Hacker Cinema
Hitchcock
2012 · Film · 98 min
Directed by Sacha Gervasi
Following his great success with "North by Northwest," director Alfred Hitchcock makes a daring choice for his next project: an adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel "Psycho." When the studio refuses to back the picture, Hitchcock decides to pay for it himself in exchange for a percentage of the profits. His wife, Alma Reville, has serious reservations about the film but supports him nonetheless. Still, the production strains the couple's marriage.
1 positive1 negative8 neutralfrom 10 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
11 comments on Hacker News
Yes, Musk as well. DOGE did the firing.
Musk uses Twitter to keep up appearances and routinely posts UBI propaganda that will obviously never materialize. Why would the guy who slashes social security (except for his corporations) introduce UBI?
The genuine worry is that these people have too much money and do seem unhinged. Thiel promotes the Antichrist and the apocalypse, Musk reposts weird Grok pictures of women as dark angels with wings as well as constant pictures of his mother. Material for a Hitchcock movie.
Both should be under anti-constitutional observation in the EU just like Scientology, which was also inspired by SciFi junk.
I have mentioned this elsewhere online but I was once attending a talk in the computer history museum for which I had turned up early. An elderly gentleman took his seat right before me - it took me a while to process that it was Knuth (in reality, it was less to do with processing and more with accepting!).
Somewhat recently we spotted him at a Hitchcock movie festival at Palo Alto, which my wife and I were attending.
Random run-ins are surreal :-)
In the USA... In the UK, for instance, even old copyrights tend to run from the death of the creator. So it's still a long wait for a Hitchcock film.
I would say the majority of people who are younger when given the opportunity to watch both will share the same opinion as me.
It could be my perception is warped. All humans are biased and delusional but those who can't admit their bias are more biased then those who can.
>I frankly find the idea that nostalgia is warping your perception of reality to be funny; aren't your tastes doing the same, and what about your whole brain ?
Just talk to a bunch of young people. You realize a ton of zoomers don't give a shit about star wars? They really don't get it at all. Millennials all generally get why it's big.
Go even further back talk to older people and they like stuff that's ludicrously bad. Hitchcock for example while classic, has not aged well at all. I get scared easily by scary movies and I just laughed at Hitchcock stuff. It was the first of it's time, but story telling like technology has improved.
If you find all of this funny. If you refuse to believe that we all can have our perceptions warped by nostalgia, then I am telling you. The warping of your perception by nostalgia is so strong that you can't even admit that this phenomenon which is so obvious to most people even occurs.
The article is fascinating but seems to give no context for the use of Hitchcock's name in the title, so I'm going to just go ahead and suggest it is regarding the film director's calculated formula for suspense:
https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/5966-hitchcock-hopper-and-the-penultimate-moment
or perhaps his differentiation between suspense and surprise:
https://auralcrave.com/en/2018/08/01/what-is-suspense-the-definition-by-alfred-hitchcock/
What about Hitchcock? Lang? Sturges? Von Sternberg? Welles?
Directors enjoyed top-billing prior to the articles and films by the Cahiers du Cinéma critics. While they made a huge contribution to the form of cinema, how many people really saw Breathless or read Hitchcock/Truffaut?
New Hollywood was mostly egged on by whip-smart critics with a wide circulation like Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael, who further elevated the director as artist in the public mind. The studios followed suit and thought they could make a buck with these prestige films, until there were too many self-indulgent flops.
> People who complain that nothing good is made anymore must just be looking at what's advertised heavily
I can't speak for everyone but I think it's hard to find anything 'fun'. The indie films inevitably seem to be deadly serious, whether it's terrible crimes or failing relationships or the inevitably of death. If a viewer wants 'fun' then they're stuck with formulaic superhero blockbusters.
It feels different. Spielberg was fun, Lucas was fun, Hitchcock was fun. Perhaps they were the outliers even during their times, but it seems like all that sense of adventure has been sucked into the big franchises and mangled into these lowest-common-dementor films. The international market wants big explosions and 'clever' comebacks.
I've been watching a series of Hitchcock movies lately while in quarantine, and kept wondering who in the cast is still alive. IMDB got a little tedious, so I decided to make a quick app out of it, where you can search a movie and see who in the cast and crew has passed on.
Totally agreed.
The other thing that frustrates me with Netflix et al. is how much better they could be if we had sane copyright terms. At a length of 30 years, which seems quite reasonable to me, we could have the classic cinema of the 70s easily available by now, rather than relying on Netflix or Amazon to renegotiate streaming deals every couple of years. Hell, even with 50 years we'd be getting something -- the animation of the 40s, Hitchcock movies of the 50s, etc. But with copyright essentially infinite in duration now, things fall into obscurity though no easy way to distribute and obtain them. (OK, obviously anything Hitchcock is always going to be for sale, but you know what I mean.)
Think about how wide the selection of Netflix discs was, essentially through what some people call a "loophole".
Resolution and all other superficial realism measures do not add anything to the immersion capacity of movies or games. Just take any black and white Hitchcock, and tell me you are not immersed in the story. But what can be further to realism than black and white?
> any benefits from 3D movies
Ha, there are some benefits?
For me, it is the latest snake powder intended to boost sells in movie and high-end electronic devices industry. I tried just once but, as far as I can tell, it has no benefit, except being able to say I have seen a part of a 3D movie.
I hear someone saying "improved immersion".
Well, immersion is not a function of some "more realistic" rendering. I never played Minecraft but apparently many people get deeply immersed in this low-fi world. I personally get easily immersed in any B&W Hitchcock movie. Our ancestors got so immersed at theater that the actor playing the bad guy had to be protected after the play. In Chinese opera, the full "ride a horse" movement is a very slight move of the right leg, and if done well all the spectators will stand up and shout 好！好！
So no, immersion is not improved with 3D, it is improved with good actors and story.