This should be Hitchcock's later work, and it is also a suspenseful film with a delicate conception and ups and downs. The actors performed very well. What surprised me was that the exposure of the film was bolder than the current censorship size in China. Maybe China is too conservative. The characters in the front of the film have a lot of pen and ink. The criminal Bob Rusk appeared very early, so the main suspense lies in whether Blaney can get rid of the suspicion. The film also succeeded in the last 20 minutes of the plot "Hundreds of Turns and Thousands of Turns". I thought that the last 20 minutes of the film would generally have a turning point. I didn't expect that the film could achieve multiple turning points, whether in the story or in the story. The movie itself is a very reasonable turning point in a short period of time.
Blaney is not a criminal, but under a series of coincidences, he does have a series of almost perfect evidence of committing the crime. If it weren't for him to call Rusk in the court, he would kill him and cause the detectives to think about it. It is estimated that he would not be able to reverse the case.
What this movie has taught me is that everyone has problems that he doesn't know, and everyone thinks they are justified. Bob didn’t know that his endless desire to kill would eventually end up. Blaney didn’t know his irritability, gratitude, and repentance. His ex-wife didn’t know that his ex-husband couldn’t change his bad behavior, and Blaney’s girlfriend didn’t know her rashness. Believe that others caused her destruction sooner or later, the detective did not know that his inherent prejudice and reliance on evidence caused the untrial and conclusive result, and the detective’s wife did not know that her poor cooking skills had to make others’ hospitality difficult. Blaney’s friends watched to give up being Blaney’s alibi in order to save themselves. The ex-wife’s assistant preconceived that Blaney came out of the company and identified him as the murderer. Of course, the most obscure thing was that Bob’s mother didn’t know what she had done. The bane of Bob-hate women, endless desires, and women are a nightmare he can't get rid of, because I am going to talk about one of my confusions below.
The process of Bob killing the first victim is fully revealed. From the sound display, Bob seems to be sexually assaulting the victim and has an orgasm. When he is satisfied, he immediately changes his face and turns from mumbling lovely to bitch. . But then the camera after he killed the victim and stood up, it can be clearly seen that he did not take off his pants and was not untidy. At this time, I was puzzled. I thought he should have been sexually assaulted but he did not take off his pants. Could it be that the conservative society at the time prevented the film from showing the rape process? But then I think about it, Hitchcock, who is so careful, shouldn't allow such a big flaw in the film. There can be many shooting methods that do not need to be displayed directly, but can be expressed by the surrounding environment such as light, shadow, sound, etc. Therefore, the screen review should not be a reason to cover up rape.
Later, the police detective explained to another policeman during the meal that they were probably impotent because the process of strangling the victim was more satisfying than rape. In other words, it is clearly stated here that the criminal is impotent. It stands to reason that whether or not there is rape can be obtained by an autopsy. Although DNA was not available at the time, it should be possible to find out whether there was rape. However, the film does not show the results of the autopsy. At the beginning of the film, when two policemen were discussing the case in a bar, an old waitress asked if she "raped first and then killed"? But the following film did not directly answer whether there was rape. The audience saw a naked victim with a suffocated neck. In fact, they did not see the process of sexual assault, except for the first case.
Combining the case of the first ex-wife victim, the fact that Bob did not take off his pants and the detectives' theory that the murderer may be impotence, it can be inferred that Bob did not commit real rape, and he is probably impotence. Because of her impotence, her heart was seriously distorted, and she strangled her opponent after subduing the female by force. Then my question is: how did he get satisfied without taking off his pants? The answer can only be found in the first case. After looking back, it can be confirmed that after Bob finishes tearing off the clothes, there is no major action, as can be proved by a lens looking down from the top. Bob is just indulging in imagined sexual assault. It is not a real occurrence. It is precisely because of his incompetence that he hopes that the victim will resist so that he can use the force of a normal man. He wants to really manipulate and conquer women, but only Can rely on strangling each other, so the process of strangling each other is the process of defeating women. This is what the police detective said the perverted murderer really cares about.
A few days ago, I just watched "Memories of Murder", which was adapted from the real case of the rape and murder serial cases in South Korea. The two have similarities. Both are criminals who are psychopathic, hate women, and kill innocent people indiscriminately. But the difference is that "Frenzy" gave the audience a consoling truth and a just ending, while "Memories of Murder" did not capture the real culprit, and could only go straight through the eyes of the protagonist policeman at the end of the movie. Looking at the screen, it seemed that he was silently accusing the real criminal. Is it true that Skynet is restored without leaking?
After watching the movie, I was puzzled. Why are all the criminals of serial rape and murder all men? Never been a woman, never. It stands to reason: There should be no fewer women who hate men than men who hate women. The reasons may be: women do not have the advantage of physical strength to complete this difficult crime; women are not mentally perverted even if they are impotent; women are not likely to get pleasure from the killing process. There is only one movie "Instinct" in my memory where women use sex to kill men. In reality, there is no such thing. Men and women are really far apart.
There is only one plot in this film that is unreasonable, and that is the end. Bob committed the crime again soon after Blaney was thrown into prison. The key is that he did not wait for Blaney to be sentenced, so if he throws the body again, wouldn’t he worry that another body will prove it? Isn't Blaney the real murderer? It seems that he shouldn't make such a low-level mistake with his clever mind. And is the crime scene in his house? ! These coincidences give me the feeling: This is the director's explanation to the audience who hopes to bring justice, as the audience sees that the bad guys are bound to be very happy.
This is the seventh Hitchcock movie I watched. Some shots may be only one minute but they feel a little irritating. There are many such deliberately delayed shots in this film, which means that the director is hanging the audience. The appetite of Hitchcock. When you care more and want to see progress, you will become more anxious and impatient. The director seems to be sitting in the dark and playing with the emotions of the audience. I think this may be the fun of Hitchcock.
View more about Frenzy reviews
