Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I hate to be a spoilsport, but I don't consider this article to be very well-written at all, let alone good enough to be a "featured article". See my comments below. I made those comments several months ago, and no one has responded, nor have any of the concerns I raised really been addressed or corrected in the article. I still stand by those comments and criticisms. This article is in desperate need of overhaul. There are so many things wrong with it I feel like I don't even know where to start without practically rewriting the whole thing from scratch (keeping small portions intact, though). Since it's been several months since I made my original criticisms, and since virtually nothing has been done to address any of the criticisms, I'm tempted to do this. Revolver 19:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
UPDATE: I hate to be a spoilsport again, but despite minor and occasional improvements, I still feel the majority of my criticisms below remain unaddressed and the article is far below "featured article" quality. Really, I would give it about a C+ in freshman high school English class. I've given almost a FULL YEAR for something to be done about this, so again I'm tempted to delete and/or completely rewrite entire sections, or be glad to see someone else do this. Really, we can do a lot better. Revolver 02:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Uuhh, so fix it? --NoPetrol 21:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I normally do, but in this case, it would be a major project, and the result (beyond the intro) would look substantially different than it does now. So, I keep pecking away at articles that I can peck at. Sue me. Revolver 03:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's a concrete criticism. One of the things that I find confusing about the article is that it starts one place, wanders somewhere else, and ends up in a different world. For example, beyond the intro, we start a "biography". That's fine. But very soon we start to wander into a laundry list of all the films. This becomes more prominent, until we enter passages that are almost entirely comments about film theory or criticism. So now, the "biography", the "list of films", and the "criticism" are all mixed up into one big mess. Then there is "themes and devices", which is a bit confusing, since a significant part of the "biography" section was already themes and devices. (??) This section is a mix of more criticism, along with technical details and comments on film technology. "His character and effect on films" is more about themes, but I think we should be very careful exactly what we attribute to his "character". A lot of perceptions of him as a person have been rumours. "His style of working" repeats some ridiculous myths (he planned every single shot before filming, and he was mean to actors). Then we hear about the television series and books (which belong more in biography).

So, you can see why I think it would be a "major project" to "fix" the article. Revolver 03:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm interested to hear you say that it is a "ridiculous myth" that he planned every single shot before filming. While I I am sure that it is a bit of an exaggeration, I have heard more than one person who worked with him say roughly that to an interviewer; in particular, that the studios were often frustrated they couldn't re-cut his films, because there were essentially no "spare" scenes or even different camera angles floating around. There might be enormous numbers of takes of essentially the same shots, but that was it. Is this false? Are there known to be any films for which he shot any significant number of extra scenes, or shot the same scene in significantly different ways? I don't have any expertise here, but this is the first contrary statement on this that I've ever heard. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
It's not a myth that he planned most every shot — the myth is that he in essence "storyboarded" every scene on paper or in his mind, and knew visually in his mind how each shot would look prior to filming. Most of the "storyboards" you see were part of publicity stunts, done after the fact, rather than genuine storyboards. The famous cropduster storyboard from North by Northwest, e.g. is essentially a fake — it was drawn after shooting. He certainly planned perhaps more than anyone else. And it is true that he was relatively efficient and did plan many scenes down to every shot. But the myth is also that he held strictly to the plan he had, that he was not open to ideas and suggestions. This is not true; some of the most famous shots or scenes are partially improvised. And at times, he was even shooting with an unfinished script (North by Northwest, e.g. commenced shooting without an ending worked out). So, yes, while it is true that he had a clear idea what he wanted, and had more visual idea of shots worked out than most directors, the idea that he "had the entire film done in his head before shooting" or that he thought "shooting was a bore", etc., etc. are ridiculous. (An interesting book to see in this regard is Hitchcock at Work.) Revolver 23:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Curious if every single movie Hitchcock made needs to be linked to a review/remark. Many of his silent movies aren't listed, but so what? (Noticed this with other articles too. "Fantastic" magazine with 13 links? Nah, it's just hooked to an empty link 13 times in two articles...) Wikipedia could get bogged down in minutia if every single actor, actress, key grip and best boy needs to given a "full share."

No one is suggesting every key grip or best boy gets their own separate link. But I don't think having an article written for most (or even every) Hitchcock movie is going overboard, considering he is arguably the most prodigous and influential director in film history, and there is more written on Hitchcock than on any other director (at least 200 in print in English alone). Even many of his lesser well-known films and overlooked films are now receiving a good deal of popular and critical attention (e.g. Rich and Strange, Young and Innocent, Rope, The Trouble With Harry, Family Plot).

Egospark ----------

In Alfred Hitchcock's Rope we say it was "shot on a single set" but in this article we say "a film shot entirely from one place, and one point of view" and then go on to say things that imply differently. It's been a long time since I saw it, so maybe someone can clear this up. Ortolan88

PS -- Near useless information that may make it into the wikipedia someday: the part of the composer in Rear Window is played by Ross Bagdasarian, nephew of William Saroyan and better known as David Seville, creator of the Chipmunks.

I wish I had a good source for that Bergman quote. I am almost certain it came from a review of Frenzy by John Simon in the New Leader. There was some ghastly food in Frenzy, prepared by the policeman's wife, who had taken up gourmet cooking, and that, plus the nude body in the potatoes, was probably what evoked the quote. Ortolan88
The wife in Frenzy cooked some of the least appetizing food I've ever scene; and of course the potato truck scene, with the onset of rigor mortis, was something to write home about.  ;-) But I wonder if what provoked the quote might have been the necktie business with the man saying "lovely. lovely. lovely." --KQ

The Truffaut book is full of inaccuracies. IIRC, one of them was that the woman in Rebecca (not Rebecca, the servant) was never seen moving, but was always suddenly there beside Rebecca. Completely ridiculous. Another of them had to do with how Hitch wanted the doorknobs high on the door to make Rebecca look small, when, if it did do that, then of course it made everyone else look small also. I can't find my notes from class, else I'd add a short bit giving the reader a caveat. Koyaanis Qatsi

The article says:

In To Catch a Thief, glamorous blonde Grace Kelly is a cat burglar.

I don't think this is correct. Grace Kelly plays Frances Stevens, the American heiress. She talks about committing thefts, but doesn't actualy do one, and when she's confronted with a real theft, she's horified and angry. The cat burglar is played by Brigitte Auber.

SOME BRUTALLY HONEST COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS:

Here are some thoughts that came to my mind reading the Hitchcock article. They may sound harsh at times, I'm just being honest. I'd like to contribute to and/or edit this article, but there were so many things I saw that I might want to change or completely overhaul, that I thought it would be best to raise things in the talk page first.

1. The article as a whole seems rather disjointed. There doesn't seem to be any real logic as to why one section follows another. All of the "period" parts could be drawn together together into a single overview of his film career. The other parts need to be reorganized by theme or motive. Instead of several short, small pieces, organize into a handful of overarching aspects (e.g. biography/history, collaborators and actors, artistic themes, criticism, and impact and influence on film).

2. A lot of the bits in this article are just anecdotes, jokes, and urban legends. These are fine, I guess, but after a while it gives the impression of a fanzine. Moreover, many of the anecdotes and jokes are KNOWN not to be true, and simply presenting them as anecdotes is the equivalent of spreading gossip in an article that is supposed to be factually accurate or faithful.

3. The article gives a lot of the standard facts but doesn't really go into much depth as to why Hitchcock is so important as a FILMmaker, i.e. there is very little mention of the enormous impact of German expressionism on his filmmaking, and how he took this style of filmmaking and developed it into a worldwide form. Nor is there any real discussion of how he continually used point-of-view shots, and esp. alternating point-of-view shots, to allow the viewer to identify with a character. There is also a TON of stuff out there on Hitchcock criticism, maybe this could form a separate article, say Hitchcock criticism.

4. Hitchcock didn't really plan every single second of every movie before shooting; although he did plan probably more than any other direction, the notion that he storyboarded every single shot before filming is a myth. (See "Hitchcock at Work") Also, despite the "cattle" line, he was well-liked personally by many actors, actresses, and others who worked with him. In fact, when Donald Spoto's "biography" of Hitch came out painting him in a bad light (forever morose, depressed, sexually deviant, miscreant), numerous actor friends came forward to express their disagreement.

5. Truffaut's interview is essential reading, but hardly the "most intriguing insight" into his work. Modern criticism and analysis has given a far richer and more probing interpretation. Truffaut's interview was important mainly for its mere existence -- just the idea that the popular films of Hitch were worth "serious scrutiny" or worthy of being judged as "art" was very revolutionary. But for serious criticism, much better is available now. ("Hitchcock at Work", "The Hitchcock Murders", "Hitchcock's Films Revisited", etc.)

6. We need some mention of ALMA!!! Revolver

In my opinion, the body of the article should not name any film that is not considered major, either for its merit or for technical innovation. Take Paradine Case for instance -- it gets listed and then we learn who it starred and that it was never well-regarded. And result is it's hard to find Notorious, one of H's best films. So why not leave Paradine for the list at bottom, then? 68.1.174.46 14:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note to Koyaanis Qatsi (andybody else who's interested). The part of Rebecca in the film of the same name was played by ... NOBODY. She never appears in the movie AT ALL, not even in a flashback. Rebecca was the name of the previous wife of Max de Winter (played by Laurence Olivier), and it is her memory and the loyalty still shown to her by the housekeeper Mrs Danvers (played by Dame Judith Anderson) that Max's new wife (played by Joan Fontaine) has such a struggle with. Cheers JackofOz 02:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

devout Catholic

The citation for this is James Bemis, "Alfred Hitchcock: Spiritual Director?" in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, Vol. 12, No. 4, Fall 2003, p. 72. The citation given in the article is "Patricia Hitchcock interview with American Movie Classics cable channel, June 13, 2000." Patricia Hitchcock is his daughter. I am not sure of the best location for this piece of information. However, it is important to mention his faith, as it no doubt guided his choices; also, it is an important addition to merely stating that he grew up in an Irish Catholic household. Many people grow up in a Catholic household without maintaining themselves in that faith. Trc | [msg] 08:46, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't dispute the factual accuracy of what you added; as far as I know, his belief and devotion to being Catholic is a well-established fact. I'm just not sure the 3rd or 4th sentence is the best place for it. It's not that I don't think it's important; just that it doesn't accomplish much to just say this, without explaining a bit how that affected his filmmaking. But, definitely there should be more coverage of this in the article. Revolver 19:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In Psycho, Norman selects room one because there's a hole in the wall.

So there can only be one reason why a writer or director makes a choice like that? Point noted. Likewise, Huck and Jim are on the river because that's the fastest mode of travel, so there can't be anything symbolic about the river. 68.1.174.46 14:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re-writing of early career symopsis

The efforts of the gentleman who re-wrote the section on the early history of Hitchcock's career is appreciated; but personally I feel that this section is now too much of a laundry list; it's less of a piece of "writing" than it is a checklist that sounds like "He made this, then this, then this and this and this." I'd like to revert the previous part of this section, which I will include here, though since there have been several edits since then I'd like to get some opinions on the change -- either in favor of, or against.

Previous text:

Pre-war British career

As a major talent in a new industry with plenty of opportunity, he rose quickly. His first important film, The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog was released in 1927. In it, an attractive blonde is murdered, and the new lodger in a nearby apartment falls under heavy suspicion. He is, in fact, innocent of the crime.

Downhill (1927) portrayed another innocent man accused, this time a young man accused of a theft at his school and thrown out of his house as a result. The man later has an affair with an older woman, and in the morning, as she wakes in their bed of passion, he sees her aged face, while people outside carry a coffin past their window. Hitchcock would repeatedly return in his films to the notion that sex and death are linked.

Hitchcock developed his unique style of storytelling during the 1930s, reaching the peak of his British filmmaking career with The 39 Steps (1935) and The Lady Vanishes (1938). By this time, he had caught the attention of Hollywood, and was invited to make films in America.

Hollywood

David O. Selznick pursued Hitchcock to make some Hollywood films. With Rebecca in 1940, Hitchcock made his first American film, and he worked in America for the rest of his career. Rebecca evokes the fears of a naive young bride who enters a great English country home and must grapple with the legacy of the dead woman who was her husband's first wife. The droll touches of humor are still there in his American work, but suspense became his trademark.

References

Because it is so important that Wikipedia articles be researched and cited properly, can someone confirm whether any of the works listed under 'Further reading' was actually used to confirm material in this article? If so, those that can be confirmed should be moved to another section called 'References', or if not, new sources should be found, used, cited properly, and added to that section. Further reading does not assure they have been used properly as sources, just that they are available for the reader to go find out more for themselves. Thanks - Taxman 15:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've read Spoto's Art of Alfred Hitchcock and can confirm that it covers much of the same ground as this article, including a discussion of each of Hitchcock's films in chronological order. However, Spoto's book contains numerous factual errors of its own (including fairly simple plot misunderstandings), so it would still be helpful to collate and cite the other sources. -- Rbellin 23:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FA status challenged

See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. --mav 03:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alfred_Hitchcock article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Alfred_Hitchcock}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blackmail and sound

The article currently describes Blackmail as one of Britain's first sound pictures. Adam Mars-Jones writing in Granta 86 ("Quiet, Please"), claims (on p. 249) that it was the first. Does anyone have any reason to doubt this? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:07, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

MacGuffin

The explanation of "MacGuffin" in the article is incoherent and borders on self-contadictory: "a red herring: a meaningless, unimportant detail that solely existed to serve as a reason for the story to exist."

"Unimportant" but "a reason for the story to exist"?

Also, the wording here strongly suggests that it is a paraphrase of something Hitchcock said, but it is not clear how close a paraphrase. Why not a quotation (and a citation)?

Unless someone can provide a quotation (and a citation), would anyone object to my rewording this as "a red herring: a detail with no inherent meaning or motivation, but which serves as a reason for the story to exist" and then adding at least one example of a "MacGuffin"? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The MacGuffin article gives a much better definition, and cites a Hitchcock/Truffaut interview; I agree that this one, by contrast, makes very little sense. By all means, let's try to improve both versions. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I gather you didn't like my effort to improve the article's definition? That's fine -- but "red herring" is really not the best way to describe a MacGuffin, since its importance to the characters in a Hitchcock film is completely justified, not a mistake or a false lead. (If the Nazis in Notorious had gotten the uranium from Claude Rains's cellar, they really would have built a bomb with it... and the Notorious article says "uranium" not "radioactive diamonds," so we ought to resolve this inconsistency. But I've forgotten the film's details.) -- Rbellin|Talk 00:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Feel genuinely free to revert me. And you are right that a MacGuffin is not necessarily a red herring. I'm pretty sure about those diamonds, but I saw the film over 30 years ago, so I could have two films confused. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Several Google hits -- including this transcript of a Hitchcock-Truffaut interview [1] indicate that the "uranium" MacGuffin was the one in the film, while the switch to or from "diamonds" was discussed but not produced. I can't find anything about "radioactive diamonds" except for Wikipedia citations, so I have to assume this is an inadvertent confabulation of the two possible MacGuffins into one. I'm going to change this and the MacGuffin article to "uranium" for now. Anyone who wishes can go watch the film to check up on this and confirm or deny. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


"Academy Awards"

There was no "contradiction" in the previous statements about Academy Awards. Let me set out the facts, as I understand them. If anyone has evidence that these statements aren't true, please let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to revert a bit.

  1. Hitchcock did not "receive" the Academy Award for Best Picture. Nor could you really say that any director "receives" their movie's Academy Award. To my mind, to say that someone "receives" an award means it is an award of clear individual merit, e.g. best director, screenplay, etc. One could argue that best picture is an individual award for the producer, but this seems less individual than say, director. In any case, Selznick produced Rebecca, not Hitchcock. Best picture does not apply here, and so it is true to say that Hitchcock never won an Academy Award of Merit. Leading to my second point,
  2. When people use the term "Academy Award", they almost always mean "Academy Award of Merit", the largest category of awards, which are voted upon by the members of the Academy, not a special committee. Therefore, the Irving Thalberg Award for Lifetime Achievement, although it is presented at the Academy Awards, is not strictly speaking, an "Academy Award". When most people ask, "Did Hitchcock ever win an Academy Award?", they mean "Academy Award of Merit", not liftime achievements awards. Further confusing this is the fact that by "Academy Award" most people mean "Oscars", the little statuettes. The Irving Thalberg Award is not an Oscar statuette, so this adds to the contention that it is not an "Academy Award".
  3. It seems doubly perverse to claim Hitchcock "received" the best picture oscar for Rebecca, given that he was denied the best director oscar, and that these two awards tend to be given in tandemn. It's almost as if the industry couldn't bare to give it to him.

Revolver 11:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And it was 1967, not 1968. Go to the official website Thalberg dates and don't change it back to 1968, please. Revolver 11:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gramatical errors

Gramatical errors could use a little touch to it, eh? (anon 5 April 2005)

Sinister Spies

My sister found a book called "Sinister Spies" by Alfred Hitchcock but I have not found it in this article. Anyone know about it? I dont want to read the book.--TKGB

  • Hitchcock's name is on a lot of books; typically they are ghostwritten. I don't know this one in particular, though. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 04:41 (UTC)

Characterization in lead paragraph.

"British-born American film director" seems wrong to me. He made plenty of films in the UK. He became a U.S. citizen in his mid-50s, when his career was well established. I'd either just say "British film director", or maybe "British (later American) film director". Comments? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)