(ADMIN EDIT: I split this off of the Exploitation genre thread because it’s deserving of it’s own thread and I don’t want to derail the original thread. -F13)
Have you guys thought about going back and covering maybe .. Peeping Tom paired with Psycho? Only because I think there is such an interesting dichotomy in what those films did to those two directors careers, and Peeping Tom is the better film, I think.
Have you guys thought about going back and covering maybe .. Peeping Tom paired with Psycho? Only because I think there is such an interesting dichotomy in what those films did to those two directors careers, and Peeping Tom is the better film, I think.
Hm,
I feel like Peeping Tom capped off Michael Powell’s career, just the same as Psycho did for Hitchcock, as neither made anything after them that even approached their quality.
No, I’m not saying I hated The Birds, I’m just saying that it’s a little like having dessert before dinner.
Peeping Tom better than Psycho… hm… I’m gonna have to rewatch Peeping Tom before I issue a verdict on that.
Hm,
I feel like Peeping Tom capped off Michael Powell’s career, just the same as Psycho did for Hitchcock, as neither made anything after them that even approached their quality.
No, I’m not saying I hated The Birds, I’m just saying that it’s a little like having dessert before dinner.
Peeping Tom better than Psycho… hm… I’m gonna have to rewatch Peeping Tom before I issue a verdict on that.
I still love Psycho, but I just enjoy Peeping Tom on a different level. Even without Janet Leigh in her bra. There is a certain coolness to the mood of it. I like that the character of Mark (can’t think of the actor’s name at the moment) is so subtle in his creepiness, and likable in his awkwardness.
I also find it interesting that Hitchcock continued to enjoy success while Powell’s career suffered for making what other people found to be a ‘disgusting’ film.
I guess I should also admit that I am partial to the application/use/manipulation/artistic interpretation of colour in film and in that, comparing Psycho and Peeping Tom is hardly fair. Still ... let me know what you think once you get a chance to watch Peeping Tom again.
I also find it interesting that Hitchcock continued to enjoy success while Powell’s career suffered for making what other people found to be a ‘disgusting’ film.
Did Hitchcock continue to enjoy success or just coast on previous accomplishments? The Birds was his last successful film and it already was a step down from Psycho and in my opinion only achieved what it did because people wanted to see what he would do next.
His last 5 films Marnie, Torn Curtain, Topaz, Frenzy, & Family Plot were all good (with Frenzy and Torn Curtain bordering on great.) but when put up against Vertigo, North by Northwest, Rear Window and others that changed the landscape of filmmaking worldwide.. well I think you get where I’m going with this.
Did Hitchcock continue to enjoy success or just coast on previous accomplishments? The Birds was his last successful film and it already was a step down from Psycho and in my opinion only achieved what it did because people wanted to see what he would do next.
His last 5 films Marnie, Torn Curtain, Topaz, Frenzy, & Family Plot were all good (with Frenzy and Torn Curtain bordering on great.) but when put up against Vertigo, North by Northwest, Rear Window and others that changed the landscape of filmmaking worldwide.. well I think you get where I’m going with this.
Success may have been a bad word choice on my part. Certainly Hitchcock has been the more celebrated of the two. I just wish Powell was more celebrated here in the states, I guess.
Rear Window is sooooooooo good though
Thanks for moving the thread. I tend to go off on tangents.
Oh I do agree but Hitchcock’s body of work dwarfs Powell’s. One to one, Peeping Tom very well could be better than Psycho (jury’s still out on that one.) but Hitchcock’s resume outweighs Powell’s by at least a few pounds.
If Michael Powell had a few more heavy hitters in his catalog he’d get more recognition in the states for sure.
Oh I do agree but Hitchcock’s body of work dwarfs Powell’s. One to one, Peeping Tom very well could be better than Psycho (jury’s still out on that one.) but Hitchcock’s resume outweighs Powell’s by at least a few pounds.
If Michael Powell had a few more heavy hitters in his catalog he’d get more recognition in the states for sure.
Yeah, I think Peeping Tom sort of cut his catalog short. I think I remember reading somewhere that people actually walked out of the premiere, avoiding eye contact and refusing to engage in any conversation with him or shake his hand.
Psycho got a bit more of a positive response than that. :)
I watched Peeping Tom last night and was thoroughly entertained. Zombettie, you mentioned the pitfalls of comparing B/W to Color film; I have to say these two can be somewhat compared because the lighting and shadow techniques in Peeping Tom are very close to those used in B/W films. Mark’s face is often left in shadow to show the deviousness of his mindset. While Helen, the woman he is falling for, has her face constantly lit, suggesting not just her honesty, but youthfulness as well.
Psycho has a comic ring to it because of Hitchcock. Not to say it was any less chilling, but it has that affect. Peeping Tom has such a serious edge to it that it never really feels funny. It’s almost grueling going through the sequences before Mark kills because you know he will, it’s just a matter of when. And Powell toys with the audience by slow burning the ‘foreplay’ before the murders. Psycho gives you breaks from Norman more frequently and he is very much a spider waiting for victims to fall into his web (hotel). Peeping Tom’s Mark on the other hand is always on the prowl and the audience is made every bit a voyeur as he is.
Critics unanimously panned the film upon release, calling it masochistic and mysognistic. Some of those critics apparently realized later it was a masterpiece and wish they could have changed their initial reviews. Sigh.
I really enjoyed reading your insight on your experience. I am glad I was able to introduce someone to this great film. A friend told me about it awhile back and we watched it and the documentary bonus feature. I believe it’s called A British Psycho, or something along those lines.
As you mentioned, there is no underlying humor in it. Not even dark (except maybe when he pokes fun at actresses and directors in the scenes where Mark is at his day job), but did you find yourself hoping just a little bit that somehow the girl would save him, even though he was already beyond salvation? I did.
The scene where the blind mother finds him up his room ... and he’s drunk and he’s frantic ... loved that. Loved the projection of faces on his suit jacket coming from the projector. Love the commentary on th industry of film and apparently several of the characters were loosely based on people he knew.
Side note - Have you and/or F13 seen Going to Pieces - The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, yet?
Oh, absolutely. I grew up on them. I just didn’t think that doc was anything special. Maybe I’m jaded or I knew enough of the subject. I suppose it could be a good primer, though.
oh snap! touche’. primer! ahahaha. I feel like I was just called out onto the blacktop.
No, I can see that. :)
I have a memory like a sieve though, and I am an information junkie. I love information, but it fades away quickly. It works out nicely for me because even old news is forgotten news, so it’s new news to me! :)
I liked it. I would actually like to see more like it, covering different genres. Like you mentioned, I think they would be good primers and points of interest for people.
What my esteemed colleague is getting at is that Going to Pieces is more of an entertaining watch than a serious investigation and deconstruction of slasher film. It was fun.. but it doesn’t dig deep enough to be captivating.
I agree that docs like it should be made, but they tend to happen so far after the fact that either the relevance is missing or not enough people care. I feel if you are going to cover controversial topics you have to be willing to go balls out on them too. Covering 20+ years of cinema and using a lofty title stating the rise and fall of something has to provide a lot. So, I don’t think the short running time of it was enough. Though as a primer, it has potential if interest can be generated in it by those new to the genre. Sort of like a beginners pamphlet for slashers.
Sorry about bumping into you on the courts. I hope you didn’t skin your knee too bad. :-P
Your DVD purchasing must be nice and easy on the wallet then. Get a good movie from each genre and just repeat viewing. :D
I agree that docs like it should be made, but they tend to happen so far after the fact that either the relevance is missing or not enough people care. I feel if you are going to cover controversial topics you have to be willing to go balls out on them too. Covering 20+ years of cinema and using a lofty title stating the rise and fall of something has to provide a lot. So, I don’t think the short running time of it was enough. Though as a primer, it has potential if interest can be generated in it by those new to the genre. Sort of like a beginners pamphlet for slashers.
Sorry about bumping into you on the courts. I hope you didn’t skin your knee too bad. :-P
Your DVD purchasing must be nice and easy on the wallet then. Get a good movie from each genre and just repeat viewing. :D
I believe that was made for Encore, so it makes sense that it wouldn’t delve too deep. It would be hard I think do any sub-sub-sub genre justice without doing an entire series or volume of documentaries. I hear the book is a lot more epic. I’ve yet to get a copy.
Look out the next time you head behind the bleachers. A knee-bandaged person might jump you, then forget she jumped you and jump you again.
