Never a dull moment

[Sola]

Glad to see Hitchcock up for discussion. Havent visited the
site in a while. Among the many things Hitch said, my favorite
is one that conveys how I feel about his movies-

"Drama is life with the dull bits left out"

Whether a thrilling sequence or just a dialogue exchange,
Hitch packs his films full of substance and pertinent dialogue. This
is what I love about watching him. Nothing unneeded, nothing more.

solang

[Ilker81x]

My favorite Hitchcock quote...an actor asked him "What's my motivation." Hitchcock replied, "Your salary."

Maybe arrogant, but at the same time I think it's the definition of an artist to create his work (with help in the case of film) and feel no need to explain or justify it. Hitchcock is an artist, and he created his art as he felt. No explanation, not even to the actors...it's a harsh statement, but I've always felt that some of the best acting performances came from an actor who was willing to sit back, ask no questions, and trust the director. Jack Nicholson said this about Kubrick when working on "The Shining," (check the featurette on the DVD), and I think the actor should be allowed some level of input...but in the end, it is the director's call, and if an actor doesn't trust the director, then what's he doing there?

That said, Hitchcock's an artist, and I'm glad he's on the forum too.

[oscar jubis]

I'd like to build upon the good observations above. Ilker states "it is the director's call". Indeed, H was the driving force behind practically all his movies hence their pointed focus, a narrative quality sola describes as "nothing unneeded, nothing more."Hitch made each film in his head prior to shooting, every word, camera angle, choice of lenses, location,etc. He was thus knowledgeable about every aspect of production. H's control over production was balanced by an intense desire to have a sensorial impact on the audience. Hitchcock was a populist director, always looking for ways to tell the stories that interested him while entertaining a mass audience. He wanted to be one step ahead of us, but only one step.
Ilker poses an interesting question regarding the actor's input when working with directors like Hitch and the need for trust between them. It'd be interesting to read comments made by Jimmy Stewart (Vertigo, Rear Window) and Henry Fonda (The Wrong Man) about working with The Master of Suspense at his best.

[cinemabon]

The most miss quoted director in cinema history never said "actors are cattle", lets put that myth to rest. He did however say, "Some directors want to put a slice of life in their pictures... I want mine to be a slice of cake."

Donald Spoto's book, "The Art of Alfred Hitchcock" is a must for fans of the old master. He constantly pushed the technological envelope to give his films a slight edge over the competition. Many of his camera moves have been used by the core of modern filmmakers who have grown up admiring his work. One filmmaker, Brian DePalma, patterned his whole career after Hitch.

Spoto's other book, "The Dark Side of Genius" explores some of the personal quirks of the man. His obsession with blondes. His lecherousness on the set. Most of these things are subjective. Most men of his time, if seen through the glasses of the present, would appear sexist and prejudiced. Hitch was a man, like any other man, who admired a beautiful woman. Whether he remained faithful to Alma is a matter of pure conjecture. He adored his wife and children and was a good father. In the end, that is all that matters.

His art stands high above the rest. That is what we should truly focus on in this forum. That is the man I patterned after in my own career in film, over thirty years ago. He joins that great list of losers, along with Orson Welles, who never won an Oscar, but whom everyone can agree, was definitely a slice of cake.

[Ilker81x]

I hate to quote a Woody Allen movie...I hate Woody Allen, but "Bullets Over Broadway" is an exception...in that movie, it was said that "an artist creates his own moral universe." I think the case could not be clearer than with Alfred Hitchcock. By definition, artists think on a completely different level than most other people...whether it's a "higher" level or not is beside the point. Hitchcock's lecherousness or his obssession with blondes is irrelevant. What matters is the man's output as an artist.

His films are timeless and still stand as the springboard by which many filmmakers pattern themselves after. So far, none of them have succeeded...but then again, that's also a matter of opinion. I think Brian DePalma is fooling himself and a lot of other people by saying he employs Hitchcockian methods of suspense...he does at best only half the time. The suspense in "The Untouchables" and "Carlito's Way" was gut-wrenching, while the suspense in "Scarface" was hardly as subtle as he'd like people to think (except for the scene when F. Murray Abraham is hung from the helicopter...seeing the struggle through the binoculars, but showing his fall from a distance...that was well done, but the rest of the film...the violence was not that really that subtle).

As I said in another thread, I think some people have taken this notion of Hitchcockian suspense for granted. The man's place in cinema history is secure, with or without any Oscars, and his influence on filmmakers today is vast. I think it's a testament to the man's genius that everybody who has tried to emulate his style has never fully achieved the same effect...it's either too obvious without any individual sense to give it a new spin, or it's just poorly done.

As for quotes or misquotes...it's to be expected. Any great artist has his or her share of controversy, and nothing works better to create a stir than to say that the artist said something her or she didn't actually say. Was Hitchcock a control freak as his reputation suggested? Yes...but does it really matter? Van Gogh was insane and cut his own ear off...do we recognize him as a great artist? Yes...why, because of the man's work which speaks for itself. Jimi Hendrix was a control freak too, and he was a drug addict...but his music and his guitar playing are works of genius. The man himself is important, but what will history remember more? The man or his art? I say his art.

[Chris Knipp]

Some very interesting comments, and I don't think I've read much here so far about the influences of Hitchcock, not even De Palma has been much discussed. I don't know about separating the man from the work. We do, for good or ill, remember both. In the case of Van Gogh, his whole story fits in so well with the romantic idea of a suffering, mad artist, that people love it. In the case of Hitchcock, he allowed himself to be made into a dismissive pop icon, and that's probably unfair to his work, but you can't get away from it, from the fact that, as Thomson says, he wasn't even up to understanding what he himself was doing, and he tended to trivialize it--we need to cut through that; but I think we also have to remember some part of that and not take him so goshdarned seriously sometimes. Is it his own moral, or immoral, universe, by the way?

[Ilker81x]

Moral or immoral? Hehe...depends on who you are. I tend to think of someone like Roman Polanski as an artist who makes beautiful films...but he is a pedophile. That's immoral to me, but apparently he thought it was okay. *shrug* So, morality is questionable at best...the artist creates his own sense of morality. What's right to and for him may not be to and for others.