Alfred Hitchcock On Mastering Cinematic Tension
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 дек 2008
- Alfred Hitchcock explains how to inject emotional tension into a scene during an AFI Master seminar.
Subscribe to this channel for more exclusive videos from the AFI Archive: bit.ly/SubscribeAFI
Follow AFI:
/ americanfilminstitute
/ americanfilm
/ americanfilminstitute
www.afi.com 
Кино
When Hitchcock speaks about film, everybody listens.
indeed
@Corpsefoot Gaming "Rapist tendencies"? If you don't mind would you care to expand on your comment please.
He is Genius!
Hollywood doesn’t. Kinda why Hollywood relies on jumpscares. Hollywood chooses the first example Hitchcock gives.
the way he narrates the scene. Just suspenseful enough
Hitchcock is a genius. Especially with his idea of that there is only suspense leading up to the disaster, not the actual disaster
The explanation that Hitchcock is presenting is just as intense as the bomb situation he is talking about.
that’s why his films were so good, they are a representation of how he can speak in a room and take you somewhere, just through the medium of film
He was just talking about a scene and I still got goosebumps
He's simply saying::
Step one: Start with something as relaxing as a chat about baseball so that we can feel the contrast, when it comes.
Step two: Work the tension up to a climax.
Step three: Give the audience a relief/Breathing room. Else they'll get frustrated or annoyed.
Think of it as a workout session, what happens if you don't take breaks between sets?
An alternative step three: Give no relief to the audience, and have something bad happen.
That is exactly what Tarantino did for the bar scene in “Inglorious Basterds”!
@@jamesmoyner7499 He does it in everything.
@Sam What do you mean? It works perfectly. When the suspense does not give any positive relief for the audience, we are introduced to the fact that bad things can ultimately happen in the story, and therefore makes things more intense and horrifying as a result.
An example of this would be in The Fellowship of the Ring. (Spoilers below)
When Gandalf fights the Balrog, the ensuing battle leads to Gandalf holding on for dear life on the edge of a staircase. The suspense is whether or not he will fall off the staircase, and at first, it appears he will survive, and then the Balrog’s yellow tail whiplashes Gandalf’s back, which weakens Gandalf’s strength and makes him fall off the cliff.
I can give you more examples if you want.
@Sam That’s a really good example you used actually, although the shot from Touch of Evil could also be argued that it is meant to establish the mortal danger that the characters were up against as well, especially considering that this shot you mentioned is the opening shot of the film.
Not to mention that the film kills off the characters. Hitchcock’s logic is that the film should not have the characters die in the explosion, but survive it instead.
It seems so simple, so "why didn't I think of that before?", but it really takes a genius to see and describe things in their most direct and simple way, taking away everything that's complicated and unneccesary...
It's easy to see why this explanation of suspense has become so wildly quoted. It's brilliant in it's clarity.
This is proof that he is not only the Master of Suspense but the Master of film as an art form
The audience has expectations, "what would I do?", "what will he do?". It is about giving the audience what they expect with occasionally surprising them in clever ways.
Excellent idea
I think people need to remember this more. It's applicable to more than just film, it's a storytelling thing.
I like his description of making the audience work for him. He does it so well in 'Rope' (figuratively).
He does it well in every single one of his pictures
Rope absolutely had me clawing into my couch ... The loooong, drawn out, unbroken shot after dinner, when the chest the body is in is being cleared off, and the characters are just chatting off camera...
What a simple Explanation but intense Emotion!!!! This is what we call the mastery...
the man knows EXACTLY how to build tension. Rear Window is slow paced and very little actually happens outside of Jimmy Steward peepin other peoples windows. but within that time you understand who each character is, what the situation is, and by the time the film climaxes, you are biting ur nails in anxiety
Mr Alfred Hitchcock Was a Cinematic Wizard.. So Much Respect for This Man.
This is a filmmaker that all filmmakers wish they were.
Jumpscares are the worst way to build tension, because it gets rid of it.
Brilliant insight. I've seen this piece several times and I always get something new out of it. Thanks for sharing.
That's genius! :D So really, it's all about what information you give the audience that creates the tension. See, this is why Hitchcock remains a legend, even today - his films don't merely rely on special effects, they're based on real psychology.
"Ball people were sitting around a table - ballin about baseball"
"Google bomb the aliens"
"Stop talking about baseball with a bad mom"
I can't imagine what he's saying ever being better than the captions.
It's the fact that it is so basic that makes this advise great.
Alfred Hitchcock was a master.
Pure genius.
He is the best director ever.
No question.
George Vreeland Hill
This was so wonderful to see. What a master.
Hitchcock is downright mesmerizing to listen to.
Adronias That would give an unsatsifying resolve to the situation don't you think? The cinematic tension is in the knowing that the bomb will go off and watching the two people playing cards and talk about baseball, hoping they will figure out the bomb is there and dispose of it or escape. The bomb could be anything (watch Inglorious basterds nazi interrogation scene while jews hide under the floorboards), its a plot device used to create the suspense, showning us the hidden impending peril to the situation. He's talking about inventing ways to create dramatic conflict in the scene.
WaldronicTomotron f
more or full ??
Please,
A simple scenario, but one that can be applied to many situations when it comes to creating suspense in your story!
His films maybe slow paced compared to now. But his teaching still rings clear as ever.
I agree tbarton00. I've seen more than 30 Hitchcock films, and that part in Sabotage is one of the most shocking, yet memorable moments in all of his films, IMO.
I think in Modern films now the bomb does go off, the audience gets a shock. But then the characters make it out all right providing relief. :)
Hannah Gatsby has applied this now to comedy as well. She describes it in her Nanette show. You build up the tension, dial it up slowly but surely and then you provide a release. In comedy though, it's more about subverting the expectation of the outcome and the relief comes in the form of a laugh. The tension is replaced by joy. In suspense it can be just relief (a.k.a. they saw the bomb in time) or distress (the bomb went off)
Absolute genius!
He really was a genius.
Watch the video in 1.25 speed to listen him in normal voice speed.
No
Hitchcock puts it better than anyone else does. Suspense isn't about surprising the audience, it's about building tension, and getting the audience involved in what's going on.
Brilliant.
Absolute genius.
still ahead of his time
This made me think of the most recent Smile trailer. I wasn’t scared of the jump scares. I was more terrified of the tension in the final few seconds where Skye is signing a fan’s shirt
@LemmyDecaution and the coolest thing is we get to hear it
@The80sKickAss The reason that it has an effect is because I can easily put myself in their shoes and say "Christ that could have be me." Characters that the audience knows nothing about can act as a blank slate where the audience can relate to that person in any way they see fit.
@lavista2013 but that style could be a reflexive style and therefore they can use the style of past directors. So in some cases developing a style isn't necessary for becomming a good director. But the best (which in my opinion means the most innovative) develop their own styles, this doesn't mean that you can't make a great film by copying a style.
"The bomb must never go off!"
F--king hysterical.
Legend...
Soo true my friend.
Amazing
The Master.
How can I view the entire interview?
I'm trying to write a paper for Uni about creating suspense in film
That is true genius.
he's da man!
That's only half of what he said. He said it's a mistake to have a bomb never go off in hopes of maintaining that tension, but if you do that then the audience gets angry. They need the relief of the explosion. So you HAVE to let that bomb go off.
omg hes a genious
Smart man.
Genius
Has anyone any idea what this was filmed on because toward the end the footage is very vivid and smooth I would like to film with this stock. Any help appreciated.
Uhh, it wasn't film of any type, it was videotape.
love your username
The undisputed greatest director of all time!
wow
Turn captions on it's hilariously inaccurate.
+savedfaves LOL
savedfaves Actually, they're quite accurate
"The bum must never go off" lol
@The80sKickAss I'm not completely involved in the conversation, but I would have to disagree that there is no emotional affect with a character we know nothing about. There are several characters that I have seen die who I knew nothing about tha that had a emotonal effect on me. Granted it doesn't have the same effect as a character that I have been emotional affached to dies. But it is still an effect nonetheless.
FYI -- The auto english subtitles for this are quite awful. Is there some way a person could transcribe and submit accurate subs for this video?
Hafidha Sofia wow!
He wants the audience to feel, even if it's anger.
its just like the tv media !
This is amazing advice. Maybe I should put a hidden "bomb" in my story too.
It’s a crime he never got an Oscar
@teadrinkor Well said!
:35 - :39 aka, showing the time, 5:00.
I thought the first scenario was kind of interesting too.
+Ross Cicero sure because youre wondering where did the bomb come from but in the space of the 5 minutes its very dull and boring... let me put it this way the first scenario is kind of a mystery and the second is suspense
Ross Cicero intersting yes, but we talk about suspense here
Yeah, but less, in my opinion. I really dislike the ending of the second scenario though. Being able to throw the bomb out the window is way too convenient for me. I'd say a better alternative is to have moments within that scenario where the people at the table excuse themselves to the bathroom, or say they have to go home (bonus: the other guests ask them to stay, and they do). That way some "escape" the scenario without even knowing it's an escape, and others.. don't. After the first character leaves the table, the audience wonders if they'll come back before the bomb explodes, or if other guests will leave too.
I thought this as well, and I think it comes from the overuse of this style of storytelling from Hollywood. The bomb never is allowed to go off so the audience never gets paid off so we just don't react emotionally regardless of the information we're given
Who the hell would dislike this. The person must be "better" than hitchcock.
@RabbiPabblo nice
Watch the movie Arachniphobia, they do this like 10 times with the spiders to the point where it's no longer scary
His first example conjures in my mind the opening sequence in Die Hard 3 (various shots of NYC, with a cool song making audiences bob their heads, and then--BOOM!!!)...or the "Alec Kerim Bey...?" sequence in From Russia With Love (Kerim Bey with his beautiful girlfriend...starts to get sexy, and then--BOOM!!!).
Yeah. 'Die Hard 3' that bomb worked! Different scenario though. I suppose we didn't really care about any of those affected, because it was just a faceless crowd of people - beginning of the film. The lovely tune, 'Summer in the City' by the Lovin' Spoonful, lulled us into a false sense of security. The bomb did its job in that film.
@neosoontoretro that's not an emotional response to the loss of a character. that's an emotional response to the situation. You're not feeling a loss of the character, you're imagining yourself dying that way. There is no artistry there. Not everyone places themselves in the shoes of the random people that killed on screen. They are just cannon fodder. If you place yourself in their shoes, that's not something the movie is doing. That's something you're doing.
Or, you could have the people leave the room and allow the audience a sigh of relief... Then one of them realises he has left his coat behind.
So obvious, but so "dead on". (no pun intended)
But wait... the bomb did go off. It just didn’t kill anyone.
So, the bomb should explode but the initial impending peril (the characters dying) should be avoided?
chris nolan def watched this
@The80sKickAss But the movis is the one creating the situation. If the writers create a frightening scenerio where the audience observe random people dying but in the comfort of their own home and theater then will most likely have a emotioanl response to it. Those edge of your seat situations is meant to create an emotional response and not just watching random people die. If the scene is written and executed well it make the audience feel as thou their in that situation themself.
Well if the bomb must never go off and kill people well then there is no tension if it's always guaranteed that the characters will never be harmed,a slight weakness in this reasoning.
He's not talking about characters at all in this video. it's all about about raising tension to the climax of a film. Like he said at first if a bomb goes off without you knowing there is a bomb under the table there is no tension. is just a quick shock. But if you knew there was a bomb under the table counting down to 0:00, as every second goes by the tension would build and you'd be saying, "why the fuck are you talking about pointless shit! get the fuck out of the room!!" within those last seconds when those ppl realize there is a bomb under the table and get out of the room(that's the climax of the film). Everything he talks about in this short video, great filmmakers like Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese use in their filmmaking.
"stop talking about baseball, there's a bomb under there."
@mandowarrior123 my point is that when the delivery becomes cliche everyone will know the bomb wont go off. much like how if everyone knows how a magic trick is done it stops being magic and takes people right out if. Back when Hitchcock came up with these ideas, they were brand new. You are completely incorrect that the audience will ALWAYS expect the bomb to go off. I am a member of that audience and whenever I see a scene like that I NEVER expect the bomb to go off.
I think Alfred hitchcock predicted final destination
Rian Johnson: tell the audience a bomb will go off in five minutes, then it doesn't detonate.
What's behind that? I'm not much into Rian Johnson so could you please?
There is a reason why he is considered a great filmmaker.
@MrJoshuaYoYo If you didn't learn this the first day in your film class, your professor was probably crap. Just saying, Hitchcock puts it very well, but anyone worth their salt knows this is fundamental.
There are times the audience don't need to know the bomb was there and it actually did go off. And the suspense now becomes why did we have that happened.
Wait, so is he saying that the bomb SHOULD BE discovered and it NEVER goes off?? OR the bomb is discovered and it blows up, but it doesn't kill anyone?
@Tones4me1 Pretty doesnt mean emotional. Teaching technicals alone is just simply bad teaching. There is no such thing as film instincts, its something you taught yourself, but it doesn't have to be self taught at all. At least thats what i believe. teach a film maker to convey emotion and everything they produce on any topic will be brilliant.
What do you mean, not that I have to ask?
Hitchcock is brilliant! The key is to build tension to the audience, rather than just giving them blood all over the place, with a pretty young girl running all over the place! which can get old after a while. Learn from this man Hollywood! stop all the remakes on classics!
Remakes can be good. The problem is that Hollywood so often just lazily throws them together. A remake should be handled with attention and care, not just slapped together with Elmer's glue hoping it will stick.
Origin of speed 1994.
Christopher Nolan must have realized this when he made The Dark Knight. The bomb didn't go off. In your face Joker man!
There a bomb under the subtext
1:09 - :37 I've decided 'not' to see Sabotage after hearing this.
If I was writing a scene with tension like that, I would prefer to actually kill someone, be it the main character or otherwise. Have just enough causalities to leave an impact on the characters and story and therefore the audience.
@Sammy R. You raises a very valid point. Sometimes, it’s okay to do that in your stories too. But if the characters are constantly avoiding danger one after the other, it drastically reduces the tension, because you know that they are going to survive.
Additionally, character deaths can also help propel the arcs of other characters, be it using their death as a source of revenge or an opportunity to progress in the story.
It’s one of the reasons I love Game of Thrones, because you don’t know whose going to die in the next episode or even the next scene, and the mystery of it all helps keep the show going.
Ultimately, if you have other characters that support the main character’s goals, then rationalizing their deaths (if they happen) would be easier, because you know that their legacy will live on, even if they won’t.
@Sammy R. Agreed. Although it depends on what kind of story you are making. A singular, stand-alone movie has more of a justification for a character to survive than if you had 30 seasons of the character in constant danger, and no casualties or wounds even come of it.
And I have not seen Supernatural, but goddamn! How the hell are we supposed to care now that’s it’s an established rule that characters can willingly choose between life and death if they want to?! Defeats the sacredness of death in the first place.
It’s also one of the pet peeves I had with Game of Thrones. When Jon Snow was resurrected because some ‘prophecy’ demanded it, I became a little irritated, especially since we do not know (or I don’t remember it properly) the rules or guidelines that make up a character being worthy of Azor Hai status (sorry if I am butchering the spelling). It feels like the writing equivalent to nepotism!
@Sammy R. I actually would watch Lindsay Ellis’s video, but she spoils The Sopranos, and I am in the middle of watching it at the moment. Don’t want it spoiled for me just yet.
@Sammy R. And yeah, T’Challa’s father was dead, so his passing was still valid in the context of the film.
*Chekhov has entered the chat*
Chekhov's bomb?
Michael Bay is a troll for pressing the dislike button!
The bomb says 5 minutes, and then it never goes off, and you're sitting watching them play cards, talking about basball, and then suddenly it does go off, long after it was supposed to, and everybody at the table gets blown up?
@MrJoshuaYoYo so ask your teacher why that is so.
That wouldn't work today...everyone uses "jazz hands" to show how they feel.