The events of this week have forced me to conclude one of two things about myself. I either (a) enjoy being pissed off or (b) am masochistic. Neither is a particularly pretty prospect but either would explain why I feel compelled to continue renting (and watching) Alfred Hitchcock movies even when I clearly know that I don’t like a large portion of the body of his work.
On the menu this week was a little morsel entitled Rope. The cassette box claimed it was 2 hours and 21 minutes long. It did, however, turn out to be a mere 1 hour and 21 minutes long, which automatically raised my estimation of it. It starred Jimmy Stewart and a bunch of people whose names I can’t remember right now and told the tale of two college-aged boys who murdered a school-mate, hid his body in a chest, then invited their friends over to eat dinner--a dinner they served off the very chest in which the body was hidden.
In the grand scheme of things it didn’t suck. There were no carousels spinning wildly out of control, no musical interludes provided by Doris Day, and, thank God, no creepy come-on lines directed toward vulnerable young women. Jimmy Stewart’s speech of outraged moral sensibilities at the end was a bit disingenuous considering our little scamps of anti-heroes only did exactly what he had taught them, but, whatever. If I had to place it in a rank of movies that have affected my life I would put it right below A Stolen Life and just above Dark Victory--to randomly pull out two Bette Davis movies that have nothing in common with this Hitchcockian scrap.
What can I say? In the past I have alluded to the failings I see in stage-plays-turned-movies, and Rope was no exception to that rule. The writing was common and melodramatic, the acting stilted, and, as for the directing, though it was far from Hitchcock at his worst (meaning at least the picture was framed decently and nobody’s head was cut off) he did have a way of moving the camera in very close on the characters’ suit-coats that was highly annoying.
However, since no gay pr0n resulted, I am forced to consign Rope to the less-than-stellar end of my Hitchcockian rating spectrum.
This leads me to the second portion of this week’s journal entry....
The thought has occurred to me that it would be a good idea to make my thoughts on Hitchcock’s various movies known and thereby give you, my Blessèd Readers, a point of reference you can return to when, in the future, I make disparaging comments about Hitchcock and the miry bog of his creative outpouring. To that end, I believe a List of Ratings is in order.
Rope
Starred Jimmy Stewart +3
Total Rating +3
Murder
The hero was kind of hunky in the tall, dark, suave manner of the British upper-class +2
Total Rating -3
The Birds
What was up with the birds? -2
Total Rating -9
Shadow of A Doubt
The scene in which young Charlie was almost killed by the fumes from the car was kind of lame -2
Total Rating +2
The Lady Vanishes
As anyone who has read Witness by Whittaker Chambers can tell you, the idea of hidden clauses to international treaties is patently ridiculous -3
Total Rating +1
Strangers on a Train
Robert Walker turned out a first-rate performance +7
Total Rating +1
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Starred Peter Lorre +3
Total Rating +1
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Did not star Peter Lorre -3
Total Rating -6
Notorious
I’m not much of a Cary Grant fan -3
Total Rating +3
Young and Innocent
Came out in 1937 so I can expect substandard directing -6
Total Rating +9
North by Northwest
I’m not much of a Cary Grant fan -4
Total Rating 0
The Trouble With Harry
John Forsythe looked kind of like Humphrey Bogart Meh
Total Rating meh
Suspicion
I’m not a big Cary Grant fan -5
Total Rating +11
Vertigo
Totally didn’t live up to the hype -2
Total Rating -14
Rebecca
It was well written +5
Total Rating +18
Psycho
The shower scene didn’t live up to the hype -1
Total Rating +9
Rear Window
Starred Jimmy Stewart +3
Total Rating +15
Topaz
Revolved around a Frenchman -4
Total Rating -10
Currently, I live in Ray Milland’s death place +2
Total Rating +11
I think that covers all the Hitchcock movies I have seen thus far. As you can see, my rating system is highly objective and has absolutely nothing to do with the sex appeal of the movie’s star. And that, my Dear Readers, is why you should listen to my opinion. I am fair; I am balanced; I am right.
I have only God to thank that there were some subtle homosexual undertones to the relationship between our onscreen Loeb and Leopold which made the characters slightly less boring and one-dimensional than they otherwise would have been, but even that was unsatisfying in the end if only because they remained simply undertones. If, midway through the film, they had suddenly acted out the steamy encounter I’m sure will take place the moment Alec Baldwin and David Brock set eyes on each other, the movie would have been much more satisfying.
Teased me with homosexual undertones then never delivered -2
Was an entire hour shorter than the cassette box led me to believe +2
He scared the bejeebers out of me when he suddenly asked the heroine for a blow job -2
In a scene that would have made Michael Jackson very happy the hero sat in a bed and played with a kitten as small children climbed all over him -3
Seriously, I'm really pissed off Hitchcock didn't explain what was up with the birds -3
Any mystery director worth his salt will chose a movie that actually explains the mystery at the end -4
Joseph Cotton blew a smoke ring +3
It’s been so long since I’ve seen this movie that it has almost faded from my memory +1
The idea that those hidden clauses can somehow be coded in a traditional Eastern European folk tune is even more ridiculous -2
Michael Redgrave was surprisingly hot +3
The fight scene in the train’s baggage car was very amusing +3
I'm sorry if I keep coming back to it, but that fight on the carousel was really lame -6
Featured an annoying brat of a child -4
The mom kicked ass +2
Featured Doris Day singing -6
Starred Jimmy Stewart +3
The expression on Claude Rains' face when Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman walked out of the house was priceless +6
I have rented it, but I haven’t actually watched it yet +15
The movie left such a weak impression on me that I can’t remember what exactly happened beyond a chase scene on Mount Rushmore and something involving an airplane and a corn field +4
The dead guy had funny-looking socks meh
The kid was not the typical precocious genius that is so common in movies meh
But Joan Fontaine was really talented +5
I found their dysfunctional relationship oddly compelling +3
The mystery was well paced and added to the tension +3
Basically, what I’m trying to say is: it was well written +5
Not even Jimmy Stewart could save it -3
I was one step ahead of the mystery though the whole movie -4
Basically, I’m bitter -5
It was well acted +3
Featured George Sanders +10
The final scene with Norman Bates was totally chilling +5
It scared my sisters so much they were afraid to be alone that night and ended up sleeping together in the same room +5
The writing was solid +5
The acting was first rate +3
The first time I watched it I ate a peanut butter and cucumber sandwich which was very tasty +4
The shot in which the hot Cuban babe fell dead to the floor, her purple skirt spread out around her, was really, really lame -6
Dial M For Murder
The scene in which Milland outlined his murder plan was particularly well shot +2
Mostly I just really liked Ray Milland +2
Grace Kelly was pretty cool too +2
I will hand it to Hitchcock--scissors were the only way to go +3