MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Hitchcock's Movies of the Fifties and "P...

Hitchcock's Movies of the Fifties and "Psycho"

posted 4 years ago by ecarle (14979)
20 replies | jump to latest

I was watching the documentary on Brian DePalma("DePalma") again the other day and near the end, a visibly agitated DePalma says something like:

"Most directors make their great movies in their 30s, 40s, and 50's. Those are the peak years. Hitchcock is a classic example. People say The Birds is great but(shakes his head) and all those movies after The Birds have fans, and the critics caught up to him as a genius by then but - NO -- like the others, he made his greatest movies in his 30s, 40s, and 50's.

I believe that while Hitchcock turned 60 in 1960(August), he actually made Psycho when he was 59 and thus...voila for DePalma(though The Birds IS pretty spectacular on the technical side; c'mon let's give Hitch til age 63.)

I spend a lot of time talking about those "risible" post-Psycho movies for a couple of reasons. One is that I actually was alive to see them in theaters when they came out -- I saw every movie from The Birds through Family Plot (less Marnie) first run.

The other reason -- and this is important -- is that I think Hitchocck made those late films when he HAD made Vertigo, NXNW, Psycho -- and those peak acheivements rather "inform" the Hitchcock movies made after them. He was aging and in poor health, yes, but he was still somewhat of some kind of genius.

Still, "in the know" critics will say that it was in the 10 years BEFORE Psycho that Hitchcock truly made his mark, made classics and hits, made REAL movies(rather than the rather clunky and compromised films he made after Psycho).. THAT's where the good stuff is. Moreover(says I), Psycho is IN each of those movies, somewhere, somehow, just waiting to be found when Ed Gein finally was caught(1957), Robert Bloch wrote his book(1959), and Hitchocck made his movie(1960.)

Back up a decade: 1950. The Hays Code is rather heavily in place(though Hitchcock is going to shoot holes in it); to fight TV , movies are often in color and VistaVision or Cinemascope and travel the world(though Hitch made a few b/w films during this period); and the movies as a whole are rather "pulling punches, held back" -- a bit bloodless, if you ask me.

Except for Hitchcock movies(and of course a few other key filmmakers' works.)

1950 was the year of Sunset Boulevard and All About Eve -- for Hitchcock, it was the year of Stage Fright, not considered at the level of those two other films, and actually considered in some quarters "the tail end of a slump' that starts with The Paradine Case(those films are as ill-considered as Hitchcock's post-Psycho work, and yet Rope seems more like a classic all the time and Under Capricorn is certainly an experiment.) I don't remember much about Stage Fright other than its "fake flashback" and its trick villain(who presages Norman Bates.) Its certainly a "Hitchocck Chick Flick" -- the leads are Marlene Dietrich and Jane Wyman.

But its the NEXT movie -- 1951's Strangers on a Train -- that REALLY launches the Hitchocck Golden Era (most folks time it as starting in '51 with this movie and ending either in '60 with Psycho or '63 with The Birds.") For while on the one hand, SOAT gives us an "action spectacle" along the lines of NXNW to come(the berserk carousel climax is right beind Mount Rushmore for tentpole blockbuster influence), SOAT also gives us a "dry run for Norman Bates" in Bruno Anthony -- a psycho killer(though maybe of only one victim?); an amusing charmer -- and played by a "boyish good guy actor turned bad."(Robert Walker.) Bruno is richer than Norman and far less likeable than Norman, but the "type" is there -- the villain who attracts us and tends to "run the movie."

Hitchcock used the success of Strangers on a Train to "buy" the bleak ascetism of his next film "I Confess," which shares the SOAT template(the hero is blamed for a killing and he knows the villain who really did it) within its own great Catholic hook: "A priest is bound by the confessional and can't reveal the real killer when he himself is arrested for the crime." Psycho is reflected here in two specific ways: (1) Karl Malden's police inspector is a more heavy-handed and self-righteous version of Arbogast to come -- and he has a pretty great interrogation scene of Monty Clift's priest that is shot much like the Arbogast/Norman chat(I suppose Malden could have PLAYED Arbogast, but he was a pretty big man physically.) (2) In a courtroom scene, Monty Clift's priest is placed low in the foreground of the frame -- with "Jesus on the Cross" on the wall above him right where the owl will be above Norman in Psycho -- its practically the same shot. Finally, Monty Clift was considered a handsome young man in his prime(pre-auto accident); I suppose that Clift and Tony Perkins are rather cut from the same cloth. Perkins could have played Father Logan -- and Clift, maybe could have played Norman Bates when he was young and handsome.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Stage Fright, SOAT, and I Confess were all done in black and white, almost "dutifully." With his next film, Dial M for Murder, Hitchcock switched back to color(after making Rope and Under Capricorn in color) and all of his films to the end would BE in color.

Except two: The Wrong Man (1956) in black and white to emulate "Marty" and other kitchen sink dramas while maintaining a documentary air; and Psycho(1960) to avoid red blood in the bathtub but also to give Psycho the "correct 50's horror movie look."

"Dial M" anticipates Psycho in a few ways. Like Strangers on a Train before it, Dial M taunts the Hays Code with sexual behavior. SOAT featured in Guy's estranged wife a slutty woman who lets a man hit on her WHILE she's on a date WITH two men WHILE carrying the baby of a man not her husband. (She gets killed, which allows for such a character in 1951.) Dial M pretty much OPENS by showing us that while Grace Kelly is married to Ray Milland, she's lovers with Bob Cummings. Grace will not die like Miriam, but she WILL almost get killed in a brutal manner, kill in self-defense, and come THISCLOSE to the gallows for the crime. She survives and wins, Milland goes to jail, and one wonders -- will she be allowed to marry Bob Cummings after all?(The question goes unanswered.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

The sexual shenanigans of Dial M anticipate the opening hotel room tryst in Psycho -- those people aren't married -- but the key connection is in the attempted murder of Grace Kelly by a male hireling who tries to strangle her and gets a pair of scissors in his back for his trouble. The strangulation(with rape overtones) foreshadows the rape-strangling of Frenzy in 1972(where the victim does NOT survive) but the bladed weapon(gleaming in a flash of light, like Mrs. Bates' knife) foreshadows Psycho in 1960. I can only imagine that the attack on Grace Kelly(complete with the assailant falling backwards onto scissors that thrust up into his back) was ALMOST as powerful a shock in 1953 as the shower scene 7 years later.

Hitchcock moved to Paramount for his next movie, a blockbuster classic called Rear Window which anticipates a few things about Psycho: (1) Voyeurism(Stewart through his lens; Norman through his peephole); (2) Sickening murder(We can only guess how Thorvald killed his wife -- strangled her? -- but he uses knives to chop her body into pieces for delivery to the East River; and (3) blood in the bathtub(Thelma Ritter figures out that that had to be where Thorvald dismembered the body.) That a man could dismember his wife(and move her head from the flower garden to a hatbox) suggests that Thorvald was a psycho , too -- but not -- a "normal" man might be able to dismember his spouse, yes?

Rear Window is evidently Hitchcock's biggest hit other than Psycho, and though Rear Window has a romance at the center and is in Technicolor, at its heart it was probably such a big hit because it DID suggest what Psycho would show: murder most foul...with blades and blood and a terrifying essence to the killer.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Next up: To Catch a Thief, most important to Psycho, I feel,in being its absolute inverse: Psycho was a low budget film in black and white about people on the financial edge; To Catch a Thief was a high budget Technicolor film about rich people in the leads. Though there is this. Cary Grant's "retired" cat burglar in TCAT has earned his parole via WWII heroism -- which involved killing 72 Nazis. Norman Bates has nothing on John Robie's facility with killing people -- and if you kill 72 people, does that make you a psycho? (In war?)

And then The Trouble With Harry. Released in 1955, the same year as To Catch a Thief(that was aimed for the box office, this one is a personal film). Also in 1955 the prolific Hitch started his TV show and watched as he became a huge TV star(like Matt Dillon, Lucy, and Ralph Kramden) and fabulously rich.

LA Times critic Philip K. Scheuer wrote of Psycho in 1960 "This is Hitchcock's most disagreeable film since The Trouble With Harry, which was disagreeable in a different way." Scheuer didn't elaborate, but I can: both movies take up as a theme -- what IS a dead body, once it is no longer a person. Harry gets moved around, dug up and reburied a few times in his "black comedy," but we hear a lot about his previous time as a living human being. In Psycho, Harry NEVER gets buried -- he's Mrs. Bates, and she's starts rotting(even though stuffed and preserved.) Meanwhile, we watch as Janet Leigh's Marion Crane -- pretty, sensual, caring, determined, a bit witty -- is killed and spends about 9 minutes as a lifeless corpse on the floor of a motel bathroom, the floor of the cabin itself, then a car trunk, all humanity literally drained out of her. The Trouble with Harry and Psycho are both about "body disposal" but they are also about death -- and how people, once they become lifeless bodies...are SUPPOSED to be removed from our lives -- the grave or the crematorium, but GONE. Norman Bates never got that memo with Mother.

[–] [email protected] (5507) 4 years ago

"I Confess" is a film I saw on TV way back in my childhood. I'd like to see it again because I wasn't really able to absorb the story when I was a kid.

But it is definitely based in truth. A priest cannot ever reveal what is told to him n the confessional. If he does, it is a major sin. He must get absolution from the Pope himself.

Funny thing is, my mom was watching this on TV when I watched it with her. She was NEVER a Hitchcock fan. She disliked his TV show and I would beg to watch it. To this day she's never seen Psycho! But the subject matter attracted her since we're Catholic.

"Rope" is one of those films that I was interested in seeing and FINALLY caught it on TV a few years ago. I think it was TCM, Turner Classic Movies. I had read about Hitchcock's experiment with trying to do a film in one long take. It turned out to be a gimmick that didn't go over big with audiences.

I only saw it once, but I'd like to see it again. I think audiences were too quick to dismiss it. It IS an interesting character study. The lead couple, Phillip and Brandon are intriguing. One seems to be a sociopath with no conscience and the other weakly goes along with the murder scheme. I fund it interesting in the way the story played out.

It is a game of suspense. Will the brash Brandon give them away by being too cocky? Will the frightened Phillip give them away because his conscience gets the better of him?

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Welcome to the thread!

I'm on a self-imposed mission to briefly cover the films before Psycho (in contrast to the films after Psycho) and as we reach some along the way, hearing other's thoughts about them is welcome. To me, at least.

---

"I Confess" is a film I saw on TV way back in my childhood. I'd like to see it again because I wasn't really able to absorb the story when I was a kid.

---

Its one of those "forgotten" Hitchcocks and it begs a question for me; what if Hitchcock made I Confess AFTER Psycho -- would it have been a "film of decline?" Or is it simply "not quite as good as the best Hitchcocks."

I Confess certainly reflects Hitchcock's "serious side" and his Catholicism(he's alongside Martin Scorsese in allowing that religion to influence his work.)

---

But it is definitely based in truth. A priest cannot ever reveal what is told to him n the confessional. If he does, it is a major sin. He must get absolution from the Pope himself.

---

There you go. Hitchocck told Truffaut that audiences evidently simply didn't believe that Clift would sacrifice his own life for the confessional. But the movie makes the point very well, I think, that he MUST. This converts Karl Malden's cop into a bit of a villain, because that cop seems bound and determined to 'break the confessional" if it is the only way out for Clift.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Funny thing is, my mom was watching this on TV when I watched it with her. She was NEVER a Hitchcock fan. She disliked his TV show and I would beg to watch it. To this day she's never seen Psycho! But the subject matter attracted her since we're Catholic.

--

Well you can not be a fan of the filmmaker -- and nonetheless like one or two of his films. I Confess lacks the sex and shocks of Psycho, but it is very dramatic and takes up religious themes. As I recall, it was from a play that had stuff Hitchcock couldn't film -- the priest sired a baby and ended up hung for the other man's crimes. Though the only offer was finally to Clift(a rare Hitchcock "single") for the lead, Hitchcock envisioned older men like Laurence Oliver, Cary Grant, and James Stewart for Father Logan. Going with Clift added to the pain of the piece, I think -- a younger man bound to celibacy. Its also a fine film about how to be a good and brave man.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

"Rope" is one of those films that I was interested in seeing and FINALLY caught it on TV a few years ago. I think it was TCM, Turner Classic Movies. I had read about Hitchcock's experiment with trying to do a film in one long take. It turned out to be a gimmick that didn't go over big with audiences.

---

Rope is sometimes listed as one of " a string of flops or underperformers" from The Paradine Case through Stage Fright (but they WEREN'T flops and they ARE good films) , but of all of the group, I think Rope is the best, the closest to a classic. Because not ONLY is it that great one-of-a-kind experiment, but the story IS compelling and the themes(coming soon after the Nazis' defeat, about "superiority") are important.

---

I only saw it once, but I'd like to see it again. I think audiences were too quick to dismiss it. It IS an interesting character study.

--

Agreed.

---

The lead couple, Phillip and Brandon are intriguing. One seems to be a sociopath with no conscience and the other weakly goes along with the murder scheme.

--

This is evidently called a "dyad" in criminal justice circles. The "Columbine killers" were two guys, but only one of them actually killed the victims -- the other just followed along. In "Rope" its different: cocky Brandon is the planner, but weak Brandon actually does the strangling(while Brandon helps, the opening murder brief and at its end, is horrifying in its unfair two-on-one cowardice.)

--

I fund it interesting in the way the story played out.

--

Me, too.

---

It is a game of suspense. Will the brash Brandon give them away by being too cocky? Will the frightened Phillip give them away because his conscience gets the better of him?

---

Yep. That Dyad thing again, though again,interesting -- the frightened weak Phillip is still the more physically dangerous of the two -- ready and wanting to kill James Stewart.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Rope may have actually been a flop on release because 1948 newspaper articles show it was banned in many US cities and on US military bases. Ostensibly because of the murder and subject matter -- but possibly because of its gay overtones.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

MEANWHILE:

Back to the 1950's Hitchcock movies:

Bernard Herrmann came on board with "The Trouble With Harry" but that was a sweet tempered and funny film. With "The Man Who Knew Too Much" remake in 1956, Herrmann could bring on the thunder and the suspense, with a movie that mixes two great thriller motifs: (1) "Stop the assassination!" and (2) The kidnapping of a child(which always fills parental audiences with suspense AND rage.

Other than Herrmann, I'd say that the only other "Psycho" connection is the very brutal stabbing of Louis Bernard by a killer in disguise. The knife only goes in once, but the killer slowly drives it into Bernard's back,a nd the victim must desperately claw at his back (like a man trying to scratch an itch) until he dies in Jimmy Stewart's arms and makes Jimmy the Man Who Knew Too Much.

A few years later, UN diplomat Lester Townsend gets a knife in the back in NXNW - -but its a thrown knife, death is super-quick and the scene is FUNNY. The knifing of Louis Bernard is a more visceral, brutal and lingering affair -- and thus prepares us for Psycho's knifeplay, too.

[–] [email protected] (5507) 4 years ago

I saw "The Trouble With Harry" a long time ago. Another film I'd like to see again. Not just with Hitchcock films, but sometimes I am just not in the right frame of mind to appreciate a film. I just don't pay enough attention!

"The Man Who Knew Too Much" was a superb thriller. I enjoyed that one. Another I'd like to see again.

A side note about it, in one of the Hitchcock bios, Doris Day talks about her role in the film. She said that the director didn't talk to her about her performance. She really thought that she was doing something wrong and that Hitchcock was displeased with her. She offered to bow out of the film. He basically told her that she was doing everything right and he'd only advise her if she was doing something that he didn't approve of.
As much as Hitchcock got a bad rap for the phony quote attributed to him, "All actors are cattle", I think he knew how to direct his performers. He didn't micromanage. He only stepped in when he saw them struggling or needing help.

Martin Landau said a similar thing when he was cast in North by Northwest. He said that Hitchcock spoke to all the actors on the set. He said that he waited for the director to speak to him. But he didn't. He thought he had displeased Hitchcock. But when he asked, Hitchcock said that he had no criticism of his performance. He apparently only talked to actors when he felt they needed help!

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

The Wrong Man (1956) Other than Psycho, the only other black and white Hitchcock movie during his color period from 1953 to 1976. In both cases, b/w was chosen rather than simply used by Hitchcock, for reasons noted above.

What The Wrong Man shares most with Psycho, I think is that both films leave behind the well-off type leads of many other Hitchcock pictures(Strangers on a Train, Dial M, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, Man Who Knew Too Much) to contemplate the hardscrabble daily terrors of "making ends meet." Manny seems to have a pretty glamourous job at the Stork Club...but he can barely make it. And Psycho is famously full of people in tough circumstances -- it is suggested that their hard circumstances somehow brought the horrors on.

--

Vertigo. With Vertigo, we reach a "Hitchcock trilogy" of greatness that is locked in because these are the only three Hitchcock films to have a Saul Bass credits sequence(along with a great Bernard Herrmann opening theme) and that "sets the pace" for just how interlocked Vertigo,North by Northwest, and Psycho really are.

And they are all great films -- and, yes, made by a director in far more command of his health, his faculties and his studio power than Hitchcock would later be(even as, during the prep on Vertigo, Hitch had several surgeries which had him planning those movies from BED.)

Vertigo shares with Psycho: some musical cues; the theme of voyeurism(Scottie watches Madeleine, Norman watches Marion); the theme of trying to bring the dead back to life (Madeleine, through Judy; Mother, through Norman himself) and the inability to "bring back the past."

Hitchcock also used a San Francisco building in Vertigo -- called The Hotel McKittrick in the film -- which , inside (the staircase) and out, gave Hitchcock the inspiration for the Bates Mansion in Psycho(cobbled together from existing sets , with additions.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

North by Northwest is one before Psycho...at MGM(Hitch's only one there) so it looks and sounds rather different than Vertigo (made at Paramount) and Psycho(made at Universal for Paramount release)...but together the three "join up" and NXNW anticipates Psycho in several ways:

One: the fact that these are pretty much Hitchcock's two greatest overall eneterainments -- you are signing up for the greatest chase of all time to that date (NXNW) one year and then the greatest horror movie of all time the next year(Psycho.) Both Vertigo and The Birds on either side of them go for a certain dramatic bleakness that lacks the "fun" of "the dynamic duo." Not to mention, between North by Northwest for action and Psycho for horror...the template was set for ALL thrillers to come after them. NXNW inspires the comic book movies -- Guardians of the Galaxy II even has a crop duster homage -- and Psycho inspired horror from the highs of The Exorcist and Jaws to the lows of Friday the 13th and the Texax Chainsaw massacre.

NXNW and Psycho also share the theme of identity: "George Kaplan" and "Mrs. Bates" are central to their stories..but neither one really exists. Kaplan never did; Mrs. Bates did, but no longer really does.

NXNW has a Mother in it(Mrs. Thornhill) who is a funny, rich dry run for Mrs. Bates in one way only: a disproportionate and dominating role in her son's life.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

And then there is "visual style": Roger Thornhill waiting in the Indiana plains waiting to meet someone matches up one film later with Arbogast waiting in the Bates House foyer to meet someone. "Anchor shots" of each man. He looks. What he sees(a road; a field; a staircase, a menacing cupid statue.) These two scenes could almost be superimposed on one another. And each man will "meet" something that deals in death. Only one survives(the superstar.)

Thornhill climbing the hill road up to Vandamm's Rushmore house at night is matched one year later by Arbogast climbing the hill up to the Bates mansion. The Arbogast shot in black and white is a bit more "clear and classic" to look at than the Rushmore shot in color; but they are both formidable. I'd say that each man is heading for danger -- but one man (Thornhill) knows he is; the other (Arbogast) thinks there might be danger "but he can handle it." (Bonus: in Frenzy, years later, these two shots are rather matched by a high shot of psycho Rusk pushing a wheelbarrow towards row of trucks at night -- the same "dynamic" with matte work.)

Which brings us to Psycho. Hitchcock is 59 and has surived some surgeries (and seen his wife Alma survive cancer.) Screenwriter Joe Stefano said that Hitchcock, thus touched by mortality was attracted to the "sudden death" nature of Psycho -- and we got that great movie accordingly.

Which begs the question: so, the movies from Stage Fright to Psycho -- BETTER than the movies from The Birds to Family Plot? Yeah, sure. Hitchcock got old, his health failed, his budgets were lowered, major stars stopped working with him after Torn Curtain. And yet, he still had SOMETHING, he never really lost it entirely, and he has Frenzy(sorry DePalma) as late breaking evidence of relevance.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Still, nobody's going to beat a decade that starts with Strangers on a Train and finishes with "The Big Three"(Vertigo, NXNW, Psycho.) Stars worked with Hitch willingly -- Grant and Stewart to be sure, but also One Hit Wonders Montgomery Clift and Henry Fonda. Plus Grace Kelly and the Array of blondes: Day, Miles, Novak, Saint, Leigh.

There were hits that weren't classics, like The Man Who Knew Too Much. There were classics that weren't hits, like Vertigo. And classics that WERE hits: SOAT, Rear Window, NXNW, Psycho. There were personal films like The Trouble With Harry, I Confess, and The Wrong Man.

It was a very good decade and just thinking about it makes me wanna go look at one of those movies OTHER than Psycho, just for variety's sake.

I think I will.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

I saw "The Trouble With Harry" a long time ago. Another film I'd like to see again.

--

Perhaps these posts will suggest to you that you should!

I often put my "Trouble With Harry" DVD in just to watch the first few minutes of gorgeous Vermont country scenery as Bernard Herrmann's very soothing and nostalgia music plays. It just puts me in a good mood about life(there are no people in this frames either. Hmm.)

--

Not just with Hitchcock films, but sometimes I am just not in the right frame of mind to appreciate a film. I just don't pay enough attention!

--

Well, they are meant to be a diversion..a relaxation...we can always re-visit them for "more."

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

"The Man Who Knew Too Much" was a superb thriller. I enjoyed that one. Another I'd like to see again.

--

Its Hitchcock's only official remake of his own film, and you can see why: he could do it in color and travel to Morocco and back to London; he could use two big American stars(Stewart and Day) with two great voices.

And: as I noted, it really is the depository of TWO major thriller movie templates: "Stop the assassination"(The Manchurian Candidate, Day of the Jackal, Black Sunday) and child kidnapping (Ransom, Don't Say a Word, Taken...lots more.)

The concert sequence is the biggie in the movie, but the murder and confession of Louis Bernard is brutal and stunningly visual(his huge mouth against Stewart's huge ear; Stewart's piercing blue eyes.)

Day's breakdown scene when Stewart sedates her and THEN tells her their son has been kidnapped...was Oscar worthy(but only Janet Leigh got an Oscar nom for a Hitchcock movie after 1946 in the acting category.)

And I've always liked the climax with the villain holding a gun on the son's head as Stewart walks with them. Stewart' great capacity for rage..here tamped down. Honestly, I could see Clint Eastwood(circa 1977) doing this scene. This is another "great Hitchcock staircase scene."

BTW, Hitchcock's "unofficial remake" is North by Northwest, which collectively remakes The 39 Steps, Foreign Correspondent, Saboteur(especially) and The Lady Vanishes(on the train.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

A side note about it, in one of the Hitchcock bios, Doris Day talks about her role in the film. She said that the director didn't talk to her about her performance. She really thought that she was doing something wrong and that Hitchcock was displeased with her. She offered to bow out of the film. He basically told her that she was doing everything right and he'd only advise her if she was doing something that he didn't approve of.

--

That's a great story. She actually set a "formal" meeting with Hitchcock and brought her agent with her.

I don't know much from movie direction, but I've read that some actors very much want guidance from the director...praise if they are doing it good, suggestions to do it another way, gentle guidance to a better take.

Whereas Hitchcock often just sat and watched. I did read of him watching James Stewart do a scene from "Man 1956" saying cut and then saying to Stewart," I don't know Jimmy, that take felt a bit flat to me. Can we do it again and punch it up a bit?"

He gave no direction to Cary Grant walking through the Plaza Hotel in NXNW, telling a watching reporter, "Oh, Cary's has a permanent room here, he's been walking that hall for years."

---
Martin Landau said a similar thing when he was cast in North by Northwest. He said that Hitchcock spoke to all the actors on the set. He said that he waited for the director to speak to him. But he didn't. He thought he had displeased Hitchcock. But when he asked, Hitchcock said that he had no criticism of his performance. He apparently only talked to actors when he felt they needed help!

---
Later is his career, Hitchcock heavily directed some actors in Topaz -- actually moving their bodies around with his hands for their poses, telling a reporter "these are unseasoned actors --I have to give them more personal direction."

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Which reminds me: Frenzy has a great ending, with two actors , Barry Foster(killer Rusk) and Alec McCowen(Inspector Oxford) acting their parts perfectly:

Oxford: (Quietly and firmly) Mr. Rusk..you're not wearing your tie.

Rusk: (Just sputters, says nothing, looks ahead.)

On the first take, Rusk hung his head in shame and Oxford barked out his line about the tie.

Hitch gently asked them to tone it down. Oxford: say your line quietly with confidence. Rusk: don't bow your head in shame.

Result: a perfect, "Hitchcock deadpan" ending.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

As much as Hitchcock got a bad rap for the phony quote attributed to him, "All actors are cattle",

--

He refined that quote in later years to "No, I said all actors should be TREATED as cattle."

Truth be told, actors are the largest bloc of voters at the Oscars and that quote may have offended them and kept Hitch from winning a few times.

Also, one actor -- Richard Burton -- said he turned down Richard Blaney in Frenzy BECAUSE of that quote.

More seriously, Hitchcock refined the quote to "all actors are children." He meant spoiled and self-absorbed. Steve McQueen said "that's not a very nice thing to say, but I guess he's right. We ARE spoiled."

Still a whole lot of actors worked with Hitchcock despite the quote(Henry Fonda rejected it) , loved him as a genius , loved him as a man -- and felt they got some of their best roles ever in their Hitchcock films.

---

I think he knew how to direct his performers. He didn't micromanage. He only stepped in when he saw them struggling or needing help.

---

There you go. Cary Grant and James Stewart -- not so much. The actors in Topaz and Frenzy -- a lot. And with Doris Day "doing it right" -- he had to tell her he thought she was fine.

"The Man Who Knew Too Much" was hellish for Doris Day. Other Hitchcock players only had to work on soundstages in Hollywood. Day --who hated to fly -- had to fly first from the US to Marrakesh and then to London and then back to the US. And she was appalled by how animals were treated in Marrakesh. Animals near her view had to be fed and watered before she would do a scene.

Ended up with one of her best, most serious movies though. And gave a great performance -- for Hitchcock.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

bump