On Jun 4, 7:23 pm, bigsilent... DeleteThis @aol.com wrote:
> As for the film, I think it would have been so much more of a
> thriller if Hitchcock did not reveal the actual "Necktie" murderer
> early on in the story. The scene where others were discussing the
> Killer's characteristics in the pub (while the character exhibited the
> same traits in front of them) would have meant much more if we could
> still imagine that the main character could have been capable of the
> crime.
Nah, I don't think so. I think putting all the cards on the table is
more typical of Hitchcock. (For some reason, general consensus seems
to hold that Hitchcock is all about the big twist -- and all down to,
I believe, those two biggies, 'Vertigo' and 'Psycho'. Not so, I
believe.) Hitchcock is less about the 'whodunnit' than about the 'how
will this all pan out'?
Also, I could be wrong but I think when Blaney is ordering the double
brandy in the pub, we haven't yet witnessed Rusk commit the murder.
First time I saw 'Frenzy' -- what am I saying?! First time I saw
'Frenzy', it was just after I'd finished reading Truffaut's book on
Hitchcock and knew the essence of the story, so I knew.
Anyway .. I believe on one's first viewing, one is supposed to believe
Blaney might indeed be the killer, with the few red herrings Hitchcock
drops along the way (the tie Blaney ties is very similar to the one
around the neck of the strangled victim in the Thames, Blaney's temper
in the pub and elsewhere, his obvious misogyny).
Fergal #.
--
We move as one, everything together, nothing held back.
>> Stay informed about: Forget "Frenzy." It's not worth the time.