Ok, let's say that Hitchcock actually killed her career and made her go into oblivion. Do you think she would have had a prosperous career had Hitchcock just let her go? I mean the New Wave Hollywood was taking over and a new generation of hardcore actors/actresses were in.
I'm talking about Deniro, Streep, Fonda, Dunaway, Pacino, Hackman etc. My opinion is that she wouldn't have made it.
This man really thought that he alone "made" these movies, these performances?!
My dad was pro-women's lib before such a term existed, and I remember hearing as a kid that Hitchcock was an excellent director, but no director "is" the entire film.
The reality is, we're never know how Hedren's career would have went if the momentum she'd gained with both THE BIRDS and MARNIE hadn't been cut off by her being tied to her contract with the studio,which forbade her from even acting in any other films until said contract ran out. She was interviewed on a local TV show in Detroit about this by phone about a year or so ago, and said that because of that, she was forced to pass up a lot of film offers that could have possibly taken her career further. So the question of whether she could have had a bigger career is definitely a what-if this and that hadn't happened type of thing.
And,yeah, I believe her story for two reasons---she's always maintained this story throughout the years--for one, sexual harassment was not yet the law of the land at that time. So Hitchcock, being the Hollywood power he was, could have ruined her career with a snap of his fingers, and she wouldn't have been able to do a single thing about it. Which he basically did, so she had a right to be somewhat bitter about it. But a lot of people just automatically take Hitchcock's side, regardless.
"But a lot of people just automatically take Hitchcock's side, regardless. "
Totally agree with your post. Spot on.
As for the last sentence, my guess is that the people who don't believe her are the same people who idolize Hitchcock. They can't think of their hero being flawed and capable of doing anything wrong. I guess it's called denial. lol
[deleted]
This post shows an entire lack of research and knowledge on the subject. You want to insult people who defend Hitchcock as only doing so because they like Hitchcock? Well your post reads like you only want to condemn Hitchcock based off this film whose accuracy has been disputed by many people. How about instead of believing a movie completely that set out specifically to make a point, you go out and do actual research before coming to a conclusion? It's obvious you haven't.
First, Tippi has NOT always maintained this story. In fact, she had nothing but great things to say about Alfred Hitchcock during his life. She NEVER said a bad word about him until 2 years after he died when her career was in the toilet and she had the opportunity to get publicity by defaming a famous director.
In fact, Hedren has been called on this several times. Each time she says that she didn't want to destroy the man as a director because she could separate the man from the director. It's so odd that she has so much respect for a man who ruined her career and made her life miserable. Utter nonsense.
No, Hitchcock could not ruin her career with the snap of his fingers. First off, she didn't have a career in acting until he convinced her to pursue one. She actually said she didn't want to be an actress because it was difficult to succeed. She acknowledged the difficulty of succeeded as an actress, but when she couldn't do it, it became Hitchcock's fault. "The Birds" and "Marnie" were not good measuring sticks of her drawing power. They were Alfred Hitchcock films and would have done well regardless of who was cast in the leading role. However, NOTHING she did post Hitchcock was successful. But rather than recognize the fact that her only two successes were successful due to Hitchcock, people like you want to assume that all of her subsequent failures were his fault.
Think about how absolutely nonsensical that sounds. Please think about it.
Furthermore, she signed a 7 year contract with him. No one forced her to do that. It's funny how people sign contracts and then complain about being held to a contract. You don't want to be held, there is one solution to that. DON'T SIGN A CONTRACT. But you know what is the most ironic thing? She says that Hitchcock ruined her career by not letting her work elsewhere but that is an UTTER LIE. In fact, right after "Marnie," Hitchcock sold her contract to Universal. It was Universal that determined that she wasn't a draw and it was Universal that terminated her contract. (https://books.google.com/books?id=NcjbAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=tippi+hedren+is+a+liar&source=bl&ots=vroy_hCsi9&sig=8ffbs7-ap7d6QAN_Owgvp4roD9I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju7d3q8rrRAhXpxVQKHeDFBO44ChDoAQg5MAQ#v=onepage&q=tippi%20hedren%20is%20a%20liar&f=false)
So here's the case. We cannot assume she is lying because the only person who truly knows if she is lying is herself. However, do not come on here and insult people who defend Hitchcock as only doing it because they love him. I defend Hitchcock because all of this "evidence" that people who accuse him claim they have does NOT stand up under scrutiny.
So, we cannot assume she is telling the truth based upon that evidence. Could she be? Of course. But don't act like this is an open and shut case because it is FAR from that.
agree 100%
shareOk, let's say that Hitchcock actually killed her career and made her go into oblivion. Do you think she would have had a prosperous career had Hitchcock just let her go?
I think she learned a lot about acting from Hitch. She probably needed a strong director, just not a crazy one...
share[deleted]