tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post6878190105317578273..comments2024-03-29T12:59:00.612+05:30Comments on Jabberwock: 100 years (more or less) of "Hollywood"Jabberwockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-38267953554469541372010-09-06T08:08:19.651+05:302010-09-06T08:08:19.651+05:30...nyways keep writing but i miss your earlier cin...<i>...nyways keep writing but i miss your earlier cinema related posts</i><br /><br />Rahul: thanks, but I didn't get this bit - my movie-related blogging has only increased in the past year or so, partly because of the Yahoo column. In any case, I always used to write a little more about non-Indian cinema than Hindi cinema (because my knowledge of those films is stronger). But overall there hasn't been a decrease in posts about Hindi films.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-61373923397028015762010-09-06T01:59:00.149+05:302010-09-06T01:59:00.149+05:30superb post,i wish you would do a similar post on ...superb post,i wish you would do a similar post on hindi cinema also,like the silent era ,then talkies era,devika rani and himansu rai,start system,prabhat talkies later ftii,40s realistic indian cinema ,neecha nagar in cannes,then 3 superstars in 50s ,guru dutt,color films in 60s ,yash chopra comes with WAQT,dev anand was still young then,then 70s :-angry young man ,salim javed and directors who worked with amitab,80s:- trash from padmalya stuidos,empty cinema halls,90s :-two school of cinema:yash chopra vs Ram Gopal Varma,2000s:- all the graduates from RGV school make their mark ,may be a INDIAN NEW WAVE like 60s french new wave is coming ,<br /><br />of course i have missed many things but i find very less material on indian directos on website even on someone like yash chopra or hrishikesh mukherjee or a genre director like raj khosla who made 3 top class thrillers in late 50s and early ,nyways keep writing but i miss your earlier cinema related postsrahul mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08950805987812880334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-30377648647344638292010-09-02T12:12:21.590+05:302010-09-02T12:12:21.590+05:30shrikanth: the "surprise vs suspense" di...shrikanth: the "surprise vs suspense" dilemma is old news, but I maintain that <i>Vertigo</i> makes for a different case study. Most of the stories that Hitchcock based his films on don't really have a major twist-in-the-tale built into them. (The "suspense-vs-surprise" principle operates on other levels, in suspenseful scenes interspersed through the course of the story.) But <i>Vertigo</i> did have a major twist, and Hitchcock's decision to reveal the mystery early was atypical even by his own standards - it would be comparable to revealing halfway through <i>Psycho</i> that Norman was dressing up as his mother. And at the time, it did puzzle/put off many of the viewers who made up Hitchcock's dedicated fan-base.<br /><br />Okay, is there anyone OTHER THAN Shrikanth who has a comment?!Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-12923370873594099112010-09-02T10:57:23.098+05:302010-09-02T10:57:23.098+05:30Jai: I just revisited Bogdanovich's interview ...Jai: I just revisited Bogdanovich's interview with Hitch (available on net). The choice of the timing of revelation in Vertigo is very much a <i>surprise vs suspense </i> dilemma.<br />Hitch's preference for <i>suspense</i> over <i>surprise</i> was not a personal quirk, but an outcome of a belief that the audience would be more engaged by a "suspense" film than a "shock and awe" film.<br /><br />Now, you may argue that Hollywood audiences typically prefer twist endings over Hitchcock-style suspense. I don't agree with that. We have that mistaken impression because movie makers, until the likes of Hitchcock came along, did not understand the audiences very well and hence kept churning out "surprise/mystery" filmsshrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-33860233202897299702010-09-02T09:49:45.411+05:302010-09-02T09:49:45.411+05:30While writing a blogpost, one may slip in several ...<i>While writing a blogpost, one may slip in several unsubstantiated, prejudiced comments owing to a lack of self-criticism. Whereas, when one writes for a journal publication, we adopt a more self-critical approach.</i><br /><br />Not necessarily true. Speaking for myself, I'm more meticulous about my longer blog-posts than I am about some of the columns I do for official publication. (Though I realise that the journal pieces you're talking about are probably the long-form ones - not the stuff one sees in mainstream Indian media.)<br /><br /><i>I suppose he asked that very crucial question because of the habit of anticipating the audience that he had cultivated in Hollywood.</i><br /><br />Didn't understand your <i>Vertigo</i> argument at all. Hitchcock's decision to give away the mystery two-thirds of the way in (rather than save it till the very end) is in fact the archetypal example of <i>not</i> giving a fig what the average Hollywood audience wanted. It's generally perceived as one of the reasons why the initial response to the film was relatively lukewarm.<br /><br />It's also one of the reasons why <i>Vertigo</i>'s critical stature today is so high - because critics tend to recognise that this was one of those cases where Hitchcock explicitly forsook the "popular" suspense-thriller route in favour of realising a larger, more intense artistic vision for his film. (Note: I don't necessarily agree with that view - as I wrote in an old post, <i>Vertigo</i> sometimes feels artistically self-conscious to me compared to his other top films.) Maybe I missed what you were trying to say, but <i>Vertigo</i> is the least appropriate film to bring up when we're discussing Hitchcock's concern about his audience.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-61382226706802249392010-09-02T09:25:21.298+05:302010-09-02T09:25:21.298+05:30Jai: I didn't imply automatic superiority. Nev...Jai: I didn't imply automatic superiority. Nevertheless, the habit of proactively anticipating the reaction of the audience is very useful. <br /><br />While writing a blogpost, one may slip in several unsubstantiated, prejudiced comments owing to a lack of self-criticism. Whereas, when one writes for a journal publication, we adopt a more self-critical approach. The cons is that the latter approach may be at the expense of spontaneity.<br /><br />I'm reminded of <i>Vertigo</i> in this context. While making the film, Hitch asked himself the question whether Judy's true identity should be revealed halfway into the film or kept a secret till the very end. I suppose he asked that very crucial question because of the habit of anticpating the audience that he had cultivated in Hollywood. A less introspective director may not have faced such dilemmas.shrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-52818010261218327822010-09-02T08:41:03.073+05:302010-09-02T08:41:03.073+05:30To draw a crude analogy, Hitch's British films...<i>To draw a crude analogy, Hitch's British films are akin to excellent blogposts whereas his American masterpieces are akin to articles in a peer-reviewed journal.</i><br /><br />Shrikanth: if you're implying that articles in a "peer-reviewed journal" are automatically superior to excellent blog-posts, well then I'd have to say that's a <i>very</i> crude (and inadequate) analogy.<br /><br />I don't disagree that being aware of the audience can be a virtue, but it definitely hasn't been one of the top 2 or 3 considerations that have gone into the making of great art over the centuries.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-33121226596244224602010-09-02T01:14:56.970+05:302010-09-02T01:14:56.970+05:30I'm a big endorser of artists realising their ...<i>I'm a big endorser of artists realising their personal visions rather than catering to a hypothetical audience and risking going down the "let's try to please everyone" route.</i><br /><br />Jai: I'd like to think that "being aware of the audience" is a virtue. When I watch a film like <i>Suspicion</i>, it's quite evident that the director has thought hard about audience reaction before shooting most scenes. In fact, Hitchcock has said quite often in interviews that the primary difference between his British and American work is that his Hollywood films exhibit a greater awareness of the audience.<br /><br />To draw a crude analogy, Hitch's British films are akin to excellent blogposts whereas his American masterpieces are akin to articles in a peer-reviewed journal.<br /><br />Ofcourse, in some cases, we're probably better off without the disciplining influence of a studio. Some of Powell & Pressburger's brilliant and wildly eccentric films like <i>A Canterbury Tale</i> or even <i>Colonel Blimp</i> could not possibly have been made in Hollywood.shrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-55878734642291266842010-09-01T09:56:29.331+05:302010-09-01T09:56:29.331+05:30The Hollywood craftsman, in general, is less bothe...<i>The Hollywood craftsman, in general, is less bothered with his personal vision and more aware of the audience than Continental auteurs.</i><br /><br />Shrikanth: interesting you say that. I'd like to be able to disagree, because I'm a big endorser of artists realising their personal visions rather than catering to a hypothetical audience and risking going down the "let's try to please everyone" route. But you have a point. It puts me in mind of many interviews I've read of the Golden Age directors, where they were often at great pains to undermine their own status as artists and to claim that they were really just hired workmen. Of course, one doesn't have to take this at face value. Their films speak for themselves. But the attitude is revealing and suggests a deep-rooted dissatisfaction with the conditions they worked under, in a large, money-driven industry.<br /><br />By the way, Satyajit Ray has this description of meeting Billy Wilder in Hollywood:<br /><br />"The first thing he said to me was 'You won a prize at Cannes? Well, I guess you're an artist. But I'm not. I'm just a commercial man and I like it that way.' I mumbled a word of protest and said I thought he was rather good at mixing art and commerce...But Wilder would have none of it."Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-8340191947810267432010-09-01T09:54:36.781+05:302010-09-01T09:54:36.781+05:30I've been into films for only the last 3-4 yea...<i>I've been into films for only the last 3-4 years. And I'm yet to go through that phase where one snobbishly condescends towards Hollywood films.</i><br /><br />Shrikanth: I was talking about film students - the ones who do an extensive, formal course on cinema with the aim of working in a related field someday. But of course, there will always be exceptions in that group too.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-69259842494862739422010-09-01T09:31:50.082+05:302010-09-01T09:31:50.082+05:30Parmanu: I highly recommend David Thomson's Th...Parmanu: I highly recommend David Thomson's <i>The Whole Equation</i>, a somewhat rambling "history" of Hollywood. <br /><br /><i>what about the culture of 'Going to the cinemas' ? </i><br /><br />An interesting tidbit. According to Thomson, in 1946 the average weekly attendance in movie houses was 100 million! That's practically the entire adult population of US at the time I think. The figure should be much, much lower now despite the doubling of populationshrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-11839694386808575382010-09-01T08:13:32.688+05:302010-09-01T08:13:32.688+05:30I've been into films for only the last 3-4 yea...I've been into films for only the last 3-4 years. And I'm yet to go through that phase where one snobbishly condescends towards Hollywood films.<br /><br />The main virtues of Hollywood genre cinema are a directness of style and a modesty of vision. Ofcourse, these virtues may be absent in the bloated studio epics Hollywood is often associated with. But they're the chief characteristics of genres like noirs, thrillers, screwball and the family melodrama.<br /><br />I think the "modesty" aspect is the key. The Hollywood craftsman, in general, is less bothered with his personal vision and more aware of the audience than Continental auteurs. Which is probably why I react viscerally to a film like <i>Suspicion</i> in a way I can't possibly react to an "art" classic like <i>Rashomon</i>.shrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-18086193442226725832010-09-01T07:14:36.322+05:302010-09-01T07:14:36.322+05:30Interesting information and history. Priceless!Interesting information and history. Priceless!India Propertyhttp://www.jaaydaad.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-52729241583917200252010-09-01T01:47:15.871+05:302010-09-01T01:47:15.871+05:30Interesting, and it leaves me yearning for more on...Interesting, and it leaves me yearning for more on Hollywood's history. For instance, a hundred years ago how did the market for movies evolve (given the absence of cinema halls in the beginning)? And what about the culture of 'Going to the cinemas' ? <br /><br />Any book recommendations on these themes?Parmanunoreply@blogger.com