Once again, with a few exceptions (mostly his early British films) I find his stuff bloated and superficial. All gloss, no depth at all. Character development is shallow, and often the acting is below par (only partially the directors fault...you can only work with what you have).
His cinematography is tricky for no particualar reason, other than to call attention to himself. Often, the tricky camera angles (e,g, the early POV shots in "Notorious" of Bergaman lying hung over on the bed looking at the Grant character) carry no useful significance, don't tell us anything about the character, don't particularly do much for mood or anything to carry the story forward...they are just self stimulatory and self indulgent.
I, too, liked "Psycho", but mostly for the fact that Hitchcock broke an unstated agreement between film maker and audience, which created an atmosphere of unpredictability...anything could happen. That unspoken rule he broke was the audiance expectation that big name stars always make to to the end of the movie...and he killed off Janet Leigh in the fist half hour. That created a feeling of unpredictablilty in the audience.
Otherwise, I find his stuff full of cheap tricks, ostentatious, but meaningless, directorial tricks, mediocre acting, uninspired casting (his obsession with the "icy blond" was a big pain in the ass) and with a few exceptions, not particularly suspenseful.
Just one man's opinion...😀
Have to say I pretty much agree with you. Clever, shallow, and extraordinarily unfeeling; there is no heart in his films, and worse, there is an element of creepiness in his attitude to - and portrayal of - women. It is as though what Shrink terms his 'obsession with icy blonds' means that in Hitchcock's world, attractive women have to be punished simply because they were attractive, or punished because certain men found them attractive to whom they were not remotely attracted in turn.
I grew up being told that Hitchcock was 'the master' and so, it took me quite some time to come realise that I really didn't care for his work at all. Actually, there is an unsavoury note and tone to his work that I really don't like at all.
Have you seen
Virtigo? I'd say this has to be an exception to your critiques above. An intriguing story about obsession wrapped in a murder mystery. This is his masterpiece imo.
🙂 I just remembered North by Northwest and Rear Window, two of my favorite films, along with Torn Curtain, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Admittedly I'm too much of a Hitchcock fan.
😀
Image
The basic premise of
Rear Window makes it a seriously creepy movie, and the person who could conceive this is a little disturbed. Granted,
North by Northwest is interesting. However, if I must watch any of his stuff, I prefer the earlier 'British' period.
Rebecca is excellent - and it probably helped that this was not Hitchcock's own story, but one based on, (and constrained by) the contours of the excellent novel by
Daphne du Maurier from which it drew its inspiration, and which it closely followed.
It also helped that the casting was excellent -
Laurence Olivier as Maxim de Winter was excellent, as was
Joan Fontaine as his nameless second wife, and other brilliant British character actors - such as the accomplished
C. Aubrey Smith played wonderful roles, not least the brilliant
Judith Anderson as the sinister housekeeper,
Mrs Danvers.
