I can't help but notice that today's movies and programs have very
little suspense. What I mean is that the viewer isn't required to
participate in the cinematic effect. They are honestly rendered mind
dead.

One case is "Bate's Motel". We all know the only thing it had to do with
Psycho was the house, the names of the cast and the motel. The
viewer wasn't required to participate. This is much different from a
participant in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. He makes certain that the
viewer participates. He shows us up front that a bomb is hidden and
we want to tell the antagonist. In Bate's Motel we didn't care. There
wasn't any suspense. Hitch let us see what was about to happen.
We were terrified. Bate's Motel was anticipated. There was nothing
left to the imagination. We weren't allowed to think.

Mind you, this is only an example. Why don't directors want us to
think?

I can't help but notice that today's movies and programs have very
little suspense. What I mean is that the viewer isn't required to
participate in the cinematic effect. They are honestly rendered mind
dead.

One case is "Bate's Motel". We all know the only thing it had to do with
Psycho was the house, the names of the cast and the motel. The
viewer wasn't required to participate. This is much different from a
participant in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. He makes certain that the
viewer participates. He shows us up front that a bomb is hidden and
we want to tell the antagonist. In Bate's Motel we didn't care. There
wasn't any suspense. Hitch let us see what was about to happen.
We were terrified. Bate's Motel was anticipated. There was nothing
left to the imagination. We weren't allowed to think.

Mind you, this is only an example. Why don't directors want us to
think?

Movies that make you think don't sell as well and require better writers.
I have a friend who tells me that she didn't like the Matrix movie (the original) because it was too complicated.
To quote a movie: Mediocrities of the world, I absolve you!

Good movies are still being made. You're just not likely to them at Tinseltown.

Why don't directors want us to think?

Hmmmmm...maybe because once you have reached into your back pocket, pulled out your wallet, and handed over $12.00 to watch their movie, they don't give a flip about whether or not ya think. Ya think?

7961

...
I have a friend who tells me that she didn't like the Matrix movie (the original) because it was too complicated.
...

And yet, it was the only one that was worth the time. The other two were fantastic ... If one were 12 and not prone to dozing off during the boorrring fight claptrap.

I can't help but notice that today's movies and programs have very
little suspense. What I mean is that the viewer isn't required to
participate in the cinematic effect. They are honestly rendered mind
dead.

One case is "Bate's Motel". We all know the only thing it had to do with
Psycho was the house, the names of the cast and the motel. The
viewer wasn't required to participate. This is much different from a
participant in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. He makes certain that the
viewer participates. He shows us up front that a bomb is hidden and
we want to tell the antagonist. In Bate's Motel we didn't care. There
wasn't any suspense. Hitch let us see what was about to happen.
We were terrified. Bate's Motel was anticipated. There was nothing
left to the imagination. We weren't allowed to think.

Mind you, this is only an example. Why don't directors want us to
think?

I'm thinking that we may not totally want to use Alfred Hitchcock as a good example. He certainly was into mind games and making his leading ladies think.

Alfred Hitchcock bio swoops in on leading ladies - USATODAY.com (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/books/reviews/2008-11-05-hitchcock-bio_N.htm)



In the history of cinema, few films have proven as durable as those that sprang from the warped psyche of Alfred Hitchcock. The rotund British-born director, whose 60-plus features included such nerve-racking thrillers as Strangers on a Train, Rear Window and Psycho, possessed an unerring ability to distill humanity's deepest fears and darkest desires into exquisitely crafted popular art.

What was behind this talent for turning such perverse thematic elements as voyeurism, bondage and murder fantasies into mainstream entertainment?

According to Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies, celebrity biographer Donald Spoto's latest dissection of the master of suspense's work, it was partly derived from a sexually repressed outcast's Svengali-like compulsion to manipulate and mistreat a long line of unattainable icy blondes.
Actors got off easy. Hitchcock barely paid attention to such male leads as Gregory Peck and Jimmy Stewart. Instead he zeroed in on his actresses, especially the green ones.


He pecked away at their insecurities, whispered filthy remarks right before they faced the camera and forced them to do countless takes of physically demanding scenes. Hitchcock might have been trying to summon a certain expression or reaction, but he regularly went too far. As he once said, "Nothing pleases me more than to knock the ladylikeness out of them."

Hitchcock was one of the greatest directors of all time, probably in the top 3. Asking why they don't make movies like him is like asking why they don't compose like Beethoven anymore.

There are still good, suspenseful movies that get made, but it's easier to put a lot of CGI crap on the screen, so that's what we see most of the time. Remember, 90% of everything is crap.

... Asking why they don't make movies like him is like asking why
they don't compose like Beethoven anymore.
I'm not asking why they don't make movies like him. That's obvious.
I don't understand the dumbing down.



There are still good, suspenseful movies that get made...
Such as?

Christoper Nolan made some pretty good pre-Batman movies. Try Memento and The Prestige.

Christoper Nolan made some pretty good pre-Batman movies. Try
Memento and The Prestige.
No doubt they're very good and I like them. However they aren't
suspenseful and not much is left to the imagination. I think of them
as thrillers. The same goes for the Bourne" series which I especially
liked.

So have you actually seen them? I wouldn't really put Memento or The Prestige in the same genre as the Bourne movies.

I saw this appear on our Home Television Screen at least a dozen (perhaps twice or mayhaps thrice?) times before my parents allowed me to actually view "Psycho" in a movie theater, (a few years later)

It was probably a case of good parenting.
Or time management and stuff like that there . . .
Helps me to put Downtown Abbey . . . Etc. and so forth . . . including "Are You Being Served?" in Proper Perspective. =)
flD-aRMwcjs

There was a definite rule against watching "The Television Version of 'The Untouchables'" on account of it was too violent.
Even with Robert Stack as the star.

Edited to Add: Wasn't this Thread about Alfred Hitchcock and Using Minds?
(or did I miss something?)

I can't help but notice that today's movies and programs have very
little suspense. What I mean is that the viewer isn't required to
participate in the cinematic effect. They are honestly rendered mind
dead.

One case is "Bate's Motel". We all know the only thing it had to do with
Psycho was the house, the names of the cast and the motel. The
viewer wasn't required to participate. This is much different from a
participant in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. He makes certain that the
viewer participates. He shows us up front that a bomb is hidden and
we want to tell the antagonist. In Bate's Motel we didn't care. There
wasn't any suspense. Hitch let us see what was about to happen.
We were terrified. Bate's Motel was anticipated. There was nothing
left to the imagination. We weren't allowed to think.

Mind you, this is only an example. Why don't directors want us to
think?

I think it goes back to Hitchcock's distinction between suspense and surprise. He was obviously more interested in the former. I don't necessarily think directors don't want us to think anymore, but I would agree that true suspense is hard to come by, especially Hitchcock's brand of it. IMO, it has a lot to do with time. Good suspense takes time to develop and it seems the conventional wisdom is that today's general audience won't wait for it. I think some of the most suspenseful sequences contain little to no action. Think of the first act of Psycho. Basically, nothing happens, she drives around and checks into a motel and has an odd conversation with a loner motel operator. This goes on much longer than I think today's audiences would put up with, but there's a ton of tension. Bernard Hermann's score obviously has a lot to do with it, but you can tell that it was a very deliberate set up where you know something is off, but you don't know what. You're just left waiting for it to happen, but you don't have any idea when. That's suspense. The effect in that example is probably muted today because of the notoriety of the shower scene, but I can still feel the suspense after several viewings. Of course, he approached a lot of his work this way, but Psycho always seemed to me to be one long attempt to max out his theory on suspense in cinema.

But we also have to remember that Hitchcock was a bit of anomaly even in his time. I think there's always been plenty of brain dead escapist cinematic fare. But today's lack of a master of suspense is partly due to the fact it's a hard genre to pull off effectively and that wider audiences seem more interested in or only have the patience for easier to pull off devices like surprise and endless action. And I guess if everyone was cranking out Vertigos every week, Hitchcock wouldn't have been that big a deal. There also may be a television effect going on. It seems a lot of creators interested in suspense are working on television shows like Breaking Bad where they can develop the tension over several hours spread out over multiple episodes.

Off the top of my head though, I think when Fincher and the Coen brothers want to do suspense, they're pretty successful at it.

I can agree with where you are going BDP. There seems to be this nostalgic notion that old movies were inherently better. Some of them were, most of them weren't. People tend to just remember the good ones or the notoriously bad ones. I don't think people have changed that much and I would guess that the
1960's have about the same percentage of pure crap movies that today has.

I think it goes back to Hitchcock's distinction between suspense and
surprise. He was obviously more interested in the former.
No doubt. I like the distinction between suspense and surprise.
Sometimes surprise is good after a dose of suspense. Case in point
Norman attacking Arbogast. It was totally unsuspected. A surprise
but, due to the previous scenes of suspense, a release of emotion.


I don't necessarily think directors don't want us to think anymore,
but I would agree that true suspense is hard to come by, especially
Hitchcock's brand of it. IMO, it has a lot to do with time. Good suspense
takes time to develop and it seems the conventional wisdom is that
today's general audience won't wait for it.
Timing is of utmost importance with good cinema.

I'm thinking back on several movies made over the last 20 years.

There is an element of suspense in some of the thrillers, one good
example is "Stolen" with Nicholas Cage. There are some very good
elements of suspense, however, they are quenched by a lack of
"timing".

BDP, thanks for bringing that element into the discussion.
Unfortunately for myself, I equate timing with comedy more so than
with drama. Perhaps a lack of timing is a better description of
today's movies.

"You've Got Mail" is a comedy with a good use of suspense. I
believe it's a pseudo remake of "An Affair to Remember".

I can agree with where you are going BDP. There seems to be this
nostalgic notion that old movies were inherently better.
I'm not attempting to make that point. As you said, there are many,
many old movies that are bad.

To momentarily leave the Hitchcock theme, I like Silverado. It's about
as good of a western as any "older" westerns. Most movies with
Meryl Streep are very good, as are most with Tom Hanks. I watched
a movie with Leonardo DiCapprio, can't think of the title, and it was
very good.

Perhaps this would be a good time to "hijack the thread" and list
some of our favorite movies of the past 20 years. Truthfully I'm at
a loss.

National Treasure
Music of the Heart
Bourne Identity
Big (dang) 1988

There are several great scenes from Silence of the Lambs. I still love the scene where Clarice is ringing a doorbell, and we cut to the inside of a house and see the killer going to get the door. That was incredibly suspenseful, IMO.

There are several great scenes from Silence of the Lambs. I still love the scene where Clarice is ringing a doorbell, and we cut to the inside of a house and see the killer going to get the door. That was incredibly suspenseful, IMO.

That's not the way it goes down in the movie. It's a huge fake-out. The FBI are ringing the doorbell at what they believe is Buffalo Bill's house in Illinois. Cut to Bill's interior where the doorbell is ringing. The FBI then storms the Illinois house, which they discover is vacant. We don't know Clarice is the one ringing the bell at Bill's real house in Ohio until he opens up the door on her.

That's not the way it goes down in the movie. It's a huge fake-out. The FBI are ringing the doorbell at what they believe is Buffalo Bill's house in Illinois. Cut to Bill's interior where the doorbell is ringing. The FBI then storms the Illinois house, which they discover is vacant. We don't know Clarice is the one ringing the bell at Bill's real house in Ohio until he opens up the door on her.

Yeah, Bad grey matter work there. I'll have to watch again.

Wasn't trying to get all pedantic on you or anything. Just rewatched it the other day so it's very fresh in my mind.

BDP, thanks for bringing that element into the discussion.
Unfortunately for myself, I equate timing with comedy more so than
with drama. Perhaps a lack of timing is a better description of
today's movies.

I think it's more of a use of time, that is more of it, than just timing. Which may just be another way of saying the same thing, but suspense is all about the waiting and you can't do that without stretching the time line.

I was thinking about this and another element, in addition to prolonged lack of action, an extended period of screen time without dialogue is also something that's very effective with suspense and also something I think most would feel is not conducive to today's audiences. When talking about getting the viewer to use their minds, I don't think anything can be more effective than showing events unfold without dialogue and without voice over. Vertigo is one of the best examples of this. He's just following her around forever. There's no spoon feeding through voice over or through Scottie talking to himself. You have to figure it out just like Scottie does, through watching alone. Not only does the force the viewer to engross themselves in a purely cinematic moment and think only of the visuals, but it forces them to actively engage in the mystery and suspense as it unfolds in front of them.

Perhaps this would be a good time to "hijack the thread" and list
some of our favorite movies of the past 20 years. Truthfully I'm at
a loss.

National Treasure
Music of the Heart
Bourne Identity
Big (dang) 1988Glad you mentioned National Treasure. I think it came fairly close to some of Hitchcock's lesser works when it came to building suspense, and then releasing it with surprise. While it had more than its share of violent action, it used that as the surprise element rather than having it happen continually.

Sometimes surprise is good after a dose of suspense. Case in point
Norman attacking Arbogast.

Dude, WTF? Spoilers!!!






















;)

IMO, it has a lot to do with time. Good suspense takes time to develop and it seems the conventional wisdom is that today's general audience won't wait for it. I think some of the most suspenseful sequences contain little to no action.

It's "tension" and "release". Making a good thriller is a lot like building a good rollercoaster. The best rollercoasters don't just haul you to the top, then let you twist and turn your way to the bottom. No...the best ones include several spots where you say, "Whew...I made it" only to find yourself building back into another harrowing descent. Tension and release. It doesn't have to be big. It can be a series of small events. Prune...it's no different than trying to describe to someone how to play the perfect solo. There is no real formula because so much of it is based upon feel. But the primary thing is that it's not flat. It's up...down...loud...soft...full of dynamics that drag the viewer/listener along for the ride.

I agree with the rollercoaster theory (sometimes literally). Although not in the Hitchcock genre, some of my most enjoyed movies were of that type...Star Wars, Indiana Jones, the Star Trek reboot, Jurassic Park etc. They don't always make sense and highly improbable but fun never the less.