "Marnie". Both are snoozers in my opinion.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:45 am

i'll bump this by your choice of "Vertigo" -- that's the one.