Hitchcock. He has a top 10 film, 10 films in the top 500 (the most) of all-time. Hitchcock is as good a candidate as any for the greatest artist of the 20th century (given cinema was one of the dominant art forms). I admire his craft as a technician, his filmography is second to none, and there is a consistency to his work that any non-auteur theory subscriber would have a hard time answering for. He’s clearly the artist. His archiveable career spanned over 45 years but the run he went on from 1958-1960 won’t be topped. He went Masterpiece, Masterpiece, Masterpiece with the 7th, 35th and 103rd best films of all-time in consecutive years.
Best film: Vertigo – #7 of all-time. The title sequence, the landscape shot of the golden gate bridge, the green-lit interior sequence, the 360-shot, the finale set-piece (and zoom-in, track-shot staircase shot). I actually enjoy the hell out of the loose noir in the 40-50 minute well-paced set up. It’s a meditation on obsession and Bernard Herrman’s score is simply one of best of all-time.
Total archiveable films: 31
top 100 films: 3 (Vertigo, Psycho, Rear Window)
top 500 films: 10 (Vertigo, Psycho, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Notorious, Strangers on a Train, Rope, Shadow of a Doubt, The Birds, The 39 Steps)
top 100 films of the decade: 16 (Blackmail, The 39 Steps, Murder!, The Lady Vanishes, Notorious, Rope, Shadow of a Doubt, Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Psycho, The Birds, Marnie)
most overrated: The Birds at #176 of al-time on TSPDT. The Birds is a fantastic film but there are over 200 masterpieces in cinema’s rich history and I’m confident The Birds isn’t one of them so this is overrated. It’s #342 on my list. Also, anyone who tries to argue with you that Hitchcock’s 1930’s British period was his most artistically fertile…. is an idiotic—so do us all a favor and tell that person they’re incorrect.
most underrated: Rope at #832 on TSPDT and Hitchcock’s 13th best. I have it at #296 and at #7 for Hitchcock’s own top 10. You can’t tell the history of cinematography (Bordwell’s definition—not Out of Africa’s) without Rope nor can you discuss the great one-take films (Victoria, Russian Ark, Birdman—yeah sort of) or long-take scenes (Touch of Evil, Atonement, Children of Men, Nostalgia, Weekend, The Player, Hunger, Goodfellas, anything from De Palma) without it.
gem I want to spotlight: Blackmail. Britain’s first sound film is more than just a technological landmark- as I said in the review- it’s a damn fine film and worthy of the top 10 of the year with all the artistic ambitions Hitchcock packs into this man-hunt genre film. It’s not a top 10 film of his but you can tell here, even in the late 20’s, that we have a master in the making.
stylistic innovations/traits: Like many at the top of this all-time directors list there isn’t just one aesthetic that this auteur is dedicated to and known for. The 360-degree tracking shot in Vertigo is as good as it comes, the use of green lighting in the same film– sublime, the editing for the shower scene in Psycho. The set pieces he uses at the end of his films (North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train), long crane tracking shots in Notorious and Young & Innocent, perhaps the first freeze-frame in Champagne. The way he frames the tea cup in Notorious, Norman in isolation or about to attack in Psycho. Rear Window is a shot-reverse shot Kuleshov-effect treatise. Rope is a landmark is cinematography and camera movement. Thematically and narratively Hitchcock is the undisputed master of the suspense genre, a pop-artist master. He’s the key to film voyeurism, fetishism, there’s some surprising depth there when you look at his work on guilt/innocence/fate.
top 10
- Vertigo
- Psycho
- Rear Window
- North by Northwest
- Notorious
- Strangers on a Train
- Rope
- Shadow of a Doubt
- The Birds
- The 39 Steps
By year and grades
| 1927- The Lodger | R |
| 1929- Blackmail | HR |
| 1930- Murder! | HR |
| 1935- The Thirty-Nine Steps | MS |
| 1936- Sabotage | R |
| 1937- Young and Innocent | R |
| 1938- The Lady Vanishes | HR |
| 1939- Jamacia Inn | R |
| 1940- Foreign Correspondent | R |
| 1940- Rebecca | HR |
| 1941- Suspicion | R |
| 1942- Saboteur | |
| 1943- Shadow of a Doubt | MS |
| 1944- Lifeboat | R |
| 1945- Spellbound | R |
| 1946- Notorious | MP |
| 1948- Rope | MS |
| 1951- Strangers on Train | MS/MP |
| 1953- I Confess | R |
| 1954- Dial M For Murder | R |
| 1954- Rear Window | MP |
| 1955- To Catch a Thief | R |
| 1956- The Man Who Knew Too Much | |
| 1956- The Wrong Man | R |
| 1958- Vertigo | MP |
| 1959- North By Northwest | MP |
| 1960- Psycho | MP |
| 1963- The Birds | MS |
| 1964- Marnie | HR/MS |
| 1966- Torn Curtain | R |
| 1972- Frenzy | R |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-see- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
Hi.
I love your website. For the most parts,i often agree with your thoughts. I saw that you « refresh » all your tops (movies,directors,
maybe actors soon).
I want to congratulate you for the work that you’ve done here.
PS : Pardon my (bad) english. I’m french.
Thank you very much– appreciate the comment
Can you do a review on vertigo. Its the only movie in your top 10 I don’t see reviewed
@Chris– thanks for the comment, for visiting the site and the request here on “Vertigo”– yes— i’ll seek it out soon and post on it. I try never to go long without seeing “Vertigo” and if i don’t have a page on it (which i don’t) it means i haven’t seen it since 2016. Overdue!
What are some auteurs that, in your opinion, you’d consider landmarks in radical changes of cinematic aesthetic? Auteurs that brought something totally fresh in the form of film art. I’d start with Griffith, Eisenstein, Welles and Godard.
@Cinephile– Those are certainly four key ones. I’d add Murnau to the short list for sure. I think you can trace the great tracking shot lineage back from Ophuls to Murnau. Murnau is always a good counter to Eisenstein’s montage. Rossellini and realism as a counter to Hollywood maybe? I know Ozu is important in mise-en-scene and observing the entire frame. I view cinema differently after I understood Ozu.
What difference did Ozu make? How did you view cinema before and after Ozu?
@Azman– well I think the pillow shot editing has roots in Eisenstein’s montage so as strong an editor as Ozu is- it isn’t the editing– it’s the design of the entire frame. Ozu is the greatest artist and designer of mise-en-scene. The camera is static– but what’s in the frame is meticulously orchestrated. The shoji doors sliding back and forth (and creating the frame within a frame), saki bottles and objects in the foreground, multiple depths of field (yes Welles and Wyler did this, too)
I think prior to my Ozu study I had understood much of cinema style– color, editing, camera movement, landscape photography, lighting– but this level of foreground/background and mise-en-scene detail was missing. It has helped me appreciate other auteurs like Visconti, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, even my most recent study of Roy Andersson. I’m not sure I would’ve “got” these directors if it weren’t for my study of Ozu.
Don’t forget Ozu’s ability to tell similar stories over and over again with so much depth and emotion. That also made him so good. He was a fantastic storyteller too. Perfectly capturing Japanese culture and the relationships between families.
He regularly broke cinematic rules too which is innovative. his actors would stare straight into the camera sometimes. Ozu felt free to violate the “180-degree rule” for shooting two-person dialogue…. … Also most directors shooting a two-person conversation would have the characters face each other. Ozu mostly seats them side by side, in harmony rather than in confrontation.
How do you know so much about cinema and cinematic techniques? Did you take courses in university? I’m a high school student in Canada. I assume you live in the United States. Any good universities/programs for films in the US/Canada?
Most of my film knowledge comes from your website and a few courses in high school. However, most of my knowledge about film comes from actually watching movies and sometimes reading analysis/explanations.
Remember Drake, you are always a film student. There is so much to learn and there are always new technologies being introduced and new directors who innovate movies. You will always discover new things while watching (and rewatching) movies.(though I would you say you probably know 99 percent of what makes a good movie. You are very knowledgeable about cinema. It is evident from your reviews.)
I (along with Ebert) agree with your #1 once again.
I noticed you don’t have a vertigo page yet(I could be wrong but it’s the only movie in your top 10 with no page yet).
If you do make a page, here is what you could add:
spoilers
My 10 reasons why I would recommend Vertigo, you mention some of these but most are original
1) Vertigo use of color. Obviously the famous green shot that you talk about but also the scene where scottie sees Madeleine for the 1st time and the red background ‘lights up’
2) Alfred Hitchcock’s suspense building. He reveals the plot twist early on, because he believes that suspense is a mood. Mystery is an intellectual process, like in a whodunit. But suspense is essentially an emotional process. Therefore, you can only get the suspense element going by giving the audience information. – Hitchcock(I mention this again because it is so important to Vertigo)
3) James Stewart’s acting. The whole cast is brilliant but Stewart shines in his role. His best achievement.
4) the shots:tracking shot, vertigo shot et
5) gorgeous cinematography
6) Hitchcock’s creation of a gloomy and dark atmosphere(use of lighting)
7) the beginning line (“you can only loose your vertigo with an emotional shock” and then the ending)
8) The finale (spoilers) James Stewart is cured of his Vertigo but broken in every aspect. Gorgeous and devastating ending.
9) the structure:as you mentioned it’s ‘enjoyable’ because it always keeps the audience suspenseful and involved and slowly builds to a stunning climax. This movie doesn’t feel dated (accept the clothes obvisouly- I’m not sure why people call it dated)
10) it reveals something new everytime. I’ve seen it 4 times. Liked it since 1st viewing.
Bonus 3:
11) meditation on obssession, loneliness and emotion/love
12) greatest (maybe) and most ironic scene in cinema history. The shot of Scottie kissing Madeleine at the sea is brilliant but the scene I am talking about is the arc shot of Stewart and Madeliene kissing when Scottie slowly starts realizing the truth maybe. The way the camera and background moves is absolutely superb.
13) Bernard Herman’s score.
Hi Azman. For a long time I believed that Psycho was better, but the visualizations have shown me that Vertigo is better (not by much), mainly due to the use of green and red, the acting, the use of zoom (hell I love it), 360 ° , the score is excellent and because I love Kim Novak haha.
They have already asked for the Vertigo review (see above) and it seems they have not seen it since 2016, I have also looked for it haha
The Psycho shower scene may be the greatest scene in all of Hitchcock (though there are worthwhile contenders for that crown in at least a half dozen different films), but I prefer several of his other masterpieces to it overall. Psycho trades in shock more than suspense (and does so masterfully, but suspense is really more of an auteur trait of Hitchcock’s), and I think the psychobabble expository dump in the final scene is a bigger flaw than you could find in any of Vertigo, Notorious, North By Northwest, or Rear Window. It’s still a brilliant film… but with Hitchcock the standard is really damn high.
I really say this because Psycho is one of my favorite movies, no problem if you have Psycho first, they are the two best of the best, they are two of the best of the best, you are right, I hear people say that Psycho is the best movie of all time, although i think Drake underestimates him a lot, it’s in the top 30.
I agree with you Matt. Seen Psycho twice now. It’s definitely not Hitchcock’s best (or 2nd best). Still a brilliant film. Not close to Vertigo though.
What is you favorite Hitchcock movie? Do you agree with my review. Is there any other thing you like about Vertigo that Drake and I may have missed? Im always excited to hear about what people think of Vertigo. I love the movie so much.
You need to make Dial M For Murder, MUST SEE! It is a phenomenal movie and one of the best that Hitchcock directed. Give it another watch.
@Matthew- thanks for the comment. I’ve seen it many times- great film. Which one do you think it’s better than from Hitchcock? The TSPDT consensus has outside of his top 17 films– I think I’m with them on this one.
My top 15:
1. Rear Window
2. Psycho
3. Vertigo
4. North by Northwest
5. Strangers on a Train
6. Notorious
7. Shadow of a Doubt
8. Rebecca
9. Rope
10. The Lady Vanishes
11. Dial M for Murder
12. Lifeboat
13. The 39 Steps
14. The Birds
15. Spellbound
@Chief Keef– great list- thank you for sharing– no Marnie in the top 15?
I haven’t seen Marnie but I will in the future for sure
@Chief Keef- thanks for the response. Sounds good- I was just curious if you had seen it or not. I think it’s very much worth seeking out
I know many of the arguments for Vertigo but I’ve always considered Psycho as Hitchcock’s best:
The score in Psycho is a brilliant example of using music to communicate the emotions, here guilt, of the main character.
Few films do a better job of manipulating audiences expectations (killing off lead character less than half way in, sympathizing the villain).
The editing of the shower sequence of course
Some people (notably Roger Ebert) criticize the psychiatrist explaining Norman Bates and yes it does violate the show don’t tell rule of film but the it kind of makes sense that someone would need to explain Norman to the police responsible for interrogating him. But it is a valid criticism I suppose.
I whole multiple personality twist is so common/overdone now a days that I think people forget how brilliant it was at the time.
Another aspect that I think is under appreciated is the way it subverts film noir expectations (as it came out 2 years after Touch of Evil, the unofficial last noir) by having the female who steals 40,000 cash end up as the victim, on a side note interesting how Hitchcock movies were rarely labeled straight up film noirs despite obvious similarities.
I’ve heard mixed opinions on Anthony Perkins acting throughout his career but he’s brilliant here playing an obvious complex and neurotic character.
@James Trapp– very well said– you won’t hear me make an argument against Psycho
You very often mention directors or actors who have done superbly twice in a row and often use the term “one-two punch,” but I think this might be one of the only places you mention something like a “one-two-three punch” for his three films from 1958-1960. What are some other major three-in-a-row achievements by directors or performers that stand out to you?
In a short period of time? or in general? Tarkovsky could be said 7 of 7 and from 1966 to 1986 he only made masterpieces, Kubrick from 1968 to 1980 just masterpieces, PTA from 1997 to 2012
@Aldo– I’d say Kubrick started the streak from 1964 with Strangelove and continued it until his final film, Eyes Wide Shut.
@Cinephile. I will differ with you here. While Kubrick’s 7 of 7 career is comparable to Tarkovsky’s, I think 2 are not masterpieces, while I only think one of Tarkovsky is not, and between the shining and eyes wide shut is FMJ, I think it’s a good movie, strong 40 minutes, then it falls, it recovers 15 minutes before ending, but not comparable to the others.
Perhaps you can enlighten me regarding Strangelove, what makes it the 49th best movie ever? I’ve never understood it, it has a very good script, maybe it’s because i’m not a native english speaker and i don’t find it so funny
@Graham— Yeah with Hitchcock we’re talking specifically about three years in a row here. It just doesn’t happen often historically (if ever) on this level. For good reason, right? Most, especially now, take a year or two, or five off in-between. We did this awhile ago on one of these pages with directors that had released two films in one year. This one might be even harder. I do, have the benefit of being in the middle of a Kurosawa study and know from 1960-1963 he wen MP, MS/MP, MS, and MP…. in 1960-1962 Antonioni went MP, MS/MP, and then MP. I don’t think it is on that level- but if you’re looking for a contemporary — Villeneuve from 2015-2017 gave us Sicario, Arrival, Blade Runner 2049… I’m sure I’m missing some but these three come to mind
MP
MS/MP
MS
MP
@Graham-
for actors, and I know I’m gong to leave out a ton- I always marveled at the early 1970’s runs for Pacino and Nicholson— below here is from Pacino– and even if we look at 1974-1975 for Jack- he did Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and The Passenger in a 2 year stretch.
1972- The Godfather
1973- Scarecrow
1973- Serpico
1974- The Godfather Part II
1975- Dog Day Afternoon
John Ford’s 1939-1941 one two three four punch
Stagecoach 1939
The Grapes of Wrath 1940
The Long Voyage Home 1940
How Green Was My Valley 1941
I consider them all to be masterpieces, though I’m sure I’ll find some disagreement there.
@Max-Good Luck at Abu Dhabi!!!
What the hell are you talking about?
Oh, I get it now. Thank you, I’ll need it.
On second thought, the first three are masterpieces; I’d say HGWMV is a must see.
And to be fair, Drake has Stagecoach as a MP, The Grapes of Wrath as MP, and HGWMV as a MS/MP.
John Ford released three films in 1939, Stagecoach, Young Mr. Lincoln and Drums Along the Mohawk (in that order) so counting Stagecoach like you have does not count.
I was not going by consecutive films but by consecutive years, you see.
However, if you go by both consecutive films AND consecutive years, then I believe Hitchcock’s run is one of a kind.
[…] 1. Alfred Hitchcock […]
I mean, where do you start with Hitch? The guy has about 3 times as many masterpieces as your average great film-maker. And that’s before you start wading through his silent films. Sure, his subject matter may not have been as weighty as the best – though his films were far smarter than he’s given credit – but they’ve aged far better than his contemporaries. He gets lumped with John Ford alot, but IMO he’s in a whole other league, and his humor and pessimism have aged better.
Man. Hitchcock’s such a huge genius. Just so Rope today. So, so good. Here are my thoughts on why I feel it’s so great. Drake (and all readers of the blog) let me know what you think. What other points would you add?
1) The master of suspense is Hitchcock. The suspense building is terrific.
2) Incredible stripped down, taut filmmaking. One location, 80 minutes, only 10 (invisible edits) – yet HItch manages to build an intruigingly, brilliant film.
3) The themes. There are themes of racism and people who believe they are superior than others because of their race, income, education level etc. People like this exist in reality like Leopold-Loeb murder case.
4) The character building. All actors are terrific and play their characters perfectly. When Rupert (Stewart) realises the value of human life towards the end – it’s just profund. Phillip is a great nervous character, so is Brandon.
5) “All things must lead to a climax” – Kazan. The movie and character ‘arcs’ build perfectly to the devastatingly gorgeous finale with Stewart’s moment of anagnorisis.
6) Stunning cinematography – shot in such beautiful technicolor.
7) great use of color and mise en scene – superb detail in decor.
8) Great experimental editing style
9)Formally brilliantly. Narratively and stylistic superb. Brilliant dialouge.
10) The themes: I love how Brandon embodies vanity and false superiority whilst Phillip embodies shame, fear and how your conscience will break you down. The scene when Phillip confesses is great. Stewart embodies intelligence. Good theme of good vs evil. The light and darkness etc.
Here are 10 reasons why Iike Rope so much. Hitchcock truly is brilliant.
Rope is a terrific film @Azman . If you broke his work into tiers, it’s probably at (or near… I may slightly prefer Shadow of a Doubt) the top of the 2nd tier, which is a remarkable statement about the depth of his filmography that a film this great barely cracks the top 10 (I also think much more highly of Rebecca than does Drake).
@Matt Harris – Agreed. Rope is superb cinema. Definitely one of Hitchcock’s best.
Would you agree with some of the points I made about the movie (in my previous comments)? Is there anything you’d like to add? Am I missing some other great aspects of the film?
What (in your opinion) makes Rope such a great film? This question is for Matt, Drake and all the readers of this website. I like hearing different opinions to see what I missed in a film and deepen my understanding of a film.
@Azman Great stuff. I too just saw rope recently and was blown away so I feel the need to comment on this site after a while. Your analysis is great.
Theres something special about technicolor films especially in the 40s and 50s
It’s almost too big a question to ask in one comment, but you’ve got Hitchcock as your greatest director, De Niro as your best actor, and Bergman as your best actress. What’s the quick number one for all the other film disciplines?
Writer: On Billy Wilder’s page you say he might be the best, and I’d agree. Both Mankiewiczes, Towne, Schrader, Huston, Bergman and more are close. Composer: I like Ennio Morricone the best. Hermann and Steiner have great resumes, and Maurice Jarre, Vangelis, and John Williams have the next best number one score after Ennio, but nothing beats TGTBATU. Editor: Thelma Schoonmaker feels like an easy pick, maybe even if she hadn’t done the best editing of all time for Raging Bull. Eisenstein did edit his own films so I suppose he’s next. Cinematographer: I think my favorite is Deakins by a hair, but I can’t provide much evidence against masters like Nykvist, Storaro, John Alcott, Lubezki, Toland, and others. Costume designer: I don’t know so much about costume design. Edith Head is the only name I’ve heard that I suppose could be the top choice. Special effects supervisor: I don’t think I know any others, but Douglas Trumbull was in charge of effects for 2001, Blade Runner, ToL, and Close Encounters. Producer: I mean, the job of a producer is to generate revenue so I suppose Marvel’s leader Kevin Feige is the most successful. Kubrick did produce his own movies.
There are many other aspects of cinema, most notably set design, that I don’t know people for. Are there any big suggestions that you’d like to add or change?
I think you already asked this question Graham.
But here some points, it bothers me a little that you say that nothing surpasses TGTBATU, you speak as if it were an absolute truth, Drake has said that Herrmann is the best and both Vertigo and Psycho are better movies, as for score i will not fight, but i remember reading that he said it was Vertigo, he shared a link, but ido not remember the page.
Drake also said that the best is Lubezki, he mentions it here http://thecinemaarchives.com/2018/01/12/the-assassination-of-jesse-james-by-the-coward-robert-ford-2007-dominik/ If you made a top with the best of the two, what would it be like? what is the best job of each? Tree of life and Jesse James
I did not already ask this question; you may be remembering the time on the 1960 page where I asked the best year for each discipline. Obviously, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly does not surpass everything else overall, and it’s not close to Vertigo in film art. I meant that it’s my favorite score, certainly more than Vertigo (which has a great eerie soundtrack), and the closest runner-ups are probably Lawrence of Arabia, Empire Strikes Back, and Blade Runner (Jarre, Williams, Vangelis). Lubezki is an indisputable master of subtle lighting, and certainly a top ten all-time cinematographer. I find Blade Runner 2049 to definitely be Deakins’ most startlingly beautiful work, with Jesse James close behind. Lubezki has many solid cinematography works that are close. Tree of Life and Gravity are incredible, and I might watch The Revenant sometime to see if it could even beat those.
I know that Drake has already mentioned some ideas for some of these categories. I was simply trying to ask about new ones that haven’t been mentioned and a concrete answer for each that has.
You’re right, I just checked, sorry they sounded similar. Here’s a list I shared with Drake, in general very good list as you know is defective like many others that I share haha https://web.archive.org/web/20150317101140/https://www.editorsguild.com/magazine.cfm?ArticleID=1102
I’m sure he has answered some of these questions, i just don’t remember where
Kurosawa is credited with editing most of his masterpieces (with the exception of Ikiru).
Nino Baragli and Lee Smith are credited with editing most of the best films of Sergio Leone and Christopher Nolan respectively… though I’m inclined to credit the directors because the editing aesthetic extends beyond the films the aforementioned editors worked on.
This is something debatable, don’t you think that if it were so easy to edit, would the same directors do it like Kurosawa? but can you imagine how difficult it must be to edit Dunkirk? Kurosawa is a better editor because he edited his own movies, something admirable.
But if they say how they want it, it should fit perfectly, but the one who joins the pieces to make it work is the editor
@Aldo
You’re right, it’s certainly debatable. Let me break down the two examples individually. The difficulty with Nino Baragli is that he has 235 editing credits and other than The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, Duck You Sucker, and Once Upon a Time in America, the only one I’ve ever seen is Django, so I’m largely oblivious as to whether he brought a similar level of editing virtuosity to his work regardless of director. Whereas Leone also has A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More on his resume, each with different directors, and each with a similar authorial imprint that is in part defined by editing. When I think of the greatest editing of all time, one of the first things that pops into my head is Sergio Leone… I didn’t even know Nino Baragli’s name until I looked it up for this conversation.
Lee Smith has several non-Nolan credits that I recognize and to varying degrees admire (1917, X-Men: First Class, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, The Truman Show) so he is clearly a superb technician. However, none of those films much resemble the very recognizable and brilliant editing strategies that we identify in Nolan films. By contrast, Memento and Tenet, two films Smith did not edit are much more in keeping with a signature that I lean towards attributing to Nolan rather than Smith. For Tenet he turned to Jennifer Lame who has done a number of Baumbach films. So it seems like Nolan can just plug in any talented editor to the role and have them execute a vision that is largely if not exclusively his own.
I think more than any other supremely important collaborator, I tend to think of editors as extensions of the vision of auteur directors. Like if you compared it to cinematographers, I’d say there is a noticable visual difference betwee the three films Hoyte Van Hoytema has shot (Interstellar, Dunkirk, Tenet) and the previous ones which were all shot by Wally Pfister.
Now if you want to shower additional credit on Kurosawa for being a brilliant technician as an editor in addition to having the peerless vision of a genius auteur, far be it from me to stop you.
*I accidentally claimed A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More had different directors. I hope it’s obvious I meant editors.
You know, I like to think of the blanket given to Norman at the end of Psycho as some kind of cocoon. It envelops him as he undergoes the final metamorphosis from Norman to Norma, during which he’s also locked away from the world in his cell, as insects are in cocoons. At the final moments, we see the fly that is not killed by Norma. Flies themselves are the products of cocoons formed by maggots. All throughout the process we see Norman looking around nervously, possibly as if he knows what’s happening but is unable to stop it because he’s become trapped inside the cocoon following his failure to kill Lila, thus resulting in his mother taking full control. Just a few thoughts I had while pondering about this impeccable film earlier today. I’d write more but I am planning to watch Midsommar tonight and need to start soon, though I might brainstorm some more on Norman’s connection to the fly later if anyone finds it interesting.
@Zane- I had certainly never thought of that — I like it.
Hey, Drake! I hope you’re doing well during these hard times. I have a question for you – and I absolutely don’t mean to sound pretentious, I’m really just confused.
Why is Hitchcock ranked above brilliant auteurs like Kubrick, Bergman, Ozu, Fellini, Tarkovsky, etc…? I’ve seen many films of all of these directors and I can’t wrap my head around you putting Hitchcock at #1. Because, with the exception of his top 3 (Vertigo, Psycho and Rear Window), his films seem, to me, to be very unpoetic. Sure, he is a visual master and uses the camera like no other, but… the directors I previously mentioned made movies about life, death, 1, 0, and everything in between, isn’t that a sign of true art?
North by Northwest, for example, although brilliant and extremely well made, doesn’t even scratch the surface of what a movie like Andrei Rublev accomplishes (and the latter is ranked below the former).
I admire Hitchcock to no end, but it feels like while he is an amazing technician (as you mentioned), some others are true poets.
Perhaps it’s the different ways we can define art? Perhaps meaning and message and themes aren’t that important in a medium which is, primarily, about visual storytelling? I don’t know, really. Maybe you can help? Thank you a lot.
Hi @pedro.
Seeing you complain about technical directors (Hitchcock) and not include Kubrick makes me shake my head. Isn’t Kubrick considered an extremely cold technician?
And not all great directors are poets like Bergman and Tarkovsky, some others only do cinematographic exercises like Godard, that certainly doesn’t make you a worse director.
Hello, @Aldo!
First off, I don’t want it to seem like I’m complaining, sorry, that’s not what I was going for. As for Kubrick: sure, he was a cold perfectionist, but I learned more about life and human nature in 2001 and in Eyes Wide Shut than in 10 Hitchcock films. Also, I know that poetry (as in making you question morals and reshaping the way you see the world) in film isn’t a requirement – many great movies didn’t need it to be great – but shouldn’t having it as a plus in an already incredible body or work (like Bergman’s, Tarkovsky’s, etc…) put you ahead of directors who don’t seem to be interested in that?
I may be saying utter nonsense here, so, if that’s the case: sorry, it’s just the way I feel right now (though opinions do change). Perhaps it’s just that Hitchcock’s movies (apart from his top 3) haven’t impacted me as much as the works of other directors below him.
Film can be poetry of course, but poetry isn’t the only type of art in cinema. From my time on this site I know that Drake puts very little emphasis on film content. He might bring it up every now and again, but it always comes back to style and form which can be found in film “prose” as well. It’s my belief as well that films don’t require some profound message about life. Of course, it’s great to discuss that but when it comes to evaluating its artistic worth, take a film like Battleship Potemkin – one of the best edited films of all time that is the definition of a technical accomplishment, but it’s not one we go to for deep readings about communism or Soviet Russia. Still, it is a stylistically and formally stronger film than something like Ivan’s Childhood which is undeniably open to so many readings and contemplations about war, but isn’t as strong a film (I hesitate to use that as an example though, it is still brilliant). Once a film’s thematic depth starts to become a major criteria it is a slippery slope into subjective arguments about how deep a certain film goes on a topic and whether that increases its value. I know some critics like that – their discussions are unbearably tangential and lose focus of the art in front of them.
As for Hitchcock, I believe there is still a lot to read into his films when it comes to voyeurism and humanity’s dark, perverse desires we like to keep hidden. But it is his undeniable stylistic and formal achievements that put him in this upper tier, separate from his content and choice of themes.
@Pedro– thank you for the thoughtful comment. You do not come off sounding pretentious at all- it is a good discussion.
First off, if you think Kubrick, Bergman, Ozu, Fellini and Tarkovsky should be ranked above Hitchcock– hey– those auteurs are all in my top 8- I mean you will not a long argument from be in rebuttal. They’re all in the same echelon. Now, if you don’t think Hitchcock belongs in that company, you’ll definitely get some pushback from me. In your own statement here you admit he’s a “visual master” and “uses the camera like no other” while also being an “amazing technician”… sounds like a really good start, right? I wouldn’t agree that’s where Hitchcock stops. In my Vertigo notes I write about it being Hitchcock’s exposed psyche on film. But you seem to acknowledge Vertigo, Psycho and Rear Window so I’ll move on… I’d point you to @Declan’s response here for the heart of my counterargument. Thank you @Declan. Content vs. form/style has been a debate for as long as people have discussed and studied and admired art. If we disagree with our definition of “great art” that’s totally fine- but long ago I gave up marrying content and art. It is a slippery slope. It seems like right off the bat you’d have a bias against all genre films, no? I mean wasn’t Stanley Kramer tackling issues that are “more important” and heavier than Hitchcock. Isn’t the preference of films about religion and death over films about voyeurism just a personal preference? Whereas visual style, form, and “technique” a more objective reading of film or auteur’s artistic merit? I’m sure we could both find quotes that suit our argument, but, paraphrasing Ebert, “film art isn’t what a filmmaker says, but how they say it”
@pedro I like your comment it’s nice to see someone say what he really thinks that trying to always be objective like @aldo.Personally I don’t care of Hitchcock ranking but I agree with you that we learn less about human nature life death or other deep subject in a Hitchcock movie than at Kubrick, Ozu, Fellini , Kurosawa, Bergman, Antonioni etc.@drake what really surprises me in your ranking is that if we read your analysis and commentary on movies about some great directors you seem personally love more Scorsese, Kubrick, Ozu, Bergman, Fellini, John Ford, Tarkovski or Kurosawa (after your 2020 study) than Hitchcock but maybe I’m mistaken i’m really curious about your opinion on that.
I think Hitchcock is not only technically perfect (most of the time) but also a master in form. His big masterpieces manage to combine his mastery of form and talent for creating suspense with great atmosphere and style (Vertigo is by all standards probably a top 20 of all time film for all film buffs). I actually think that Kubrick is the best director of all time (though admittedly I haven’t watched any of his films for a long time now) and I find some of his efforts to be stronger than Hitchcock’s. I agree that the themes a film explores can magnify its impact and make it much more interesting to think of and talk about. The visual aspects and artistic approach should come first, but personally there are many movies that have become very dear to me or made a lasting impression on themes alone and the way they are explored. It’s pretty much why, even though I appreciate Hitchcock a lot, and I think of him as a top 10 of all time director, I don’t care for discussing him much. That said, I don’t think that Cries and Whispers for example is a better film than Vertigo, even if it holds very strong serious themes. Besides, I don’t think that taking into account the emotional and philosophical aspects of a film hinders your objective evaluation of it – David Lynch is rightfully considered one of the best auteurs of all time and the impact of several of his works relies on the subconscious effect they have on the viewer. Suspense (a landmark Hitchcock trait), horror, comedy – all of these aspects are evoked by the filmmaker and most of the times are not relevant to the technical approach. When both are blended together, that’s when we talk of masterpieces (e.g. I consider the Grand Budapest Hotel a top 100 film and I stand by that statement – mindblowing Wes Anderson mise en scene and colour, comedy and sorrowful beauty in its approach of humanity, all in one). All of this goes to say that in my opinion, poetry in a film should be a factor in its evaluation, even if it is much more subjective than its visual merits. Afterall, if anything is subjective, it’s art.
Thank you, @Declan, @beaucamp, @Georg and @Drake, very insightful. I like the fact that we can have a good discussion about this.
I understand where you come from, Drake, and you’re right. As a film critic, trying to factor in subjective aspects of a film can lead to disastrous results – you’re much more experienced than I am, so I’ll take your word for it. However, as fan and lover of the medium, I don’t I can put Hitchcock above some directors who had a true impact on me – but then, discussing personal rankings will lead to nothing.
Nonetheless, since you quoted Ebert, I would like to discuss him. In 2007, for example, his favorite film of the year was Juno, and There Will Be Blood wasn’t even near the top 10. This means that he certainly considered something other than film form when forming his opinion, right? Because, as you agree, I believe that TWBB is virtually flawless and a fantastic achievement (doesn’t even compare with Juno in that regard). In his review, Ebert mentions the fact that the movie doesn’t reflect ordinary society in any way and that its characters are unbending. I can agree with that, but then we’re already in subjective territory.
I guess what I’m trying to say is this: as only a fan of film, poetic auteurs will always stand out for me. They’re the ones who make me think, cry, laugh and scream. They’re the ones who creep inside my mind at night when I’m trying to sleep. They’ll always be the best in my book. But as someone who has a website featuring a raking of the 250 best directors and the 500 best films, it’s hard for you to take this sort of thing in consideration. I understand that now. Thank you for making things clearer.
Just one final question: is your directors top 5 here your actual favorites top 5?
Thanks to everyone who commented!
@pedro- Yep- great conversation and debate here. Thank you for your contribution. That’s a good point about TWBB and 2007. However, I do believe even someone like Ebert ,can be wrong. I believe he’s wrong here if he thinks Juno is superior to TWBB. I say this as someone who goes back and reads my pages and says “yep, I was flat wrong on this” (talking about something I said). This isn’t sports, there aren’t winner and losers, but I don’t believe in total subjectivity either where “everyone has an opinion” and really any film can be argued to be superior to another film. Anyways, I’m getting off track.
I think “best” and “favorite” are pretty much the same for me at this point. But I understand the distinction.
daamn I love your top 10 list. I think no one should argue about your top 3, and I love seeing the 39 steps in your top 10. Maybe I preferred Shadow of a doubt more than Strangers on a train, but visually speaking I guess strangers on a train it’s more mature. Anyway I would like to know your thoughts about The wrong man and why it’s not worth the top 10.
( sorry for my english, I’m italian)
@benedetto- Thanks for the comment here! Your english is absolutely fine. Hmmm– as far as The Wrong Man– it has been at least 5-6 years since I’ve seen it so I don’t have a page for it here. I don’t think there is anything wrong with it- it is a fine film- we’re just talking about Hitchcock there’s only room for 10 in a top 10 obviously.
I have a question. Had Psycho came out in 1966-1967 instead of 1960 would it have the same impact? Would it still be your 35th best film?
@Ric- that’s interesting. Yes- I believe so- why do you ask?
I read that it changed the way movies were seen. Concept of spoiler was invented etc. That’s why.
Consider this: there is roughly 100 years’ worth of great cinema in existence. Hitchcock created, according to this site, more than thirty archiveable films, enough to supply essentially a whole year. His masterpiece count is higher than nearly every year. Thus, in a sense, he effectively possesses an entire 1% of history’s quality cinema. That’s staggering. Something close to this could be argued for a few other auteurs with many great movies, such as Kurosawa, Scorsese, Bergman, Allen, and some others. An entire percentage of the artistic medium’s relevant output is a massive amount of importance.
@Graham — I love the way you put this here and break it down. Indeed Hitchcock’s achievements are staggering (and the others listed).
Hello, Drake and readers of the site.
I love Notorious. It might just be my favorite Hitchcock. But there’s one little moment that bothers me (in sort of a good way; it makes me laugh) that I haven’t seen people mention enough. In the scene in which Alicia drives drunk, after Devlin sort of “knocks her out”, Ingrid Bergman actually scooches over to the passenger’s seat (while “knocked out”) so that Grant can drive. Hahaha.
Is that something that you guys nitpick about?
@pedro– haha I had not noticed this actually. I’ll look for it next time. But it would not be something that would be a big deal to me– I’m sure it would some people a ton and they wouldn’t be able to get past it.
Who had the better collaborations with Hitchcock?
Cary Grant:
Suspicion (1941)
Notorious (1946)
To Catch a Thief (1955)
North by Northwest (1959)
OR
James Stewart
Rope (1948)
Rear Window (1954)
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Vertigo (1958)
@James Trapp- fantastic question. I think I did this before. I’m not sure I’ll have time today but at some point I did compare the rankings of the films, the involvement level of the actors and quality of performances. It is crazy close– there’s no loser here.
@Drake – agreed there’s no loser, I kind of go back and forth. I think for both the roles play well to their strengths. For example, I think Stewart is more believable as a professor (Rope) and naïve tourist (Man Who Knew…) and Grant as a thief (To Catch a Thief) and a playboy (Suspicion)
I think they both could have played the roles in North by Northwest, Vertigo.
Not sure about Notorious and Rear Window
Obviously Grant has more charm and appeal to females a la any actor who plays James Bond while Stewart is more of any everyman a la Tom Hanks
If forced to pick I’ll say James Stewart as I think his characters are a little more iconic and irreplaceable but ask me in a week I might change my answer
@James Trapp- Yep and yep– I think Hitchcock clearly knew what he was doing casting these. These films are either well-established masterpieces, (Notorious, North by Northwest, Rear Window, Vertigo) or some of the most underrated films in Hitch’s filmography (Rope, To Catch a Thief, The Man Who Knew Too Much). Strong stuff
Just bought Notorious from Criterion on Blue Ray! Interesting that Ebert had it in his top 10 all time list at one point but the most recent Top 10 all time that Ebert did had Vertigo but not Notorious. I’ve seen Notorious only a couple times unlike most of his other top films, couldn’t find it on Amazon Prime so I decided to shell out a few extra bucks and go for top quality. Excited to see how it looks.
@James Trapp- a great choice for the bluray top quality splurge
@Drake – Just watched and it definitely was worth the extra bucks. I have not seen Notorious nearly as much as Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, North by Northwest, or several of his other top level films but even after just my 3rd viewing I think Notorious is of the same caliber.
The famous crane shot which zooms to an extreme close-up is one of the most spectacular shots in any Hitchcock film as are the shots depicting Ingrid Bergman’s Alicia after she has been drugged.
Does any director use stairs better?
The suspense is incredibly effective and the story is actually more straight forward than I remembered and really more centered around the love triangle than the details of the criminal plot of the war criminals.
The interiors of the mansion are stunning and one of the essential aspects that made it worth the blue ray purchase, incredibly crisp black and white cinematography and impressive framing.
Of course the quality of the acting must be mentioned, I mean Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman are as good as it gets and Claude Rains is fantastic. Certainly one of the best acted Hitchcock films. I do not expect too much time to pass until viewing # 4.
I think Hitchcock is deserving of at least a top 15 whenever you update his page.
Which Hitchcock cameo is your favorite? I love the one in North by Northwest where he misses the bus. Which Scorsese cameo is best? Of course, the morbid passenger in Taxi Driver is probably his most notable acting role, but that’s a little more than a cameo (and he was chock-full of cocaine while shooting that scene). Finally, what is your favorite cinematic cameo by any person? I love the meta choice of Coppola to play a documentarian in Apocalypse Now.
Well Scorsese does make a brief appearance as a portrait photographer in The Age of Innocence.
“Also, anyone who tries to argue with you that Hitchcock’s 1930’s British period was his most artistically fertile…. is an idiotic—so do us all a favor and tell that person they’re incorrect.”
lol true that
None the less I do enjoy some of Hitch’s British films, what would you rank as his top 5 British films? so far I would rank the top 5 as:
1. The Lady Vanishes (1938)
2. The 39 Steps (1935)
3. Frenzy (1972)
4. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
5. Young and Innocent (1937)
I just rewatched Rear Window and I think it may served as the one of the perfect reminders of why I love cinema, not just because it’s a flawlessly shot, flawlessly acted masterpiece but because the plot concerns itself with man’s fascination with the private lives of strangers. This is one of the many reasons that cinema is such a popular artform. It’s one of those films that I love so much I get excited just thinking about it.
@Max- thank you for sharing this- I wholeheartedly agree.
@Max – yep, Rear Window (1954) is a perfect film and it works on many levels; it is extremely entertaining, fun, and suspenseful and despite it being a Mystery it is extraordinarily rewatchable even after you know everything that happens in the film plot wise. It’s fascinating in regards to what you are referring to; that is it serving as a type of metaphor for cinematic voyeurism (a phrase I just made up).
I am curious Max was this your first time watching Rear Window? Have you seen Vertigo?
It was my second viewing of Rear Window. Yes I have seen Vertigo, and concur with Drake’s belief that it is Hitchcock’s best. I just felt that since so much (deserved) praise has already been lavished on Vertigo I would give some love to Rear Window/ explain why it’s also one of my all time favorites.
@Max – yeah, I have Psycho #1 with Rear Window #2 and Vertigo #3 but I’m certainly not going to argue against someone disagreeing with this order as all 3 of these are huge MPs.
Which director do you think there is the most to gain from repeated viewings of their films? Hitchcock being the master of suspense whenever I watch his films the story/narrative are often fascinating and/or exhilarating like North by Northwest for instance. The more I watch the more I appreciate his camera work and visual style, recent viewings of Rope (1948), Strangers on a Train (1951), and Notorious (1946) have been eye opening. It’s not as if I was not aware of Hitchcock’s technical prowess before, but it’s one thing to be aware of it and another to actually experience it.
My top 9: I have yet to see Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and many others, but they’re on Criterion Channel now, so I will update the list once I have seen them
1. Vertigo- Hitchcock is both indicting his treatment of women and brilliantly manipulating the audience into sympathizing with it, by making us sympathizing with Scottie. Just teeming with cinematic brilliance, from the green-lit hotel room with the 360 shot to the final scene with Scottie holding his arms out, accepting Judy/Madeleine in death. Too many wall art caliber shots to count. Stewart’s performance is top 25 all time, and Novak is perfect regardless of what Hitchcock says. Herrmann’s best work, haunting and lonely and mysterious, I whistle it all the time.
2. Notorious- One of the most formal films ever made, visually brilliant with the crane shot and the shot of the poisoned coffee, etc. Bergman is transcendent, Grant and Rains are stellar.
3. Rear Window- As I said in my above comment, it’s one of the perfect reminders of why I love cinema. A statement on voyeurism and man’s fascination with the private lives of strangers. It’s both indicting Jefferies mindset and revealing it as an essential element of human nature. Stewart, Kelly, and Ritter are perfect.
4. The Birds- Fellini’s favorite Hitchcock, he called it “an apocalyptic poem.” Simultaneously of his most and least accessible films because it can be enjoyed as an atmospheric thriller about birds attacking people, or as a complex meditation on our lack of empathy for one another, and what God thinks about it. Hitchcock films are known for their great soundtracks, but this is one of the finest examples of using the lack of music to create suspense. I watched it on benadryl the first time and it was one of the most stimulating experiences of my entire life as a cinephile. It sounds odd, but just take my word for it or try it yourself if you want.
5. Psycho – Still a giant masterpiece, but the patronizing psychiatrist scene drops it to #5. Perhaps the greatest, or at least the most famous, example of audience manipulation in cinema, as the film is completely flipped on its head with the brilliant shower scene, and we are made to sympathize with causes that are the exact opposite of what we’d expect to sympathize with. Rewards repeat viewings, as the creepy nuances in Perkins performance become more apparent within the context of the ending. Probably Herrmann’s second best work.
6. North by Northwest – Possibly the greatest spy thriller ever made, unless you count The General, which is technically about Union spies. Expertly balances comedy and biting critique of government and corporate priorities, and how they violate identity (it’s worth noting that Thornhill is never seen in his home). The Mt. Rushmore sequence is too brilliant and ironic to even describe. Grant’s performance in itself is a masterpiece of comic timing, reluctant badassery, and effortless charm. Probably Herrmann’s third best work, though it’s close with Taxi Driver.
7. Strangers on a Train- If you were to make a list of the best shots in Hitchcock’s oeuvre, you would probably be surprised by how many of them come from this, with the glasses strangulation shot and my personal favorite, Bruno Anthony as a black stain on the Jefferson Memorial. Like Psycho, it formally deals with the theme of the duality of human nature. The book was popular, but I know some who have read the book and say the film is superior.
8. The 39 Steps- Orson Welles’ review? “Oh my God, what a masterpiece.” And I agree with him. An excellent companion piece to North by Northwest, as a comic thriller with many of the same basic themes, but also examines the nature of the relationship between man and woman, and compares it with the relationship between man and government. Also contains what I believe is the funniest line in all of Hitchcock, “Look, a flock of detectives.”
9. Rebecca- This one is underrated now like most undeserving best picture winners; it does an exceptional job of translating the creepy Gothic atmosphere of the novel, Joan Fontaine is a revelation, one of the most vulnerable characters in all of Hitchcock, and Judith Anderson brings her Lady Macbeth menace to the iconic villainess Mrs. Danvers. Franz Waxman’s score is probably the best in a Hitchcock film not done by Herrmann.
@Max – This is a great list, I love that you included Rebecca think it may be his most overlooked film these days. It is Great Expectations in terms of the visuals, beautiful interior and exterior shots of the mansion combined with a great story and performances.
I am curious you have Psycho at #5 and say the psychiatrist scene drops it, what is your ranking of Psycho without that scene? I mean I agree that it should not have been included I like Roger Ebert’s suggestion from his review of Psycho:
“If I were bold enough to reedit Hitchcock’s film, I would include only the doctor’s first explanation of Norman’s dual personality: “Norman Bates no longer exists. He only half existed to begin with. And now, the other half has taken over, probably for all time.” Then I would cut out everything else the psychiatrist says, and cut to the shots of Norman wrapped in the blanket while his mother’s voice speaks (“It’s sad when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son…”)”
Without that scene it would be #3 at the lowest. And I like Ebert’s suggestion as well.
Let’s rank performances in Hitchcock films because I’m bored:
1. James Stewart, Vertigo
2. Ingrid Bergman, Notorious
3. Anthony Perkins, Psycho
4 Cary Grant, North by Northwest
5. James Stewart, Rear Window
6. Joan Fontaine, Rebecca
7. Teresa Wright, Shadow of a Doubt
8. Kim Novak, Vertigo
9. Robert Donat, The 39 Steps
10 Joan Fontaine, Suspicion
11. Ray Milland, Dial M for Murder
12 Robert Walker, Strangers on a Train
13. Grace Kelly, Rear Window
14 Janet Leigh, Psycho
15 Thelma Ritter, Rear Window
16. Judith Anderson, Rebecca
17 Cary Grant, Notorious
18. Claude Rains, Notorious
19 Cary Grant, Suspicion
20 Grace Kelly, Dial M for Murder
@Max great list hard to find much to disagree with I’ll try
one of my favorite actors, Joseph Cotton, is amazing in Shadow of a Doubt. Would have to put him somewhere in the top 15 maybe even top 10.
I love Stewart and John Dall in Rope (1948)
I don’t think Tippi Hedren is one of the best Hitchcock actress but I think she was great in Marnie
Yeah, I haven’t seen Rope or Marnie yet, but they’re on Criterion Channel so I’ll be changing that soon. .I look forward to them both. Cotten is one of my favorites as well, but it’s mostly because of The Third Man/Citizen Kane. I’ve only seen Shadow of a Doubt once, and my first impression was that Cotten was good but utterly eclipsed by Teresa Wright. Maybe I need to give it another watch.
I also love how in Shadow of a Doubt there’s a police search and a story in the newspaper about a killer of rich old widows, and Uncle Charlie just randomly soliloquizes at the dinner table about how rich old widows are useless subhumans. A citizen above suspicion, if I’ve ever seen one!
I also love how in Shadow of a Doubt there’s a police search and a story in the newspaper about a killer of rich old widows, and Uncle Charlie just randomly soliloquizes at the dinner table about how rich old widows are useless subhumans. A citizen above suspicion, if I’ve ever seen one!
@Max – ha yes I know the scene you are referring to. I think his best performance is tough to pick but 3 great choices; The Third Man, Shadow of a Doubt, and The Magnificent Ambersons (with Welles again).
If you like Jimmy Stewart in Hitchcock you will love Rope (1948) it’s another chance to see Stewart in some darker material like Vertigo. I am not saying Rope is anywhere near as good as Vertigo (not much is) but it’s a fantastic film it its own right in which Hitchcock displays his maxim regarding the difference between suspense and surprise:
“surprise is when two people are sitting in a coffee shop and a bomb goes off under the table; suspense is when we see a man place a bomb under the table and watch the two people meet to have coffee”
I think Dial M for Murder (1954) might be better than a simple R
I know the main argument again it is that it is based on a play and seems based on a play aka not very
cinematic. Frankly this is a fair criticism but it also has a number of things in its favor:
– the scissors scene is one of Hitchcock’s best, the hesitation by Swann right before the attempted murder
ramps
up the tension, it also shows Swann does not really want to go through with it
– the trial scene is kafkaesque with Grace Kelly’s character powerless to defend herself, I love the surreal
nature of this scene and the accompany music which is far more interesting than had they done this as a
conventional court scene
– For a movie that is about 105 min and basically set in a single room/location it flies by
– the performances are top notch particularly Ray Milland who plays a terrific charming villain, reminds me a
little of the Gavin Elster character from Vertigo
– I love the use of technicolor
– It could be argued that the suspense is compromised due to Milland’s character laying out his plan in such
intricate detail but similar to Double Indemnity the suspense will largely come from seeing how the plan will
fall apart
– similar to Psycho the score seems synonymous with guilt
– the John Williams as a Columbo like inspector is superb, in fact the performances are solid with Robert
Cummings being the weak link although his performance is certainly passable
– Hitchcock, he uses color effectively in relation to the Grace Kelly who starts the film with light pink with her
husband then bright red with her lover, as the film progresses she wears darker shades of red, even the
movies poster you can see it is multiple shades of red
Just finished up my Hitchcock study that I had been working on for awhile but kept getting sidetracked by other projects. Very rewarding experience as I feel I learned a lot about editing, camerawork, and how to write an effective screenplay. I currently have him ranked as the second best director of all time. Here is my top 15 films from the master:
1. Vertigo
2. Rear Window
3. Psycho
4. North By Northwest
5. Notorious
6. Dial M For Murder
7. Rope
8. The 39 Steps
9. The Wrong Man
10. Rebecca
11. The Lady Vanishes
12. Strangers On A Train
13. Shadow Of A Doubt
14. Marnie
15. The Man Who Knew Too Much (Remake)
What makes you place Strangers on a Train all the way at #12? I think conventional opinion would rank it much higher.
It’s not necessarily that I didn’t think it was great, more so that I just think that Hitchcock has other films which surpass it visually and narratively. TSPDT consensus has it #8, so it’s not too far off from where I am currently. Maybe on a rewatch it will improve but I think 12th is good enough, especially considering how strong his filmography is.
@Chase – congrats, I’ve wanted to do a Hitchcock study myself for a while, it’s just such a daunting task but I will get to it eventually.
I have seen all of the films do your top 15 and I mostly agree with it overall although I will 2nd @Graham regarding Strangers on a Train
You have the phenomenal set pieces near the beginning and very end with the Carousel.
The immaculate shot of Bruno committing the murder using the reflection off the eye glass.
The recurring doubles motif is impressive formally
There is the scene where the Farley Granger character goes to warn Bruno’s father, in this scene Hitchcock uses a dog on the stairs to temporarily break the tension setting up the surprise of Bruno lying in the bed in the dark rather than his father.
Great composition in the tennis scene with the entire crowd moving their heads back and forth during the match except for Bruno who stares directly at Guy
Bruno is one of the best Hitchcock villains, chilling and charming at the same time
This is a long article but if interested
https://cinephiliabeyond.org/strangers-train-technically-perfect-psychological-carousel-one-hitchcocks-best/
Thanks James, you make a very strong case and the article you linked is great. Thinking about moving it up my list.
@Chase – thanks, Cinephiliabeyond is one of the best analysis sites I’m come across
The Lodger —
Blackmail R
Murder! R
The Thirty-Nine Steps HR
Sabotage R
Young and Innocent R
The Lady Vanishes HR
Jamacia Inn —
Foreign Correspondent R
Rebecca MS
Suspicion R
Saboteur R
Shadow of a Doubt MS
Lifeboat HR
Spellbound HR
Notorious MS
Rope HR
Strangers on Train MS
I Confess R
Dial M For Murder HR
Rear Window MP
To Catch a Thief R
The Man Who Knew Too Much R
The Wrong Man R
Vertigo MP
North By Northwest MS
Psycho MP
The Birds MS
Marnie MS
Torn Curtain R
Frenzy R
Wrapped up all that I’m planning on seeing from Hitchcock for now. Planning on giving NBNW, Birds and Rear Windows another spin each and haven’t gotten around to much of his 30s and 20s work so still a lot more watching to do. Regardless his filmography and talent is just towering.
(Films #1-6 I have each seen twice, the rest one watch each)
1. Vertigo – MP
2. Psycho – MP
3. Notorious – MP
4. Rope – MP
5. Strangers on a Train – MS/MP
6. Rear Window – MS
7. Shadow of a Doubt – MS
8. North by Northwest – MS
9. Family Plot – HR/MS
10. The Birds – HR/MS
11. The Man Who Knew Too Much – HR
12. Rebecca – HR
13. The Lady Vanishes – HR
14. Frenzy – HR
15. Torn Curtain – HR
16. Foreign Correspondent – HR
17. The Wrong Man – R/HR
18. Marnie – R
19. The 39 Steps – R
20. Lifeboat – R
21. To Catch a Thief – R
22. Dial M for Murder – R
23. Spellbound
24. Suspicion!
@Harry – Nice, I’ve wanted to do a Hitchcock study, it’s just so daunting.
I’ve seen all of the films you’ve ranked except Family Plot, The Wrong Man, and Lifeboat. I’ve seen the other 21 and for the most part agree with a couple of exceptions:
1. Rear Window and North by Northwest are easy MPs for me.
2. Marnie is a MS for me but I’ve noticed that one to be quite polarizing amongst critics
3. Catch a Thief is a MS for me, there are some immaculate establishing shots of the French Rivera and amazing chemistry/performances from Cary Grant and Grace Kelly. It’s much lighter in tone than some of his best films but it has a lean narrative and is easily one of The Master’s most purely enjoyable films.
4. I really love Rope but not sure it’s quite a MP. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say it’s his 4th best film but again it’s a great film and features perhaps the most realized example of Hitchcock’s famous maxim:
“surprise is when two people are sitting in a coffee shop and a bomb goes off under the table; suspense is when we see a man place a bomb under the table and watch the two people meet to have coffee.”
@James Trapp – I wouldn’t really fight you on any of those points and I am planning on seeing many of those films a second (or third time for Rear Window) as I am confident I will only like them more with repeat viewings. I think all your points are fair and most on the site would agree with you.
Marnie is just too flawed for me to go higher for now. I love the opening and the scene where she robs the safe in the office. It can’t decide whether Connery is the villain or the hero, feel like it’s all over the place. I don’t really find the screen flashing red to be that impressive visually either.
@Harry – Marnie does have some flaws for sure. As for Connery’s character, I am not sure either but then again Marnie is not a straight forward protagonist, perhaps an anti-hero. However, Marnie is one of Hitchcock’s most interesting and complex characters. It features a great score (admittingly I give more weight here than most) and while I agree it does feel a little all over the place, especially in terms of its tone, this also makes the film quite interesting as it is part thriller, character study, drama. It also fits well into Hitchcock’s entire body of work as it visits similar themes related to the power dynamics between men and women, especially as they relate to sex. Marnie is intriguing but I can see why I does not work for everyone, as I said it is polarizing.
@Harry- You’re crushing- keep up the good work!
I’m currently reading Truffaut’s book on Hitchcock. I’m learning a lot about both filmmakers, as both of their personalities and ideas come through strongly. They work through Hitchcock’s filmography from start to finish in interview format and discuss the making of each film, challenges, disappointments, successes and Hitchcock’s evaluation of each. It’s a must read for anyone interested in Hitchcock.
@Leighton – 100% agreed- an essential read
Do you think To Catch a Thief could take 39 Steps spot in the top 10 here?
@Harry- I think it could- makes me excited to get back to the director’s pages. As much fun as I’m having with the actor’s pages– it is the films themselves and director’s that truly enjoy updating and writing on
@Drake – Yup, the actors pages are cool to follow but its the directors pages that got me to stick around in the first place and I’ve found most helpful in filling out my watchlist. Particularly looking foward to seeing who climbs up the highest as your appreciation for directors has gone up with the studies. Hoping Kurosawa makes it to #1 and PTA gets to dip into the top 10. Many others I’m looking foward to the expanded pages on like Bergman, Ray, Tarr and Zimou.
@Harry – To Catch a Thief might be his most overlooked film, it’s gorgeously shot and despite the plot is much lighter in tone than the majority of his work and I actually think I underrated it during my first viewing partly for this reason. Cary Grant and Grace Kelly have incredible chemistry and the storoy flows seamlessly with elements of a Bond film and even a screwball comedy. The writing is incredibly witty like something from Joseph Mankiewicz’s All About Eve (1950) The mise-en-scene and production design are both top notch.
@James – definitely, I don’t have it rated too highly but there were some gorgeous sequences when I first caught it. I’m getting the blu soon so I’m exciting to see it again and see how wrong I am on it.
My ranking of Hitchcock`s films that I`ve seen:
1. Vertigo MP
2. Psycho MP
3. Rear Window MP
4. Notorious MP
5. North by Northwest MP
6. Strangers on a Train MP
7. Rope MS/MP
8. Shadow of a Doubt MS/MP
9. The Birds MS
10. The 39 Steps MS
11. Rebecca MS
12. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) MS
13. To Catch a Thief HR/MS
14. Marnie HR/MS
15. The Lady Vanishes HR
16. Dial M for Murder HR
17. Murder! HR
18. Sabotage HR
19. Champagne HR
20. Young and Innocent HR
21. Blackmail HR
22. Torn Curtain R/HR
23. Saboteur R/HR
24. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) R/HR
25. The Lodger R/HR
26. Foreign Correspondent R
27. Suspicion R
28. Lifeboat R
29. Spellbound R
30. I Confess R
31. Secret Agent R
20 Best Performances
1. Stewart- Vertigo
2. Bergman- Notorious
3. Perkins- Psycho
4. Cotten- Shadow of a Doubt
5. Grant- North by Northwest
6. Walker- Strangers on a Train
7. Novak- Vertigo
8. Stewart- Rear Window
9. Grant- Notorious
10. Fontaine- Rebecca
11. Wright- Shadow of a Doubt
12. Olivier- Rebecca
13. Leigh- Psycho
14. Donat- The 39 Steps
15. Milland- Dial M for Murder
16. Rains- Notorious
17. Anderson- Rebecca
18. Kelly- To Catch a Thief
19. Fontaine- Suspicion
20. Hedren- Marnie
@RujK – nice work, I posted my list in September but I’m gonna re-do my top 10 since I’ve given Hitchcock more time since then
1. Vertigo – MP (my #3 of all time)
2. Psycho – MP
3. North by Northwest – MP
4. Rear Window – MP
5. Notorious – MP
6. Rope – MP
7. Strangers on a Train – MS/MP
8. Shadow of a Doubt – MS
9. The Birds – MS
10. To Catch a Thief – MS
Question(s
I believe you have a similar principle to mine, i.e. a work of art should be evaluated on the basis of elements that are intrinsic to its form, and therefore movies independently from writing, acting, etc. Would you hold that they should be evaluated independently from music as well, and if so, should this not reduce in our estimation those movies that can’t be very easily? Is there something to be said for the fact that Vertigo would be difficult to see as the same work if stripped of a non-cinematic element (incidental music) but for example Battleship Potemkin (which technically has no official score) would not?
@Frodo- Good question and food for thought here. I would certainly include music as part of that second or third tier evaluative criteria… I don’t strip it out, but it doesn’t carry the same weight as others
I suppose my follow up question would be, if there are two films you believe to be of equal or near-equal value as wholes, but the value of one is a result of its adherence to the first tier of your criteria alone, and the value of the other is a result of its adherence to several tiers, wouldn’t the first inevitably be the greater film, if not necessarily the greater thing?
the greater film according to your criteria that is
@Frodo- Hmm- tough for me to follow fully here- Do you have an example?
Well my own example would be Battleship Potemkin and Vertigo. I don’t believe the idea that Vertigo as a “total work of art” is Potemkin’s equal (or even its superior) is necessarily wrong. However, many of Vertigo’s highest moments would be considerably less effective without a non-visual element (incidental music), and Potemkin has no such dependency, so I regard Potemkin as the better film.
And to be clear, this is not my way of complaining about the difference between the two on your top 500 list (I hope I am not that petty) as much as my way of trying to start a debate that ought to be had among those who take interest: if movies are a visual art, should they not want to be as easily appreciated by the deaf as symphonies are by the blind? And if so, would this not mean that most of the greatest movies are from the silent era, their only non-visual elements being scores that are usually
1. Lost
2. unofficial
3. or not essential to the character of the film in the way that Herrmann’s is to Vertigo– which is why the occupation of film composer was not highly respected until the mid-30s with Erich Wolfgang Korngold and Max Steiner–?
sorry I meant this as a reply
@Frodo- Good share here – lots to chew on. I don’t necessarily disagree- just wonder how you’d approach the same argument from something like WKW’s In the Mood for Love and how he uses the audio cues to compliment the visual formal repetition. His use of music is perhaps less poetically beautiful in stand alone form (like say Bernard Herrmann’s work in Vertigo or say the work of Jonny Greenwood’s Phantom Thread score). But it does seem like a formal/artistic layer you could not get with no audio…
As a fan of WKW I will try to avoid self-heresy– I agree that audio can add formal layers to a movie; my point is if whatever sensation a director wants the audience to perceive by hearing audio (be it thoughtfully placed or not) was instead conveyed through images alone, it would be a greater work of cinema.
in the case of the scenes where the two main characters see each other unexpectedly, the music from Yumeji is in tandem with the use of slow motion, true, to convey hopelessness, and the idealization of each person by the other. There are two potential explanations I can think of for his use of audio:
1. He is unable to convey these sensations through the language of imagery alone (which I doubt because he is a genius and furthermore knows it too well)
2. or he (like most sound-era directors) supports the Wagnerian idea of a “total work of art”– in which the fragmentation of the arts is done away with and each medium is allowed to neutralize the supposed deficiencies of the other
–given the name of your website I don’t think I need to persuade you that this idea is folly.
@Frodo – interesting argument, just curious as to what are your top 10 to 15 films, does not have to exact order just trying to get a sense of what you most value in a film. I remember posting at one point about how Days of Heaven (1978) could actually work as a silent film thought I certainly would not want that given the immaculate score from Morricone. Certainly Tree of Life (2011) would have to near the very top in a list of films that have imagery so amazing they could work without audio. In fact, really just all of Malick’s films minus the 3 films he released between 2012 and 2017 would make the list. 2001 certainly has amazing audios but the visuals are spectacular enough on their own.
A few reasons, other than the crane shot, why Notorious is my pick of the litter and why (even though you have it as a masterpiece) I believe it merits reevaluation and a higher slot
A. Its bookends are among the greatest in history- the movie begins with the the opening of a door and shows two men standing in front of a single judge, their lawyer standing to the right. Between the two men the face of a stenographer (no privacy= safety, in this case a fair trial) is carefully framed. In the final shot a single man stands in front of two de facto judges and to their left is the man’s mother, a de facto lawyer due to her “protective” relationship with him. Between the two judges the handles of a shut door (privacy= entrapment, anything can happen to you) are carefully framed. They call the man inside, who comes, and that door is shut as well.
B. When Alicia collapses from the poison, Hitchcock uses the same angle that is found at the beginning of the crane shot- a formal tether between the scenes, emphasizing that she could conceal her actions more easily in the stirring of partygoers (no privacy=safety)– now she is alone and compromised (privacy= entrapment)
C. When she ascends the stairs after the party, a striking angle is used- Claude Rains stands in the bottom right and the stairs crawl away into the top-left corner. This angle is repeated when Devlin goes looking for her in the final scene- it shows that once Rains’ suspicions were aroused, she was putting herself in greater danger every time she went up to their room– it was a different place (privacy=entrapment). But how does Devlin save her? by concealing his identity and understanding that Rains’ does not want to be exposed as a traitor (so privacy can also be good, hm…)
D. This is all a reflection of Alicia’s psychology- at the beginning she is a party animal who drinks and socializes for her own peace of mind- she does not feel safe alone as the daughter of a Nazi war criminal and does not like to remember her youth because she genuinely likes America. It is Devlin, who only speaks to Alicia and whose face is (quite deliberately) not shown until the others have left, that values privacy as a result of his work. In their love scenes, when they are constantly interrupted by professional matters, he teaches her to value it as well, but she does not believe their love is real, so she doesn’t know how much she values it until the end- when he confesses that it is, and she knows he isn’t lying. (it’s an exceedingly romantic movie behind all the spy thriller airs).
E. also the use of the POV shot when Alicia is hungover in bed and sees Devlin is also repeated at the end when he comes to save her- the first time he is upside down, the second time he is right side up (could this have been inspired by the formally shrewd use of POV to depict opposites in Mamoulian’s Jekyll and Hyde?)
P.S. If any of my points need clarification do ask I was trying not to write too much
@Frodo- Enjoyed reading this- thank you Frodo