In interviews he was always talking very slowly about techniques to manipulate the audience as if it was some genius ideas he had invented himself, like a scientist suspensefully revealing a mindblowing discovery he just made, when actually it was generally pretty obvious stuff that everybody does without even consciously thinking about it today.

You're an idiot

Give an example of an interview where he explains a technique that isn't obvious.

I have watched many Hitchcock interviews this past week on youtube (though sadly I don't know how to find the Truffaut one though) and while they are interesting to hear it's mostly stuff you already know or have never though about it because it's so obvious.

It wasn't all obvious back then.

I kept reading that as "Hancock was so full of himself", the Will Smith movie. And he was.

Hitchcock was so full of himself when you think about it

Such a great director has the right to be full of himself.

Classic SuperFratBoyExtreme.

Keep up the good work, son!

pretty obvious stuff that everybody does without even consciously thinking about it today.

That's because they saw those Hitchcock interviews 40-50 years ago.

That Georges Méliès was a piece of work, thought those "stop-the-camera" special effects to make people disappear on film was such genius. Anybody can do that now.

If anything, his persistent desire to cameo in every movie showed more how he was full of himself. During interviews he seems very technically proficient, which even I can't deny (and I'm not the biggest fan).

I think he was too interested in speaking about techniques in interviews and so he almost didn't talk about the art and his movies themselves. He never got very personal.

Well I generally find Hitchcock to be a very cold, clinical, and detached director so I see what you're saying. At the same time the technical side of film contributes to the art and visual aesthetic of them so he isn't too far off I guess. Although then you have someone like Kubrick, whose films are much more artistic and that are also way more substantial. Hitchcock is obviously sacred around here so lots of people will disagree with you (and me).

He knew how to create a reaction and how to get audiences to respond the way he wanted them to. I personally actively resist his manipulations so it doesn't have quite the effect on me that he wants. His techniques didn't always work though (I find some of his earlier work to be lacking while also using the stupid plot mechanics that he's guilty of throughout his career).

>>11
Well he wasn't labeled, The Master of Suspense for no reason.

That's like saying that every discovery that Einstein made was obvious. The reason it's obvious is because Hitchcock is the one who did the legwork.

I have no idea what you mean.

What do you not understand ?

And by the way he was not talking to you.

I have no idea what either one of ya'll are talking about. If it's not addressed for me, then dont reply directly to me.

I said in the OP Hitchcock said many obvious things in interviews, so dfh just pointed out to me that it's all relative, what is obvious now wasn't necessarily back then.

I guess he replied to you by mistake. From the content of his his post it's quite obvious it's not addressed to you.

He was a bit actually. The way he opened his film The Wrong Man by having himself introduce it on-camera, "this is my first motion-picture based on a true story" and then goes on a rant, his cameos and how he wanted a cameo in his final film where he winks to the camera etc.

Hitchcock's appearances in his own films have a certain arrogance about them for sure but there are purposes to it beyond egotism, and it's one of his most influential traits. Hitchcock's appearance essentially asserts the presence of the the film's master and manipulator. Pretty self reflexive and meta for films being made within the studio system.

Their some stuff that sound obvious once you have heard them from someone else.

Say is theory that tension often come from the desire of the audience to intervene without being able too, that make you less critical of the horror movie with the character doing something stupid in the sense that the filmmaker knew it was stupid and wanted you to scream in your head to "Open the light/don't go there/etc...", because it create tension.

You can create situations like that without making the characters look stupid though. But sometimes their stupidity is part of the fun I guess.

Yes, you can want to tell him about the bomb that it is not stupid at all for the character to be unaware of.

Please learn what "context" means.

Hitch might have been full of himself, but when you can make as many great films as he did, you have every right to be full of yourself.

If it was so obvious then why have most directors that tried to duplicate the Hitchcockian style failed miserably at it? De Palma probably had the most success at it but even he failed to ever gain much critical success.

Yeah, there's that, too. anon is just trying to sound smart.

But there's much more to a style than just reusing a set of techniques. His style is unique, but the techniques he always talks about in interviews are common stuff.

Common to us film geeks that hang out on /tele/ but not to your average film goer. Of course everyone is an expert on everything these days but how many will bother to stop refreshing their Facebook page or checking instagram long enough to google film techniques?

>>28
You're up there with SFBE as the poster talking the most bollocks. I mean do you proof read before you post.

>>29
What ? All the information I brough in this thread is exact, I watched lots of Hitchcok interviews this past week.

>>30
I've seen and read many interviews with Hitchcock, including the book by Francois Truffaut, and he was nothing like that.

>>31
Well maybe you don't think he was full of himself (I'm not really sure he was, maybe he just was fascinated by what he was talking about), but quite certainly most of what he said was obvious stuff.

I'd love to hear the Truffaut interview but I don't know where to find it.

>>32
It's not a filmed interview, but a series of extended ones that was published as a book called Hitchcock a Definitive Study which is available at Amazon. It is where the notorious often misquoted phrase "actors are cattle" comes from.

Hitchcock was a showman. He cultivated a persona to help sell his films. And the films he made justified this since they were legitimately great.

>>34
Your trolling is sad, pathetic and obvious.

Nolan is kinda like that too. But that doesn't matter. Both have great movies that just their attitude

>>36

Nolan is kinda like that too

Exactly, but apparently to anon, everything that comes out of Nolan's mouth is a revelation.

Nolan talks about many things in his interviews. He tells us about his movies, his personality, the choices he makes and how he works. Hitchcock says little about that, he acts like a teacher in a film class for beginners.

http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1202-Spring-2012/DGA-Interview-Christopher-Nolan.aspx

Take this interview for example. You learn many things you didn't know about Nolan. Whereas Hitchcock spends his time saying things you already know about filmmaking. And generally when they ask him a more personal question he just gives a brief answer or feigns to not understand.

>>38

Whereas Hitchcock spends his time saying things you already know about filmmaking.

You, anon, use the word "you" as if everyone one the planet, or even everyone on this board is knowledgeable about the same things. Not everyone knows about filmmaking. Some people, myself included, don't know squat about it. You get in trouble on your threads by making sweeping generalizations…. Like everyone in the world knows, should know, or should even care about filmmaking to the same degree you do. What may be common knowledge to you may be brand new and informative to someone else.

Maybe because he loved his job and liked talking about the techniques of film. Idiot.

And who in god's name cares if he was full of himself. He's a magnificent director.

Most directors seem full of themselves, wouldn't you agree?

Noo. No director is as full up himself as Chris Nolan. Amd you can quote me on that.

I've never seen in his interviews signs of arrogance, could you point me to one such instance ?

Of course he is probably very confident in what he is doing, that's required to be a great director.