A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Man Who Knew Too Much -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Cineman]

True, but perhaps they're being a little too free in their definition. LOL.

To further muddy the waters on this, is the 1972 movie "Cabaret" a musical?

 

[Jim*Tod]

Yes... CABARET is most definitely a musical and indeed was a Broadway show before being transferred to film (albeit with some significant changes).

 

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by Cineman /img/forum/go_quote.gif

To further muddy the waters on this, is the 1972 movie "Cabaret" a musical?

LOL. A very good point, as they did drop the book songs for the film. There are some muddy hybrids (Garland's A Star Is Born being another). But logically, if the definition of a musical is having someone perform a song on film (even as a performer to an audience) then the question of "Que Sera Sera" being out of place in the film becomes moot. By that very definition, The Man Who Knew Too Much becomes a musical by having someone merely perform a song in the film. As does Casablanca, To Sir With Love, Dark City, Cat Ballou, Back To the Future, The Pink Panther, The Poseidon Adventure and any number of other films both comedic or dramatic that feature people performing songs onscreen. That's not my definition of a musical, but if that's what others think makes a musical, who am I to argue?



And with the exception of Casablanca, none of those films' songs are germane to their plots at all, unlike TMWKTM, yet I've never heard anyone complain about liking them "except for that musical number which was so out of place."

 

[Cineman]

LOL.  A very good point, as they did drop the book songs for the film.  There are some muddy hybrids (Garland's A Star Is Born being another).  But logically, if the definition of a musical is having someone perform a song on film (even as a performer to an audience) then the question of "Que Sera Sera" being out of place in the film becomes moot.  By that very definition, The Man Who Knew Too Much becomes a musical by having someone merely perform a song in the film.  As does Casablanca, To Sir With Love, Dark City, Cat Ballou, Back To the Future, The Pink Panther, The Poseidon Adventure and any number of other films both comedic or dramatic that feature people performing songs onscreen.  That's not my definition of a musical, but if that's what others think makes a musical, who am I to argue?
And with the exception of Casablanca, none of those films' songs are germane to their plots at all, unlike TMWKTM, yet I've never heard anyone complain about liking them "except for that musical number which was so out of place."  
 

Interestingly, Hitchcock's approach to Que Sera Sera in TMWKTM defied a certain convention found in many otherwise non-musical Hollywood movies that happen to feature a character singing a song; no orchestra accompaniment creeps into the sequence where she and her son sing it in the hotel room. How many times previously did we get movies where a character sings a lullabye or a love song to another character and suddenly the orchestra accompaniment creeps in out of nowhere? Not in TMWKTM. In fact, that convention had become so widely accepted by the time TMWKTM was released I wonder if some audience members felt uncomfortable about the absence of it in that hotel room sequence and in some weird way accounts for their immediate resistance to it, as though this more appropriately private sing-along moment had occurred in public at the table next to yours.
So by the absence of that convention, Hitchcock is, I believe, adamantly arguing against this sequence or this movie that is so dependent on music (and not just songs sung by Doris Day) being taken as anything like the conventional "musical theater" musical you were talking about, not even a Cabaret or music biography version of one.

 

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by Cineman /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/300#post_4009070
Interestingly, Hitchcock's approach to Que Sera Sera in TMWKTM defied a certain convention found in many otherwise non-musical Hollywood movies that happen to feature a character singing a song; no orchestra accompaniment creeps into the sequence where she and her son sing it in the hotel room. How many times previously did we get movies where a character sings a lullabye or a love song to another character and suddenly the orchestra accompaniment creeps in out of nowhere? Not in TMWKTM. In fact, that convention had become so widely accepted by the time TMWKTM was released I wonder if some audience members felt uncomfortable about the absence of it in that hotel room sequence and in some weird way accounts for their immediate resistance to it, as though this more appropriately private sing-along moment had occurred in public at the table next to yours.
So by the absence of that convention, Hitchcock is, I believe, adamantly arguing against this sequence or this movie that is so dependent on music (and not just songs sung by Doris Day) being taken as anything like the conventional "musical theater" musical you were talking about, not even a Cabaret or music biography version of one.

I agree 100%. I don't find anything "musical" (in the genre definition of the word) about either appearance of the song in the film. But the bottom line is a lot of people have issues with the song and its appearance in the film, for whatever reason, and they have every right. I'm not one of them, thank goodness, so I can enjoy the film completely.

I think when Paramount dictated a song or two he absolutely made certain it would be essential to the plot and not just pause the action. Much like he did in Rear Window with the song, "Lisa." That song is played as much if not more in RW than "Que Sera Sera" is in TMWKTM. But it's not there just to get a Best Song nomination. It serves a plot point:




stopping Miss Lonelyhearts momentarily from taking the pills, and more importantly, stopping Lisa from escaping Thorwald's apartment in time before he returns, resulting in him attacking her. And of course, it brings resolution to the MIss Lonelyhearts storyline at the end of the film.

 

[Cineman]

I agree 100%.  I don't find anything "musical" (in the genre definition of the word) about either appearance of the song in the film.  But the bottom line is a lot of people have issues with the song and its appearance in the film, for whatever reason, and they have every right.  I'm not one of them, thank goodness, so I can enjoy the film completely.

I think when Paramount dictated a song or two he absolutely made certain it would be essential to the plot and not just pause the action.  Much like he did in Rear Window with the song, "Lisa."  That song is played as much if not more in RW than "Que Sera Sera" is in TMWKTM.  But it's not there just to get a Best Song nomination.  It serves a plot point:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

stopping Miss Lonelyhearts momentarily from taking the pills, and more importantly, stopping Lisa from escaping Thorwald's apartment in time before he returns, resulting in him attacking her.  And of course, it brings resolution to the MIss Lonelyhearts storyline at the end of the film.

This is what made Hitchcock one of the greatest filmmakers of all time; he could have just plopped a song in the middle of the movie like so many other directors did because it was the convention or because they were pressured to do so by the studio. Instead, whatever the convention or studio pressures were, Hitchcock insisted on using the song, integrating it into the plot and theme, turning it into another cinematic tool rather than merely adding it his movie because he could (or, under studio pressure, because he should).

He did the same with sound, of course, Under pressure from the studio and demands from audiences to make sound movies...because sound was technically available...he didn't just add sound to his first sound film. He used sound to enhance the subjective nature of his cinematic approach, even to the point of, quite courageously really, producing what one could only describe as a degradation of the quality of the innovation by deliberately muddying all but the word "KNIFE" uttered by a character in order to replicate the mental state of his heroine. Astonishing. Meanwhile, every other director in the world was turning potted plants, furniture and even other actors into microphone stands just to make sure every-single-word-was-heard-so-loud-and-clear. They were only adding the technology of sound. Hitchcock was already using the technology of sound.

And so that's what Hitchcock did about the convention or in response to the pressure to include a song in his movies. Your example of Lisa in REAR WINDOW is it exactly. He didn't hit a home run every time in this regard. But he was probably the Hollywood studio director who understood best and most thoroughly accepted his job to bow to the marketing and profit demands of his employer (and to himself when he was the producer) while doing so as much as possible in service to the art and craft of cinema.

 

[Yorkshire]

I agree 100%.  I don't find anything "musical" (in the genre definition of the word) about either appearance of the song in the film.  But the bottom line is a lot of people have issues with the song and its appearance in the film, for whatever reason, and they have every right.  I'm not one of them, thank goodness, so I can enjoy the film completely.

Yeah, that's ir for me. I'm not saying the song makes the film a musical, just that to me it feels like a song in a musical, and as such feels jarring and out of place.
To me.
Bottom line, had they had another actress in the role, not famous for singing, I doubt there'd have been a song in there. It feels like it's there to showcase DD.
To me.
Steve W

 

[Douglas R]

Yeah, that's ir for me. I'm not saying the song makes the film a musical, just that to me it feels like a song in a musical, and as such feels jarring and out of place.
To me.
Bottom line, had they had another actress in the role, not famous for singing, I doubt there'd have been a song in there. It feels like it's there to showcase DD.
To me.
Steve W

That's exactly how I feel. I don't have a problem with DD singing at the Embassy (even though I don't like the song) because she is specifically asked to perform for the guests and it acts as a major plot point but in the hotel she begins singing for no reason at all and it seems completely wrong - to me. It adds nothing to the plot and was obviously put in to showcase DD and the song.

 

[benbess]

That's exactly how I feel. I don't have a problem with DD singing at the Embassy (even though I don't like the song) because she is specifically asked to perform for the guests and it acts as a major plot point but in the hotel she begins singing for no reason at all and it seems completely wrong - to me. It adds nothing to the plot and was obviously put in to showcase DD and the song.

Parents sometimes sing with their kids, just because it's fun. As a plot point, the songs says we don't know what's coming ahead in life, which is in part what the film is about too. The song shows how close a bond the mother shares with the son in just a couple of minutes, so that when they are separated we know what's at stake. Hitchcock almost never used songs in his movies. But he did it here perfectly, and to great effect, imho. Doing it early in the movie brings things full circle when we hear the song "wrong" in the end.
Doris Day used for her singing as well as acting talents? Yes, of course, that's why you hire them. Just as Bumstead is used for his impressive production design skills, Edith Head for costume design, Bernard Herrmann for music, etc. Of course, everyone gets to make up their own minds about this, but Hitchcock did this very carefully, and I think he knew what he was doing.

 

[Matt Hough]

Doesn't the little boy start singing it and then the mother join in? I thought it was introduced very intrinsically into the plot. It didn't seem shoehorned in at all to me.

 

[Matt Hough]

BTW, I watched the Blu-ray of this last night. (I have the UK set.) Though I could certainly see some of the color shifting, to me it wasn't nearly as disconcerting as it is in, say, the DVD of Can-Can where it almost makes you seasick. For me, I'd say about 85% of the movie looked very good and was an acceptable upgrade to the DVD I had. I was not dissatisfied.
On to Vertigo.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by MattH. /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/300#post_4009774
BTW, I watched the Blu-ray of this last night. (I have the UK set.) Though I could certainly see some of the color shifting, to me it wasn't nearly as disconcerting as it is in, say, the DVD of Can-Can where it almost makes you seasick. For me, I'd say about 85% of the movie looked very good and was an acceptable upgrade to the DVD I had. I was not dissatisfied.
On to Vertigo.

Very different problems. One is based upon overall fading, the other on chemical damage from poorly produced "B" roll.

RAH

 

[usrunnr]

I'm late to be posting this, but is there any chance of this being restored/improved?
I'm making do with the old DVD since the Blu-ray apparently is so poorly done.
All comments appreciated.

 

[Robin9]

I'm late to be posting this, but is there any chance of this being restored/improved?
I'm making do with the old DVD since the Blu-ray apparently is so poorly done.
All comments appreciated.

As Universal is now releasing 4k discs of Alfred Hitchcock's films, there's a very good chance a new transfer will be done at some stage for The Man Who Knew Too Much. I certainly hope so because the current Blu-ray disc is nowhere near good enough.

 

[AlanP]

Take guesses on the next four discs from HITCH for upgrades-

 

[Dick]

As Universal is now releasing 4k discs of Alfred Hitchcock's films, there's a very good chance a new transfer will be done at some stage for The Man Who Knew Too Much. I certainly hope so because the current Blu-ray disc is nowhere near good enough.

It does seem as though FAMILY PLOT, also in need of significant work (the Blu-ray was crap), is going to be among the films in the next set. MARNIE could use some work, too. The other three titles are probably good to go. I will await reviews.

 

[Robert Harris]

It does seem as though FAMILY PLOT, also in need of significant work (the Blu-ray was crap), is going to be among the films in the next set. MARNIE could use some work, too. The other three titles are probably good to go. I will await reviews.

Family Plot does not need work.

 

[Robin9]

It does seem as though FAMILY PLOT, also in need of significant work (the Blu-ray was crap), is going to be among the films in the next set. MARNIE could use some work, too. The other three titles are probably good to go. I will await reviews.

Family Plot does not need work.

I watched the Blu-ray disc of Family Plot a couple of weeks ago. I didn't think it was that bad. Not startlingly good but not bad either. I also recently watched Marnie but this time on DVD because I do find that Blu-ray disc pretty awful.

 

[Dick]

Family Plot does not need work.

Let me rephrase: it needs a better transfer.

 

[John Maher_289910]

MARNIE, is my least favorite Blu-ray, ever. It looks horrible to me. As for DD singing in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, I simply don't get the issue with it being done in the hotel room. The kid is singing it, and mom joins in. Something they often do together. It being sung at the Embassy is what's out of place. Hitchcock even conveys this with the looks of awkwardness on the faces of many of the people in attendance. It's, obviously, not a song that Jo Conway sang on stage, or on records, so their reactions is "what's this?" It's her desperate attempt at communicating her presence to her son. He hears a song he knows, then listens more intently and realizes it's his mother singing it. Everything about its existence in the film makes perfect sense, plot-wise. My guess is that if the song did not become a number 1 hit, and forever associated with Doris Day, nobody would have the slightest issue with it, as I'm sure no one did, when the film was originally in theaters.