Prove me wrong. Obviously that isn't a compliment. His movies are stupid borefest. He specialized into "horror" and murder stories. Why is this guy viewed in high regard?
He was the Jordan Peele of the sixties
Lucas Lee
Isaiah Bailey
Because he did it first, retard
Wyatt Butler
Hitchcock was racist?
Colton Martin
>Because he did it first, retard
Honestly that's the best answer, this faggot came first but we should realize this shit was a mistake, not praise him for it. Trash like Psycho, Crows or North by Northwest are considered masterpieces, what a joke.
Matthew Gutierrez
No, but he was a total lecher who groped his female stars, etc. He'd get #MeToo'd today for sure if he was alive.
Benjamin Brooks
>Crows
Stupid faggot
Tyler Rodriguez
>he'd be #metoo'd
literally meaningless
men get #metoo'd for just existing near a woman
Tyler Cox
Based
Aaron Morales
>His movies are stupid borefest.
edgelord mcgee over here
Jayden Richardson
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.
Aiden Ramirez
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.
Ian Green
>Why is this guy viewed in high regard
He's not
James Baker
>Because he did it first, retard
Those movies were alreafy being made in the silent era lol
Chase Kelly
unironically: he was picked by critics to elevate, so as to increase their own importance indirectly.
around the same time they were shitting on Dr Zhivago, Hitchcock was being firmly established as a meme. of course he's very good, but he was always a populist director making movies based on pre-existing material. he was used to establish auteur theory where everyone pretends the director is the only person who creates a movie.
Jordan Ramirez
You're the Jordan Peele of this thread
Ethan Nelson
One of those American boomer things. He's objectively shit.
Daniel Ramirez
What are some films you consider masterpieces?
Leo Adams
>Crows
Kek
Henry Cox
Kangaroo Jack, Biodome, My Dinner with Andre
Christopher Clark
Didn't this guy win World War II? Isn't that a Prestige?
Isaiah Morris
What the fucks up with the ending to vertigo. It LITERALLY ends abruptly after the bitch falls off the bell tower. Just boop, and the movies over
Adrian Allen
Hitchcock babies thoroughly btfo itt
Gavin Thomas
I dont have the energy, strength or time.......
Zachary Hall
>This guy who pioneered modern cinema is a fucking hack
>The absolute state of zoomers who need to be shot on this board
Dylan Martinez
Nun represents morality, it's the perfect ending that Scottie is stuck in a loop and ultimately powerless in his own life
Nicholas Jackson
hitchcock is fundamental to all cinema courses for cinematography, directing, and story writing. ignore Yea Forums retards saying its "boring" as their argument.
Tyler Gonzalez
>Crows
Anthony Jenkins
Everyone from Hollywood would be metoo'd. Then AND now.
Jaxon Lee
Anthony Evans
>His movies are stupid borefest
Only because you're a stupid faggot who likes boring modern movies, so films that are actually good are boring to you
Connor Morales
Wouldn't the original host of The Twilight Zone be the Jordan Peele of the sixties? You know, Rod Serling?
>if you write about racism that makes you racist
Gabriel Baker
Jayden Murphy
Brayden Parker
Based pleb user
Owen Scott
I saw Rope and Rear window but they had awful acting and I couldn't care for any of the characters. Should I even watch more of his movies?
Adam Garcia
Do you watch classic films at all?
Colton Anderson
Because he normalizes stalking women as if they are inherently interesting, and women can only praise such insinuations.
Isaiah Miller
He wasn't a racebaiter so you're wrong. Jordan Peele is treading his path in the late 2010s social climate by making Hitchcock knockoffs like many others but is propped up by his BLACK MAN GOOD, WHITE MAN BAD subtext.
Basically you have a backwards comparison and you should kill yourself for elevating Peele to even this fat fuck's level.
Josiah Mitchell
Bentley Rogers
ah-bloo-bloo
Easton Lewis