Yes. I love old movie, especially old scary movies. Alfred Hichcock was the master of terror as opposed to horrible. Terror has a lot of ambiguity, horror is just obviously really bad. Also, I felt " What Lies Beneath" was a modern film that did a good job of terror in a Hitchcockian way.

Not true. He didn't show it because he wasn't allowed to, he even had to fight to get the toilet bowl filmed in the movie. Often times scenes are filmed showing the horror only to cut it out because it doesn't look right, like the chainsaw scene in Scarface or the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs. But other times it is shown and it's very disturbing like the gunshot scenes in The Godfather and Taxi Driver. Gore, if done right, will almost always be more effective.

@@move_i_got_this5659 I understand what you mean but Reservoir Dogs and Good Fellows are horror/terror movies. I feel that ambiguity is better for terror. Think of the scary movies that really stay with you. Nightmare on Elm Street is sooo gory, but is it a movie that keeps you scared long after?

@@rebekahguilder602 Reservoir Dogs, Good Fellas, Godfather, Scarface are all 'Crime Dramas'. Try watching "Cannibal Holocaust", I bet you won't make it all the way through it. I cut that movie off about half way through, it's too much, it's too effective. You don't always need to show the gore stuff for it to be effective but I think it's a myth that not showing the gore is more effective.

@@move_i_got_this5659 In the 1930’s film, Sabotage, Hitchcock had a boy supposedly taking a can of motion picture film across town on a bus not knowing that the film can has a bomb in in. The bomb goes off on a bus killing several people on the bus including the boy. The film showed the aftermath. Hitchcock regretted showing that scene, feeling that it took the impact out of it. I remember seeing the Birds in 1963. It showed the farmer who had been pecked to death. However, it did not show him being pecked to death - Hitchcock left that up to the viewers imagination. I don’t think showing a toilet is the same as showing a graphic scene of violence. On the Jack Benny radio show, Benny had his vault in the basement that was guarded by any number of traps and wild animals. It was very funny. When Benny’s show went to TV they attempted to show the fault. Nothing they could do would have made it anywhere as funny as what people could imagine.

_Shostakovich String Quartet Number 8_

If Andrew was alive in 1920 he would have considered jazz degenerate

Wow. What’s it like being the first human being who can read another persons mind ?? Must be a huge burden for you

The black community was very different back then INDEED. They weren’t allowed to do very much did they?

@@danieldasilva9829 Back then, the African American community had badass music such as being the pioneers of jazz, jump blues, and the founders of rock and roll music. Their doo wop, soul, and rhythm and blues was class 100% They also were the pioneers of Zoot suits, which was stylish and envied by everyone. Fast forward today, and the rap community is complete trash. The 90s gansta era was a mistake. I talked to the African American community that are baby boomers and the silent generation, and even they are absolutely disgusted with the modern culture. I'm pretty sure the OP is talking about the culture in general. There's a famous saying: hard times create heroic men. Heroic men create easy times. Easy times creates weak men. In other words, since the African community in the early part of the 20th century had it extremely hard, they were able to create masterpiece after masterpiece especially in the music department: such as Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Jimi Hendrix, Diana Ross, Tina Turner, James Brown, etc since it all comes from the soul. Today you have Megan Stallion, Cardi B, and that guy who sings the Gucci Gang song.

agreed… the complexity of Luke Skywalker’s arc is often overlooked, but they’re really just pure and simple movies that entertain and make you happy, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. I don’t know if they’re high art or not, but they’re great at what they attempt to be.

@@Sam_T2000 the first Star Wars (episode IV) is pure and beautiful, the best of the whole series. It’s derivative because it was inspired by movies that Lucas loved but also inventive and original and poetic. Many people like episode V better, but it’s more of a standard action film, standard sci-fi. None of the other entries reached the level of Lucas’s very first entry. Just my opinion.

He ripped off most of Dune.

@@disco7379 Interesting point. I never thought of that.

@@disco7379 Dune ripped off Beowulf going by your logic.

Wish I had your education sir.

@@earlsmith7428 You are very kind, but, like the Syrophœnician woman in the Bible, I'm just a dog who has picked up the scraps that have fallen from the tables of my betters.

@@johnreddick7650 😮

How did you start learning these stuff.

Yes, the Hellenistic period is considered a period of decadence of Greek culture. However, it's still superior to medieval art and current art. Camille Paglia analyses works of art through history and these transitions from apogee to decline of culture in her book Sexual Personae. According to her analysis, decadent art during the Hellenistic period becomes more fluid, less defined compared with classical pieces.

I like WAP

@playbackproductions1 Then it says something about your spirit. You’re sexually forward, but not in the sexually forward way many ancient cultures were; it is a sexuality that has been defined and manipulated by forces around you. I won’t say that’s good or bad, but it is a sign of degradation. I’m actually the same as you in some ways so I’m not judging, as a modern and feminist-leaning woman in her early 20s.

its bad because it's immature, pompous drivel. but the first two were better than the rest.

​@@marchess7420 That's neither here nor there. Your opinion and my opinion on its quality are irrelevant. The argument being made was from the position of its use of derivative tools. It completely contradicts his use of the Venus deMilo as a positive example of good art, because it depicts a well-trod Classical theme.

@@johnduquette7023 I agree. One could name many great movies/books inspired by Lord of the Rings or even containing obvious rip offs. Uniquity is to be admired, but that does not mean something that is not unique cannot be as well

@@marchess7420 Star Wars doesn't hold up as well as Indiana Jones. Still can't help but love those movies.

@@johnduquette7023 - you rejected one argument why sw is bad. i offered others. you can disagree with me and claim that rather than immature and pompous, sw is deep and unaffected. good luck convincing folks of thst.

Yeah, that's depressing.

Ugh. Sad. It’s as if honesty and goodness no longer exist if a parent exposes a child to this behavior.

Millstone around the neck time...

A movie about that would be interesting

@@hussienbintalal91 Want a movie. Just check out your evening news.

@Richard Fox No, I think he explains it pretty well in the video, although I disagree with his blanket statement about rap music.

I love Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I’m on the fence about the violent ending, but the rest of it is pure bliss.

@@piperian3962 The Hateful Eight has probably the most gruesome that I've seen (I have yet to see a few of his movies). The violence is pretty much expected but he always surprises you with how the violence is portrayed

@Richard Fox do you just log on to argue with people or what

@Richard Fox In my lifetime I have seen number one songs go from actual romantic lyrics that are well written to WAP. I have seen hip hop music go from poets telling their story to mumble rappers lying about wealth and wearing rainbow grills. When it comes to movies, there is a rating system that can gatekeep younger people from seeing films, music doesn't have that kind of system. The radio only censors curse words, not erotic phrases, and most people these days stream music which doesn't censor it at all. Its one of the most accessible things out there, and especially the newer generation growing up with this kind of music being something they they take in, that will affect them for years if not their life. In a world where media needs shock factor to stand out, it will only become more and more shocking until nothing can shock anyone, and that is degrading to a culture. Movies and music over the last 100 years have grown more and more degrading to humanity, its clear to see if you look at the big picture.

I'm a 27 yr old artist and much of my style has been inspired by the things I see. I always find inspiration in Francisco Goya and the work he did when he became deaf and extremely depressed. This guy once painted almost photorealistic portraits for royalty and gut wrenching interpretations of war and revolution in Spain. But his style shifted 180 degrees and it became very dark and ominous and horrific when he became deaf. His art reflected the pain and torment he was experiencing and it gives you an idea for what total madness must look and feel like. I can say with total certainty that both the fine arts and music are at their lowest point in human history. I've spent enough time in contemporary art museums and modern art galleries here in Chicago to tell you it's horrendously bad and shallow garbage. Literally! A lot of it is actually garbage just dumped on a pedestal with stantions around it. The most famous artist alive, named Banksy, isn't even a real person. It's a collective of mediocre(at best) UK graffiti artists who paint very poor street art and everyone my age fawns over it because it's "woke". Artists like me weren't able to express ourselves at all in college due to fear of social shunning or violence. Everyone else was far more concerned about gender identities, communism, and white racism to actually concern themselves with making good art. Good art today is all about the social or political message. If it doesn't have one, no one cares. Actual good art is not about how much wealth a society has. Apart from music and film in America from 1950-1979, the art has been a bleak reflection of our culture as a whole. We haven't had any great painters or sculptors for over 100 years and we've gained plenty of wealth in that time. And it's because our culture is godless, shallow, self-absorbed, and requires instant gratification. The reason Spain had so many great artists like Goya and Salvador Dali was that they were devout Catholics and their art always had a deeper meaning. And one that expressed their struggles with faith, vice, sex, war, death, etc. When atheists control the arts, there is nothing left to explore. No amount of money is going to change the fact that modern art is atheist and pessimistic. The culture isn't conducive to creating great art because it wouldn't be accepted. Especially if it went against a progressive agenda or idea. I wouldn't even be allowed back into Columbia if they knew I was saying this. Even if they did, I'd have to endure standing in front of my whole graduating class and reciting my gender pronouns and apologizing for being straight and white all over again! They love to humiliate us.

@@liamc8729 I do like this comment a lot and I really dont want to quibble over it but I must since I think you took what I said out of context. Wealth doesn't guarentee good art is made, it just means art is allowed to be made. Its also like scientific acheivements, a country with little wealth doesn't have enough money to put it into such things as the arts or sciences because people are eating roots and toads by the masses. The point was mostly due to the example he gave about the stonework of ancient rome compared to the medieval wood carving. Good art though, that's up to the human soul and the human soul of the modern man has been tainted and throttled. Rousseaus been dead for over two hundred years but hundreds of men and women have endlessly and futilely tried to make his philosophy work. Its easier to be a whoring degenerate while believing that mankind will inevitably bring heaven on earth when we sunder everything that allowed our unique cultures to prosper than to struggle to be better in the eyes of god and man. Secular Humansims is the opiate of the rich and hedonistic. I do believe, though, that even though the high arts have been crippled, the middle and lower arts did florish, probably due to how secular humanism didn't target them specifically until the last 40 years or so and the lower arts have always been in the hands of the peasentry. Also, we should stop calling it 'woke' or 'sjw' or any of that and call it what it is: black worship. It is by all definitions black worship with a sprinkling of gay and woman acceptance. The idea that the nations of asia or the middle east were never respected by the west is laughable to its core.

This coming from OP who says the horrors movies from the 50s were classics, but ignores horror movies from the 70s and 80s.

It's an unreasonable demand to reinvent the wheel every time you produce a work of art in order for it to be good. Owens's position negates Klavan's example of the Venus deMilo, which is a magnificent rendition of a classical theme, the Triumph of Love over War. The Venus deMilo actually stands out because it was a classical theme reproduced after the Peloponnesian Wars, after popular Greek culture had become disillusioned with its own Classical thinking and themes. Klavan is speaking at cross-purposes here, this whole thing is half-baked.

@Java Ally You missed the point of what he was talking about. Star Wars was not original by any account.

@@bighands69 you missed what I said

@@bighands69 Neither was the Venus deMilo.

It is not a patch on 1950s or 1960s popular music. The Beatles make fun pop music.

It is "reimagine" to them.

@@elaineteut1249 Exactly.

George Harrison was great far better than the wife beater

Hasn't Klavan done a takedown on 'Imagine'?

Agree

There are tons of movies made after the 70s that are miles better than Casablanca. Not everything is just sex and violence. What a silly thing to think.

@@danielmacdonald9287 Like what? Especially in the last 10 years?

You have not understood what Klavan said.

@@kevinaldrich5480 Then he did not explain himself particularly well, because that's more or less exactly what he DID say.

King Solomon even said that there's nothing new under the sun. People have been thinking about the same things forever.

Klavan said that all artists are inspired by the art that came before them, which I have said myself. It's a matter of how the new art is executed and the creativity involved. In recent decades all we see is copying with little creativity and art gets degraded rather than being inspired by the past and creating something new and brilliant.

Rolando and others are right. Klavan's criticism is when the art is just art about the art, by artists that want to use the past art to convince you they are one with the art, but only people on the arts will understand their art is great because it is an artistic reflection of art. That's purposefully circular. The Tarantino examples are good to describe that. The play "Noises Off" or "Love Letters" are examples of self derivative. Think modern Star Trek CBS,,,which are a series of Easter egg references to old Star Treks, but when the new story is f i n a l l y finished after 9 weeks or more... you wonder why they even bothered and you forgot what the new plot was even about. Repeat next year with more meaningless Easter eggs.

I think the Beatles definitely did degrade over their career, overall. Rubber Soul is probably the last great album, though that is a wildly unpopular opinion. Even though their early lyricism is very simple, when it's paired with a great melody it cannot be beat.

​@Jeremiah Willey OK I'll do it and get back to you

Thank you for bringing up Dark Side of the Moon, because I feel like that alone disproves his ideas

@Richard Fox lol

but that is where you are incorrect. It seems the same because it is the same. In modern art, there is only one actual idea on display and motivating the art. Nihilism and immature worship of form. The substance that differentiated the Dutch Masters from the French masters of the same era is unknown today. Because behind the art are artists with no actual humanity. Just imitators attempting to be more shocking than the last imitator. The current artist is unable to find a spark that inspires, only a flame that consumes.

@@CB-vt3mx how much are have you actually consumed in this new decade. In 2020 and 2021 how many books have you read and/or exhibits have you visited and/or movies have you seen and/or TV series have you seen and/or video games have you played, etcetera? If not that many or if many, but only what has been highly promoted by legacy media, your opinion is invalid. How many foreign language movies have you seen or anime or indie films that don't see any kind of box office success?

@@CB-vt3mx Amen.

I completely agree. I would add that I think it is quite arrogant to say that certain art is good or bad, as it assumes that art has a single specific purpose. Art is not made to reach some arbitrary standard of beauty and goodness, nor should it only be interpreted by a single set of standards. In many cases, art is an economic venture, and if it succeeds in that realm, doesn't that make it good art? If it perfectly encapsulates the current zeitgeist, or innovates in some way, who is to say that the creation is lesser than something that came before it? Just my opinion though, lol

there's many styles of Art for sure. they even have a better chance at being seen cuz of internet. but it's still a select few groups that promote & exalt Artwork $$ Gatekeepers. plus we now have Celebrity Art: Hunter Biden, Jim Carey, etc .. imo Art is still subjective & a *real* artist is ahead of the human curve. Andy Warhol comes to mind when i think of a clever way to copy culture & call it Art.

Hey, it's Calvin 😉

@@neighborhoodwatch470 I always have to start with e'Keleeveene and then work back from there.

@Richard Fox Pulp Fiction is much better.

That movie was straight trash

No, that movie was about trash. And it was brilliant.

@@sandramiller1988 No the movie was trash

@@christiansoldier77 The movie was brilliant. It just wasn’t your taste.

Not true tho. Back in the 50s artists where oppressed. Now they’re more free.

Agree. Citing "She Loves You" as an example of cultural decline compared to "Autumn in New York" is not fair, because the Beatles were younger, less experienced songwriters back then. But also because "Autumn" had exceptionally poetic lyrics, not shared by all songs in the 30s-40s. A big hit of 1931 was this: You can feed me bread and water Or a great big bale of hay But don't take my boop-oop-a-doop away! You can say my voice is awful Or my songs are too risqué. Oh, but don't take my boop-oop-a-doop away! This was over 30 years before "She Loves You" but the lyrics are just as silly and simplistic, even more so. That being said, I do agree we are in a major culture & arts decline, and it breaks my heart. But it's not a straight downward plunge; it ebbs and flows and may rise again soon.

@@AGirlofYesterday Great point- the camparison is unfair on so many levels. "She Loves You" also demonstrates lyrical maturity in a different way- its a teenage love song told from the perspective of a third party that manages to feel engaging and personal. Most of the silly love songs (pun intended) from that era (early 60s) are straightforward and involve two main characters- the singer and their love interest. The lyrics are almost always either an emotional outpouring of love and affection ("everything is perfect, I'm so in love") or a sad story of heartache ("she left me and is never coming back"). I don't want to overstate the case- "She Loves You" is certainly not the first love song written in the third person, but the comparitively passive voice given in the lyrics makes the execution that much more impressive. 60 years later and the track still explodes with excitement and energy (the chorus kicking off the tune full blast is another unusual choice) and the nuggets of wisdom offered ("pride can hurt you too / apologize to her") convey a remarkable level of nuance for a three minute pop tune and establish the friendship between the singer and listener as a focal point of the song just as much as the relationship between the listener and the titular "she". I think we concede too much when we say "She Loves You" is inferior to "Autumn Leaves".

@@justineddy5306 I agree, She Loves You is a good song, probably underrated. though I am more inclined to concede that Autumn is much more sophisticated lyrically. I wonder if we would rate SLY so highly if we were unaware of the later songwriting brilliance of the Beatles? Does knowing that they would later pen Revolution, Eleanor Rigby, Let It Be etc color our assessment of their simple early songs, or are we really seeing latent genius?

@@AGirlofYesterday Fair point. Its impossible to view She Loves You outside of the context of The Beatles' complete body of work. I'd still argue that compared to other music for that same target audience (12-16 year olds), She Loves You is in a class all its own.

I think that’s part of the problem. Only very young people started being the main drive in music. In the past, that wasn’t the case. I’d like to say it’s getting better and lot of artists aren’t too young now, funny enough, so maybe it will get better again.

Me too. Hungry.

Schindler’s List stands up to any of the amazing movies of 1939 (and was popular like them as well). I agree with Andrew on his overall principle here, but the some of the examples he chose undercut that argument.

E.T., Indiana Jones, Close Encounters, Jaws, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, Munich, Schindler’s List, Lincoln, etc. So many great filmmakers today owe their success to what Spielberg brought.

go back and listen again... 14:14 silly films as well as classics. Among the silly might be Ready Player One, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the Temple of Doom, and Twilight Zone: The Movie. He also produced such turds as Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, Halo, Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous, and Super 8.

@@CornerTalker Don't forget "Hook" 👎

Same here. I cry when I see what films have become.

@Rando Yaguchi Have been for several decades now. That's why I recognize the current perversion of cinema.

Yes, they are. It is a perversion of womanhood to have her behave like a man. It is a perversion of MLK's "Dream" to encourage Diversity. And it is most definitely a perversion of nature to be sexually attracted to your own gender.

@Rando Yaguchi You need to take a course in logic.

@Rando Yaguchi Deviant, pervert. I'm OK with either term.

You can like something and be entertained by it without it being the greatest film of all time. The first Jurassic park movie was great as was the original Star Wars movies but they pale in signigicance to the likes of Gone With the Wind.

Exactly. Rock and roll is a huge example of that, funny enough. I also believe a lot of the songs were more manufactured (though good within their own genre) than we think. I know young men, and even the geniuses can only be so talented.

At least in Soviet Union they produced a lot of good movies, like "Go and See" (Иди и смотри), "Moscow does not believe in tears" (Москва слезам не верит) and "Ivan's childhood" (Иваново детство).

Spot on stormhawk31. !!!

Even in the Middle East? Because I think the Middle East is more culturally conservative than it was a few decades ago!

@@themysteriousnavi6850 Yes, even there. It's not just about politics.

The real reason it was used was because Brian DePalma didn't know what was going on and he told Lucas to put in a crawl explaining it before the movie started so audiences were not as confused as he was.

Good point. The medieval period is underrated. Much of what was accomplished during that epoch was accomplished along the lines of research and development, but it did also have some actual production.

The painting does look primitive, because high realism was considered idolatrous.

Its still bad.

Rap is great. Tom Macdonald is horrible. The billboard charts mean absolutely nothing in terms of quality.

@@adamgates1142 and what exactly gives you that deeply culturally ignorant opinion?

@@z33thr33 The history of rap speaks for itself as do the the extremely low standards of the billboards charts. Music for the lowest common denominator, especially nowadays. Only dull culture warriors who spend all day on twitter like Tom Macdonald and it's not for his music oh no it's because he's sticking it to those sjws. There is not a cultured person alive who seriously listens to Tom Macdonald.

@@adamgates1142 Rap is boring. Tom MacDonald is great.

What the hell does his outro music have to do with anything ?

hahaha oy

It would still be art, but it would be a restart of the foundation. Art is creating a representation through a medium guided by your perception of an idea to display what you wish. Without adaptation or imitation is would just be reestablishing the foundation, starting anew. To be from your point of view the first artist, before that point is nature / god. But it's still art without imitation. It's just perception guided representation

@@blueyedevil1531 The first thing wouldn't even be art. The art would be in extrapolating something from the first thing and then reiterating it.

Who did Picasso emulate? Lol

@@kyleoden3015 Picasso emulated a masticated and regurgitated bowel movement.

@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat lol. We've now come to the point nft "art" sells for absurd prices.

It’s a B cowboy movie at best As long as that’s recognised then that ok If a person thinks Star Wars is the pinnacle of western culture then that person is a child

@@seanmoran2743 No, that's not what the commenter above was saying. He said (correctly) that the Star Wars saga (1-6) was much deeper than met the eye.

@Rando Yaguchi You don't need to cite "extended material" to make the case. I'll just give you one example: Obi Wan Kenobi fights Darth Maul, Count Dooku, and General Grievous throughout the 1--3. Darth Maul is an extremely talented saber-fighter; Dooku is a powerful force user; and Grievous has the advantage of robotic strength. These opponents were preparing Obi Wan throughout his life to face Anakin as Darth Vader, who was, in effect, a combination of all three. He was a master saber-fighter, a powerful force user, and had robotic enhancement (his arm). And to tie it all together: Darth Vader's death echoed the ways all three villains had died. His legs were cut off (same as Maul); his arms were cut off (same as Dooku); and he was set on fire (same as Grievous). See, a brilliant set of foreshadowing placed right under our noses. Not to mention the Anakin Skywalker/Palpatine story being one of the best incarnations of the "chosen one" trope ever produced in mass media.

@@lausdeo4944 Yet the examples are flawed. Maul was cut in half at the torso, he lost more, than his legs. Count Dooku is also a talented saber-fighter, but otherwise Obi-Wan in the movies lost all of his fights against Dooku. Not only, that but the main source of power for Obi-Wan is his wisdom. Which he had always maintained. He did not become wiser during the films. He defeats Anakin, because he is wiser, not because he is more prepared to face him. The prequel trilogy is a bit deeper, because it shows the tragedy of Anakin and Palpatine's plot. However I only find deep meaning in this, because I saw the prequel trilogy as a kid as an adult, I do not find too many deep parts in Star Wars. Maybe Anakin's redemption can be considered a deep part, but ...

Wqsn't candace the one that said star wars was bad ?

@@elfascisto6549 He was agreeing with her.

Yep relate heaps. It's hard being an artist when the art world feels one-sided. It can feel really isolating. But keep going, have faith, you are doing good.

$. Ka-ching $

Are you saying that A Place In The Sun Is hasty and shallow?

That's awesome I didn't know that.

@@nwkitesurfer I enjoyed the moment I found that out too. You're welcome windrider. 🤜🤛

The Beatles are stupidly overrated.

@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat Whatever you say.

@@Hard_Boiled_Entertainment It's always been my definitive word. Good of you to admit that.

I do think the Beatles are a bit overrated, but there’s more to music than lyrics. their music is timeless, and can make anyone smile and nod their head at any given time.

@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat There is absolutely nothing overrated about the Beatles.

The best coaches are always mediocre players and the best critics are mediocre producers. I doubt Klavan considers himself some great artist. This culture doesn't really even allow artists to be popular; only entertainers can be widely known and liked, and Klavan is an entertainer in the medium of something just above pulp (and on the screen - any honest marketer would tell you that political shows like all the Daily Wire shows are really about entertainment first and foremost). He is a product of the culture he critiques. You can recognize that a culture is in decline while recognizing your own inadequacy and having a truthful image of your place in the world.

Conservatives are full of self hatred.

That is not even close to being true. Hitchcock wanted to make dark movies but that is not to say he wanted every one of his movies to be dark and twisted. Hitchcock's Psycho was nowhere near as good as Vertigo.

@@bighands69 Look it up and you’ll see. I just finished listening to a whole podcast about Hitchcock’s career and when it came to the part about Kaleidoscope, it mentioned that even Francois Truffaut was concerned about all of the sex and violence when Hitchcock showed him the script. I’m not saying it would have been better than Hitchcock’s peak years of 1953-1963, but I do know that there is good evidence he would have gone in a more violent direction if Universal had allowed him to make Kaleidoscope.

@@bighands69 'Vertigo' is one of the most overrated movies ever made.

@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 It is a mature film and is not for everybody.

@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 Honestly, I do think Vertigo deserves its high status, since it’s probably Hitchcock’s greatest and most revealing work. If anything, Psycho is the overrated one. It’s obviously an important film historically, but I don’t think it demonstrates the full scope of the Hitchcockian style like his masterpieces of the 50s do, such as Rear Window or North by Northwest, both of which are truly Hitchcockian, whereas Psycho is more of a deliberate and blunt contrast to that style.

Heck yes.

There are plenty of creative people out there but they cannot break into the film, music and writing industries that are really a guild at the moment. But at some point you will see breakthroughs. The likes of Tarantino and Fincher were a response to the dated Hollywood of the 1980s.

If everyone's an artist, then no one's an artist.