shot 1: the beginning of the movie 2. : At 08 seconds, there was a bloated guy who was locked out of the door after catching a bus on the screen, and that was Hitchcock himself.
I like to appear in a hurry in my own works. This funny little action seems to have started with the suspense master Hitchcock. It is said that he appeared in as many as 35 of the 53 works shot in his life. In fact, this has already become an indispensable pleasure for his fans to watch his works. There was a hilarious anecdote about this matter: in 1943, when Hitchcock was shooting the film [Lifeboat], he racked his brains because of the limited space inside the boat, which could not accommodate his habitual cameo. , Even once planned to play a floating corpse on the water, but the health consultant struggled to stop it. Then he made a living again. At that time, the most brilliant weight loss plan in his life was successful (from 280 pounds to 182 pounds), so he took the photos before and after weight loss to make a fictional "Like "The drug weight loss advertisement was printed in a prominent position in the newspaper, and this newspaper was carefully spread in the lifeboat. What's interesting is that Hitchcock received a lot of letters after the film was released, most of which were asking about which medicines can be bought.
Why do you enjoy such small actions? Hitchcock talked about this topic which has been speculated repeatedly in the outside world in a separate interview with Truffau. Truffau is a very good at designing problems, probably because of the sensitivity of directors and smart people. He can fully understand Hitchcock’s good intentions. Most of the questions raised are to satisfy curious readers, so he Asked: "Is it because you don't have a considerable role to play, so you come to gag, have a movie addiction, or just seek profit?" Of course, the cunning Hitchcock understood Truffaut’s intentions, so he didn’t hide it either. Following the flow of the boat, he said: "This is purely for real profit-embellish the screen. Later, it became a movie addiction, and finally turned into a gag." However, his subsequent explanation fully system his good quality and macro wisdom as a film artist: " I have to be very careful and I must make a public appearance within five minutes of the beginning of the film so that the audience will not be distracted when watching the rest. The explanation is quite admirable.
Shot 2: [Northwest by Northwest] The most famous airplane chasing people shot, which lasts for 7 minutes!
Later, many Hollywood comedies that take fun of classics have imitated this shot many times, such as the [白头神探] series , But in their light-hearted games, it may be difficult to tell whether there is any mean mockery. In fact, most people’s impression of [Northwest by Northwest] is probably this shot. At that time, Gary Grant, whose face was black and charcoal, was running and avoiding an agricultural glider on the open field road in front of the shot. But it was machine guns and pesticides that "bombed him wildly". It should be said that the visual impact of this lens is really amazing, so that Truffaut commented on it: "The most attractive thing about it lies in its Without the motive of drama, this scene drew away all meaning and all authenticity."
Here, I must explain briefly to you. At that time, many film critics who were superstitious about "dramatic authenticity" questioned Hitchcock’s "stroke of the gods", pointing out that although Hitchcock was well-intentioned, Improper handling, because the plot here is obviously inaccurate: Where did the plane come from (here Hitchcock deliberately skipped a necessary plot explanation), and why the hostile spy organization took the plane so thanklessly Means of killing, wouldn't it be neat to send a killer? Later, the plane crashed into a fuel truck and exploded even more inexplicably, which made the “aircraft killing” approach particularly stupid. To be honest, although I have no interest or obligation to maintain the dignity of the so-called "dramatic authenticity", I also have the same questions about the treatment here-is it just to make the movie look better? If so, is it necessary for the famous Truffaut to deliberately raise the artistic value of this scene? At the cost of the loss of "dramatic authenticity", shooting such a purely visual scene that does not contribute to the development of the plot may be of great help to enhance the entertainment of the film, but it is undoubtedly a major harm to the rigor and integrity of the film. . (Just like the 45-minute bombing shot in [Pearl Harbor], its visual display is obviously greater than the narrative function of promoting the plot and highlighting the theme.) What is interesting is that the elite figures of the French New Wave just affirmed that this technique is right. The essential harm, this is worth pondering.
Scene 3: The last scene of the film, accompanied by the sudden sound of a symphony, a train goes into a tunnel.
For viewers who love to discover the metaphorical function of the lens, this scene of the train drilling into a cave obviously plays a role as a hint of naked sexual behavior, and when connected with a scene, Roger and Ava escaped danger and lay peacefully on the train sleeper and hugged Kiss, this kind of explanation seems more reasonable, and the service is attentive. This makes people involuntarily think of the topic of the sexual meaning of Hitchcock's movies. It should be said that most of Hitchcock's movies are quite sexy, whether it is those proficient, ground-breaking exploratory lens skills, or stunning The dazzling celebrity heroine's consistent blonde hair and screams are full of hormonal excretion and stimulation. However, Hitchcock doesn't seem to like naked sex scenes very much. His movies are sexy and never pornographic. In his movies you never see naked girls, let alone sensual and gorgeous scenes. Moreover, Hitchcock movies seem to have such a characteristic, that is, romance films are also quite suspenseful, and suspenseful films are always accompanied by lingering love. But all this cannot avoid the obvious flaw in his works, which is to neglect the characterization of characters in order to make the plot compact and tortuous, such as the most typical [Dr. Edward], [Mentally Ill], [Bird] and this [Northwest] North by].
Hitchcock is a great superior director, rigorous film production, distinctive personal style and good at breaking through patterns (traditional and self), but he also occasionally sacrificed the fatal flaws of rationality and flat character for the amazing plot. This is a temporary superficial understanding of me as a beginner, and I hope to enrich and further modify it in the future.
View more about North by Northwest reviews
