this post was submitted on
1,793 points (59% like it)
5,644 up votes 3,851 down votes
shortlink:

movies

subscribe1,396,121 readers

1,458 users here now

menu

Please vote in Round 3 of 4 for our FAQ - And our DOTM - Jean-Pierre Jeunet

The place on reddit for movie buffs!

POSTING GUIDELINES:

  • If you are making a submission about a specific movie or actor, name them in your title!
  • Do not advertise, promote, post or comment about illegal filesharing of movies or any other media here.
  • Keep the website's name out of the title of the submission
  • Don't editorialize the submission title if you're reviewing a movie
  • If there's a more appropriate subreddit for your submission, it may be removed.
  • Memes & punchline jokes are subject to removal.
  • If you are sharing your opinion or asking a question, do not submit a link to external content. Instead, make it a self-post.
  • Further guidelines regarding redundant "Circlejerk" topics
  • Flame wars, racism, & homophobic remarks are prohibited.
  • Misinformation is grounds for removal.

See Also:

Before making a "reddit's favorite movie" thread, check out reddit's top 250 movies first!

USE SPOILER TAGS (for leaked info about upcoming movies, twist endings, or anything else spoileresque), use the following method: [Spoiler](/s "Darth Vader is Yoda's Father")

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1792
1793

Alfred Hitchcock for photographer Jean-Loup Sieff [1962] (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by duemenotre

all 100 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]faxxxxxx 26 points27 points ago

In front of the house of N. Bates - Psycho 1960

[–]doctorspliffworth 24 points25 points ago

Here's another great one

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]duemenotre[S] 34 points35 points ago

Ina Balke

[–]arielsweetheart 2 points3 points ago

For a moment I thought it was Rose Byrne and then I remembered that we haven't successfully time traveled yet. They do look awfully similar though.

[–]sexbobomb91 12 points13 points ago

It reminds me of this article: http://www.cracked.com/article_19099_12-classic-movie-moments-made-possible-by-abuse-murder.html .

[–]brokenlanguage 11 points12 points ago

Then in one scene, he needed a "shocked" reaction from her, so he started unbuttoning his pants as if he was going to whip out his cock.

ಠ_ಠ

[–]sexbobomb91 6 points7 points ago

The man's a genius!

[–]TheHotpants 35 points36 points ago

That's really good quality for something that was taken back in 1962.

[–]feureau 52 points53 points ago

Lots of stuff from way back when actually looks good. It's the delivery that's been much refined lately. Case in point: ST:TNG was shot on film, but we've only seen it on TV-grade quality, and the blu-ray looks a-fuckin'-mazing.

And this goes back all the way to Citizen Kane and Metropolis. Go check out their remastered blu-ray versions.

Same goes for photography stuffs.

[–]LeonardNemoysHead 6 points7 points ago

What's incredibly is when you look at something like the restored Casablanca and see the quality of the film, and then realize that motion picture film stock lagged behind still photography by decades.

[–]XAPHAIS 0 points1 point ago

This is not true.

It entirely depends on the quality of film stock and how it was preserved.

This is likely a medium formate photo. 6x6 cm or 8x10 inches. When comparing that to a 35mm negative the difference in quality will be fast. More surface are on the film = more grains = more data.

70mm IMAX film for example, will capture more detail per grain than some of the largest digital sensors available (per pixel).

[–]LeonardNemoysHead 0 points1 point ago

Grain count isn't the only variable, though.

[–]KR4T0S 10 points11 points ago

You should watch a remaster of Ben Hur, the colours will make your eyes bleed! Lawrence of Arabia is another one that looks spectacular. Psycho is also magnificent.

Film hasn't really changed much for over a century. A more recent example of a movie shot only on film is The Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight didn't use any post production effects, everything was staged including the tanker overturning in the streets of Gotham and The Dark Knight is one of the most distinct looking films in recent memory.

Metropolis came out in 1927 and IMO it still looks better than 99% of sci-fi films released in recent times.

Of course if you want the ultimate example of shooting with a film camera and no special effects you probably want to see Blade Runner. No special effects, the city was a giant model, the locations were real or on set and it was all shot on an ancient technology. Also for my money it's the best looking movie ever made alongside 2001: A Space Odyssey and Lawrence of Arabia.

In many regards the quality you get out of films from the 60's, 70's and 80's is better than what you would get today, it's worth going back and being stunned and surprised.

[–]drdreyfus 9 points10 points ago

Sorry to be a stickler, but special effects generally refers to in-camera and mechanical effects (which would mean all of the films mentioned have some special effects) and visual effects usually refer to post-production effects (bluescreen, animation, cgi). Even so, Metropolis, The Dark Knight, and Blade Runner all have visual effects as well.

[–]KR4T0S 2 points3 points ago

Good point, I was racking my brain for the correct terminology, was going to use "computer effects" lol.

I'd really hate to shoot a film the way Nolan shot The Dark Knight or the way Scott shot Blade Runner but for my money those are two of the best looking films ever created, if they had more cinematic experiences like that I'd start going back to the movie theaters.

[–]drdreyfus 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, I got the impression that you meant CGI. It is still quite impressive what the folks making Blade Runner or Metropolis or any of the other films you mentioned achieved.

[–]LonelyNixon 4 points5 points ago

Metropolis has a fantastic visual style and it is remarkable for the era it was made in, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. A lot of the city drops do look like obvious shots of models and paintings but they blend a little better because the muted black and white colors make it easier to accept unnatural looking effects.

It's a beautiful film and amazing for a lot of reason but it doesn't have better special effects than modern movies.

[–]KR4T0S 2 points3 points ago

Thats just your opinion and obviously mine is different.

However I want to point out that I wasn't saying it had better special effects what I meant was that the old way of using models and film instead of digital cameras and post processing is often preferable to me.

I didn't mean to say the old films have better special effects, I mean they didn't have green screens or CGI, they made use of film and models and that looked better to me.

I still think nothing touches Blade Runner to this day, I still remember that opening scene.

I may be in the minority but I was much more impressed by Moon or District 9 than I was by Avatar and The Dark Knight is one of the best looking films in recent memory for me.

[–]LonelyNixon 0 points1 point ago

I agree actually agree with you, I just wanted to point out that Metropolis is a beautifully directed and well done movie, but I wouldn't say it looks more real than modern special effects as a lot of the big city shots are pretty clearly just paintings and models. I take objection to the notion that it looked real, because although exceptional for the time Metropolis holds up because of it's visual style more than it's effects.

I do agree with what your sentiment though. Models, miniatures, and big things which are a lot lighter and thinner than the real versions so you can blow em up and crash them easily didn't quite look real persay but it did look better than cgi a lot of times because while cgi has it's own fakeness it also has this unnatural cleanness that isn't quite as interactive as real effects. Comparing even a generic 2012 action movie to one from the 80s or 90s there is just something about those special effects in old movies that stands out. Sure cgi works better for some things, but the real build effects just have a visual appeal all their own.

So in summation. I think we agree but I don't think metropolis looks realistic. Other models do, like you said blade runner looks amazing(though honestly I liked the book a bit better the visual were nice) but metropolis, it's amazing because that techno art deco futuristic thing and the fact that it was made in the 20s.

[–]LeonardNemoysHead 1 point2 points ago

Lawrence of Arabia is another one that looks spectacular.

It's incredible to me that places still show Lawrence of Arabia on film. It's been half a century and copies are still preserved well enough to do this.

[–]JorgeGarrido 0 points1 point ago

That's because it's on 70mm widescreen, which is twice the resolution of already HD-superior 35mm film.

[–]LeonardNemoysHead 0 points1 point ago

...and? 70mm film will fall apart just as easily as 35mm when it isn't cared for.

[–]JorgeGarrido 0 points1 point ago

Obviously you need to take care of the negatives, and also get digital transfers from them that don't decay.

[–]LeonardNemoysHead 0 points1 point ago

Well, yeah. I didn't say that I didn't understand how these negatives are still being played, I said that it was amazing.

[–]thegreatwhitemenace 1 point2 points ago

digital has potential though, if done properly. for example, Drive, which looked amazing regardless of how good the actual movie was, as well as some of the high quality tv shows out, such as Mad Men, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Breaking Bad, American Horror Story. when digital fails, it's because the cinematographer/director thinks they're making an "ultra-realistic" documentary style film. if you remember that the camera is a storytelling tool and not just something you point at actors, that counts for a lot.

[–]TheStreisandEffect 3 points4 points ago

Breaking Bad is shot on good ol 35mm homie.

Edit: Here's an interesting article that discusses the shows cinematography and visual style.

[–]thegreatwhitemenace 0 points1 point ago

even Season 4? that's exceptional as fuck.

[–]KR4T0S 5 points6 points ago

Mad Men is actually shot entirely on film:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/5-facts-matthew-weiner-mad-men-172385

Breaking Bad as mentioned below is also shot on film. Boardwalk Empire is another one shot on film.

Unfortunately thanks to the price of silver only big budget TV shows now use film but film is generally used to achieve a certain type of look in certain TV shows. You can see this type of "look" in Mad Men and Breaking Bad, they don't look like a lot of other TV shows, they look nearly noir-ish and absurdly realistic at times. Thats the film effect.

I wasn't ranting against any one technology though, I was just making the point that you can actually make incredible things with just a film camera and models.

There are simply more options now and thats a good thing but it shouldn't be thought of that using film means lower quality picture. In most cases it is the often digital being the choice for convenience, ease and price rather than quality.

Of course you need somebody extremely dedicated to the craft and with real pull(nobody is gonna let you shoot film due to the high cost unless you have enormous clout, thats why the the guys behind Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Nolan get away with it while most others simply can't).

If you shot a film like The Dark Knight you can't see the scenes till the film is developer which means you are going to get it right the first time.

Furthermore a lot of scenes can only be shot once(the scene with the hospital blowing up in The Dark Knight was a real building being demolished) and the downside to models instead of CGI is that you need more time to create great models and there are less great modellers available nowadays.

In other words it's a pain in the ass to work with models and film, it's much more convenient with digital and post processing effects. However good old film is surprisingly common in the industry and some of the best stuff you see on your screen is courtesy of film.

[–]thegreatwhitemenace 0 points1 point ago

now i feel stupid lol

[–]HaraldNordgren 0 points1 point ago

Speaking of Ben-Hur: Gore Vidal on the gay subtext he put in Ben-Hur

[–]Evilsmile 0 points1 point ago

If you're into the use of the film stock itself as part of the art of cinematography, check out Three Kings and Moonrise Kingdom, which might be the only widely released movie in recent times shot in Super 16? I haven't heard of any others.

The cinematographer for Three Kings actually ended up using some film stocks that were up till then, only used for still photography, but he had them cut to cinema length rolls. He also uses reversal film and video depending on the feel he wanted for the scene. The overall effect is freaking unbelievable.

[–]RagingPigeon 0 points1 point ago

Uh, Metropolis looks better in what way? Looks more real? Looks like a more accurate depiction of what the future could look like?

[–]KR4T0S 2 points3 points ago

I think convincing might be the correct word. For me Metropolis, the city in Blade Runner and Gotham in Nolans trilogy are three of the weirdest(and in this case weird = amazing) cities I've ever seen on film.

I just feel like I'm there, there is nothing that betrays my sense of reality, it's actually there and it's real, just need to run into the screen and visit that city.

I think sometimes cinema is such a realistic illusion it's hard not to realise you are still sitting in the theater. Some films are so absurdly good at taking fiction and making you feel it's real. Metropolis is burned into my mind.

[–]Cbeck527 2 points3 points ago

Film is awesome that way! You can scan it to really high digital resolutions and it still looks great.

[–]JorgeGarrido 5 points6 points ago

Of course it's good quality, it's film.

[–]LeonardNemoysHead 1 point2 points ago

The technology behind black and white photography was perfected by then. It was basically as good as it would ever get by the Second World War.

[–]JorgeGarrido 0 points1 point ago

Yes, that's why film noir became popular (I guess I'm talking about motion picture film stock now) because it was so fast in its exposure time compared to before the war that it could shoot in low light conditions with low key lights and high contrast.

[–]notonemoregain 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, it's called analogue photography. face-palm

[–]knifeinthedark 0 points1 point ago

The thing is back in the day a lot of photographers used field cameras, the ones that took 8X10 images. Granted a lot of images have been digitally touched, the original negative can produce high fidelity images, sometimes even surpassing digital counterparts. The b/w emulsion from back in the day are still being used by contemporary film makers like Adox and Foma.

[–]pmilb 0 points1 point ago

(sorry for this guys but couldn't resist) Yes, your mom's virginity was quite refreshing

[–]PhoneDojo 3 points4 points ago

Spirit fingers

[–]epaGamer 6 points7 points ago

Is it weird that I was watching Psycho right now and decided to stop it for a moment and go to reddit and second link which I clicked was this one (with the house of Bates)?

http://i.imgur.com/jp6TV.png

[–]REDDIT- 5 points6 points ago

You are friends with yourself?

[–]ColdChemical 4 points5 points ago

It can make finding your own response in a thread easier

[–]r3v 2 points3 points ago

I used a garish RES Tag that reads:

<--------------------- ME

[–]cautioncarnival 1 point2 points ago

You stopped it right before the end? Were you trying to prolong the suspense?

[–]theywillnotsing 0 points1 point ago

screenshots or it didn't happen... wait a minute.

[–]CreepyConspiracyCat 4 points5 points ago

Alfred's Hitchcock is being groped.

[–]wappleby 1 point2 points ago

Don't see him complaining do you?

[–]YoureWithStupid_lx 2 points3 points ago

Just look at his face..

[–]wappleby 1 point2 points ago

That's more of the I just came face to me.

[–]gulpeg 0 points1 point ago

Alfred Hitchcock seems to love the new TSA frontal searches..

[–]NoFearofDownVote 2 points3 points ago

This must have been in the Universal Studios back lot

[–]BullwinkleB 2 points3 points ago

Look, it's Arya Stark from Game of Thrones all grown up!

[–]dairylee 2 points3 points ago

Higher Resolution version

[–]ButMaybeImWrong 4 points5 points ago

This is one of few pictures that I've seen from >70s where a women actually looks modern day hot

[–]JorgeGarrido 6 points7 points ago

You're nuts. 60s women actually looks more modern and less dated than 70s women.

[–]MTknowsit 1 point2 points ago

You need to see more pictures. There is even a huge Reddit thread somewhere of pre-1970 hot chicks.

[–]MTknowsit 2 points3 points ago

I present the gold standard: http://cdn.thegloss.com/files/2011/05/audrey-hepburn-mark-shaw-3-520x559.jpg

[–]FexixUngar 4 points5 points ago

I wouldn't argue with that even if Groucho Marx did want his eyebrows back.

[–]akera099 1 point2 points ago

Very nice..

[–]Circle_Dot 1 point2 points ago

Owww! My Balls!

[–]psychroclasm 1 point2 points ago

He seems like a really fun guy. Shame he's gone, because he's one of the few celebrities I'd care to hear about.

[–]arcticswan 1 point2 points ago

i think a blonde would have been more appropriate...

[–]DeathisLaughing 1 point2 points ago

Sieff has always been one of my favorite photographers, this picture is even more hilarious (or unsettling) if you've read about Hitchcock's treatment of actresses during filming...

[–]bro_b1_kenobi 1 point2 points ago

You'll never hear someone say that man didn't have a good sense of humor.

Wait...did he ever make a comedy? Fuck balls that would own.

[–]lurveloaveluff 1 point2 points ago

Are you joking? Many of his movies are hilarious and he's a master of the romantic comedy. 39 Steps, North By Northwest, The Lady Vanishes are all funny in their own right. Also I really like Mr. and Mrs. Smith which is definitely a comedy, but I know it's not very well regarded amongst all his fans.

[–]bro_b1_kenobi 0 points1 point ago

I wasn't really a fan of either Mr and Mrs Smith, but you're right there were some comedic moments in North by Northwest.

[–]cartfisk 1 point2 points ago

HAHA! i have a print of this hanging in my room!

[–]mreggen 0 points1 point ago

Where did you get the print?

[–]23apricots 1 point2 points ago

master of the leica wide angle for fashion photography

[–]molkhal 0 points1 point ago

Was he gonna pinch her right ear and make a run for it?

[–]Imperdimper 0 points1 point ago

What does that title even mean?

[–]YouHaveAngeredDoom 0 points1 point ago

An actual Hitchcock checking in.

When I was young my parents used to tell me that we we're related to him, but I think they're just full of shit.

[–]LeonardNemoysHead 0 points1 point ago

Wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle, yeah.

[–]jonnyclueless 0 points1 point ago

I work out...

[–]driesalkemade 0 points1 point ago

isn't that Ron weasley's house?

[–]bryanf445 0 points1 point ago

Her hair is amazing

[–]happyfucker 0 points1 point ago

I don't often download pictures for my "Amazing images" folder, but this time I did!

[–]calabron69 0 points1 point ago

Why is she covering his penis?

[–]dominic_jaques 0 points1 point ago

Alfred Hitchcock went to my school actually, St. Ignatius College. He funded the construction of our swimming pool!

[–]feedingmydreams 0 points1 point ago

My film teacher in 2001 said that digital will never be as good as celluloid.

[–]mequals1m1w 0 points1 point ago

Hitchcock doing a pretty good Tor Johnson.

[–]norberttheone 0 points1 point ago

how have so many people downvoted this? brilliant

[–]capt_ultra 0 points1 point ago

I thought that was the Addam's Family house for a second.

[–]beefdog99 0 points1 point ago

One of my clients has this picture pinned up on his office door. Cool to see it here, even if I do see it several times a day at work.

[–]TheR-RatedSuperstar -2 points-1 points ago

Alfred: Knowing 'whatsup since 1962.

[–]Animgator -1 points0 points ago

Is that Justin Beiber?

[–]komie_ -1 points0 points ago

does anyone else think that the woman looks a bit like adele? or is it just me...

[–]Lotok -1 points0 points ago

It looks like a tiny Adele.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

A remake of Young Frankenstein? You realize thats a parody? In Frankenstein he doesn't rape the girl... he just throws her into a lake.

[–]IRAISI -2 points-1 points ago

has anyone noticed that this picture was taken in 1960 on the set of Psycho?

[–]JorgeGarrido 0 points1 point ago

If that was the case, wouldn't the woman be Vera Miles or Janet Leigh? This wasn't taken in 1960.

[–]IRAISI 0 points1 point ago

I know who's in Psycho...guess I was just wondering why they would go back to the location of that movie and take this picture 2 years after. I looked it up, apparently the photo is dated 1962 but it was taken during the filming of Psycho, Hitchcock is pretending to be a zombie with model Ina Balke...short answer? yes it was taken in 1960...published 1962

[–]JorgeGarrido 0 points1 point ago

Whatever dude.

[–]IRAISI 0 points1 point ago

i've seen some of your posts...when you're right you rub it in...when you're wrong you act like a douche...have fun ass

[–]JorgeGarrido 0 points1 point ago

GFYS.

[–]IRAISI 1 point2 points ago

haha so unrefined and predictable

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 30892 on app-184 running 6bc9a40.