Hitchcock: His Talent, Movies, & Legacy

[Snarky Oracle!]

Hitch was obsessed with several of the actresses in his films. He was miffed Grace Kelly married into royalty and bowed out of Hollywood, and he was angry when Vera Miles did the silliest thing ever by getting pregnant and therefore making herself enable to fulfill her commitment to VERTIGO -- which, as the story goes, Hitch had groomed her for.

Hitch seems to have been most possessive over Tippi. He basically discovered her, renamed her, and gave her a splashy debut in THE BIRDS. To Hitch, Tippi owed him a great deal and he positioned himself as her svengali, dictating her wardrobe, hair, makeup, you name it. The Hitch-Hedren fizzled after MARNIE underperformed, and Tippi wasn't in another movie for three years.

Most -- so it seems -- appear to have enjoyed working with Hitch. Doris Day and Kim Novak have said mostly favorable things, as did Grace Kelly.

View attachment 47801

Hedren, Leigh and Novak (Moon in Libras, all three) went on ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT years ago to talk about what a letch Hitchcock was.

Given his weight, some have questioned if Hitch could have realistically consummated an affair. So his libidinous enthusiasm may have been a major case of neurotic denial, especially if he was a would-be poofter wannabe.

People are so complicated.

 

[Crimson]

I have great appreciation for Hitchcock's films, although I'm not sure how much I really enjoy them. I don't think I would turn on a Hitch movie just to entertain myself, in the way I would movies by Wilder, Mankiewicz or Preminger. I think Hitch's films were so stylized, arch and wry, that I don't have any emotional attachment to their experience. I'd probably watch HIGH ANXIETY before I watch any of that film's targets.

And those of his films that I like the most tend to be his least archetypal: REBECCA (arguably more a Selznick film), LIFEBOAT, STAGE FRIGHT, MR. & MRS. SMITH.

Several Hitchcock films are playing in theaters near me over the next few weeks: THE BIRDS; VERTIGO; NORTH BY NORTHWEST; and PSYCHO. I'll likely go to see the first and last of these.

 

[Richard Channing]

 

[Crimson]

Today I saw a theatrical re-release of Hitchcock's THE BIRDS. I've seen a lot of classic movies on the big screen and in every case I walked away with a renewed or deeper appreciation of the film. My reaction to THE BIRDS was more muddled.

Time is doing no favors to this movie's special effects. The film's rear screen projection and stuffed, (barely) mechanical birds might skate by with little scrutiny on the small screen but larger than life they're looking pretty silly. Antiquated special effects are not necessarily the death of a film. The monsters of KING KONG are downright quaint 90 years later, yet the film has such brisk confidence that it all works just fine. In comparison, the plot of THE BIRDS is a bit thin.

What the film does have going for it is atmosphere. The mood of the film is one of foreboding, perhaps embodied by Suzanne Pleshette's heavy-lidded melancholy. The film is much better at building suspense than providing release. The amassing group of crows (appropriately called a murder) in the playground is genuinely creepy, but the actual attack is shoddy looking. The entire movie feels like a prelude to something, so perhaps it's appropriate that the film is better at the buildup than the payoff. Maybe Hitchcock should have used the same restraint Spielberg later adopted with JAWS. In any event, between weirdly awkward emotional outbursts ("I think you're evil!") and even more awkward bird attacks (I'm inclined to think a woman, even while being swarmed by birds, would remember how a door works), much of the movie fell flat for me.

Edit: Forgot to mention how much I enjoyed Tippi Hedren. It's a shame her career crashed because, based on this film at least, I think she's the most interesting of Hitchcock's blondes. I've never really understood Grace Kelly's appeal, but Hedren had her aloof sophistication and an added wryness that made her much more engaging.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

What the film does have going for it is atmosphere. The mood of the film is one of foreboding, perhaps embodied by Suzanne Pleshette's heavy-lidded melancholy. The film is much better at building suspense than providing release. The amassing group of crows (appropriately called a murder) in the playground is genuinely creepy, but the actual attack is shoddy looking. The entire movie feels like a prelude to something, so perhaps it's appropriate that the film is better at the buildup than the payoff.

It's that sacred, hovering, pre-apocalyptic Cold War vibe thing that just permeated everything in the early-'60s. All you had to do was turn a camera on and say "boo!" and it mostly worked. It's ground zero for creepy, really. A twilight zone.

So many things from that period feel as if they're foretelling of some imminent cataclysm which seemed to be scheduled for the middle of decade, yet it never quite seemed to happen. But instead the culture started to unravel. And within a year or two of the president's assassination, collective fears about planetary annihilation by The Bomb were replaced by more banal concerns over a traditional ground war in SE Asia, etc.

What does that have to do with THE BIRDS? It always seems obvious to me.

I should go see it, to experience how bad the effects look on the big screen today.

Edit: Forgot to mention how much I enjoyed Tippi Hedren. It's a shame her career crashed because, based on this film at least, I think she's the most interesting of Hitchcock's blondes. I've never really understood Grace Kelly's appeal, but Hedren had her aloof sophistication and an added wryness that made her much more engaging.

I tend to agree about "Head Wren". She's gotten some snooty reviews at times, but she seems pitch perfect to me. There's a neurotic, slightly highbrow tension about her, and a clipped delivery that feels, well, bird-like.

I also agree about Grace Kelley -- I find her downright boring, in fact. Directly Stanley Kramer bemoaned how stiff he found her in HIGH NOON.

 

[Crimson]

I should go see it, to experience how bad the effects look on the big screen today.

Here at least, the movie was playing at 1pm and 7pm. If you have the time to see it, I suggest you go. If my review above seemed mostly negative, it may not have conveyed one point: i enjoyed watching the film, even if I was gritting my teeth over only half of it working.

She's gotten some snooty reviews at times, but she seems pitch perfect to me.

Hitch's blondes always seem excessively coached to me; even Doris Day couldn't entirely overcome Hitchcock's dominance. But there are moments in THE BIRDS where Hedren's own personality, or at least performance, seems to slip through. She's immensely likable in these moments, which seem very uncharacteristic of Hitchcock's ladies -- leading me to think those contributions were hers more than his. But I don't recall if I liked her as much in MARNIE, nor have I ever been too impressed with her in other works. So perhaps she needed Hitchcock, even if just to rebel against.

 

[Richard Channing]

 

[Willie Oleson]

I have DIAL M FOR MURDER in my watch list, but I have to pay for it.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

VERTIGO (1958)

REAR WINDOW (1954)

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Smuggy, revisionist telling of Hitchcock's making of PSYCHO... Hopkins and Mirren are fine actors, and Hitchcock certainly had his issues, but I don't think this movie has much to do with the real Alfred and Alma...

And his internal dialogue with serial killer Ed Gein is a stupid approach to whatever this movie is trying to do.

HITCHCOCK (2012):

 

[ClassyCo]

Smuggy, revisionist telling of Hitchcock's making of PSYCHO... Hopkins and Mirren are fine actors, and Hitchcock certainly had his issues, but I don't think this movie has much to do with the real Alfred and Alma...

And his internal dialogue with serial killer Ed Gein is a stupid approach to whatever this movie is trying to do.

HITCHCOCK (2012):

I've seen HITCHCOCK a few times (I used to own it for a while), and I remember liking it. But I won't say it was a good representation of what actually happen.

 

[Soaplover]

The Birds (1963) was always an interesting movie to me.. It seemed almost like two different movies fused together.

The first half of the movie seems to be a slow burn character study with Melanie and Mitch meeting, flirting, and she deciding to deliver birds he ordered over to the island. Plus the suble sizing up between Melanie and Annie after it's revealed that Mitch and Annie had a past relationship of sorts.. which was marred due to his domineering mother Lydia.

Then the second half of the movie is the bird attacks and most of the character development that occurs is pushed to the side and we have bird attacks with Melanie losing precious IQ points with her less than intelligent moves. The ending of the movie is chilling though.

Problem was that the movie seemed half of a typical women's picture and half of a horror movie.. and the parts just didn't connect well enough together to make it a strong movie.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

The Birds (1963) was always an interesting movie to me.. It seemed almost like two different movies fused together.

The first half of the movie seems to be a slow burn character study with Melanie and Mitch meeting, flirting, and she deciding to deliver birds he ordered over to the island. Plus the suble sizing up between Melanie and Annie after it's revealed that Mitch and Annie had a past relationship of sorts.. which was marred due to his domineering mother Lydia.

Then the second half of the movie is the bird attacks and most of the character development that occurs is pushed to the side and we have bird attacks with Melanie losing precious IQ points with her less than intelligent moves. The ending of the movie is chilling though.

Problem was that the movie seemed half of a typical women's picture and half of a horror movie.. and the parts just didn't connect well enough together to make it a strong movie.

Good observations.
I found it perplexing that no explanation was ever forthcoming about why the birds behaved as such.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Rebecca was such a drag, it felt like a daytime soap.

I guess that had something to do with certain expectations, possibly caused by fan comments on forums like these. It's almost like watching a film through someone else's eyes, how could that ever work?

Today I watched it again, a very decent upload with good picture and audio, and it felt like watching REBECCA for the first time.
It's so ravishing in every single aspect: the story and characters, the cinematography and actors.
If Hitchcock is considered the master of deceit and trickery, and with a healthy dose of venomous humour, REBECCA has got to be one of his best.

Joan Fontaine charms like a 1940s version of Naomi Watts, George Sanders is delightfully despicable as cousin Jack and Judith Anderson slithers like a Disney villainess.
Laurence Olivier plays the aristocrat boy in a man's body so perfectly that it almost undermines the first part of the film in which the romance develops.
From Joan Fontaine's character's POV (I've already forgotten her name, or is it not mentioned at all?) Maxim's personality keeps the viewer at arm's length but at the same time I think it's what makes him so attractive in an "exotic" kind of way.
Nevertheless, there is something masochistic about setting the story up in such a troubled way.

Meanwhile, the imago of the first Mrs. De Winter is build up to iconic proportions, only to be shattered in the story's main twist. It is the twist that redeems Maxim's character but from that moment on it's almost as if he disappears, kinda like watching it through a postcoital daze.

What does everyone think of Mrs. Danvers?
To me it looks like a person adoring another person from a distance, a "safe" kind of love that says more about the adorer than the adoree.
Even though it is revealed why she set fire to the house, it seems impossible to ignore the connection with the revelation of Rebecca's past.
And not because Rebecca was a miserable person living a sordid lifestyle - Mrs. Danvers probably knew all about that - but because she turned out to be ordinary and human enough to get cancer. I think that's what broke Mrs.Danvers.
Any other theories?

Beautifully filmed in a way that accentuates the heights of the beautifully grotesque rooms.

This is so very important.

Including the bossy Mrs. Van Hopper, this film has three fabulous bitches.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I've already forgotten her name, or is it not mentioned at all?

No, it's never mentions. She is simply "Mrs. DeWinter."

 

[Willie Oleson]

It's very odd, considering that addressing is ridiculously overused in fictional stories (fictional characters often start a sentence with the name of the other character, but that's not how it happens in real life).

 

[Willie Oleson]

bla bla

 

[Crimson]

(fictional characters often start a sentence with the name of the other character, but that's not how it happens in real life).

Which makes REBECCA realistic while built on a contrivance. In the novel, the 2nd Mrs. DeWinter is the unnamed narrator, highlighting how she feels overshadowed by Rebecca's memory. Film is more literal and not typically told from a first person POV; names are often used in dialogue to remind the audience who's who. But that's not common in real life. Unless I'm trying to get someone's attention, it's very rare for me to use someone's name in conversation.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Yes, in fact, if someone uses my name in a direct conversation to me I always know I'm in trouble : (

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I found it perplexing that no explanation was ever forthcoming about why the birds behaved as such.

Hitchcock did that deliberately, feeling that if an explanation was provided as to why the birds attacked, then it would just render THE BIRDS "science fiction."