142 replies to this topic

[MarkA]

Hitchcok famously stated that a film needs a beginning, middle and an end...but not necessarily in that order.

Was that Hitchcock or Jean-Luc Godard

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Yeah, I wouldn't call the Tosca sequence any less watchable than the Junkanoo (sp?) escape. The only reason the cross-cutting stood out at all for me was the quantity. When Forster used it during the Palio, I thought to myself "Ah, that's cool. Nice parallel metaphor. Cool visual effect. And I bet those tunnels are unstable, probably shaking and loud - seems like a layer of description Fleming would write that adds to the danger." Or something like that.

Then during the Opera I thought "Also cool, but he's doing it again?"

Did you ever to occur to think, "if he's repeating the same trick for a different stage, maybe there really wasn't a metaphore intended in the first place, but a purely aesthetical solution?? I mean, it could have been cool, but just for the sake of being cool.

[Pierce - Daniel]

Forster has said that:

Bond and Camille are mirror images of each other. They parrell each other.
So....during the action scenes the action is parrelled. To represent the parrell between Bond and Camille. This is shown during the palio and tosca (tosca has due prominence as it's story has alot of links to the Vesper plotline). The story appexs when the action is finally parrelled with Bond's fight with Greene and Camille's with Medrano.
It's quite an arty techique, but it's meant to represent and endorse and support character development.

[Mr_Wint]

Forster has said that:

Bond and Camille are mirror images of each other. They parrell each other.
So....during the action scenes the action is parrelled. To represent the parrell between Bond and Camille. This is shown during the palio and tosca (tosca has due prominence as it's story has alot of links to the Vesper plotline).

The Tosca scene and the Palio chase has nothing to do with Camille.

The story appexs when the action is finally parrelled with Bond's fight with Greene and Camille's with Medrano.
It's quite an arty techique, but it's meant to represent and endorse and support character development.

I didn't like the Graves/Bond - Miranda/Jinx parallel fight in DAD, and to re-use that idea again stinks... or maybe it is just the character 'Medrano' who make it all look so bad.

I can understand that Forster is not so happy with the final product. Still, a little bit surprised that he is so honest about it.

[Santa]

It's quite an arty techique, but it's meant to represent and endorse and support character development.

Oh dear Lord.

[MattofSteel]

Yeah, I wouldn't call the Tosca sequence any less watchable than the Junkanoo (sp?) escape. The only reason the cross-cutting stood out at all for me was the quantity. When Forster used it during the Palio, I thought to myself "Ah, that's cool. Nice parallel metaphor. Cool visual effect. And I bet those tunnels are unstable, probably shaking and loud - seems like a layer of description Fleming would write that adds to the danger." Or something like that.

Then during the Opera I thought "Also cool, but he's doing it again?"

Did you ever to occur to think, "if he's repeating the same trick for a different stage, maybe there really wasn't a metaphore intended in the first place, but a purely aesthetical solution?? I mean, it could have been cool, but just for the sake of being cool.

No, because the metaphor in the first case is quickly overshadowed by the physical parameters of the setting and how they contribute to the danger. Tosca is the real metaphor (or so many have said, I can't say I've seen the opera in full).

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I'm thinking QOS may turn out to be the most misunderstood Bond film ever!

[MattofSteel]

I'd say it's already there.

[tim partridge]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a stylistic, editorial, physical, musical, architectural throwback to the days of Hunt and Young more than any other Bond film.

I'd argue more in favour of the stylists, Hamilton and Gilbert. Hitchcockian-lite flare and expansive visuals, etc. Tosca sequence being the glaringly obvious example regarding the latter (not to forget that slight Goldfinger ref regarding the former ). I don't think any Bond director has worried himself about the colour of a car since Moonraker.

Casino Royale, with it's no frills storytelling for me was much more of a throwback to Hunt and Young. Not to mention that half of Craig's wardrobe in that film seemed to have wondered off DR NO and THUNDERBALL.

Edited by tim partridge, 12 March 2009 - 01:14 AM.

[Sniperscope]

C'mon, let's face it Forster is nowhere near the level of Hitchcock!! So when film historians or critics, and no simple fans like us, make inferences in layered movies from the likes of Hitchcock, Fellini or Buñuel (which generally didn't happened with their reviews of QOS) I think they have more solid arguments to do it- I'm not saying that this people are something like the unrefutable 'voice of god', only that they're more prepared to go beyond wishful thinking-.

Wrong, my friend. It's not "wishful thinking" at all...
All films are "layered" not just those directed by the famous auteurs of the past.
Film is visual and therefore interpretative and there are very few human beings (none perhaps?) who can be 100% objective and uncluttered by their own interpretation, ideas, experiences...
Have you seen another film directed by Forster? If you have you should have noted that he is an intensely serious director in the European style who is very conscious of visuals and their power to convey subtle meaning and symbolism without overt exposition.
That's what directors of quality understand (like Hitch, Godard, Lang, Pabst, Melville etc. etc.) and that's what Forster strives for. He may not be in the same league as those guys, and sure he ain't no Hitchcock, but ALL directors want to be that!
(Actually as an aside, Hitch, the purest of all auteurs, only ever made one movie which he successfully remade for over 40 years!!! However, Forster, who is still relatively young, has a very diverse body of work that runs the gamut from fairytale to thriller making him, potentially, a more creative director.)
For me Forster's pitting Bond against the four elements in his mise en scene is a sophisticated and appropriately Bondian thing, especially when you consider Dr No's attempt to test the limits of Bond's human endurance via the natural elements of heat, cold and water...
If you don't want to "read into" a Bond film then good luck to you - that's your prerogative - but it's also mine to do otherwise.
Oh and BTW - don't hold too much stock in the reviews of "critics" these days, Mr A-B. Unfortunately they cater to the more literal-minded general reader, conditioned to Hollywood's CGI-riven spectacles and overly-expository style...

Edited by Sniperscope, 12 March 2009 - 11:08 AM.

[Joe Bond]

C'mon, let's face it Forster is nowhere near the level of Hitchcock!! So when film historians or critics, and no simple fans like us, make inferences in layered movies from the likes of Hitchcock, Fellini or Buñuel (which generally didn't happened with their reviews of QOS) I think they have more solid arguments to do it- I'm not saying that this people are something like the unrefutable 'voice of god', only that they're more prepared to go beyond wishful thinking-.

Wrong, my friend. It's not "wishful thinking" at all...
All films are "layered" not just those directed by the famous auteurs of the past.
Film is visual and therefore interpretative and there are very few human beings (none perhaps?) who can be 100% objective and uncluttered by their own interpretation, ideas, experiences...
Have you seen another film directed by Forster? If you have you should have noted that he is an intensely serious director in the European style who is very conscious of visuals and their power to convey subtle meaning and symbolism without overt exposition.
That's what directors of quality understand (like Hitch, Godard, Lang, Pabst, Melville etc. etc.) and that's what Forster strives for. He may not be in the same league as those guys, and sure he ain't no Hitchcock, but ALL directors want to be that!
(Actually as an aside, Hitch, the purest of all auteurs, only ever made one movie which he successfully remade for over 40 years!!! However, Forster, who is still relatively young, has a very diverse body of work that runs the gamut from fairytale to thriller making him, potentially, a more creative director.)
For me Forster's pitting Bond against the four elements in his mise en scene is a sophisticated and appropriately Bondian thing, especially when you consider Dr No's attempt to test the limits of Bond's human endurance via the natural elements of heat, cold and water...
If you don't want to "read into" a Bond film then good luck to you - that's your prerogative - but it's also mine to do otherwise.
Oh and BTW - don't hold too much stock in the reviews of "critics" these days, Mr A-B. Unfortunately they cater to the more literal-minded general reader, conditioned to Hollywood's CGI-riven spectacles and overly-expository style...

This is exactly what I was trying to say in my original post where I mentioned Hitchcock's films being layered so there are some meanings that are not pure black and white that are presented, Vertigo being one of the most layered movies I have ever seen and there is whole bunch of meaning in that film that is shown through subtlety and must be "read into" by the viewer to understand its meaning (I still think there is stuff in the movie I have not picked up on and I have seen it a dozen or so times) and I feel 2001: A Space Odyssey is another example of a film that has a lot of layers and QoS is defiantly not as great as these films but that does not mean that it is layered and a lot more subtle than any Bond film and like Sniperscope said Forster has done so many different types of genres but there is one constant between all of them and that is he uses subtlety and visual means to show meaning of a scene and he does not spell it out for the audience and I like that about his films.

P.S. Sniperscope: Whats your favorite Forster film, other than QoS? Mine is either Stranger than Fiction or Finding Neverland.

[Sniperscope]

P.S. Sniperscope: Whats your favorite Forster film, other than QoS? Mine is either Stranger than Fiction or Finding Neverland.

Both films have their faults (mainly at the script level) but I think the first half of STRANGER THAN FICTION is fantastic - especially in establishing Harold's routine and the slow recognition of his "reality."
(In the second half of the film the melodrama gets a bit silly - the romance seemed contrived, the ending was too knowingly cheesy and the notion that Harold would willingly sacrifice himself for a novel I found ludicrous!!! But these are plot problems not directorial and Forster throughout the film draws beautiful performances despite any script deficiencies.)
One remarkable thing about STF is that Forster convincingly directed Will Ferrell into a sympathetic, tragic hero which, IMHO, is no small achievement!
Forster's direction and mise en scene in both films is faultless and visually stunning, particularly in FNL when he blends fantasy and reality. Monster's Ball is v powerful too - but for completely different reasons.
Forster strikes me as quite a subversive director; completely atypical. He intelligently deconstructs whatever genre he is working in and attempts to re-approach it from surprising, non-traditional angles to achieve something memorable and moving- QoS is no exception! None of his films are perfect, to be sure, but he's still a young director - in years to come he's going to produce some remarkable films!

BTW Joe - VERTIGO is one of the best movies ever made!
Jimmy Stewart is at his best and the whole way he "remakes" Madeline in the second half of the film... brilliant!
Another Hitchcock thriller that many overlook is STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. If you haven't seen it - do so! I think it was quite a controversial theme for its time, with an intriguing subtext. The direction is superb.
39 STEPS is also the archetypical "innocent man on the run" Hitchock thriller - that's the film I was suggesting he remade constantly for 40 years! But it's got plenty of layers too!

Edited by Sniperscope, 12 March 2009 - 04:17 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Another Hitchcock thriller that many overlook is STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. If you haven't seen it - do so! I think it was quite a controversial theme for its time, with an intriguing subtext. The direction is superb.

Isn't the lead character's name Guy Haines?

[DaveBond21]

But there are plenty of scenes in the series where innocent people (not henchmen) appear to die, even though it's never shown on screen. One part of CR that always bothers me is Bond's destruction of of the construction site in Madagascar. It certainly looks like he (and/or Mollaka) inadvertently kill plenty of workers.

I never liked the bit in TND when Bond steers his remote control car out of the garage and into the ever-so-conveniently-located AVIS storefront. Again, no one appears to get hurt, but Bond showed an unnecessarily callous disregard for stray pedestrians.

In the "Best Ever Bond" show presented by Roger Moore in 2002, Martin Campbell talks about how during the tank chase in Goldeneye, they had to include shots of police officers escaping from crushed cars.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

but I'd bet every penny that Young and Hunt would have never allowed that rare intercut.

Be careful with your cash. I mean, you have watched TB, right?

I did, but I didn't get confused while watching: I knew that Bond was escaping from Fiona during the Junkanoo, and than, that the thugs where about to shoot him when he's dancing.

Who says a piece of editing on a Tosca scene has to be temporally correct? The very act of editing a film destroys real time anyway. Fortser can edit the film any way he and his editors desire. And Hunt and Young intercut the growing drama of separate scenes (not parallel moments) all the time. (...)

Forster made everyone feel dizzy with his "artistics" paralells: the Palio/Bond and Mitchell chase was acceptable (even tough he cuts to the woman falling to the ground after being shot by Mitchell when they're getting to the roofs - totally out of order). And the Tosca scene, well, let's say a proper shooting with all the innocent people in there after the end of the show would have been a lot better. Instead, he shows: a) Bond shooting his adversaires, b ) What's happening in the play and C) Greene and his eople escaping... all these in less than a minute with very fast shots. I don't know how you coldn't be confused.

And I personally don't give a wrecked Aston's exhaust pipe what Graham Rye thinks of QUANTUM OF SOLACE

I care about it. I thought he was completely mistaken before watching the film, but now I know everything he says about Forster is right.

[Joe Bond]

P.S. Sniperscope: Whats your favorite Forster film, other than QoS? Mine is either Stranger than Fiction or Finding Neverland.

Both films have their faults (mainly at the script level) but I think the first half of STRANGER THAN FICTION is fantastic - especially in establishing Harold's routine and the slow recognition of his "reality."
(In the second half of the film the melodrama gets a bit silly - the romance seemed contrived, the ending was too knowingly cheesy and the notion that Harold would willingly sacrifice himself for a novel I found ludicrous!!! But these are plot problems not directorial and Forster throughout the film draws beautiful performances despite any script deficiencies.)
One remarkable thing about STF is that Forster convincingly directed Will Ferrell into a sympathetic, tragic hero which, IMHO, is no small achievement!
Forster's direction and mise en scene in both films is faultless and visually stunning, particularly in FNL when he blends fantasy and reality. Monster's Ball is v powerful too - but for completely different reasons.
Forster strikes me as quite a subversive director; completely atypical. He intelligently deconstructs whatever genre he is working in and attempts to re-approach it from surprising, non-traditional angles to achieve something memorable and moving- QoS is no exception! None of his films are perfect, to be sure, but he's still a young director - in years to come he's going to produce some remarkable films!

BTW Joe - VERTIGO is one of the best movies ever made!
Jimmy Stewart is at his best and the whole way he "remakes" Madeline in the second half of the film... brilliant!
Another Hitchcock thriller that many overlook is STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. If you haven't seen it - do so! I think it was quite a controversial theme for its time, with an intriguing subtext. The direction is superb.
39 STEPS is also the archetypical "innocent man on the run" Hitchock thriller - that's the film I was suggesting he remade constantly for 40 years! But it's got plenty of layers too!

Yes, Vertigo is definantly one of the best movie ever made I like how Hitch used a lot of first person angle like when Scotty is tailing Madiline at the beginning and the last time I watched it I picked up the fact that at the beginning Madeline/Judy is the one the audience is meant to believe is possesed but in the second half Scotty is the one who is possessed and the irony is that Judy was never possessed and believe it or not but the first time I saw this film I flipped on to it on TCM but it was at the end scene were Scotty forced Madeline up the stairs at the Church and thought Scotty was a bad guy but of course when I saw the whole film I realized he was torchered and had to lead Madeline up the stairs in order to get on with his wife.

I have seen Strangers on a Train and I agree that many overlook this movie but its a real good film and like the Vertigo both have really good DVD's where both look really good for their age. It sounds your a very big Hitchcock fan Sniperscope and I would say most of his films are layered and that is testiment to him as a director and since he used visual means to tell a story since when he never really liked it when movies started to have sound. By the way Sniperscope if your a fan of To Catch a Thief, the Paramount Centennial Collection 2-disc version of the film will be released on March 24 (North America only) and it apparently has better and more correct colors than any of the previous releases plus because the bonus feature are pushed to a second disc the clarity is much improved which is why I am buying it. Here is a review with screenshots:
http://www.dvdbeaver...catchathief.htm

Isn't the lead character's name Guy Haines?

Yes and I think the character in QoS was a nod to Hitchcock.

[Sniperscope]

P.S. Sniperscope: Whats your favorite Forster film, other than QoS? Mine is either Stranger than Fiction or Finding Neverland.

Both films have their faults (mainly at the script level) but I think the first half of STRANGER THAN FICTION is fantastic - especially in establishing Harold's routine and the slow recognition of his "reality."
(In the second half of the film the melodrama gets a bit silly - the romance seemed contrived, the ending was too knowingly cheesy and the notion that Harold would willingly sacrifice himself for a novel I found ludicrous!!! But these are plot problems not directorial and Forster throughout the film draws beautiful performances despite any script deficiencies.)
One remarkable thing about STF is that Forster convincingly directed Will Ferrell into a sympathetic, tragic hero which, IMHO, is no small achievement!
Forster's direction and mise en scene in both films is faultless and visually stunning, particularly in FNL when he blends fantasy and reality. Monster's Ball is v powerful too - but for completely different reasons.
Forster strikes me as quite a subversive director; completely atypical. He intelligently deconstructs whatever genre he is working in and attempts to re-approach it from surprising, non-traditional angles to achieve something memorable and moving- QoS is no exception! None of his films are perfect, to be sure, but he's still a young director - in years to come he's going to produce some remarkable films!

BTW Joe - VERTIGO is one of the best movies ever made!
Jimmy Stewart is at his best and the whole way he "remakes" Madeline in the second half of the film... brilliant!
Another Hitchcock thriller that many overlook is STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. If you haven't seen it - do so! I think it was quite a controversial theme for its time, with an intriguing subtext. The direction is superb.
39 STEPS is also the archetypical "innocent man on the run" Hitchock thriller - that's the film I was suggesting he remade constantly for 40 years! But it's got plenty of layers too!

Yes, Vertigo is definantly one of the best movie ever made I like how Hitch used a lot of first person angle like when Scotty is tailing Madiline at the beginning and the last time I watched it I picked up the fact that at the beginning Madeline/Judy is the one the audience is meant to believe is possesed but in the second half Scotty is the one who is possessed and the irony is that Judy was never possessed and believe it or not but the first time I saw this film I flipped on to it on TCM but it was at the end scene were Scotty forced Madeline up the stairs at the Church and thought Scotty was a bad guy but of course when I saw the whole film I realized he was torchered and had to lead Madeline up the stairs in order to get on with his wife.
at
I have seen Strangers on a Train and I agree that many overlook this movie but its a real good film and like the Vertigo both have really good DVD's where both look really good for their age. It sounds your a very big Hitchcock fan Sniperscope and I would say most of his films are layered and that is testiment to him as a director and since he used visual means to tell a story since when he never really liked it when movies started to have sound. By the way Sniperscope if your a fan of To Catch a Thief, the Paramount Centennial Collection 2-disc version of the film will be released on March 24 (North America only) and it apparently has better and more correct colors than any of the previous releases plus because the bonus feature are pushed to a second disc the clarity is much improved which is why I am buying it. Here is a review with screenshots:
http://www.dvdbeaver...catchathief.htm

Isn't the lead character's name Guy Haines?

Yes and I think the character in QoS was a nod to Hitchcock.

OMG Joe and Hildy - How thick am I?! I totally missed that reference in QoS (as an excuse - I've only seen it once)!
My admiration for Forster grows - he's a true cineaste. WOW! That's the kind of thing that we've all been talking about - layers!
Cheers for the heads up on the Catch a thief 2 disc Joe - Sounds great!
Yes - I've been a Hitch fan for a long time. I think it was him and Fritz Lang that at a very young age made me realise that there is more to movies than meets the eye! It's nice to talk with a fellow aficionado!
I absolutely agree about your observation re. Hitch and sound. Although I missed the silent era by half a century I often share his opinion! (I have to say I'm a bit of a silent film buff -especially German silents. Lang and Pabst are easily two of my favourite directors.) One of Hitch's most outstanding silent movies is THE LODGER - have you seen it? All class.

Edited by Sniperscope, 13 March 2009 - 09:37 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

Forster made everyone feel dizzy with his "artistics" paralells: the Palio/Bond and Mitchell chase was acceptable (even tough he cuts to the woman falling to the ground after being shot by Mitchell when they're getting to the roofs - totally out of order). And the Tosca scene, well, let's say a proper shooting with all the innocent people in there after the end of the show would have been a lot better. Instead, he shows: a) Bond shooting his adversaires, b ) What's happening in the play and C) Greene and his eople escaping... all these in less than a minute with very fast shots. I don't know how you coldn't be confused.

And I personally don't give a wrecked Aston's exhaust pipe what Graham Rye thinks of QUANTUM OF SOLACE

I care about it. I thought he was completely mistaken before watching the film, but now I know everything he says about Forster is right.

Forster didn't make me "dizzy" as a viewer of SOLACE. He put me in the action - which most car chases do not. And I wasn't "confused" either at all during the film. I've unfortunately been in a few 'road incidents'. That was one of the most truthful car scenes I've seen on film.

Mr Rye (as we all do - to a degree) has allegedly a very specific agenda and attitude to Bond. What he thinks of Forster is neither here nor there. He would have scorned whoever directed the film if it didn't tick his very tight parameter boxes.

[HildebrandRarity]

For anyone to not be able to understand/comprehend the Bregenz sequence and to not be able to appreciate it for a quality piece of cinema...well, they're just plainly obtuse.

It seems their cerebral capacities are limited.

And I've said this many times back in November and i'll say it again: Graham Rye is a total loser and head. He's got his head up his useless hole.

I've ripped apart the book "James Bond Girls" I bought years ago and taken the best pics and tossed the dumb text in the bin.

That's what I think of Graham ing Rye.

[Zorin Industries]

For anyone to not be able to understand/comprehend the Bregenz sequence and to not be able to appreciate it for a quality piece of cinema...well, they're just plainly obtuse.

It seems their cerebral capacities are limited.

And I've said this many times back in November and i'll say it again: Graham Rye is a total loser and head. He's got his head up his useless hole.

I've ripped apart the book "James Bond Girls" I bought years ago and taken the best pics and tossed the dumb text in the bin.

That's what I think of Graham ing Rye.

Yes, why Mr Rye thought that detailing every scene in those films would be more interesting than the casting and character development of those girls is quite beyond me. And he's still doing it. His SOLACE review is 90% plot and 10% opinion.

[HildebrandRarity]

For anyone to not be able to understand/comprehend the Bregenz sequence and to not be able to appreciate it for a quality piece of cinema...well, they're just plainly obtuse.

It seems their cerebral capacities are limited.

And I've said this many times back in November and i'll say it again: Graham Rye is a total loser and head. He's got his head up his useless hole.

I've ripped apart the book "James Bond Girls" I bought years ago and taken the best pics and tossed the dumb text in the bin.

That's what I think of Graham ing Rye.

Yes, why Mr Rye thought that detailing every scene in those films would be more interesting than the casting and character development of those girls is quite beyond me. And he's still doing it. His SOLACE review is 90% plot and 10% opinion.

Yea. He did the same thing with Quantum. A proper 'reviewer' doesn't recount scene upon scene. Even then, his 90% for Q0S was riddled with errors. There's a thread that recounts his errors. Seems like his brain is giving up as he approaches 70. He's totally out of touch with the global fan base, 80,000,000 of whom bought tickets to see the show.

[Judo chop]

He would have scorned whoever directed the film if it didn't tick his very tight parameter boxes.

I think the man’s very tight parameter box could use a good tickle.

He sees Bond through a very thick set of blue-tinted x-ray vision TWINE glasses. Time for a new prescription, Rye.

[Vauxhall]

Forster made everyone feel dizzy with his "artistics" paralells: the Palio/Bond and Mitchell chase was acceptable (even tough he cuts to the woman falling to the ground after being shot by Mitchell when they're getting to the roofs - totally out of order)

Why is that "out of order"? It is showing the woman's friends tending to her in the aftermath of her being shot. It humanises violence for once.

[Joe Bond]

P.S. Sniperscope: Whats your favorite Forster film, other than QoS? Mine is either Stranger than Fiction or Finding Neverland.

Both films have their faults (mainly at the script level) but I think the first half of STRANGER THAN FICTION is fantastic - especially in establishing Harold's routine and the slow recognition of his "reality."
(In the second half of the film the melodrama gets a bit silly - the romance seemed contrived, the ending was too knowingly cheesy and the notion that Harold would willingly sacrifice himself for a novel I found ludicrous!!! But these are plot problems not directorial and Forster throughout the film draws beautiful performances despite any script deficiencies.)
One remarkable thing about STF is that Forster convincingly directed Will Ferrell into a sympathetic, tragic hero which, IMHO, is no small achievement!
Forster's direction and mise en scene in both films is faultless and visually stunning, particularly in FNL when he blends fantasy and reality. Monster's Ball is v powerful too - but for completely different reasons.
Forster strikes me as quite a subversive director; completely atypical. He intelligently deconstructs whatever genre he is working in and attempts to re-approach it from surprising, non-traditional angles to achieve something memorable and moving- QoS is no exception! None of his films are perfect, to be sure, but he's still a young director - in years to come he's going to produce some remarkable films!

BTW Joe - VERTIGO is one of the best movies ever made!
Jimmy Stewart is at his best and the whole way he "remakes" Madeline in the second half of the film... brilliant!
Another Hitchcock thriller that many overlook is STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. If you haven't seen it - do so! I think it was quite a controversial theme for its time, with an intriguing subtext. The direction is superb.
39 STEPS is also the archetypical "innocent man on the run" Hitchock thriller - that's the film I was suggesting he remade constantly for 40 years! But it's got plenty of layers too!

Yes, Vertigo is definantly one of the best movie ever made I like how Hitch used a lot of first person angle like when Scotty is tailing Madiline at the beginning and the last time I watched it I picked up the fact that at the beginning Madeline/Judy is the one the audience is meant to believe is possesed but in the second half Scotty is the one who is possessed and the irony is that Judy was never possessed and believe it or not but the first time I saw this film I flipped on to it on TCM but it was at the end scene were Scotty forced Madeline up the stairs at the Church and thought Scotty was a bad guy but of course when I saw the whole film I realized he was torchered and had to lead Madeline up the stairs in order to get on with his wife.
at
I have seen Strangers on a Train and I agree that many overlook this movie but its a real good film and like the Vertigo both have really good DVD's where both look really good for their age. It sounds your a very big Hitchcock fan Sniperscope and I would say most of his films are layered and that is testiment to him as a director and since he used visual means to tell a story since when he never really liked it when movies started to have sound. By the way Sniperscope if your a fan of To Catch a Thief, the Paramount Centennial Collection 2-disc version of the film will be released on March 24 (North America only) and it apparently has better and more correct colors than any of the previous releases plus because the bonus feature are pushed to a second disc the clarity is much improved which is why I am buying it. Here is a review with screenshots:
http://www.dvdbeaver...catchathief.htm

Isn't the lead character's name Guy Haines?

Yes and I think the character in QoS was a nod to Hitchcock.

OMG Joe and Hildy - How thick am I?! I totally missed that reference in QoS (as an excuse - I've only seen it once)!
My admiration for Forster grows - he's a true cineaste. WOW! That's the kind of thing that we've all been talking about - layers!
Cheers for the heads up on the Catch a thief 2 disc Joe - Sounds great!
Yes - I've been a Hitch fan for a long time. I think it was him and Fritz Lang that at a very young age made me realise that there is more to movies than meets the eye! It's nice to talk with a fellow aficionado!
I absolutely agree about your observation re. Hitch and sound. Although I missed the silent era by half a century I often share his opinion! (I have to say I'm a bit of a silent film buff -especially German silents. Lang and Pabst are easily two of my favourite directors.) One of Hitch's most outstanding silent movies is THE LODGER - have you seen it? All class.

I have not seen it and will have to see it but I have seen the majority of Hitch's classics especially some his work in spy films like Notorious, Sabotage, Topaz and I think Forster's take on Bond is similar to Hitchcock's take on the spy world in Topaz which he deconstructs the spy world since it was a response to the Bond craze in the 60's. I defiantly like his visual style and the way he can choose such odd angles and if you listen to one of the commentary tracks on the Goldfinger DVD you will hear Guy Hamilton, I think, mention how Hitch said to him how he liked the old lady with the machine gun in the car chase. If you don't already own the Unversal Legacy Series versions of Vertigo, Rear Window, and Psycho Sniperscope then I would highly recommend them since these look really nice and they have some pretty good special features and I have read that North By Northwest will probably get a Blu-ray release this year.

I agree with you Zorin about the car chase and I think the way he shot was more relevant since QoS is really about Bond emotional journey to find the answers he needs so Forster tried to put the audience as close to Bond as we could possibly be.

[blueman]

[Forster] shows: a) Bond shooting his adversaires, b ) What's happening in the play and C) Greene and his people escaping... all these in less than a minute with very fast shots. I don't know how you couldn't be confused.

Well obviously it's not that confusing, you seemed to figure it out okay.

[Publius]

Interesting interview. Even if we already knew most of that (didn't we?), it's nice to have him share so many of his thoughts in one sitting.

And given what he apparently thinks Bond 23 should bring back, I'm now glad he's not going to direct it. Although I don't want clones of QoS (just as I didn't want clones of CR), the overarching approach, i.e. the rugged simplicity, darker tone, and primary focus on Bond, is solid and should remain the template, at least for the rest of Craig's films.

[MarkA]

For anyone to not be able to understand/comprehend the Bregenz sequence and to not be able to appreciate it for a quality piece of cinema...well, they're just plainly obtuse.

It seems their cerebral capacities are limited.

And I've said this many times back in November and i'll say it again: Graham Rye is a total loser and [censored]head. He's got his head up his useless hole.

I've ripped apart the book "James Bond Girls" I bought years ago and taken the best pics and tossed the dumb text in the bin.

That's what I think of Graham [censored]ing Rye.

mad.gif

Your view of Graham Rye is entirely up to you. But as a person you are constantly slagging people off on this site who do not agree with you. You are everywhere with your nasty childish attitude. Grow up and respect that other people have different opinions than you, and don't use it as an excuse to slag them off. You are becoming boring.

[Sniperscope]

I have seen the majority of Hitch's classics especially some his work in spy films like Notorious, Sabotage, Topaz and I think Forster's take on Bond is similar to Hitchcock's take on the spy world in Topaz which he deconstructs the spy world since it was a response to the Bond craze in the 60's.

Spot on, Joe! You're so right about the stylistic similarities between QoS and TOPAZ. Your point about deconstruction is also very well made. I certainly see Forster as this kind of director - it has been an approach he has consistently taken towards his extremely diverse range of films.

Edited by Sniperscope, 14 March 2009 - 09:34 AM.

[Sniperscope]

Forster made everyone feel dizzy with his "artistics" paralells: the Palio/Bond and Mitchell chase was acceptable (even tough he cuts to the woman falling to the ground after being shot by Mitchell when they're getting to the roofs - totally out of order).

It's not out of order - Forster is trying to give us a sense of simultaneity without resorting to a split screen. Anyway, montage doesn't require temporal relativity.
"Artistics" Nicolas? - it's nothing of the sort. In fact it's very old school that owes a lot to the principles of montage set down by Sergei Eisenstein 80 odd years ago. The palio intercutting is a foreshadowing of a physical space that Bond and Mitchell will soon cross, as well as a visual metaphor for a chase.

Away from Nicolas now, but for me, Forster's decision to edit and approach violence in the manner he did is what sets QoS above most Hollywood thrillers by deconstructing the usual fantasy, "no consequences" MO and instead bringing in a thoughtful European sensibility.
It was always the height of cinematic dishonesty for me in Bond films when people would stagger out of car wrecks, shaking their heads, so that noone would get upset at the thought of an innocent person being harmed in the crossfire... none of that rot for Forster, thankfully!

Edited by Sniperscope, 14 March 2009 - 09:33 AM.

[MarkA]

I have seen the majority of Hitch's classics especially some his work in spy films like Notorious, Sabotage, Topaz and I think Forster's take on Bond is similar to Hitchcock's take on the spy world in Topaz which he deconstructs the spy world since it was a response to the Bond craze in the 60's.

I am not sure that is a compliment because Topaz is generally regarded as on of Hitchcock's lesser works. And myself being a huge Hitchcock find it a complete mess.