Hitchcock!

[JIkj fjds j]

The cameos were gimmicks that were great as much because they were so unnecessary as anything else! H. was such a great director they were totally superfluous and all the more entertaining for it!

Maybe not.
In The Birds, Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedron) enters the pet shop as he is seen leaving with two Sealyham terriers (his own real life dogs, Geoffrey and Stanley). Later we see Ms Daniels with two love birds.

In Psycho, he is seen crossing the road through the windscreen of Marion Crane's (Janet Leigh) car. Which ends up at the bottom of a pond with all the loot to boot.

Which was copied in the movie Pulp Fiction. Where we see Butch driving back to the motel. Wallace crosses the road at the junction in front of him. They see each other. And as Wallace reaches for his gun Butch floors the pedal. Knocking him over.
It all ends badly in Zed's basement - like the fruit-cellar in Psycho.

In North by Northwest, he is seen carrying a cello case where he just misses the bus. Maybe there's a connection with the soundtrack and ... ah

... yeah, your correct peter. His cameo's were superfluous.
Just another sign of the times, I guess.

[peter]

point made V.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

In Psycho, he is seen crossing the road through the windscreen of Marion Crane's (Janet Leigh) car. Which ends up at the bottom of a pond with all the loot to boot.

Which was copied in the movie Pulp Fiction. Where we see Butch driving back to the motel. Wallace crosses the road at the junction in front of him. They see each other. And as Wallace reaches for his gun Butch floors the pedal. Knocking him over.
It all ends badly in Zed's basement - like the fruit-cellar in Psycho.

He wasn't doing it at that time but these days every Tarantino film contains insights from Quentin Tarantino's School of Film Knowledge. Yes, Marcellus walking in front of the car and the scene ending in a basement is a direct homage to Psycho. On the other hand, if Marcellus hadn't walked in front of the car at that precise moment then Butch would have recovered the watch and gotten away completely freely...but he would have had to keep one eye over his shoulder for the rest of his life.

It is interesting that you mention the stolen money in Psycho. At that time, $10,000 was a lot of money and you would think that people would have been interested in it but by halfway through the movie the money is both forgotten and unimportant, even to the audience of the time.

[JIkj fjds j]

The money wouldn't have gone unnoticed by Hitchcock, I'm sure. If memory serves me, Norman Bates found the slip of paper with Marion Crane's money calculations scribbled on it. Which he tore up and flushed down the loo.

In some respect, the little bits of paper and the $10,000 both ended up in the sewer. Only through different routes.

As for Pulp Fiction, weren't that just a comedy of coincidences!
If Vincent Vega didn't eat so much and didn't need to visit the crapper so often maybe he would've survived and continued to enjoy his drink, drugs, and Modesty Blaise.

[peter]

And what was in that bloody suitcase............

[JIkj fjds j]

Awh, come on peter, live it up a little, have a guess ...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

And what was in that bloody suitcase............

In reality it was an orange light bulb. In the context of the movie we never find out. In the subtext of the movie it was Marcellus Wallace's soul, since Marcellus Wallace was The Devil.

[JIkj fjds j]

And what was in that bloody suitcase............

In reality it was an orange light bulb. In the context of the movie we never find out. In the subtext of the movie it was Marcellus Wallace's soul, since Marcellus Wallace was The Devil.

Ah, and here's me thinking it was a 1906 unopened box of Kellog's Corn Flakes.

[peter]

That's interesting Hashi - I'm not sure what you mean by 'the subtext' as opposed to the context; could you outline just a little of 'the subtext' of PF in which Marcellus Wallace is seen as the Devil. [Subtext is maybe like an allegorical underlying meaning - like Communism underlying the story in the book/film Animal Farm. Don't tell me I missed the whole point of Pulp Fiction - It wouldn't be the first time!

[Hashi Lebwohl]

By "context" I mean what you actually see in the film and "subtext" is the allegorical or deeper level. Marcellus Wallace is presented as a significant crime figure in Los Angeles, the man who pulls the strings and gets things done. I read somewhere--I would have to track down where I saw this--that the bandage on the back of his neck goes back to some old tale about that is where/how the Devil could lose his own soul or have it trapped or removed or something like that. Anyway, the boys in the apartment, the ones Jules and Vincent had taken something of extreme value from Marcellus, something he is willing to kill to get back; combined with how he tempts Butch into throwing the fight and we arrive at the subtle conclusion "Marcellus Wallace is The Devil".

This raises an interesting question: does Vincent ultimately meet his fate because he looked in the briefcase? Jules didn't look at it but the boys all did and they all wound up dying, as well (one on the couch, the one who runs into the room, Brett on the chair, then finally Marvin in the car). The only one who doesn't fit the pattern is Ringo--he looked at it but he and Honey Bunny get away.

[peter]

Yes - and of course, Jules has an 'epiphany' when he sees 'the Hand of the Lord' [or whatever] in the miraculous occurence of he and Vincent not being hit by any of the bullets - and Vincent denies this [IIRC] and is subsequently killed where Jules [we assume] was as good as his word, and quits 'the life', because [chronologically, if I have it right] we never see him again and from that point [again chronologically] Vincent always appears without him.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Exactly. We go from the boys' apartment early in the morning to QT's character's house to the diner then to Marcellus' bar, at which point Jules quits and Butch is given the money to throw the fight. That evening is Vincent and Mia's not-a-date to Jack Rabbit Slim's then over to the dealer's house. We do not know how much time passes between that evening and the fight, possibly a day or two, but we then have the evening Butch throws the fight and returns to his rent-by-the-week hotel room. That next morning he goes to his old apartment for the watch, runs in to Vincent (who is alone), then runs in to Marcellus (literally) while driving away and they wind up in the shop. Afterwards, they go their separate ways and Butch leaves town forever, ending the story.

Someone did an edit to Pulp Fiction which puts the clips in chronological order but I have never watched it. Someone else did the same thing for Kill Bill but I think that defeats the purpose of a not-in-order movie. Memento, on the other hand, is told in completely reverse order if I recall--every time Guy Pierce's character "wakes up" we are farther back in time.

Not even Hitchcock got that advanced with his movies--all his plots were linear. That being said, he still laid the groundwork which allowed for future directors like Tarantino and Pierce to be able to tell such good stories via film. Truthfully, I am not sure which movie was the first to tell its story in a non-chronological order--that would be an excellent trivia question.

[sgt.null]

And what was in that bloody suitcase............

I had assumed it was the Holy Grail. am I incorrect?

[peter]

Sorry Sarge - missed that one; I've heard it mooted that it was Jools' soul, but who knows for sure?

Saw To Catch a Thief the other night, and while it was alright, again it was a kind of slow entertainment that wasn't demanding any effort or providing any big thrills. The two most memorable things about it for me were the location, Cannes, which was far more rugged and craggy than I'd realised - and secondly of course, Grace Kelly. I'd never realised just how stunningly, staggeringly beautiful she was. No wonder Prince Rainier was captivated. The scene where she drove the car at breakneck speed at Gable's bidding was almost painfull to watch given her tragic end that occured not so many miles away a short while later. it's not a film I'd rush back to see again in a hurry - but worth the time at the time. [ps. I guessed it was the girl almost immediately.]

[sgt.null]

never have seen To Catch - but will agree that Grace Kelly was gorgeous. have you had a chance to see a lot of the female silent film stars?

https://www.pinterest.com/sgtnull/actresses-silent/

amazingly beautiful women.

saw an interview with Tarantino where he says the object in the briefcase is up to the viewer.

[peter]

Wow Sarge! Some stunning ladies from a time when beauty was not the 'Hollywood Standard Formula' mannequin type we see so often today. For a time I was in love with Maureen O'Sullivan after seeing her in the first Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan film. Gorgeous!

[sgt.null]

https://www.pinterest.com/sgtnull/gene-tierney/

for me it's Gene Tierney. she is buried in Houston, in the general area that Howard Hughes is buried. we have visited their grave sites.

[peter]

Ouch, yes Sarge! Not a lady whose acting has fallen under my radar, but she is surely soft on the eyes.

Edit: Just read her auto on Wikipedia Sarge. A lot of sadness and suffering in her life it seems.

[sgt.null]

Tierney's best work is said to be Laura. loving noir and loving her - I can not wait to see it. but I have to.

hoping the library can order it or I can find it at half price.

I have read that more than a few of Hollywood's best actresses had a rough life. I assume that gives them the fuel to escape to Hollywood.

[peter]

Interesting that Agatha Chriatie's The Mirror Crack'd From Side to Side is based on her giving birth to a child with severe disabilities as a result of accidental exposure to Rubella during pregnancy, and that Howard Hughs's kind support and financial aid in the care of her daughter was never forgotten by Tierney.