man on wire (2008)

and now for a film that the academy did get right... and a british film too.

james marsh's "man on wire", the tale of philippe petit, a young french man and his attempt to cross the two towers of the world trade center by rope, is the best reviewed film of all time. quite an impressive feat, but then so is the film itself. the fact that no actual video footage of petit crossing the towers actually exists doesnt prevent the film from being a towering achievement (pun intended), as instead we follow his plight and plan to scale and cross. the film is told in the manner of the heist film, with each detail and problem explained and tackled in the appropriate manner. the forty year old opinion of those involved is shown too, with each displaying a huge amount of emotion and reverence to the event.

analogy towards the events of september the eleventh are left to be made by the viewer, but the detailed shots of the buildings themselves are enough to provoke thought and exploration into those later events. the manner in which petit describes the towers as things of unimaginable beauty comes across as a striking anchor point for how the towers are now remembered.

strangers on a train (1951)

another hitchcock "wrongly accused/man on the run" thriller features a pair of impressive performances at the heart of it, yet fails to impress on almost every other level. the finale set upon a fairground carousel is thrilling though, and some of the subtler concepts are of interest (the rather blatant use of "doubles" throughout is an interesting enough notion).

jamaica inn (1939)

while the opening scenes of the film impressed and charles laughton's performance was the usual combination of bombast and emotional believability, the rest of this early example of hitchcock's british period failed to work for this viewer. the storming of a capsized ship could have come straight from a silent film, so well constructed was the section in a visual sense, but soon after i found myself in a uniue situation thus far associated with hitchcock; i was struck down with boredom. the "twist" is seen coming from a mile away, with its revelation coming so early on that i actually thought the third act was in full swing. disappointing to say the least, the premise really hooked me, yet the execution failed terribly.

frenzy (1972)

this is the most modern hitchcock film that i have watched of late, with it actually being his penultimate picture. the relaxation of censorship laws between the 1960's and 1970's is displayed incredibly well in the difference between "frenzy" and hitchcock's own "psycho", a film which saw release some 12 years earlier in 1960. both films are examinations of sexual-based slayings, yet the later film is much more provocative in its visual language. theres the famous old misconception that in the infamous "psycho" shower scene there are brief glimpses of a breast and an entrance wound, which is rather funny consider the nature of the graphic murder sequences in "frenzy" (in which there are several breasts on show).

hitchcock's return to his homeland is marked by a momentous opening shot, soundtracked by an equally huge score. london is very much a character in "fenzy", much in the same way that san francisco is in "vertigo". the camera work is beautiful, especially significant considering the challenges of filmmaking in such high profile locations as covent garden. the most impressive moment comes at the point were the character of 'babs' goes into the bedsit with the killer. the pullaway shot, leaving the dank house and ending on the street outside is very impressive, especially with traffic and people flowing between the camera and source.

to be perfectly honest i found "frenzy" to be too much hard work, it actually took me several none-starts to get through the whole thing. and while its ambition is great it lacks the heart and downright style of hitchcock's earlier work.

the trouble with harry (1955)

hitchcock's semi-parable tells the story of a group of individuals faced dealing with the body of a dead man (the eponymous harry). in a manner not disimiliar to that of the average slapstick comedy, the film unfolds to open up a mystery out of something initially seemed rather blase. as a situation based comedy/melodrama the film is very successful, if not slightly underwhelming compared to similiar period hitchcock.

performance wise, as the film is centred so closely around its key roles its no surprise to learn that each are fairly strong, if not standout. edmund gwenn as the fraudulant retired captain shines with charm, after initially coming across as a tad over the top. john forsythe as the thoughtful young artist is a worthy hitchcock leading man, with shirley maclaine being somewhat adorable as his love interest.

the film is full to the brim with hitchcock's usual wit to the end (the final frame of the film declaring harry's fate with the usual panache), and while its far from the greatest film of his ouvre, it definately makes for a strong black comedy.

slumdog millionaire (2009)

danny boyle is a filmmaker i have never really been able to let myself get to excited about. dont get me wrong, i think hes made some genuine modern classics, with "trainspotting" an obvious gem (and a milestone in british cinema), "28 days later" the reinvigoration that its particular genre definately needed, and my personal favourite, his most recent film "sunshine". the quality of his work isnt the reason that he fails to excite me, its the lack of a distinctive style to his work that maintains that i cant follow him closely enough to be a fan. for example, i know what to expect with a filmmaker like martin scorsese, who has prevailing themes and an incredibly personal look throughout all of his work, meaning that films as diverse as "the last temptation of cgrist" and "raging bull" are both obviously the work of the same artiste, whereas with boyle i dont.

in spite of this i had slowly been garnering excitement with regards to "slumdog millionaire". the press have praised the film en masse, and the general consensus claiming it worthy of this years best picture oscar, so obviously my interest was there. im happy to report that i enjoyed the film immensely. it flowed perfectly throughout its two hour run time, the film looked incredible, with mumbai making for one of the most interesting location "characters" in recent memory, and the cast all put in amazing performances, with special note being made of the younger children (made all the more impressive after learning that only two of the performances are by actual professionals). the one thing that impressed beyond all else was the joyful nature of the film, which is especially striking when the dark tone of the material is taken into account; rape, prostitution, murder, infant coercion and more are explored, yet still the end result is that of overwhelming joy.

i have decided to edit this entry in the knowledge that "slumdog millionaire" last night won the golden globe for best picture, best directo, best score and best adapted screenplay. i was watching the ceremony live, and cant think of a more apt winner. everyone seemed so overwhelmingly happy about winning, and excited just to be there. i cant help but think that the scenes referred to in india, where everybody involved in the film was apparently gathered watching, would have been similiar to the scenes at the end of the film. a deserved winner.

saboteur (1942)

perhaps the best example of a film which embodies the two aspects of hitchcock's career (the british work and the american films), "saboteur" came suitably enough in the early years of his work. on paper the film seems like an early prototype for "north by northwest", with the famous landmark-based action atop the statue of liberty laying down the blueprints for the mount rushmore sequence in "north by northwest".

the film is very dark, unusually so for the time. as a result the film is beautifully shot, with the tone of the film lending richly to the character. the actual characterisation is fairly complex too, with the incidental character of the friendly truck driver reminding of the later work of a character-rich filmmaker like martin scorsese.

the film comes complete with the expected kick in the teeth, complete with bitter irony at the end of the film. as the only person that can clear him falls to his death, our hero barry kane (robert cummings) sees his one chance of clearance fall with it. this carries one definitive trait of hitchcock; an unexpected, non-hollywood climax.

withnail & i (1987)

bruce robinson's finest moment "withnail & i" still stands up, over 20 years after its initial release. richard e grant gives a career best performance as the thespian libertine, made all the more impressive when one realises that grant himself is actually tee-total, with paul mcgann enchanting as the eponymous "i".

rope (1948)

a surprisingly early hitchcock work (i genuinely thought it was made in the late fifties, even after the viewing), "rope" is a murder based thriller with a difference. rather than building to the moment of action or at least dragging some drama or statement out of the literal act, the killing in this film takes place in an instant just as the credits have finished rolling. in fact, the way in which all human activity seemingly begins on cue as the final name (alfred hitchcock obviusly...) on the credits rolls by, suggests a great deal. the theatrical notion of the performance begining is apparent, with a clockwork-like moment taking place.

when initially seeing the film literally opening with the murder i instantly presumed that this must have been a reaction of sorts to his critics. ''perhaps the hitchcock method seemed tired or out of date?" i thought, figuring that the drastically different structure was his way of hitting back at those who theoretically spoke out. this was the obvious conclussion that i came to, having most recently viewed "the birds", "shadow of a doubt" and "rear window", all three coming before "rope" i thought. i was shocked to discover that only "shadow of a doubt" came before, and so the reaction that i presumed was an invention of my own thought. needless to say, "rope" is an interesting counterweight to his other work, its almost like a hitchcock film in reverse. instead of the usual build of suspense though we are left with another, one of impending doom for the characters involved. we know the problem, now we await the consequence.

with its (at the time) revolutionary editing, used in a manner to project the concept that the narrative takes place in one continuous shot it could be said that "rope" is hitchcock's most experimental work. again the slow paced nature of "rope" compares interestingly to some of the key scenes in his later work (the bird attacks of "the birds", the shower scene in "psycho").

one of the most unusual aspects of "rope" is that the traditional protagonist of the piece doesnt show up until almost half an hour into the film. hitchcock would later reverse this technique by killing off his "star" name just 30 minutes into "psycho".

"rope" is incredibly self-referential a film. the scenes in which the characters discuss ingrid bergman and company are a sly aside, showing hitchcock's canny wit. the mention of freud could be seen as hitchcock addressing one of the subtle underlying themes from "shadow of a doubt", or, more likely, its critics.

at times the film is highly reminiscent of its theatrical origins, yet at others it is incredibly cinematic. for example the scene whereby james stewart's 'rupert cadell' gives the breakdown of how he would have commited the crime. the camera leads the story, implicating each of the relevent items involved in the act. this reminds heavily of the camerawork later seen in "rear window", and is incredibly visual filmmaking. the lighting at the end of the film, as the friends' plan falls apart is incredibly effective too, in spite of the basic nature. the neon signs used to "colour" the breakdown of philip morgan show literally his being tipped over the edge of sanity. later on in the same scene, the same lights offer a comforting glow, as the film winds down.

rear window (1954)

as a childhood fan of james stewart's "harvey''-era work i often found it difficult to enjoy his more mature roles. having never seen "rear window" prior to this viewing, i am definately realising the error of my ways. sure, these later roles may be very different to the earlier one's, but thats not a comment on the quality of them.

"rear window" opens with one of the most beautifully crafted scenario's i have ever seen. the incredibly limited location is displayed fully with the inventive camerawork on display. specifically placed items tell the whole backstory, as a shot of the broken leg is followed by a shot of a broken camera before the camera moves onto a photograph of a car crashing into view. in this one instance we are shown the problem, the reason and the cause (two very different things). its masterfully paced storytelling, and uses very well paced, traditional techniques.

the opening scene is followed by small vignettes, each told from the point of view of the protagonist, l.b jeffries (stewart), that serve to introduce each of the supporting players key characteristics. this is again, a very traditional technique, used greatly in which to introduce the characters.

although the plot of the film largely revolves around the point of view of our protagonist, we are privy to one piece of information that he isnt, although in turn this is used against us, as if to confuse and throw us off of the mark. the piece of information that i am referring to is the moment quite early on where thorwald, the ''evil'' neighbour leaves his appartment with a woman whilst jeffries sleeps. it is with this action that we are led to believe that thorwald is innocent and jeffries is wrong. alas, as it is later proven, we were too a victim of thorwald's deception.

one thing that i didnt realise until recently is that ''rear window'' was made only 4 years after "harvey" which in turn was made between hitchcock projects. this adds testiment to the versatility of stewart, and only serves to prove just how wrong to seperate the two styles of work.

shadow of a doubt (1942)

alfred hitchcock's "shadow of a doubt" one of his earliest american films, and his favourite of his own films, is the key text in one of my MA modules, and the reason for the current season of hitchcock films being undertaken by myself. the title of the film is represented physically throughout, not only through the use of literal shadows, but also through the use of smoke, black typography (diagetic text ie, on the doors of the library) and even in the form of shrubbery to compliment the use of the "shadow" of the title. the most impressive and perhaps obvious use of shadows comes early on, in the shape of the train arrival in the station, wherein the newton family are encased in shadow by the imposing figure of the train. this simple scene suggests quite literally, the state of things to come.

another fairly basic, yet incredibly effective technique is the contrast between new jersey (being the site of uncle charlie's introduction) and santa rosa (being the site of the newton family, specifically little charlie's introduction and dwelling). the two locations are poles apart, adding another layer to the level of characterisation for all parties. the off-kilter angles in which the locations are initially shot tells the viewer to be wary of what they are about to see, giving off an uneasy and unusual tone.

the character of little charlie ages severely throughout the film, as well as developing emotionally. at the start of the film she is but a little girl, angry at the restrictive nature of the world around her, yet by the films closing moments she is the fully fledged protagonist of her own life, having made the decisions that have moved the narrative. shes no longer a bored little girl, but is instead a strong female character, which was actually quite a bold statement for the 1940's.

with each viewing of a hitchcock film, one of the more apparent archetypes of his work is that of the comedic character. "shadow of a doubt" is no exception, with the paranoid character of herb adding to the comic relief. not only does he add to the lighter tone, but his tales of murder provoke a side of little charlie's character unseen to the point in question. the full importance of the "comedic" role is completely exposed here, as what is presumed to be little more than light relief is shown to be an incredibly important narrative ingredient.

the birds (1963)

what sounds like a ridiculous idea on paper actually works rather well in practice, in the shape of alfred hitchcock's ''the birds''. when the small town of bodega bay is flooded by a mass of birds, seemingly out for the kill mitch brenner and melanie daniels (rod taylor and "tipi" hedren respectively) must survive the onslaught.

with particular emphasis on the eyes, the most vulnerable spot for a bird attack, hitchcock creates an otherworldly atmosphere, and a contradictory tone that promises light (most of the film takes place outside, during the day) but delivers chills. the innovative electronic score only adds to this.

"the birds" is the first hitchcock film i have watched in a while. having never been a huge fan, i decided the time was right to get a grounding in his work. and while "the birds" impressed, from what i have been told its hardly one of his masterpieces, so i look forward to delving in properly.

judge dredd (1995)

a moment of madness, partly inspired by the news that a new version has recently been greenlit, ended with me taking a look at the the sylvester stallone-led "judge dredd". needless to say it wasnt as bad as expected, nor as bad as i remember. the concept of a helmetless dredd will never really work with me, yet the rest of the visuals work a treat. the blade runner-esque world of mega city-1 is really strongly realised, and stallone as the eponymous dredd is actually borderline perfect casting (were it not for the ego and the mask removal).

in bruges (2008)

i picked this up as a case of light entertainment post-changeling, and while i didnt expect much, it really impressed. it also contains possibly the finest joke heard in a fim this year, in the shape of -

"what is belgium famous for?" chocolate and child murderers, and they only made the chocolate to attract the children."

or something along those lines.