The last time I took Emile the cinema to see Lady Vanishes Alfred Hitchcock. The lights went out, the film began. During the session I forced myself to be particularly and strictly attentive to what at first glance, could be likened to a signature Hitchcock who could beat me to force viewing of his work and a friendly relationship we forge necessarily with a director you love. I tried to understand a little more modestly Hitchcock, find a common denominator of his films and has been for second place, as if the widescreen movies made everything more eloquent, more visible.
One thing particularly struck me, something that is worthy of being generalized to many of these films ( North by Northwest, No Spring for Marnie , The Murder, Rear Window, The Birds, Psycho, The Trouble with Harry?, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Suspicion, The Lady Vanishes, The rope and certainly others, but that does not come back to me or that I have not seen) and is still at the small thesis shy Hitchcock keeps us because it is always (or say very often) in his films to appeal to the infinite comfort which is to be told one thing to see it unravel and streamline before us until the strangeness disappears altogether.
One thing particularly struck me, something that is worthy of being generalized to many of these films ( North by Northwest, No Spring for Marnie , The Murder, Rear Window, The Birds, Psycho, The Trouble with Harry?, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Suspicion, The Lady Vanishes, The rope and certainly others, but that does not come back to me or that I have not seen) and is still at the small thesis shy Hitchcock keeps us because it is always (or say very often) in his films to appeal to the infinite comfort which is to be told one thing to see it unravel and streamline before us until the strangeness disappears altogether.
Hitchcock speaks to our desire and our enjoyment of understanding. Of course we know about n'engrangeons no real after one of his films (except that any insurmountable situation initially tends to overcome in time) this is just to create an artificial situation and very playful fun human and only human rationalization. Hitchcock confronts us with the essence of the problem and the essence of its resolution.
Faced with the problem sometimes is given to the spectator point of view omniscient (he knows the cause), now it is placed on the side of character-ignoring (he seeks the causes) . In the first case, what would interest the viewer to solve it a second time about what he has been kept informed but he assist step by step how to (often ingenious) that such person is doing to access the explanation of a phenomenon?
Faced with the problem sometimes is given to the spectator point of view omniscient (he knows the cause), now it is placed on the side of character-ignoring (he seeks the causes) . In the first case, what would interest the viewer to solve it a second time about what he has been kept informed but he assist step by step how to (often ingenious) that such person is doing to access the explanation of a phenomenon?
The situation is unexplained, irrational, unusual, but more than that, the character took in what he does nevertheless decides not explain (fear, helplessness, disapproval of the entourage, the divergent opinions on what may be the "real") to invest the situation. He takes it even if not in possession of all data and displayed a stubbornness that encourages the viewer and the other characters disapprove. If Hitchcock loves us explain laboriously back to causes, we understand why psychoanalysis became for him an exquisite favorite subject.
Lifeboat - Alfred Hitchcock
0 comments:
Post a Comment