I'm a big believer in the axiom that, if a person's talented, then they will be noticed and remembered. This has been particularly true regarding those in the film business; lots of directors have come and gone, and there have always been good and bad directors, just as there have always been good and bad movies. While we may bemoan the state of whatever era of cinema we may be living in, we can take solace in the fact that the cream will rise, that the great directors of our age will have their names engraved in the annals of film history while their not-so-talented contemporaries will fade away. Unfortunately, what's true of directors isn't always true of films, even the films of great directors. For whatever reason, even when discussing the filmographies of famous directors, some films, even great ones, fall between the cracks, therefore being denied the analysis and praise they deserve. What we'll do here is our small part to remedy that situation; we'll look at the body of work of ten famous directors and, from each director's work, find a diamond that, while outshone by its fellow gems, is still beautiful and equally as worthy of admiration. Another note: an unexpected perk of these films being overlooked is that many are available for free viewing on Youtube. I'll let you know if this is the case as we run down our list.
10. Alfred Hitchcock - Rope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCrTMGpinPo Rope falls in the middle of a run of four unappreciated films by the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. However, while the other three films, The Paradine Case, Stage Fright, and Under Capricorn, deserve their obscurity (they aren't that good), Rope is a tightly-plotted, well-acted and highly suspenseful film. The film, based on a hit play by Patrick Hamilton that was, in turn, inspired by the famous 1924 Leopold & Loeb murder case, revolves around two men who murder a friend and hide his body in a trunk. They then host a party (guests including the murder victim's girlfriend, father, aunt, and former prep school teacher, who also taught the two murderers), serving food off of the trunk which holds the murder victim. The story's suspense is generated from the audience wondering if, when, and how the body will be discovered and the murderers revealed. Hitchcock saw in this material a short story that unfolded on one set, which was what Hitchcock needed for an experiment he wanted to try: shooting a film so that it seemed to unfold in one continuous shot. Hitchcock achieved this effect through some creative camera moves, including moving the camera behind someone's suit or behind the trunk when he needed to change reels. There are actually two cuts in the film, but they're hard to spot; you don't see them unless you're looking for them, and I'm certainly not going to tell you where they are (wink, wink). It's a daring thing for any director to try, and Hitchcock pulls it off beautifully. Unfortunately, the critics only saw what they considered to be a weak film trying to ride to success on a gimmick, and they savaged the film. It's largely because of the critics' condemnation of the film that the film remained forgotten for many years; Hitchcock, ashamed of the criticism the film received, kept the film out of release for over three decades. The film was re-released in theaters in 1984, and it was then that the film gained the cult following that it does have. However, the film still doesn't have the wide appreciation it deserves, and that's unfortunate; it shows that one doesn't need special effects and wild situations to generate suspense, but just good actors and a good script. Seriously, it's remarkable to see so much suspense generated by a handful of characters merely talking to each other. Of course, it helps that the actors all deliver fine performances (especially James Stewart as the prep-school teacher). In the end, this was a film that began merely as an experiment for Hitchcock and ended as one of his finest exercises in suspense. This film can be found in its entirety on Youtube.