Great Blog! I used to follow all the “great’ films and directors, then the product became so assembly-line and hack and so full of language and situations I just needed to avoid that I didn’t care any more, either. This summer I saw more movies than I ever had and only a few would I consider as “great”. Most are not “mainstream” such as SARAH’S KEY and the fairly obscure TERRI as well as THE TRIP. Of them more “mainstream” movies was CONTAGION, but it was more very good than great! I did not see everything and even PURPOSELY AVOIDED many, but I did walk out on one: “My Idiot Brother”.

I had a similar thought the other day. I am at the stage my late father was probably at during my teen years. He was a true movie fan who introduced his daughters to James Wong Howe, to Robert Wise, to Dimitri Tiomkin and countless, but never nameless, character actors. However, when I was a teen in the 70s it was always a shock that I could not get him interested in filling out the Oscar ballot in the TV Guide.

These days I keep discovering “new” movies, directors, musicians, etc. to get excited about, but the “new” things are all “old”.

Jim, I recently saw THE TRIP and liked it very much. If I were twenty years younger maybe I’d follow Michael Winterbottom’s career. Maybe.

Patricia, I’m the same way. All my “new” discoveries are old.

BTW, I’m mobile today so my responses will be unfortunately short.

Maybe it’s just me, but I never followed movie directors. Of course, my trajectory toward film mania was odd and belated. I actually looked forward to the new plays by playwrights or the directors in Chicago I knew, like Bob Falls and Michael Maggio. Or it would be the very few music stars I followed, like Zappa and Little Feat. So I get what you’re saying, Greg. And now cinephiles are more about being completists than following a particular director with each new work.

The only reason I didn’t have the same experience with music was because I was listening to all the old stuff (Ellington, Davis, Monk) and catching up with all of that.

I kind of wish I could get excited about following a certain director or actor now but none really do it for me, even if I do actually like their movies.

Oh, come on, most of the directors you name are actually burnt out, but Scorsese? Dude’s made Bringing Out the Dead, Shutter Island, The Departed, Gangs of New York (which is flawed but has a Daniel Day-Lewis performance that makes up for it) and four or five excellent documentaries post-Goodfellas. He’s one of the few movie brat-era directors who’s still really vital and exciting.

Beyond that- it is easier to sift good movies from bad when you have a few years’ hindset and critical context for them. On the other hand, I always feel like a jackass when I realize that I could have seen There Will Be Blood as a new release, and just didn’t get around to it. Besides, new movies play more often than old ones, and going to the theater is fun- and once in a while you’ll stumble across something that’s newish, and nobody seems to hear or talk about. One of my favorite movies of the past few years is Jee-woon Kim’s The Good, the Bad, the Weird, and I only saw it because it played right after the restored Metropolis when I was in Manhattan. Since then, I’ve become the guy who won’t shut up about it, and now it’s a favorite amongst a bunch of my friends, too.

Though I’m a young guy, I still know what you mean- I often find myself giving up on a TV series halfway through, even if I’m enjoying it, and I had to really struggle to find any music made after the year I was born that I enjoyed. But I think if you let that kind of lethargy win, you become ossified in your taste, and then you become the kind of guy who doesn’t understand when people bring up new things even about the movies you already know and love- and that, to me, is maybe the saddest thing of all.

I’ll never understand why SORCERER endured such a savage beatdown by film critics back in ’77. It’s a masterpiece! (I saw SORCERER on the big screen when it was first released and was “blown away” – pun intended – by all aspects of the production.) SORCERER was even criticized for its title – which was dismissed as a type of false or deceptive advertising, leading poor unwitting ticket-buyers into thinking this was another EXORCIST-style horror thriller, rather than a realistic, hard-edged action-adventure tale. (SORCERER was the name given to the truck carrying all that volatile nitroglycerine.) Bruno Cremer, the wonderful actor who played the Parisian banker/embezzler, passed away in 2010 at the age of 80. I was very saddened by the news of Cremer’s death, as I’d tried to follow his career ever since SORCERER. I don’t believe Cremer ever appeared in another American film. Too bad. And SORCERER’s failure no doubt put a dent in Roy Scheider’s career. Eventually, Scheider ended up in a ton of junk.

I actually thought Sorcerer much stronger than the Exorcist, which I’ve never really warmed up to. Remakes always get judged kind of unfairly, though I think that was discussed a bunch in the article Greg linked.

Sounds like the way I feel about Paul McCartney after the Beatles. If there were no Beatles, I probably would have said, “this guy’s not bad, some pretty good tunes here”. Now, well you know, his music doesn’t hold a candle to me.

Oh, come on, most of the directors you name are actually burnt out, but Scorsese? Dude’s made Bringing Out the Dead, Shutter Island, The Departed, Gangs of New York (which is flawed but has a Daniel Day-Lewis performance that makes up for it) and four or five excellent documentaries post-Goodfellas. He’s one of the few movie brat-era directors who’s still really vital and exciting.

But Tom, as I said in the piece (“again, this isn’t about not liking the movies anymore but about losing the anticipatory excitement”), it’s not about the quality, it’s about not caring anymore like I did at the beginning.

Scorsese has kept up the level of quality throughout his career that the others didn’t but I stopped getting excited about his new releases after goodfellas. Before that, he was still a young, fresh director (in my mind, at least) and when I’d hear of a new Scorsese movie I’d be thrilled but after, I just lost interest.

I do kind of get excited about new Paul Thomas Anderson stuff but more because they’re so few and far between than anything else, I think.

and then you become the kind of guy who doesn’t understand when people bring up new things even about the movies you already know and love- and that, to me, is maybe the saddest thing of all.

Yeah, when you stop allowing yourself to be challenged about dearly held opinions on beloved movies, you’ve given up. The cinema should always be ever-changing and growing. I change my mind often. It’s one of the reasons I started the series last week “if memory serves” all about reassessing older movies.

Harvey and Tom, yeah, I think Sorcerer is stronger than The Exorcist, too. A really great film that deserves a proper DVD release, preferably Criterion.

Mike, I love The Beatles but solo, even though they did a lot of good stuff, the ex-Beatles just don’t do it for me.

“I kind of wish I could get excited about following a certain director or actor now but none really do it for me, even if I do actually like their movies.” Just wondering if it is you and not them. I don’t idolize athletes like I once did and Brady and Manning are as good as anyone ever. (Except Elway of course.)
Just a thought especially in light of your thoughts on Speilberg.

It’s definitely me. When I was younger there was something special about following a director, kind of being a rabid fan and defender. Then, it just kind of slipped away. Spielberg, as we talked about before, does really good work now but, excitement-wise, it’s not the same as when I was younger and knew that Raiders of the Lost Ark was coming to town and I just had to see it! And I did and, of course, was quite happy with it.

I note that most of the films you dislike came after 1980. Could your change in attitude towards these directors have something to do with the change in the power of the film director after the debacle of Heaven’s Gate (1980), which is usually credited as marking the point at which the Hollywood director lost much of his power?

My nomination for “ustabegreat” director is Allen Stewart Konigsberg. Sorry, who? OK, this is not a movie quiz, so Woody Allen is my nominee. I loved pretty much all his movies ( well, save the tedious Interiors) up to and certainly including Crimes and Misdemeanors.
After that i’ve not liked a single movie of his and boy i tried to……. Deconstructing Harry was OK-ish, but after seeing him whine and moan in a four star hotel in Venice in the documentary
Wild Man Blues that he’d rather be in Manhattan it was Goodbye Woody from me.

Re: Altman,what about Short Cuts?

Emgee, have you seen Sweet and Lowdown? I’m broadly not a fan of latter-day Allen either, but it’s an exception- neither a plodding retread of earlier territory (like Match Point) nor a lazy, halfassed mess (like most of his comedies in the last 10 years or so) but an exceedingly charming, humanistic portrait a little bit in the mode of Annie Hall.

Greg, i remember seeing part of it on tv, but too little to really base a well-founded opinion on, so i’ll check that one out next visit to the dvd rental store. The point with Allen is i feel he has still has it in him to make a great bittersweet tragicomedy, but instead he went the sentimental route.

Another interesting and thought provoking piece Greg.
I often feel similarly, especially about Woody Allen.
Coppola mostly baffled me with his film choices after Apocalypse Now, with work that was technically good (One From The Heart) to dull and dreadful (Jack). However I was still prepared to go and see Tetro, to see if he still “had it”. He does. It showed he has enough ability to still make intimate, engaging films; and I look forward to catching up with Youth Without Youth, and seeing Twixt.

Regarding the loss of anticipatory excitement as one gets older, I cannot help but agree, particularly when you may feel some then find it unfulfilled, cases in point Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut and Malick’s Tree Of Life.

Yet I still remain a true believer in the power of Film to tell any type of story, and the possibility of being surprised, challenged and totally immersed in something compelling, such as Peter Mullan’s The Magdalene Sisters.

Emgee, I love – absolutely love – Woody Allen from the early seventies through the early nineties. For me, the cut-off is Husbands and Wives, which I thought was excellent. After that, not much clicked for me. Agreed on Deconstructing Harry.

Sweet and Lowdown, like Tom said, is a good one. And yes, I liked Midnight in Paris, too but it’s definitely a lesser Allen.

Also, about Altman, I really liked Short Cuts for parts and other parts, not so much. I didn’t dislike it, on the whole, but I wasn’t crazy for it. Pret a Porter, on the other hand, I freakin’ hated! Gosford Park just may be my favorite Altman. I love that the studios had no idea how to bill it and so played it off as a mystery when, really, it’s an incredible upstairs/downstairs drawing room comedy of manners. What a great film.

Could your change in attitude towards these directors have something to do with the change in the power of the film director after the debacle of Heaven’s Gate (1980)

David, it’s true, the director somewhat diminished as a cultural icon from the time of Coppola, Scorsese, Godard, Truffaut and Friedkin but there are still plenty, like Tarantino, Anderson and the Coens whose movies people go to see because they’re directed by them. So, it’s still there. I think, mainly, I’ve just gotten older and find more comfort in discovering all the thousands of older gems I missed than excitedly following a new director of the moment.

Yet I still remain a true believer in the power of Film to tell any type of story, and the possibility of being surprised, challenged and totally immersed in something compelling

Same here, without a doubt. And I find that very thing in many of the old gems I discover now that there is so much more available to me than ever before.

I’ve had much the same experience not only with movies but with books and authors. I believe this is what’s known, in technical terms, as “getting old.”

John, I couldn’t agree more. The tug of age is all around me.

I have never felt this way. I became a fan of all of these directors in 1970s and remain so to this day. Likewise with the generation who followed them, such as Ridley Scott and Walter Hill. I wait with anticipation to see J. EDGAR and HUGO.

My kids do their part to keep me up on pop culture, and we try to keep my husband up to date, but he is definitely in the I Don’t Care Camp,and at times, I’m right there with him. I’ve been catching up on old b/w tv shows that were on before I was born, and one of them is Route 66 and I’ve noticed in the credits that Robert Altman was often a director of this show, that starred Martin Milner and George Maharis, driving around the USA in a snazzy convertible, helping out folks who are caught up in some dramatic dilemma or whatnot. I imagine that this show couldn’t be made today as it would be too costly to shoot in all of the cities across this country, gas prices, tax rates charged to studios for filming in various cities and states, etc.

Altho his movies were largely “popcorn” movies in the late 70s and 80s( with some classics in the early-mid 70s) ,Clint Eastwood is a director I’ve normally come to get excited about whenever I hear about a new film coming out,but that could end soon…I’m talking-White Hunter,Black Heart,Unforgiven,A Perfect World,Million Dollar baby,Changeling,Gran Torino,Invictus…

Wait, are you listing Unforgiven among Eastwood’s bad films? That’s just… that’s madness, right there.

(Other than that, though, I’ll happily take his 70s work over most of his more recent movies, though Letters from Iwo Jima was pretty solid and J. Edgar looks to have some potential.)

Honestly, I try my best not to distinguish too much between seeing an old movie for the first time and seeing a new one- cutting either out would be like cutting off a hand. I could do it if I had to, but it would make life way less enjoyable. Besides, I could keep myself supplied with both for years just within the Criterion collection.

I can understand not bothering with Coppola’s films where he was a hired gun, but his last couple of films, Youth without Youth and Tetro were worth watching. Friedkin might have redeemed himself with Bug. Scorsese, I have a bigger problem with because he’s essentially given up on making any truly personal films. I think the ebb and flow of enthusiasm is normal regarding any filmmaker, although I still regret not bothering to see Truffaut’s The Green Room theatrically when I had the chance.

Those Clint Eastwood films I listed are the ones I like ..and I also like his “bronco billy”,”every which way”films too..for the good times..

Excellent post, Greg, and one I identify with completely. Well, maybe not completely–I hate THE CONVERSATION and the last part of APOCALYPSE NOW–somehow Marlon Brando as the evil Goodyear Blimp doesn’t make it for me–but with your general argument and observations, absolutely. Love the illustrations and quotes.

Most directors have a peak of 10-15 years at best. Yes, there are exceptions. The role of movie director is tough physically and emotionally, either inside or outside the studio system.

I’ve already covered this, I think, but again, it’s not about not liking their work (see the Robert Altman entry – my two faves of his are later ones) but about moving past the excitement of a new work by any given director. Even if you can still anticipate a new movie might be good, a sense of familiarity sinks in and the initial excitement is gone.

It’s also true though, that as their work becomes less personal and more technical (as Peter says about Scorsese) it’s just not exciting anymore because it doesn’t feel like a Scorsese movie. And that’s completely admitting that that feeling is totally subjective. It obviously is a Scorsese movie by the very fact that he directed it, but for my own personal take, a Scorsese movie has an earthier, dirtier feel, like Mean Streets, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore or Taxi Driver than his newer movies, which I almost uniformly like, by the way, but they feel more Hollywood to me and less Scorsese.

It’s simply a measure of Scorsese’s success and growth that he doesn’t have to stick to one particular style or look for his whole career but when that earlier style is what drew you in in the first place, that’s what you get excited about. When it changes, there’s not much to get excited about anymore.

This article reminds me why I watch John Ford or Akira Kurasawa, because they always made amazing movies! It’s my opinion, not fact, so no mean stuff, please.

I find much about Scorsese’s contemporary films that is an extension of his work from the past. He has evolved along with changing technologies and changing audience tastes, but his present films continue to comment on the nature of the heroic protagonist, they still reference cinema of the past as a way to strengthen themes and styles, and they still combine non-classic film techniques into the classic Hollywood style for a thoroughly American style of cinema. I see evolution when I look at Scorsese’s career, but I don’t radical changes from his past work. And, I would argue that The Aviator is a very personal work for him, and The Departed is akin to Mean Streets.

DiCaprio seemed really badly miscast in The Aviator, enough so that it eclipsed whatever strengths or connections to Scorsese the movie had (though obviously, that interest in obsession is key to his work) but outside of that I totally agree, Suzi. I think what people miss is less a personal connection for Scorsese- I don’t think that’s ever left- and more the sense of hunger and desperate exploration that his earlier work had. He’s a mature artist at this point, and while that doesn’t mean he’s stagnated, it does mean that even his crazier films at this point (Shutter Island) are more controlled and have sort of less a sense of desperation behind the camera than something like Mean Streets or Taxi Driver did.

Of course, New York New York is in many ways the rawest, hungriest movie Scorsese made (outside of maybe Last Temptation) and even most Scorsese fans have no use for that one (though I like it.)

I would agree that thematically, there are few directors as consistent as Martin Scorsese. There’s not really a film of his I dislike, simply levels of loving down to liking. Everything from Mean Streets straight through King of Comedy I loved, including, to a degree, New York, New York, containing one of Robert De Niro’s most unsung great performances.

goodfellas I loved and, after that, didn’t get excited for any one in particular but still enjoyed most all of them.

New York, New York also contains that great sustained shot of De Niro walking through the crowd, getting lost in the masses, until he emerges beneath the neon arrow pointing to his exact location.

I’m glad King of Comedy is generally regarded as a classic now- from what I understand, when it was released it was considered a huge bomb and an embarrassment to both Scorsese and de Niro.

I really wish someone would release more of Scorsese’s early documentaries- I’d love to see italianamerican and American Boy with features and such.

Tom, I don’t remember it being savaged or anything but then, at that time, there was far less access to the critical community than there is now. I absolutely love that movie. De Niro is an all-time favorite actor and, wow, what a performance! I mean, he inhabits Pupkin to a disturbing degree. Pupkin is so awkward, so socially inept that De Niro really makes you feel for him.

I’d love to see those docs, too. Also, I love his tv docs on Italian Cinema and American Cinema, although the Italian one is the better of the two.

I still keep up with TV and movies, but I have no use for music made these days, with the possible exception being George Strait (who I follow like he is a director of yore). I also buy John Legend’s stuff, but I digress.

I still follow every Clint movie and everything that the Coen Brothers and Christopher Nolan make. I have seen most of Scorsese’s movies in the theater over the last 15 years. Though they seem less “Scorsesean”, I still look forward to something new from him.

Tom- Did you really think that Leo was miscast in The Aviator? I thought he did fine work in that, but was woefully miscast (as was Cameron Diaz) in Gangs of New York. Colin Farrell would have been much more believable in that part. To me, the two of them was the most unfortunate bit of miscasting since Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves in Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

With Spielberg, it goes picture by picture. I haven’t been super excited about a Spielberg movie since Saving Private Ryan, but I have “liked” all of his movies since then. Well, okay….I might have taken the day off from work to go see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and I might even have dressed up like Indy to do so, but I didn’t feel good about it later…..

I didn’t think DiCaprio was miscast in Gangs of New York- the type was something that made sense for him- I just thought his performance was kind of weak, particularly compared to Day-Lewis’s. Diaz, on the other hand, just seemed out of place.

I actually thought he was better in The Aviator, he just didn’t seem like the right kind of actor for the part- there’s an ingenuousness to him, an emotional nakedness that seemed strange for a Howard Hughes.

I actually thought Ryder and Reeves were perfectly well cast in FFC’s Dracula, because frankly the Harkers (and particularly Jonathan) are supposed to be boring as hell. If you want a piece of wood with an expression, Reeves is your go-to guy.

Also, Greg- they’re out of print and a little pricey now, but those two docs were released on DVD (I know because I have them.) I couldn’t possibly pick a favorite of the two, since both mean spending hours and hours basking in Scorsese talking about the movies he loves, which I could do all day. I wish he’d make one for every branch of world cinema, seriously.

@dukeroberts: If all you think music is is just teen pop, and pop, you’re wrong-very wrong. There’s more to music than what radio and the record industry offer from the mainstream, and you need to try harder to get up off of your ass and look for it.

I’m sending you some pointers in that direction in the form of links, but it’ll be up to you to make use of them:

Exclaim!

NOW Magazine’s Fall Music Preview

The Wedge

The depth and breadth of Scorsese’s film knowledge is fascinating. I could listen to him talk about movies for days on end. If you threw Bogdanovich and him in a room I wouldn’t let them leave for days.

I might have taken the day off from work to go see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and I might even have dressed up like Indy to do so, but I didn’t feel good about it later…..

I still haven’t seen that one. If you’d told me twenty years ago there’d be another Indy Jones film and years would go by from its release date and I still wouldn’t have a desire to see it, I wouldn’t have believed it. But, there it is.

Tom, I’ll try to find them then.

And, yes, Duke – Scorsese talking about film is a great thing because it’s not just knowledge, it’s passion.

[...] Dear Scorsese, Greg Ferrara is just not that in to you. He explains at Movie Morlocks. [...]

Fantomex- Get up off of my ass? Okay. You attached three Canadian articles to the post. I don’t think I’ve liked a Canadian band since The Guess Who. I know not all of the musical acts mentioned in the posted articles are Canadian, but I recognize alot of the names as being the kind of music I don’t really care for. It’s the stuff my best friend listens to, but it’s not for me. I just find it blah, or in some cases too depressing. Some of it is too angsty.

I’m just a curmudgeon when it comes to music. Elvis, Sinatra and Ray Charles are all dead. Johnny Cash is gone. The Temptations and The Four Tops do not include any of the original members any longer. The Beach Boys can’t decide who are the Beach Boys and who aren’t the Beach Boys. Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis aren’t making new, original music any longer. Sam Cooke and Otis Redding have passed on. Lynyrd Skynyrd and The Allman Brothers are just pale imitations of themselves. Michael Jackson died long after he made any records that were worth a damn. I don’t like rap or hip hop. R&B can hardly be recorded these days without adding in some rap or hip hop. I hate heavy metal. I don’t like loud music. I don’t like dance music. I don’t like pop. I don’t like Adult Contemporary. I hate Contemporary Christian music. New country sucks, for the vast part. There are occasional bright spots for me in music: Grace Potter and the Nocturnals, Two Door Cinema Club, Lady Antebellum, John Legend, Michael Buble, of course George Strait, but on the whole I have little interest in music these days. Boy, I do prattle on, do I not?

Yeah, and you’ve also proven that you’re no fun to be around, either, and want to be trapped in the past, like a lot of Americans. I only wish that the media didn’t cater to you with the classic rock format, and forced you to acknowledge the wider world out there, but the world, and you, is like it is.

The links being Canadian should have no bearing on discovering the music (since not all of it is Canadian!) As I said before, what you do with it is up to you. As for the rest-if I was to live like you, I might as well be dead already. I guess that you want to be that way, though.

Wow! You have me pegged, Fantomex! I AM no fun to be around! Amazing. Nobody caters to me with the classic rock format. It’s nearly impossible to find an oldies station that plays 50′s and early 60′s rock n’ roll. And with Sinatra and Dean Martin thrown in? Forget it? Or a classic country station that doesn’t find it necessary to sprinkle in music from the 90′s? Forget that too.

And I should be dead already? Geez, you sound like my mom.

I’ve felt much the same way about Spike Lee and the Coen Brothers, who were “my” generation’s equivalent to Coppola or Scorsese. For years, I revered them, but after Clockers and Fargo, respectively, it was hard for me to get excited by their next films, no matter how good they were, as if I felt they seemingly couldn’t go any further.

dukeroberts: I recommend that you and everyone else ignore fantomex’s postings. I happen to know his real name; he’s a professional Internet troll out of Toronto who spends half his free time searching for people on forums and bulletin boards who dare to like movies and music made before he was born just so he can attack them and the other half surfing for foot-fetish porn.

I was obsessed with Alfred Hitchcock as a young man, until I saw his swan song film FAMILY PLOT (1976), which struck me as a mildly diverting made-for-TV movie. After Hitchcock’s return to form in FRENZY (1972), FAMILY PLOT was a great leap backward. TV actor Roy Thinnes was originally cast in the role of the jewel thief, but was replaced by William Devane, who everyone thought would be a big movie star but he too became better known as a TV actor. Karen Black – cast in a secondary role as Devane’s girlfriend/partner in crime – should have played the more colorful part of the phony psychic. So after the disappointing FAMILY PLOT, I lost that keen sense of anticipation for the next Hitchcock film… and yes, there was one more on the way: THE SHORT NIGHT, an espionage tale that would have starred Sean Connery and Liv Ullman. Sadly, age and obesity caught up with Hitch and he became quite ill, cancelled THE SHORT NIGHT and died in 1980. THE SHORT NIGHT would undoubtedly have been a better film to go out on than FAMILY PLOT.

Duke, one of the things I love is Pandora because you can put in music you like and discover all kinds of music you didn’t know about. I can put in Django Rheinhardt and discover so many other jazz guitarists from the twenties, thirties and forties I wasn’t familiar with. Or I can put it someone from the contemporary scene and instead of just getting radio hits, get a bunch of songs from artists not tied to big marketing deals that I’d never heard of.

FAMILY PLOT (1976), which struck me as a mildly diverting made-for-TV movie.

Harvey, that’s the vibe I get off of Family Plot, too. It feels absent of any real inspiration as if he’d lost his feel for it before they got past the storyboard stage.

FAMILY PLOT was the work of a lumpy and lazy old man wracked with pain from arthritis who could no longer summon the stamina or enthusiasm to film on location. The film was set in San Francisco but mostly shot on the Universal back lot, which made it resemble a color episode of THE ALFRED HITCHCOCK HOUR. I should also mention that John Williams’ score with its rinky-dink harpsichord really sucked.

In truth, Hitchcock was present in person, but already gone in spirit when he sorta made Family Plot. Even his mandatory cameo appearance had to be done behind tinted glass because he was in such poor health.
For me Psycho was his last masterpiece; the films after that are all dull as dishwater to me. (Yes that includes The Birds and Frenzy.) After Psycho he went for shock effects and the the bluntly macabre instead of drama.

Greg- Yes, I love Pandora as well. I have created about 40 channels.

Commander Adams- There does seem to be something not quite right with our friend Fantomex. He seems to be inappropriately venomous towards individual posters and bloggers as opposed to just discussing the topics. There is always the possibility for change.

Harvey- I have never seen Family Plot. I’ve always worried that I would not like it and would feel bad for Hitch going out on a bad note. Should I bother seeing it as a Hitchcock nut or avoid seeing it as a fan with a highly idealized view of his oeuvre?

I’ve experienced this feeling with both film & music. I’m at a point where, in my late 20′s, I feel safer digging up works from the past than following any filmmakers still alive/active (my biggest exception currently is Fincher, and Cronenberg). When you dig through the filmographies of dead filmmakers (or inactive musical groups), you’re less likely to be disappointed.

I think a lot of us are more charitable towards the flawed works of dead artists than living; we’re more willing to find merits in the flawed final films of Hitchcock because we know he’s not around to make anything worse. (Not that I think we’ll be waxing poetic over Deal of the Century & The Bonfire of the Vanities after their directors pass away.)

It just occurred to me: one reason I feel safe following Fincher & Cronenberg is that, even if I’m not so hot on their latest films, I enjoy listening to their DVD commentaries.

I think a lot of us are more charitable towards the flawed works of dead artists than living;

JP, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Whatever disappointments I’ve had with Coppola or Friedkin or Scorsese, will probably seem much less important when they’re gone. With Hitchcock, I focus on the greats, not Topaz or Family Plot. But when they’re alive, the disappointment is palpable.

I concur. Maybe because I was so disappointed with Topaz is why I haven’t made a point of seeing Family Plot. Frenzy was pretty good though. Actually, I’d call it “Lovely…..lovely…lovely…”

Frenzy is definitely the best of the very late Hitchcock films. Family Plot isn’t awful, and in a way, if it was, it would be easier to take. Instead, it’s just so damned average. So tv-movie-like. So uninspired. So by the book. In fact, if it were a made-for-tv movie, it would be okay. But it’s not, it’s a Hitchcock movie and that just makes it worse.

I’m glad to hear I’m not the only one who was nonplussed by The Birds, since that movie did absolutely nothing for me. I’ve also been holding off on the late-period Hitchcock- I have about 40 of his movies, so I’m working my way towards the beginning first, and then I’ll worry about the end. Though I was disappointed by Sabotage, too.

JP Ward: I know what you mean about commentaries- I bought a copy of Gilliam’s Jabberwocky in spite of specifically not caring for the movie because I like Gilliam’s commentaries so much. I also sought out The Innocents originally because I was trying to get everything Christopher Frayling had done a commentary on. It feels silly, but on the other hand, it led me to watching The Innocents, so what the hell?

“Harvey- I have never seen Family Plot. I’ve always worried that I would not like it and would feel bad for Hitch going out on a bad note. Should I bother seeing it as a Hitchcock nut or avoid seeing it as a fan with a highly idealized view of his oeuvre?”

Duke:
FAMILY PLOT is not entirely without merit. It’s a sad way to end a stellar 50-year career, but it won’t turn you off the Master of Suspense if you were able to endure THE PARADINE CASE, UNDER CAPRICORN, MR. AND MRS. SMITH, THE SKIN GAME or WALTZES FROM VIENNA. FAMILY PLOT features some good performers in their prime: Bruce Dern (still chasing the dream of Hollywood superstardom), William Devane, Karen Black, Ed Lauter and Katherine Helmond…. Barbara Harris is irritating in the lead role of the phony psychic and almost sinks the picture, but then again Hitchcock was foolish to cast her, knowing how eager the more suitably exotic Karen Black was to play the part of the faux-medium Blanche Tyler. Leonard South’s cinematography is gorgeous, even by TV-movie standards. Ernest Lehman’s script is witty but fails to generate suspense… It seems Hitchcock was attracted to FAMILY PLOT by a storytelling gimmick: a complete shift of focus at the 30-minute mark to a different set of characters. That stunt isn’t enough to allow an audience to become fully engaged with the story, which is only mildly scary or thrilling. FAMILY PLOT begins with an interminable expository scene – a long conversation between Harris and elderly Cathleen Nesbitt… leading to a loss of dramatic momentum from which the film never fully recovers. The big action set piece in which Harris and Dern are trapped in a sabotaged motor vehicle as it speeds out-of-control down the familiar Universal Studios backlot mountain road is old hat, a by-the-numbers exercise marred by shoddy rear-projection. The viewer eventually realizes that Hitchcock is simply going through the motions in FAMILY PLOT, falling back on tired formulas that might have worked 20 years earlier.

Harvey- Thanks for the info. Paradine and Mr. and Mrs. Smith are okay. Under Capricorn was pretty underwhelming though. And I’ve never seen The Skin Game or Waltzes from Vienna. I have kind of shied away from the 30s Hitch, with the exceptions being The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes. I think I will add Family Plot to my Netflix queue, but not too close to the top.

Tom- I’m curious to find out what you find lacking in The Birds. I love it. I love Tippi’s spoiled rich girl, Jessica Tandy’s distrustful gazes at Tippi, Suzanne Pleshette’s just under the surface jealousy, Charles McGraw’s salty dog fisherman, Tippi’s gorgeousness, Rod Taylor’s bad assery, the eyeless farmer, the creepy singing/chanting of the kids in the schoolhouse as the birds quietly gather behind Tippi’s back….I love so much about that movie.

Saboteur is less memorable, but the Statue of Liberty fight is pretty decent, save for the fact that they don’t make any noise while fighting. That didn’t make sense. I love Bob Cummings as the man on the run and I like Priscilla Lane in anything. She was adorable.

I thought Taylor was relentlessly smug and not very well characterized, I was annoyed that the teacher was killed off, and I honestly never found the birds themselves threatening, outside of a few sequences (when they’re staring at Tippi off the jungle gym, an when they’re besieging the house.)

I also thought Tippi herself wasn’t a convincing lead, the song the kids were singing in the jungle gym scene got on my nerves, and the whole thing seemed like it lacked a specific throughline. For someone who generally had so much skill at knowing how the audience would react to a given stimulus, it seemed remarkably loose and shaggy, and not in a good way.

And I like Saboteur, I was talking about Sabotage, which is an earlier movie Hitch made before the move to America.

I love The Birds. Here’s my discussion of its high points as well as the scenes themselves for illustration – The Birds – Building the Scene. I think it’s quite underrated in Hitch’s career.

Tippi wasn’t a very convincing actress much of the time so I understand Tom’s misgivings there and with Taylor but, for me, the birds are the stars anyway, so I don’t really mind.

I’d nominate Roman Polanski as a director who, even if he’s had some misses, has never “lost it.”

It’s pretty amazing to think that he made ‘Knife in the Water’ in 1962, and then forty years later produced ‘The Pianist’.

I think it’s like an ember. Everyone has one, but it’s easy to extinguish. and hard to maintain. And then there’s the odd person who can build it into a flame, and then a fire.

I’m excited about Carnage.

I really liked Ghostwriter a lot. The atmosphere is what really sold it for me. It’s rare these days to have a director make a movie in which the sun doesn’t shine once. Every day, every scene, every shot: Gray, drizzly, foreboding. And the isolation of that island. Polanski did a great job with that one.

Agreed. Saw it twice at the cinema. I do have a thing for Polanski’s self-appointed detective detective films.

And one of the things he does best: creates spaces with such a vivid feeling.

Opening shot of the barge coming through the fog, with the Desplat’s music. So evocative. Alexandre Desplat did a great job with the soundtrack. Such a destinct relative of Krystof Komeda and Philippe Sarde’s Polanski collaborations.

Tom- Sorry about the error with Saboteur/Sabotage. I reckon I read it wrong. Sabotage is one of those from the thirties that I haven’t seen.

It seems like you may have a broken shift key whenever you try to type the film title “Goodfellas.” ;)

Very good article. Hope you can come back to at least some of these directors, since as you say, they’re still doing good work. Spielberg and Scorsese, at least.

I am personally very much looking forward to seeing Hugo this weekend.