The Alfred Hitchcock Filmography - A Chronological viewing (2 Viewers)

[Osato]

I have not seen Under Capricorn, I Confess or Stage Fright yet.

I haven’t seen many of the ailments. Maybe 1 or 2.
I have never seen under Capricorn or stage fright.

Nelson do you have this resource book as well??
It’s a wealth of good info.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchcock/Truffaut

 

[PMF]

Excellence from both Nelson Au and Brent Reid;
I eagerly look forward to reading more.

And, on the heels of Mr. Osato, here is yet another resource...

"The Films of Alfred Hitchcock" (pub. 1976)
by Michael S. Lasky and Robert A. Harris.

 

[Osato]

Excellence from both Nelson Au and Brent Reid;
I eagerly look forward to reading more.

And, on the heels of Mr. Osato, here is yet another resource...

"The Films of Alfred Hitchcock" (pub. 1976)
by Michael S. Lasky and Robert A. Harris.

There is one that I don’t have!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I Confess isn't too bad but Under Capricorn is one of his weakest movies after he came to the U.S.

Agreed. But at least Under Capricorn is finally on Blu-ray:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/under-capricorn-blu-ray-review/

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Under Capricorn is probably my least favorite Hitchcock film in my library.

 

[Matt Hough]

Under Capricorn is probably my least favorite Hitchcock film in my library.

It certainly is my least favorite by a wide margin.

 

[Osato]

It certainly is my least favorite by a wide margin.

It sounds unimpressive.

 

[bujaki]

It sounds unimpressive.

At least in the 35mm Technicolor print that I saw it looked impressive!

 

[Bob_S.]

I bought both Stage Fright and I Confess on dvd as blind buys figuring I would like them but I was underwhelmed by both so I never upgraded to blu-ray.

 

[Nelson Au]

Osato, I am aware of the Truffaut book, but I don’t have a copy. Perhaps I’ll add it as well to the collection. That book is referenced a lot. . I have another book that I never finished, Hitchcock, A life in darkness and light.

Philip, I wasn’t aware of the Lasky and Harris book. I’ll look into that one too.

I did pick-up the Blu Ray of Under Capricorn for this project. I did not read your review Josh. I wanted to see the movie first. But it sounds like it’s going to be a challenge.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I did pick-up the Blu Ray of Under Capricorn for this project. I did not read your review Josh. I wanted to see the movie first. But it sounds like it’s going to be a challenge.

I’d be curious to know if you agree with my take after you see it. I think “challenge” is a pretty accurate description of it. I don’t regret seeing it but I’ll probably never watch it again.

 

[Nelson Au]

I’ll let you know.

 

[Vic Pardo]

Has anyone here seen the 2015 documentary, HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT by Kent Jones? It uses segments of the audio recordings from the famous interview sessions and then adds lots of film excerpts, plus interviews with various directors influenced by or fans of Hitchcock: Martin Scorsese, Peter Bogdanovich, Paul Schrader, Olivier Assayas, Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, David Fincher, James Gray, Kiyoshi Kurosawa.

Here's an excerpt from my initial review comment right after seeing it in 2015:

It’s nice to see the younger directors (all smart and articulate) outline their love of Hitchcock. I hope those clips get younger film buffs to pay attention to this. But this is all over the place. I wanted more of the Hitchcock/Truffaut interaction. There’s a lot but it gets overwhelmed by all the other stuff. Still, it’s definitely worth seeing.

In consulting my IMDB review of the documentary, I am reminded that I have some real problems with various omissions in it, e.g. no mention of Brian de Palma, Hitchcock's most famous imitator, or Bernard Herrmann, his frequent composer. Schrader is interviewed but he never brings up the VERTIGO-inspired film he wrote for De Palma, OBSESSION, which was also scored by Herrmann. Also, no discussion of Hitchcock's own influence on Truffaut's films. The varied Hitchcock film clips go unidentified and the following Hitchcock masterpieces receive little or no mention: REBECCA, SHADOW OF A DOUBT, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, and REAR WINDOW.

Still, it's worth seeing.

 

[Nelson Au]

I have not seen that Hitchcock Truffaut film. I can try to add it to the list and or get the book.

 

[Osato]

I have not seen that Hitchcock Truffaut film. I can try to add it to the list and or get the book.

I think you’ll enjoy both!

I just rented the film. I have the book and refer back to it usually when I’m watching a Hitchcock film.

 

[Matt Hough]

I was supposed to review the film, but the review copy was never sent. The book is wonderful, but it's interesting that Hitchcock rarely defends films that Truffaut obviously doesn't care for. Rather than being confrontational with him, he just lets slighting comments go by.

 

[Osato]

I was supposed to review the film, but the review copy was never sent. The book is wonderful, but it's interesting that Hitchcock rarely defends films that Truffaut obviously doesn't care for. Rather than being confrontational with him, he just lets slighting comments go by.

It’s a great documentary film.

 

[Sam Favate]

Filling in the holes of my collection, I recently got The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956). I know there are some who felt this blu-ray was not up to par, but I thought it was okay (and it's been 6 years or so since its release with no upgrade in sight). I enjoyed the film a lot, with beautiful locations and a very good cast. I was surprised to learn this film was the origin of the ubiquitous song Que Sera Sera. Some of it was rather grim, even for Hitchcock - like planning a child's murder and pointing a gun at a young boy. What a great period of filmmaking, and what a great representation of classic Hitchcock.

 

[Nelson Au]

The Ring
1927
87 minutes B&W
Cast:
Carl Brisson: “One Round” Jack Sander
Lillian Hall-Davis: Mabel, The Girl
Ian Hunter: Bob Corby
Forrest Harvey: James Ware, Promoter
Harry Terry: Showman
Clare Greet (uncredited): Fortune Teller
Written and directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Though credited as sole writer, Hitchcock likely worked with Eliot Stannard and Walter C. Mycroft on the screenplay.
Production Studio: British International Pictures
Viewed 11/22/18


After Hitchcock completed Easy Virture at Gainsborough Studio, he took up an offer to move to British International Pictures at a higher salary and more creative control, plus better facilities at the studio. He was 28 at the time.

The Ring is about the boxing world which Hitchcock became interested in after having seen several fights. The film centers on Jack Sander, an amateur boxer working at a carnival who fights anyone who thinks he could go past one round against him. Of course Jack wins each fight in one round. This is where he gets his nick-name, One Round Jack. There is also Mabel, the ticket sales girl who is Jack’s fiancée. One day Bob Corby visits the carnival and Mabel catches his eye. He’s hanging around the outside while the Promoter is hawking for people to fight Jack and buy tickets to see the fight. Eventually the promoter eggs on Bob to fight Jack, but unknown to everyone is that Bob is the heavy weight champion. He eventually agrees and of course goes past one round and defeats Jack. After which, Bob gives Jack a card to invite him to be his sparring partner, while also pursuing Mabel who becomes interested in Bob. The conflict then begins as Mabel enters into a secret romance with Bob, but still stays with Jack. Eventually Jack discovers the truth and fights for Mabel literally.

From what I read about the cameraman Hitchcock used, Jack Cox, he was able to create several unique visuals at the time from unusual camera set-ups, dissolves, lighting and visual effects. I did notice this and was surprised that this level of visual effects was being done at this period in time. Overall, the film was interesting to see. But not one I think I’ll be seeing again, unless the restored version comes out. It had a good level of humor, pathos and good acting. Plus it’s interesting visually and how Hitchcock limited the number of cards that show dialogue. He seems to be trying to tell the story visually. Definitely worth a look. By the way, earlier I said maybe I will learn something along the way. In watching these four silent films, they all center on the theme of romantic triangles and one woman who seems to be the source of conflict between the two male leads.

On the Hitchcock Zone website, they say this film is also among the 9 silent that were given a restoration. The disc in this set is not a restored copy, and it shows. It is watchable and I was able to follow the story for the most part. The site does have stills from the restored film that look much much better then the DVD.

 

[Nelson Au]

The Farmers Wife
1928
98 minutes B&W
Cast:
Jameson Thomas: Samual Sweetland
Lillian Hall-Davis: Araminta Dench, Housekeeper
Gordon Harker: Churdles Ash, Handyman
Gibbs McLaughlin: Henry Coaker
Maud Gill: Thirza Tapper
Louie Pounds: Widow Louisa Windeatt
Olga Slade: Mary Hearn, Postmistress
Ruth Maitlamd: Mercy Bassett
Antonia Brough: Susan
Haward Watts: Dick Coaker
Mollie Ellis: Sibley "Tibby" Sweetland (uncredited)
Adapted from a play by: Eden Phillpotts
Writer: Eliot Stannard
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Production Studio: British International Pictures
Viewed 12/29/18

Legends Series 20 Movie Classics. Alfred Hitchcock-The Legend Begins. DVD Boxset. Mill Creek 2007

The Farmer’s Wife is an adaptation a play by Eden Phillpotts that had a successful run from 1924 to 1927. After the play ended the film version follows and the project is given to Hitchcock and made at British International Pictures where he recently joined.

This film starts off rather darkly where we learn that the owner of a farm, Samual Sweetland is watching over his dying wife, Tibby. Some time later, we see his daughter marry and leave home. Samual realizes that he is lonely and decides to take up his dying wife’s request that he remarry. So with the aide of his housekeeper Minta, they create a list of single woman nearby as candidates. From this point forward the film’s mood suddenly changes to a lighter and funny film! I can see why the play became such a hit as it’s pretty funny and I enjoyed watching it more then I expected. It was a welcome change from the earlier more serious films. And I have, as I have so far, had no idea what to expect from these early silent films by Hitchcock. If this film ever gets a new release from the recent British Film Institute restoration, it’s worth another viewing. It was a surprise to see such a comedy from Hitchcock and is well made and well acted.

As with The Ring and Easy Virtue, some actors returned in this film which seems to be a practice that Hitchcock would continue in later films.

This film is a part of the Legend Series 20 Movie Classics- Alfred Hitchcock box set. This particular transfer is a bit better then the earlier ones in this set. Though there are areas that show their age and other areas that needs work. The main issue and it could be the DVD authoring, is at the start there are audio clicks I hear plus a few times during the titles there is a video glitch. After the titles, the film settles down and it quite watchable. Even the added musical score is OK and fits the moods of the story telling.