I know you’ll make the argument “Well it’s hard to be thrilled if I don’t care about the characters and thus I don’t care about what happens to the protagonist”. But it’s not supposed to be about that. We’ll use Rear Window as an example since I actually just re-watched that yesterday. You’re not meant to be a cinematic ally of sorts with Jeffries, and left sitting there thinking/worrying/wondering “Will they believe him? Will he help justice be served? Will he escape being caught by the killer himself?”. Instead, you’re meant to be an outside viewer and the suspense comes more from a “Which side is going to win? How will this unfold?” type of level.

Watching a Hitchcock movie shouldn’t be approached as if watching your favorite football team play a game, where you’re emotionally invested in one team and are rooting for them to win. Rather, a Hitchcock film should be approached and appreciated as a really good chess match between two strangers (or even a football game where you don’t care who wins because neither is your team). It’s meant to be taken at an objective level like that and to allow the action/story to be what captivates you rather than your alignment with one side or the other. This objective examination allows you to enjoy both sides of the cat-and-mouse game further adding to the suspense. That’s why you’re kept an arm’s length away and forced into a position of voyeurism instead."

Alright, let's continue the argument.

As I've said before, the fact that a director intended something doesn't mean I can't disapprove of it. That's just about the whole basis of film criticism.

And as to the story: I find it hard to enjoy the thrill of what's happening without feeling with it. I prefer it for a movie to sweep me up and involve me in what's happening, in the way good music does. Stanley Kubrick once said that a good film should be more like a symphony then a novel; not just a collection of anecdotes, but a succession of emotions. And it's not like this was unheard of at the time: Citizen Kane is very emotional, as is Sunset Boulevard. And both of those have great stories as well, AND interesting protagonists. Both of them not terribly likeable, but this is handled well. In the case of Kane by staging him as a complicated, nuanced person, with strong and weak points, whom we never really grasp, but never meet in person either. And in the case of Sunset Boulevard by contrasting Willaim Holden against such bizarre circumstances that his reactions seem natural to us.

Yea, that scene was a good example of his ability to do suspense. As a big fan of Hitchcock I just had to defend his work. I think the guy was something of a genius. He definitely had a way of captivating you with what's going on on-screen.

Thanks, glad you liked my response lol. I'm also glad to see we have several Hitchcock fans here. As I mentioned, he's definitely one of my all-time favorites.

All around he was just great at what he did. He was a master at creating suspense. Even on the technical side of things he was brilliant. As you mentioned his cinematography work was just brilliant most of the time. The iconic shower scene in Psycho being a prime example. The techniques he used and plot devices, it was all stuff that contributed to an overall work of brilliance in his films.

And it wasn't just technical aspects either. Granted he didn't write most of his movies (so some credit is owed to the writers behind those stories as they were just great stories in the first place), but he had a way of telling stories that just made them even more brilliant.

I liken it to people telling jokes. You can have some people that will tell a joke that someone else came up with and they'll just butcher it and it becomes not funny at all. Then you have others that can tell that joke magically and will have you cracking up. Or maybe some story-tellers can bore the hell out of you re-telling some old folk lore story. While others could seemingly read the phone book and make it captivating to listen to. Hitchcock was of the latter group there and just had a way of taking good stories and making them great through his storytelling abilities.

I agree whole-heartedly that his work stands head-and-shoulders over most. Maybe it can be argued that he's not the absolute best (I might argue against that), but it can not be denied that he is most certainly one of the best.

Also, I assume you meant Kurosawa? In which case, it's kinda funny that you bring him up as I'm watching Rashomon right now.

Not to be a bore, but a director is quite something else then a cinematographer. Unless you meant a cineast.

Thanks for responding.

For starters, I never accused you of calling him a "bad director." We can agree such sentiment would be grounds for journalistic dismissal.

While art is not "absolute," but subjective in interpretation, there MUST be definable standards for evaluation. One can argue that Citizen Kane doesn't hold up to today's standards (I'm not in this group), but still argue that it is groundbreaking. That would represent an example of subjective analysis—of course, one would have to enumerate legitimate reasons. My point is simply that: yes, you are entitled to your opinions, but to blatantly criticize the impact of a legendary filmmaker, in an impolitic fashion, is unfair.

If your argument was: Hitchcock's films are misunderstood or misguided or unappealing, I would respect your opinion (assuming you gave ample justification). But to claim he is "overrated" is to denounce his legacy; a legacy that almost every respected film critic (scholarly, published, etc.) would claim is pristine. If you are going to engender an opinion that conflicts with the vast majority of "respected" film critics, you'd better have a damn good analysis in front of you.

I agree with your last point. And I'm not arguing that a filmmaker's intention aligns with their competency. We need not look any further than the career of M. Night Shyamalan to prove that point. He uses twists to trick the audience (his intention), but his execution is woefully inept. My point was merely to state (I thought it was assumed) that Hitchcock's deft execution matches his ambitious intention.

I enjoy a good debate. While I disagree with you, I still respect your right to advocate an opinion. And I respect your vehemence in defense of your stance.