--- Patrick King <
abrasax93@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're weird, William! Needless to say, I
completely
> disagree with you. MARNIE is not a
generalization
> about all women. It is a very specific story about
a
> specific psychological reaction to events, and
for
> mainstream film making, it was groundbreaking in
its
> day (1966). In my opinion it's Hitchcock's
most
> under-rated film. Wonderfully cast even
in
> supporting
> roles.
>
Oh? Let's see, Evan Hunter (Ed McBain) either quit or was
fired from Marnie because he didn't think that rape was an
acceptable method of marital behavior modification. Yet,
Hitchcock did and insisted on the scene to torment Tipi
Hendren who had -- as they said in the day -- spurned
Hitchcock's advances. On some days -- according to people who
have written histories of the film -- Hitchcock didn't even
show up for scenes with Hendren to show his contempt for her.
One could make the case that the film was about Hitchcock and
Hendron. Ground-breaking? Like that idiotic fox hunting
scene? Get a grip. For a fox hunting scene see Hitchcock's
The Farmer's Wife. That's cinema. And those dreadful
paintings and rear-projections? It seems you like flat
characters floating through fake scenery and posturing all
sorts of importance. That's what you get in Marnie and that's
what you get with Woody Allen.
William
Essays and Ramblings
<http://www.williamahearn.com>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Feb 2008 EST