Very nice summary - and eliminating chance at the end of the story is equivalent to ruling out deus ex machina, (thank goodness) - the laziest form of resolution, but surprisingly common - from Lord of the Rings, Star Wars right back to Dickens, and the Greeks, of course. Aristotle would salute dear Hitchcock. And with regard to the development of cinema, Hitchcock was an incredible innovator - perhaps overlooked by some because he worked in the commercial mainstream cinema.
Thanks Sven, truly honoured by the pin - Hitch not getting an Oscar may have been due to the low esteem in which the suspense genre was held - that was his take on it, anyway, although he was referring to the calibre of actors he could attract for Saboteur and the like ( which is another gem, the cast of characters is incredible).
Just for information, North by Northwest, Notorious, Lifeboat, Foreign Correspondent, Torn Curtain to name a few, were original screenplays, not adaptions - and source material was frequently changed, such as the reveal of the true identity of Kim Novak's character half way through Vertigo (thereby increasing the suspense). In fact, Hitchcock and his wife Alma Reville were script supervisors/editors for most of his films. As a director very much in charge of the look and final cut of his films, the claim that he was responsible for the story structure of his films is a fair one - and not only because he chose the story.
I agree with the exposition through visuals, but the suspense and the deus ex machina I wouldn't be so sure. I think the use of the last two depends of the story you are telling. Those are more genre oriented tools, SilverBrook mentioned 3 perfect examples of those techniques used correctly. But for example Whiplash use the chance in a very stupid way, and don't even get me started on Marvel movies use of deus ex machina.
One technique that Hitchcock loved was constantly cutting from action to reaction. Having characters look at something, showing what they see, then cutting back to the response, and continuing to do this over and over. It's basically a subpoint of #1 Pure Cinema, but something I thought I'd point out.
Is he a grandfatherly figure watching a child play or a dirty old man ogling someone too young for him? Same expression, same smile, but the shot of what he's looking at is what leads to the audience interpretation of the actor's expression. This was a favorite explanation of his. One of my favorite variations of this is in "Rope" when we don't even see those being reacted to, during the chicken-strangling exchange--just Rupert's bemused smirk and sustained gaze. We, as the informed audience, are in suspense as to how much he is figuring out. ruclips.net/video/px4fKJouvy8/видео.html
Bad filmmaking can sabotage a good script. I've seen plenty of comedies where the comedy failed basically because the director didn't know how to stage visual comedy. The same goes for thrillers. Like the scene from "Marnie" used as an example in this video: the scene works beautifully thanks to the way Hitchcock CHOSE to present it, but most other directors wouldn't have the skills or mindset to get anywhere near the same amount of tension out of it. A good script is normally the backbone to any memorable film, but a good script doesn't help much if the people tasked with turning the words into visual storytelling SUCKS.
I totally agree. Rear Window is actually one of my favorite films and it is because of these three things. For me Pure Cinema isn't as important as the others but definitely makes the story thrive even more. The reason I am in love with this movie is because of the suspense, which is built up so well because he puts himself into every situation. We fear for the consequences of his own actions, not someone else's. One of my favorite modern movies that does this brilliantly is Nightcrawler. If you enjoy Rear Window I would definitely recommend it.
One other thing is to not be afraid to use a little misdirection, but only if it makes sense from the point of view of a character who is in your story. I'm thinking about that brilliant scene where Cary Grant brings up the glass of milk in "Suspicion," where the milk itself is so bright in a dark scene, and always in frame when Joan Fontaine (I think?) is staring at it. We know her state of mind and we share it, and all by visual storytelling.
I remember reading that Good luck for the hero is bad for the storytelling. Bad luck for the hero, however, is great for storytelling. I don't it's from Hitchcock altough it is a good rule. Just like another rule, said by the creators if South Park. When deciding on elements for your story you need "Buts" and "Therefores", NEVER "And Then...". Buts and therefores drive the story forward. If theres one scene "and then" another... you're treading water.
3:56 well Han Solo didn’t really stumble upon the scene. His arc was leading from him being a selfish mercenary to a hero who cared about the lives of others. That’s set up early and is resolved when he helps luke
I disagree with your inclusion of Star Wars as a coincidental Deus Ex Machina that Hitchcock would've hated. Han's rescue of Luke is the natural and cathartic apex to his character arc, and makes sense logically. And he doesn't "stumble upon" Luke, he makes the decision to save him, and can use Vader's single-minded pursuit of Luke to get in range unnoticed. There's fairly little coincidence involved. More than that, it doesn't interfere with Luke's arc or with the consequences of Luke's decisions; Luke trusts the force, Luke blows up the Death Star. Did he need his friend's help to accomplish it? Yes. Does that fit in line with the themes and internal logic of the film? Yes.
MusicalPlayground True. It's Lukes decison (to trust in the force) that resolves the climax of the movie. Hans decision comes before that and only resolves one conflict of the battle, not the main conflict ("heros against death star"). However another "rule" comes into play here: The audience is surprised by Hans decision and action so there is no suspense. But I think the scene has enough suspense and it is nice to add the surprise as an extra bonus there. It's hard to argue against that the original Star Wars climax is a nearly perfectly written one. However I don't think Lucas knew what he was doing there from a technical screenwriting standpoint.
This Guy Edits Interesting article. However I don't think the audience registers the misbehaviour of this one pilot as the turning point of the situation. So while a coincidence is at play the audience doesn't feel it. Also: If Darth Vader hadn't spiraled out of the line of fire he might have been next imediatly and again Luke would have had enough time. In the end Han is still the one dominating the situation and Luke is still the one resolving it.
MusicalPlayground Also, the problem with Deus Ex Machina is that the solution to the hero's problem comes from outside anything the hero does which is why it's unsatisfying. In this case, Han showing up IS the result of something Luke tried to do: convince Han to join in the fight. It works because it's a setup that is paid off. Furthermore the scenario follows the rule of three. The first instance establishes an idea, the second sets a pattern, and the third changes it yielding a surprise. Specifically Luke has to shoot down a TIE Fighter following Biggs, Wedge has to help Luke, and Han pays off the pattern by not being a fellow Rebel pilot and having revealed himself to have had a change of heart. It's not a random development.
Although I prefer Vertigo over Rear Window, both of them are amazing films! I have watched more than 30 of his films. Good video Sven. I am surprised I hadn't seen this one yet. There is a ton more you can say about his style of filmmaking but these three are definitely up there!
Indeed! In 100 percent, agreed! Just recently gave another look at the sequence in 'The Birds' where Melanie (Tippi Hedren) waits outside the school as crows begin to gather or earlier after she has driven to Bodega Bay and crosses by boat to surprise Mitch (Rod Taylor) unnoticed. That was followed by Brian De Palma's sixteen minute visual homage to Hitchcock in 'Body Double' where the main character who suffers from claustrophobia attempts to protect a woman from a menacing individual in a chic shopping mall. Arguably unparalelled sequences, all three.
Did the iTunes for the collection and watched it. Was interesting doing it following the video I get more nowadays having getting to know how movies are done. Not sure wife gets it as much, she does not care for my verbalized review
I think, in regards to visual story telling and the art of cinema, what Hitchcock said about montage theory is one of the greatest things ever. His example, with the old man and the mother and her child/the bikini-lady really shows off the power a single edit can have.
Just wanted to mention that his examples originally came from a russian filmmaker, I forgot the name. Hitchcock just quoted the results of his studies.
@@bened22 Sergei Eisenstein, specifically the Odessa Steps sequence from his "Battleship Potemkin", which included the "waking lion" montage. ruclips.net/video/qxaefqC-k90/видео.html
It's funny the point you raise about chance, because the Psycho inspired TV show 'Bates Motel' relied extremely heavily on events just *happening* to occur at the same time in order for, say, accelerated and coinciding drama
I agree. But TV shows have their own constraints given that they are episodic and need to fill up a certain amount of time. It's even more complicated now since a lot of people binge watch a show from start to finish so the show needs to keep to the episodic nature as well as cater to those who watch a season at once.
What I love about Hitchcock's films (and many older films in general) is that they focus on dialogue, tension and the slow reveal of information over flashy set pieces and aesthetics. They're far more intellectually interesting than modern CGI laden blockbusters where it's all about lens filters, fast cuts, edgy jokes and constantly throwing stuff at the audience.
I was already familiar with the first two techniques, and I think I learnt them well, but the third one was like a breath of fresh air... suddenly I understand why some Game Of Thrones episodes annoy the hell out of me. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Sven! Ps. I got your impression of Alfred Hitchcock Presents in the beginning of the video. ;)
This might be horrible to say but I have only seen Psycho once and no other Hitchcock film. I think it might be because my parents are from Mexico but I really appreciated this video. Those were three techniques that I don't think I ever really understood and I think the insights from Hitchcock were spot on. I'll for sure keep this in mind next time I shoot a short film/doc.
I just watched a horror film called "The Canal" from 2014. I enjoyed it for its effective creepiness and suspense. I then came across this video, which pointed out three techniques used by Hitchcock. All of which were utilized in "The Canal" quite effectively. As usual with all of your videos, I took notes for applying later to my own projects.
#1 is my favorite technique. That's something that I definitely want to focus on for my projects. But all of these techniques were great and thanks for breaking them down so thoroughly. Awesome video!
I would say the main reason Han showed up suddenly at the end of Star Wars is because Luke guilted him out of leaving just before he took off. So you could argue even that sudden appearance was derived from Luke's own actions.
One key Hitchcock technique: Point of View. As in tracking shots, shots through objects in foreground, and abstract angles mirroring the protagonist's position.
Great job. I’m a writer, and have always maintained that yes, “chance” should be avoided like adverbs, even more so. Employ it only, ONLY if you have absolutely no other choice! Thanks for the video. I really enjoyed it.
When the audience knows more than the charters that is called dramatic irony not suspense. Suspense is when the audience knows the same amount of exposition as the characters do. Both can be used as examples of tension.
Great video, Sven! I think I would really enjoy it, if some of the big contemporary movie productions used just really long steady shots to build up tension .. Hitchcock made his movies decades before I was born but jet I am just really impressed and drawn into the story which really speaks for the power of his art
UK TV series Dr Who used the Hitchcock suspense method for 26 seasons from 1963-89. Titles like The Robots of Death and the story has the main characters arrive in a ship full of friendly robot helpers. The title tells us from the start the friendly robots are going to kill everyone.
About suspense (bear with me here). The team behind the original Roadrunner/Wile E Coyote cartoons were masters of building suspense and anticipation. As Wile E built his elaborate contraption, it wasn't the building that held your attention, it was trying to figure out how it would all go so hilariously wrong, then waiting to see if you were right.
Pure Cinema is taken from silent movie era, Kubrick admitted that his inspiration is silent movies, where stage, human body and face language, camera angle, slow camera pace is more important than dialoge, is like to be art gallery.Vertigo most famous Hitchcock movie where paintings in art gallery becomes alive in dream sequence. Chaplin don't wanted transition to speakies movie because he thought it will ruins perfectly paced dance choreography of physical comedy.
Attention to detail was also Hitchcock's method. Evident by the way the clip ends. Check out the hole in the wall. This isn't just some pervert. This is one that has become a pro, scraping the wall around the hole so he has a clear pov of all angles. How brilliant was that? Obviously the initial idea was to open a hole in the wall. Did he ever talk about it? Say who came up with that adjustment?
Regarding #3 Chance. What about the ending of North By Northwest? Is that not someone else swooping in to save the day? I've been thinking about this kind of thing a lot, because I recently made a video about The Last Jedi and how often characters need intervention from a 3rd party to overcome obstacles. But this kind of outside intervention isn't unusual, especially for Star Wars, so I had to think about what the difference is. I think it's because first, as you said, it's use should be limited. Second, the obstacle that the hero is helped with is an additional obstacle to whatever the hero is ACTIVELY trying to solve. Luke is trying to blow up the death star, that's the obstacle that he's worried about. Vader is trying to stop him, Han stops Vader from stopping Luke. Never mind that we REALLY want Han to come back. In NBNW, Cary Grant is trying to save the girl from falling to her death. The bad guy is trying to stop him from saving the girl. Then he gets shot by Sheriff who arrived in the nick of time. In both instances our heroes were saved by a 3rd party who we already knew, that had a plausible reason for being there to save our heroes who were actively trying to solve a problem.
As McKee says (paraphrasing), 'you can use coincidence to get your characters into trouble and it will remain believable, but if you use it for resolution it becomes hackneyed deus ex machina.'
the other great hitchcock technique was in Frenzy when the killer took the unknowing woman upstairs to his flat in the middle of the day while the camera panned away to the busy street. Hitchcock didn't have to show any violence in that scene yet the audience knew what was going to happen. No other director would have thought of that.
Hey Sven, your outro music makes you hipper than Casey Neistat - he uses it as his entry song in his newest video!! "sad story" Rear window is also my favourite! Nice Vid!
watched them back to back and thought - "hey, that's it the same key! weird." :) btw: Good seeing Casey share a bit of emotion again after months of fast cars, helicopters and never taking off the glasses ever. Ich wünsch dir ein schönes Wochenende!
This was great! I would love if someone would do a video on how to break down Short Film structure, just getting started as an independent filmmaker I really want to do Short Film’s because I don’t have the resources to do a feature film and I find that all my ideas are feature ideas and it’s challenging for me to get the story structure for Short Film‘s because although it’s similar it is different because it Hass to be so quick and the preparation and execution is different than from a feature film
You mention CoM for shock but the parts of the movie where the leads escape the farm and the car won't start is extremely suspenseful cause the movie has already revealed that they are in grave danger.
@@ozziez7997 Hitchcock once facetiously said that he treated actors like cattle. Meaning he wanted to emphasize the story and plot development over the scenery chewing. People would go to a Brando movie to see Brando "act". That's why my favorite actor is Frank Sinatra because I don't notice the acting.
I would disagree slightly with making Hitchcock's rule about chance too firm and say this: random chance and accidental outcomes are *major* characters in our real lives. It would be a poor limitation if we were to say that fiction can never explore this. The real problem is if you are invoking a deus ex machina because you're lazy or unaware or you've written yourself into a corner. Woody Allen's _Match Point_ comes to mind. I think I can say without spoilers that the film deliberately uses something like a deus ex machina to make statements about justice, success & privilege. I won't claim it's a perfect film, but its chance events work because they're a deliberate artistic choice that serve dramatic & thematic purposes.
The worst trope in a film is the hero is helped through chance or a savior so he/she can complete their task. Hitchcock protagonists had to get themselves out of their situations. Hitchcock was known for throwing ordinary people into extraordinary circumstances and having to get out of the situation without magic, chance, or trickery.
Nice video. Thanks for doing what you do. I think Hitchcock's worst movie was Family Plot. It just seemed not up to his standards. Anyways, Best day & Best wishes to you & yours. :)
If you wanna study visuals, study old movies, because they HAD to know how to deliver everything visually. If you wanna study sound, study the following generation, the people that had to figure out how to actually, effectively use sound.
Luke wasn't saved by Han Solo becaus he "just so happened to stumple upon the scene" but because of the very things Luke told Han before the fight started.
Had the same thought, as long as the character's choices impacted whatever it is that "stumbles in", it's still a result of the character's actions. Like ripples in a pond, the character's actions can prompt others in turn.
Very nice summary - and eliminating chance at the end of the story is equivalent to ruling out deus ex machina, (thank goodness) - the laziest form of resolution, but surprisingly common - from Lord of the Rings, Star Wars right back to Dickens, and the Greeks, of course. Aristotle would salute dear Hitchcock. And with regard to the development of cinema, Hitchcock was an incredible innovator - perhaps overlooked by some because he worked in the commercial mainstream cinema.
Well said. Unfortunately he was never awarded an Oscar (except for the Thalberg).
Thanks Sven, truly honoured by the pin - Hitch not getting an Oscar may have been due to the low esteem in which the suspense genre was held - that was his take on it, anyway, although he was referring to the calibre of actors he could attract for Saboteur and the like ( which is another gem, the cast of characters is incredible).
Just for information, North by Northwest, Notorious, Lifeboat, Foreign Correspondent, Torn Curtain to name a few, were original screenplays, not adaptions - and source material was frequently changed, such as the reveal of the true identity of Kim Novak's character half way through Vertigo (thereby increasing the suspense). In fact, Hitchcock and his wife Alma Reville were script supervisors/editors for most of his films. As a director very much in charge of the look and final cut of his films, the claim that he was responsible for the story structure of his films is a fair one - and not only because he chose the story.
I agree with the exposition through visuals, but the suspense and the deus ex machina I wouldn't be so sure. I think the use of the last two depends of the story you are telling. Those are more genre oriented tools, SilverBrook mentioned 3 perfect examples of those techniques used correctly. But for example Whiplash use the chance in a very stupid way, and don't even get me started on Marvel movies use of deus ex machina.
One technique that Hitchcock loved was constantly cutting from action to reaction. Having characters look at something, showing what they see, then cutting back to the response, and continuing to do this over and over. It's basically a subpoint of #1 Pure Cinema, but something I thought I'd point out.
Is he a grandfatherly figure watching a child play or a dirty old man ogling someone too young for him? Same expression, same smile, but the shot of what he's looking at is what leads to the audience interpretation of the actor's expression. This was a favorite explanation of his.
One of my favorite variations of this is in "Rope" when we don't even see those being reacted to, during the chicken-strangling exchange--just Rupert's bemused smirk and sustained gaze. We, as the informed audience, are in suspense as to how much he is figuring out.
ruclips.net/video/px4fKJouvy8/видео.html
Well, Hitchcock also teaches us that having script that doesn't suck from the get go might help your film.
Bad filmmaking can sabotage a good script. I've seen plenty of comedies where the comedy failed basically because the director didn't know how to stage visual comedy. The same goes for thrillers. Like the scene from "Marnie" used as an example in this video: the scene works beautifully thanks to the way Hitchcock CHOSE to present it, but most other directors wouldn't have the skills or mindset to get anywhere near the same amount of tension out of it. A good script is normally the backbone to any memorable film, but a good script doesn't help much if the people tasked with turning the words into visual storytelling SUCKS.
@@filmidioten We tried to film our comedy sketch with some Hitchcock influences, what do you think?
ruclips.net/video/KRxjsF0hhFE/видео.html
I totally agree. Rear Window is actually one of my favorite films and it is because of these three things. For me Pure Cinema isn't as important as the others but definitely makes the story thrive even more. The reason I am in love with this movie is because of the suspense, which is built up so well because he puts himself into every situation. We fear for the consequences of his own actions, not someone else's. One of my favorite modern movies that does this brilliantly is Nightcrawler. If you enjoy Rear Window I would definitely recommend it.
One other thing is to not be afraid to use a little misdirection, but only if it makes sense from the point of view of a character who is in your story. I'm thinking about that brilliant scene where Cary Grant brings up the glass of milk in "Suspicion," where the milk itself is so bright in a dark scene, and always in frame when Joan Fontaine (I think?) is staring at it. We know her state of mind and we share it, and all by visual storytelling.
Hitchcock actually had a small light hidden in the glass of milk to make it stand out.
I remember reading that Good luck for the hero is bad for the storytelling. Bad luck for the hero, however, is great for storytelling.
I don't it's from Hitchcock altough it is a good rule.
Just like another rule, said by the creators if South Park. When deciding on elements for your story you need "Buts" and "Therefores", NEVER "And Then...". Buts and therefores drive the story forward. If theres one scene "and then" another... you're treading water.
indeed early 1930's French and German cinema did it before Hitch
@@docdoowop Can you recommend any French and German movies from the 1930s?
3:56 well Han Solo didn’t really stumble upon the scene. His arc was leading from him being a selfish mercenary to a hero who cared about the lives of others. That’s set up early and is resolved when he helps luke
wow thanks for opening my eye to this time to go study some Hitchcock films
Patrick!!! Hitchcock!!! ✅👍🏾👍🏾
I disagree with your inclusion of Star Wars as a coincidental Deus Ex Machina that Hitchcock would've hated. Han's rescue of Luke is the natural and cathartic apex to his character arc, and makes sense logically. And he doesn't "stumble upon" Luke, he makes the decision to save him, and can use Vader's single-minded pursuit of Luke to get in range unnoticed. There's fairly little coincidence involved. More than that, it doesn't interfere with Luke's arc or with the consequences of Luke's decisions; Luke trusts the force, Luke blows up the Death Star. Did he need his friend's help to accomplish it? Yes. Does that fit in line with the themes and internal logic of the film? Yes.
noted. I thought this was an interesting take on that scene... www.cracked.com/article_18719_the-tie-fighter-pilot-who-saved-day-in-star-wars.html
MusicalPlayground True. It's Lukes decison (to trust in the force) that resolves the climax of the movie. Hans decision comes before that and only resolves one conflict of the battle, not the main conflict ("heros against death star"). However another "rule" comes into play here: The audience is surprised by Hans decision and action so there is no suspense. But I think the scene has enough suspense and it is nice to add the surprise as an extra bonus there. It's hard to argue against that the original Star Wars climax is a nearly perfectly written one. However I don't think Lucas knew what he was doing there from a technical screenwriting standpoint.
This Guy Edits Interesting article. However I don't think the audience registers the misbehaviour of this one pilot as the turning point of the situation. So while a coincidence is at play the audience doesn't feel it. Also: If Darth Vader hadn't spiraled out of the line of fire he might have been next imediatly and again Luke would have had enough time. In the end Han is still the one dominating the situation and Luke is still the one resolving it.
MusicalPlayground Also, the problem with Deus Ex Machina is that the solution to the hero's problem comes from outside anything the hero does which is why it's unsatisfying. In this case, Han showing up IS the result of something Luke tried to do: convince Han to join in the fight. It works because it's a setup that is paid off.
Furthermore the scenario follows the rule of three. The first instance establishes an idea, the second sets a pattern, and the third changes it yielding a surprise. Specifically Luke has to shoot down a TIE Fighter following Biggs, Wedge has to help Luke, and Han pays off the pattern by not being a fellow Rebel pilot and having revealed himself to have had a change of heart. It's not a random development.
And also Han Solo choose to come back and help the rebel cause, that's not chance. This doesn't count as a deus ex machina.
Although I prefer Vertigo over Rear Window, both of them are amazing films! I have watched more than 30 of his films. Good video Sven. I am surprised I hadn't seen this one yet. There is a ton more you can say about his style of filmmaking but these three are definitely up there!
Indeed! In 100 percent, agreed!
Just recently gave another look at the sequence in 'The Birds' where Melanie (Tippi Hedren) waits outside the school as crows begin to gather or earlier after she has driven to Bodega Bay and crosses by boat to surprise Mitch (Rod Taylor) unnoticed.
That was followed by Brian De Palma's sixteen minute visual homage to Hitchcock in 'Body Double' where the main character who suffers from claustrophobia attempts to protect a woman from a menacing individual in a chic shopping mall.
Arguably unparalelled sequences, all three.
this is so eye opening! Love this video!
Never seen this kind of video, this helps us a lot!
Now you got me wanting to watching rear window. Never viewed it before.
It's great. I put it off for a long time but when I finally got to it I really enjoyed it. I was surprised that it's as funny as it is.
"Now you got me wanting to watching Rear Window" aka "now you got me wanting to enjoy all things that are great in life."
Did the iTunes for the collection and watched it. Was interesting doing it following the video I get more nowadays having getting to know how movies are done. Not sure wife gets it as much, she does not care for my verbalized review
I never realized that 1 coincedence that starts/sets the story and everything else after that is product of choices....that`s brilliant...
I think, in regards to visual story telling and the art of cinema, what Hitchcock said about montage theory is one of the greatest things ever. His example, with the old man and the mother and her child/the bikini-lady really shows off the power a single edit can have.
Just wanted to mention that his examples originally came from a russian filmmaker, I forgot the name. Hitchcock just quoted the results of his studies.
@@bened22 Sergei Eisenstein, specifically the Odessa Steps sequence from his "Battleship Potemkin", which included the "waking lion" montage.
ruclips.net/video/qxaefqC-k90/видео.html
It's funny the point you raise about chance, because the Psycho inspired TV show 'Bates Motel' relied extremely heavily on events just *happening* to occur at the same time in order for, say, accelerated and coinciding drama
I agree. But TV shows have their own constraints given that they are episodic and need to fill up a certain amount of time. It's even more complicated now since a lot of people binge watch a show from start to finish so the show needs to keep to the episodic nature as well as cater to those who watch a season at once.
inspired me to write again, thank you.
What I love about Hitchcock's films (and many older films in general) is that they focus on dialogue, tension and the slow reveal of information over flashy set pieces and aesthetics.
They're far more intellectually interesting than modern CGI laden blockbusters where it's all about lens filters, fast cuts, edgy jokes and constantly throwing stuff at the audience.
I was already familiar with the first two techniques, and I think I learnt them well, but the third one was like a breath of fresh air... suddenly I understand why some Game Of Thrones episodes annoy the hell out of me. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, Sven!
Ps. I got your impression of Alfred Hitchcock Presents in the beginning of the video. ;)
This might be horrible to say but I have only seen Psycho once and no other Hitchcock film. I think it might be because my parents are from Mexico but I really appreciated this video. Those were three techniques that I don't think I ever really understood and I think the insights from Hitchcock were spot on. I'll for sure keep this in mind next time I shoot a short film/doc.
I just watched a horror film called "The Canal" from 2014. I enjoyed it for its effective creepiness and suspense. I then came across this video, which pointed out three techniques used by Hitchcock. All of which were utilized in "The Canal" quite effectively. As usual with all of your videos, I took notes for applying later to my own projects.
Thank you for your amazing Hitchcock's technique explanation
I like the segue at the end when Bates peeks through the peep hole and you say "Thanks for watching". Very cerebral :D
I too hate when a bad outcome in a movie is avoided by pure coincidence, it kind of annoys me
#1 is my favorite technique. That's something that I definitely want to focus on for my projects. But all of these techniques were great and thanks for breaking them down so thoroughly. Awesome video!
This video is gold to aspiring film makers. Thank you.
I appreciate that you used the music from Hitchcock's "Music to Murder By" album.
Very cheeky.
Loved the opening to this video, and of course the content.
Thankyou, that is very insightful and clear.
I would say the main reason Han showed up suddenly at the end of Star Wars is because Luke guilted him out of leaving just before he took off. So you could argue even that sudden appearance was derived from Luke's own actions.
One key Hitchcock technique: Point of View. As in tracking shots, shots through objects in foreground, and abstract angles mirroring the protagonist's position.
Great job. I’m a writer, and have always maintained that yes, “chance” should be avoided like adverbs, even more so. Employ it only, ONLY if you have absolutely no other choice!
Thanks for the video. I really enjoyed it.
Well said!
When the audience knows more than the charters that is called dramatic irony not suspense. Suspense is when the audience knows the same amount of exposition as the characters do. Both can be used as examples of tension.
Amazing channel ! I'm eager to see your next videos :)
I loooove Hitchcock, thank you for the videos!
aand subbed, your advice is like gold
Great video, Sven! I think I would really enjoy it, if some of the big contemporary movie productions used just really long steady shots to build up tension .. Hitchcock made his movies decades before I was born but jet I am just really impressed and drawn into the story which really speaks for the power of his art
I love Rear Window, but North by Northwest is my favorite Hitchcock!
Great reminders - thank you!
Just discovered your channel, great work :)
your videos are awesome and brilliant!!great video!!!
UK TV series Dr Who used the Hitchcock suspense method for 26 seasons from 1963-89. Titles like The Robots of Death and the story has the main characters arrive in a ship full of friendly robot helpers. The title tells us from the start the friendly robots are going to kill everyone.
That certainly gives me something to think about... :)
I appreciate this. I am looking to start working on my first film and this video has been very insightful.
great video, we should start to think more about the story and less about the FX or other thinks
A thoughtful presentation. I enjoyed it.
Thank you this was very helpful and informative 👍👍
About suspense (bear with me here). The team behind the original Roadrunner/Wile E Coyote cartoons were masters of building suspense and anticipation. As Wile E built his elaborate contraption, it wasn't the building that held your attention, it was trying to figure out how it would all go so hilariously wrong, then waiting to see if you were right.
Good concise video on the subject.
Rear Window is one of my favorites but if you havent seen it, I would suggest Lifeboat. Great video sir :)
Very well put, thank you!
Pure Cinema is taken from silent movie era, Kubrick admitted that his inspiration is silent movies, where stage, human body and face language, camera angle, slow camera pace is more important than dialoge, is like to be art gallery.Vertigo most famous Hitchcock movie where paintings in art gallery becomes alive in dream sequence.
Chaplin don't wanted transition to speakies movie because he thought it will ruins perfectly paced dance choreography of physical comedy.
*fascinating!* Damn I love film analysis
Make more videos. Nice work . Easy and clear. Thanks a lot
Great analysis! These techniques are definitely not used anymore even though they come from a very good place in cinema.
Glad you think so!
It seems like you're describing Better Call Saul.
BCS is damn good. Damn good.
Excellent video! Well done!
Attention to detail was also Hitchcock's method. Evident by the way the clip ends. Check out the hole in the wall. This isn't just some pervert. This is one that has become a pro, scraping the wall around the hole so he has a clear pov of all angles. How brilliant was that? Obviously the initial idea was to open a hole in the wall. Did he ever talk about it? Say who came up with that adjustment?
Regarding #3 Chance. What about the ending of North By Northwest? Is that not someone else swooping in to save the day?
I've been thinking about this kind of thing a lot, because I recently made a video about The Last Jedi and how often characters need intervention from a 3rd party to overcome obstacles. But this kind of outside intervention isn't unusual, especially for Star Wars, so I had to think about what the difference is. I think it's because first, as you said, it's use should be limited. Second, the obstacle that the hero is helped with is an additional obstacle to whatever the hero is ACTIVELY trying to solve. Luke is trying to blow up the death star, that's the obstacle that he's worried about. Vader is trying to stop him, Han stops Vader from stopping Luke. Never mind that we REALLY want Han to come back. In NBNW, Cary Grant is trying to save the girl from falling to her death. The bad guy is trying to stop him from saving the girl. Then he gets shot by Sheriff who arrived in the nick of time.
In both instances our heroes were saved by a 3rd party who we already knew, that had a plausible reason for being there to save our heroes who were actively trying to solve a problem.
rear window- greatest movie ever made
hitchcock - best movie director ever
Very nice summary next guy plz ~
Rear Window is my favorite of his movies too even though others get more attention.
Great Irish director, Hitchcock. Well-told,well-timed, well-intentioned.
These are really useful thanks!!
Great explanation.. I am going to watch some Hitchcock
¡Gracias por este video! Un gran abrazo desde Ecuador.
Great video! Keep it up
As McKee says (paraphrasing), 'you can use coincidence to get your characters into trouble and it will remain believable, but if you use it for resolution it becomes hackneyed deus ex machina.'
the other great hitchcock technique was in Frenzy when the killer took the unknowing woman upstairs to his flat in the middle of the day while the camera panned away to the busy street. Hitchcock didn't have to show any violence in that scene yet the audience knew what was going to happen. No other director would have thought of that.
Excellent commentary.
Loved it, thank you!
They do seem like a great thing to base the script on, but not necessarily something you should desperately cling to no matter what
Pure Cinema, Suspense, Chance - Robert Zemeckis figured that out too in Back to the Future.
Thank you for the great instructions...
Well made, thank you.
Regarding the dues ex machina of Han saving Luke, have a look at what Film Crit Hulk wrote on location 7998 of "Screenwriting 101".
Very instructive!
🙌🏻🙌🏻👏🏼👏🏼AMAZING! THANK YOU!
Hey Sven, your outro music makes you hipper than Casey Neistat - he uses it as his entry song in his newest video!!
"sad story"
Rear window is also my favourite! Nice Vid!
made my day, that you noticed :)
watched them back to back and thought - "hey, that's it the same key! weird." :)
btw: Good seeing Casey share a bit of emotion again after months of fast cars, helicopters and never taking off the glasses ever.
Ich wünsch dir ein schönes Wochenende!
This was great! I would love if someone would do a video on how to break down Short Film structure, just getting started as an independent filmmaker I really want to do Short Film’s because I don’t have the resources to do a feature film and I find that all my ideas are feature ideas and it’s challenging for me to get the story structure for Short Film‘s because although it’s similar it is different because it Hass to be so quick and the preparation and execution is different than from a feature film
Are you doing the #Hitchcock50 course? Your timing is perfect for it!
You mention CoM for shock but the parts of the movie where the leads escape the farm and the car won't start is extremely suspenseful cause the movie has already revealed that they are in grave danger.
This is why I love black and white movies
great tips!
Thanks
Please do an Essay on Blocking
0:40 could have been a quote by me, for sure.
In his movies "stars" are subordinate. Imagine a ham like Brando in one of his movies.
What do you mean?
@@ozziez7997 Hitchcock once facetiously said that he treated actors like cattle. Meaning he wanted to emphasize the story and plot development over the scenery chewing. People would go to a Brando movie to see Brando "act". That's why my favorite actor is Frank Sinatra because I don't notice the acting.
Thank you!
Christopher Nolan should seriously pay attention to that #1 advice.
Great video!! Thx
Rope is my favorite Hitchcock film ever
I would disagree slightly with making Hitchcock's rule about chance too firm and say this: random chance and accidental outcomes are *major* characters in our real lives. It would be a poor limitation if we were to say that fiction can never explore this. The real problem is if you are invoking a deus ex machina because you're lazy or unaware or you've written yourself into a corner. Woody Allen's _Match Point_ comes to mind. I think I can say without spoilers that the film deliberately uses something like a deus ex machina to make statements about justice, success & privilege. I won't claim it's a perfect film, but its chance events work because they're a deliberate artistic choice that serve dramatic & thematic purposes.
The worst trope in a film is the hero is helped through chance or a savior so he/she can complete their task. Hitchcock protagonists had to get themselves out of their situations. Hitchcock was known for throwing ordinary people into extraordinary circumstances and having to get out of the situation without magic, chance, or trickery.
just loved it..
Nice video. Thanks for doing what you do. I think Hitchcock's worst movie was Family Plot. It just seemed not up to his standards. Anyways, Best day & Best wishes to you & yours. :)
I kinda dig Family Plot for being so out there and different from all his other films. It's huggable :)
I just did not feel it to be Hitchcock caliber. my favorite Hitchcock film is Stranger On A Train and Rope.
I can give it huggable. :)
I think you are no more editor... Cinematographer and writer ... ur videos are very Useful
If you wanna study visuals, study old movies, because they HAD to know how to deliver everything visually. If you wanna study sound, study the following generation, the people that had to figure out how to actually, effectively use sound.
Thanks for making me watch movies I would've probably found boring otherwise :D
I think I'm ready to direct a film.
Luke wasn't saved by Han Solo becaus he "just so happened to stumple upon the scene" but because of the very things Luke told Han before the fight started.
Had the same thought, as long as the character's choices impacted whatever it is that "stumbles in", it's still a result of the character's actions. Like ripples in a pond, the character's actions can prompt others in turn.
Exactly! It was part of Hans character arc to grow as a person and in turn, save the day. That's why its part of the story and not a coincidence.