How come Frenzy (1972) wasn't more of a success for Hitchcock?
 

I feel that it is possibly better than Psycho, yet Psycho is considered to be Hitchcock's signature film. But as far as serial killer movies go, I think I find Frenzy to be more effective. How come it didn't surpass Psycho, do you think?

Re: How come Frenzy (1972) wasn't more of a success for Hitchcock?
 

I don't know, good question. I didn't like "Psycho" and "The Birds" at all. Didn't like "Rebecca" (5/10).

"Vertigo" is overrated, but I gave that and all the following movies 7's or 7.5/10. The first one I liked was "Strangers on a Train" (although the 2nd half wasn't as good), "Dial M For Murder" (being a Ray Milland fan helps). I liked that "Rope" was in real-time. "Rear Window" "Spellbound", "Lifeboat", "Shadow of a Doubt", "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and of course "Frenzy".

How so?

In terms of what?

Ha! You guys took the bait! And that’s never get involved in a thread Ironpony has started!
(Just joking!)

Well I guess I felt that Psycho maybe relied a little too much on the twist, to the point where it felt like the whole story existed to have the twist. So it felt a bit gimmicky? This isn't bad it was still a fun movie, but it just doesn't have as much rewatch ability for me therefore.

Frenzy I just find the story to be more interesting, and the plot took more interesting turns for me. I also found the movie to be a lot more disturbing than Psycho.

https://www.the-numbers.com/market/1...rossing-movies


It did better business than The Godfather

Re: How come Frenzy (1972) wasn't more of a success for Hitchcock?
 

All of Hitchcock's previous movies are tightly packed. Frenzy was a bit on the slow side. Maybe that's why. I love the film. Also maybe people had the Hitchcock fatigue by then. He was a very prolific movie maker from the 20s.

Nice find, Siddon. Just look at the top 20 great films that came out in 1972, then compare them with a typical schlock offerings we've had in the past few years...:rolleyes:

I found this quite amusing. How the hell did Hitchcock, a master of his art, not see this as comical?

Re: How come Frenzy (1972) wasn't more of a success for Hitchcock?
 

I love Frenzy. It's one of my favorite Hitchcock movies, and shows the direction he might have gone had he been able to make more movies in the 70s, since it's considerably more gritty than most of his classics.

Re: How come Frenzy (1972) wasn't more of a success for Hitchcock?
 

A really good film from my memory. It would make a good triple bill with Michael Powell's Peeping Tom and Henri-Georges Clouzot's Woman in Chains (La Prisonnière), interesting how all three experienced filmmakers tried to experiment with new styles, adapting to changing cultural opinions later in their careers.

He did.

Re: How come Frenzy (1972) wasn't more of a success for Hitchcock?
 

Well I know this sounds bad but me and my gf, and friend, watched this movie together, and we laughed the hell out of that scene. It sounds bad to laugh it but the villain has a lot very bad dialogue during the sexual assault scene, and I think it was suppose to be bad. He is a really bad dirty talker, and that makes sense, since he can't get any women anyway. So we were laughing out butts of at that scene, including my gf who is probably putting herself in the victim's shoes as well, but were we suppose to be laughing?

I think Frenzy is a very good film, coming on the heels of two un-Hitchcockian spy thrillers, Torn Curtain and Topaz, which reportedly Universal forced him to do.

Hitchcock of course had been ill for several years. Yet it was something of a triumph for him to return to London to do a picture after more than 30 years.

Frenzy was very shocking when it came out. I was surprised both at the nudity, and also the frank but yet lampooning portrayal of the strangulation scenes. But it definitely had the Hitchcock touches of pushing the limits, and his signature ability to juxtapose horror with comedy. The banality of murder.

I think that everyone at the time knew that Hitch's best days were behind him, but were pleased to see him back to form for his last two films: Frenzy and Family Plot.

Re: How come Frenzy (1972) wasn't more of a success for Hitchcock?
 

Oh okay. I never thought of Frenzy as a slower Hitchcock film and pacing felt about the same to me as any of his others. There seemed to be less music though, than I expected, and the music that it has does feel very made for TV-ish, if this is perhaps why people didn't get absorbed into it as much?

However, I think I might rank Frenzy as this 3rd best movie, out of all that I've seen, but maybe I need more viewings to see why it wasn't one of his very best.

Re: How come Frenzy (1972) wasn't more of a success for Hitchcock?
 

There movie could easily have been chopped 10-15 mins, but I am talking from memory. I have seen it once, 7-8 years ago. For me, I don't complain. If a director needs X minutes to draw out a scene to tell a narrative I am fine with it, as long as its not meandering away from the main plot.


But a lot of people would complain. The need for constant shock to the senses, is something that I think would be a common problem through out the ages. Only the amount of stimulus probably changed over the years. Just look at horror movies, the need to freak people out has led directors to shove in jump scares, loud noises etc. rather than let the scene steep in own tension. Hitchcock's style of story telling might have been a little dated by the 70s.



That is the only reason I find convincing my friends watching movies before the 90s is a good thing! B&W, i don't event try now!



But I am just speculating. I wasn't even around then!

Re: How come Frenzy (1972) wasn't more of a success for Hitchcock?
 

It's nice to see some positive thought and views of of one of my favourite Hitchcock films. I'm not a Hitch fan, which I've always thought is why I like this so much compared to those who worship the master.

I think Frenzy did OK, as Siddon has shown (though comparing it with The Godfather isn't really a far comparison. At the time, The Godfather was basically a 3 hour art movie made with a little known director, while Frenzy was the latest from one of the most recognisable names in cinema.

Re: How come Frenzy (1972) wasn't more of a success for Hitchcock?
 

In the long run though, Godfather earned like 14-15 times more than Frenzy. I am not sure if that is just ticket sales. Godfather was booked by theatres for $140M.