Warner sets: Hitchcock Sig. v Controversial Classics (1 Viewer)

[CherylWI]

You've got a good argument going Armin. I've really never thought about all those plot holes before. I'm so entertained by the execution, style and entertainment value that I forgive the minor weaknesses plot wise.

 

[Robert Holloway]

Great question

I have all the Hitchcock's as I'm a huge fan and just ordered the Contoversial classics from Deep Discount DVD.

I would suggest that if you're a big Hitchcock fan the answer is clear. To others I'd say go with the Contoversial collection as they are a broader set of great movies and at an amazing price! Then cherry pick Hitchcock.

You won't go wrong with either.

Rob

 

[PeterMano]

Blah, blah, you don't like the film, we get it, who cares.

 

[Armin Jager]

I don't think they are minor if they ruin whole sequences, it's a quite flashy film which tries to cover its shallowness with its visuals. I should mention that I took most of the criticism from a German book where one author points out plot holes in his films, STRANGERS being the biggest target and another writing about the film is quite disappointed with it, writing that there's only left to see the "suspension of disbelief"-machine at work. I'm certainly no fan of DIAL M FOR MURDER, but you can see that there an author carefully constructed a tight web of events and actions. I wish the same care would have been taken with STRANGERS.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Like I said to each his own, particularly on how we view films, either subjectively or objectively. Some of us prefer to be just entertained without the burden of evaluating a film flaws.





Crawdaddy

 

[John Hodson]

One of my favourite Hitchcock movies; the final scene with McCrea calling on America to hear the bombs falling on London is spine-tingling (way to go Hitch...). It's only my opinion, but I don't find the film tasteless in the slightest, or McCrea - heaven forfend - annoying at all.

As for plot holes, I refer anyone to Mr Ford's famous response when asked why the indians didn't simply shoot the horses...

 

[george kaplan]

Plot Holes?

I've yet to see any movie that didn't have plot holes if you look hard enough. If I didn't watch any movie with plot holes, I wouldn't watch any movies at all.

 

[Armin Jager]

WWII isn't the greatest idea for a McGuffin, a secret treaty between Belgium and Netherlands which can prevent the war, that's a bad joke ... especially since the impending war is only used for the usual "man on the run" spy routine, only in the final minutes the film suddenly discovers that it's a serious affair we have to deal with and throws in a creaky pathetic speech complete with sentences like "let the light burn, America" and the national anthem in the sound track.
And how McCrea got on my nerves ... "Why not pump up Hitler?" ... dumb character which we are strangely supposed to find likeable. Very charming also to notice that Hollywood chauvinism lives: McCrea only needs to stare with a stupid grin long enough at Laraine Day and the independent woman is immediately reduced to a miserable creature who can't make a simple speech. Ah women, they're made only for love, I guess ...
Also a cute idea to have a windmill whose blades are turning against the wind, imagine the machine necessary for this, a simple light would've been enough. The spies are also not too clever, they were followed by McCrea and company and after they have hidden in the mill they obviously don't even try to look from the windmill what McCrea is doing out there which allows him to sneak unnoticed into the mill.

Just a final word from the master of suspense in the Truffaut interview (quite at the end):I try to correct a major weakness of my work. It's that the persons are developed to thinly because of the suspense.

 

[John Hodson]

It could be argued that WWII is an ideal plot-line when it's a topic affecting the majority of your audiences lives, and that 'creaky pathetic speech' probably sounded a little more relevent when the bombs were actually falling across the Atlantic. As for chauvinism, well, it was 65 years ago. I won't even comment on McCrea, because, well, you know, I'm a fan; but then again why bother?

I think that as entertainment it works, you quite clearly don't. And so the world turns...

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Yes, but in context, he was not saying that as if it were a bad thing. Most of the list of "implausibles" above can be explained by the psychology of the characters. Bruno is fixated on Guy and seems willing to accept "mutually assured destruction" if Guy doesn't go along with things. Guy feels guilty for his fiancee's murder and fears that will be evident and support Bruno's blackmail scheme if he talks to the police. Guy has a competetive streak as well as a fear of being caught in a cover-up. Bruno is perhaps Hitchcock's greatest antagonist, and the impression I got from the Truffaut interview is that they wish the character of Guy had been drawn as well as Bruno.

The only bit that really bothers me when watching the movie is the police shooting that hits the carousel operator. Lets just say that a lot of non-American directors have some pretty strange ideas about under what circumstances American police officers will use a firearm.

Regards,

 

[John Hodson]

I don't think that has anything at all to do with Hitch being 'non-American'.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Continue...

Regards,

 

[John Hodson]

*Sigh* - to name but two Don Siegel's Dirty Harry, and Walter Hill's 48 Hours, aw hell, there are 100s of films made by American directors where police fire first and ask questions later - I hardly think that the fact that this doesn't happen every day means that one has to question the nationality of any director; it's a movie.

Weird things happen in movies; or are we going to start saying things like 'well, you know, the door opens outwards into the hallway in Double Indemnity because Wilder wasn't aware of the subtle nuances of American architecture, bless his little Austrian cotton socks...'

(And I've strayed waaaaay off topic, for which I apologise)

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

A rank and file cop firing into a crowd in an amusement park goes beyond the recklessness of the other examples cited, IMHO, due to the sheer number of civilians in harms way. I will accept, though, that my generalization was too broad. I do get the sense that Hitchock's well documented fear of the police from his childhood was magnified by the concept of a 100% armed police force.

Regards,

 

[Robert Crawford]

Let me preface my last comment in this thread by saying this is the wrong thread and area to be having an in-depth discussion about films and plot holes. Therefore, I'm moving this thread to Movies. Lastly, yes, I can be entertained by a film with large plot holes and at times, such holes do not destroy my viewing experience. I don't know why you can't accept the fact that we're all different when it comes to the levels of film acceptance. Please, don't try to enforce your film viewing parameters onto me.






Crawdaddy

 

[Haggai]

Plot holes really are a subjective thing, in terms of how much they affect our enjoyment of movies. I agree with some of Armin's criticisms of Strangers--particularly the scene where Guy comes to Bruno's house with the gun, then decides to talk to his dad, and finds out that it's Bruno in the bed--and Foreign Correspondent, where there's a major one that I don't think Armin mentioned: the lazy and silly "it was a double" explanation for how the ambassador could still be alive after we saw him get shot. But, I still absolutely LOVE both of those movies!

 

[george kaplan]

Armin,

In another thread you saidwhich I bring up only because I think it shows that you like Rules of the Game. But that movie is filled to the brim with ridiculous plot holes, people doing all kinds of nonsensical things that they'd never do in real life. How the hell can you actually watch that film and enjoy it with all those plot holes? Then again, the whole idea of a criminal union in the way it's portrayed in M is so ridiculous it's not even funny.

I'm not as certain of your opinion of Duck Soup, although you alluded positively to a list of films that had it on it, but I'm pretty sure you could write a dissertation on the plot holes in that film.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I don't beleive Trauffaut was negatively critical of Strangers, and his comments about the more unbelievable aspects of that or any film were in the context that it doesn't matter, that a master filmmaker makes people forget about that stuff.

In their interview sessions sometimes Hitch would be hard on an aspect of a film he didn't like, only to have FT defend it because it "worked". I don't recall FT thinking Strangers was tragically flawed with plot holes or something.

I guess I need to go reread that section.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Following up, from FT's Hitch interviews...

FT - In many of your pictures - and Strangers on a Train is a case in point - there are, aside from coincidences and implausibles, many elements that are arbitrary and unjustified. And yet, in the light of a cinematic logic that is strictly personal, you impose them in such a way that once they're on the screen, these are the very elements that become the film's strong points.

AH - The cinematic logic is to follow the rules of suspense. Here we have one of those stories that automatically bring on the old complaint: "But why didn't he tell the police all about it?" Don't forget that we've clearly established the reasons for which he can't go to the police.

FT - There can be no argument about that.


Bold emphasis by me.

Earlier FT calls Strangers a "spectacular comeback" for Hitchcock (after Under Capricorn and Stage Fright).