MovieChat Forums > Night Will Fall (2014) Discussion > Hitchcock assisted, did NOT film and did...

Hitchcock assisted, did NOT film and did NOT direct!

posted 10 years ago by mdolnikova
19 replies | jump to latest

The great Hitchcock did NOT film nor did he direct the earlier documentary suppressed by the British on which Night Will Fall is based. Lord Sidney Bernstein was the director who brought his good friend Hitchcock in to assist with the script and the editing of the original 1945 film which was never completed. See the following:
"Sidney Bernstein, the film's director, persuaded his friend Alfred Hitchcock to leave Hollywood and come to England to collaborate for several weeks in the making of the film. Hitchcock arrived in late June, after the Belsen material (the first three reels of the film) had been assembled. He left in late July, two months before work on the film appears to have stopped. According to Bernstein, Hitchcock would not take a fee for his work.
Hitchcock is credited as "treatment advisor." He acted as a consultant in organizing the footage, along with writers Colin Wills and Richard Crossman (both of the London News Chronicle) and editors Peter Tanner and Stewart MacAllister." (From:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/camp/faqs.html)Of course saying that it's Hitchcock's film is great for PR, but it's NOT TRUE! Let us give credit where credit is due!

[–] cuckookachoo 9 years ago

Not sure your point, every promotion I've read about this clearly states Hitchcock's role in this film. Nobody would confuse him as the director.

[–] dollvalley 9 years ago

Indeed, I think it's a misunderstanding that people will make because Hitchcock is a director, and to link him to a movie undoubtedly makes one think he was the director.
I'll say, if this makes more people watch this horrific footage, then it's not a bad thing. This must be seen.

[–] benman46 9 years ago

It was never mentioned in the film that Hitchcock was the director, in fact it went out of its way to say that Bernstein was the driving force behind the film. Hitchcock came over to supervise with the editing. So I don't know where your rant is coming from.

[–] geordie-688-809183 9 years ago

Perhaps his rant refers to this, which credits Hitchcock as a co-director:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3455796/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

Seems like a lot of reviews and comments are playing the Hitchcock card. Pretty stupid to even associate him with this film. Nothing but an advertising scam.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] benman46 9 years ago

It wasn't stupid to associate him with the film as he played an important part. Hardly an advertising scam as the film only got a limited cinema release, and will be shown mainly on TV. How many people of the current generation say, have actually heard of Hitchcock?

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

> How many people of the current generation say, have actually heard of Hitchcock?

Far more than have heard of Hitchcock than Sidney Bernstein.

They wouldn't advertise a film directed by Hitchcock by linking him to someone who helped him edit part of it -- unless they were famous. Hence the manipulation of this advertising scam.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] benman46 9 years ago

I doubt many people of the current generation would have heard of either of them. Where does this idea of an advertising scam come from. For a film that will mostly be shown on TV, what would be the point. Though getting as many people as possible to see a film about the most appalling crime against humanity is not a bad idea. Anyway Hitchcock was known for features not documentaries.

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

> Where does this idea of an advertising scam come from.

That it's intentionally misleading and borderline fraudulent. Tell me: why do you think they'd mention Hitchcock's name so prominently if not for advertising?

> For a film that will mostly be shown on TV, what would be the point.

The same point as for any other product that is advertised: to attract customers.

> Though getting as many people as possible to see a film about the most appalling crime against humanity is not a bad idea.

Ah, so because you think it's an important film, it's OK to advertise it in a misleading and fraudulent way.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] benman46 9 years ago

Why is it misleading and fraudulent? Hitchcock played an important part in the making of the film. And again how many people have heard of Hitchcock? When it was shown on TV in the UK, advertising for the film never mentioned Hitchcock, just as when it was released in London cinemas. I only knew he was in involved with the film when it was mentioned in the documentary. What you also seem to forget is that Night Will Fall is actually about the making of the original documentary, and in the BFI's publicity the director is Andre Singer, not Hitchcock. It is an important film, people should watch it, including you.

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

I can't speak for the UK, but I'm guessing that most Americans over the age of 20 have heard of Hitchcock.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] benman46 9 years ago

It won't make any difference as his name will not be mentioned in the publicity. But I hope a lot of American citizens do watch the film.

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

Sure it will. If they didn't mention his name most people wouldn't think twice about it. "Oh, just yet another documentary about WW2... *yawn*." But when they mention a famous director like Hitchcock, that will cause plenty to think twice and entice them into seeing it which they otherwise wouldn't have.

Is it a good thing that more people will see it or not? I really don't care about having that argument. My only point is that it feels like a manipulative advertising ploy.

I don't care about your hopes... irrelevant to me.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] benman46 9 years ago

What is your problem. His name won't be mentioned so it is not an advertising ploy. Or should I say hasn't as it has already been shown on US TV. I do hope as many people as possible see it. Your twisted opinion... irrelevant to me.

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

His name already has been mentioned. Many times. Get out of denial and stop arguing something so stupid.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thepaganwinter 9 years ago

I think you are pretty stupid for coming up with mundane, trivial issues about Hitchcock's involvement and are missing the point entirely.

[–] shust2112 9 years ago

First, people in the USA still know and appreciate Hitchock to this day. Hell, they recently remade Psycho with I believe Vince Vaughan. His impact lives on.

Second, regarding the "director credit." I literally just saw the movie and they cite his involvement as "short but intense." He was credited with the title of "Supervisory Director." Clearly not the "main man" in terms of directing but sort of an overseer.

They gave examples of his impact, such as when they questioned how to pull the film together. Hitch suggested using simple maps, like an atlas a child would use in school, to drive home just how close the camps were to population centers where life went on pretty much as normal as could be given the fury of war that was going on all over the continent.

So I don't think there's any "ad campaign" to mislead people about his involvement; he WAS involved, he made a big impact but wasn't the primary director.