Alfred Hitchcock Marathon

[Achim]

 

Totally thought you were asking a question of the less rhetorical kind...

Of course you're right on that. Although what appears to be "creative choices" often is just done out of a whim without thinking. Heck, many director's are surprised about what the critics are reign into their films

I'll readily admit, I am usually also more of the straightforward watcher. Actually learning new ways on this forum, fom time to time...

[Tom]

ask yourself why else did he choose to do that.

You dismissed my reasoning, because you think Hitchcock is above it. I think he did it in this cause because he thought it would be funny, and for me it just doesn't fit into this kind of movie.

[Jon]

ask yourself why else did he choose to do that.

You dismissed my reasoning, because you think Hitchcock is above it. I think he did it in this cause because he thought it would be funny, and for me it just doesn't fit into this kind of movie.

I didn't dismiss your reasoning, because your first one was that he'd lost his grip, so I was responding to that, because he definitely didn't in this film. I do agree he did do it because it was funny, but the whole film has a sense of fun and parody. It isn't a straight forward thriller. Hitchcock even called it himself "cinema of the absurd" in which logic comes second. Even the title is nonsense. So to pick out this moment as an indicator that Hitchcock didn't know what he was doing is misleading.

Hitchcock wasn't above making mistakes, far from it, but it makes me sad that modern thinking seems to be an instant reaction of "I didn't like that so it must be wrong and I shall declare it as such!" without considering that the artist didn't do it on impulse but planned it within the big picture. I know you weren't necessarily doing that, but that's what discussion is for, otherwise why post the review at all?

[Tom]

This moment still took me out of the movie
Such car crash scenes are a pet peeve of mine, I admit. And in Hitchcock's days it was probably fairly "new". But I am just tired of these kind of scenes in general. And truthfully, I didn't expect it in a Hitchcock movie.

[Jon]

I think he's one of those directors that did do a lot of serious stuff and his reputation proceeds him for modern audiences, so they think he's doing proper films, which of course he is, but it doesn't account for the fact that he was more an entertainer and crowd pleaser who never admitted to taking it seriously himself.

North By Northwest in many ways paved the way for Bond, yet the 007 movies tend to treat their subject very seriously, so bear that in mind if you get to Topaz. It isn't a great film, but it does seem to me like he was making fun of the Bond character. I can't remember there being a car crash scene though, so you're ok there! 

[Jon]

Although what appears to be "creative choices" often is just done out of a whim without thinking. Heck, many director's are surprised about what the critics are reign into their films

I'll readily admit, I am usually also more of the straightforward watcher. Actually learning new ways on this forum, fom time to time...

The weird thing is, Hitchcock was so structured it was rare anything was done on a whim, yet at the same time, he didn't care what people read into them! Actually, I think he did care, but he kept up the pretence.

[Achim]

I definetely will agree that North By Northwest is not a straight forward thriller.

I will also point out that in the many viewings I had of this film I never really noticed this accident thing ore if I did forgot about it right away.

[Dragonfire]

North by Northwest isn't a straight thriller.  Yes there are a lot of thriller elements in the movie, tense scenes, and suspense, but that isn't all.  There is humor running throughout the movie, so having a car crash that is funny isn't that out of place.  I though it fit with the situation and the rather odd things that were happening to Grant's character then.  At that point in the movie, he still doesn't know what is going on.