The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927)

Tags

Drama, Hitchcock, Mystery

(For Day 6 of NaPoWriMo, the prompt was to write a poem based on a line from a favorite book. So I drew some inspiration from a line in 84 Charing Cross Road, in which Helene Hanff offers to include her pen pal in her murder mystery scripts: “You want to be the murderer or the corpse?” So my poem blurs the line between villain and victim based on first impressions.)

Despite the common maxim told
Of judging books and covers seen,
It’s still a fact that people mold
Opinions and the views they hold
Before the truth can quite unfold.
A first impression sets the scene,
And then the slate is far from clean.

You see a man in overcoat
Within the baleful mist’s embrace.
His gaze is sullen and remote,
And deathly rumors round him float.
Before a word can leave his throat,
You’re sure that murder’s in his face.
And who’s to prove if that’s the case?

Assumptions lead one far astray
Or prove correct our own dismay.
___________________________

MPA rating:  Not Rated (PG thematically but little objectionable shown)

Here then is a silent, black-and-white classic, so no one thinks I only review recent movies. The third film made by Alfred Hitchcock and his first big success, The Lodger is a forerunner of many a murder mystery in which the arrival of a mysterious newcomer coincides with eerie happenings. In this case, the titular Lodger (Ivor Novello) arrives to the Buntings’ London home in search of a room to rent, just as the news of a serial murderer known as the Avenger has the city in a panic. He catches the eye of his landlady’s (Marie Ault) daughter Daisy (June Tripp), but her parents and policeman beau (Malcolm Keen) see only suspicious activity from the awkward stranger.

The Lodger is a film created and designed for a different time, which has to be taken into account when watching silent films from almost a century ago. I can see naïve moviegoers who had only ever read mystery books watching this movie with bated breath at the creepy atmosphere, but honestly, it’s rather underwhelming, boring even for modern viewers like me. That’s not to say it’s not worth the watch; indeed, Hitchcock’s early work still boasts some haunting imagery and inventive camerawork for the time. And Novello’s title character, pale with stage makeup and a creepy stare to rival Johnny Depp’s Tim Burton roles, is just ambiguous enough to leave you wondering who he really is. The Lodger may be dated, yes, but every genre needs its forerunners. It’s a film worth seeing and certainly preserving for historical value alone.

Best line: (The Landlady, noticing money on the mantle) “You should lock that money up, sir, it’s tempting providence.”   (The Lodger) “Providence is concerned with sterner things than money, Mrs. Bunting.”

Rank:  Honorable Mention

© 2021 S.G. Liput
722 Followers and Counting

2019 Blindspot Pick #9: Vertigo (1958)

Tags

Classics, Drama, Hitchcock, Mystery, Romance, Thriller

The birds in flight
May love their height
And laugh at bounded, grounded man,
But gravity
Can guarantee
That staying low’s a better plan.

Some love the thrill,
The view, the will
To see a limit and defy,
Yet none deny
That when you’re high,
It’s so much easier to die.
_____________________

MPAA rating: PG

Vertigo has to be the most critically lauded among my Blindspots this year, and I was quite curious to see whether it would match its reputation, since so many Hitchcock movies have fallen short, for me at least. Vertigo lands somewhere in the middle, confirming my opinion that Hitchcock mostly excelled in creating tension in individual scenes rather than whole movies.

The fourth and last collaboration between Hitchcock and star Jimmy Stewart, Vertigo is a tale of obsession that toys with the possibility of the supernatural. Stewart plays John “Scottie” Ferguson, a cop who retired after a deadly experience with heights but is commissioned by wealthy friend Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore) to investigate Elster’s wife Madeleine (Kim Novak) and her sudden strange behavior. As he learns more about her connection to a suicidal ancestor and develops a relationship with her, he encounters secrets and mysteries that shake him to his core.

As a fan of film, I can say that I am definitively glad to have finally seen this classic of cinema, an oversight that represents exactly what this Blindspot series is meant to solve. Yet it doesn’t hold the same fascination for me that it apparently does for so many. Perhaps it’s because the film’s intrigue was such a rollercoaster. It starts out interesting enough with Stewart as his ever-likable self, but the story really drags during his investigation, which consists of far too much of him wordlessly following Madeleine by car. Maybe it’s just me, but the picture below doesn’t do much for me in the way of tension.

Then comes a famous scene in a bell tower, which is indeed one of Hitchcock’s best for buildup and shock value. Not too much longer, and the reveal of the mystery left my brain working overtime, surprised at the unanticipated twist and giving me a new appreciation for the storyline. Yet what follows becomes a somewhat uncomfortable exercise in obsessive grief (including a weirdly unnecessary psychedelic dream), played out through what would be a deeply unhealthy relationship if not for the audience’s knowledge of its psychological underpinnings. How it ends, while effective, is also anything but satisfying, so abrupt that it made me recall how much I despise the final scenes in North by Northwest and An American Werewolf in London. I know Hitchcock knew how to end a movie, but I wouldn’t know it based on this one.

I certainly can’t fault the actors. Stewart is always good, always, and Kim Novak might be one of my favorites of Hitchcock’s blonde leading ladies. Barbara Bel Geddes is also great as Scottie’s casual friend/former crush, who is short-changed by the ending’s lack of closure. I also liked a cameo by Ellen Corby, who also appeared with Stewart briefly in It’s a Wonderful Life (“Could I have $17.50?”) Likewise, Bernard Herrmann’s hypnotic score is an outstanding accompaniment, and, like the score of Psycho, adds so much to the film’s atmosphere.

All in all, Vertigo is the second best one-word Hitchcock film that ends with an O, as well as the second best Hitchcock film that begins with an injured Jimmy Stewart. Sorry if that doesn’t sound like high praise, though I do appreciate its cinematic contribution of that vertigo effect above. I can see why film enthusiasts like it and why its filming locations around San Francisco have become iconic, and I have half a mind to see it again just to pick up on the hints to the twist that I might have missed the first time. Yet, considering it’s been ranked both 1st and 9th on lists of the best films ever made, I feel like its reputation is somewhat overblown. Psycho is still Hitchcock’s masterpiece as far as I’m concerned.

Best line: (Madeleine) “Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere. ”

Rank: Honorable Mention

© 2019 S.G. Liput
649 Followers and Counting

Rope (1948)

Tags

Drama, Hitchcock, Thriller

 

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was to write something you’re afraid to say, so here’s an opinion that might be unpopular.)

 

Though my opinion may not count compared with greater critics,
Who see more cinematic worth with fancy analytics,
There’s something rather overblown that most would not dare knock,
And that’s the reputation of the great Alfred Hitchcock.

His reputation’s such that everybody knows his skill
Long before they may or may not glean from him a thrill.
He was a master filmmaker and could make showers tense,
But does he merit being called “the master of suspense?”

Perhaps we have been spoiled with more recent horror thrillers,
With darker shades of wickedness and more alarming killers,
But looking at Rebecca, Rope, Notorious, and such
Just doesn’t make my mind or heart start racing very much.

I freely will admit that Psycho is a masterwork;
Rear Window gets good at the end, though Jimmy plays a jerk;
And while The Birds does have its moments of anxiety,
The lead-up that should hold my breath gets boring, honestly.

In films like Dial M for Murder, tension’s at its best
In one distinct, iconic scene, but who recalls the rest?
So though most may cry blasphemy, I feel it must be stated
That many of “the master’s” works are tedious and dated.
No offense, but for suspense, he’s rather overrated.
_____________________

MPAA rating: PG

Having seen Alfred Hitchcock’s most successful films like Psycho and The Birds, I thought I’d check out one of his smaller and more inventive efforts. Rope is based on a play and one of the most purely translated plays, enclosed as it is in a single apartment with careful attention to its setting and structure. Decades before Birdman, Hitchcock experimented with long takes and a bare minimum of cuts, which are craftily hidden, sometimes obviously, sometimes not.

Clearly based on the infamous Leopold and Loeb murder, the plot revolves around two arrogant school chums Brandon and Phillip (John Dall and Farley Granger) who strangle a classmate with rope merely to prove their superiority and then invite the victim’s family and friends for a dinner party over the hidden body. As an intellectual experiment, Rope is intriguing and thought-provoking. As a thriller from the master of suspense, it’s rather disappointing. There is far more talking and plotting than actual tension, and the plot hinges on the revelation of how the truth will come out rather than if. One point of contention I didn’t see was rumors about the assumed homosexuality of the killers. Sure, they live together as roommates, but if there was such a subtext, it was so subtle to avoid controversy that I didn’t even recognize it.

Like the motivation for the crime, Rope’s message is more cerebral than visceral. The murderers make it clear that their “superior” ideology stemmed from their teacher Rupert Cadell, played by a serious James Stewart. At the party, Rupert confirms his elitist leanings but only in theory and only until he sees cause for grief. It’s all innocent discussion to debate who is more or less intelligent, cultured, or worthy of life, but such philosophy can be put into action by the unprincipled, like the two killers or Nazi Germany. Rupert was not involved in the murder, but Rope emphasizes that the seed of an immoral idea can be just as regrettable as the crime itself.

Best line: (Mrs. Atwater, a guest) “Do you know when I was a girl I used to read quite a bit.”   (Brandon) “We all do strange things in our childhood.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2016 S. G. Liput

376 Followers and Counting

 

Rebecca (1940)

Tags

Drama, Hitchcock, Romance

 

 

Rebecca is dead, but her room is the same.

The servants still miss her and whisper her name.

Her husband is grieving, and tries to move on,

But Mrs. de Winter is not fully gone.

 

Her secrets remain, as do Mr. de Winter’s,

Secrets that torture him daily like splinters.

His new wife is innocent, nervous, and shy;

She shouldn’t learn them, nor understand why.

 

But secrets have habits of being found out,

Casting suspicion and panic and doubt.

Rebecca is dead, Mrs. Danvers knows well,

And yet Manderley is still under her spell.

________________

 

After seeing Hitchcock’s last great film based off a Daphne du Maurier story (The Birds), I thought I’d see his first great American film based off a Daphne du Maurier story, Rebecca. A Gothic tale with distinct similarities to Jane Eyre, Rebecca won the 1940 Academy Award for Best Picture and was indeed far better than a certain disliked competitor (ahem, The Philadelphia Story.)

Laurence Olivier is both dashing and brusque as Maxim de Winter, a widower haunted by the loss of his first wife Rebecca. When he runs into the lovely Joan Fontaine, her naiveté and complete contrast to Rebecca attract him, and a somewhat comedic whirlwind romance makes the unnamed heroine the second Mrs. de Winter. When they return to de Winter’s sprawling estate of Manderley, his new bride begins to feel more and more uncomfortable as semi-famous villain Mrs. Danvers psychologically torments her with unfortunate comparisons. By the end, the narrative takes some unexpected twists that either improve or destroy certain characters.

In contrast to many old Gothic films (like Merle Oberon’s laughable scenes in 1939’s Wuthering Heights), Rebecca avoids old-fashioned histrionics and provides some genuinely great performances from Olivier, Fontaine, and Dame Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers, the black-clothed matron with an unhealthy fascination with her late employer. (My VC became frustrated with Fontaine’s constant timidity, but I thought it was handled well, considering her age and limited experience. Her apprehensions are much like a child’s, like when she accidentally breaks a statue and hides it, only to feel and look foolish when the truth comes out.) The film transitions thrice, first from an unexpected romance to a dark psychological mystery and then to a whodunit in which the audience actually hopes the investigation is unsuccessful. That’s no mean feat, and Hitchcock’s direction creates just the right aura of intrigue, meant to fascinate and frighten both the protagonist and the audience. While it owes much to past classics of the genre and the ending is a bit abrupt, Rebecca promised that America could expect some great things from Alfred Hitchcock.

Best line: (Mrs. Van Hopper, the heroine’s employer) “Most girls would give their eyes for the chance to see Monte [Carlo]!”   (Maxim de Winter) “Wouldn’t that rather defeat the purpose?”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2015 S. G. Liput

297 Followers and Counting

The Birds (1963)

Tags

Drama, Hitchcock, Horror, Thriller

 

 

We are watchers on the wires;

We are tenants of the skies;

Symbols of when man aspires;

Keepers of the flinching eyes;

Witnesses of every creature,

Evil, good, and in between,

Whether as a nimbus reacher

Or a prisoner to preen.

 

We are victims cursed by weakness,

Kept by cage or mortal mesh;

Though you know us by our meekness,

We will feast upon your flesh.

We are biders of the ages;

We are conquerors in wait.

When our wingéd warring rages,

You will comprehend too late.

_______________

 

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was for a riddle poem, one that doesn’t reveal its subject, unless you count the title.)

I had never seen The Birds before and was curious about the film often considered to be Hitchcock’s last masterpiece. While many old suspense/horror films are sapped of their power by the passage of time, this one manages to retain most of its efficacy. Despite its potentially silly concept, the visual effects and Hitchcock’s direction manage to milk the tension and plausibly transform birds into a lethal nightmare, mainly due to their sheer numbers.

As the film begins, it follows the only mildly interesting courtship games of wealthy Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) and Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor), and as she goes to improbable lengths to deliver a couple of lovebirds, my VC and I were waiting impatiently for some kind of bird-related havoc to happen. Of course, it does come and progresses gradually, from a single gull to a flock to a shocking discovery at a neighbor’s house (by a younger Jessica Tandy). Once the actual avian carnage begins, the film becomes vastly more entertaining. This transition from romantic comedy to terror was intentional, since Hitchcock wished to prey on his audience’s anticipation as they wondered when the attacks would start. While the gambit works for the most part, I can’t help but feel that Hitchcock was given a pass for a tactic that wouldn’t fly (pardon the pun) with someone of lesser prestige. Many films since have fused comedy and horror, but to shift from an unfunny comedy with no horror to a horror with no comedy would normally be criticized nowadays as being unbalanced or jarring.

Just as 1960’s Psycho established the slasher genre, The Birds actually foreshadowed two other horror sub-genres. Its depiction of nature rising up against humanity would be rehashed with various other animals over the years in lesser imitators (Frogs, Bats, Slugs). Likewise, the climax, in which the Brenners and Melanie barricade themselves within their home and defend against the swarming enemy, prefigured countless other such trapped room invasions throughout the horror genre (Night of the Living Dead, Aliens, The Mist, etc.). When the lights go out during the birds’ attack, I halfway expected someone to say, “They cut the power.” “What do you mean ‘They cut the power?’ How could they cut the power, man? They’re animals!” Unfortunately, The Birds also features the usual victim stupidity common in horror films, like sitting outside for a smoke after birds have attacked or inexplicably stepping into a room that clearly is full of birds and then losing the ability to open a door.

While one could speculate about the presence of caged birds being a possible impetus for the attacks, there is no explanation for the birds’ behavior. Perhaps Hitchcock felt any clarification would detract from the film by adding in some cheesy exposition, like radioactive something-or-other, a favorite device in B-movies. My VC would have preferred something of that sort, as well as a less sudden, ambiguous ending, which offered little closure for the characters. While some of the effects are dated and the beginning could have been improved, The Birds is still a film deserving of its classic reputation, one which succeeded in making even the mere flapping of wings an opportunity for dread.

Best line: (a naysaying ornithologist) “I have never known birds of different species to flock together. The very concept is unimaginable. Why, if that happened, we wouldn’t stand a chance! How could we possibly hope to fight them?”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2015 S. G. Liput

292 Followers and Counting

Psycho (1960)

Tags

Drama, Hitchcock, Horror, Thriller

Marion Crane is in love with a man

But has not the money to wed her dear Sam.

So, after a tryst, she endeavors to scram

 

With 40K trusted to her by her boss.

She leaves town before he’s aware of the loss.

While driving, her mind starts to worry and toss.

Her guilt soon becomes an unbearable cross,

 

So she stops for the night at the old Bates Motel.

The young Norman Bates, who can scare or compel,

Checks Marion in to the lodging from hell.

They chat, and he shows her her quarters as well.

 

He tells her his mother is mentally ill.

That night, in the shower, Miss Crane’s cries are shrill

As a figure appears with a knife meant to kill.

When Norman arrives, Miss Crane’s body is still.

 

So both her and her car, Norman sinks in a lake.

Soon, Marion’s sought for her stolen loot’s sake.

Sam and Lila, her sister, think there’s a mistake;

It’s hard to believe she would lie, steal, or take,

 

So she’s being searched for by the sleuth Arbogast.

He finds the motel, where he thinks she was last,

And Norman is spooked by the questions he’s asked.

It seems that he feels he is being harassed.

 

The detective sneaks into Bates’ home, but is slain.

Then Lila and Sam, who grow close in their pain,

Go also in search of poor Marion Crane.

While Sam distracts Norman, who seems less than sane,

 

Young Lila goes into Bates’ house with aplomb.

The tension builds up like a volatile bomb.

She goes in the basement and loses her calm

When she locates the dead corpse of Norman Bates’ mom!

 

Then Bates, dressed as mother, attacks with a knife,

But, lucky for her, valiant Sam saves her life.

A doctor tells them Norman’s internal strife,

 

The death of his mother, which Norman had done,

The messed-up relationship of mom and son,

 

Caused Norman to take on her psyche and traits

And murder, believing he was Norma Bates.

But, now that he’s stopped, an asylum awaits.

___________________

 

Psycho was the new height of violence and shock value when it was released in 1960. While the “surprise” ending is almost as well-known and unsurprising as Darth Vader’s I-am-your-father revelation, this Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece is still as creepy as ever, and the shower scene still just as traumatic.

I haven’t seen many Hitchcock movies, and what I have seen (Notorious, North by Northwest) hasn’t really impressed me. Yet Psycho is not a mostly boring spy yarn but the original slasher film, which, unlike more recent examples, is restrained enough in its violence to still be watchable. Buoyed by unique camera shots that cleverly hide Norman’s schizophrenic secret and an amazingly evil performance by Anthony Perkins, Psycho manages to retain Hitchcock’s artistic touch while still delivering the horrors in which he so reveled. What is it about playing psychopathic killers that brings out the best in an actor, from Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs to Kathy Bates in Misery? Whatever it is, Perkins is certainly the best part of the whole movie.

Best line: (Norman, while in custody at the very end) “I’ll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do… suspect me. They’re probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I’m not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching… they’ll see. They’ll see and they’ll know, and they’ll say, “Why, she wouldn’t even harm a fly…” (one of the best evil grins ever)

Artistry: 7

Characters/Actors: 9

Entertainment: 4

Visual Effects: N/A

Originality: 6

Watchability: 3

 

TOTAL: 29 out of 60

 

Tomorrow: #336: The Perfect Storm

© 2014 S. G. Liput