When it comes to the boy putting his fingers in his ear... To say that Hitchcock left it in the movie just to prove that he can manipulate your attention away from it is a weird theory to me. They probably didn't notice on set and this was the only good take. Or they never noticed in the first place.
I don’t agree with the presenter. I think the mistake with the kid was one that wasn’t noticed by the director. In the same movie there’s an error on the train where at the restaurant table, Cary Grant’s wine glass changes from full to half full and back again from one shot to another. There’s also a dubbing error which was missed when Grant points out those in a still photo he’s looking at. Hitchcock simply didn’t notice.
@@MrDavey2010 They have continuity pros called script supervisors on set to catch precisely those things; not sure it's Hitchcock's job to worry about that stuff.
James Mason, Cary Grant, Alfred Hitchcock: Three Englishmen in Hollywood working on one film. Inevitably, the result of such a collaboration is a masterpiece.
I would have lost it in the art gallery. The moment I saw Leonard, after him laughing away me as a drunk driver, I would have did everything I could to beat the hell out of him in a rage.
I drove 500 miles to MT Rushmore not for itself but because NxNW has been one of my fave films for over 50 years! And for me Hitch's best film. Grant and Mason play brilliantly off each other especially in the auction scene.
Not over-analyzing. Hitchcock knew all of this. Makes for a great director, great acting, and one hell of a good movie! Thanks, sir, you are right! Had I been Thornhill, I would have turned Van Dam and Leonard's world upside down. But this is the 50's, lol. Great, great movie.
"Over-analyzed," said everyone. And yet this analysis is quite reasonable compared to the actual cult built around Kubrick, particularly "The Shining". Also, those disagreeing with the teacher about Hitch's set design are invited to watch all of his other movies in which the design is almost heavy-handed in its obviousness, cf. "Suspicion" with its "spider-web" shadows. The teacher isn't wrong, in other words.
7:21 this shot is also a split screen with the puzzle pattern wall only behind the character who’s about to play a check mate move. Another reason hitch would justify leaving the boy plugging his ears before the gun shot is to subconsciously tell the audience that someone in the room knew this was going to happen.
I think that the reason the editors and Hitchcock allowed this shot where the boy had his finger on his ear? is because you could interpret what he's doing in several ways. Maybe he was making a face to his sister, or just fooling around. To assume that they let it just go thru, I think is presumptuous
@@michaelhegyan7464 For that honor, I would offer that James Mason's best performance was as Humbert Humbert in "Lolita". THAT was a very tight rope to walk back in the early 1960s.
I Love this movie I have seen it Over150+ times easy over the past 60 yrs & NEVER ONCE saw the kid plug his ears, One Question- was this the original cafeteria or built for the movie we went there many yrs ago and I'm not 100% sure, it looks like it was built but if it was they did a good job, anyone know ?
The group of women resting their hands on the table horrified as Roger lie dead on the floor, reminds me in the painting of the beheading of St John by Caravaggio .
I originally thought this was filmed on location in a real cafeteria and Hitch only had a limited time to use it so he couldn't make everything perfect. Also the little boy is telling us that Eva was shooting real blanks and the sound wasn't dubbed in later.
I'm not sure where it was filmed, but the cafeteria in the film is identical to the real cafeteria at Mt. Rushmore, so I suspect it was filmed on location. I grew up in Rapid City and we used to go up there every Sunday after church! That cafeteria was torn down and the entire visitors center replaced sometime in the late 1990s (web site says 1998). I always enjoyed the movie because I got to see all those sites in that part of the country (plus it was a great movie in so many ways).
Some of this is interesting. The concentration on the chequerboard motif is a bit false. Hitch wanted a totally different intro to the film when the credits appeared. The final version with the green background and diagonals, whilst very striking, was not his choice.
Maybe so, but intentionality isn't everything, surely? As in, however the film was 'meant' to look, this is how the film ended up, so that's what the viewer feels.
I feel the boy putting his fingers in his ears is realistic, since, as we in the shot the boy was observing the woman taking the pistol out of her bag and naturally expects her to shoot with consequent noise and so instinctively puts his fingers into the ears.This is a natural reaction which supplements the take. Perhaps the boy has to be complimented for his natural reaction to the ensuing gun shot.
Only problem with that is that he wasn't really looking at her during the scene, so not able to detect she just pulled out a small gun from the opposite side of her body. Either way he wasn't supposed to react to that, just the gunshot.
Clearly, we wouldn't talk about the boy's gaffe had Hitchcock known NBN would be viewed on large TV screens in home viewing formats... And then the unknown boy became internationally famous for getting annoyed at repeating that noisy gunshot..... :)
This guy has over analyzed the scene to the point of being boring.As Hitchcock once said "It's only a movie". And I agree with a previous comment on here that Hitchcock and his crew were ,in all likelihood, not aware of what the boy was doing and that it was only after the film was released that it was brought to their attention
Always a bit laughable to see others comment on the purposes of a director regarding a particular scene ... Hitchcock created many great and memorable films however he rarely had enough money to produce films that were of great quality in terms of production values. He often uses rear projection shots which of course today would use computer animation to make them more realistic. Hitchcock's films were often ruined in my opinion because of his over use of rear projection. It was done because it's a low quality way of keeping the budget tight and that overuse produced distracting results simply because it was cheap. It would be great to interview Hitch today and ask him why he took particular shots ... I'm sure it would not be the same analysis that we get from a film critic / professor who is going to over-analyze it to death ... pretty sure Hitch would just say it was the cheapest way to set up the shot. . The discussion about the use of the vertical and horizontal lines was also comical in my opinion. They probably already had some wall paper available from some other film and used that for this restaurant scene because it was cheap. As to the little kid ... Hitch certainly saw it while editing but missed it during the actual filming ... cheaper to leave it in. Today the IT guys would have modified it with the use of computers. Just for fun see if you can find Groucho Marx's remarks regarding his making of a film symbolically opposing war in "Duck Soup" ... he said they were simply trying to make a funny film because Chico owed some gamblers a lot of money and needed the paycheck to get them off his back. The notion of 'hidden symbolism" is such overworked nonsense by professors to make them seem more knowledgeable ... been there done that. Enjoy the film with all its flaws and ignore the critics (including me).
Don't think Hitchcock was looking for realism in any of his films. The cropduster scene is a good example. Why not put a sniper in the cornfield. But it would've been less interesting to watch.
Over-analyzed-but fun. This is a supremely self-satisfied movie and justifiably so. In a movie where director Mr. H. appeared in a cameo, I'm sure Mr. H. LOVED including the boy in the background with his fingers in his ears.
I think your seeing things that don't mean shit to the viewer, waffling on , pausing for a medium shot, get out of Here....who fucking cares , it's a great movie, thats all that counts.
![Tour the North by Northwest Home [CG Tour]](/img/n.gif)
When it comes to the boy putting his fingers in his ear... To say that Hitchcock left it in the movie just to prove that he can manipulate your attention away from it is a weird theory to me. They probably didn't notice on set and this was the only good take. Or they never noticed in the first place.
@ron marninks It´s a feature not a bug.
@ron marninks So true , a crop duster trying to kill someone? Why didn't somebody just drive by stop and shoot him??
I don’t agree with the presenter. I think the mistake with the kid was one that wasn’t noticed by the director. In the same movie there’s an error on the train where at the restaurant table, Cary Grant’s wine glass changes from full to half full and back again from one shot to another. There’s also a dubbing error which was missed when Grant points out those in a still photo he’s looking at. Hitchcock simply didn’t notice.
@@MrDavey2010 They have continuity pros called script supervisors on set to catch precisely those things; not sure it's Hitchcock's job to worry about that stuff.
James Mason, Cary Grant, Alfred Hitchcock: Three Englishmen in Hollywood working on one film. Inevitably, the result of such a collaboration is a masterpiece.
Plus Leo G. Carroll.
Hitchcock was an American citizen, so was Grant.
@@xr4ti548 They are still English men!
I would have lost it in the art gallery. The moment I saw Leonard, after him laughing away me as a drunk driver, I would have did everything I could to beat the hell out of him in a rage.
I drove 500 miles to MT Rushmore not for itself but because NxNW has been one of my fave films for over 50 years! And for me Hitch's best film. Grant and Mason play brilliantly off each other especially in the auction scene.
Not over-analyzing. Hitchcock knew all of this. Makes for a great director, great acting, and one hell of a good movie! Thanks, sir, you are right! Had I been Thornhill, I would have turned Van Dam and Leonard's world upside down. But this is the 50's, lol. Great, great movie.
"Over-analyzed," said everyone. And yet this analysis is quite reasonable compared to the actual cult built around Kubrick, particularly "The Shining". Also, those disagreeing with the teacher about Hitch's set design are invited to watch all of his other movies in which the design is almost heavy-handed in its obviousness, cf. "Suspicion" with its "spider-web" shadows. The teacher isn't wrong, in other words.
One of my ten favorite color movies ever made and i've seen thousands.
'Classy Movie'.
7:21 this shot is also a split screen with the puzzle pattern wall only behind the character who’s about to play a check mate move. Another reason hitch would justify leaving the boy plugging his ears before the gun shot is to subconsciously tell the audience that someone in the room knew this was going to happen.
Such a great insight!
Love this discussion, applause to you!
Would love if it was possible to have Hitchcock watch this.
As always you give entire credit to a very talented ensemble
This is excellent. Makes me want to be a film student.
I'm surprised noone so far has liked this brilliant analysis of the scene.
... maybe that's because the guy is merely describing the shots.
Not analysis. Certainly not brilliant.
rob box: That's what I was thinking too :D
I just noticed it now.
what's so brilliant about it? the scene is not that great and his take on it is very basic.
There is nothing new here. Its stuff that can be found in 30 year old books.
Very fun and informative.
Although briefly heard in the scene, I wish there was a mention of Bernard Herrmann's masterful score. Great video.
Cinematography by Robert Burks, editing by George Tomasini -- a pair of veterans.
I think that the reason the editors and Hitchcock allowed this shot where the boy had his finger on his ear? is because you could interpret what he's doing in
several ways. Maybe he was making a face to his sister, or just fooling around. To assume that they let it just go thru, I think is presumptuous
way cool. Thank you.
Probably one of the few actors who could sound more sophisticated that Cary Grant would be James Mason. And here we have it.
David cawrowl yes...he was quite brilliant in, The Verdict, opposite of Paul Newman.
James Mason was highly educated and it shows. He went to Cambridge University & qualified as an English architect.
@@MrDavey2010 he was nominated for best supporting actor in 'the verdict, opposite of Paul Newman. Probably the best role of his great career..
@@michaelhegyan7464 For that honor, I would offer that James Mason's best performance was as Humbert Humbert in "Lolita". THAT was a very tight rope to walk back in the early 1960s.
I Love this movie I have seen it Over150+ times easy over the past 60 yrs & NEVER ONCE saw the kid plug his ears, One Question- was this the original cafeteria or built for the movie we went there many yrs ago and I'm not 100% sure, it looks like it was built but if it was they did a good job, anyone know ?
The group of women resting their hands on the table horrified as Roger lie dead on the floor, reminds me in the painting of the beheading of St John by Caravaggio .
I originally thought this was filmed on location in a real cafeteria and Hitch only had a limited time to use it so he couldn't make everything perfect. Also the little boy is telling us that Eva was shooting real blanks and the sound wasn't dubbed in later.
I'm not sure where it was filmed, but the cafeteria in the film is identical to the real cafeteria at Mt. Rushmore, so I suspect it was filmed on location. I grew up in Rapid City and we used to go up there every Sunday after church! That cafeteria was torn down and the entire visitors center replaced sometime in the late 1990s (web site says 1998). I always enjoyed the movie because I got to see all those sites in that part of the country (plus it was a great movie in so many ways).
Some of this is interesting. The concentration on the chequerboard motif is a bit false. Hitch wanted a totally different intro to the film when the credits appeared. The final version with the green background and diagonals, whilst very striking, was not his choice.
Maybe so, but intentionality isn't everything, surely? As in, however the film was 'meant' to look, this is how the film ended up, so that's what the viewer feels.
just wow!
What do you mean “Just” wow?
(Why do people say this? It’s so stupid and boring.)
@@ArmyJames yeap I understand some tiny brains can't understand it
The kid put his fingers in his ears because he SAW THE GUN and anticipated the noise of the gunshot, Dolt. Hitch didn't make errors.
Brilliant analysis but I like to think the boy to having his fingers in his ears was kept as he was one of the few observers to see the gun.
I feel the boy putting his fingers in his ears is realistic, since, as we in the shot the boy was observing the woman taking the pistol out of her bag and naturally expects her to shoot with consequent noise and so instinctively puts his fingers into the ears.This is a natural reaction which supplements the take. Perhaps the boy has to be complimented for his natural reaction to the ensuing gun shot.
Only problem with that is that he wasn't really looking at her during the scene, so not able to detect she just pulled out a small gun from the opposite side of her body. Either way he wasn't supposed to react to that, just the gunshot.
Sean's Myth yes he was looking at her. Watch it again.
Does the cafeteria really exist to this day or was it just a studio set
It was a fabricated set in California.
Clearly, we wouldn't talk about the boy's gaffe had Hitchcock known NBN would be viewed on large TV screens in home viewing formats... And then the unknown boy became internationally famous for getting annoyed at repeating that noisy gunshot..... :)
Everybody knows about that little kid putting his fingers in his ears
This guy has over analyzed the scene to the point of being boring.As Hitchcock once said "It's only a movie". And I agree with a previous comment on here that Hitchcock and his crew were ,in all likelihood, not aware of what the boy was doing and that it was only after the film was released that it was brought to their attention
See how a person can make themselves a career and a salary from messing around with a Hitchcock movie. Mr Hurt is the Capt. Obvious of Parkland...
Would you have prefered a Marxist or Freudian analysis of the scene?
Always a bit laughable to see others comment on the purposes of a director regarding a particular scene ... Hitchcock created many great and memorable films however he rarely had enough money to produce films that were of great quality in terms of production values. He often uses rear projection shots which of course today would use computer animation to make them more realistic. Hitchcock's films were often ruined in my opinion because of his over use of rear projection. It was done because it's a low quality way of keeping the budget tight and that overuse produced distracting results simply because it was cheap. It would be great to interview Hitch today and ask him why he took particular shots ... I'm sure it would not be the same analysis that we get from a film critic / professor who is going to over-analyze it to death ... pretty sure Hitch would just say it was the cheapest way to set up the shot. . The discussion about the use of the vertical and horizontal lines was also comical in my opinion. They probably already had some wall paper available from some other film and used that for this restaurant scene because it was cheap. As to the little kid ... Hitch certainly saw it while editing but missed it during the actual filming ... cheaper to leave it in. Today the IT guys would have modified it with the use of computers. Just for fun see if you can find Groucho Marx's remarks regarding his making of a film symbolically opposing war in "Duck Soup" ... he said they were simply trying to make a funny film because Chico owed some gamblers a lot of money and needed the paycheck to get them off his back. The notion of 'hidden symbolism" is such overworked nonsense by professors to make them seem more knowledgeable ... been there done that. Enjoy the film with all its flaws and ignore the critics (including me).
Don't think Hitchcock was looking for realism in any of his films. The cropduster scene is a good example. Why not put a sniper in the cornfield. But it would've been less interesting to watch.
I think your analysis of each scene is innecesary.
Way too much over-analyzing.
Over-analyzed-but fun. This is a supremely self-satisfied movie and justifiably so. In a movie where director Mr. H. appeared in a cameo, I'm sure Mr. H. LOVED including the boy in the background with his fingers in his ears.
I think your seeing things that don't mean shit to the viewer, waffling on , pausing for a medium shot, get out of Here....who fucking cares , it's a great movie, thats all that counts.
It's a great movie BECAUSE of the accumulation of all the little details and the way it was shot. You don't care......others do.
TOO MUCH