Do you think Hitchcock insulted the audience back them when he made his films by introducing gay characters in his film in an ambiguous way and thereby insulting the intelligence of the audience (who presumably did not expect homosexuality on the big screen).
Was he amusing himself by his ability to defy the censors?
From what I've read from gay actors like Farley Granger for example, Hitchcock was fascinated by homosexuality and this was the only way he could depict it. And it was never a negative fascination. I think he was both amusing himself, and providing gay people with something they could identify with. The film Hitchcock wasn't the greatest, but it clearly did show how little respect Hitchcock had for the film censors.
[deleted]
Thank you for that contribution to the conversation. You read a post which was relevant and informative, and left an immature reply which was meaningless to everyone except you. Well done.
shareHitchcock insulted no one. He was making films in accordance with the censorship code of the time.
Its that man again!!
In Tightrope, his antagonists and protagonist were gay...very forward for the early 50s.
share[deleted]
Norman Bates wasn't a homosexual but there were other characters who were in Hitch's movies like Bruno Antony (Robert Walker) in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, Brandon and Phillip (John Dahl and Farley Granger) in ROPE and the character played by Judith Anderson in REBECCA! Mrs. Danvers?
share