”The
goose-step began. Left, right. Left, right. Forward, march!
The
automatons moved. The squares disintegrated into fours. Into twos.
… At twelve those children who by some accident had been a little minute
… At twelve those children who by some accident had been a little minute
or two late would have their first meal after five hours of work and
so-called education.
Discipline, it was called. ”
;
of Quicksand, p. 12.
(a novel by Nella Larsen,
p1928)
; While I had some time lately, I watched quite a lot old movies. ...Don't know how those are actually described these days. (I think) some hobbyist, or, 'professionals' refer to them as the old cinema. (Or, just as the old flicks, meaning anything much dating back to that era prior-/post-war years, ie that means almost exclusively bw-films, etc.) ...Doesn't have any importance concerning my few observations at this instance. Also, of not having any especial hobbyism to film(s), I just call them for the old movies.
[ To the Right - Sylvia Sidney (on Fritz Lang's You Only LIve Once, 1932-film) ...(A bit) like Donald Duck she looks on that, don't ya think...? ]
Anyway,
along w. the other "projects" of mine, I recently watched quite several old
Hitchcock-movies. ...Occurred then that I came for to think rather
differently than is – or, in contrast for – (maybe) the prevailed
conception(s) about Unca
Hitch's
(Sir Alfred,
1899-1979, of course) old creations, or the classics of his career. (Notice: I'm not
here discussing from all
his films, obviously, there's a great number from those...filmed during the
several decades, at least of 1930s, -40s, -50s, and even on
60s and 70s, I think. I've only watched some minor number of them, mostly the earliest.)
; Usually the Hithcock after-war stuff appears recognized as the period when his most renown classic films were made and his cretivity was at best (Psyko, Vertigo, Rear window and Byrds the most appreciated some...perhaps.) Maybe it's quite justified to say so. However, I also noticed that Hitchcock's early times, rather surprisingly, seems (often) considered to consist period of early realism on his directions. (...And maybe that too is quite correct said, but..)
; ...Along the viewing I then came also from recognize that actually there is quite much variety on Hitchcock's early films, (probably) more than on the later some (ie: 'the classics') – For example, the films like the Secret Agent (-35), or even 39 steps (-36) are indeed quite typically some 'mystery-plot'-thrillers...Meaning, the murder- and a chase-type films, superficially (relative) conventional by structure, and from the main themes presented. But, fx the Lady Vanishes (-37) is itself completely surreal and different for the preceding mentioned (It's plot for example is 'stripped off' for to a minimum necessary needed.) It's probably 'classed' as some experimentation on the limits of the medium (film/cinema). Usually that (aspect) also, I guess, is considered from reflect the approached political instability and the closeness for a war-time atmosphere and anxiety. - To the level, that (apparently) the y. -38 filmed Sabotage seems mentioned in the GB's press of the time blamed from an intention of stirring up peoples anxiety and public hysteria. ; ..Seems also said that all his films go on relative limited cinematic 'scope', almost each and every can be classified to the category from thriller. And that's why they've been so much imitated on the much from the later (popular) movies and tv. Not the least, because them often contained (again, superficially) quite easily reworkable basic theme and plots. (But I don't claim from having any especial familiarity from Hitchcock's whole career, or most his films, of course...)
; However, also seems - as many of the Hithcock-films have been much psychologically and 'filmographically' studied - of many his creations after studies 'resurfaced', or found out certain (so called) 'signifier-objects'. (Term, means – probably, or so I understood – smtgh like, seemingly meaningles objects, which have a particular role on a story-plot, creating - again, probably - certain 'chain', associations btw the formerly presented pics-in-the-story and the moment it presented again. And while they're not any manner directly necessary, or not inexchangeable - considering the actual meaning, story told - them 'sort of' serve from to active viewers imagination..or smght like that [Check from the filmographies in particular if wish...] ...The key on Notorius (film from y. -45...?) seems perhaps the most 'cherished' example from. And, looking almost any Hitchcock-film one possibly/usually finds some such object.)
; Usually the Hithcock after-war stuff appears recognized as the period when his most renown classic films were made and his cretivity was at best (Psyko, Vertigo, Rear window and Byrds the most appreciated some...perhaps.) Maybe it's quite justified to say so. However, I also noticed that Hitchcock's early times, rather surprisingly, seems (often) considered to consist period of early realism on his directions. (...And maybe that too is quite correct said, but..)
; ...Along the viewing I then came also from recognize that actually there is quite much variety on Hitchcock's early films, (probably) more than on the later some (ie: 'the classics') – For example, the films like the Secret Agent (-35), or even 39 steps (-36) are indeed quite typically some 'mystery-plot'-thrillers...Meaning, the murder- and a chase-type films, superficially (relative) conventional by structure, and from the main themes presented. But, fx the Lady Vanishes (-37) is itself completely surreal and different for the preceding mentioned (It's plot for example is 'stripped off' for to a minimum necessary needed.) It's probably 'classed' as some experimentation on the limits of the medium (film/cinema). Usually that (aspect) also, I guess, is considered from reflect the approached political instability and the closeness for a war-time atmosphere and anxiety. - To the level, that (apparently) the y. -38 filmed Sabotage seems mentioned in the GB's press of the time blamed from an intention of stirring up peoples anxiety and public hysteria. ; ..Seems also said that all his films go on relative limited cinematic 'scope', almost each and every can be classified to the category from thriller. And that's why they've been so much imitated on the much from the later (popular) movies and tv. Not the least, because them often contained (again, superficially) quite easily reworkable basic theme and plots. (But I don't claim from having any especial familiarity from Hitchcock's whole career, or most his films, of course...)
; However, also seems - as many of the Hithcock-films have been much psychologically and 'filmographically' studied - of many his creations after studies 'resurfaced', or found out certain (so called) 'signifier-objects'. (Term, means – probably, or so I understood – smtgh like, seemingly meaningles objects, which have a particular role on a story-plot, creating - again, probably - certain 'chain', associations btw the formerly presented pics-in-the-story and the moment it presented again. And while they're not any manner directly necessary, or not inexchangeable - considering the actual meaning, story told - them 'sort of' serve from to active viewers imagination..or smght like that [Check from the filmographies in particular if wish...] ...The key on Notorius (film from y. -45...?) seems perhaps the most 'cherished' example from. And, looking almost any Hitchcock-film one possibly/usually finds some such object.)
...But (as my own impressions, of shortly), while watching those old
films I naturally came to think not so deeply for that kind (psychologizations) of that 'magical
realism' from
older
Hitchcock-films. Merely them felt (to me) not so much traceable to any
that kind cinematic-tricks (Even if it really of some meaningfulness, I don't know...). But, what I can say the old "realism-period" Hithcock-films
well from to show, is that a 'real trick' on movies is how to hide the 'message' within the
lenght of the whole story itself – as result it resurfaces almost by itself, w. the little aid of the
viewers imagination. (...Hitchcock famously imagined films of the future for smtgh like 'injected emotional narcotics' and (I think) it's actually not so far ahead by nowadays...(Unfortunately), most modern popular
films are made using more simple technique - I-O-W it's forgotten,
probably intentionally, that those 'signifiers' should have some
basic meaning on the social and not just on the emotional level too.)
; ...Just came for to think about these things 'cause - after all - cinema is an emotional medium. It's of course important what kind of emotions are presented, but even more important how them serve the story itself – just for to tear down (smtgh), or for tieing up some 'knots together'. And that's how you get some real meaning on the story presented.
; ...Just came for to think about these things 'cause - after all - cinema is an emotional medium. It's of course important what kind of emotions are presented, but even more important how them serve the story itself – just for to tear down (smtgh), or for tieing up some 'knots together'. And that's how you get some real meaning on the story presented.
--------------
[ To the right: Sylvia Sidney w. a 'sailor suit' (screen is from 1930s film Sabotage).
Popular fashion at the time....but how well it fits her, don't ya think? ]
[ To the right: Sylvia Sidney w. a 'sailor suit' (screen is from 1930s film Sabotage).
Popular fashion at the time....but how well it fits her, don't ya think? ]
However,
reason to that I actually watched quite a bunch from those old films, possibly was, mostly, because of the old bw-era actresses. For some explanation (very briefly): Putting aside all the (possible) disrespects and conventionalisms typical to
the old movies (...A'la the 1930s MGM-productions, the Big
Money
entering movie-industry, melodrama
and overacting
for some
regular standards, not to mention the usual overt heroisms and -emotionalism
likewise) - Still remains that on those old classics the acting
(often) was so much better. (Besides, often the irony and certain 'grin behind tears' also was far better constructed...) ; ...Guess it's also, from some part, due of the
nostalgics
we now feel watching those old pictures. But the films, generally, were lot better too. And people
goin' to movies – at least during 1920s, 30s - really expected the viewed from to contrast (/reflect) smtgh of their own lives. (No matter how imaginous and unrealistic adventurous were the stories presented. And even all the
above listed cliches-of-the-era, conventionalism and the 'mass-brainwashing' considering...)
;
...So within this is we also picked a few screens of Sylvia
Sidney's.
(An actress Baldwin
seems noted for his most favorite star from old Hollywood cinema. ...I
guess that was on 'The
Devil finds work'
– if I happen recall correctly the name of that essay...) ; ...B-t-w;
quite surprisingly I didn't find from her bio on Imdb
any mention of the role on that You
Only Live Once
(-32, early gangster/crime-film). Of course, she perhaps played on that
mainly as supportant to (Henry) Fonda - the usual standard for women on movies still at
the time. (Fonda on the main role as a falsely accused and chased convict.) ;
But let us now leave that for the mention (...Hitchcock seems also said to have possessed some eye for the particular characteristics of any actresses
he used – quite so, at least on basis of our few selections...:)
;
G-U-J.
No comments:
Post a Comment