"william" <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:188cfe39-3b49-4ee9-be00-e76f0fbe8630@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 6:03 pm, David Oberman <dober...@socal.rr.com> wrote:

Yours is a widespread view among film cognoscente, certainly. I just
can't take Hitchcock any more seriously than as an effective & tricky
entertainer. I love a lot of his movies, & I also think they're filled
with vapidity & banality.

I agree. Most of his films are cleverly conventional and utterly
forgettable. His early stuff at the cusp of the sound era is kind of
cool but after that it's mostly a rut. It says something that in 50
years of films there are maybe a handful of memorable performances.
Memorable for being good, that is. I've never understood how seriously
people take his movies. I understand his popularity but that's
entirely different.

RESPONSE:

I'm with you here.  Most of them are quite entertaining and technically
quite competent.  Genius?  Masterpieces?  Not gettin' that here.

You guys are damning with aimed praise.  It's true that (iirc) no
Hitchcock movie ever brought me to tears or joy.  But, then, who are
cinema's geniuses? ...and what should we call the next tier (say,
Hitchcock, Busby Berkeley... hell, Vorkapich, Harryhausen) who merely
revolutionized their specialties?  Technicians?  Savants?

Maybe I'm caffeine deprived but I'm not really following what you're

On Jul 29, 10:54 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

You guys are damning with aimed praise.  It's true that (iirc) no
Hitchcock movie ever brought me to tears or joy.  But, then, who are
cinema's geniuses? ...and what should we call the next tier (say,
Hitchcock, Busby Berkeley... hell, Vorkapich, Harryhausen) who merely
revolutionized their specialties?  Technicians?  Savants?

Maybe I'm caffeine deprived but I'm not really following what you're
getting at. Is it: If Hitchcock's not a genuis, then who is? Really.
Not being a wise guy, just confuddled.

Maybe I'm caffeine deprived but I'm not really following what you're
getting at. Is it: If Hitchcock's not a genuis, then who is? Really.
Not being a wise guy, just confuddled.

Since you pretty much restate my point, maybe it's only Jim above
who's denying Alfred's cinematic divinity.  Yeah, it'd be major
renovations for me to move that particular shrine out of my personal
Hall of Geniuses...

Nope. This seems to be where Jim and I agree. Not speaking for anyone

I think Alfred Hitchcock is, pound for pound, the greatest director the cinema has ever known. No one
else even comes close for me.

On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

Maybe I'm caffeine deprived but I'm not really following what you're
getting at. Is it: If Hitchcock's not a genuis, then who is? Really.
Not being a wise guy, just confuddled.

Since you pretty much restate my point, maybe it's only Jim above
who's denying Alfred's cinematic divinity.  Yeah, it'd be major
renovations for me to move that particular shrine out of my personal
Hall of Geniuses...

Nope. This seems to be where Jim and I agree. Not speaking for anyone
but myself, I don't consider Hitchcock a genius by a long shot. In a
similar vein I respect Stephen King his success but I don't consider
him a genius or even a good writer.

Maybe I'm caffeine deprived but I'm not really following what you're
getting at. Is it: If Hitchcock's not a genuis, then who is? Really.
Not being a wise guy, just confuddled.

Since you pretty much restate my point, maybe it's only Jim above
who's denying Alfred's cinematic divinity. Yeah, it'd be major
renovations for me to move that particular shrine out of my personal
Hall of Geniuses...

speak of *ever* avoided the latest Hitchcock.  (And, in movies, of
course, commercial success is the only way we'd ever hear of anybody.)

Not so. "The Wrong Man," "The Paradine Case" and "Under Capricorn" all

On Jul 29, 3:26 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

 Whereas, I doubt any moviegoers to> speak of *ever* avoided the latest Hitchcock.  (And, in movies, of
course, commercial success is the only way we'd ever hear of anybody.)

Not so. "The Wrong Man," "The Paradine Case" and "Under Capricorn" all
lost boatloads of dough. There were others that didn't do well when
first released. As for "genius" -- limiting it to his contemporaries
of sorts -- I wouldn't put Hitchcock in the same class a Welles,
Kubrick or Godard. I won't go off on my Welles rant but he and
Kubrick, Godard and others created films that expanded the notion of
cinema, film, flicks, moom pitchers or whatever. Hitchcock manipulated
more than he innovated. He had absolutely no interest in the medium as
medium and as a result he made movies that made money and not much
else. In terms of advancing the knowledge and language of film, I'd
put Fritz Lang way ahead of Hitchcock.

Williamwww.williamahearn.com

On Jul 29, 3:26 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

 Whereas, I doubt any moviegoers to> speak of *ever* avoided the latest Hitchcock.  (And, in movies, of
course, commercial success is the only way we'd ever hear of anybody.)

Not so. "The Wrong Man," "The Paradine Case" and "Under Capricorn" all
lost boatloads of dough. There were others that didn't do well when
first released. As for "genius" -- limiting it to his contemporaries
of sorts -- I wouldn't put Hitchcock in the same class a Welles,
Kubrick or Godard. I won't go off on my Welles rant but he and
Kubrick, Godard and others created films that expanded the notion of
cinema, film, flicks, moom pitchers or whatever. Hitchcock manipulated
more than he innovated. He had absolutely no interest in the medium as
medium and as a result he made movies that made money and not much
else. In terms of advancing the knowledge and language of film, I'd
put Fritz Lang way ahead of Hitchcock.

Thought experiment:  Five lost films are discovered... unreleased
works by Welles, Kubrick, Godard, Lang, and Hitchcock.  Next weekend,
with no advance screenings, they premiere simultaneously in a Times
Square multiplex.  Which theater has the longest line? ...the most
film-students? ...the most industry professionals?  And what (if
anything) does that say regarding 'genius'?

Let me answer in the only way I know how. First off, I ain't laying