Speaking of which, the movies at that time were quite low cost, and the story lines were relatively simple, and it was all about the actors to hook people. What I like is some of Hitchcock's new perspectives on photography, sometimes the camera is the eye, and sometimes the camera is the third party. In addition, I appreciate Hitchcock's implicit ending. His ending always ends in an unsatisfactory manner. Although the storyline of the whole film cannot be studied in depth, first of all, I am very disgusted with love at first sight. You have to fall in love at first sight, and after you fall in love, you will fall in love - of course, I know that this is the need of the plot, and it has nothing to do with real life; secondly, the villain is not prominent. On the contrary, I felt sympathy for that villain after seeing it, because there is no such thing in the film. See what he's up to, seems to be an arms dealer, working for the Nazis. If this film is not an American film, I may have some sympathy, but unfortunately the American position does not represent God, and its paranoia and pretentiousness have long been disgusting.
Since it is Hitchcock's film, of course, the protagonist behind the scenes is him, so let's talk about him. The rhythm of this film is a little slow in the front, but the plot in the back is not bad.
I was actually thinking that it might be better if it was remade into a color film. Because I don't know photography, I can't say anything, but the photography of the film is obviously completely different from that time, not only because of the color, modern photography is closer to life itself, and at the same time filters out some unnecessary factors . Black-and-white films at the time looked too much like stage sets to be immersive.
Visibility: ***
View more about Notorious reviews
