Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

“Perfect“ films

Some more perfect films:

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

His Girl Friday

Double Indemnity.

And from New Zealand - Goodbye Pork Pie.
 
The socialite never got tamed, otherwise the film wouldn't devote its last shot to the fact that she still does as she likes. Whether the wife is "shrewish" is up to interpretation. We find out that Thorwald is a horrible person and that he was probably having an affair, so she may have good reasons to hate him.
A - yes she does, that’s why the magazine is hidden

B - do try to develop a sense of humour
 
A perfect (to me) documentary: Action, the October Crisis of 1970

"The quiet revolution is dead. . . the real revolution is just beginning. . . a lot of stupid things are going to happen now".
 
Last edited:
Re: Rear Window. One thing that makes it perfect is that you have to see it on a big screen to get the effect.
 
RW is one of Hitchcock tautest films, no doubt. It’s just a piece of piss to criticise them from a feministy angle.
 
RW is one of Hitchcock tautest films, no doubt. It’s just a piece of piss to criticise them from a feministy angle.

The feminist discourse around Hitchcock's films has moved on a lot since Laura Mulvey and there have been plenty of reassessments by feminist film writers like Anne Billson, Tania Modleski, Camille Paglia and Robin Wood, who would disagree with you. Whole books have been written on the matter, so I'd dispute that its "a piece of piss". Many of Hitchcock films actively deal with a male/female power imbalance, they are about chauvinist men trying to change or mold women to their ideal. That doesn't mean that the films assert that the men are good guys for doing so. Other films of the period simply took a chauvinist stance for granted without investigating it. Hitchcock's films take that as their subject matter and deal with it. Doesn't mean he was a feminist, but his films aren't as simplistic as you make them out to be.

You appear to subscribe to a "showing means approving" type of interpretation, which assumes that films uncritically take the side of their main protagonist. That's never been the case with Hitchcock, who complicates things by giving his heroes unlikeable traits, while making his villains charismatic, charming and sometimes even quite vulnerable. Much has been written about how Hitchcock used James Stewart's decent, all-American image and darkened it, but giving him fetishistic, perverse and misogynist traits. Vertigo takes that to its logical and tragic end. The reason why that film is so highly acclaimed now, is not because people think James Stewart does right by Kim Novak.

If you come to Hitchcock's films with the bias that they must be misogynistic because men treat women poorly in some of them, then that's all you will see. Look further and it gets a lot more complicated. Thematically, it also makes the films far more rich.
 
Last edited:
That's what I thought we were doing but when I disagree with you, it frequently results in a personal attack on me.
Apologies, I don’t mean to be personal, just thought the reaction was a tad serious for a light hearted post. I shall endeavour to make my light heart more obvious.


The feminist discourse around Hitchcock's films has moved on a lot since Laura Mulvey and there have been plenty of reassessments by feminist film writers like Anne Billson, Tania Modleski, Camille Paglia and Robin Wood, who would disagree with you. Whole books have been written on the matter, so I'd dispute that its "a piece of piss". Many of Hitchcock films actively deal with a male/female power imbalance, they are about chauvinist men trying to change or mold women to their ideal. That doesn't mean that the films assert that the men are good guys for doing so. Other films of the period simply took a chauvinist stance for granted without investigating it. Hitchcock's films take that as their subject matter and deal with it. Doesn't mean he was a feminist, but his films aren't as simplistic as you make them out to be.

You appear to subscribe to a "showing means approving" type of interpretation, which assumes that films uncritically take the side of their main protagonist. That's never been the case with Hitchcock, who complicates things by giving his heroes unlikeable traits, while making his villains charismatic, charming and sometimes even quite vulnerable. Much has been written about how Hitchcock used James Stewart's decent, all-American image and darkened it, but giving him fetishistic, perverse and misogynist traits. Vertigo takes that to its logical and tragic end. The reason why that film is so highly acclaimed now, is not because people think James Stewart does right by Kim Novak.

If you come to Hitchcock's films with the bias that they must be misogynistic because men treat women poorly in some of them, then that's all you will see. Look further and it gets a lot more complicated. Thematically, it also makes the films far more rich.
All this shows is that it is a piece of piss to criticise them from a feminist angle, but that that doesn’t necessarily make that criticism right, or even particularly insightful on occasion. If Hitchcock films were just misogyny we wouldn’t still be watching and analysing them, there is clearly more to them than that. But his misogyny does often show through, even if he also challenges it within the same film. That tension is one of the things that make them great.

In RW Mrs Thorwald is, imo, shown as shrewish, both through the glimpses we see of her and more especially because of Stewart’s commentary (which we go along with for the ride, initially). As the film progresses we see that her husband is obviously much worse. And by the end of the film, Grace can still only read that mag when hubby ain’t watching.

of course the film can be read on many other levels as well, that’s why it’s a proper classic.
 
Don’t get me wrong, I love High Society so much I have a lyric tattooed on me, but it’s floundering to keep all the characters motivated. Inevitably it has to cut a boatload of content from the original to make room for the songs. And there’s content in all that rapid fire screwball dialogue in The Philadelphia Story.

The plot of TPS is more or less a traditional theatrical farce, but the enormous quantity of dialogue puts flesh on the insubstantial, improbable plot.

Musicals tell less story, hour for hour, than non musicals. When the plot is flimsy to start with, a musical will expose that. What High Society does have going for it is unmatched charm plus top performances and banging tunes... but it’s still got a hole in the middle where the plot is unsatisfying. Obviously all MHO.

And on the subject of Calamity Jane, while I agree Windy City and Whip Crack Away are barnstormers, the film is really quitesubversive in the way it represents womanhood. There are pretty mainstream reading of it as being a codified lesbian film, (“A Woman’s Touch” and “Secret Love” being the other two notable songs in the film) although that requires us to write off the Heteromantic ending.


Thing is, I was considering posting some more musicals yesterday. Singing in the Rain is glorious but the fifteen minute dance sequence has been shoehorned in and is just weird. Maybe The Wizard of Oz? and West Side Story. And Cabaret.
I think I am a bit out of my depth, don't quite feel qualified to reply ha, I was just winging it.
 
Love the dance sequence in Singin' in the Rain, it's not a flaw, it's a bonus.

West Side Story's flaw is its two bland leads and Natalie Wood's casting as a Puerto Rican.

For a feminist musical of the 50s (or at least as feminist as you get in the 50s), how about Gentlemen Prefer Blondes ? The main relationship in the film is the friendship between two women and it's a satire about how women navigate their way in a patriarchal society on their terms.

Meet Me in St. Louis is about as perfect a musical movie as I know.
The Broadway Melody(?) sequence in Singin in the Rain is iconic, yes. It’s absolutely everything that’s the Technicolor MGM musical. Glorious. One of the best bits. All I’m saying is it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the plot of the film, even down to the leading lady.


You’re right about West Side Story. The leads are duff. And Natalie Wood’s vocals are dubbed too. The stage version is perfect, though.


Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as a feminist film is... not a take I’ve come across before. I’ll have to rewatch at some point.

And it’s been decades since I last saw Meet Me in Saint Louis. It never really captured my imagination but I was probably no more than about ten or twelve...
 
Some Like it Hot
Glorious in so many ways but Tony Curtis deliberately sets out to lie and deceive Sugar into bed. My sixth formers were quite scathing of how anyone could want them to end up together after that.

The key is, of course, that it’s Lemmon’s film all the way through. Except the moments where Wilder brings us Monroe at her most luminous. That dress in “I Want to be Loved By You” number (and thence on the boat) is breathtaking - she looks more naked and erotic than if she were actually nude. So between that and Lemmon’s comic mastery (and ok, Curtis doing his best Cary Grant), plus the screwball dialogue, George Raft sending himself up and Joe E Smith’s rubber face, I’ll go with glorious. But it’s too rapey to be “perfect”.

Which of course we would know, if we listen to the final line.
 
Apologies, I don’t mean to be personal, just thought the reaction was a tad serious for a light hearted post. I shall endeavour to make my light heart more obvious.



All this shows is that it is a piece of piss to criticise them from a feminist angle, but that that doesn’t necessarily make that criticism right, or even particularly insightful on occasion. If Hitchcock films were just misogyny we wouldn’t still be watching and analysing them, there is clearly more to them than that. But his misogyny does often show through, even if he also challenges it within the same film. That tension is one of the things that make them great.

In RW Mrs Thorwald is, imo, shown as shrewish, both through the glimpses we see of her and more especially because of Stewart’s commentary (which we go along with for the ride, initially). As the film progresses we see that her husband is obviously much worse. And by the end of the film, Grace can still only read that mag when hubby ain’t watching.

of course the film can be read on many other levels as well, that’s why it’s a proper classic.
To say Hitch has complicated and dysfunctional ways re: representation of women is so obvious as to be pointless. But it’s not misogyny. For each Ice Queen in peril there’s an older, less glam woman who speaks truth to our hero and puts him in his place... just as there was at home.

Later on his career he veered more towards putting women in sexual danger (there are some frankly vile quotes from the shooting of Marnie’s rape scene, and he got worse as the years went by) - but he also presents us with hopelessly imperilled and dysfunctional male characters. In Rear Window Stewart’s character’s dilemma at the start, and back grounding the whole film, is whether he should be “tamed” and settle down. And it’s not presented in such a way as we think he should stay independent. Grace Kelly’s character is gorgeous, elegant and wealthy, not clingy, she’s funny, she’s clever, she “puts out”... We think he’s an idiot for holding back. And by the end she’s got her way. He has been tamed. Domestic bliss awaits. She might be pretending she’ll be part of his roughing-it war photographer life, but right at the end we’re let in on the truth.
 
I think often the men come out of Hitchcock's films rather worse than the women. It's a while since I've seen Marnie, but I remember Connery's character as really very creepy, and his chauvanism as a form of insecure clinginess - a need to feel in control. Jimmy Stewart's always pretty messed up. Cary Grant normally stumbles through and isn't quite as in control as he makes out. Hell, in North by Northwest, he still lives with his mother, I think. It is very much Eva Marie Sant's character who shows him the way. In Psycho, I think I actually prefer the first half of the film that is all about Janet Leigh and her theft. She's certainly the most complex character in the film, and it all goes a bit flat for me after she's killed.
 
Can I just say:

Notorious
Suspicion*
Rebecca

Probably my favourite Hitchcock films and all with dodgy men/much better women.

*Would've been better without the cop-out but hey...
 
You can be a misogynist and still write great female characters, especially if you think that one of their defining characteristics is being sly, which so many of his females are. They’re not alone in that, nor are all of them. Elderly women can be positively portrayed even while the lead is being abused (as in The Birds).

Notorious is possibly the most interesting film in this regard, with the entire film being about the nature of trust. Coming straight after the death of his mother, I think it’s clear what issues he’s working through.
 
You’re right about West Side Story. The leads are duff. And Natalie Wood’s vocals are dubbed too. The stage version is perfect, though.
A new film version of West Side Story by Spielberg was supposed to get released this year, but like most big films it has been pushed back to next year. In that one the lead actors do their own singing and Maria will be played by a Latin-American actress.

6D47E348-1980-4298-8399-02F2F53156D2.jpeg
 
Back
Top Bottom