Let's talk about Hitchcock

Shall we?

Well, if I really must have a reason to talk about Hitchcock I'm going to have to rewind and fast forward quite a bit...

Too often the excuse for silly, immature, by the numbers cinema is passed on to the audience.

It shouldn't be.

See the argument goes that the audience can't, or won't be bothered, to work out "complex" ideas in a film. And someone who's new to the medium, or who hasn't checked out cinema going back a few decades or more, might be forgiven for thinking as such.

Actually, no. If you're a "movie lover" and haven't checked out at least some "old" movies/films by the likes of Orson Welles, Akira Kurosawa, François Truffaut and other such masters, then shame on you.

Well... not really shame on you... more like your loss... your serious loss.

Trailer for Akira Kurosawa's 'Rashomon'

So, let's talk about Hitchcock. Still no?

I see.

I might have been a tad vague in my reasoning for talking about Hitchcock. Hmmm... how to put it?

Okay.

You hear about how everyone... well a few people... well... maybe just a few critics are deriding that little film about robots in disguise? I mean it's the most recent picture in a trilogy of sorts... You know... the one with the giant robots and huge explosions and other... you know... explosive situations? Yea. That movie.

A lot of the times that sort of thing, because of the fact that maybe it's taking in boat loads of money, is justified, with "audiences really prefer not to think through a movie" - I'm just paraphrasing here mind. And recent, slightly skewed "research" might lead one to justify that...

Hence my want to talk about Hitchcock. Errr... no? Why? Cos we can talk about all those other guys I mentioned before you say?

Trailer for François Truffaut's 'Les Quatre cents coups' (400 Blows) 

Yea. You should really go check those guys out. Their work is beautiful, evocative and thought provoking - even when they're working with black and white and no explosions. But while they may have had mainstream appeal in their own right I wouldn't go so far as to say they had global appeal in their time... alas, they seem to have trouble with global appeal even in our time.

So.

Really.

Let's talk about Hitchcock.

Yes?

Good. Great!

He proved that you could make money with "high concept" films while not alienating the audience and still garner critical acclaim and global fame... although initially, he may have had a tough time getting some American critics to see the value in his work.

I see you pulling away now... a few more minutes? I promise I'll make it  worth your while.

Trailer for 'Psycho'

Heard of 'Psycho' (1960)? No. Not that 1998 version - which I hear was a travesty... No I really didn't watch it. There was no need to. Go see Hitchcock's original Psycho you'll see what I mean - it was shot in black and white but even with that "handicap" it does so well in eliciting a visceral reaction out of you.

If you've heard somebody describe any story as a "modern, psychological yarn" you will be surprised to see how much of that you see here in a film made in 1960 - and how much faith, unlike most modern mainstream directors, Hitchcock had in his audience.

So you think that Psycho is not that hard to follow compared to "modern" standards?

You should check out 'Vertigo' (1958).

Trailer for 'Vertigo'

Technical innovation aside, the story telling is intense, complicated and riveting. And I would argue that its complexity holds up even by modern "intellectual" standards.

That's all well and good you say? You want a pop-corn movie? One that you can sit back and enjoy? One that takes you through exciting chases, chills, thrills and a few laughs?

You don't mind all that and a little bit of intelligence and humour do you?

Try 'North by Northwest' (1959) on for size. But be warned - it's more than a bit intelligent and it has a brilliant sense of humour. You get chases, mistaken identities, spies, damsels who are decidedly not in distress (Who'd have thunk?!?! In the 50s?!?!), killer crop-duster planes... KILLER CROP-DUSTER PLANES DAMMIT!!!

Trailer for 'North by Northwest'

And those are just some of the highlights of his career.

Some of his work has inspired, and keeps inspiring, some of our greatest filmmakers today.

Take a look at Christopher Nolan's work and I can't help but see a Hitchcockian sense of humour and a sense of the same crisp, lean narrative.

Does 'Memento' (2000) not have a wicked sense of humour while making your mind do summersaults? That's kind of what Hitchcock does with North by Northwest although with a much lesser degree of a mental workout - that he leaves for Vertigo.

You know that thing that David Fincher keeps trying to do ever so often with the long, uninterrupted shots? He tried it a couple of times with 'Fight Club' (1999) and 'Panic Room'(2002)? I'd go so far as to argue that that was pure Hitchcock inspired - see 'Rope' (1948) and you'll get where I'm coming from.

Tailer for 'Rope' - like a few of Hitchcock's trailers
contains little from the actual film.

So yea.

That's why we needed to talk about Hitchcock.

Also, remember the other guys I told you about? Well... Hitchcock was my stepping stone to those guys. No. He's not less important than they are - if anything, for me, he might be slightly more important.

So what it comes down to... what I guess I am saying is...

It's okay if you make "crappy" movies - just don't justify it by saying that the audience won't get it. Yea... what I'm saying is... the audience are intelligent enough to grasp almost anything you can throw at them.

Seriously.

If they weren't David Lynch and a few other directors you might have heard of wouldn't have careers.

Edit; July 12, 2011:

I consider myself not adequately chastised for missing out on naming Ingmar Bergman in my original post - that is one name which should not have been missed. I've attempted to fix this inexcusable oversight by adding a link to the original post - I felt it might be cheating to edit the text afterwards. Thanks to shaari for bringing this to my attention.

The night is darkest just before the dawn...

Adaptations are a tricky business. Just ask Alan Moore or Uwe Boll – though, admittedly, not for the same reasons.

Promotional Art for Frank Miller's 'Batman Year One' Trade Paperback

At the best of times your source material has a rabid following who will, once you've announced your intentions, scrutinize your every move – down to the the colour of underpants your hero may, or may not, wear under, or over, their costumes.

And at the worst of times... well... you should click on the Alan Moore link (above) before you go on to the rest of what I've got to say...

Most times our worst fears are realised (see Uwe Boll for the worst case scenario) but sometimes... sometimes the  improbable does actually happen...

The planets align and everything in the universe works in harmony and in sync with the efforts of a select few individuals who have the patience and the tenacity to get it just right – in the manner most suited to the medium in which they operate and wield almost magical powers over.

Such are the Batman films by Christopher Nolan (collaborating in no small part with David S. Goyer and Jonathan Nolan).

Promotional Art for 'Batman Begins'

I've already pissed and moaned about 'The Dark Knight' (2008) not getting more Oscar nominations, at the least, for best adapted screenplay.

My short, unvarnished, opinion; it should not only have been nominated but should  have won.

The adaptation of Batman ['Batman Begins' (2005) and 'The Dark Knight'], by Nolan and Co. is spot on. They jettison what really would not work in a film adaptation and even when they keep stuff, they adapt it to propel the story forward;

Rā's al Ghūl is no longer an ageless alchemist who is forever resurrected via Lazarus Pits – rather he is a succession of  individuals who take over the mantle, with more or less the same objectives as their predecessor, thereby sustaining the myth that is Rā's through the centuries.

The money stored in the warehouse is burnt – in the comics by Batman, but in the film, because this story requires it and rings true to its almost organic development, by the Joker.

 A comparison – Comic [Batman: The Long Halloween]

vs. Film [The Dark Knight]

There are several more such instances, and not all of them big – some so seemingly insignificant that one might wonder why the effort was made to put them there. Yet even those little extras contribute and enrich our experience of the film.

Then there are the new bits – still ringing true to the core of the character. The Tumbler and the Bat-pod would irrefutably be the most 'iconic' changes. They're very different to what we see in the comics BUT they're raw, utilitarian beasts with a focus on function; to get the job done efficiently –  sacrifices have been made in the design, much like that of the Bat-suit, but even then it's an exercise in the maintaining of efficiency and efficacy.

And how about the symbolism that is alluded to in Batman Begins (and the comics) of being 'more than just a man', of being 'incorruptible'?

Turns out that this Batman is so hardcore he's not only incorruptible by evil – he won't be corrupted, technically one might say, by  good either (go see the films if you haven't already – it's seriously more than comic book, bubblegum pop – seriously!).

Artist Jim Lee's rendition of Batman

If this is not classic Batman, the core of the character brought forth, then you sir/madam don't get Batman.

Remember, his unrelenting cause is justice and justice is not always black and white and neither is it, at times, immediate or fair.

Jim Gordon illustrates this best when, in The Dark Knight, he says of Batman;

'… he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.'

[Goosebumps!]

That might not work in the real world but it sure as heck works in film – and it works brilliantly in the capable hands of Chris Nolan.

Promotional Art for 'The Dark Knight'

After the Debacle (yes with a CAPITAL, italicised and bold 'D') that was Batman and Robin (1997) [Shudder.] I had all but given up hope. And when Nolan took over I was hoping just for a more than decent 'reboot' – something that would bring back a semblance of... dignity to the farce the Batman films had become. And maybe, just maybe, hoping, against all odds, that it might be a bit more...

Boy did he pick that ball up and run with it. Heck, he kicked it out the ballpark – out the stratosphere even!

In the words of Mr. Broodypants (Batman) in The Dark Knight;

'… sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded...'

HELL YEA!

Messrs Nolan, Goyer and Nolan – thank you.

Comments on The 81st Academy Awards Nominations

Kudos to the Academy for Recognising "Slumdog Millionaire" for the cinematic gem that it is;

Promotional art for Slumdog Millionaire

In particular, the nominations for;

Danny Boyle - Achievement in directing,

Anthony Dod Mantle - Achievement in cinematography,

A.R. Rahman - Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score)

and

A.R. Rahman (Music) & Gulzar (Lyric) - Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song)

Kudos ALSO for recognising the cinematic vision of David Fincher and Co. for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button";

Promotional art for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

In particular, the nominations for;

David Fincher - Achievement in directing,

Eric Roth and Robin Swicord - Adapted screenplay

and

Brad Pitt - Performance by an actor in a leading role

And for "The Dark Knight" there were categories that, try as they might, the Academy could NOT have gotten away with had they ignored them;

Promotional art for The Dark Knight

In particular, the nominations for;

Wally Pfister - Achievement in cinematography (if only for making IMAX cool again)

and

Heath Ledger - Performance by an actor in a supporting role (if only for making Jack Nicholson's performance merely a memory and defining the true cinematic Joker)

However...

All the nominations combined do NOT make up for that fact that Christopher Nolan SHOULD have been nominated for the cinematic marvel (no irony intended) that is "The Dark Knight"!

Christopher Nolan - overcame the bat nipples but not the Academy!

Nominations for The Dark Knight should have included (at the least);

Christopher Nolan - Achievement in directing

and

Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer - Adapted screenplay

Heck I'd even say that a nomination was even due for;

Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard - Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score)

I am truly torn... Fincher and Co., along with Boyle and Co., are masters at what they do...

BUT the Academy should quit whatever the heck they're smoking and ALSO recognise that Nolan is the MAIN reason why The Dark Knight was nominated for all the technical awards...

Too late now...

Note to the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: You tried to look like you tried... BUT you failed... miserably!

We WON'T be won over by a sympathy nomination, for Nolan, in the years to follow for a none comic book related nomination - at least I won't!

Unless it's a really good film... which knowing Nolan it probably will be... DAMN!