Weekly Top Ten: Hitchcock

Ok, so I’m trying out something new here to mix up the usual reviews I usually write, I am also going to try to write more general articles as well. Anyway, for now, I’m starting the Weekly Top Ten, every week on Wednesdays. For kick off I’ll start today, on a Tuesday, but otherwise I’ll try to make it on Wednesday. The top ten will relate to a ranking of anything having to do with film, and to start off, I’ll do my top ten favourite Hitchcock films. Yeah, I know lists don’t mean anything, but they are fun to write, and I find that reading other people’s top something or other lists have led me to discover interesting films and directors, so hopefully I can do the same to others. Anyway, the top ten Hitchcock films:


10. The Lady Vanishes (1938)
Okay, so I just reviewed this one, but it was pretty damn good and a genuine surprise. Good performances, particularly from the comedic British duo obsessed about cricket, a suspenseful plot, some truly uncanny moments and loads of light humour to make the film all the more enjoyable. Lacks a bit of the depth of Hitchcock, but otherwise a perfect film of this type.

9. Strangers on a Train (1951)
Actually a truly disturbing story with some superb performances, particularly from the “stranger”, but overall very well cast. The pacing and building up of the story is the highlight for me, as well as the brilliantly edited climax, and otherwise the establishment of the relationship between the two characters.

8. The Wrong Man (1956)
A somewhat unusual, and absurdly underrated, Hitchcock film. The cinematography is gritty and feels realistic, and the story is, apparently, based on reality. Still, the theme of a man wrongly accused or falling into a scheme he had nothing to do with is as ever present here as in many other Hitchcock films. Also great performance by Henry Fonda.

7. Psycho (1960)
This classic has been parodied so many times, that many modern viewers can watch it for the first time and still find it familiar. This only shows the everlasting effect of the horror masterpiece that can arguably be called Hitchcock’s last great classic, although I do like some of his later films. Still, going back to black and white and basically re-energizing the horror genre is a great feat from the master of suspense, and this is probably the closest he got to “pure horror”.

6. Rear Window (1954)
Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly just look great together on screen, and this is a fine example of cinema studying the act of looking, or basically itself. The obsessive voyeurism of the main character is fascinating, and for a film that takes place simply in an apartment block again shows how well Hitchcock slowly and steadily can build up the narrative and pacing of the film. Only grudge is that I was a bit disappointed by the ending, but otherwise this is spot on.

5. Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
Bad things don’t happen in small town, do they? Well, according to Hitchcock they definitely do, and this is allegedly his favourite film of the ones he made. The dark rising atmosphere of the city is built up to superb effect, as is the somewhat disturbing oedipal relationship between the two main characters. For the first time, truly, did Hitchcock get into the gritty stuff.

4. North by Northwest (1959)
This is perhaps a guilty pleasure, but damn it, this is perhaps Hitchcock’s most enjoyable film in terms of entertainment. Everything is perfect in this sense, the pacing, the narrative, and the fantastic exiting score, and some wonderful set-pieces, such as the scene out at the crops. Great performance from Cary Grant as the unlucky guy who gets caught up in a scheme he never had anything to do with and some of Hitchcock’s most suspenseful moments.

3. Rebecca (1940)
I don’t know, somehow I feel this one is underrated, but I sure do love it. This gothic “woman’s film” has great and sinister set design and cinematography, and characters are very memorable, although, ironically, the most memorable character was Rebecca, even though she never appears physically. Hitchcock’s first American film, it was an immediate success.

2. Notorious (1946)
I just love this film: Cary Grant as the secret agent, Ingrid Bergman as the beautiful love interest, Claude Rains as the bad guy, and Brazil as the setting. Nothing could wrong with this film, really. Though all these great elements, what is most memorable for me in this one is the brilliant use of the camera, the wonderful building of tension, and the almost violent and repulsive relationship between Bergman and Grant.

1. Vertigo (1958)
It was hard for me, really, to pick the #1 spot on this list, but in the end, it had to be Vertigo. Perhaps James Stewart’s best and most disturbing performance, as well as some beautiful colour cinematography and a haunting score this film surfaces, for me anyway, as Hitchcock’s most profound and disturbing film. Some of the stuff he does is brilliant, and Jimmy Stewart’s character’s obsession with the figure Madeleine is uniquely explored here. The camera work is at its best, particularly the early and later stages of the film are riveting.

To Catch a Thief (Alfred Hitchcock, 1955)

This one I hadn’t heard much about, which was strange because it is from the period when Hitchcock was at his very best and it stars two of the most famous actors of the time, Grace Kelly and Cary Grant. Then I watched, and I was still confused, because it actually wasn’t that bad, indeed, it was quite good, and I’m surprised this doesn’t get mentioned more often.

Cary Grant is a retired jewel thief, but when someone starts stealing jewels in the same manner as he used to, and the police suspect him, he has to take action and catch the thief. So it’s the standard wrong man accused story, which, I guess, is nothing special by now, and Hitchcock certainly did it better in North by Northwest. What is a bit unfortunate, though, is that what I remember best about this film is its setting, which isn’t always a good thing. It is set in the South of France during summer, and it does look beautiful indeed. The film is an extravaganza in set and costume design, and I felt that these elements took a bit too much of the spotlight for the film to work strongly as a narrative. It is a fun film to watch though, and while not as clever as most Hitchcock films, it certainly is entertaining. The colour cinematography is beautiful, and the setting puts us right in the mood of the moment, although I did wish I was actually there, rather than watching the film. I did think Cary Grant was a bit unconvincing as the retired jewel thief, I always thought that when he acted in serious films that he was better as a slick guy like in Notorious, rather than some roof climbing burglar. Grace Kelly is at her most beautiful best, and really illuminates the film with her presence. Sadly, it would be her last with Hitchcock.

The film, despite its obvious lack of subtlety or depth, is still a lot of fun, much owing to the humorous tone it keeps throughout the narrative, with a particularly deflating and funny ending line. While Cary Grant isn’t convincing in the role itself, he does have the natural charisma and acting skills to be enjoyable to watch, although it really isn’t a performance to be remembered as his best. Grace Kelly is better, then, putting a lot of energy into her role and generally adding a bit of spice to the film. There are some great cinematic moments, particularly the ecstatic kissing scene between Grace Kelly and Cary Grant during the fireworks. The film is more slick than clever, and it was a big hit in its time, which makes sense to me. It also has a lot of the usual Hitchcock moments and quirks, so it avoids being just another Hollywood film and a quintessential Hitchcock film, although not a particularly strong one. The flair is there, it just isn’t as deep or profound as Hitchcock usually does it. What is good, though, is that the film emulates a sense of enjoyment. While it probably wasn’t his most committed effort, I am pretty damn sure he had a fun time making this film, and I did have a fun time watching it. I am still surprised that it hasn’t received that much recognition amongst the fans, even though it isn’t as good as his best efforts; it is still a good and enjoyable film. Maybe it was just quietly forgotten, I don’t know really.

Not fantastic, but not bad at all. Very enjoyable to watch, and while it might not give me the same amount of excitation as I usually get from watching Hitchcock films, it still managed to keep me interested, and the beautiful setting, as well as Grace Kelly, kept me interested and intrigued throughout the course of the narrative.

The Lady Vanishes (Alfred Hitchcock, 1938)

I guess I’ve seen about 20 or more Hitchcock films now, but still there is something to get from this guy, although I might be scraping the bottom of the barrel. The Lady Vanishes was one of his British films, before he decided to go to America. The film therefore has a different feel to it than his Hollywood productions, particularly those of the 50’s. What is interesting, though, is that we can already see in this early film, elements which would become very prominent later in his career, and hailed as hallmarks of his cinema.

The film has a very “British” sense of humour, my two favourite characters in the film are two Englishmen who constantly talk about cricket and how they have to get in time home for the big cricket tournament. Most of the film takes place on a train, and Hitchcock does well to keep the film interesting despite the limited space he can tell his story in. The narrative is about a woman who vanishes, as the title says. It is actually quite disturbing when she does disappear, and a strange sense of the uncanny and questioning one’s self mind come to the fore. It is a thriller, though, in typical Hitchcock style, with all the recognizable narrative ploys he usually uses, for example having a conversation while eating, or the classic romance. What made this one stand out a bit more than the rest of his films that I have seen is the focus on the comedy, which there is a lot more of here than usual. All of Hitchcock’s films have quite a bit of humour, but it is usually subtle or just for short moments. Here, though, it takes centre stage and is a big part of what the film is. I also found the interplay between the two romantic leads very good and playful, although the acting is never anything spectacular in itself, at least not on the level such as It Happened One Night.

I did think though that the film lacked a bit of the depth that Hitchcock’s films usually have. Not to say that the film isn’t subtle, because it is quite subtle at times, and explores some interesting themes on denial psychology. What the film misses, most crucially, is the cutting edge in narrative that some of Hitchcock’s later films such as Vertigo, Rebecca, Notorious, Rear Window, and to a lesser extent, North by Northwest had. Still, the film works wonderfully in its own way, and is still high above the average of similar films from that time period. The 1930’s are a difficult era in film to analyse, because the move from silent to sound put the films technologically back a couple of years, and one can see the raw crudities in some of the early 30’s films. In The Lady Vanishes, however, there is little sign to this, and the sound design is also quite impressive for its time. Watching this makes me a bit nostalgic; as I feel I am starting to draw dry the amount of good films that Hitchcock still has to offer. That I have seen well over 20 of his films, though, and still being able to look for more material he directed, only stands as a testament to his immense quality and consistency as a director. Sure, there were a couple of stinkers, but overall the amount of quality films he has put out is nothing short of impressive.

There are always re-evaluations of directors. Recently I have felt that many have started to vindicate Hitchcock to be not all he was made out to be, much like Citizen Kane. Of course, though, Hitchcock is one of the finest directors of all time, he made some fantastic, deep and entertaining classics, and some of the best camerawork and sound design you will ever see or hear. This one was good, and while a classic, not quite up to speed with his very best. Not as if that says much.