AlfredHitchcock, Essay Example for Free

AlfredHitchcock, EssayFinal Paper Mamet and Hitchcocks Suspenseful Similarities While comparing the films Strangers on a Train, directed by Alfred Hitchcock and The Spanish Prisoner directed by David Mamet, two suspenseful mysteries unfold. In this essay I will equal both directors use of themes, stones throws, and camera effects to convey the thrilling story of a confused and pain protagonist. While they ar different plotlines, both stories overlap in many ship canal. Perhaps Mamet may catch even made an homage to Hitchcocks Strangers on a Train by mirroring various scenes and themes in The Spanish Prisoner. Strangers on a Train is the story of two strangers that meet on a train, precisely it is hardly that simple. peerless a tennis star, Guy Haines, and the other, a wealthy psychopath Bruno Anthony. Bruno proposes a contrivance to Guy to kill someone the other person wants to dispose of, a criss-cross. Unknowingly, Guy agrees to kill Brunos enemy and vice versa. Bruno k ills Guys wife that he had been trying to divorce, and expects Guy to kill his father. They stay mixed up in a cat a dog chase of murder and confusion, which stop with Brunos death and Guy marrying the women he loved, Anne Morton.The Spanish Prisoner is titled from a con spunky that traps a mark into turning over thousands of dollars to scam artists. David Mamet character Joe Ross is a math genius that devised a process that will earn his company billions of dollars. The process is the maguffin (a typical trait of Hitchcock) we n forever find tabu what the process is, only that rival Japanese corporations will do anything to steal it. Joe Ross ends up happily ever after similarly to Guy Haines. both stories reflect one another in multiple ways. genius is that Bruno the sympathetic villain in Hitchcocks Strangers on a Train that we love and hate is rattling similar to that of Julian Jimmy dingle who elaborately tried to steal the process. We grow relationships with Jimmy Dell a nd with Bruno Anthony they argon both the catalyst of all bad that comes to the protagonist, yet each director makes them appealing and loveable. Both plotlines are obviously different, but Joe Ross is a similar reflection of Hitchcocks creation of Guy Haines as well. Both men are mixed up in what they thought were brief encounters with ice or eccentric strangers. Yet both men get fooled along the way and get ent tumbled in a web of lies, murder, and deceit. Mamet mirrors Hitchcock storyline in various ways throughout the films with character similarities again and again. On the plane ride back to the States, Susan asks Joe the films signature question Who in the world is what they seem? In this scene, sooner of a train they are on an airplane, and instead of Bruno asking Guy a question, it is Susan to Joe. Inevitably they are the resembling.Susan endows doubt and a motive to do something out of character, much like Brunos question to Anthony, My supposition is that everybody is a potential murderer. Didnt you ever want to kill somebody? Say one of those useless fellows Miriam was footrace around with? Each character is stricken with a striking comment that unravels the rest of their fate. In the same scene in the airplane Joe responds to Susan by retreating to the planes bathroom to unwrap Dells gift, which turns out to be a archetypical edition of Budge on Tennis. The tennis theme is another similarity echoed in Strangers on a Train.Guy Haines is a pro tennis player and many of the scenes have imagery of tennis. Metaphorically it could even out the affable present of characters or plot, the back and forth of sense and logic. Later when Joe is trying to meet up with lawyers to discuss the process in Central Park, he goes onto a carousel. Mamet does no mistake by copy Hitchcocks carousel tool as a dizzying climactic point. The spinning of the carousel signifies the mental state of both protagonists at the time. Each is on the verge of a breakdown, n ot knowing who to trust or what to do next.Camera angles enhance the scene in Hitchcocks version because he uses high angle shots and differential focus on the faces of the patrons riding the carousel while the background spins quickly it creates a extremely suspenseful and memorable scene. Hitchcock also used that little carnie man who crawled under the moving carousel, I was in awe of the camera angles throughout this scene, it made me hold my breath. The scene from The Spanish Prisoner where Joe was in the carousel was not as thrilling, the tone was different, he just walked around it slowly.The tones of the two scenes are like nighttime and day. Hitchcocks is loud and scary, while Mamets is eerily quiet and somber. Thematically they both explain the mental state of the protagonist, but Hitchcocks tone is intense, fast paced, and surreal at times, while Mamets tone is cerebral and realistic. Not only are the characters, the themes, and elements comparatively similar, but also m any of Hitchcocks trademarks are found in both movies. One is the falsely accused man. This is present in Guy Haines, as well as in Joe Ross. Each protagonist is being chased for a crime they didnt commit.It is a classic trait of suspense thrillers and is defiantly a major part of each film. The guerrilla trait is the guilty woman. This is present in Susan in Spanish Prisoner, and in Miriam in Strangers on a Train. Both directors convey police as idiotic throughout the movie as well, which is another Hitchcock trait. The concluding element is the pathological deviant. This is present in Bruno Anthony and in Julian Jimmy Dell. This is the figure that spun the web of lies and created a trustworthy bond while in reality being completely crazed for a habit that is unattainable.While both movies are similar in their theme, tone, characters, and director traits, they also vary in ways that make them unique. Both the stories are well conveyed due to the directors clear point of view. On e was referencing the other, both were gripping and suspenseful tales of an innocent man trying to fix a problem that they pretense seem to solve. Mamets mirroring of Hitchcock was done well, but Hitchcocks surrealistic shots and character like the carnie make it more than interesting and compelling of a movie to me.