This board always seems in a a perpetual state of attempting to clear its throat.
So then.
HOwz about war of the worlds since its coming out this weekend?
I've never seen the original and I dont care about it being an aliens/endoftheworld blockbuster marketed movie.
All that I can gather is what I know about Spielberg so far.
Minority Report is one of my all time favorite Spielberg films (and I dont have many because I think a lot of his films are crap that are expected to come off as gold just because they carry so obviously the Spielbergian "magic touch" which is lovely when it DOES work but far overrated when it doesnt, and unfortunately it doesnt alot.)
Minority Report was of course Spielberg and Cruises first and last collaberation up until this movie and Spielberg's last film to date period. I'm hoping that the two of them together again will yield positive results.
But MR had two things going for it:
one: it was a great story penned by the Blade RUnner author that FORCED Spielberg to be as great a suspense director as he is a fantasy director.
Two: it gave Spielberg to honor that requisition for suspense by adopting, as many of his peer directors already have by now, the Hitchcock style.
Every modern director at a certain point of accompishment in their career does their own little Hitchcock movie. DePalma has "The Untouchables", Zemeckis had "What Lies Beneath" Shyamalan did it with "Signs" and even John Woo did it, or at least tried to do it with "Paycheck".
Spielberg did a great job with Minority Report in this regard. IT kept me at the edge-of-my-seat with simple suspense thrills ALONG with the action set pieces and my hope is that WAr of the Worlds will also employ THAT element of storytelling because MR was the first time since JAWS that he did it and the sad thing is he does it really well.
To me WotW looks like a Deep Impact crossed with Independence Day, I don't have much hope for this one.
Do you think the ending will be the same as the book? The original ending was ok for the 19th century but it would suck today.
Half the allure of the book for me was they had old time artillery pieces bashing alien tripod invading ships to the ground. I wish they had tried to keep the same era as the book. I think that would have made for a better movie for my tastes, however I'm sure this version will appeal to a bigger audience and make more money... not to say it's going to be bad. I just remember in the book when after the aliens had been ransacking everything the brits finally got enough of a resistance to pound one of them to the ground... not enough to win the war but something to cheer about.
Ok, call me dumb, but I've seen three Hitchcock films (Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho) and I can't figure out what the "Hitchcock" style is. Whenever I watch an "old" movie, I try to put myself in the shoes of someone in that era watching the movie. I always fail, and more often than not, I am disappointed by "old" films (I would classify anything pre-1965 or so as "old").
I have a few theories. One, I don't like black and white, save for the few modern movies where it is done on purpose. Two, I think it's harder (though it should be easier) to get into movies of any era where you are not as familiar with the stars that act in them.
I know it may be a sour point for actors as they would prefer to "immerse" themselves in their roles and not let outsides prejudices or gossip influence the audience, but it still is. For example, imagine someone in forty years watching Jonhhy Depp in Pirates w/out having prior knowledge of his interests, career, etc. He'll probably come as an entirely different character to that viewer than he would to you or I.
The same goes for me when watching old films. If I have no (or at the least, less) frame of reference for who the actors are and what they represent, I'm going to have a harder time getting a grip on who the character is. Sad but true.
Having said all that, can someone give me a better idea of what "Hitchcock style" represents?
And by the way, I agree - War of the Worlds looks a lot like Deep Impact. I'm unimpressed by the previews.
Formatted Text Signatures are generally retarded. Thanks for sharing, though. - fyi
It's not only Bogart you see in those days actors were also Men. Today they're just pretty boys who spent most their lives in the gym or getting their fat sucked out in the same clinic they go to rehab.
Back in the day you had the likes of Bogart, Mitchum, Tracy, Peck and you could look at them and see that they had been around ; hell!! even James Stewart who played a dumbass in half his movies was a bomber pilot during WWII, anyway...
[/END RANT]
THere are a couple general filmshooting and storytelling techniques and devices that Hitchcock patented and are attributed to him when you see them in other director's films.
ONe of them is the long long Zoom in shot that starts from almost miles away and zeroes in on one character or object usually going through a window or other barrier while getting there. Robert Zemeckis copied this in "What Lies Beneath" when Michelle Pfeiffer is driving on the bridge at the end sequence the camera zooms in on her from really far away, goes through the bridge and then through her car window to finally push up into her face. OF course in this film it was done digitally because theres no camera dolly that can actually pull off a stunt like that in real life, but neverhteless it was pure Hitchcock.
ANother example of this is in "Carlito's Way" when Sean Penn's character is walking along the east river towards the State penitentiary and theres and single long shot from way off in the distance that pushes into him really close up and then pushes away from him in the same breath back to the distance it started from like the camera was riding on a steady boomerang.
Another technique that is a Hitchcock staple is the pronouncing of something in the shot by actually diverting attention away from it through the camera following something else. This sounds like a contradiction but actually works to great effect. The camera will follow one object/character that is in motion and make the viewer follow it with mounting interest only to reveal something else revealed that was hidden in the shot beforehand and in fact the real desired focal point of the scene.
He did this in "the Birds" in the School attack scene. The camera slowly tracks a single bird flying through the air and cuts back to natalie wood watching the bird cautiously, forcing the viewer to concetrate on that one bird only to have the camera finally land WITH the bird on the monkey bars where the entire swarm of birds is perched ready to attack. The shot smacks both the audience and main character with equal amounts of surprise horror.
I think Shyamalan uses this technique the most out of his hitchcock bag of tricks.
Unbreakable and Signs had tons of this stuff.
There are other "trademark" Hitchcock techniques that are so common now that one would hardly remember where they originated from. Any tracking shots from ceiling angle, say, from room to room like the robot spider scene from Minority Report or even the tracking shot of Uma Thurman going to the bathroom in the House of blue leaves restaurant in Kill Bill. Those are all Hitchcock schtick.
Another is the cliched shot of a camera starting with one person in one room following that person into another room and then eventually back into the first room only to reveal something different in that room for scare effect, perhaps, like a door or window thats open now that wasnt open in the beginning of the shot. The reason this shot works in believeablity and scare effect is because he does it all in one shot without cutting thus that "real time" effect adds to the reality of the surprise.
ANytime a movie can convincingly show the "monster" is there without actually showing you the monster is following Hitchcock protocol. The sleight of hand that he used to make you believe a knife went through flesh in Psycho shower scene though it never actually did on camera. Speilberg did this in Jaws by not revealing the shark for real until the very end of the movie.
OTher Hitchcockian methods:
-Any movie with extended chase or action sequences that take place aboard a train or train station
-ANy scene or shot invovlving shooting someone or something through their reflection on a mirror or glass.
-any shot where the camera pushes forward while the Zoom on the camera pushes back to create a real cool effect. WAtch the shot of of Chief Brody reacting to the shark eating the little boy early on in Jaws for an example.
Even Brad Bird did this technique in one scene in the Incredibles.
But the most important thing that Hitchcock brought to the table was his amaqing storytelling and the ability to milk out suspense for all its worth. He does this in many different ways but one in particular is by bringing attention early in a film to some item or person or even word or number that bears great significance later on in the movie and plays a part in deciding what happens to a character at a given point in the story.
Dude, you're absolutely right - we're just too many generations removed to appreciate Hitchcock. He's considered the father/master of suspense, but since it's been nearly 50 years for a lot of his 'signature' films, his suspenseful style has been copied and recopied so many times, we can't see the difference. There are a few of his films that have a general motif though, for example, there are his 'Man on the run' films such as; North by Northwest; To Catch A Thief; Vertigo; The Man That Knew Too Much', etc. His REALLY early films combine the two, particularly 'The 39 Steps'; 'Secret Agent'; and 'Saboteur'
Also, Hitchcock invented the 'McGuffin' plot device. That is, in every movie the characters had to get something, be somewhere, and so forth as a means of motivation. Watch 'Saboteur', it's quientessential Hitchcock, it may be in black and white, but the chase, the suspense, and the symbolism is unmatched.
"any shot where the camera pushes forward while the Zoom on the camera pushes back to create a real cool effect. WAtch the shot of of Chief Brody reacting to the shark eating the little boy early on in Jaws for an example.
Even Brad Bird did this technique in one scene in the Incredibles."
That is probably my favorite camera trick. Even though I understand it, it never ceases to amaze me when I see it.
I truly have not taken enough film classes. Interesting to hear all of the techniques he originated (though I have to wonder if he really did originate them all - after all, film was around for some time before him).
And I enjoy the McGuffin. I'm familiar with that term. Total fabrications! The briefcase in Pulp Fiction is a great example of that.
Formatted Text Signatures are generally retarded. Thanks for sharing, though. - fyi
