"I never could stand looking at Bette (Davis), so I don’t want so see her act"

Favourite movie of all time. Welles was based as fuck and a kinomaster.

Attached: Kino.jpg (620x356, 28K)

>talked about Tim Burton
>the guy who made released his first feature 3 months before welles died

Attached: 1505686364275.jpg (556x616, 43K)

oh shit I've never heard of richard burton. it's crazy he could've been talking about Tim Burton too with that quote

how can one man be so based

Attached: DT3n3i-XkAAK2f0.jpg_large.jpg (1120x514, 150K)

Read the thread, dumbshit.

ive seen worse movies than rear window

i like welles 100 times more after reading this. i hate people who like woody allen and his movies.

Wrong Burton but fits well.

tim burton obviously has some kind of talent but his movies are meh

Wells and Brando are the two patron saints of Yea Forums

Attached: based.gif (500x323, 380K)

Why the fuck did he show the audience the kill in Vertigo? Why not have the audience doubt his sanity as well, instead of having to just sit and wait for him to catch up? When I finally watched it, after seeing it praised for so many years, I felt like I was the one going crazy. Just one cut scene and it would have been good instead of an exercise in waiting for a character to catch up with the plot you know.

wait which kill?

There's only one kill in Vertigo.

which is presented to the protagonist and to the audience as a suicide if i recall correctly

they had to show a body at some point i guess?

He's right about Richard Burton, 2bh. The man completely squandered his talent and instead became a part of the first tabloid couple.

So was welles.

>An old woman on Main Street last night picked up a shoe, and there was a foot in it. We're going to make you pay for that mess.

After Jimmy Stewart starts following the actress around and confronts her at her place you get a shot of the belltower scene from her POV, where you get to see the husband throwing the wife out the tower and then silencing her scream. Remove that scene and the audience might continue to doubt the MC's sanity, wondering whether it's really her or if he's just seeing things to cope and harassing a stranger. But with that scene the doubt is thrown out the window because it's not his vision, and the rest of the movie is just the audience waiting for him to transform her and arrive at the point where he'll get her to confess.

I just don't see any reason to keep that scene, except to explain the obvious to the audience, and even then it would have been better to put it at the end after he's gotten her to confess.

KINO

>neveany heard of Richard Burton
kino

hitchcock had to live up to his brand. he couldnt just make whatever movie he wanted to make.

I wonder who you fuckers think is a good director

She's pretty obscure, you've probably never heard of her.

The Drive guy and the Batman guy.

peckinpah and kurosawa are probably my favorites.

they have a fair amount in common when you think about it. they were both insanely sexist in their portrayal of women. peckinpah has to be one of the most sexist directors of all time. kurosawa had 1000x times more belief in humanity though

There are people here who would unironically think this.

based and frenchpilled.

Attached: 1460716767203.jpg (515x314, 75K)

hope it's not hackerman

Based. It's a shame how Peckinpah is almost never mentioned today when talking about great directors.

Nigger

Yeah, i quite liked it but that was dumb. Had to have a twist is suppose.

Mel Brooks

Pekinpah’s films make me feel ill. I think it’s his editing style. I’ve never been able to sit through one.

If Orson Welles was so based why did he and Robert Mitchum write a benefit opera musical for Jewish refugees? Also why did Robert Mitchum say he had reservations about the holocaust, and called Peter Falk a little kike. Why do pp hurt

Cringe

Money and power.

Welles is a hack

Hitchcock explains this in an interview, and this is one place the movie differs from the novel it’s based on. You really just didn’t get it. Embarrassing

>you didn't get it
>i listened to an interview so i could understand it though you brainlet
what

fpbp

this should be printed in big letters wherever Woody allen goes.

even Straw Dogs? It's great and the editing and pacing are good and normal.

>Hitchcock explains this in an interview, and this is one place the movie differs from the novel it’s based on
Care to explain or share a link?

>why didn't you watch an interview to understand the change, like I did? What a buffoon you are for not having watched all of Hitchcocks interviews!
How about just linking the interview or giving some suggestion of which interview it was, instead of being a retard acting high and mighty?

cringe. Hitchcock is one of the ones where normies think he's art cinema, pseuds think he's overrated and real patricians know he was one of the greatest film artists ever who just happened to make watchable films.

he made some messy movies that a lot of people hated.some forgettable mediocre trash. a great but so completely out of character one that you couldnt fault someone for refusing to believe that he had made it (the ballad of cable hogue).

his best movies are kinda flawed or uneven. his worst are unwatchable

youtu.be/ywmoD-qrFKE The interview explains what you should have gleaned from watching the movie. Lmao at plotlets who think they know better than Hitchcock. Go to 17min mark and watch niggas

This. Vertigo is unironically a fine choice for best film ever made

No. The interview confirms what any mildly intelligent person will conclude from simply watching the movie. It’s just cool to hear Hitchcock lay it out in his special way.

What is his worst? If I remember people tend to call Killer Elite his worst, but this is a well crafted action thriller that just lacks any deeper meaning.

the osterman weekend is pretty bad.

>infantilising the audience by likening them to a child asking their mother what happens next, and then rewriting the whole story so that it doesn't end in a twist where the kid can't ask what happens next
This is what I should have gleaned from watching the movie? Hitchcock's inner autism-child making him change the story from a doubting one to a simpler one where you just wonder what Stewart's going to say?

John Ford, bitch

That would be CIA and Bane.

I like Scorsese

sums up why I hate modern men

is it sad that i hate on john ford but love directors that were heavily influenced by and basically worshipped him?

Never trust a man with a small dog

For Hitchcock, suspense trumped mystery and surprise. Everything he did was geared towards this notion even when it obliged him to make some fairly retarded decisions.

No but it is stupid

Mommy

Attached: 1560976110506.jpg (1024x1629, 344K)

im gonna try to watch more john ford maybe i will see some bit of the greatness. ive only watched black and white movies the last week its now or never lol

But how is there not suspense in the audience waiting to find out whether Ol' Jimmy's gone crazy or not? If the audience never once considered the murder angle then I guess you could make that claim, since they'd think it was a weird mystery movie showing a man go crazy, but surely you have to trust the audience to think something's up with all that set-up? The way I watched it the suspense stopped when they showed the murder, because after that I knew for certain what happened. If it hadn't been for it I would have kept watching the movie in suspense, being intrigued by the question whether it IS the same woman or not, while Jimmy gets his pseudo-necrophilia on.

See this in both men and women, it's the most irritating mix of imaginable and I'm thankful it's a small subset of people that are like this.

MWAHAAAH THE FRENCH

I can hear this in his voice.

Raoul Walsh

Attached: Welles Hitchcock.jpg (422x692, 119K)

zoomers BTFO

Attached: Welles Curtiz.jpg (637x434, 92K)

>he liked The 39 Steps, where Hitchcock pushed a fucking romantic interest into the spy thriller because he couldn't handle it being about a man on the run from other men
If that had been released today it would have been crucified as the worst of Hollyood meddling. Shit taste confirmed.

Attached: Horrified Smile.png (363x407, 158K)

>not suspense in the audience waiting to find out whether Ol' Jimmy's gone crazy or not?
The audience would not assume that he's gone crazy, especially an audience for on 1958. They have no reason to. They would be wondering why Judy looks like Madeline and whether or not they are same person. That's mystery.

Suspense, as Hitchcock defines it, comes when we know something the character's don't (Judy IS Madeline) and the consequences of that something come closer and closer like a looming storm on the horizon, disaster seeming inevitable (we can assume that Scottie is going to find out at some point and when he does, he's probably going to be pissed).

It's fine to prefer mystery over Hitchcock's suspense but Hitchcock had his reasons to do it his way. A pretty major one is that it extends the audience's empathy to Judy as well as to Scottie which creates a far more emotionally complex finale for the audience.

Hey fuck you, man, that film had one of the loveliest romances in all of film. The director can insert whatever he pleases, especially when it turns out that the two leads have such strong chemistry.

That would be Sneed and Feed.

Doesn't the husband throwing the bitch from the belltower happens when she confesses the truth?

Holy motherfucking shit, i had never made this connection before. Was Woody just a prototypical onions zoomer? Bunch of them get outted as pedos the more obnoxious they are down the line.

Someone bring Welles back, the world needs him.

Attached: 158.png (447x378, 11K)

It was a different time, you are talking about one of the founders of modern cinematic language show some appreciation