What does Yea Forums think of Alfred hitchcock

Well?

Attached: Alfred_Hitchcock_(1955).jpg (637x958, 88K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cg3qKsE8JXI&t
youtu.be/rc2Y0n74eKE?t=102
youtube.com/watch?v=BFts5ISnaxQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

he made a lot of really great movies

he was a hack fraud

The fact that so many books still name Hitchcock as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" film director ever only tells you how far film still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz music critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Film critics are still blinded by commercial success. Hitchcock sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore he must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Film critics are often totally ignorant of film of the past, they barely know the highest grossers. No wonder they will think that Hitchcock did anything worthy of being saved.
In a sense, Hitchcock is emblematic of the status of film criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it Spielberg or Coppola) and too little to the merits of real artist. If somebody produces the most divine film but no major studio picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of critics will ignore him. If a major studio picks up a filmmaker who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of film criticism: film critics are basically publicists working for major studios, distributors and video stores. They simply highlight what product the film industry wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great artist like Gene Saks, who never sold as much, and commercial products like Hitchcock. At such a time, film critics will study their history and understand which artists accomplished which feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.
British Hitchcock wasn't entirely suspense. British Hitchcock wasn't visceral. British Hitchcock requires necessarily more thought than American Hitchcock.
Contemporary artists never spoke highly of Hitchcock, and for good reason. They could never figure out why his films should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that Hitchcock were simply lucky to become a phenomenon (thanks to "The Master of Suspence", which is nothing unique to Hitchcock). That phenomenon kept alive interest in his (mediocre) cinematic endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants Hitchcock more attention than, say, Otto Preminger or Edward Dmytryk. There was nothing intrinsically better in Hitchcock's films. Joseph L. Mankiewicz was certainly a far better director of actors than Hitchcock. William Wyler was certainly much more skilled formalist than the 'Master of Suspence'. And Billy Wilder was a far more accomplished storyteller, capable of film noir such as "Double Indemnity" to screwballs like "Ninotchka"; not to mention the filmmakers who followed Hitchcock in subsequent decades or the US filmmakers themselves who initially spearheaded what Hitchcock merely repackaged to the masses.
Hitchcock is considered great not because he is the greatest filmmaker but simply because his films were easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They excited the audience and they had star-studded casts. If somebody had not invented Auteur Theory in the 1960s, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial director.

Jordan Peele for boomers

He's good at what he does but I personally dont like his movies that much.
Rear Window is probably my favorite of his.

You wish.

He made like fucking 90 movies.

A few are bound to end up somewhat good at that rate. Like the monkey that eventually types out Hamlet.

All of you are plebs with zero knowledge of cinema. Let's hear a true kinosseur:
youtube.com/watch?v=cg3qKsE8JXI&t