Alfred Hitchcock: Dialogue versus Pure Cinema | Film Analysis 

I just got in a huge argument with a buddy for my bold statement of calling expository dialogue lazy. So glad I found this in my search for proof. Lol

The reason why Hitchcock didnt like dialogue was very simple... He started making films in silent era.

This is what I've been thinking, as I watch more and more old Hollywood films; I think this is what makes the films from the Golden Age different. In old films, the characters talk as ordinary people talk (albeit more theatrical), they joke around and speak in a less direct language, but we can still understand the plot, where the film is driving us to, through the acting, the framing, cinematography, editing, etc. But (I don't hate, nor anti-contemporary cinema at all) now, more often plot direction is more or less told through the characters' conversation, especially among the more commercial cinema. Before I watched this video, I thought that's probably partly because of the difference in how people talk back then and now; but, while it's still true that it's due to generational difference, I believe that it's also true that mainstream cinema, in this particular aspect, is going further away from the 'pure cinema' that Hitchcock is talking about in this video. But it's also understandable, since nowadays, more than a century has passed since the first notion of 'cinema' is invented, and most people now take films as granted, and the industry favours more commercial films; while in Hitchcock's days, there were much more rooms for experiments with the new medium, and thus the filmmakers might be more aware with the notion of 'pure cinema' apart from commercial purposes, while the audience had much less of films and modes of watching compared to now.

A cinematic hero.

Good analysis of Hitchcock's pure cinema.

Great video! I used your analysis on a presentation about hitchcocks style and it was great!

What's interesting though is that if you look at a movie like North by Northwest, for the entire first hour, Hitchcock turns that general perspective - the distrust for dialogue versus visual storytelling - on its head. The story told through dialogue is the true story. The things communicated visually are all false.

amazing analysis. one of my writing friends recommended me when we had two different classes. one on show don't tell, the other on dialogue and I was split in the middle. this kinda content helps a lot. thank you so much. subscribed!

Unlike most RU-vid videos here, this one really do incorporate the visual with simple but on-point explanation. And it's even done under 10 minutes

Very good analysis.. Thank you Keep doing more

Given Hitchcock's increasingly evident mastery of the medium, it's surprising so few have in any obvious way adopted his techniques. Of course, Brian DePalma is practically an apostle, but by and large when people say a movie is 'Hitchcockian', they don't even mean it's directed in a way reminiscent of Hitchcock. Rather, they mean it's a thriller, or is suspenseful, or perhaps in some other trivial way reminds them of the Master's work. I have to say again, you snagged the awesomest channel name on RU-vid.

That continuous shot in Rear Window (which is part of the opening of the movie) actually seems like there's someone inside the apartment spying on Stewart's character, when in fact there was nobody there, it transitions to him shaving.

Very good video essay.

dialogue can create suspense. Like radio or telling a story standing in front of people. You can paint a picture with your words. I do prefer when standing in front of people to try to tell the story without relying on words when it is not necessary. Like showing a scared face instead of saying the character is scared.

Great video.

Spot on

This is great, Thanks.

Great video, man!!

Great essay, as you can tell by our name; we're all about showing not telling also.

I love your channel name.

Hitch was a genius, no doubt, in fact I find him one of the greatest of film makers. Hitch was a grand-scheme director, being able to manipulate the audience with visuals to tell the story, which was no doubt his talent. But to say it's a superior way to tell a story isn't a fair statement. Dialogue is the most revealing thing about a character, it's how we make our judgement of him and if the story your telling is a very character based one it's much better. You take for example Hemingway (which is a funny coincidence, because Hitch tried to get Ernest to write scripts for him), he doesn't babble during his novels. As an author he says very little, he gives brief descriptions of the characters and then allows them to tell the stories in their words. If you're good at writing dialouge I prefer telling the story through it, and allowing the camera to be the voice of reason, so to speak, for the audience, but then again I'm not Alfred Hitchcock, and no one else ever will be. Artist should have the freedom to tell their story how they see fit.

Hitch did not have a distaste for dialogue. He had a distaste of films of people talking. The dialogue in his films often was superb.

Great! Moar!

I wonder what Hitchcock would think about Eric Rohmer and Nuri Bilge Ceylan?

Thank you for the film analysises. I appreciate them. But I really don't see the point of having some music run over your comments, the film scenes, etc etc, it distracts us, disturbs our thinking, and holds no link to your point (ex "Que sera sera" over dramatic Hitch film shots).

another reason for Hitchcock's distaste for dialogue could be that he paid no attention to it and wasn't a good personal director by any standards; his actors were left entirely to their own devices. For this reason, Cary Grant in "North by Northwest" might as well have been played by James Stewart, just as "Rear Window" could have been played by Grant. His actors were Parcheesi pieces to him. This is not to belittle Hitchcock's genius, but it certainly did not lie in personal direction, and he would have completely screwed up a script like "All About Eve". Not that he would ever have undertaken such a project, of course.

ISA i ASAdoin to sleep

Hitchcock is great in his own way. So is Tarantino.

But talk is cheap! 🤣🤣🤣

So Dialogue...film's representation of the primary form of human communication...is a lazy way to tell a story? You realize we have been telling stories with Dialogue waaaay longer than we have been making film? I mean dont get me wrong, films that are full of dialogue that lacks substance can be boring. But to say the simple act of using Dialogue as a primary driver for telling a story is lazy does not make sense. You can use well written dialogue to further the story equally as the other visual tools the film medium grants its creators.

bullschit