(Michael Powell, 1960)
(essay by Robert)
What an absolutely perfect horror film. Peeping Tom, which was written by the polymath Leo Marks and directed by Hitchcock disciple Michael Powell, challenges the horror audience to see ourselves for what we really are. We are immediately involved with the film as Powell delivers a sincere thoughtful masterpiece while leaving us scratching our heads about ourselves.
Appropriately Mark Lewis (Carl Boehm) is an aspiring film director earning his way by photographing low budget smut images. He also acts as the landlord of the large family estate willed to him by his father. Lewis is a recluse- a bizarre outsider completely uncomfortable with basic human interactions. We will quickly learn that it was his father that left him with a deep bizarre obsession. Boehm is incredible as the dark and emotional killer. He draws us in to the point we can’t help pitying him feeling his anguish.
The father was a biologist focused on capturing the sensory reaction to dramatic experiences. He was also obsessed with curing scoptophilia (voyeurism). His main test subject naturally became his developing young son. Powell shows us grainy and odd home movies of Mark’s childhood: a startling wake-up scene with a lizard, mourning his mother’s death, and the natural peeping tendencies of the young boy. The bizarre tactics of father Lewis are revealed in the adult son’s illness. They also put the audience in the uncomfortable position of having to think back to our own defining moments.
Another intriguing element of the film is the fact that Lewis seems to be on the brink of success but can’t get past his weakness. This is proverbial for us as we watch and think about our own shortcomings and fears. Despite the spine-chilling presence, people like Mark. They are in taken by his calm handsomeness and shy demeanor. As a photographer, he creates a calming atmosphere and as the quite landlord, he is interesting to the young and naïve Helen. His obsession keeps him cornered however keeps him cornered and trapped. As close as it seems, his escape is out of reach. This is felt in the film’s most important scene when Mark has his run in with Helen’s mother (played wonderfully by Maxine Audley). “Instinct is a wonderful thing- a pity it can’t be photographed” she compassionately warns. As a blind woman, she is the only one who can see Mark’s danger.
The concept and overall delivery are so engaging it is easy to forget some of the specific elements that Powell uses so successfully. Not the least of these are the kill sequences in which we see the victim through Mark’s camera’s POV. The cross in the camera’s lens is like a target zoning in on each fatality’s final moments. This creates a fantastic personal effect as we zoom and almost touch the kill. Powell masterfully hides from us even the slightest gore and blood but instead taunts us by revealing his murderer and method almost immediately. He is obviously less concerned with the “who, what, where and when”. The real question he asks us is “why”?
It is also interesting to see the often referred to similarities between Powell’s piece and those of Hitchcock. Of course it was the elder Hitchcock who became the “Master of Suspense”. Powell’s film on the other hand, seemed to hit so close that it literally derailed his decorated career. This is such a shame, as it was the mild (almost non-existent) violence and the sexuality (tame by any standard today) that seemed to cast the dark shadow on the film at the time and black-balled an exceptional creative and articulate artist.
Top Horror Moments:
-The voyeur and the blind woman
-Helen sees Mark’s obsession for herself and Mark carry’s out the ultimate peep
(this film appeared on Robert’s list at #53, Jamie’s at #75, Troy’s at #44, and Kevin’s at #33)
I couldn’t agree with Powell being a Hitchcock disciple. Firstly, he wasn’t, Peeping Tomw as unlike anything done before. Secondly, it belittles his earlier masterpieces, his TRUE great works.
Still, I understand where Robert is coming from here, and this particular choice for this particular countdown is well founded. It is horrifying in every sense of the word. I got the full impact of this film just months ago at the Film Forum in a restored print.
One of Robert’s very best essays here.
I assume Robert says that as the Criterion Edition of this really plays up that Hitchcock angle (and as Allan notes it’s incorrect). But comparisons to PSYCHO are certainly valid.
The line I most disagree with is the first one… lol.
Still, I’m not sure a Horror film has ever utilized a Camel Toggle Overcoat better, Carl Boehm wears one virtually all film.
Yes, comparisons to Psycho are valid, but not that Powell was Hitch’s disciple, that’s just bollocks. On top of which Peeping Tom was finished over 6 moinths before Psycho.
One of the most stylish of all horror films.
Since both Powell and Hitchcock go way back, I suppose Powell might have been a disciple sometime before he developed his own artistic identity in the 1930s. In any event, Psycho is arguably as much a departure for Hitchcock as Peeping Tom was for Powell. Psycho has the edge for iconic power and Anthony Perkins’s performance but I’d agree with Robert that Tom does more to implicate the audience. Maybe that’s why Britain reacted so much more severely than America did when both men rolled the dice in 1960.
This is a movie I also think is a great work–of any kind, not just the horror genre. I absolutely agree that it is a “thoughtful masterpiece,” and I think it holds its own with Powell’s earlier masterpieces. It suggests so many layers of meaning (including the voyeurism inherent in watching movies) that I find it a more complex work than “Psycho.” It has obvious similarities to that masterpiece but is still a completely different movie. My favorite line is when Mark is waiting to be interviewed by the police and tells a colleague at the film studio he plans to photograph the interview (how perfect–documenting his own private horror movie on film) and the colleague says, “Are you crazy?” “Yes,” he giggles. “Do you think they’ll notice?” Another interesting note is that in the home movies of Mark as a boy, Powell himself plays the father. Robert didn’t mention it, but I suppose most people know that this movie essentially wrecked the great Powell’s career and was rediscovered largely through the efforts of Martin Scorsese and his longtime editor (and Powell’s widow) Thelma Schoonmaker. It’s ironic that “Psycho” had almost the opposite effect on the career of Hitchcock (although it was his last masterpiece) and the influence it had on the US film industry–by legitimizing horror films and making them huge moneymakers–was tremendous.
R.D., great contextualizing here, but I don’t think Psycho was his last masterpiece. At the very least, there’s The Birds and Marnie, both of which are among his best work, and both of which I’d take over the film in question.
interesting essay Robert, very articulately reasoned and argued.
I’m from the opposite camp though.
I’d say, Powell and Hitch were disciples of the great German cinema of the ’20s, though, they just branched out in different directions. That’s the linage I’ve always picked up from interviews and comments, such as Powell’s first laying eyes upon Conrad Veidt.
I don’t even think that Hitch’s ‘Psycho’ would even have entered into the equation here, as Powell’s film was released two months before Hitchcock’s, which surprised me when I just checked the details.
Psycho: 16 June 1960 (New York City, New York) (premiere)
Peeping Tom: 7 April 1960 (London) (premiere)
As for the film, IMHO, it’s a grubby, dirty sort of movie with an underbelly of sleaziness. That in itself must have been repellent. To show that kind of world requires a certain beauty, in music or photography, or style (‘Midnight Cowboy’ come to mind). Effective intellectually of course in that it welcomes discussions on voyeurism (but compare it to Hitch’s ‘Rear Window’) but it’s viscerally repulsive in the way a slashers can be. If a professional made a snuff movie, this would be it.
He never did make anything worthwhile without his great Hungarian partner no matter how much his disciple Marty or his wife, Thelma, tried to claim some kind of rediscovery of a lost classic.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to admonish the mores of the period or of the audience/critics by reference to modern levels of sexuality or violence. That robs them of integrity. It’s still disturbing, I think, because it’s as important from which characters perspective you tell the story, as is the placement of the camera. For critics used to the elegant magic of the ’40s, or the stolid work of the ’50s, it would like putting absinthe into their teas.
I disagree with everything you say. I think it’s viscerally beautiful and poetically done. I don’t find this to be a ugly movie at all but filled with meaning and a profound level of sadness (further due to the fact it destroyed Powell’s career).
Hey Maurizio, I did say that I come from the opposite camp…., we can agree to disagree.
I think I put my points clearly, concisely and they are valid interpretations. And it wasn’t just some old twat, but across the board dismay and revulsion by all the critics.
Since I actually revere Powell and Pressburger and they are at the forefront of my personal canon, I not out to get at anyone. He may never have made another great film after his great run in the ’40s, but that doesn’t make this any better, just a sharper pill from such great film-maker.
Just because the there’s more sex and violence doesn’t take away the critical judgements from the whole critical community bar none of the period, AND its not about “morals”….its about the person point of view from which you tell the story from. Having empathy for another’s perspective here – the critics of the period, rather than condemn them outright, is a positive trait. Unless your think, like Glen Beck – that empathy is an a negative trait (see link below). Putting down the critical reaction of 1960 critics because they didn’t have 21st century sensibilities is, for me, illogical, unfair, nonsensical.
I hated the Hays code and I’m not much in favour of the complete abdication of any censorship by many of moronic film-makers who use it as a license to court controversy. As far as my sensibilities go – my posts for the decade’s best included ‘Carrie’ (I think) and ‘The Omen’ (as well as ‘Midnight Cowboy’, ‘Requiem for a Dream’, ‘Raging Bull’, ‘The Godfather’. Though I hate Tarantino.
The most dangerous censorship has always been political and the least investigated or thought about.
Bobby J, speaking of tourettes, you have a bad case of ‘professional made a snuff movie’-tourettes. Any movie you feel is beneath you is a ‘snuff’ movie. When A SERBIAN FILM is called a ‘professional snuff film’, and so is CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and PEEPING TOM by you one realizes you’re like the boy who cried wolf–errr ‘Snuff movie’. You thrown that adjective onto so many films at this point that it really doesn’t mean anything (not that it ever did anyway).
Here’s some Baudelaire for ya:
“If slaughter, or if arson, poison, rape
Have not as yet adorned our fine designs,
The banal canvas of our woeful fates,
It’s only that our spirit lacks the nerve.”
Jamie, I think you may be confusing me with someone else.
I haven’t seen or commented on “A Serbian Film” – which I think Allan reviewed, and which I read with interest. You may check on that.
I also haven’t seen ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and have never made any comment on it as a film. It’s the only Kubrick I haven’t made the time for yet, though it’s on my shelf. Though if the discussion involved censorship in that thread or another, I may have contributed. It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing or a film being below me, especially as I love Powell’s work.
I’m giving an authentic opinion of my visceral objections.
I’m not a fan of slashers, so we may have agree to disagree and the only reason was the assertion that Powell was a disciple of Hitch’s.
To criticise critics for not having the sensibilities of modern times doesn’t ring right. My point with video was about empathy for a ’60s critic. Never mind!
Well, Bobby, you’re my favorite censor, if that counts for anything! In all seriousness, I was actually surprised when I saw Peeping Tom at how restrained and almost “stately” it seemed vs. what I had expected. However shocking in 1960, to me at least it looks very much like a movie of its time – more so, in fact, that Psycho (which is, by the way, not necessarily a criticism, just an observation, though at the time I saw it I preferred Psycho). Haven’t seen it in a while, though, so I have to revisit.
Jamie, re: Baudelaire, I like your penchant for quote-pulling but sometimes you leave me wanting more… What’s the context of his verse here, and what’s your purpose in using it? To imply that any good artist is halfway to sociopathology? Not saying I disagree (actually I’m kind of inclined to agree much of the time) just curious if I’m reading you correctly – occasionally your train of thought eludes me, lol…
Maurizio, Glenn Back was apparently a HUGE fan of Mr. Show. Take that as you will…
Jamie, upon further investigation, I think my assessment of what you’re saying is correct. However, I wonder how this comports with your oft-stated distrust of “human nature” and belief that evil is conditioned rather than innate?
lol, Maurizio – he is a clown, isn’t he. But my impressions always been that he was deliberately brought in exactly as Obama was voted in and modelled from the beginning as the Peter Finch character in ‘Network’ – to rile against the progressives and fuse the anger towards building up ‘The Tea Party’. He’s sane, alright. Obama should have fined and broken ‘Fox’ into a million pieces. Where’s an FDR or a JFK when one needs one.
I do believe in total artistic freedom. As long as noone is hurt or exploited in the process.
Welllll, before I stir the shit storm too much here (!) I actually kind of agree with Jamie in terms of art (which is why I was a little surprised given some of our previous disagreements on the value of some films, and on human nature). I think a great artist is going to tap into the really dark forces that are so much a part of who we are, and I’m not convinced it’s necessary for them to condemn those forces. All I ask is that the artist not be hypocritical – that he/she not strike a pose of morality when they’re actually being a/immoral. It’s one reason I separate aesthetics from ethics and feel art’s primary duty is to the former – actually, aesthetics may not be the right word as I don’t mean so much the formal conditions of a work as its “essence” – form AND content, and the primal states they suggest. Hope that makes sense – I believe Cronenberg said an artist has no social responsibility, and I don’t disagree, or rather it’s not a social responsibility as traditionally conceived.
“I do believe in total artistic freedom. As long as noone is hurt or exploited in the process.”
Then you aren’t/don’t. You see limits in artistic freedom, therefor you believe in a least a thread of censorship. I think that’s wrong. You may think I come here to advocate anti-censorship just to argue, but actually I believe in free-expression, of all kinds. Art is an all or nothing proposition. I don’t come here to troll. Sorry.
MM if you want the entire context of the Baudelaire it’s the initial poem (the primer if you will) of his ‘The Flowers of Evil’ called ‘To the Reader’, I like the quote because it speaks rather clearly what he’s going on about for the remainder of the book. I think it’s clear why I put it here. (coupled with an earlier verse in the poem about the devil pulling ALL OUR strings becomes clearer)
Bobby J, sorry about your stance on A SERBIAN FILM, after reading your comment under Allan’s review (which contained this: “…Why does it matter when a gunman goes on a spree? To find the causes and fix them. The same way if people in a new factory started dying of cancers because it cost too much to fix that pesky leak in the corner, we’d be outraged – not accepting casually some karma.
The logical conclusion is that the next step would be to show the images in the example Allan cited earlier, maybe to show the depravities inflicted on men, women and children in war or otherwise using CGI.
If Extremity in films is what you see, Extremity in life is what get and resort to. Garbage in, garbage out. And people wonder why teens are running around bing drinking. A 1,000 channels and nothing to watch, a 1,000 Stepford cinemas that show films that could have come from Pottersville (It’s a Wonderful Life’)….”) I assumed you’d probably want to censor it, or at least act morally superior to it.
Jamie, just to make sure we’re all on the same page here.
Are you interpreting Maurizio’s comment as referring to characters. Because I think he means real people, not fictional ones. In which case I have to assume you don’t disagree with him after all, nor would you interpret his stand as unreasonable opposition to artistic freedom.
I can’t imagine you’re actually in favor of hurting or exploiting real people in the name of art, or anything else for that matter.
Jamie, looking over the conversation again (I was really perplexed by the position you took in response to Maurizio’s comment) I think I understand the point of contention. You’re assuming Maurizio’s comment refers to output – i.e. if someone is hurt “because” of a film (which I think is a tenuous argument, but anyway) then than a limit should be provided on that film. But Maurizio specifically said “in the process” so he’s speaking, if I understand correctly, about how the artist creates the work not how others react to it. So that if, for example a child was raped onscreen as part of a video installation, or if slave labor was used on the set of a big-budget film shot in a foreign country he is NOT in favor of that. So of course there have to be ethical compromises on “total” artistic freedom – as Bob will be quick to tell you, only a Sith thinks in absolutes.
Art really can’t exploit people only people can exploit people. Art is to be judged as art and how it enriches our lives, or makes us contemplate further. (and your two examples of unethical art I can only say I’d create neither as an artist. What more needs to be said?)
As far as exploiting something, or someone (or me arguing it’s ever ‘ok’), that’s not the point of this discussion. Besides, we’ve all exploited and been exploited so we’re really quite beyond that at this point no? This is where art should assist us, the individual, IMHO. How it changes through others interpretations is irrelevant to the artist mostly because at that point so many (non art) variables have changed the message and its no longer in his hands (which I think is what you are saying Maurizio means) (a broad statement I’d say here is ‘the artist just needs to be in discussion with himself/herself’). Your Sith analogy probably works in politics (which was it’s original meaning probably), but in discussions of artistic censorship you either are for it or against it… there’s really no gray area (which was the reason for my counterpoint to Maurizio).
And going into detail further, we’d have to deal with actual pieces or real details, merely saying ‘snuff movie’ (a real one has never known to exist), or ‘child porn’ handcuffs me as it’s not a real scenario… but it lacks anyone ever putting either out as ‘art’. And we are talking about Art censorship here no?
I hope my answer(s) are clear enough, and provide enough to further discussion. Everything coming at me right now is so vague at this point (which I’ve learned discussing this topic with Bobby J in the past to expect assertions that censorship is needed, but NEVER get responses as to how or who will carry it out in practical, real world ways).
I did mean real actual people. I definitely don’t think an artist should be too concerned with offending people. Someone is always offended by something. We all have different degrees of what we find amoral or shocking anyway. Bobby J finds Peeping Tom offensive which I don’t. I find the subject matter of A Serbian Film disturbing and the rape scene in Irreversible to be offensive but Jamie doesn’t. Thats why censorship is nonsense. If practiced, eventually, everything could come under attack. First it would be A Serbian Film then it would be There Will Be Blood. Thats why I would never advocate any censorship as long as someone isn’t actually hurt or being put in a position against their will. There does have to be some sort of limit. Art cannot be an excuse to do harm to another human. We have laws for a reason. There are things that all people know are unacceptable. Even a pedophile realizes what he is doing is wrong. A serial killer murders out of compulsion and may exhibit no remorse but deep down he understands that his actions are crimes that must be punished. Art cannot be above everything. I know it’s a vague and hard thing to define but there is a line that should not be crossed.
I actually don’t think the rape scene in IRREVERSIBLE is ‘inoffensive’ rather I think the artistic statement contained in that film is compassionate, articulate, accurate, worthwhile, and I’m glad Noe is able to express it. It ceases to be a matter of ‘I like this’ or ‘I don’t like this’, if you look back at that thread I think I’m clear in my feelings on that film.
I also don’t think humans should ever be exploited, but (uncensored) art seems to be about the only thing that can accurately tell the truth on these matters (and offer a ‘change’ or get people thinking in these terms). This is why I come from the vantage point I do. Everything else on this matter (exploiting, etc) is so vague at this point in relation to art that I don’t really want to speak further.
As far as what’s going on in the heads of criminals, I wouldn’t know, and I’d guess you don’t either.
Jamie, it’s a legal question, not an aesthetic one. Should artists be above the law? I presume we are both in favor of laws preventing child abuse. If a clear case of child abuse – not something ambiguous but concrete physical or sexual abuse – happens on a film set, should the artist be punished even if they claim it was done in the name of their work? That’s a yes or no question, and whether or not it’s hypothetical is immaterial. If the answer is “yes” as I think and certainly hope it will be, then I don’t think your overall position is any different than Maurizio’s, even though you took him to task for being a closet censor.
We’re not talking about art censorship laws now (or rather our individual stances on censorship), we’re talking about child labor and/or child endangering now (hypothetically still). Laws preventing that exist in most (if not all) countries, and I agree with them 100%. Obviously.
The way this topic (censorship) has been subverted isn’t unexpected, as wild hypothetical(s) are generally par for the course on this topic, but this is rather absurd. Please don’t be offended, or think I’m being slight, we just aren’t talking about censorship, if we ever even started.
I get what you mean Jamie. There is a difference between breaking laws and censorship. I totally agree as I’m sure Joel does as well. If nothing illegal is happening on a sound stage or film location then the artist should be allowed the freedom to create whatever he wishes. I am no closet censor and we completely agree on this point. Unlike you I rather not watch a movie like A Serbian Film but would never sympathize with anyone that would try to suppress it’s distribution for others to see. Most moralists are religious bible thumpers anyway. Nothing bothers me more than these people trying to control everyone else’s behavior. God may or may not exist but nothing should be censored in the name of religion. I don’t want society having to conform to these groups.
Thank you Maurizio, a very good response. Level headed, concise, realistic.
I’m just so skeptical of going down the hypothetical game on this topic as I think this is the most important topic to consider– form the standpoint of individual to state. One can determine everything about a state (and an individual) from this topic. How much that person or thing (in the term of the State) is able to have rational discourse, be adult(s), and how much art is celebrated/cherished. I’ve long been interested in this topic, so I’ve engaged in it in a semi-serious way in school and read books on the topic and a trick of people who want to limit artistic or personal freedom–in any way– is to submit “if censorship doesn’t exist X will happen”. In the 1980 PMRC trials ‘X’ was ‘if musicians get free reign our children will be listening to satanic music and committing suicide’, on this thread its ‘artists will exploit children and enable slave labor’. When asked for real world instances, to prove these statements, none are generally offered (here included). Fact is, censorship of the individual enables or assists two parties are two parties only: the (oppressive) State and/or the multinational Corporation. The two things that actually engage in Slave labor and child/human exploitation on a daily level. And yet artists are the ones needed to be watched/censored. Jesus.
In these days you can get no rice
No razor blades but you can get knife
In these days see the people run
They have no food but the boy have gun
In these days they don’t throw the stone
Nor use the voice they use the gun alone
In these days to be an oddity
Be hunted down like a scarcity
In these days don’t beg for life
Wanna take Kingston advice?
Oh please don’t beg for your life
In these days the beat is militant
Must be a clash there’s no alternative
In these days nations are militant
We have slavery under government
In these days in the firmament
I look for signs that are permanent
In these days with no love to give
The world will turn with no one left to live
In these days I don’t know what to do
The more I see the more I’m destitute
In these days I don’t know what to sing
The more I know the less my tune can swing
As usual the Clash realize that the ones still ‘left to live’ that will ‘help the world turn’ are the free, open minded Artists.
Bullshit. You want to talk about the topic getting subverted, how about this? Maurizio makes a reasonable statement. You respond by saying you disagree with it, and that his statement means he’s for censorship. I intervene and ask you to clarify the point. As it turns out, you agree exactly with what Maurizio meant, and what I understood him to mean. So turns out my intervention was warranted after all. Now you play the victim after it was you that stated you completely disagreed with Maurizio’s position, which is now the position you’ve come around to say is your own (“of course”).
It really annoys me when you go on the attack, and then forced to play defense get all haughty about my approach. I resorted to hypotheticals because you kept dodging and weaving. Maybe if you didn’t automatically assume everyone who disagrees with you has some ulterior motive (last week Dennis, this week Maurizio) these discussions wouldn’t arise.
You at first: “You see limits in artistic freedom, therefor you believe in a least a thread of censorship.”
You, after me holding your feet to the fire: “Laws preventing that exist in most (if not all) countries, and I agree with them 100%. Obviously.”
So you see the same limits on artistic freedom as it turns out. But you couldn’t admit you were wrong without accusing me of changing the subject, under the pretense that me focusing on what Maurizio ACTUALLY MEANT was somehow distracting us from the evil government and corporations, yet another one of your trademark bad-faith “here’s your real motive” gestures.
By the way, power isn’t only in the hands of government and multinational corporations. It’s in the hands of any individual or institution with an advantage over another. The statement stands in and of itself, but since you were talking specifically about censorship, it’s somewhat irrelevant so I’ve struck it out. But that’s another conversation and frankly I don’t think I’m interested in engaging with you if you’re always going to leap to conclusions about other people’s motives, refuse to acknowledge your own mistakes/misunderstandings. I don’t find this to be a fruitful mode of dialogue at all.I like you Jamie but sometimes you just drive me up the wall.
And your Sunday-School “artists can do no wrong” sycophancy is getting really tiresome. I’m not interested in the goody-two-shoes artists you advocate: I’m interested in flesh-and-blood human beings with great talent who open our eyes to exciting emotions, experiences, perspectives. Many of them are shits as people. Who cares? They certainly aren’t all “free” and “open-minded” – and it’s rich to hear you talk about open-mindedness when you have more aesthetic prejudices than almost anyone else on these boards. Sorry to be harsh but I’ve just got to call you on this stuff that I’ve been patiently tolerating because you’re a good guy (and I still think you are – but no more mr. nice cop for me…)
“In the 1980 PMRC trials ‘X’ was ‘if musicians get free reign our children will be listening to satanic music and committing suicide’, on this thread its ‘artists will exploit children and enable slave labor’”
And there you go again. We’ll be generous and say this is another misunderstanding rather than an outrigh tlie.
By trying to bring the conversation around to Maurizio’s original point (that free expression is limited by people getting hurt or exploited – presumably in a fashion that laws already prevent), which you were straying from, I’m now an advocate of censorship. Never mind that I never, never, never, never, never (how many fucking nevers do you want?) said that “if censorship doesn’t happen, artists will exploit children and enable slave labor.” Never. Didn’t even suggest it – unless by “censorship” you mean laws preventing child exploitation and slave labor, which is what your sloppy original response to Maurizio suggested and why I intervened in the first place. As you finally established, you don’t consider this censorship. Therefore, I NEVER said what you suggest I do.
I guess my mode from now on (aside from those rare conversations when we agree on something) will simply be to step up and point out your contradictions or bad assumptions and then step back. Feel free to respond or not to respond but my role will be more as a clarifier than a conversant, unless I can believe that you’re capable of give-and-take conversation instead of just “I’m Jamie, I’m always right, don’t agree with me? Here’s what you are” etc. Sheesh.
Since it wound up outside of this sub-thread, let me re-link it here so that the above does not appear to be my final statement. After I chilled out a bit:
http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/38-peeping-tom/#comment-35911
Jeez, glad I could help.
Not sure what that means, but I see no apology is forthcoming. Ah well, I suppose being Jamie Uhler is much like being in Love Story, or being a Republican…you never have to say you’re sorry!
Anyway, no hard feelings. I don’t foresee many more serious, mutually respecting conversations on the horizon but it was fun (sorta). Keep on keepin’ on…
Well, I happen to think that the whole film has a stylish sleaziness to it and I think the film is all the better for it. However, where some would condemn the film as nowhere near as good as the directors earlier works (THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP immediately come to mind, not to forget THE RED SHOES, I KNOW WHERE IM GOING, BLACK NARCISSUS and the simply amazing TALES OF HOFFMAN), I think steps taken backward to see this film as exploratory film-making for Powell is more the likely explaination. Just because its different in tone and style from his earlier, more well known works, doesn’t mean its not good.
I happen to like this film alot. Looking at my LIST, I have it somewhere in the high 40′s or low 30′s. It’s a film i feel has to be on the list of the very best. IMO.
Good review…
I agree Dennis, and as long as we are on the subject, I personally like Powell and Pressberger more then Hitchcock…
Having calmed down a bit let me make it real simple. You wrote, “a trick of people who want to limit artistic or personal freedom–in any way– is to submit “if censorship doesn’t exist X will happen”.” This is a slander of my position, because I’m not someone who wants to limit artistic or personal freedom any more than you or Maurizio. What I’d like to hear from you is “I was wrong – I jumped to an unfair conclusion about you and Maurizio’s positions. Sorry.” At that point, we can move on.
And for my part, I think my tone is too harsh above (in the responses to your last comment) and my statements too scattered. I still think I’ll be taking a firmer, less conciliatory tone in our further disagreements (and I know it may surprise you that I think my past tone has been conciliatory, but relatively speaking it has) BUT I’ll try to keep hotbloodedness out of it. And on the topic of apologies, as the strikeout makes apparent, my aside about power did not really address the point you were making, about governments/corporations being the sole beneficiaries of censorship. I did not read your point carefully enough.
I’ll try not to check back compulsively until the morning, as I’ve things to do and need to cool off a bit. But there it is.