Im a big Hitchcock fan but hadn’t seen this film untill now. It was a great contrast in directing and filming style and I really loved the visual metaphors brought up in the lecture, especially the one relating to the bars of the gate and the trapped feeling Guy must have felt as well as the viewer in empathy.
I really loved the intro because of its unconventional style. The feet walking was an interesting way to introduce us to the main characters with the same newness and “bumped into you by accident” interaction Guy must have experienced, even if it was intentional by Bruno. Like when I walk down the sidewalk lost in thought, looking at my feet or looking up at buildings, I related the scene to a near collision with a stranger and that second of eye contact and apology. The scene put what is a personal experience into its best translation into film. I always thought Hitchcock was great at that.
I thought from the moment Bruno spoke that there was an underlying gay motif to the film so I kept an eye out. It was as tangled in the book as in the film but nevertheless undeniable. It made for some interesting dynamics to the true motive of the relationship, was Bruno in love with Guy? Was guy alienated by Bruno because of his flamboyant nature? Guy was a fairly generic character and lacked a personality worth writing home about, let alone any respectable decision making/take charge attitude I would have expected from a “hero”. This did make the story deeper though as you were forced to look deeper into Bruno, although I felt we never got to know much about him either. At least he wasn’t as generic a villain as in “Mad Love”.
Comments are closed.