NUMBER 17

(July 1932, U.S.)

Alfred Hitchcock's NUMBER 17 is actually one of the more frustrating films I've ever had to watch! Don't get me wrong - it's not a bad film (I wouldn't be discussing it if it were). The problem is that the film falls into the category of Hitchcock's array of early British films that have fallen into the public domain of DVD release, which unfortunately, leaves many versions of this black and white classic very grainy and a little tough (and frustrating!) to watch, particularly in the era we presently live in where the high definition experience of Blu-Ray discs are the norm for watching films. Nonetheless, once you can settle your eyes, ears and mind on the film and take in the suspense that Hitchcock was infamous for, it actually becomes quite an entertaining experience, and all in the running time of just sixty-four minutes.

Admittedly, there is another source of frustration with this film and that's plot and characters. Again, not that they're bad in any way, they're just about as difficult and confusing to keep up with as any complex Agatha Christie agenda. Believe it or not, I actually had to re-familiarize myself with the basic synopsis on the web before sitting down to take this film in. At the heart of the story is the simple case of a jewelry heist already taken place and a group of people who are on the trail of a valuable, stolen necklace. It begins with a lone detective by the name of Barton (played by John Stuart - NOT the political satirist!) entering an ordinary London house that appears to be for sale or rent. Once inside, though, the atmosphere is dark and rather creepy, complete with the sound of howling winds and close-up shots of mysterious hands reaching for door knobs and staircases, even reminiscent of German Expressionist films. Here's a sample...

Oh yeah, and did I mention that there's also what appears to be a dead body at the top of those stairs? Enter now a very strange vagrant who's squatting inside the house by the name of only Ben (played by Leon Lion - no joke, that's really his name!). Ben appears to be a simple idiot who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. He's a man who's clearly meant to be the film's comic relief and social lap dog as he continuously follows those who are smarter than him and repeatedly calling every other man, "Guv'nor" in that thick cockney accent of his. So what's started out as one man, leads to two and inevitably leads to a whole group of people who have entered this strange house in search of the same stolen necklace, including the thieves themselves. It would also appear that nearly everyone is not exactly who they really claim to be (I told you the characters were confusing!) and even one woman who is supposed to be deaf and dumb ends up surprising everyone (and us) by talking when the moment call for it. The thieves themselves are also not even your traditional thieves. Remember, this is an English film, so believe it or not, we're dealing with very proper, well dressed thieves who are very particular in their manners, remembering to say please when they pull a gun on their targets and also apologize for the inconvenience. Ah yes, only in Great Britain!

Despite its charm and its class, Hitchcock reminds us that this is still a suspense film with good folks and bad folks. For its time, there is violence and gunshots, but they're either very subdued or even sped up in the film to include it as almost part of the dreary atmosphere itself. Atmosphere is what Hitchcock clearly intends to give us here, nearly making the action and suspense almost secondary...in all but one sequence, though. For its getaway climax, the thieves are prepared to board and hijack a moving train out of London, and I must say, for an early black and white film of 1932, this is a better and more exciting action sequence that one might expect, particularly when the train is running out of control and inevitably crashes in the end. One can't help but wonder if director Brian DePalma was inspired by this film when he created his own speeding train climax in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (1996). The sequence is playfully frantic and can even make some of Michael Bay's modern work appear lame (I guess that's just how much I detest most of Michael Bay's work!).

Now, you remember when I previously described the character of Ben as just a mindless oaf who only appeared to be in this film for comic relief? Well, I still stand by that, but it's also important to remember that in any traditional suspense film, nothing is how it first appears. That in mind, guess who actually ends up with the stolen, valuable necklace at the end of the film! So you see - there's dumb and there's not quite so dumb!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Ben: "Ya don't have to do nothin' in this 'ere house! Ya stand still and things happen!"

NOW VOYAGER

(October 1942, U.S.)

Were it not for the 1971 film SUMMER OF '42, I might never have exposed myself to the Bette Davis film of NOW VOYAGER, as there is a movie house sequence where the young kids of a small coastal town are spending a night at the movies and watching NOW VOYAGER from the balcony while trying to get "frisky" with each other. Though, notice that the film was released in October of 1942. So how could the film be released for viewing during the Summer of '42?? This, my friends, is just one of the many film flubs that exist throughout cinema history.

And so, having been directed to NOW VOYAGER through the use of film within a film and constant exposure to Turner Classic Movies, I'm finally aware of not only a great black and white classic, but also one of the best screen love stories I've ever seen. It's a film of extraordinary transformation as we slowly watch a very drab, overweight, ugly duckling spinster in the form of Charlotte Vale (Davis) break through the barriers of ongoing repression at the hands of her brutally dictatorial and dominating mother whose verbal and emotional abuse of her daughter has contributed to Charlotte's complete lack of self-respect and self-confidence. Fearing that she's on the verge of a nervous breakdown, her sister-in-law Lisa (played by Ilka Chase) introduces her to psychiatrist Dr. Jaquith (played by Claude Rains), who recommends she spend time in his Vermont sanatorium in order to save her sanity. Charlotte blossoms away from her mother's daily control. The transformed woman opts to take a lengthy cruise rather than immediately return home. On board the ship, she meets a married man, Jerry Durrance (played by Paul Henreid), who is traveling with his friends. We eventually learn of Jerry's devotion to his young daughter Tina and how it keeps him from divorcing his wife, a manipulative, jealous woman who doesn't love Tina and spends her life promoting her own martyrism. And so, when you have two lonely people battling their own demons on board the same cruise liner...well, faster than you can say, "The Love Boat", the two become closer and inevitably fall in love, though they decide it would be best not to see each other again.

Arriving home to Boston, this is the moment where we, the audience, look forward to Charlotte shining in her new light and finally tell her no-good mother where she can go! Her mother, however, is still determined to once again destroy her daughter, but Charlotte is resolved to remain independent (you go, girl!). The memory of Jerry's endearing love and devotion help to give her the strength she needs to remain resolute. It pays off in part that she does (gently) tell her mother to back off and also in part that her mother finally dies of heart failure (good riddance, bitch!). Now with independence comes the inherited wealth that Charlotte likely deserves after so many years of emotional hell. Rather than live in spoiled fashion, Charlotte decides to devote herself to helping Jerry's troubled daughter Tina without her knowing of Charlotte's past relationship with her father. One cannot help but feel the genuine tenderness from watching a woman who has triumphed over her own feelings of self-worth pass along what she's achieved onto another young ugly duckling whom Charlotte can perfectly relate to.

Having previously mentioned that NOW VOYAGER is one of the best love stories I've ever seen, it's important to note that the love of Charlotte and Jerry never actually reaches it's full potential. For whatever reasons we're never meant to truly understand, the two of them do not "officially" come together in the end, though their love and devotion to each other through Charlotte's care for Tina is very clear. Cinematically, there is probably nothing more touching and intriguing than forbidden love, or in this particular case, love that cannot fully come together. Like I said, we may not clearly understand the reasons why not, but sometimes in life we may only reach out and achieve what is considered second best compared to what we'd truly like to achieve, or as Charlotte beautifully puts it to Jerry at the end of the film, "Oh, Jerry, don't let's ask for the moon. We have the stars." It's also noteworthy that throughout the film Paul Henreid uses the familiarity of sharing a cigarette, with a rather famous two-cigarette scene, being used as his introduction to this lonely woman...

In fact, during a time when smoking on the movie screen was not considered risky or dangerously sending the wrong message to its younger viewers, the cigarette serves as a strong tool of true sexual seduction, though it's impossible to recognize it by today's standards. You need to go back to an era of wartime and imagine a period when film censors forbade anything directly linked to sexual activity or intention. It's all subtle but clearly powerful, nonetheless. Hell, at that time, it may have been incentive enough to take up smoking!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Charlotte Vale: "Jerry, Dr. Jaquith knows about us. When he said I could take Tina, he said you're on probation. Do you know what that means? It means that I'm on probation because of you and me. He allowed this visit as a test. If I can't stand such a test, I'll lose Tina and we'll lose each other. Jerry, please help me."
Jerry Durrance: "Shall we just have a cigarette on it?"
Charlotte: "Yes."
Jerry: "May I sometimes come here?"
Charlotte: "Whenever you like. It's your home too. There are people here who love you."
Jerry: "To look at you and Tina, and share with you peace and contentment."
Charlotte: "Of course. And just think, it won't be for this time only. That is, if you will help me keep what we have. If we both try hard to protect that little strip of territory that is ours. We can talk about your child."
Jerry: "Our child."
Charlotte: "Thank you."
Jerry: "And will you be happy, Charlotte?"
Charlotte: "Oh, Jerry, don't let's ask for the moon. We have the stars."

NO WAY OUT (1987)

(August 1987, U.S.)

For every hardcore cinematic conviction of mine, there's usually an exception or two. You've heard me rant and rave about my general distaste for remakes, and yet I can't help but confess that there do exist some remakes that I actually feel outsoar the original, though many of them fall into the genre of horror and monster movies, i.e. INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1978), DRACULA (1979), THE THING (1982) and THE FLY (1986). When I went to see NO WAY OUT on screen in August 1987 before returning to another year of college, I had absolutely no idea that it was a remake of a 1948 film called THE BIG CLOCK (a film I've previously discussed, by the way). By the end of that summer, I would have seen just about anything Kevin Costner was starring in, having already been blown away by THE UNTOUCHABLES just a couple of months prior (I went to see it twice!). Besides, the trailer looked real good and Sean Young is rather sexually smokin', despite the big 1980's hairdo...

Whereas the original film of THE BIG CLOCK was more of a direct domestic crisis of murder and deception within the walls of a powerful newspaper, NO WAY OUT is more of a modern political thriller and its focus on the corrupted figures and their abuse of powers. Similarly to the original film, there is a secret, scandalous affair and a mistress who ultimately ends up dead. For this film, we have a love triangle between said mistress Susan Atwell (Sean Young), commander Tom Farrell (Kevin Costner) and Secretary of Defense, David Brice (played by Gene Hackman). While Susan is seeing both men, it would appear that sex (including some hot backseat limo sex!) and love are only being given to Tom. It's David, though, who accidentally kills her when he jealously hits her and she falls to her death. The ironic twist here is that Tom's secret identity becomes the prime suspect here and it's specifically Tom who must lead the investigation into the mystery of who killed Susan.

(you getting all of this??)

So while Tom must appear to be making progress with Susan's murder, he must also undertake the painstaking task of hiding himself from his own investigation. It should also be noted that throughout the film's story, we're made aware of a phantom character by the name of Yuri, who's been identified as only a secret Soviet Union spy within the midst of our own United States government. Remember, this is still two years before the Cold War would officially end, so this sort of threat could still hold water on the American movie screen. As the film moves forward, Tom sets about proving that David Brice was involved with Susan by searching computer files for evidence that Brice gave her a government-registered gift he received from Morocco. Tom presents the gift-registry printout to David who shifts the blame to Pritchard, his rather disgustingly loyal assistant (played by Will Patton) arguing that Pritchard was jealous of his relationship with Susan (because Pritchard is gay and probably wants David for himself!). A devastated Pritchard ends up committing suicide and is falsely exposed as "Yuri" to the police by Brice, hoping to avoid blame for Susan's death. Who Yuri really is, we learn only at the very conclusion of the film. Guessed it yet? Well, consider how easy it is never to suspect the film's hero of being something other than what he appears to be. Guessed it yet???

NO WAY OUT is one of those films that can really give you cause to miss the 1980s, in that we simply don't see much by way of the cat-and-mouse labyrinth of political thrillers and the effective use of Washington D.C. and its government corruption anymore. Those simple intriguing thrills by way of classic Alfred Hitchcock have been (unfortunately) replaced by the harsh realities of terror attacks on our government soils, which is why when we're offered political thrillers in this day and age, it's more in the form of crap like OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN and WHITE HOUSE DOWN! It's enough to make you miss the Cold War!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Schiller (speaking Russian): "We thought we'd never see you again."
Tom Farrell (speaking Russian): "So did I."
Schiller: "Couldn't you have manage this better?"
Tom: "Not so fast, it's difficult for me to follow in Russian.
(switches to English)
Tom: "It's been very long for me."
Schiller: "How thirsty you must be for the sound of our language. Yevgeny Alekseevich, wouldn't you love to hear Russian again? Imagine Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy..."
Tom: "...Solzhenitsyn, Aksyonov."
Schiller: "Even them, always the sense of humor. In the Philippines, when you passed a bag of underwear, Moscow wasn't amused. I should've acted then. In any case, it's not possible for to remain in the United States. This bizarre incident has given them their Yuri. Yevgeny, think. THINK! You're a hero of the Soviet Union!"
Tom: "I'm not a hero."
Schiller: "Be that as it may, you must return!"
Tom: "I came here! I thought I owed you that, but you can't make me go back!"

NOTORIOUS

(August 1946, U.S.)

Alfred Hitchcock's NOTORIOUS marks a watershed artistic moment for the famed film maker, and represents a level of heightened thematic maturity. It's an American spy thriller and a serious love story in which three people's lives become intimately entangled during an espionage operation. For its specific genre, the film combines elements of gothic fiction (an imprisoned Ingrid Bergman), a woman's story of a love triangle with unworthy men, a spy film, and film noir with the classic femme fatale protagonist (Bergman again).

From its beginning the character of Alicia Huberman (Bergman) is portrayed as a helpless victim of circumstance, as her father, a convicted Nazi spy, has just been sentenced to imprisonment. Her shame and weakness are immediately apparent by her tendencies to drink heavily and even attempting to drive under the influence (possible suicide attempt?). However, even as we immediately get to know her personality, we're also immediately introduced to her male counterpart in the film by watching the back end of the mysterious man who sits in her chair at her party, studying her. Enter T.R. Devlin (played by Cary Grant in his second of four films with Hitchcock) who recruits Alicia to infiltrate an organization of Nazis who have moved to Brazil after World War II. When Alicia refuses to go along at first, Devlin plays a recording (on an actual vinyl record) of her fighting with her father and insisting that she loves America. It would seem that patriotic duty will win over in this situation, as well as the fact that Alicia and Devlin are slowly falling in love.

Now, if you've seen MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II, tell me if this sounds familiar - the assignment is for Alicia to seduce and infiltrate the life and home of Alex Sebastian (played by Claude Rains), a leading member of the Nazi spy group and discover what their ultimate plot is. Alex also happens to be a former relationship of Alicia's that he took seriously, but she did not. Ringing a bell? Yes, it would seem that John Woo liked these Hitchcock elements enough to virtually duplicate them in his 2000 Tom Cruise action sequel. Even the sequence at the race track is a direct copy (or homage, if you will). Learning of Alex's previous love interest toward Alicia, Devlin puts up a stoic front when he informs her about the mission. She concludes that he was merely pretending to love her as part of his job. Maybe true, maybe not.

Love interest and spying inevitably go all the way when Alicia agrees to marry Alex. This will give her full access to the home, but clearly drive a tighter wedge between herself and the man she truly loves (Devlin). However, because this is primarily a spy film, there are key elements in both story and filming that one cannot ignore. In one of his most famous shots, Hitchcock starts the camera high and wide on a second floor balcony overlooking the great hall of a grand mansion. Slowly, he tracks down and in on Alicia and finally ends with a tight close-up of a key tucked in her hand; a key that will ultimately grant her access to a locked wine cellar where the true diabolical secrets lie. And that secret...well, let's just say by our modern film standards of today, it may seem rather lame. But bearing in mind that this is the year 1946, a time after World War II and before the Cold War, the idea of hidden mineral ore that can be used to make potential deadly weapons by our enemies, would have been considered an element of pure intrigue back during that era.

Any spy thriller also always means the danger of our hero becoming exposed. It's not too long before Alex realizes his stupidity in marrying an American agent and must now plot to do away with her, with the help of his diabolical, old mother. Slow poisoning through coffee seems to work here and it's now a race against time to see if Alicia will be rescued by the man who truly loves her. Cinematic cliché clearly dictates the answer to that question, but when it's done in the great tradition of Alfred Hitchcock, it's always just a bit more relevant and enjoyable than what the surface generally offers.

The plot line of NOTORIOUS is the old, classic conflict between honorable duty to one's country and old fashioned love. Devlin's job, in a rather strange twist of irony, is to push Alicia into Alex's arms and into his bed. So one can hardly blame him for turning bitter and resentful throughout the film, whereas Alex is rather appealing in his figure, both because of his love for Alicia and the fact that he also knows he will ultimately be betrayed by her, as well. These elements feature psychological drama that have been woven into the traditional spy story. It's key to remember, though, that Hitchcock was also a master storyteller of psychology, as well as suspense. The dramatic action is smooth and very sure of itself with its characters and the intensity of their emotional appeal towards each other. It's one of Hitchcock's best during his early period as a director in America, during a time when America and patriotic attitude toward America was about to come into question by those who occupied its soil.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Alex Sebastian: "I am married to an American agent."

NOTEBOOK, THE

(June 2004, U.S.)

I've said this before and I'll say it again - when it comes to the art of love on screen, I prefer a straightforward love story rather than a stupid romantic comedy that tries to pass itself off as a straightforward love story. However, when it comes to love stories, one of the greatest and often repeated clichés is that our young lovers have got the cards stacked against them from the very beginning. Perhaps it's the horrors of war (A FAREWELL TO ARMS), a complicated love triangle (CASABLANCA), or even such an "inconvenience" as the Titanic sinking after striking the ice berg (thanks, James Cameron!). More often than not, it's the complications of class status that's destined to tear our young lovers apart. In THE NOTEBOOK, based on the best selling novel by famed love story novelist Nicholas Sparks (I didn't read it), Allie Hamilton (played by Rachel McAdams) is a seventeen year-old southern society-type heiress who just happens to be at the local carnival one night in the year 1940 when she meets Noah Calhoun (played by the always intense Ryan Gosling), the local country boy who merely works at the lumber mill. Love at first sight is not what takes place here, but perhaps that's the perfect set up for what will inevitably turn into a genuine and powerful love.

Bear in mind, this story of our young lovers (I keep repeating those two words, don't I??) is being told to us through the words and flashbacks of a man calling himself Duke as he reads this romantic story from a notebook to a fellow female patient at a nursing home. And without giving away any spoilers if you haven't seen the film or read the book, the true identity of these two elderly patients should be pretty damn obvious to you from the beginning. But anyway...Allie and Noah become instantly smitten with each other and begin sharing an idyllic summer love affair. This affair seems ultimately doomed, though, because remember the class conflict taking place here, as Noah is seen as nothing but "trash, trash, trash" by Allie's stuck-up, wealthy mother (played by Joan Allen). As this unfortunate fate would have, it would seem that Allie and Noah won't make it, as she leaves for college and he enlists to fight in World War II following the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Time passes and people move on. Or do they? Allie has grown as a woman and is engaged to exactly the type of upscale gentleman (a man named Lon) her snot-nosed parents would surely approve of. Noah continues to carry the torch for his one true love and finds his only solace in restoring an old, abandoned mansion, fulfilling his lifelong dream to buy it for his departed Allie, whom by now he hasn't seen for several years. Deluded and perhaps even mad, Noah convinces himself that if he restores the old house, Allie will someday come back to him. Later, Allie is startled to read in the newspaper that Noah has completed the house, and she makes the conscious choice to visit him. Do I have to spell out what happens next?? Clearly. The two renew their relationship and finally make love (notice that because I'm discussing a passionate love story, I'm displaying a little class and saying "make love" instead of saying "have sex" or "screw each other's brains out"). So now enter the dramatic triangle of Noah and Lon both love Allie and Allie loves both Noah and Lon but can't have both Noah and Lon! What will the indecisive Allie do and who will she choose (as if we didn't already know!)?

It should be noted that by this time in the film, it's officially revealed that the elderly female patient is in fact Allie, who is suffering from dementia and can't remember any of the events being read to her from the notebook. Duke, the man who is reading to her, is her husband Noah, but Allie can't recognize him. It's also clear that this reading process has taken place between the two of them before, in which Allie's memory of Noah and their life and love together has returned, but only for very short durations. It's rather unsettling to watch the two elderly lovers dancing with each other and then Allie is suddenly panic-strickened when she can't recognize the man she's dancing with. Really, such a tragic disease in real life is totally incomprehensible to me. By the end of the film, Noah's final moments with a lucid Allie is that of a conscious decision to die together because they believe that their love is strong enough to "take them away together". That sounds wonderful on paper, but am I supposed to honestly believe that they both died together at the right moment simply because they wanted to?? As they say, love is strange. And when it's not strange, it's often filmed to the backdrop of rich, saturated effects of beautiful sunsets on the water, as in THE NOTEBOOK.

Now then, keeping in mind that I'm a full blooded, heterosexual male who, by female standards, is supposed to be insensitive and pig-headed when it comes to the sensitivity of love and romance (that's what they say, anyway!), my own personal interpretations of true and everlasting love come into play having just watched THE NOTEBOOK. Remembering that characters like Noah and Allie are not perfect by any means. While their love is strong and everlasting, their tendencies to fight and get on each other's nerves is just as apparent. We're meant to understand that true and perfect love shall always get past things like that. As previously mentioned, that sounds great on paper and on film, but can one honestly accept that as truth in the real world? I won't be so crass as to say that love fades or even dies (though everybody's life is different), but love surely changes. It changes with children and with life's routines and inevitably reaches a point where you find it's sometimes necessary to remind yourself of the love that still exists between you and your partner. It no longer exists on the level that it did when you were both still carefree kids dating for just the fun of it, but rather exists on a level of companionship, commitment and responsibility. Admittedly, that doesn't sound like as much fun as the way it used to be. It is a fact of life, though. In the end, we may not be at the level of true love's perfection as with the elderly versions of Noah and Allie (for the record, I'd like to say that my own grandparents were married for fifty-six years and the last thing my grandfather told my grandmother on his deathbed was, "I didn't have enough time with you."), but I'd like to think we do the best we can on a daily basis and occasionally remember to tell the one we love, "I love you."

I love you, Beth!

Favorite line or dialogue:

Noah (voice-over): "Summer romances begin for all kinds of reasons, but when all is said and done, they have one thing in common. They're shooting stars, a spectacular moment of light in the heavens, fleeting glimpse of eternity, and in a flash they're gone."

NOSFERATU (1922)

(June 1929, U.S.)

Even now, as I write this post, there is currently a new film in theaters which traces the origins of Dracula called DRACULA UNTOLD. Coincidentally, F.W. Murnau's German expressionist silent film of NOSFERATU was the first time Bram Stoker's legendary vampire origins had ever been put to the screen. The film was unauthorized and therefore, several key features had to be changed. For one thing, the word "vampire" is never used and is instead replaced with "Nosferatu". Second, and most important, key character names are changed, including Count Dracula himself. Instead, he's called "Count Orlok", though strangely my particular DVD of the film released by Diamond Entertainment restores the original character names in the film's dialogue screens that we've all come to know throughout Dracula history, i.e Jonathon Harker, Mina, Lucy and Dracula himself. For those who might not know, NOSFERATU is a film that falls under the public domain (look that up!), which means any DVD company can carry it and release it and I suppose do whatever the hell they please with it.

Were it possible to write a film post using only pictures and images from a film, NOSFERATU may very well be it, as it's one of the creepiest black and white silent horror films I've ever seen and one I still enjoy watching late at night in the darkness of my living room as Halloween quickly approaches. Take a real close look at some of these iconic film images to know what I'm talking about...

Now with all due respect to some of the other men who have played the great Count before - Bela Legugosi, Christopher Lee, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman and even George Hamilton (LOVE AT FIRST BITE), study well the face of Max Schreck and tell me he isn't the most unnerving, terrifying version of Dracula you've ever seen! It's just another valid reason that classic black and white horror films should never be overlooked by the modern generation. There's no gentlemanly charm, grace or suaveness in any of the vampire's manner, but rather just the pure physical elements of terror and evil. One can't help but wonder if Bram Stoker pictured Dracula as a menacing fiend with a bald head, large ears and exceedingly long fingernails, which Max Schreck no doubt is, or was he meant to be an elegant gentleman in a long black cape with the power to swoon helpless women under his powerful spell? From my own perspective, I can't help but think that every version of Dracula's persona is a considerable step down once you've gotten past the original horror of who he is and what he lives (and dies) for.

One particular story element that tends to stand alone in NOSFERATU as compared with many other story versions is that when Dracula first leaves his village of Transylvania and travels to another land (be it London or wherever), he brings with him a terrible plague that seems to take the form of thousands of rats (Werner Herzog's 1979 color film version emphasized the same). This is a truly frightening implication of what a strange presence in a strange land can bring with him and with his evil intentions. While Bela, Christopher, Frank and Gary may terrify us (or perhaps even amuse us) with their bloody attacks on helpless, sleeping ladies, it's the creepy vampire in this film that, while bringing death and evil to an unsuspecting public, also brings a certain ambiguity of just how horrible his presence is. Perhaps now, during a time of fear and panic during the Ebola crisis, can we truly use our imagination when concluding whether or not it's the vampire himself or the evil death in the form of the plague that follows him that truly scares us.

As an original story of Dracula, NOSFERATU is pure images, atmosphere and artistry at a time before Hollywood inevitably drowned the vampire's tale in a sea of humor, clichés and teenage high school fantasies (TWILIGHT movies). Even by today's horror film standards, this is still a film that can haunt us and frighten us, provided we still have the open minded imagination that allows it to happen. That is perhaps what being scared at the movies is all about!

Favorite line or dialogue:

How's that for something a little different!

NORTH BY NORTHWEST

(July 1959, U.S.)

For all that the legendary Alfred Hitchcock was associated with in his films, be it the sheer terror of PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) or the psychological tensions of REAR WINDOW (1954) and VERTIGO (1958), the one element of suspense that pleased the great director most was the concept of the wrong man caught up in the wrong set of circumstances that plunged him into a world of intrigue and danger, as in THE 39 STEPS (1935) and THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1956). What makes Cary Grant's role as ordinary New York City advertising man Roger Thornhill is that his world of misunderstanding and survival originates from something as horribly simple as calling attention to himself in front of the wrong people when the name of George Kaplan is mentioned in the bar of the Plaza Hotel. With that act, Thornhill is mistaken for Kaplan and there's no shaking off the bad guys who are out to kill him (Kaplan) at any cost.

Now let's think about this for a moment - in most cases as this, logic would suggest that the wrong man would simply go to the police and the entire matter would likely be resolved for his own safety. Obviously, that's too damn easy and logical and then the film would be over. Interestingly, though, Thornhill does go to the police almost immediately after the bad guys try to drown him with forced bourbon down his throat and then set him off on the road while under the influence. Conveniently, for the sake of the audience, the police don't buy his story and the chase is on for Thornhill to not only clear his good name, but to survive the international spies (the bad guys played by James Mason and Martin Landau) who want him dead. Enter now, not only the wrong man in the wrong place, but the woman, or perhaps the femme fatale, who will unwittingly get caught up in these same set of harmful circumstances to try and help the wrong man out. For this film, she comes in the beautiful form of Eva Marie Saint playing Eve Kendall. She not only falls for Thornhill hard and fast and is easily willing to help him survive, but she also appears to be a little more than she seems on the surface.

In any thriller such as this, textbook plotting dictates that our hero (Thornhill) is meant to get into his world of danger just a little deeper, specifically in the role of the man accused of a crime he didn't commit. For this film, it's pure ol' fashioned murder and (again) being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, Thornhill appears to be just a bit dumber than the average wrong man because he actually takes the time and energy to lift the knife out of the dead man's back and hold it in the air for all around him to see, including a man with camera for the newspapers (a sort of pre-requisite to our own current society where everyone around us is equipped with an iPhone camera, ready to nail us with video to be posted on YouTube!). Take a look at what I mean and tell me if you think this is the act of a thinking man??

No, I suppose not. But I also suppose Hitchcock is forcing his audience to accept the reality of suspension of disbelief to keep the film moving along. So now, as Thornhill runs for his life as the wrong man, the accused spy and alleged murderer, we enter the moment of this thriller where political espionage begins to take shape and we learn of all that's at stake and also all that Eve Kendall really is, mainly a "double agent", so to say, playing for the right team as a fake member of the wrong team while leading the innocent man (Thornhill) on with the usual assortment of lies and sexual deception. As a matter of fact, despite this film being a release of the 1950s, the implications of sex is very strong between Grant and Saint and the camera captures as much of it as the censors of the time will allow. We see the strong attraction between these two immediately and that their desire to lock lips and get inside the overhead sleeping compartment aboard their moving train is very clear, despite the fact that a woman like Eva Marie Saint is not about to say words like, "Take me up there and fuck me!" Still the implications are there, even for the 1950s.

NORTH BY NORTHWEST, as brilliant and classic a film as it is, is not exactly without it's very minor faults, and again, that can probably be chalked up to elements that qualify as suspension of disbelief. Hitchcock clearly asks us to get past that to enjoy a well-crafted thriller with classic elements of intrigue, danger and astonishing resolution. That resolution, by the way, is a stunning visual feast that not only takes place at the grand glory of Mount Rushmore, but also at a beautifully designed cantilevered house in the mountains specifically and purposely designed to emulate the great and talented architect, Frank Lloyd Wright. Take a look at this residential structure and tell me you wouldn't want to live there...

I have to say, for a man who claimed he didn't particularly enjoy on-location shooting, Hitchcock repeatedly makes great use of visually-stunning locales in this film, including a luxury train moving along the edges of the water and the above-mentioned house and Mount Rushmore. As a film viewer, you not only enjoy the thrills of the plot, but you also can't help but lose yourself in another world that invites visual beauty, romance, fantasy and danger. And were it not for on-location shooting, would we ever have been thrilled by this infamous sequence at the isolated crossroads and the crop dusting bi-plane. I mean, come on, even if you haven't actually seen NORTH BY NORTHWEST, you've surely seen this iconic image of Cary Grant running for his life from that plane...

NORTH BY NORTHWEST is not only one of Hitchcock's most stylish thrillers, but a film where solid performing talents and engrossing romance is successfully mixed with gripping suspense and iconic visuals. The formulas in the plot easily lay the groundwork for countless thrillers to follow over the decades. Even the style and fashion of modern society and its representation of city hustle and bustle with a hint of dread in the air is not too far off the track from a more modern form of media entertainment such as AMC's MAD MEN (a show I don't actually watch). Hitchcock would have surely been proud that his story did not isolate itself as dated material.

Favorite line or dialogue:

Roger Thornhill: "Now you listen to me, I'm an advertising man, not a red herring. I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several bartenders that depend upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them all by getting myself slightly killed."