A p p e n d i x

In Brief—Hitchcock’s Cameos

H itchcock visibly inscribed his presence in his work via more than three dozen cameo appearances, a signature practice that began with The Lodger , by his own account “the first true ‘Hitchcock movie’” (Truffaut 43), and concluded with his final feature, Family Plot . The director’s proliferant cameos demarcated his posi- tion, amplified his renown by mass distributing his literal image, and eventually achieved public notoriety as discernible “Hitchcock touches,” an invitation to non- critical popular scrutiny of his work. Hitchcock thereby constructed himself as a desired figure of authorship on the part of the audience. Yet, in registering his presence, the director’s cameos dually complicate his agency. If the cameos not only constitute visual signatures but entice the audience to search for Hitchcock’s manifestation in his cinema,1 the director locates himself as a figure of transitory, marginal, and bypassed inhabitance, one associated with mechanisms and processes of fabricated motion, yet whose diegetic function is marked by limitation. Hitchcock’s cameos are often moments in which he is affiliated with apparatuses and operations of mobilization. He is allied with buses in North by Northwest and To Catch a Thief ; the London Underground in Blackmail ; railway stations and trains in The Lady Vanishes , Shadow of a Doubt , and Strangers on a Train ; an eleva- tor in Spellbound ; a wheelchair in Topaz ; a timepiece in Rear Window (Hitchcock literally mobilizes time by winding a clock in the songwriter’s apartment); and a newsroom in the throes of constructing and disseminating a crime story in The Lodger . Yet, his association with these mechanisms often signal the limitations of his agency. Hitchcock unsuccessfully attempts to board a bus in North by Northwest and appears in vehicles (and other devices of locomotion) driven by others in Blackmail , To Catch a Thief , Shadow of a Doubt , and Topaz . In Blackmail , albeit allied with the literal mobilization of the written text as a book-reading passenger on the London Underground, his focusing abilities are continually undermined by a distracting young passenger. Whereas in The Lodger Hitchcock initially appears as a figure of mass media production – apparently a newsroom editor (with his back to the camera) on the telephone, instrumental in bringing the crime story to the public – near the film’s end he (or an individual who resembles Hitchcock) reemerges 234 Appendix as a figure in the crowd watching from above as the handcuffed lodger dangles from a fence, thereby witnessing the malevolent force of mass reception in the form of a mob whose bloodlust nearly brings a malignant, wrong-minded conclusion to the drama of an innocent man pursuing a serial killer. In Shadow of a Doubt and Topaz , Hitchcock is specifically allied with mobi- lized fabrications of fiction—appearances that, albeit distinctly ludic, as Thomas Leitch observes of Hitchcock’s cameos (“Find” 10), and denoting “that we are being manipulated” as per Maurice Yacowar’s commentary (270)—are indicative of infirmity. 2 On a moving train in Shadow of a Doubt , he holds all the spades in a fully suited bridge hand, foregrounding his dominant position as a creator of fakery that becomes associated with personal disorder when the physician with whom he is playing observes that he suffers from a malady. Yacowar suggests that Hitchcock’s cameo in Topaz “obviously replies to his critics. He has himself wheeled into a lobby by a nurse, the image of the helpless old man that the reviewers considered him. Then he blithely rises and walks off on his own” (276).3 Yet, the poorly produced and in general widely criticized film did in fact evince a still ambulatory yet hobbled Hitchcock. In other cameos, Hitchcock bears instruments of artistry that are nonetheless nonoperating. He carries a cased cello, double bass, and bugle in The Paradine Case , Strangers on a Train , and Vertigo , respectively, and a camera held but not used outside the courthouse in Young and Innocent . These instruments—as well as his literal enunciative powers in Young and Innocent , Blackmail , Rear Window , Topaz , and Family Plot , wherein ambient sound subsumes his remarks or Hitchcock is viewed mouthing words from too far away to register—are silenced. 4 In conjunction with motion, Hitchcock’s appearances are often associated with apertures: windows and opening, closing, ajar, or shut doors—of a bus, businesses, elevator, train, hotel rooms—through which he enters (or attempts to do so) and exits in North by Northwest , Spellbound , The Birds , Marnie , and nearby or behind which he is positioned in Psycho , Torn Curtain , and Family Plot . Among the glass apertures in back of which he stands (from the camera’s point of view) are the door of the real estate brokerage through which Marion enters in Psycho and the opaque window of a shut door of the “Registrar of Births and Deaths” where, in Family Plot , he delivers a silent screen performance as a figure gesturing to a clerk, the director already a shadow in his final cameo. Even when he is still, the motion pic- ture (through window-framed moving images by his head in The Lodger , Blackmail , Shadow of a Doubt , and To Catch a Thief ) is figuratively always in mind. Much as such moments visibly inscribe Hitchcock in his cinema, the nature of his self-display, rather than serially occurring during what Raymond Bellour delin- eates as “that point in the chain of events where what could be called the film-wish is condensed . . . the logical unfolding of the fantasy originating in the conditions of enunciation” (225), or, according to Michael Walker, “mark[ing] a—distinctly Hitchcockian—turning point . . . [wherein] the protagonist will be precipitated into the chaos world . . . as a mark of Hitchcock’s self-conscious control over the narra- tive” (91–2), instead complicates the nature of his presence. What Walker describes as Hitchcock’s appearances at junctures of transition for the characters in such films as Psycho , standing outside the office when Marion hurries back to her job, shortly thereafter to be enticed into theft by a client’s stack of cash, and Vertigo , ambling down the sidewalk when Scottie initially arrives as Elster’s ship- and plot-building Appendix 235 establishment, are also moments when the director is not only, as Walker suggests, a passerby. During such junctures, Hitchcock is a variously static and perambulatory figure bypassed by the characters in his cinema. 5 In Murder! , The 39 Steps , The Lady Vanishes , Stage Fright , I Confess , and Vertigo he walks across the screen as a notably marginalized figure. Huntley Haverstock, Eve Gill, Guy Haines, Scottie Ferguson, Marion Crane, Melanie Daniels, and Marnie Edgar are among those who ignore him in the throes of exerting their own diegetic agency, even if Hitchcock pauses to observe them, as he does Eve and Marnie. In these moments of crossover (cross- ing paths), Hitchcock exhibits himself as literally passing away, out of the frame, or bluntly cut from the film. In the single feature where he wields diegetic agency, Notorious —in accordance with Leitch’s observation that Hitchcock’s cameos are devices “reminding the audience of the filmmaker’s power” (“Find” 6)—the direc- tor also depicts himself as a transient presence, moving offscreen. In his Notorious cameo at Alex Sebastian’s party, Hitchcock increases multiple tensions and pre- cipitates additional plots by drinking a glass of champagne. The act contributes to depleting the supply on ice, actualizing Alicia and Devlin’s fears that Sebastian will descend to the wine cellar, whereupon he discovers the two agents, who stage a romantic scene to disguise their espionage. The incident leads Sebastian to realize that his romance has been a failure and he has been subject to a spy plot, one that he subsequently attempts to thwart by poisoning Alicia, his wife. In the cameo, upon registering his agency, Hitchcock sets down his empty glass and immediately vacates the frame to make way for the diegetic director-figure, Devlin, and role player, Alicia, who take over the scene, playing out the suspense with a potency they alone possess. In Hitchcock’s cameos, his act of exiting is both formal and symbolic; for the sake of his work’s power he must vacate his own cinema. His momentary presence thereby marks his necessary absence. Even his unique mid-Atlantic cameo in Lifeboat , pic- tured in a newspaper ad for the diet product Reduco, through before-and-after shots places the director in a twice-diminished position. Not only is Hitchcock minia- turized and statically confined within the small frame of a newspaper ad (a figure decreased to the extent that his association with his cinema has become confined to commercial exploitation in print advertisements), but the “after” photo displays his further reduced presence. In Dial M for Murder , he appears as a small figure in a still photograph sitting across from the diegetic plotter, Tony Wendice, and his college acquaintance, Swann, who Wendice employs to execute the carefully scripted mur- der of his wife.6 Hitchcock’s marginalized authorial position is directly demarcated in his cameo presences as a bystander to his own spectacles in Young and Innocent , Under Capricorn , The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), and Frenzy . Ultimately, Hitchcock’s cameos became, for the director, moments marking the audience’s jurisdiction over his cinema. Hitchcock explained to Truffaut that the cameo eventually alchemized into practice determined by audience expectation: “Now it’s a rather troublesome gag, and I’m very careful to show up in the first five minutes so as to let the people look at the rest of the movie with no further distrac- tion” (49). Hitchcock thereby suggested that his cameos were indices of his pres- ence that were at odds with his own work—too much of a diversion for spectators to remain absorbed in his films. At such moments, Hitchcock’s literal and figurative passing images exhibit the dynamic by which authorship becomes constituted by the multiplicity of forces mobilized in the production of his cinema.

N o t e s

Introduction: Self-Reflexivity in Hitchcock’s Cinema and Struggles of Authorship

1 . Cahiers editor Andre Bazin and others voiced this concern, arguing against privi- leging form over content in distinguishing auteurist works. 2 . Bazin commented that Hitchcock recycled conventions dating back to D. W. Griffith. 3 . For example, Bazin argues that just as directors mature, so too does cinema evolve as a medium and, as a result, what may seem to be a mediocre film by an aging auteur can be considered “a clash between the subjective inspiration of the creator and the objective situation of the cinema” in a later state of evolution (“La Politique” 25). 4 . Wood proceeds to argue, “If we somehow removed all trace of ‘popular’ appeal from Shakespeare and Hitchcock, then we would have lost Shakespeare and Hitchcock” (58). 5 . Metz further states, with regard to the audience’s authorial agency, “[A film] cannot be reduced to a gimmick on the part of a few film-producers out to make money, and good at it. It also exists as our product, the product of the society which consumes it, as an orientation of consciousness , whose roots are uncon- scious” (93). 6 . In Making Meaning (1989), Bordwell reinstated the director as a partial agent of authorship, proposing a “historical poetics” that “rests upon an inferential model whereby the perceiver uses cues in the film to execute determinable operations, of which the construction of all sorts of meaning will be a part. To some extent, the filmmaker . . . can construct the film in such a way that certain cues are likely to be salient and certain inferential pathways are marked out. But the filmmaker cannot control all the semantic fields, schemata, and heuristics which the per- ceiver may bring to bear on the film. The spectator can thus use the film for other purposes than the maker anticipated” (270). 7 . Although desire has an undeniably psychosexual component in Hitchcock’s cinema—a component that has been investigated in great depth by numerous scholars, including a good deal of feminist criticism—to view yearning solely in psychoanalytic terms as mechanisms and conflicts of sexual difference occludes the degree to which Hitchcock’s work envisions desire as that for authorship directly allied with narrative artistry, artfulness, and cultural and professional dramatic enterprise, the creations of which (as well as avenues toward and threats against) are not gender-limited or confined to gender struggles. 8 . For an extended account of the crafting of his image, see Hitchcock: The Making of a Reputation by Robert Kapsis. 9 . In fact, Rick Worland disproves the veracity of Hitchcock’s claim that he initially planned for Johnny to poison his wife. Worland cites evidence from successive 238 Notes Pages –

versions of the screenplay that show that, although the film’s ending was revised, Johnny never murders his wife. Further, Worland notes that his archival research revealed no evidence suggesting that Hitchcock haggled with the studio over a conclusion that would reveal Johnny to be a murderer. 10 . Hitchcock at the Source (R. Barton Palmer and David Boyd, eds.), Hitchcock and Adaptation (Mark Osteen, ed.), and After Hitchcock (David Boyd and R. Barton Palmer, eds.) are recent volumes dedicated to issues of adaptation and the director’s cinema. My essay on Strangers on a Train appears in the Osteen volume. 11 . Flitterman-Lewis is referring to a (though not the sole) method of solving prob- lems raised by enunciation, specifically “the contradiction between the tex- tual instance of enunciation and the ‘author as individual’” (21). In To Desire Differently , she suggests the method as a possible manner of fulfilling her proj- ect of “remaining within the context of enunciative theory” (21)—a goal not shared by this volume. 12 . The single exception is the idealized Sir John in Murder! , a figure whose author- ship is nonetheless challenged. 13 . Although the present study does take into account certain conditions, experi- ences, and at times personal associations in the course of production reflected by Hitchcock’s cinema.

 Introduction: Part I

1 . Sidney Gottlieb points out that Hitchcock’s published work was frequently revised, edited, or ghostwritten by others, although in such cases “it is . . . safe to assume that Hitchcock in one way or another guided, supervised, reviewed, and/or approved the final copy before it went to press” in an “authorizing pro- cess” (Hitchcock xiv). 2 . Hitchcock hosted and occasionally directed episodes of the television programs Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955–62) and The Alfred Hitchcock Hour (1962–5). His small screen presence expanded to other venues as well; Hitchcock appeared as an interviewee on numerous television shows in the United States and abroad. 3 . Hitchcock’s first three films, The Pleasure Garden , The Mountain Eagle , and The Lodger , were initially exhibited in England at 1926 trade screenings. The Pleasure Garden and The Mountain Eagle were placed in limited foreign release before their approval for public exhibition in Great Britain. 4 . Hitchcock articulated his desire for creative autonomy as a form of nostalgia as well. In his 1937 essay “Life among the Stars,” he referenced the past consolida- tion of creative functions in film studios: “It’s like an army today: disciplined, departmentalized, efficient. It was not always so. The first picture I was ever given to direct—it is only 13 or 14 years ago—will serve as a model . . . I wrote titles. I wrote scripts. I was art director . . . I was production manager . . . I was assistant director. I was all these not turn and turn about, but all at once” (Gottlieb, Hitchcock 28). 5 . Abbott occupies a spectatorial position as well. See chapter 14 for a discussion of the latter. 6 . For example, in Secret Agent (1936), Edgar Brodie, unwillingly conscripted as an undercover agent by the British government, denounces the unsavory nature of his assignment to orchestrate the murder of a German spy. Notes Pages – 239

7 . In Vertigo , Psycho , and Marnie , familial and economic structures do, however, merge: Gavin Elster, Norman Bates, and Mark Rutland run family businesses. 8 . Sir John Menier is one of the few director-figures (to a certain extent, Brandon Shaw in Rope is another) whose dramatic authority is not circumscribed by individuals who occupy more powerful organizational, institutional, or familial positions. Yet, nonetheless for Menier and Shaw, as for Mark Rutland, conven- tions of social class determine their dramas’ constructions. 9 . The interview appeared in World Film News , March 1938. 10 . This number includes The Birds , which was in postproduction at the time of the Truffaut interview. 11 . Although the image of cinema as a language was widespread in early film dis- course, Hitchcock’s use of the metaphor as late as this 1965 essay suggests an ongoing affinity for the trope. While implying the director’s authorship via such images in “Film Production,” Hitchcock dually (mixing metaphors) equates directing with conducting an orchestra, a variant depiction of the role as that of presiding artistic figure. 12 . Kapsis quotes this statement from a taped private meeting between Hitchcock and writer James Allardice in 1963. 13 . Hitchcock’s screenwriters Charles Bennett, John Michael Hayes, and Joseph Stefano, among numerous others (as well as such other frequent collaborators as his wife, Alma Reville, and production assistant-turned-scriptwriter Joan Harrison), contributed significantly more to his work than he typically divulged in retrospect. For accounts of Hitchcock’s collaborations with screenwriters, see, for example, “Charles Bennett: First Class Constructionist” in McGilligan ( Backstory ), John Michael Hayes’ description of working with Hitchcock in DeRosa, and “Hitchcock and His Writers” by Leitch. Reville and Joan Harrison searched out literary properties and (with other collaborators) cowrote screen- plays. Among Alma’s additional contributions, she oversaw continuity in Hitchcock’s films. See O’Connell and Bouzereau, and Nathalie Morris. 14 . Bill Krohn delineates how, contrary to popular belief, not every shot was story- boarded or sketched by Hitchcock in advance of shooting (12–14). In a notable further challenge to Hitchcock’s reputation in this regard, the authorship of the shower scene in Psycho has been subject to debate. Designer Saul Bass con- tended that he diagrammed the montage, whereas Hitchcock claimed sole credit (see Rebello). Although it is likelier that the former is true, clearly Hitchcock approved the design and directed the filming of the scene. 15 . In actuality, Hitchcock’s approach did not prevent Selznick from extensively reediting Rebecca (see Leff). 16 . Although Hitchcock’s use of the term “montage” sometimes denotes the general practice of editing, he also identifies montage as a rapid sequence constructed from a series of brief images, an assemblage calculated to trigger powerful vis- ceral audience reaction. Evincing Eisenstein’s influence, Hitchcock explained to Bogdanovich, “There are two primary uses of cutting or montage in film: montage to create ideas—and montage to create violence and emotions . . . It’s limitless, I would say, the power of cutting” (4). 17 . Kapsis cites the following review of The Lodger in Kinematograph (September 23, 1926): “Whatever the earlier German pictures lacked in popularity, they certainly exhibited a freedom from American screen conventionality, and also a better understanding of the fact that they were attempting to present drama pic- torially . . . Alfred Hitchcock has absorbed a good deal of what was best in those 240 Notes Pages –

productions into his own” (19). Kapsis notes that reviewers praised Hitchcock for his commercial use of expressionistic techniques. 18 . Hitchcock himself pointed to the importance of Kuleshov’s famous experiment in proving that cinema’s central power to produce meaning derives from edit- ing. In the 1921 experiment, a shot of the actor Ivan Mozhukin bearing an expressionless look was intercut with shots of a bowl of hot soup, a woman in a coffin, and a little girl. Kuleshov found that the audience’s interpretation of the actor’s emotions was based on the juxtaposition between shots rather than performance; when the shot of the actor’s face was intercut with an image of soup, spectators perceived the look to be one of hunger; when intercut with the shot of the coffin, spectators detected sadness, etc. This editing-based inference of meaning was termed the Kuleshov Effect. 19 . The book was eventually combined with Pudovkin’s Film Acting into a single volume published in English translation in 1933. 20 . Pudovkin would later revise his extremist position; in Film Acting , he calls for the actor to achieve a unified image and cites the importance of the associations between the role and the performer’s personality and background (Part II 25, 31, 128). 21 . Although, of course, Pudovkin produced his work directly in service of political ideology. 22 . As Rachael Low explains, in the British film industry during the 1920s “the function of the production head in obtaining finance, planning the use of facil- ities and assembling the unit was diverging from that of the director, who was responsible for the actual direction of actors and technicians. This distinction between the two spheres became clearer as the twenties proceeded” (226). 23 . In “The Censor Wouldn’t Pass It,” Hitchcock recounted, “When the idea was submitted for approval to the Home Office, they informed me that I mustn’t show the militia being called out and the house in Sydney Street surrounded by machine guns” (198), and thereby violating police department policy by carrying guns to the final confrontation with the spy ring; instead, Hitchcock inserted a shot of a truck transporting firearms to the police at the scene. According to Hitchcock, the censorship board objected to this reenactment of the siege because it was considered “a blot on the record of the British police” (Truffaut 90). 24 . According to Spoto, in 1930 Hitchcock created a production company, Hitchcock Baker Productions, Ltd., “which had the sole task of advertising to the press [his] newsworthiness” (138). 25 . Montagu significantly reduced the numbers of titles in the film, suggested that Hitchcock reshoot certain passages, and oversaw the redesign and placement of the title cards. In interviews and articles, Hitchcock and Montagu differ on the volume and nature of the alterations instated according to Montagu’s rec- ommendations; in the Truffaut interview, Hitchcock maintained, “I agreed to make about two” (51). 26 . This government bill mandated that the volume of British films offered by distributors and exhibited in English movie theaters escalate until reaching 20 percent in 1936. The intention was to aid the financially ailing national film industry at a time when, in domestic and international markets, its productions were considered inferior to American films and box office returns were low. The bill backfired, however, resulting in the production of a spate of quickly and poorly made British films. Notes Pages – 241

27 . Selznick offered better-equipped facilities and a higher salary than English stu- dios—although Hitchcock’s earnings were low by Hollywood standards—as well as other advantages associated with working in the American film indus- try, including a larger audience, broader critical recognition, and professional opportunities to sign with other studios. 28 . The original screenplay for Rebecca was developed by Hitchcock in collaboration with Robert Sherwood and Joan Harrison, yet Selznick disliked it immensely. By the time Hitchcock began filming Rebecca , seven studio-hired writers had worked on the script and Selznick had dictated 37 pages of memos on the pen- ultimate screenplay alone (Leff 52). 29 . Hitchcock assumed the position after the production was sold to RKO. His contract with Selznick expired two years later.

 M u r d e r !

1 . See, for example, “Films We Could Make” (qtd. page 20). 2 . The Lodger employs a similar strategy of exhibiting multiple reaction shots to a crime at the narrative’s outset. However, the earlier film begins with a close-up of the screaming victim and an image of her dead body before proceeding to the sequence. 3 . As in Psycho , the perpetrator will be revealed as a desiring male of suggestedly “deviant” sexuality indicated by a penchant for dressing in women’s clothing. 4 . The film is based on Enter Sir John by Clemence Dane and Helen Simpson. The 1928 novel was adapted by Hitchcock and Walter Mycroft, and the sce- nario was written by Alma Reville. Among other changes to the original story, Hitchcock’s Murder! increases Sir John’s involvement in the case by including him on the jury for Baring’s murder trial. 5 . Albeit not the only juror who initially perceives Diana as innocent, and associ- ated with a fellow jury member smitten with Diana (a man whose erotic desire for Diana is evident, whereas Sir John’s is only suggestedly so), Sir John casts the last of the 12 guilty votes. He is thereby responsible for bringing the popularly desired ending to the courtroom drama. 6 . Although the agreeable Markham concurs, this useful collaborator is drawn, together with his wife, less to Sir John’s vision than to his celebrity and the accompanying economic, professional, and social benefits. 7 . Sir John also assumes the role of detective in this effort. 8 . Determining the correct spelling of Fane’s first name poses its own challenges. Handel is spelled with a single “l” in the film’s opening credits and a double “l” in Sir John’s appointment book. 9 . Reprising their assistive roles in the investigation, Markham and his wife are cast as the butler and maid in the play. 10 . Sir John is able to stage Diana’s admission in prison by using a prop he has brought from the provincial theater’s dressing room, a cigarette case that she identifies as Fane’s, leading to the solution of the whodunit. 11 . Although Fane by his own later account “dared to love” Diana, the actor’s sug- gestively illicit nature is indicated not only by his status as a “half-caste” but his allied representation as a homosexual through his transvestitism. Fane is clothed as a woman in the repertory company’s play and in his trapeze act. 12 . Hamlet attempts to bait his fratricidal uncle into a confession with a theatrical- ized version of the murder of his father, King Hamlet. 242 Notes Pages –

13 . When Fane requests a poker, John offers the actor his pencil instead, indicating his notion of the power of authorship as weapon. Fane temporarily eschews the prop, yet he later adopts a writing implement as a potent instrument of author- ship when he supplies Sir John with the conclusion to the murder scene in a handwritten suicide note.

 S a b o t a g e

1 . See pages 36–7. 2 . The plot to bomb the Royal Observatory at Greenwich is based on an 1894 incident. 3 . Hitchcock does not, however, associate his aims with political motivations. 4 . Although Sabotage is adapted from highbrow literature, Hitchcock typically avoided transliterating works by literary masters to the cinema. He noted that such novels as Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment , for example, were “somebody else’s achievement” and in masterpieces “all of [the words] have a function” problematiz- ing adaptation of great literature to mainstream cinema (Truffaut 71–2). 5. In a preproduction interview, Hitchcock identified the film's title as The Hidden Power (Spoto 173). 6 . Mark Osteen argues, “Sabotage dramatizes Hitchcock testing the limits of what the public will bear” (“It Doesn’t” 260), pointing to the extreme measure of banning of the film in Brazil insofar as, according to Spoto, “it was considered an incitement to terrorism and a threat to public order” (Spoto 175)—like the titular act. 7 . In essays by Ina Rae Hark and others, Hitchcock’s films of the mid-1930s through mid-1940s have been discussed as political thrillers invested in democ- racy (albeit critical of democratic governments) and distinctly anti-Fascist. Verloc is an unsettling image of the director as a figure who lacks commitment to any agenda beyond mass sensation, not only associated with the apolitical as per many of Hitchcock’s works, but anticipating forthcoming horrific shockers (Psycho, The Birds ). 8 . Upon leaving the cinema to meet his contact at the aquarium, Verloc had informed Ted that he was on his way to a trade show, sparking the following conversation: Ted : “Well pick us up a good [film] then. You know, plenty of murders. This love stuff makes me sick.” Verloc : “The women like it, though.” 9 . Diegetically, Sabotage thereby accomplishes what Hitchcock’s cinema fears that most mainstream cinema cannot.

 N o t o r i o u s

1 . Hitchcock’s desire to film an allegory of dramatic production entailing the prostitution of a woman conscripted as a role player was evident before the source material for Notorious (John Taintor Foote’s 1921 story, “The Song of the Dragon”) was presented to him. Describing a conversation with Hitchcock in an August 1944 memo to David Selznick, story editor Margaret McDonell wrote that the director was “very much” interested in filming a plot “in which Ingrid [Bergman] could play the woman who is carefully trained and coached in a gigantic confidence trick which might involve her marrying some man. He is fascinated with the elaborateness with which these things are planned and rehearsed” (Leff 175). In fact, in Foote’s story, Alicia is an actress. Notes Pages – 243

2 . Notorious was sold as a package to RKO during the end of the preproduction phase, before the final shooting script was completed and principal photography began. 3 . Selznick threatened to “pull Bergman if necessary” if filming did not adhere to schedule (Leff 215). 4 . According to Spoto, Hitchcock’s infatuation extended to fabricating a story that at one of his dinner parties, Bergman pressured him to consummate their mutual affection ( 308). 5 . This discussion, of course, leaves aside elsewhere-debated theoretical and empir- ical issues of female reception and feminine desire in classical cinema, which Notorious does not allegorize with regard to the director’s professional function but nonetheless activates by the presence of the attractive Cary Grant in the role of Devlin. 6 . During their first dinner together, Alex confesses to Alicia, “ I knew when we met the other day that if I saw you again I’d feel what I used to for you—the same hunger.” 7 . Flitterman-Lewis discusses the male enunciative system’s constant efforts to subsume Alicia’s powerful subjective point of view. 8 . Attempting to amplify the scandal, the reporters inquire, for example, “Do you think your father got what he deserved?” 9 . McElhaney notes that, upon being poisoned by the Sebastians, “Bergman’s face is drained of the very qualities that give it its apparently singular nature . . . los[ing] almost all of its [expressive] capacity” in contrast to Grant’s continual adherence to Hitchcock’s dictum of acting as ‘do[ing] nothing extremely well’” (76, 77). Yet, the poisoning of Alicia’s image by the mass media at the film’s outset has the same effect. 10 . Other males participate in the amusement and guests of both genders observe from the sides. 11 . Merging censorship regulations with Devlin’s sensibility as an authorially and romantically desiring figure, the sexual violations that Alicia endures in her relationship with Alex are optically repressed from the screen as well. 12 . Devlin ultimately confesses to Alicia that his distortions have undermined rather than increased his insight; consumed by anger and jealousy “I couldn’t see straight.” 13 . See Gottlieb, “Early Hitchcock: The German Influence.” 14 . In the summer of 1945, when Notorious ’ script was in the process of revision, Hitchcock traveled to England to supervise the editing and advise on the film- ing of a documentary composed of concentration camp footage. Hitchcock explained to Cinematheque Francaise cofounder Henri Langlois, “It was more horrible than any fantasy horror” (Parkinson). The darkness and cruelty of Notorious may well have been influenced by Hitchcock’s exposure to the mon- strosities of the Nazi imagination. 15 . The coffee doctored with poison by the Sebastians bears the opposite effect, causing Alicia’s vision to become expressionistic. 16 . At this moment, the conflict between love and duty so familiar to Hitchcock’s work is inscribed as a condition of contending creative and romantic desires complicating the association between director and role player. Devlin under- stands that the staged romance will eradicate their behind-the-scene love affair. 244 Notes Pages –

17 . From the outset, it is clear to Alicia and the audience that Devlin’s misappre- hension of her character is deliberate. During the hangover scene, before play- ing a recording of Alicia’s argument with her father, Devlin remarks, “Relax, hard-boiled, and listen,” even though the ensuing dialogue exhibits both her passionate patriotism and Devlin’s knowledge of her toughness as a pose bely- ing her true character. Later, in conference with his superiors, Devlin remarks sarcastically, “Miss Huberman is first, last, and always not a lady. She may be risking her life, but when it comes to being a lady she doesn’t hold a candle to your wife, sir, sitting in Washington and playing cards.” 18 . Much as Alicia resents and is victimized by typecasting, she frequently collabo- rates in constructing her character—and Devlin’s—in the lexicon of dramatic stereotype. Although she chafes at her image as a “marked woman” at her Miami houseparty, referring to her status as the daughter of a Nazi, Alicia’s dialogue is self-consciously clich é and strongly reminiscent of another kind of notori- ous female. She inquires of the stonily silent Devlin, “How about you, hand- some? Haven’t I seen you somewhere before?” In Rio, she announces sunnily to Devlin, “I’m pretending I’m a nice, unspoiled child whose heart is full of daisies and buttercups.” After Devlin apprises Alicia of her assignment, she instantly and with unconcealed distaste characterizes her role as that of “Mata Hari”—by her own account at odds with her status as a “little lovesick lady.” Consequently, although Alicia seemingly attempts to open up a space for a concept of character beyond the formulaic, she nonetheless proves just as tightly bound to classical patriarchal conventions of character construction. 19 . Modleski here quotes from Leo Bersani’s reinterpretation of the fort/da game as analyzed by Freud. 20 . These include the construction of a plot to eliminate metallurgist Emil Hupka after judging him unfit for his role. Hupka becomes visibly agitated during Alex’s dinner party upon spotting a wine bottle bearing the same label as those in which uranium is stored; subsequently, in a private meeting after dinner, the Nazi schemers agree that because Hupka has, in effect, too often broken char- acter, his fate must be death. In his final appearance, Hupka apologizes for his inappropriate histrionics: “I’m very sorry, gentlemen, to make such an exhibi- tion . . . I’m very sorry to make such a scene before strangers.” 21 . Not only does Prescott, like Madame Sebastian, object to the intimate associa- tion between the younger man and Alicia (he instructs Devlin and Alicia to “keep shy of each other” after she attends Alex’s dinner party), but his hearty endorse- ment of the flagrantly prostitutional union between Alicia and Sebastian (“Of course, it’s the perfect marriage for us”) reveals the paternal nature of his posi- tion to be equally as deviant as the jealously ill-disposed maternal producer. 22 . Indicating his loss of authority, the idea for the entertainment is not Alex’s; Devlin provides Alicia with the scenario, to be conveyed as a scripted suggestion to her husband. 23 . Spoto suggests that Alex’s bedroom discussions with his mother are autobio- graphical: “The detail is drawn from Hitchcock’s own life: his long customs, during the years he lived in Leytonstone, of reporting to his mother while standing at the foot of her bed each evening” (306). Suggestions of the menace of infantilization posed by the producer are mirrored in a scene in which Devlin stands by Prescott’s bed while the older man expresses reservations regarding his desire to ensure Alicia’s well-being by visiting her at the Sebastian mansion: “I don’t want you to mess this up.” Notes Pages – 245

24 . The characterization as a “fat-headed guy” has sometimes been interpreted as a direct reference to Hitchcock. 25 . Later, when Devlin, Alicia, Alex, and Madame Sebastian are poised at the top of the staircase, Alicia directs Devlin, “Go,” upon which they proceed to descend.

 V e r t i g o

1 . Although not shown in the film, the Golden Gate Park monument “The Portals of the Past” is identified by Gavin Elster as one of the sites visited by Madeleine. Even the few examples of modern engineering in Vertigo recall past structures. The design of the bra drawn by Midge is based on the cantilever bridge, first constructed in the 1860s (Scotland’s Firth of Forth Bridge in The 39 Steps is an early example). The then 20-year-old Golden Gate Bridge is viewed from the perspective of Fort Point, which was built during the Gold Rush era. 2 . Although Scottie is unknowingly engaged as a patsy in Elster’s criminal plot. 3 . See page 38. 4 . The shot’s framing truncates the presumably longer word in the middle of the “A.” Significantly, Hitchcock and Stewart cross paths at “LA.” 5 . In this California production, the success of Elster’s plot depends on the prac- tice of typecasting. Vertigo discloses how, in addition to perversely fashioning the female lead into a figure of romance, the star system victimizes the direc- tor as well. Scottie is enlisted for the critical role of imperfect eyewitness to Madeleine’s “suicide,” because of his notoriety as a retired detective who suffers from vertigo. In this respect, Vertigo exhibits the star system’s exploitation of the director renowned for a particular type of deviance. 6 . Liebl’s account of the trajectory from “beautiful Carlotta, sad Carlotta” to “the mad Carlotta” also suggests the story’s genericism. 7 . Carlotta recurrently appears in the framed portrait in the Palace of the Legion of Honor, its photograph in the museum catalogue, and in Scottie’s nightmare. 8 . Dan Auiler has corrected the widespread misconception that the location is Muir Woods (Vertigo 91). 9 . Corber goes so far as to assert, “the tree suggests that the founding of the United States represents the fulfillment of British institutional traditions” ( In the Name 155). 10 . These include the McKittrick Hotel, precursor to Psycho ’s Bates Motel, which Hitchcock described as an example of “California Gothic” (Truffaut 269). 11 . The San Francisco residence of the actor-figure, Judy, the imperialist “Empire Hotel,” is adjacent to the Shakespeare-alluding establishment, “Twelfth Knight”—other American appropriations of British culture. 12 . The association between Scottie and Pygmalion has been noted by many, includ- ing Hitchcock himself. Further, among the numerous perversities suggested by this sequence and others, Hitchcock equated Scottie’s urge with necrophilia insofar as the character is obsessed with a deceased woman (Truffaut 244). 13 . Judy’s status as a mannequin was emphasized by Hitchcock’s direction of Novak’s performance. In his interview with Bogdanovich, Hitchcock recalled stressing to Novak, “You have got a lot of expression in your face. Don’t want any of it. I only want on your face what we want to tell the audience” (Bogdanovich 5–6). 14 . Scottie asserts the former as he drives Judy south to the Mission and the latter when they arrive. 246 Notes Pages –

15 . Although Devlin’s rescue of Alicia adheres to genre convention. 16 . Explaining why she wants to see Scottie (who has then become captivated by Madeleine), Midge remarks, “I just thought . . . you’d take me to a movie.” Midge’s statement evinces her interest in both gaining access to Scottie’s drama and becoming swept up in his love story as a figure of desire—although the romance she promises bears no element of fantasy. Midge proves the latter by creating her own image, a painting that (evincing her own lack of a singular artistic vision) satirizes the museum portrait of Carlotta by featuring her slighty smirking head on Carlotta’s body. Repelled by the mocking image, Scottie vacates Midge’s apartment without escorting her to the cinema.

 P s y c h o

1 . The Bates Motel is the domain of infamous past and present shockers insofar as Mrs. Bates and her lover had been victims of a locally renowned “murder- suicide” staged by Norman a decade before Marion’s and Arbogast’s slayings. 2 . In Vertigo , the premature death of another figure of specular desire, Madeleine, also results in the director-figure’s increased exertion of authority. 3 . Freud first termed this faculty the superego in “The Ego and the Id” (1923). 4 . Of course, throughout his career, Hitchcock constantly toyed with the limits of censorship—for example, the queer suggestions of Fane’s transvestitism in Murder! , the implications of homosexuality associated with the central male couple in Rope , and the manifestly erotic implications of the fireworks scene between Grace Kelly and Cary Grant in To Catch a Thief . 5 . For an account of Hitchcock’s excisions before submitting the screenplay to the MPAA, see Rebello 44–7. 6 . Kapsis suggests that Hitchcock’s reference to “good taste” evinces “concern for his older fans” (59). 7 . Hitchcock had wanted to acquire the rights to the novel by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac on which Les Diaboliques was based; he later adapted the nov- elists’ D’Entre Les Mortes into Vertigo . See Rebello 20–1 for a discussion of the influence of Les Diaboliques and its release on Psycho ’s aesthetics and advertising campaign. 8 . In a shift from Vertigo , Carlotta’s ancestral presence in a picture reemerges as a different order of determinism, a maternal censorial force so powerful that, according to Sam’s fantasy, Mother’s framing must be altogether suppressed. 9 . In fact, when Sam ascribes a motive to Norman, he projects what would appear to be his own fantasy of stealing money to “get out from under [and] unload this place.” The scene following the opening tryst discloses additional regimes of parental authority over the imaginary. In the real estate office, Cassidy pur- chases a house for his daughter to “buy off unhappiness”—as Wood points out, “clearly a symbol of her father’s power over her” (144). The mother of Marion’s fellow secretary, Caroline, has regulated her daughter’s fantasies by providing tranquilizers for her wedding night. 10 . For example, driving away after she trades in her vehicle plus $700 of the sto- len money for another sedan at California Charlie’s used car lot, a sound over accompanying a medium close-up of Marion (biting her lip twice) indicates an imagined exchange between Charlie and the highway patrolman who has fol- lowed her to the lot: Charlie: “Somebody chasing her?” Patrolman: “I better have a look at those papers, Charlie.” Charlie: “She look like a wrong one to you?” Patrolman: “Acted like one.” Notes Pages – 247

11 . Signs of Marion’s lesser abilities as a role player include her unconvincing claim of innocence to the patrolman and her telling hesitation upon registering herself under an alias at the Bates Motel. 12 . Norman’s status as the proprietor of, and principal performer in, the private the- ater of the Bates Motel recalls Sir John’s position as a manager-director-actor. In both films, a wayward actress is sentenced to death by the director-figure—in the case of Murder! when Sir John mistakenly capitulates to the overly harsh judgments of a jury. However, whereas Sir John fulfills his personal romantic yearnings, the dictates of his conscience, and his aesthetic desire to rescue the actress for cultural recuperation, not only has the director in Psycho devolved to a figure whose autonomous agency is foreclosed but whose art constitutes a form of taxidermy. 13 . Bellour equates Norman’s eye with “the projector’s beam” (“Psychosis” 247). 14 . Before entering the shower, the dictates of Marion’s own conscience lead her to abandon the fantasy of transporting the stolen money to Sam in order to pay off the debts that impede the possibility of their marriage and, accordingly to calculate her plot’s economic losses that will be due upon returning home. 15 . This stylistic assault is mounted against Hollywood cinema by the use of the avant-garde technique of montage, which had not been employed so distinctly in a Hitchcock film since Sabotage ’s bombing and stabbing sequences. Hitchcock’s authorship of the shower montage has been challenged by title designer Saul Bass, who storyboarded the scene and claimed to have designed it as well. At times Bass also purported to have shot the scene, although no evidence supports this assertion. 16 . In this scene, both Norman’s desire and Marion’s conceit of free agency as a role player who has improvised a crime plot are butchered. 17 . The dominating Mrs. Bates and Notorious’ Madame Sebastian have been regarded by Corber (In the Name ) and others as reflections of acute contempo- rary anxieties regarding “Momism,” a post-WWII fear of maternal emasculative powers. The term was coined by Philip Wylie in the 1942 bestseller Generation of Viper s. 18 . Sam wrongly presumes to have detected Norman’s plot as that of stealing the $40,000 in order to finance his own escapist fantasy, that of “get[ting] out from under” the Bates Motel.

 Introduction: Part II

1 . As noted in chapter 1, Hitchcock produced although did not direct Lord Camber’s Ladies in 1932. However, he was no longer a producer when the article was published. With regard to the other positions, Hitchcock began his career as a title designer at Famous Players-Lasky in England and had been credited as a scenarist for a number of his own and others’ films by the early 1930s. 2 . The principal exception is Sidney Gottlieb’s commentary in Hitchcock on Hitchcock , Alfred Hitchcock Interviews , and elsewhere. 3. Bergman starred in Spellbound, Notorious, and Under Capricorn; Grant starred in Suspicion, Notorious, To Catch a Thief, and North by Northwest; Lombard starred in Mr. and Mrs. Smith; and Stewart starred in Rope, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), and Vertigo. 4 . The circumstances and/or publication in which Hitchcock initially made the statement remain unknown. According to Spoto (248), this comment was a “rumor” to which Carole Lombard jocularly responded by placing a corral 248 Notes Pages –

containing cows tagged with the stars’ names on set at the start of the initial day of shooting Mr. and Mrs. Smith in 1940. 5 . Accordingly, these later films in effect implicitly link the performer’s autho- rial menace to the underside of stardom: self-absorption advanced to stages of derangement. 6 . For example, Stewart’s persona as largely upstanding, heroic figures is under- mined by his variably tormented Hitchcock characters, whose personalities are inflected by illicitness, psychological deviance, and unconventional sexuality. 7 . In a subsequent essay, “How I Choose My Heroines” (1931), Hitchcock contra- dicts this statement, noting that the actress “must have real beauty” (74). Yet, he undercuts another facet of the attractive actress’ conventional magnetism, that of appeal to men, by explaining the necessity for actresses to please women, the largest segment of the film audience. 8 . Hitchcock recounts how his day begins by reading his own “prodigious mail” from followers, suggesting similarities to stars reviewing their fan mail. 9 . Pearson notes that the “histrionic code” dominated stage acting until the late 1800s and early cinema; the “verisimilar code” became an established style of performance onstage in the 1890s and in cinema in the 1910s. 10 . For example, discussing the scene in Sabotage when Mrs. Verloc (Sylvia Sidney) unpremeditatedly stabs her husband at dinner, Hitchcock asserted, “The wrong way to go about this scene would have been to have the heroine convey her inner feelings to the audience by her facial expressions. I’m against that. In real life, people’s faces don’t reveal what they think or feel” (Truffaut 110–11). Hitchcock explains how, instead, cinematography and editing create the scene’s suspense. 11 . Pascal Bonitzer describes the influence of the Kuleshov Effect (see page 240 n. 18) on Hitchcock’s cinema with regard to its implications for the director’s authorship as well as the possibilities of editing: “Its impact depended upon the immobility of the actor’s face, upon its ‘expressive neutrality’ when seen in close-up. What was involved was . . . a reduction of acting to its zero degree, so that its powers might be delegated to editing alone, to the auteur .” Bonitzer argues that, additionally influencing Hitchcock, “domestication of the actor’s body . . . benefitted staging and editing and was crucial to establishing the laws of suspense” (17). Hitchcock cites Pudovkin’s description of Kuleshov’s experi- ment when discussing Rear Window with Truffaut (214). 12 . Further, Hitchcock describes the subversiveness of actresses whose combined investment in theater and personal economics overrides their commitment to cinema: “Too many stage actresses still make films merely to get together some easy money. Such an attitude is bound to show in their work—they are too busy thinking of the nice, fat check to give a sensitive performance” (“Women” 80). Hitchcock would later detail how this sensibility extended to theater perform- ers’ elitist attitudes toward cinema, exacerbating British cultural debates regard- ing the new medium’s status as an art form. In his interview with Truffaut, Hitchcock recalled of his years in England, “I’d sometimes overhear two actresses talking in a restaurant. One would say to the other, ‘What are you doing now, dear?’ and the other one would say, ‘Oh, I’m filming,’ in the same tone of voice as if she were saying, ‘Oh, I’m slumming’” (140). 13 . The interviewer, Barbara Buchanan, begins by asking Hitchcock, “Why do you hate women?” (79). Notes Pages – 249

14 . See Panofsky, “Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures” (1934, 1947); and Arnheim, Film as Art (1933). 15 . For example, during a gossiping neighbor’s visit to the Whites the morning after Alice murders Crewe, the repeated stress upon, increased volume, and sudden jarring loudness of the word “knife” conveys the silent Alice’s subjective point of view. When the blackmailer Tracy enters the tobacconist’s shop run by Alice’s family, the extended toll of the shop bell suggests unspoken menace. 16 . Hitchcock recalled that offscreen “Nita put up a great fight,” albeit a losing one, to retain her sophisticated appearance (“Life” 36). Naldi did, however, receive positive reviews in The Bioscope , The Kinematograph , and other publications. As a producer-director, Hitchcock was not immune to such an approach, and with similar results. Spellbound by Ingrid Bergman, he cast the actress in an inap- propriate role in Under Capricorn , later confessing, “I don’t think I would have made the picture if it hadn’t been for Ingrid Bergman. At that time [1948] she was the biggest star in America and all the American producers were competing for her services, and I must admit that I made the mistake of thinking that to get Bergman would be a tremendous feat” (Truffaut 185). 17 . Hitchcock’s interview with Bogdanovich contains a litany of such grievances. Discussing the deficiencies of Under Capricorn , Hitchcock noted, “the casting was wrong . . . [Joseph] Cotten wasn’t right. I wanted Burt Lancaster. It was com- promise casting again” (29). Commenting on his later, unsuccessful Canada- based film, Hitchcock observed, “There were two things wrong with I Confess . I didn’t enjoy working with [Montgomery] Clift because he was too obscure, and Anne Baxter was completely miscast. I imported a girl from Sweden—Anita Björk, who played the lead in Miss Julie —I wanted an unknown. When you go to Quebec and a film star pops up, it’s ridiculous. But Björk arrived with an illegitimate child and a lover. And the thing came out and Warner’s [Warner Brothers studio] said, ‘We can’t use her.’ . . . I got messages that we should take Baxter . . . It was all wrong” (31). 18 . The film, titled Mary , was released in 1931. The comedic scene in Murder! entails Sir John sitting in a lodging house bed that becomes overrun by the landlady’s children. 19 . Hitchcock goes so far as to, uncharacteristically, associate Robert Donat’s suc- cess with “the good theatrical training he has behind him” (21). In the essay, Hitchcock also references pranks that he played on actors. 20 . Hitchcock describes how central to sustaining the career of an actor initially typecast as a villain is the ability to progress from “villain” to “straight actor” to “comedian,” as per William Powell, Lionel Barrymore, Myrna Loy, and oth- ers. However, as a Hollywood director, Hitchcock tended toward the opposite, recasting actors who often played comedic or nonvillainous parts as “heavies.” For example, Cary Grant, Joseph Cotten, Robert Walker, and James Stewart were cast as dark, haunted figures in Notorious , Shadow of a Doubt , Strangers on a Train , and Vertigo .

 The Lodger

1 . Ivor Montagu corroborated Hitchcock’s account, specifying, “what [the dis- tribution company] feared would be objected to in it was that a man who was a 250 Notes Pages –

popular hero, Ivor Novello . . . should play a sinister character who’s thought to be murdering everybody” (“Interview” 78). Nonetheless, there has been some debate regarding the accuracy of Hitchcock’s comments. For example, Charles Barr points out that Who Is He? , a play adapted from Lowndes’ novel and staged in London in 1915, concludes with the lodger “innocent of the mur- ders and something of a gentleman” (34). Although Hitchcock had attended the production (Truffaut 43)—which Barr characterizes as “more of a comedy than a thriller” (218)—his reiterations of preferred alternate endings despite the popularity of the film suggest that he truly regretted his adaptation’s conclusion. 2 . Following the initial shot of the screaming blonde victim, an intertitle flashes “TO-NIGHT ‘GOLDEN CURLS,’” which is eventually disclosed as a lighted advertisement (signage for a stage show), a form of mass communication that lends the murder scene irony, menace, and commercialization suggestive of the film itself. 3 . The appearance of the film’s star is deferred as well; Ivor Novello does not enter until the second reel. 4 . Although Hitchcock had not likely seen the work of such Soviet filmmakers as Eisenstein or Pudovkin before directing The Lodger , while shooting the film he may well have viewed Soviet montage-style passages in M é nilmontant (1926), a work by Dimitri Kirsanov (a Russian é migré living in Paris) screened at the London Film Society in May 1926. However, other possibilities exist; in Tom Ryall’s discussion of the montage at the outset of The Lodger , he cites Barry Salt’s observation that “‘the documentary montage sequence’ was not uncommon in films of the 1920s and was usually used to contribute general atmosphere to a narrative without having specific links to the story” (26). 5 . Spoto notes, “The troublesome scenes were reshot, the number of title cards was reduced from over three hundred to about eighty, and [American graphic artist] E. McKnight Kauffer’s designs were inserted at strategic points” (99). 6 . Barr notes that the connection between the sign TO-NIGHT “GOLDEN CURLS” and the show “is pointedly never made explicit within any establish- ing shot of the theatre exterior. This gives it the effect of a direct address to the film’s own audience. It is not only the triangle of male protagonists who are ‘keen on golden curls’, but also the theatre audience at whom the show is directed, and the film audience at whom The Lodger is directed” (“English” 40). 7 . The Lodger does, however, invoke Novello’s off-screen homosexuality to suggest a certain queer deviance, emphasized by certain gestures and comments evinc- ing the lodger’s “unnatural” sensitivity and delicacy as well as (through visual and verbal double-entendres) a potential taste for violence against women. 8 . See, for example, Truffaut 145 (qtd. in chapter 7 , page 108). 9 . June Tripp was a well-known stage performer. 10 . The more stereotypical Joe manifestly associates police work with perverse desire; in the scene that follows, he announces to Daisy’s father, “When I’ve put a rope round the Avenger’s neck—[Cut to Joe crassly pantomim- ing the hanging]—I’ll put a ring round Daisy’s finger.” Daisy rejects this coarsely direct, blatantly mugging performance in favor of the more intrigu- ing demeanor of the lodger. She alone perceives and is drawn to the intense longing in his bearing. Notes Pages – 251

11 . In the German film, Cesare performs on- and offstage under the absolute con- trol of Dr. Caligari, a sideshow exhibitor later revealed to be, in actuality, the director of an insane asylum. 12 . The lodger is motivated by his mother’s mandate to ensure that the Avenger is “brought to justice,” yet she is no longer alive to oversee his pursuit of the criminal or Daisy.

 The  Steps

1 . The actress who plays Annabella, Lucie Mannheim, was German. 2 . See chapter 7 , page 106. 3 . Describing the structure of The 39 Steps , Hitchcock explained, “it has a double chase pattern—the police are after the hero who is after a spy ring” (Brady 129). 4 . Other artistic influences are evinced in the opening scene as well. The composi- tion of the initial shot of the orchestra emphasizes the scroll of the double bass, recalling Toulouse-Lautrec’s 1893 poster of Jane Avril at the Jardin de Paris. 5 . The working class audience thereby demonstrates its far superior comprehension of crowd-pleasing material than the performer. 6 . As previously discussed, Hitchcock nonetheless cast certain stars, at least in part, on the basis of the inflections that their celebrity images brought to their roles, often exploring the dark side of their personas. Despite Hannay’s lesson, throughout The 39 Steps Robert Donat maintains a distinct “star” persona, that of the coolly sarcastic, self-confident romantic lead. 7 . Like Verloc’s assigned shocker in Sabotage , released the follow year, Annabella wakes the public to the culture’s underlying disorder—characteristic of what Peter Wollen has described as “the proximity of the chaos-world” in Hitchcock’s cinema (“Hitchcock’s Vision” 4). 8 . A shot of open curtains is followed by a cut to Annabella’s dramatic entrance holding out a map as she bursts into the sitting room where he is sleeping. When she collapses across him, Hannay sees that a knife is plunged in her back. Annabella is thereby literally excised from the film. 9 . The pursuit of Hannay is announced on the radio in a sound over after he escapes from the train, where the police have tracked him down. 10 . The observation is made by the protagonist in Buchan’s The Power-House , serial- ized in 1913 and published as a novel in 1916. 11 . The crofter thereby improvises. Truffaut comments, “The whole scene is a beau- tiful illustration of silent filming” (96). As others have noted, John’s suspicion of the attraction between Margaret and Hannay is borne out by the final kiss between the two before the latter parts. 12 . In fact, a press book article bears the headline “Godfrey Tearle Cast as Villain because He Didn’t Look Part” ( The 39 Steps DVD). 13 . Suggesting Jordan’s dual directorial role, she bears the same name as Hitchcock’s daughter, Patricia. 14 . The sheriff proves another audience member who dissiumulates; in his office, he pretends to believe Hannay’s story about Professor Jordan’s villainousness as a method of “playing for time with a murderer” while awaiting additional law enforcement. 15 . The address that Hannay dictates to Pamela for entry into the register, “Hollyhocks, Hammersmith,” suggests the Hollywood origins of this North American engaged in a drama on British soil. 252 Notes Pages –

 Spellbound

1 . In fact, Spellbound ’s most distinguished psychoanalyst, Dr. Brulov, first appears on screen after delivering a lecture at an army hospital. 2 . Selznick’s analyst, Dr. May Romm, is credited as the film’s “Psychiatric Advisor.” Although Romm was responsible for numerous changes in the film, significant inaccuracies remain (see Leff, Freedman). 3 . The Stanislavsky System was established in the United States with the New York-based Theatre Arts Institute of the American Laboratory Theatre founded in 1923, the Group Theatre, formed in 1931; the Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre headed by Group Theatre founding member Sanford Meisner beginning in 1935; and the Actors Studio, established in 1947 by Group Theatre cofounder Lee Strasberg. After the Group Theatre’s disband- ment in 1941, Strasberg directed screen tests in Hollywood. 4 . The precise impact of Freudian theory on Stanislavsky remains unclear. Whyman explains that Stanislavsky’s acting theory was influenced by psychology that antedated Freud: “Freud’s work was translated into Russian from 1910 . . . It is possible that Stanislavsky was aware of it, but it is definitely the case that Stanislavsky’s own view of the unconscious was pre-Freudian” (66). 5 . Meisner headed the School of the Theatre’s acting department. 6 . Although the role of Brulov links Chekhov to the Stanislavsky System, ironically Chekhov had by this time eschewed certain elements of Stanislavky’s teachings, including the importance of “emotional memory” by which actors identified with characters’ predicaments by recalling analogous past personal experiences. Simon Callow explains, “Stanislavski believed that the only acceptable truth in acting was to be found within the actor’s own experience, whereas Chekhov was profoundly convinced that the imagination was the key to all art. . . . The actor’s work . . . should focus on encouraging and liberating his imagination, by con- sciously inventing and fantasizing, rather than by dredging the subconscious” (Chekhov, To the Actor xix). Chekhov was nominated for an Oscar for his sup- porting role in Spellbound . 7 . Anna Christie was staged at Crawford’s Maplewood Theatre in New Jersey. The director, Margaret Webster, was not a Method acting proponent, however. The 1941 production starring Bergman originated in the Lobero Theater in Santa Barbara, California, where it was directed by John Houseman. 8 . The latter direction regarding “neutral looks” was familiar to Hitchcock performers, including (as discussed in other chapters) Kim Novak and Tippi Hedren. 9 . The epigraph, from Act I, Scene II, is preceded in the play by Cassius’ com- ments: “it doth amaze me/A man of such a feeble temper should/So get the start of the majestic world . . . // . . . he doth bestride the narrow world/Like a Colossus, and we petty men/Walk under his huge legs and peep about.” 10 . Hecht satirized Green Manors in a 1944 short story published in Collier’s Weekly while he was working on Spellbound ’s script. Hecht’s “I Hate Actors” is a satirical murder mystery that concludes, in part, with a character confined to “Green Mansions Retreat—an institution for Hollywood’s more solvent luna- tics” (43). The story features a Hitchcockian “cockney who calls himself Mr. Albert pos[ing] as . . . a sort of fakir” (24), a man whose penchant for murder has interfered with his aspirations for an executive position in the studios: “the Notes Pages – 253

campaign to make Mr. Albert a movie producer has not been taken seriously by the authorities” (42). 11 . As opposed to Carmichael’s highly eroticized femininity, as critics have noted, Peterson’s institutional facade is masculinized through a surfeit of phallic props: long pens, cigarettes, and a letter opener. 12 . Of course, gender issues figure strongly into Spellbound . Among other conflicts, emotional repression, conventionally associated with male establishment figures, is represented throughout as undermining Peterson’s femininity and, initially, her prospects for love. Both Peterson’s professionalism and romantic desires are so threatening to masculinity that she is the constant target of criticism from her clos- est male companions. Nonetheless, issues of performance affect both genders. 13 . Although the real Dr. Edwardes’ celebrity image as an author precedes him. 14 . Peck’s previous film, The Keys of the Kingdom (1944), in which he played a mis- sionary, earned him a 1946 Oscar nomination. However, when Spellbound was in production the film had not yet been released. 15 . See note 6. 16 . “Edwardes” has remained an imposter insofar as Constance untruthfully intro- duced him to Brulov as her new husband. 17 . Extending from underneath his waist, the razor is phallically positioned. 18 . The “MacGuffin” is Hitchcock’s term for the literal or figurative object that is the sole pretense for the film’s action. Determining “Edwardes’” motivation (the object of the characters’ pursuit) neither solves the case nor brings closure to the drama.   M a r n i e

1 . The shooting of the final bird attack against Melanie (Hedren) in The Birds reportedly took a week, during which time Hedren was assaulted with birds to the degree that she suffered a temporary breakdown, closing down production for a week (Spoto 486). 2 . See Kapsis for a detailed account of Marnie ’s critical reception from its release through the 1980s. The HBO film, The Girl , centers on the problematic rela- tionship between Hitchcock and Hedren, the unwilling object of the director’s obsessive desire. The film and other retrospectives of Hitchcock’s work in 2012 engendered many media interviews with Hedren, who recounted her difficul- ties with Hitchcock during the production of The Birds and Marnie . The 2012 feature film Hitchcock , on the making of Psycho , also increased public interest in the director’s private life. 3 . Kapsis notes that production designer Robert Boyle (in a personal interview) recounted Hitchcock’s satisfaction with the harbor backdrop and riding scenes (129–30). 4 . Hedren made only one other film in the 1960s; Hitchcock loaned her out for Charlie Chaplin’s final work, The Countess of Hong Kong (1967). 5 . Bellour’s reading specifically references an early cut between a close-up of Mark recalling Marnie when he visits the office of his robbed tax consultant, Strutt (her employer) and a shot of the subject of his envisionment walking down a hotel corridor. 6 . Hitchcock’s graphic reference may well have been influenced by Freud. In the case of Dora, Freud interpreted the purse as a symbol of female genitals. 254 Notes Pages –

7 . The beginning of Marnie resembles that of The 39 Steps insofar as an abstract image is coupled with a heavily enrobed performer-figure initially facing away from the camera. However, whereas Hannay’s face is shown shortly thereafter, in Marnie it is not until two scenes later that her face appears, in part empha- sizing her impenetrability. Even the cameo appearance of Hitchcock, who has withheld her image, exhibits his position as that of watching the role player from behind. 8 . Albeit in the regime of celebrity, the shot exhibits Hitchcock’s by-now desired face (an audience-anticipated cameo) before that of the lead. 9 . Although Knapp conducts a queer reading of Marnie , regardless of the title character’s sexuality this performer-figure serially “passes” as an Establishment role player. 10 . When Marnie implores, “Stop the colors,” Mark replies, “What colors?” 11 . Images of prostitution are rife in Marnie ; as critics have noted, Mrs. Edgar’s unscrupulous past profession is echoed by Mark’s marriage to his former wife for the family fortune that she brought to the Rutlands. 12 . Marnie’s enactment of the ritual is closely watched by Mark, his father, and Lil, his deceased wife’s sister, who has long hoped to fill the role of Mark’s spouse. Lil pretends to have injured her wrist, purportedly rendering her incapable of performing her typical part at tea time. 13 . Mark explains, “When we get home, I’ll explain that we had a lover’s quarrel. That you ran away, that I ran after you and brought you back. That’ll please Dad. He admires action. Then I’ll explain that we’re going to be married before the week is out, therefore you should stay on at Wykwyn, that I can’t bear to have you out of my sight. He also admires wholesome animal lust. We’ll be married just as soon as the law allows.” Mark’s emphasis on “pleas[ing] Dad” underscores his obligatory adherence to classical convention. 14 . Hitchcock forcibly inserted the rape scene despite the objections of the original screenwriter, Evan Hunter. According to Hunter, he was fired and replaced with Jay Presson Allen because of his opposition to the rape as an out-of-character act, one that would shatter audience sympathy for Mark (Trouble). 15 . Mark’s negotiations with Strutt are shown after Marnie shoots Forio; however, the intercutting indicates that the conversation has been occurring during the hunt sequence.

 Introduction: Part III

1 . The characterization of “master” was applied to Hitchcock from the outset of his career. A 1926 London Daily Express article on his first film, The Pleasure Garden , features the subhead, “Young Man with a Master Hand” (March 26: 3). The Ring was praised as a “masterly production” in The Bioscope (June 26, 1929: 31), and a Daily Express account of Young and Innocent describes Hitchcock as a “master of melodrama” (June 2, 1937: 23). Such early plaudits were not confined to the British press. A 1938 article in the New York Times was titled “Hitchcock: Master Melodramatist” (B. R. Crisler, June 12, 1938, Section X: 3). According to Patrick McGilligan, the designation “Master of Suspense” was first conferred on Hitchcock in the 1940s (Alfred Hitchcock 276). 2 . See Richard Barsam and Dave Monahan, Looking at Movies , fourth edition (2012: 153); and Stephen Prince, Movies and Meaning , sixth edition (2013: 238–9). For an abbreviated explanation, see page 170. Notes Pages – 255

3 . Mulvey’s essay follows a direction indicated by Jean Douchet in his 1960 essay, “Hitch and His Public” (“Hitch et son public,” Cahiers du Cinéma 19: 113, November 1, 1960). See pages 211–2. 4 . My discussion of scholarship regarding gender and the look has, of necessity, sig- nificantly simplified an extremely rich, ever-shifting area of Hitchcock criticism. 5 . For example, despite Hannay’s best intentions, questioning Mr. Memory about The 39 Steps from the site of the audience at the conclusion of the film causes Memory to be shot during his act at the London Palladium, disrupting the spectacle and causing the performer’s death in the wings. 6 . The single early exception is the vicious mob in The Lodger . 7 . Spoto cites the source of the quote as CinemaTV Today , August 17, 1972: 4. 8 . For example, among Hitchcock’s unrealized projects, he expressed interest in making a film on “24 hours in the life of a city” (Truffaut 320) and suggested to both Sidney Bernstein, his producing partner at Transatlantic Pictures in the mid-1940s, and Cary Grant a modern adaptation of Hamlet as a “psychological melodrama” on the heels of making Spellbound (Aulier, Hitchcock’s 553). 9 . The Pleasure Garden was publicly released in England in January, The Lodger in February, and The Mountain Eagle in May. The earlier films had been released closer to their production dates in Germany, however: The Pleasure Garden in 1925 and The Mountain Eagle in 1926. 10 . Hitchcock is specifically describing the process of finding material for his latest production, Young and Innocent . 11 . At the same time, the film industry, too, was studying the audience with an extremely critical and wary eye, yet for significantly different reasons: that of gauging cinema spectators’ hankerings and aversions. In 1927, Hitchcock’s future production company partner, Sidney Bernstein, surveyed ticket buyers at his theaters regarding the genres, stars, and aspects of cinemagoing that they found most appealing, for the purposes of what a Bioscope article described as “discovering and satisfying the preference of his patrons” (“Illuminating” 20). 12 . The Cinematograph Act was officially intended to ensure movie theater safety. 13 . Great Britain’s 10-day General Strike by an estimated 1.5 million workers sup- ported miners facing a reduction in wages and increase in working hours. The ending of The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) was a controversial allusion to the 1911 Sydney Street siege, a gun battle in which the British police and army reinforcements fought an anarchist gang. Hitchcock was prevented from show- ing police using guns (as they did during the siege) to avoid “tarnish[ing] the image” of the traditionally unarmed force (Spoto 156). 14 . The Legion of Decency, a Catholic organization devoted to pressuring the film industry to more strictly censor films, issued its own film ratings and encouraged boycotts of releases not strictly adhering to organization standards of morality. 15 . For a discussion of this occurrence, see Kapsis 62–4. 16 . Even before the credits rolled in the case of Psycho ; audiences were required to enter the theater only before the film began.

  T h e R i n g

1 . Quoted in an advertisement in The Bioscope , October 6, 1927: 14. 2 . Screenwriter Eliot Stannard took part in developing the script for The Ring , however, the degree of Stannard’s contribution is unknown and he is not listed 256 Notes Pages –

in the film’s credits. For a discussion of the partnership, see Barr, English Hitchcock (22, 34). 3 . The nature of the association between the spectator and spectacle in the “cin- ema of attractions” was based not only on ocular delights but alarming images rendering the cinema-going experience at times one of masochistic pleasure. Hansen points out, the “appeals [of early films] included physical jolts, shocks, and sensations—whether of a kinetic, pornographic, or abjective sort—from the many films shot from moving vehicles . . . to actualities or reenactments of disasters and executions” (“Early” 138). 4 . Gunning here cites an observation by Italian futurist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in “The Variety Theater 1913.” 5 . Another shot shows an oversize mallet hitting a high-striker, the first appear- ance in Hitchcock’s work of this carnival game, later used as an index of Bruno’s power in Strangers on a Train . 6 . Although the credit sequence identifies the ticket seller solely as “The Girl,” during the film she receives a telegram from Jack addressed to “Mabel.” 7 . When Corby first agrees to enter the ring against Jack, a shot of unspooling reels of tickets, indicating the increased sales generated by audience interest, suggests spinning film reels. 8 . Ironically, Jack is played by a foreigner, Danish é migré Carl Brisson, whereas the Australian Corby is played by an Englishman, Ian Hunter. 9 . The Ring ’s first point-of-view shot belongs to a female fairgoer. Unlike that motivated by Corby, it is not a psychologically but rather spatially subjective image of the fairground in pendulous movement as viewed from the perspective of a woman riding a swing boat. 10 . Among other occasions of images originating from the spectating figure’s imagination, Mabel envisions (in conventional, nondistorted shots) Jack’s trial bout—upon which hinges their marriage and the launching of his career as a prizefighter—while awaiting the results. At the wedding luncheon, Jack’s besot- ted trainer expressionistically perceives Jack’s and Corby’s pugilistic posturings as a fight and acts to break it up to restore classical romantic order. 11 . Jack’s words do not appear in an intertitle, but he mouths them clearly enough for decipherment. 12 . The spectrum of audience members indicates the boxing match’s universal appeal—the desired drawing power of cinema. 13 . This spectatorial position motivates a powerful optical shift, specifically, a track-in from a long shot to a close-up of Mabel’s face from Jack’s psychological point of view. 14 . In Strangers on a Train , when Guy punches Bruno by aiming his blow directly into the camera’s lens, he causes the gazer’s temporary blackout and his loss of point-of-view shots. 15 . In the course of the bout, this shift is triggered by Corby’s alchemization into a beholder, when he observes that her ringside seat is empty. 16 . Strauven specifically refers to Eisenstein’s concept of art’s “attractions” and Gunning’s concept of the cinema of attractions.

 The Man Who Knew Too Much

1 . In Hark’s 1990 essay on Hitchcock’s political films, she does point out the dis- ruptive effect of Betty Lawrence’s violation of codes of spectatorship at the outset Notes Pages – 257

of the film, yet she considers the girl’s behavior as a model for her parents, who must later also defy the conventions of audience behavior to battle the conspira- tors. Although there is a great deal to admire in Hark’s discussion, her blanket use of the term “participation” to describe the Lawrences’ behavior connotes joining in rather than violating strictly delineated conventions of reception. 2 . As discussed in chapter 13, Jack has an analogous reaction upon spying his wife with Corby during the party at his flat. 3 . Tom Gunning uses the term “exhibitionist confrontation” to describe early cin- ema’s presentational mode of address (66). 4 . Ironically, the seemingly amateur performer Ramon, is, like Louis, a profes- sional actor. Ramon conceals his identity as a hired assassin. 5 . The brooch incarnates a fantasy of visual culture insofar as it is a cartoon figure of a child standing stationary (holding a pair of skis) with her mouth closed. 6 . The Hungarian-born Lorre, who had acted in several German films, was actu- ally a refugee from Nazi Germany. 7 . Note that the English and suggestedly Eastern European performers on “neu- tral” Swiss soil are competitors. 8 . Louis’ performance is authorized by both Jill and the British government. 9 . Prior to the concert at the Albert Hall, Abbott plays a recording of the musical passage during which the cymbals will strike, masking the assassin’s shot. 10 . Bob locates Louis’ hidden note, the clandestine “script” that will eventually lead to the circumvention of the assassination attempt. Shortly thereafter, as Jill is being questioned, he bursts into the hotel manager’s office and, adopting the guise of passing along information about a social engagement, shows her the abduction note. 11 . Bob tells Jill shortly thereafter, “Our only chance is to act ourselves.” Via double entendre, the remark indicates their power to subvert the established plot through interventionary performance and stresses that the efficacy of this method depends upon a naturalistic acting style. 12 . Clive will later be charged by the police with “disorderly behavior in a sacred edifice.” 13 . Cohen equates the church and the cinema insofar as “the false temple of sun worshippers is a front, a trope for the movie house in which the flock is duped and money extracted” (I 169). 14 . Two years later, a child would perish in Hitchcock’s Sabotage . 15 . Not only is the thriller embedded within the context of high culture in that the assassination attempt and its prevention are enacted at the site of the con- cert hall, but classical music becomes subservient to mass culture insofar as the concert (specifically the London Symphony Orchestra’s rendition of Arthur Benjamin’s Storm Clouds Cantata) becomes background music for the scene, heightening audience tension for Jill and Hitchcock’s cinemagoers. Although the cultural status of classical music is undermined, this art form is nonetheless envigorated by its connection to the thriller. 16 . The Man Who Knew Too Much was the second of seven Hitchcock films that Herrmann scored, from The Trouble with Harry (1955) through Marnie (1964) and including such celebrated work as the scores for North by Northwest , Vertigo , and Psycho . In addition, he was credited as Sound Consultant on The Birds . Although Herrmann composed the music for an eighth Hitchcock film, Torn Curtain , it was never recorded because Hitchcock disliked the score. Herrmann stridently asserted his own formidable role in the authorship of Hitchcock’s 258 Notes Pages –

cinema, commenting: “[Hitchcock] only finishes a picture 60%. I have to finish it for him” (Brown 65). 17 . Jill is additionally burdened by figures of reception insofar as she is a proxy sent to the Albert Hall by another audience member, Bob, who later follows the concert on the radio at Abbott’s hideout. 18 . Hitchcock’s statement resembles art historian Erwin Panofsky’s distinction between theater and film in “Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures,” ini- tially published in 1934. 19 . Kine Weekly , December 13, 1934, 21 (cited in Ryall 103, 112 n. 66). 20 . Bob is impatient during his drawing-room discussion with the Foreign Office agent and anxious while listening to the concert on the radio with Abbott and his gang.

 Strangers on a Train

1 . Although Hitchcock and Chandler were initially attracted to the prospect of working together, their association soon became contentious because of their differing working methods and aesthetics. Chandler disliked Hitchcock’s autho- rial practice of meeting with his screenwriters for daylong conferences devoted only in part to the script and the director’s affinity for visual setpieces that stretched narrative logic, among other predilections. The association ended after Chandler, progressively difficult as the project advanced, became verbally abusive. Chandler produced a draft of the screenplay, yet Hitchcock turned over the project to Czenzi Ormonde, a studio dialogue writer and short story author who had served as an assistant to writer Ben Hecht. For further discussion of the Hitchcock-Chandler association, see Spoto (342–4), McGilligan (Alfred Hitchcock 444–9), and Krohn (115–6). For a consideration of the novel's adap- tation, see Abramson ("Stranger[s]" 95–8). 2 . Like Wood, Spoto also associates Guy and Bruno with order and chaos (350). 3 . North by Northwest and To Catch a Thief are also constructed from the perspec- tive of a celebrity figure. 4 . A more primitive figuration of this relationship appears in Stage Fright , a film released the year before Strangers on a Train . In Stage Fright , the seductive qual- ities of the star, Charlotte Inwood (played by the renowned Marlene Dietrich), induce an infatuated acting student to murder her husband, a transgression not unwelcome to the widow, who can barely conceal her lack of grief. 5 . Chandler articulates his perspective in various letters (see MacShane) and in his 1949 novel, The Little Sister . 6 . Within the context of the 1950s, Bruno’s suggested homosexuality functions as a marker of the fan’s “Otherness,” foregrounding this regime of spectatorship as a domain of illicit desire. 7 . In fact, Robert Walker, who portrays Bruno, appropriates the position of the film’s star insofar as his performance is considerably more dynamic than that of Farley Granger, who plays Guy. 8 . Mirroring the working practices of Hitchcock, whose sessions with screenwrit- ers typically included lunch, the criminal plot in Strangers on a Train emerges after a midday meal in Bruno’s train compartment. 9 . Buffeted by the challenges of television’s growing popularity and other factors, by the time of Strangers on a Train’s release, weekly American movie attendance had shrunk to little more than half that of its peak just five years earlier. At the Notes Pages – 259

same time, industry revenues were further diminished by the Paramount deci- sion, a 1948 Supreme Court ruling mandating that studios divest themselves of their movie theater chains, among other stipulations. 10 . The glass booth is in fact a space demarcated for reception—specifically, record- listening. In another of the film’s reversals, this site becomes alchemized into a locus of exhibition. The confrontation between Guy and Miriam is observed by an alternate regime of beholders, passively gazing music store customers who witness the scene from outside the frame, thereby maintaining a classical spec- tatorial position. 11 . Afterward, Bruno doubles his initial gaze by conspicuously regarding Miriam again. 12 . Bruno’s key-lighting is, however, imperfect. Miriam’s eyes and forehead remain somewhat in shadow. 13 . As a public figure, the senator himself is thoroughly—and, evidently, intimate- ly—acquainted with the threat of notoriety. Anne’s sister, Barbara, quips, “Oh, Daddy doesn’t mind a little scandal. He’s a senator.” Yet, the avoidance of bad press is clearly uppermost in his mind. In the wake of Miriam’s murder, Senator Morton begins to craft a media management strategy for both Guy’s and his own sake. On the night of the murder, he suggests, “Be guided by my expe- rience; never lose any sleep over accusations—unless they can be proven, of course.” Later, he advises Guy to maintain his schedule of public exhibitions in order to avoid conveying the impression of guilt and self-interestedly suggests that Guy’s appearances must not include a visit to his senate office. 14 . This assemblage of spectators includes the Mortons, who literally and figura- tively position themselves as observers of Guy from the moment that he enters the senator’s sitting room on the evening of the murder. Anne subsequently admits that she briefly suspected Guy’s guilt when she learned the method of Miriam’s murder, recalling that Guy had yelled over the telephone, “I could strangle her.” Later, observing Guy and Bruno after the party, she deduces the former’s complicity in the crime. Albeit advising Guy not to brood over imputations of guilt, the senator’s qualification—“unless they can be proven, of course”—indicates his suspicion, as does (to a lesser degree) Barbara’s recitation of the reasons why the police might consider Guy a prime suspect, in the midst of which she remarks, “Guy had every motive.” 15 . However, the detectives are not cultural devotees. In the screenplay, Hammond refers to tennis as a “stupid game.” 16 . The only competent figure of surveillance aside from Anne Morton is the man operating the boat concession. He notices Bruno’s suspicious presence on the night of the murder and, upon recognizing him when he returns to the fair- ground, deduces Bruno’s guilt. 17 . This confusion is also manifest in the lexical doubling and fractured syntax of Bruno’s line.

  R e a r W i n d o w

1 . Scottie Ferguson and Norman Bates are others frequently examined in Hitchcock criticism as exemplars of the spectator as voyeur. 2 . For example, Modleski notes that during Lisa’s struggle with Thorwald, Jeff “is forced to identify with the woman and to become aware of his own passivity and helplessness” (78). 260 Notes Pages –

3 . As Belton points out, Jeff’s construal of the image supplants that of Hitchcock even when in direct conflict with the director’s depiction. The shot of a woman accompanying the salesman, Thorwald, out of his apartment while Jeff is sleep- ing (ostensibly explaining the whereabouts of his wife)—manifestly attributable to Hitchcock insofar as it is unallied with the photographer’s look—becomes reenvisioned by Jeff’s controlling perception that Mrs. Thorwald remains miss- ing (“Space” 89). 4 . In this cameo appearance, Hitchcock winds a clock, referencing his role in cre- ating the suspense film. By Rear Window ’s conclusion, the songwriter’s compo- sition, “Lisa,” replaces “To See You Is to Love You” as the film’s score. 5 . The screenplay describes the image as that of an exploding artillery shell: “Men and equipment erupt into the air suspended in a solution of blasted rock, dust and screeching shrapnel.” However, the photograph does not appear to be a war scene. 6 . Although during the year following Rear Window ’s release, Hitchcock (per- suaded by his agent, Lew Wasserman) would take advantage of the commer- cial opportunities of the new medium by inaugurating the CBS series, Alfred Hitchcock Presents , the film metaphorically displays television spectatorship as a menace to cinema. 7 . In the opening scene of The Pleasure Garden , elderly men in the orchestra seats pointedly gaze at the chorines’ legs. 8 . Hitchcock remade The Man Who Knew Too Much shortly thereafter from a script by Rear Window screenwriter John Michael Hayes. For an account of the work- ing relationship between the two and the adaptation of Cornell Woolrich’s 1942 short story “It Had to Be Murder” into Rear Window , see DeRosa. 9 . The plot of the actual film, albeit centering on a woman who risks dissolution, is quite different. 10 . Barr points out, “the gradual elaboration of [Strauss’ songwriting] into the per- formance of the completed waltz is rather like the way the music will operate in Rear Window , with the progressive composition of the piece ‘Lisa’ by the songwriter” (129). 11 . In Suspicion , a wife suspects her husband of harboring the intent to murder her; however, he proves innocent. 12 . Doyle privileges the sophistication of those representatives of institutions of law and order over those associated with institutions of visual culture. In the process, he disdainfully accuses Lisa of employing a fallacious interpretive method of female perceptivity, which he equates with the insufficiencies of what he considers the lesser medium of women’s periodicals: “Look, Miss Fremont—that feminine intuition sells magazines, but in real life it’s still a fairytale.” Not only is Doyle incorrect but he lacks insight into his own status as a stereotypical police detective who, in the tradition of popular crime nar- ratives, is highly fallible. In fact, Lisa is a more astute interpreter of signs than Doyle. 13 . For example, Stella speculates that Anna Thorwald is “scattered all over town. A leg in the East River . . . ” 14 . Whereas Jeff successfully directs Thorwald during this segment, he is unable to control the women. Even Stella assumes directorial authority, instructing Jeff to refrain from telephoning Thorwald’s apartment (“give her another minute”) while Lisa searches for Anna’s wedding ring. When Thorwald assaults Lisa, Jeff appeals to his cohort for direction: “Stella, what do we do?” Notes Pages – 261

15 . Thorwald notices that Lisa is signaling to the spectating Jeff by pointing to Anna’s wedding ring (doubly significant, as Truffaut and others have pointed out, insofar as a gold band, which she has placed on her finger, is the object of her own amatory desire [223]). 16 . Not even the photographic apparatus for creating still images can arrest Thorwald; Jeff fires flashbulbs to stop his assailant’s motion and return him to the condition of passive figure of the look, yet the device is ineffective.

  T h e B i r d s

1 . Bellour refers to the sequence in which a seagull strikes Melanie as she returns to the town dock after boating across Bodega Bay to the Brenner home in order to surreptitiously deliver lovebirds to Mitch’s sister. The sequence is punctuated by a series of looks exchanged between Melanie and Mitch as she approaches the landing. 2 . In her reading of the initial bird attack on Cathy’s birthday party, Paglia ventures, “Is [the birds’] wrath an externalisation of the buried animosities and murderous jealousies of the triangulated women [Melanie, Lydia, and Annie]?” (57) 3 . However, Žižek proceeds to make an entirely different point about the shot, sug- gesting that the menace is to , rather than from , the spectator: “Here Hitchcock mobilizes the feeling of threat which sets in when the distance separating the viewer—his/her safe position of pure gaze—from the diegetic reality is lost: the stains blur the frontier outside/inside which provides our sense of security” (237). 4 . In this allegorical regard, she exchanges places with Hitchcock, who exits a rect- angular frame—that of the shop door—as she enters. When Hitchcock (bear- ing a haughty expression and walking his own two dogs on leashes) vacates the diegetic world, so does the presumption of directorial or exhibitionary juris- diction over the image insofar as instinctive bestiality becomes progressively unleashed on the figure of display. 5 . Mitch thereby initially adopts the position of aggressive beholder. 6 . Mitch explains, “I wouldn’t want a pair of birds that are too demonstrative. At the same time, I wouldn’t want them to be too aloof either,” indicating prescient trepidation regarding the nature of the witness-bearers in the opening scenes and on occasions to come. Although he ascribes his concerns to the censorship necessary for the purchase—a birthday gift for his sister, who is on the cusp of adolescence—his apprehensions address key issues of reception. Eschewing not only the potential “demonstrative” bestiality but utter “aloof[ness]” of the birds, Mitch desires a moderate degree of engagement on the part of those pres- ently occupying the role of gazers. 7 . At certain moments the birds are in fact directly equated with juveniles—for example, the love birds are a gift desired by young Cathy and the birds attack schoolchildren twice. 8 . The issue of mass reception and associated attraction and violence to spectacle— specifically, that which has been reported and distorted in the gossip columns regarding Melanie—has been central to the couple’s argument. In the figure of Mitch, the mass media has constructed an unmanageable audience member both allured by an exaggerated account of notoriety and insistent on maintain- ing the illusion created by the manufactured image. 262 Notes Pages –

9 . According to Variety (January 8, 1964), The Birds was the eighteenth top gross- ing film of 1963. 10 . The gas station conflagration results from a chain of events initiated by the birds’ assault. 11 . In a series of continuity errors, the shots of Melanie following the bird attack show varying degrees and formations of bloody lacerations across her face. 12 . In fact, according to screenwriter Evan Hunter, during the course of preproduc- tion Hitchcock observed, “there will be no stars in this picture. I’m the star, the birds are the stars—and you’re the star” (Spoto 479).

Appendix: In Brief—Hitchcock’s Cameos

1 . Thomas Leitch suggests that Hitchcock plays a game with the audience of “find the director” (“Find”). 2 . Yacowar, too, notes the comedic nature of Hitchcock’s cameos (270). 3 . The cameo occurs in an airport where, after being wheeled through a passage- way, Hitchcock rises to greet another man and they walk offscreen together. 4 . The exception is The Wrong Man , wherein Hitchcock appears on a soundstage at the outset, literally casting a considerable shadow (emphatically elongated by backlighting) over the film while directly addressing the audience. Yet, his intro- duction indicates distinct concerns regarding the film’s potentially perceived lack of a directorial signature and the necessity of positioning the drama—shot, as Marshall Deutelbaum notes, in “semidocumentary style” (“Finding” 212) and closely based on a true story—as an important new Hitchcockian suspense work. Hitchcock declares, “In the past, I have given you many kinds of suspense pictures, but this time I would like you to see a different one.” The appearance is more on the order of Hitchcock’s performances in his trailers and television programs. 5 . See page 73 for further consideration of Hitchcock’s cameo in Vertigo . 6 . Another miniature commercial Hitchcock image appears in Rope ; Hitchcock’s profile flashes in a distant red neon sign visible in the skyline outside the window.

F i l m o g r a p h y

The Pleasure Garden (1926; produced 1925; general release 1927) The Mountain Eagle (1926; produced 1925; general release 1927) The Lodger (1926; produced 1925; general release 1927) Downhill (1927) Easy Virtue (1927) The Ring (1927) The Farmer’s Wife (1928) Champagne (1928) The Manxman (1929) Blackmail (1929) Juno and the Paycock (1929) Murder! (1930) The Skin Game (1931) Rich and Strange (1931) Number Seventeen (1932) Waltzes from Vienna (1934) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) The 39 Steps (1935) Secret Agent (1936) Sabotage (1936) Young and Innocent (1937) The Lady Vanishes (1938) Jamaica Inn (1939) Rebecca (1940) Foreign Correspondent (1940) Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941) Suspicion (1941) Saboteur (1942) Shadow of a Doubt (1943) Lifeboat (1944) Spellbound (1945) Notorious (1946) The Paradine Case (1947) Rope (1948) Under Capricorn (1949) Stage Fright (1950) Strangers on a Train (1951) I Confess (1953) 264 Filmography

Dial “M” for Murder (1954) Rear Window (1954) To Catch a Thief (1955) The Trouble with Harry (1955) The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) The Wrong Man (1956) Vertigo (1958) North by Northwest (1959) Psycho (1960) The Birds (1963) Marnie (1964) Torn Curtain (1966) Topaz (1969) Frenzy (1972) Family Plot (1976) W o r k s C i t e d

Abel, Richard. “ Notorious : Perversion Par Excellence.” In Deutelbaum and Poague, 2009: 164–71. Abramson, Leslie H. “Stranger(s) than Fiction: Adaptation, Modernity, and the Menace of Fan Culture in Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train.” In Osteen, 2014: 95–112. Allen, Richard and Sam Ishii-Gonzales, eds. Hitchcock Past and Future . London: Routledge, 2004. Allen, Richard and Sam Ishii-Gonzales, eds. Alfred Hitchcock Centenary Essays . London: British Film Institute, 1999. Anderson, Lindsay. “Alfred Hitchcock.” In LaValley 1972. Armes, Roy. A Critical History of British Cinema . New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Arnheim, Rudolf. “The Complete Film.” In Braudy and Cohen, 2009: 167–70. Aulier, Dan. Hitchcock’s Notebooks . New York: Avon Books, 1999. Auiler, Dan. Vertigo: The Making of a Hitchcock Classic . New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1998. Balcon, Michael. Michael Balcon Presents . . . A Lifetime of Films . London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1969. Barr, Charles, ed. All Our Yesterdays: 90 Years of British Cinema . London: BFI Publishing, 1986. Barr, Charles. English Hitchcock . Moffat: Cameron & Hollis, 1999. Barr, Charles. Vertigo . London: BFI Publishing, 2002. Barton, Sabrina. “‘Crisscross’: Paranoia and Projection in Strangers on a Train .” Camera Obscura 9: 25–26 (January/May 1991): 74–100. Bazin, Andre. “Hitchcock vs. Hitchcock.” In Truffaut, 1982: 139–58. Bazin, Andre. “La Politique des Auteurs.” In Grant, 2008: 19–34. Bazin, Andre. “Strangers on a Train.” In Truffaut, 1982: 123–5. Behlmer, Rudy, ed. Memo from David O. Selznick . New York: Viking Press, 1972. Bellour, Raymond. The Analysis of Film . Ed. Constance Penley. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000. Bellour, Raymond. “Psychosis, Neurois, Perversion.” In Bellour, 2000: 238–54. Bellour, Raymond. “To Enunciate.” In Bellour, 2000: 217–37. Belton, John, ed. Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Belton, John. “Introduction: Spectacle and Narrative.” In Belton, 2000: 1–20. Belton, John. “The Space of Rear Window .” In Raubicheck, 1991: 76–94. Bergstrom, Janet. “Alternation, Segmentation, Hypnosis: Interview with Raymond Bellour.” Camera Obscura 3–4 (1979). Bogdanovich, Peter. The Cinema of Alfred Hitchcock. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1963. Bonitzer, Pascal. “Hitchcockian Suspense.” In Žižek, 1992: 15–30. 266 Works Cited

Boozer, Jack, ed. Authorship in Film Adaptation . Austin: University of Texas Press, 2008. Bordwell, David. The Cinema of Eisenstein . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. Bordwell, David. Making Meaning . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Bordwell, David. Narration in the Fiction Film . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. Boyd, David and R. Barton Palmer, eds. After Hitchcock: Influence, Imitation, and Intertextuality. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006. Bozovic, Miran. “The Man behind His Own Retina.” In Žižek, 1992: 161–77. Brady, David. “Core of the Movie—The Chase.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 125–32. Rpt. New York Times Magazine, October 29, 1950: 22–23, 44–46. Braudy, Leo and Marshall Cohen, eds. Film Theory & Criticism . 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Brill, Lesley. The Hitchcock Romance . New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988. “British Film Triumphs.” Daily Express, September 15, 1926: 3. Britton, Andrew. “Hitchcock’s Spellbound : Text and Counter-Text.” CineAction! 3/4 (Winter 1986): 72–83. Brown, Royal. “An Interview with Bernard Herrmann (1911–1975).” High Fidelity 26:9 (September 1976): 64–6. Bruno, Giuliani. “Site-seeing: Architecture and the Moving Image.” Wide Angle 19: 4 (October 1997): 9–23. Buchanan, Barbara. “Women Are a Nuisance.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 79–81. Rpt. from “Alfred Hitchcock Tells a Woman that Women Are a Nuisance,” Film Weekly , London, September 20, 1935. Carlson, Matthew. “Conrad’s The Secret Agent , Hitchcock’s Sabotage , and the Inspiration of ‘Public Uneasiness.’” In Osteen, 2014: 79–94. Carringer, Robert. “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship.” PMLA 16: 2 (March 2001): 370–9. Caughie, John, ed. Theories of Authorship . London: Routledge, 1988. Chandler, Raymond. “Notebooks on Strangers on a Train .” In LaValley, 1972: 103. Chekhov, Michael. On the Technique of Acting . Ed. Mel Gordon. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. Chekhov, Michael. To the Actor . 2nd ed. Foreword by Simon Callow. England: Routledge, 2002. Cohen, Paula Marantz. Alfred Hitchcock: The Legacy of Victorianism . Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1995. Cohen, Tom. Hitchcock’s Cryptonymies , Vols. I & II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005. Collier, Lionel. “Trade Shows Surveyed.” Kinema tograph Weekly , September 23, 1926: 65. Conrad, Joseph. The Secret Agent: A Drama in Three Acts . London: T. Werner Laurie Ltd., 1923. Corber, Robert. “Hitchcock’s Washington: Spectatorship, Ideology, and the ‘Homosexual Menace’ in Strangers on a Train .” In Freedman and Millington, 1999: 99–121. Corber, Robert. In the Name of National Security: Hitchcock, Homophobia, and the Political Construction of Gender in Postwar America . Durham: Duke University Press, 1993. Corber, Robert. “‘You Wanna Check My Thumbprints?’: Vertigo , the Trope of Invisibility and Cold War Nationalism.” In Allen, 1999: 307–14. Works Cited 267

Corrigan, Timothy, Patricia White, and Meta Mazaj. Critical Visions in Film Theory . Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. Crawley, Budge, Fletcher Markle, and Gerald Pratley. “‘I Wish I Didn’t Have to Shoot the Picture:’ An Interview with Alfred Hitchcock.” Take One 1: 1 (1966): 14–17. De Lauretis, Teresa. Alice Doesn’t: Feminism, Semiotics, Cinema . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984. DeRosa, Steven. Writing with Hitchcock . New York: Faber and Faber, 2001. Deutelbaum, Marshall. “Finding the Right Man in The Wrong Man.” In Deutelbaum, 2009: 212–22. Deutelbaum, Marshall and Leland Poague, eds. A Hitchcock Reader . Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1986. Deutelbaum, Marshall and Leland Poague, eds. A Hitchcock Reader . 2nd ed. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Douchet, Jean. “Hitch and His Public.” In Deutelbaum and Poague, 2009: 17–24. Rpt. from Cahiers Du Cinema 13, 1960. Fallaci, Oriana. “Alfred Hitchcock: Mr. Chastity.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 55–66. Farber, Manny. “Dream Manors.” New Republic , December 3, 1945: 747. The Film Society Programmes . 1925–1939. New York: Arno Press, 1972. Flitterman-Lewis, Sandy. To Desire Differently: Feminism and the French Cinema . Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990. Flitterman-Lewis, Sandy. “To See and Not to Be: Female Subjectivity and the Law in Hitchcock’s Notorious .” Literature and Psychology 33: 3–4 (1987): 1–15. Forbes, Bryan. Interview with Alfred Hitchcock. 1967. http://www.bfi.org.uk/features /interviews/hitchcock.html Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” In Caughie, 1988: 282–91. Freedman, Jonathan. “From Spellbound to Vertigo: Therapeutic Culture in America.” In Freedman, 77–98. Freedman, Jonathan and Richard Millington, eds. Hitchcock’s America . New York: Oxford University Pres, 1999. Freud, Sigmund. “The Uncanny.” Collected Papers: Volume IV . London: The Hogarth Press, 1948. “The Genius of Hitchcock: Tippi Hedren in Conversation.” British Film Institute 2012. http://www.bfi.org.uk/live/video/1012 Goodwin, James. “Conrad and Hitchcock: Secret Sharers.” In Klein, 1981: 218–27. Gottlieb, Sidney, ed. Alfred Hitchcock Interviews . Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2003. Gottlieb, Sidney. “Early Hitchcock: The German Influence.” Hitchcock Annual 8 (1999): 100–30. Gottlieb, Sidney and Richard Allen, eds. The Hitchcock Annual Anthology . London: Wallflower Press, 2009. Gottlieb, Sidney. “Hitchcock in 1928: The Auteur as Autocrat,” Hitchcock Annual 16 (2010): 1–12. Gottlieb, Sidney, ed. Hitchcock on Hitchcock . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Grant, Barry Keith, ed. Auteurs and Authorship . Malden: Blackwell Publishing 2008. Gunning, Tom. “The Cinema of Attraction: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant- Garde.” Wide Angle 8: 3–4 (1986): 63–70. Hansen, Miriam. Babel & Babylon: Spectatorship in American Silent Film . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991. Hansen, Miriam. “Early Cinema, Late Cinema: Transformations of the Public Sphere.” In Williams, 1995: 134–52. 268 Works Cited

Hark, Ina Rae. “Keep Your Amateur Standing: Audience Participation and Good Citizenship in Hitchcock’s Political Films.” Cinema Journal 29:2 (1990): 8–22. Hayes, John Michael. Rear Window . Screenplay, final white script, December 1, 1953. “HBO Films: The Girl—About the Film.” October 1, 2012. www.youtube.com /watch?v=rueck-VVzwM Hecht, Ben. “I Hate Actors.” Collier’s Weekly , April 1, 1944: 24–43. Highman, Charles and Joel Greenberg, Eds. The Celluloid Muse: Hollywood Directors Speak . Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1969. Highsmith, Patricia. Strangers on a Train . 1950. Rpt. New York: Norton, 2001. Hitchcock, Alfred. “After-Dinner Speech at the Screen Producers Guild Dinner.” Delivered 1965. In Gottlieb, 1995: 54–8. Hitchcock, Alfred. “An Autocrat of the Film Studio,” Hitchcock Annual 16 (2010): 13–22. Rpt. from Cassell’s Magazine , January 1928: 28–34. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Are Stars Necessary?” In Gottlieb, 1995: 76–8. Rpt. from Picturegoer , December 16, 1933: 13. Hitchcock, Alfred. “The Censor Wouldn’t Pass It.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 196–201. Rpt. from Film Weekly , November 5, 1938: 6–7. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Close Your Eyes and Visualize!” In Gottlieb, 1995: 246–52. Rpt. from Stage , July 1935: 52–3. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Crime Doesn’t Pay.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 86–9. Rpt. from Film Weekly , April 30, 1938: 9. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Direction.” In MacCann, 1966: 53–61. Rpt. from Charles Davy, ed., Footnotes to the Film . New York: Oxford University Press, 1937: 3–15. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Directors Are Dead.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 183–5. Rpt. from Film Weekly , November 20, 1937: 14. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Director’s Problems.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 186–91. Rpt. from The Listener , February 2, 1938. Hitchcock, Alfred. “The Enjoyment of Fear.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 116–21. Rpt. from Good Housekeeping , February 1949: 39, 241–3. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Film Production.” In Encyclopedia Britannica , Vol. 15. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971: 907–11. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Films We Could Make.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 165–7. Rpt. from London Evening News , November 16, 1927. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Hitchcock on Style.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 285–302. Rpt. from “Hitchcock on Style.” Cinema (Beverly Hills) 1: 5 (August/September 1963): 4–8, 34–5. Hitchcock, Alfred. “How I Choose My Heroines.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 73–5. Rpt. from Langford Reed and Hetty Spiers, Who’s Who in Filmland . London: Chapman and Hall, 1931: xxi–xxiii. Hitchcock, Alfred. “If I Were Head of a Production Company.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 172–5. Rpt. from Picturegoer , January 26, 1935: 5. Hitchcock, Alfred. “In the Hall of Mogul Kings.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 227. Rpt. from London Times , June 23, 1969: 33. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Lecture at Columbia University.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 267–74. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Life among the Stars.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 27–50. Rpt. from News Chronicle , March 1–5, 1937. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Much Ado about Nothing?” In Gottlieb, 1995: 179–92. Rpt. from The Listener , March 10, 1937: 448–50. Hitchcock, Alfred. “My Screen Memories.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 7–26. Rpt. from Film Weekly , May 2, 1936: 16–8; May 9, 1936: 7; May 16, 1936: 28–9; May 30, 1936: 27. Works Cited 269

Hitchcock, Alfred. “On Style.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 285–302. Rpt. from Cinema 1: 5 (1963): 4–8, 34–5. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Production Methods Compared.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 205–9. Rpt. from Cine-Technician 14, no. 75 (November-December 1948): 170–4. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Rear Window.” In LaValley, 1972: 45–6. Hitchcock, Alfred. “What I’d Do to the Stars.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 90–4. Rpt. from Film Weekly , March 4, 1939: 12–3. Hitchcock, Alfred. “Why ‘Thrillers’ Thrive.” In Gottlieb, 1995: 109–12. Rpt. from Picturegoer , January 18, 1936: 15. Horwitz, Margaret. “The Birds : A Mother’s Love.” In Deutelbaum and Poague, 1986: 279–87. Hyde, Thomas. “The Moral Universe of Hitchcock’s Spellbound .” In Deutelbaum and Poague, 2009: 156–63. “Illuminating Response to Bernstein Questionnaire,” The Bioscope , August 4, 1927: 20. “ I nt e r v i e w w it h To b y Jo n e s .” www.hbo.com/movies/the-girl/index.html#/movies/the -girl/interview/toby-jones.html Kapsis, Robert. Hitchcock: The Making of a Reputation . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Keane, Marian. “A Closer Look at Scopophilia, Mulvey, Hitchcock, and Vertigo .” In Deutelbaum and Poague, 2009: 234–49. Klein, Michael and Gillian Parker, eds. The English Novel and the Movies . New York: Ungar, 1981. Klinger, Barbara. “ Psycho : The Institutionalization of Female Sexuality.” In Deutelbaum and Poague 1986. Knapp, Lucretia. “The Queer Voice in Marnie .” In Deutelbaum and Poague, 2009: 295–311. Knight, Arthur. “Conversation with Alfred Hitchcock.” In Gottlieb, 2003: 160–85. Krohn, Bill. Hitchcock at Work . London: Phaidon Press, 2000. “The Lady Vanishes: and a British Trencherman Is Again Spotlighted.” Newsweek , October 17, 1938: 28–9. LaValley, Albert, ed. Focus on Hitchcock . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Lawrence, Amy. “American Shame: Rope , James Steward, and the Postwar Crisis in American Masculinity.” In Freedman and Millington, 1999: 55–76. Leff, Leonard. Hitchcock and Selznick . New York: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1987. Lemire, Elise. “Voyeurism and the Postwar Crisis of Masculinity in Rear Window .” In Belton, 2000: 57–90. Leitch, Thomas and Leland Poague, eds. A Companion to Alfred Hitchcock . West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2011. Leitch, Thomas. The Encyclopedia of Alfred Hitchcock . New York: Facts on File, 2002. Leitch, Thomas. Find the Director and Other Hitchcock Games . Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991. Leitch, Thomas. “Hitchcock and Company.” In Sidney and Allen, 2009: 237–55. Leitch, Thomas. “Hitchcock and His Writers: Authorship and Authority in Adaptation.” In Boozer, 2008: 63–84. Leitch, Thomas. “Hitchcock the Author.” In Osteen, 2014: 3–19. “ The Lodger .” The Bioscope , September 16, 1926: 39. “The Lodger .” Kinematograph Weekly , September 16, 1926: 57. Low, Rachael. The History of the British Film 1914–1918 . London: British Film Institute and British Film Academy, 1973. 270 Works Cited

Low, Rachael. The History of the British Film 1918–1929 . London: George Allen & Unwin, 1971. Lurie, Susan. “The Construction of the ‘Castrated Woman’ in Psychoanalysis and Cinema.” Discourse 4 (Winter 1981–2): 52–74. MacCann, Richard D., ed. Film: A Montage of Theories . New York: Dutton, 1966. MacShane, Frank, ed. Selected Letters of Raymond Chandler . New York: Columbia University Press, 1981. The Making of Psycho , Psycho Collector’s Edition DVD, Universal, 1999. Mayne, Judith. “Paradoxes of Spectatorship.” In Corrigan et al., 2011: 89–110. McElhaney, Joe. “The Object and the Face: Notorious , Bergman and the Close-Up.” In Allen, 2004: 64–84. McElhaney, Joe. “Touching the Surface: Marnie , Melodrama, Modernism.” In Allen, 1999: 87–105. McGilligan, Patrick. Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light . New York: Harper Perennial, 2004. McGilligan, Patrick. Backstory: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. McGilligan, Patrick. “Charles Bennett: First-Class Constructionist.” In McGilligan, 1986: 17–48. Metz, Christian. The Imaginary Signifier . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. Morris, Christopher. “Feminism, Deconstruction, and the Pursuit of the Tenable in Vertigo .” Hitchcock Annual 6 (1996–7): 3–25. Morris, Nathalie. “The Early Career of Alma Reville.” Hitchcock Annual 15 (2006–7): 1–31. Modleski, Tania. The Women Who Knew Too Much . 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2005. Montagu, Ivor and Alan Lovell. “Interview with Ivor Montagu.” Screen 13: 3 (Autumn 1972): 71–113. Montagu, Ivor. “Working with Hitchcock.” Sight and Sound XLIX: 3 (1980): 189–93. Mulvey, Laura. “Afterthoughts on ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ Inspired by Duel in the Sun .” Framework 15/16/17 (Summer 1981): 12–15. Mulvey, Laura. “Death Drives.” In Allen, 2004: 231–42. Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen 16: 3 (Autumn 1975): 6–18. Naremore, James. Acting in the Cinema . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Nogueira, Rui and Nicoletta Zalaffi. “Hitch, Hitch, Hitch, Hurrah!” In Gottlieb, 2003: 119–28. Rpt. (and trans.) Écran 7 (July–August 1972): 2–8. Nugent, Frank. “Mr. Hitchcock Discovers Love.” New York Times Magazine , November 3, 1946: 12–13, 63–4. Nugent, Frank. “The Screen: Splendid film of du Maurier’s ‘Rebecca’ Is Shown at the Music Hall.” New York Times , March 29, 1940: 28. O’Connell, Pat Hitchcock and Laurent Bouzereau. Alma Hitchcock: The Woman Behind the Man . New York: Berkeley Books, 2003. Osteen, Mark, ed. Hitchcock and Adaptation . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014. Osteen, Mark. “‘It Doesn’t Pay to Antagonize the Public’: Sabotage and Hitchcock’s Audience.” Literature/Film Quarterly 2000 28:4 259–67. Paglia, Camille. The Birds . London: BFI, 1998. Works Cited 271

Palmer, R. Barton and David Boyd, eds. Hitchcock at the Source . New York: SUNY Press, 2011. Panofsky, Erwin. “Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures.” In Braudy and Cohen, 2009: 247–61. Parkinson, David. “Night Will Fall: The Story of File Number F3080.” www.bfi.org .uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/night-will-fall-story-file-f3080. Pearson, Roberta. Eloquent Gestures: The Transformation of Performance Style in the Griffith Biograph Films . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Petley, Julian. “Cinema and State.” In Barr, 1986: 31–46. Peucker, Brigitte. “Aesthetic Space in Hitchcock.” In Leitch, 2011: 201–18. Piso, Michele. “Mark’s Marnie .” In Deutelbaum and Poague, 2009: 280–94. Poague, Leland. “Links in a Chain: Psycho and Film Classicism.” In Deutelbaum and Poague, 1986: 340–9. Pomerance, Murray. An Eye for Hitchcock . New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2004. Pomerance, Murray. “Two Bits for Hitch: Small Performances and Gross Structure in The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956).” Hitchcock Annual 9 (2000–1): 127–45. Pratley, Gerald. “Alfred Hitchcock’s Working Credo.” In Gottlieb, 2003: 34–7. Pudovkin, V. I. Film Technique and Film Acting . New York: Bonanza Books, 1949. Raubicheck, Walter and Walter Srebnick, eds. Hitchcock’s Rereleased Films . Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1991. Rebello, Stephen. Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho. New York: Dembner Books, 1990. “A Redbook Dialogue: Alfred Hitchcock and Dr. Frederic Wertham.” In Gottlieb, 2003: 146–54. Rpt. from Redbook , April 1963: 71, 108, 110–12. Renov, Michael. “From Identification to Ideology: The Male System of Hitchcock’s Notorious .” Wide Angle 4: 1 (1980): 30–7. Richards, Jeffrey. The Age of the Dream Palace: Cinema and Society in Britain 1930– 1939 . London: Routledge, 1984. “ The Ring .” The Bioscope , October 6, 1927: 43. The Ring advertisement. The Bioscope , October 6, 1927: 14. Rodowick, D. N. “An Elegy for Theory” In Corrigan et al., 2011: 1110–26. Rohmer, Eric. “A Qui la Faute?” In Caughie, 1988: 40. Rohmer, Eric and Claude Chabrol. Hitchcock: The First Forty-Four Films . 1957. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1979. Rosenbladt, Bettina. “Doubles and Doubts in Hitchcock: The German Connection.” In Allen, 1999: 37–63. Ross, Don. “‘Psycho’ Took Skill to Placate Censor.” New York Herald Tribune , June 26, 1960: D6. Rotha, Paul. The Film Till Now . Middlesex: Spring Books, 1967. Rpt. 1930. Rothman, William. Hitchcock—The Murderous Gaze . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982. Ryall, Tom. Alfred Hitchcock and the British Cinema . Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986. “ Sabotage .” London Times , December 7, 1936: 12. Samuels, Charles Thomas. “Alfred Hitchcock.” In Gottlieb, 2003: 129–55. Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929–68 . New York: E.F. Dutton, 1968. Sarris, Andrew. “Hitchcock’s Split Vision.” Village Voice , January 3, 1984: 47. Sarris, Andrew. “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962.” In Grant, 2008: 35–45. 272 Works Cited

Schatz, Thomas. The Genius of the System . New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1996. Silet, Charles. “Through a Woman’s Eyes: Sexuality and Memory in The 39 Steps .” In Deutelbaum and Poague, 2009: 114–25. Silverman, Kaja. The Acoustic Mirror . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. Smith, Susan. Hitchcock: Suspense, Humour and Tone . London: BFI, 2000. Smith, Susan. “The Spatial World of Hitchcock’s Films.” CineAction 50 (January 1999): 2–15. Spoto, Donald . The Dark Side of Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock . New York: Ballantine, 1983. Spoto, Donald. Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies . New York: Harmony Books, 2008. Stam, Robert and Roberta Pearson. “Hitchcock’s Rear Window: Reflexivity and the Critique of Voyeurism.” In Deutelbaum and Poague, 2009: 199–211. Strauven, Wanda, ed. The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Taylor, John Russell. Hitch: The Life and Work of Alfred Hitchcock . London: Abacus/ Sphere Books, Ltd., 1981. The 39 Steps DVD, The Criterion Collection, 1999. Thomas, Bob, “Tippi Hedren–Hitchcock’s New Grace Kelly,” Look , December 4, 1962. Tomlinson, Doug. “‘They Should Be Treated Like Cattle’: Hitchcock and the Question of Performance.” In Raubicheck, 1991: 95–108. The Trouble with Marnie. Marnie DVD, Universal, 2006. Truffaut, Francois “Un Certaine Tendance du Cinema Francais.” Cahiers du Cinéma 31 (January 1954): 26–7. “A Certain Tendancy of the French Cinema.” Trans. in Grant, 2008: 9–18. Truffaut, Francois, ed. The Cinema of Cruelty . New York: Seaver Books, 1982. Truffaut, Francois. Hitchcock . New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984. Walker, Michael. Hitchcock’s Motifs . Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005. Wexman, Virginia Wright. “The Critic as Consumer: Film Study in the University, Vertigo , and the Film Canon.” Film Quarterly 39: 3 (Spring 1986): 32–41. White, Susan. “A Surface Collaboration: Hitchcock and Performance.” In Leitch, 2011: 181–97. White, Susan. “ Vertigo and Problems of K nowledge in Feminist Film Theory.” In Allen, 1999: 279–98. Whyman, Rose. The Stanislavsky System of Acting . Cambridge, England, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Williams, Linda, ed. Viewing Positions: Ways of Seeing Film . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1995. Wollen, Peter. “Hitchcock’s Vision.” Cinema 1: 3 (June 1969): 2–4. Wollen, Peter. Signs and Meaning in the Cinema . 1969. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976. Wood, Robin. Hitchcock’s Films Revisited . New York: Columbia University Press, 1989. Worland, Rick. “Before and After the Fact: Writing and Reading Hitchcock’s Suspicion .” Cinema Journal 41: 4 (Summer 2002): 3–26. Yacowar, Maurice. Hitchcock’s British Films . Hamden: Archon Books, 1977. Žižek, Slavoj, ed. Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Lacan . . . But Were Afraid to Ask Hitchcock . London: Verso, 1992. Žižek, Slavoj. “The Hitchcockian Blot.” In Allen, 1999: 123–39. Žižek, Slavoj. “‘In His Bold Gaze My Ruin Is Writ Large.’” In Žižek, 1992: 211–72.

Index

39 Steps, The (1935), 3, 11, 24, 35, 77, Alfred Hitchcock Hour, The (1962–5), 99, 100, 101, 105, 112, 115, 238n2 121–32, 133, 136, 137, 139, 140, Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955–62), 154, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 238n2, 260n6 190, 235, 245n1, 251nn1–15, Allardice, James, 239n12 254n7, 255n5, 263 Allen, Jay Presson, 254n14 39 Steps, The (Buchan), 121, 122 American Laboratory Theatre, Theatre Arts Institute of, 252n3 Abel, Alfred, 108 Anderson, Lindsay, 117 Abel, Richard, 64 Andrews, Julie, 107 acting, histrionic code, 248n9 Anna Christie (O’Neill), 135, 252n7 improvisation, 54, 99, 100, 105, 125, Armes, Roy, 104 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 136, Arnheim, Rudolph, 106, 249n14 137, 138, 140, 143, 144, 152, art. See culture 153, 186, 190, 191, 219, 247n16, art of cinema and associated issues, cultural 251n11 function of cinema, 2, 6, 15, 20, Method acting, Method actors, 4, 100, 21, 28–9, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 109, 134–5, 139, 140, 142, 152, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 51, 56, 252n7 86, 102, 103, 106, 109, 114, 130, naturalism, 108, 117, 125, 137, 145–6, 154, 165, 166–7, 182, 257n11 247n2, 248n12. See culture “negative acting,” neutral expression, audience, aggression toward, 11, 91, 170, 135, 240n18, 248n10, 248n11, 174, 176, 188, 191, 194–5, 207, 252n8 209, 221, 229, 256n14 silent performance, 128, 132, 141 aggressive, interventionary, verisimilar code, 248n9 participatory, 11, 60, 160, 161, See stars, star system 162, 164, 174, 175, 176, 178, actor-fi gures, 2–3, 11, 21–2, 23–4, 39– 179, 182–3, 185, 186, 188, 190, 45, 53–4, 58, 59–70, 75, 77–81, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196–7, 200, 88, 89, 92, 99–102, 121–32, 204, 205, 211, 213, 219, 220, 133–44, 145–54, 189, 225, 221, 225, 226, 228, 229–30, 231, 242n1, 243n16, 245n11, 245n13, 233, 257n11, 261n5, 261n8 245n25, 247n11, 247n12, fi gurations of, 3, 11, 45, 50, 53, 54, 247n16, 254n7, 254n9, 254n12, 55, 69–70, 75, 112, 114–16, 255n5, 257n4, 257n10, 257n11, 158–64, 170–1, 173–84, 185–97, 258n4, 259n13 199–209, 211–21, 223–31, Actors Studio, 252n3 251, 256n10, 256n13, 256n15, adaptation, 13, 14, 26, 27, 75, 76, 104, 258n17, 259n10, 259n14, 111–12, 167, 241n4, 242n4, 259n16, 259n1, 260n3, 260n7, 246n7, 258n1, 260n8 260n12, 261n15, 261n6, 261n8 274 Index audience—Continued Bogart, Humphrey, 108 ideal images of. See Hitchcock, ideal Bogdanovich, Peter, 26, 158 audience Boileau, Pierre, 76, 246n7 passive, oblivious, indifferent, 48, 55, Bonitzer, Pascal, 248n11 162, 164, 191, 194, 208, 214, Bordwell, David, 10, 30, 237n6 221, 225 Boyd, David, 13, 238n10 See spectatorship, classical codes of Boyle, Robert, 253n3 Aulier, Dan, 13, 245n8 Bozovic, Miran, 220 auteurism, auteurs, 2, 4–8, 13, 14, 25, Bresson, Robert, 7 32, 146. See Hitchcock, auteurist Brill, Lesley, 81, 84, 113, 115, 200, 204 image Brisson, Carl, 256n8 authorship theory, 2, 4–14, 237nn1–7 British Board of Film Censors, 167–8 avant-garde, 30, 35. See Hitchcock, avant- British cinema, British fi lm industry, 4, gardism 25, 35, 37, 104, 107, 122, 125, 128, 130, 160, 166, 167, 173, Balcon, Michael, 36, 37, 103–4, 107 182, 189, 190, 191, 196, 229, Balfour, Betty, 107 240n22, 240n26 Banks, Leslie, 107 British International Pictures (BIP), 36, Barr, Charles, 13, 40, 44, 74, 81, 216, 37, 39, 47, 106–7, 196 250n1, 250n6, 260n10 Britton, Andrew, 134, 141 Barry, Joan, 106 Bruno, Giuliana, 204 Barrymore, Lionel, 249n20 Buchan, John, 121, 122, 127, 251n10 Barton, Sabrina, 200, 208 Buchanan, Barbara, 249n13 Bass, Saul, 239n14, 247n15 Buñuel, Luis, 142 Battleship Potemkin (1925), 29 Baxter, Anne, 249n17 Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The (1919), Bazin, André, 5, 6, 7, 157, 237nn1–3 116–17, 141, 251n11 Bellour, Raymond, 8–10, 61, 65, 84, 92, Cahiers du Cinéma, 2, 4–6, 26, 157 147, 159, 224, 234, 247n13, 253n5 Callow, Simon, 252n6 enunciation, 8–10, 61, 147, 261n1 Carlson, Matthew, 49, 51 “fi lm-wish,” 10, 234 Carroll, Madeleine, 105, 130 adaptation of term, 10–11 celebrity. See stardom Belton, John, 213, 215, 260n3 censorship, 4, 23, 25, 34, 36, 53, 54, 68, Benjamin, Arthur, 257n15 85–6, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, Bennett, Charles, 48, 239n13 167–9, 240n23, 243n11, 246n4, Bergman, Ingrid, 58, 60, 98, 102, 135–6, 246n8, 255nn13, 14, 261n6 242n1, 243n2, 243n3, 243n9, Chabrol, Claude, 5, 219 247n3, 249n16, 252n7 Champagne (1928), 107, 216, 263 Bergstrom, Janet, 8–9 Chandler, Raymond, 199, 201, Berrnstein, Sidney, 38, 245n3, 255n8, 258nn1, 5 255n11 Chaplin, Charlie, 253n4 Bersani, Leo, 244n19 Chekhov, Anton, 135 Best, Edna, 107 Chekhov, Michael, 135, 141, 252n6, Birds, The (1963), 58, 145, 146, 160, 253n15 161, 163, 171, 223–31, 234, 235, Chevalier, Maurice, 107 239n10, 242n8, 253n2, 257n16, Cinema Commission, The, 167–8 261–2nn1–12, 264 Cinematograph Act (1909), 167–8, Bjӧrk, Anita, 249n17 255n12 Blackmail (1929), 1, 37, 106, 118, 122, Cinematograph Films Act (1927), 37, 233, 234, 249n15, 263 240n26 Index 275 class. See social class 138–9, 143, 145, 147–8, 149–54, classical Hollywood (narrative) cinema, 189, 212, 218–19, 239n7, 239n8, mainstream studio cinema, 4, 8, 9, 241n10, 242n7, 243n16, 245n5, 10, 12, 13, 20, 25, 29, 36, 37, 44, 246n2, 247n12, 251n11, 251n13, 58, 59, 63, 67, 68, 75, 76, 77, 79, 260n3, 260n14. See Hitchcock, 80, 83, 84, 90, 92, 105, 108, 114, cameos 115, 119, 142, 146, 147, 158, Disney, Walt, 14, 55, 109, 162 182, 184, 193, 203, 208, 224, Donat, Robert, 105, 123, 130, 249n19, 226, 230, 242n9, 243n3, 247n15 251n6 Clift, Montgomery, 109, 135, 249n17 Dostoevsky, Fyodor, 242n4 Clouzot, Henri-Georges, 86 double chase. See Hitchcock, conventions Cohen, Paula Marantz, 13 Doubles, doppelgӓngers, 67, 93, 136, Cohen, Tom, 15–16, 76, 81, 124, 192, 199, 201, 203, 206, 208 257n13 Douchet, Jean, 211–12, 255n3 Cohn, Harry, 79 Dovzhenko, Aleksandr, 30 Columbia Pictures, 79 Downhill (1927), 31, 160, 164, 263 commercialism, Hitchcock as commercial du Maurier, Daphne, 38, 76 director, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 20, 25, 34, 35, 37, 40, 49, 79, 97, 102, 106, Easy Virtue (1927), 31, 103, 263 115, 116, 146, 151, 160, 161, Eisenstein, Sergei, 28, 29, 30, 52, 169, 164, 165, 166–7, 169, 178, 235, 239n16, 250n4, 256n16 250n2 Elstree Calling (1930), 37 Conrad, Joseph, 48. See The Secret Agent, Elstree Studios, 37 novel and play Emelka Studios, 29 Corber, Robert, 13, 158, 200, 245n9 End of St. Petersburg, The (1927), 30 Cotten, Joseph, 249n17, 249n20 Enter Sir John (Dane and Simpson), Countess of Hong Kong, The (1967), 241n4 253n4 enunciation. See Bellour, Crawford, Cheryl, 135, 252n7 Flitterman-Lewis Crime and Punishment (Dostoevsky), expressionism. See German 242n4 Expressionist cinema Crowther, Bosley, 169 culture, highbrow and lowbrow; classical Fallaci, Oriana, 170 art; mass entertainment, 1, 2, 6, Family Plot (1976), 107, 233, 234, 264 22, 39, 40, 41, 45, 49, 71, 90, Famous Players-Lasky, 33, 247n1 164, 193, 195, 206, 213–14, fandom, 4, 102, 179–80, 184, 187, 199– 242n4, 248n11, 257n15 209, 223, 258n6 Farber, Manny, 139 Dali, Salvador, 142 Farmer’s Wife, The (1928), 37, 263 Dane, Clemence, 241n4 female gaze, female beholders, 59, 62, De Lauretis, Teresa, 159 63, 148, 159, 177, 178, 179–80, D’Entre Les Mortes (Boileau, Narcejac), 182, 183, 194, 195, 206, 212, 76 215, 217, 218, 220, 224, 225, DeRosa, Steven, 13 228, 229, 243n7, 256n9, 256n10, Deutelbaum, Marshall, 262n4 259n14, 260n12 Dial M for Murder (1954), 23, 235, 264 See gazers of both genders, collective Dickens, Charles, 13 feminist fi lm theory, criticism, 10, 80, Dietrich, Marlene, 102, 258n4 147, 158–9, 237n7, 243n5 director-fi gures, 2, 11, 21–4, 39–45, Film Society, The, 30, 31, 250n4 47–56, 57–70, 71–82, 83–93, “fi lm-wish.” See Bellour 276 Index

Flitterman-Lewis, Sandy, 9, 14, 59, 63, Hall Davis, Lilian, 103 238n11, 243n7 Hamlet, 43, 241n12, 255n8 enunciation, 59, 238n11, 243n7 Hansen, Miriam, 13, 167, 174, 256n3 Fontaine, Joan, 58 Hark, Ina Rae, 127, 162, 185, 242n8, Foote, John Taintor, 242n1 (chapter 4) 256–7n1 Foreign Correspondent (1940), 67, 101, Harrison, Joan, 239n13, 241n28 133, 163, 235, 263 Hawks, Howard, 6, 8 Foucault, Michel, 19 Hayes, John Michael, 13, 239n13, 260n8 Freedman, Jonathan, 13, 133 Head, Edith, 79 Frenzy (1972), 99, 235, 264 Hecht, Ben, 134, 252n10, 258n1 Freud, Sigmund, Freudianism, 60, 67, Hedren, Tippi, 58, 78, 105, 145, 146–7, 68, 80, 85, 92, 134, 135, 139, 252n8, 253n1, 252n2, 252n4 143, 148, 153, 244n19, 246n3, Hepworth, Cecil, 104 252n4, 253n6 Herrmann, Bernard, 90, 194, 257–8n16 Freudian symbolism, 68, 148, 253n11, Highsmith, Patricia, 199 253n17, 253n6 Hitchcock (2012), 253n2 From Among the Dead. See D’Entre Les Hitchcock, Alfred Mortes auteurist image, 9, 11, 15, 19, 20, 21, Fuller, Samuel, 8 23, 35, 38, 237n1, 248n10 avant-gardism, 113, 114, 119, 166, Gainsborough Pictures, 29, 33, 36, 37, 181, 182, 247n15. See avant-garde 103, 166 cameo appearances, 9–10, 12, 15, Galsworthy, John, 37 19, 21, 73, 97, 103, 142, 147, “Gas” (1919), 191 149, 214, 233–5, 245n4, 254n7, Gaumont-British Pictures, 37, 104 254n8, 260n4, 261n4, 262nn1–6 gazers of both genders, collective, 84, cinematography, 28, 103, 104, 114, 138, 142, 164, 176–7, 179, 181, 116, 123, 136, 141–2, 148–9, 182, 194, 206, 211, 213, 217, 166, 248n10 224, 226, 228, 243n10, 259n11, bird’s-eye view shots, 224, 225, 227, 259n14. See female gaze, male 228 gaze, voyeurism point of view shots, 62–3, 69, 72–3, General Strike of 1926, 168, 255n13 76–7, 80, 82, 99, 116, 142, Generation of Vipers (Wylie), 247n17 177, 181, 183, 194, 195, 196, German Expressionist cinema, 29, 63, 207, 217, 230, 243n7, 249n15, 69, 113, 116–17, 166, 239– 256nn9, 13, 14 40n17, 243n13. See Hitchcock, “compromise casting,” 34, 107, 249n17 expressionism conventions of Hitchcock fi lms Gielgud, John, 105, 108 banality of evil, 48 Girl, The (2012, HBO), 146, 147, 253n2 confl ict between love and duty, 49, Gone With the Wind (1939), 38, 76 191, 243n16 Goodwin, James, 54 coupling crime and romance, 41, 48 Gottlieb, Sidney, 34, 102, 106, 238n1, deception of appearances, 116 243n13, 247n2 double chase narrative, 115, 122, Granger, Farley, 258 136, 251n3 Grant, Cary, 12, 34, 98, 102, 243nn5, 9, transference of guilt, 51, 115 246n4, 247n3, 249n20, 255n8 voyeurism. See voyeurism Griffi th, D. W., 170, 237n2 wish fulfi llment, catastrophes of, 189, Group Theatre, 135, 252n3 195, 211 Gunning, Tom, 171, 174, 230, 256nn4, “wrong man” theme, 111–12, 115, 16, 257n3 121, 200 Index 277

“cutting in the camera,” “precutting,” 200, 216, 217, 226, 249–50n1, 27 257n15 editing, 28, 31, 38, 90–1, 104, 109, unrealized fi lm projects, 34, 168, 114, 136, 141, 239n16, 248n10, 255n8 248n11. See Kuleshov Effect, Hitchcock, Alma. See Reville, Alma montage, pure cinema Hitchcock Baker Productions Ltd. See expressionism, 36, 63, 69, 106, 113, Hitchcock, publicity 114, 116–17, 181, 182, 183, Hitchcock O’Connell, Patricia, 251n13 205, 239–40n17, 243nn13, 15, Hollywood, American fi lm industry, 256n10. See German Expressionist cinema, studios, 4, 7, 8, 25, 33, cinema 35, 36, 37, 60, 71, 72, 75, 76, 81, “Hitchcock touches,” 12, 36, 233 88, 98, 108, 122, 134, 135, 152, ideal actor and performance, images of, 160, 166, 201, 203, 215, 216, 104, 126, 131, 136, 138, 139 226, 229, 231, 241n27, 251n15. ideal audience, images and fantasy of, See Classical Hollywood cinema 190, 194, 205, 211, 220 Holmes, Sherlock, 92 ideal blonde. See stardom homosexuality, 200, 241n3, 241n11, ideal director, image of, 39, 40 246n4, 250n7, 258n6 Master of suspense, reputation as, 14, Horwitz, Margaret, 224 157, 254n1 House of Dr. Edwardes, The (Beeding), misogyny in fi lms, 65, 105, 159, 212 134. See Spellbound towards actresses, 130, 140, 248n13 Hunter, Evan, 254n14, 262n12 modernism, 123, 146, 148, 204 Hunter, Ian, 256n8 modernity, 199, 201, 208, 209 Hyde, Thomas, 140, 143 montage, 30, 31, 36, 52, 55, 86, 90, 91, 113, 114, 119, 175, 188, 194, I Confess (1953), 100, 135, 235, 249n17, 239n14, 239n16, 247n15, 250n4. 263 See Soviet Montage improvisation. See acting, improvisation producer-director, producer (positions “It Had to Be Murder” (Woolrich), 260n8 as), 12, 33, 37, 38, 72, 97, 109, 165, 247n1, 249n16, 252n10 Jack the Ripper, 112 publicity, self-promotion, 11, 12, 19, Jamaica Inn (1939), 263 20, 35, 84, 86, 97, 103, 129, 141, Jones, Toby, 147 201, 226, 246n7 Julius Caesar, 136–7, 252n9 Hitchcock Baker Productions Ltd., Juno and the Paycock (1930), 263 240n24 pure cinema, 29, 30, 52, 84, 86, Kapsis, Robert, 146, 237n8, 239n12, 217–18 239–40n17, 246n6, 253n2, reviews. See reviews 253n3, 255n15 suspense, suspense genre, 11, 12, 19, Kauffer, E. McKnight, 250n5 29, 32, 38, 52, 72, 73, 108, 111, Keane, Marian, 80 115, 139, 141, 158, 165, 167, Kelly, Grace, 215 169, 170, 194, 196, 199, 205, Keys of the Kingdom, The (1944), 253n14 216, 248n10, 260n4, 262n4 Kirsanov, Dimitri, 250n4 television programs, 19. See The Alfred Klinger, Barbara, 84 Hitchcock Hour, Alfred Hitchcock Knapp, Lucretia, 149, 254n9 Presents Krohn, Bill, 13, 239n14 thriller, 32, 38, 52, 53, 72, 114, Kuleshov, Lev, 28, 29, 30, 169, 217–18, 132, 162, 164, 165, 169, 170, 240n18 178, 185, 190, 191, 195, 196, Kuleshov Effect, 240n18, 248n11 278 Index

Lacanian theory, 8 Mannheim, Lucie, 251n1 Lady Vanishes, The (1938), 22, 37, 67, Manxman, The (1929), 263 72, 99, 100, 101, 105, 165, 217, Marinetti, Filippo Tommaso, 256n4 233, 235, 263 Marnie (1964), 3, 9–10, 11, 23, 24, 99, Lancaster, Burt, 249n17 100, 101, 105, 109, 118, 145–54, Lang, Fritz, 9, 189 158, 162, 234, 235, 239n7, 239n8, Langlois, Henri, 243 253–4nn1–15, 257n16, 264 Leff, Leonard, 13, 37, 76, 134, 139, Marshall, Herbert, 108 239n15 Mary (1931), 249n18 Legion of Decency, 85, 168, 255n14 masochism, self destruction, 24, 48, 56, Lehman, Ernest, 157, 169 58–9, 65, 66–7, 69, 77, 80, 138, Leigh, Janet, 84 143, 159, 170, 176, 195, 196, Leitch, Thomas, 11, 13, 107, 234, 235, 215, 220, 221, 256n3 262n1 Master of suspense. See Hitchcock, Master Lemire, Elise, 159, 215 of suspense Les Diaboliques (1955), 246n7 Mata Hari, 58, 65, 100, 244n18 Lifeboat (1944), 235, 263 maternalism, mothers, 23, 67–8, 69, 73, Little Sister, The (Chandler), 258n5 74, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 244n21, Lodger, The (1926), 12, 31, 34, 36, 37, 246n8. See chapters on Notorious, 101, 103, 108, 109, 111–19, 154, Psycho 160, 166, 196, 233–4, 238n3, Mayne, Judith, 9 240n25, 241n2, 249–51nn1–12, McDonell, Margaret, 242n1 255n6, 255n9, 263 McElhaney, Joe, 60, 146, 148, 243n9 Lodger, The (Lowndes), 111 McGilligan, Patrick, 85, 254n1 Lombard, Carole, 98, 247n3, 247–8n4 Meisner, Sanford, 135, 252nn3, 5 Lord Camber’s Ladies (1932), 37, 247n1 Ménilmontant (1926), 250n4 Lorre, Peter, 108, 189, 257n6 Method acting, Method actors. See acting, Low, Rachael, 104, 240n22 Method Lowndes, Marie Belloc, 111, 250n1 Metz, Christian, 8–9, 171, 189, 213, Loy, Myrna, 249n20 228, 237n5 Lurie, Susan, 224 MGM, 38 Millington, Richard, 13 M (1931), 189 Modleski, Tania, 63, 66, 80, 81, 148, MacGuffi n, 143, 162, 189, 253n18 159, 212, 213, 244n19, 259n2 male gaze, male beholders, 10, 59, 61, “Momism,” 247n17 66, 80, 147–8, 149, 153, 158–9, montage. See Hitchcock, montage 177, 178, 180–2, 194, 211–12, Montagu, Ivor, 12, 31, 36, 114, 165, 215, 218, 224, 256n13, 259n11. 166, 240n25, 249–50n1 See voyeurism; female gaze; gazers Morris, Christopher, 75 of both genders, collective Mother (1926), 30 Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1934), 3, mothers. See maternalism 11, 22, 34, 37, 72, 99, 100, 107, Motion Picture Association of America 108, 140, 160, 161, 162, 163, (MPAA), 85, 86, 246n5 164, 165, 168, 171, 185–97, 211, Mountain Eagle, The (1926), 36, 107, 216, 221, 231, 238n5, 255n13, 113, 166, 238n3, 255n9, 263 256–8nn1–20, 263 Mozhukin, Ivan, 240n18 Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1956), Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941), 216, 247n3, 3, 6, 77, 99, 100, 160, 171, 216, 247–8n4, 263 223, 231, 235, 247n3, 260n8, Mulvey, Laura, 10, 80, 87, 158, 159, 264 181, 212, 213, 224, 255n3 Index 279

Murder! (1930), 11, 22, 24, 39–45, 47, Peucker, Brigitte, 44 51, 59, 68, 71, 84, 88, 99–100, Piso, Michele, 148–9, 153 101, 108, 162, 235, 238n12, Pleasure Garden, The (1926), 36, 99, 239n8, 241–2nn1–13, 246n4, 101, 113, 161, 163–4, 166, 168, 247n12, 249n18, 263 216, 238n3, 254n1, 255n9, Murnau, F. W., 29 260n7, 263 Mycroft, Walter, 241n4 Poague, Leland, 88 Poe, Edgar Allan, 13 Naldi, Nita, 103, 107, 249n16 politique des auteurs. See auteurism Narcejac, Thomas, 76, 246n7 Pomerance, Murray, 73, 98, 139 Naremore, James, 32, 134–5 poststructuralism, 4 National Council of Public Morals Powell, William, 249n20 (England), 167–8 Power-House, The (Buchan), 251n10 Neighborhood Playhouse School of the producer-fi gures, 11, 24, 51, 58, 68, Theatre, 135, 252n3, 252n5 69, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 244n21, Newman, Paul, 107, 109, 135 244n23 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 23, 157 producers, 25–6, 33, 36, 37, 136, 160, North by Northwest (1959), 3, 11, 38, 77, 237n5, 240n22, 249n16. See 78, 88, 100, 102, 112, 115, 126, Selznick; Hitchcock, producers, 136, 140, 157, 233, 234, 247n3, producer-director 257n16, 258n3, 264 Production Code, 85–6 Notorious (1946), 2, 11, 22, 23, 24, 38, Production Code Administration, 168 42, 57–70, 71, 72, 81, 85, 100, Psycho (1960), 2, 11, 13, 14, 21, 23, 24, 101, 124, 164, 235, 242–5nn1– 28–9, 30, 35, 38, 40, 60, 83–93, 25, 246n15, 247n17, 249n20, 101, 152, 158, 160, 162, 163, 263 168, 169, 170, 209, 234, 235, Novak, Kim, 79, 105, 245–6n13, 252n8 239n7, 239n14, 241n3, 242n8, Novello, Ivor, 34, 102, 103, 108, 111– 245n10, 246–7nn1–18, 253n2, 12, 115, 116, 117, 249–50n1, 255n16, 257n16, 259n1, 264 250n2, 250n7 psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic theory, 8, Number Seventeen (1932), 37, 263 60, 68, 100, 133–4, 136–7, 140, 141, 142, 143, 153, 158, 159 O’Connell, Patricia Hitchcock. See psychoanalytic criticism, 13, 14. See Hitchcock, Patricia feminist fi lm theory Ondra, Anny, 106 psychoanalytic diagnoses, psychological Ormonde, Czenzi, 199, 258n1 deviances, 24, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, Osteen, Mark, 242n7 84, 85, 92, 93, 101, 133, 148, 151, 152, 158, 160, 205, 212, Paglia, Camille, 224, 229, 261n2 215, 245n12, 248n5 Palmer, R. Barton, 13, 238n10 Pudovkin, Vsevolod Illarionovich (V. Panofsky, Erwin, 106, 170, 249n14, I.), 3, 28, 29–32, 52, 169, 258n18 240nn20–1, 248n11, 250n4 Paradine Case, The (1947), 38, 107, 234, See The End of St. Petersburg (1927), 263 Mother (1926) Paramount decision, 259n9 Pygmalion, 78, 245n12 Paramount Pictures, 38, 72, 85 Pearson, Roberta, 104, 212–13, 219–20, quota quickies, 37, 240n26 248n8 Peck, Gregory, 105, 107, 135, 136, 139, Ratings System, 168 253n14 Ray, Nicholas, 6 280 Index

Rear Window (1954), 3, 10, 11, 14, 24, Secret Agent, The (1922; Joseph Conrad, 38, 158, 162, 163, 164, 171, play), 48 176, 209, 211–21, 223, 224, 226, Selznick, David, 13, 25, 26, 27, 33, 37–8, 231, 233, 234, 247n3, 248n11, 58, 65, 76, 107, 108, 134, 139, 259–61nn1–16, 264 142, 168, 239n15, 241nn27–9, Rebecca (1940), 11, 26, 33, 38, 58, 72, 242n1, 243n3. See Gone With the 76, 136, 161, 239n15, 241n28, Wind 263 Selznick International Pictures, 25, 37–8, Rebello, Stephen, 13, 239n14, 246n5 72, 136 Redgrave, Michael, 105 Hitchcock contract with, 37 Renov, Michael, 61, 67 semiotics, 8, 14 reviews, critics, 47, 56, 76, 107, 111, Shadow of a Doubt (1943), 35, 101, 217, 113, 117, 139, 146, 169, 173, 233, 234, 249n20, 263 196, 199, 239n17, 249n16 Shakespeare, William, 7, 105, 136–7, Reville, Alma, 239n13, 241n4 193, 237n4, 245n11. See Hamlet, Rich and Strange (1931), 163, 263 Julius Caesar Ring, The (1927), 3, 36, 161, 162, 163, Shaw, George Bernard, 30 170, 171, 173–84, 185, 186, 187, Sherwood, Robert, 241n28 188, 195, 196, 211, 217, 221, Sidney, Sylvia, 55, 105, 248n9 231, 254n1, 255–6nn1–16, 263 Silet, Charles, 131 Ritchard, Cyril, 1 Silverman, Kaja, 10, 147–8 RKO Pictures, 58, 241n29, 243n2 Simpson, Helen, 241n4 Rodowick, D. N., 10 Skin Game, The (1931), 37, 263 Rohmer, Eric, 5, 219 Smith, Susan, 49, 50, 63, 181–2 Romeo and Juliet, 105 social class, social spectrum, 10, 40, 45, Romm, Dr. May, 252n2 48, 114, 126, 128, 163, 166, Rope (1948), 23, 24, 239n8, 245n3, 174–5, 176, 179, 182, 186, 188, 246n4, 247n3, 262n6, 263 194, 196, 204, 215, 217, 218, Rossellini, Roberto, 6 251n4, 256n12 Rotha, Paul, 170 socioeconomic status, 10, 203, 213 Rothman, William, 15, 43, 89, 91, 114, “Song of the Dragon, The” (Foote), 115, 124, 126, 128 242n1 (chapter 4) Ryall, Tom, 13, 35, 36, 37, 106, 107, Soviet montage, 29, 30, 32, 113, 250n4. 122, 250n4 See Hitchcock, montage spectator-fi gures. See audience, Sabotage (1936), 2, 22, 24, 28, 42, 47– fi gurations of 56, 57, 58–9, 60, 67, 71, 81, 85, spectatorship, classical codes of, 162, 164, 161, 162, 164, 165, 242nn1–9, 171, 174, 183, 186, 188, 189, 248n10, 251n7, 257n14, 263 190, 192, 193, 194, 197, 202, Saboteur (1942), 101, 112, 115, 163, 205, 207–8, 209, 211, 213, 214, 168, 263 221, 256–7n1, 259n10 sadism, 54, 58, 65, 77, 78, 80–1, 193 Spellbound (1945), 3, 11, 99, 100, 101, Saint, Eva Marie, 78 118, 133–44, 151, 152, 154, 170, Salt, Barry, 250n4 233, 234, 247n3, 252–3nn1–18, Sarris, Andrew, 6–7 255n8, 263 Schatz, Thomas, 76, 226 Spoto, Donald, 15, 29, 37, 78, 134, 200, Secret Agent (1936), 24, 67, 99, 100, 101, 240n24, 242n7, 244n23, 105, 108, 133, 135, 238n6, 263 247–8n4, 250n5, 258n2 Secret Agent, The (1907; Joseph Conrad, Stage Fright (1950), 102, 235, novel), 48 258n4, 263 Index 281

Stam, Robert, 212–13, 219–20 Taylor, John Russell, 174 Stanislavsky, Constantin, 135, 141, Tearle, Godfrey, 251n12 252n3, 252n4, 252n6 thriller. See Hitchcock, thriller Stanislavsky System, 135, 252n3, To Catch a Thief (1955), 115, 233, 234, 252n4 246n4, 247n3, 258n3, 264 Stannard, Eliot, 255–6n2 Tomlinson, Doug, 98 star system, 4, 12, 25, 34, 60, 64–5, 78, Topaz (1969), 107, 233, 234, 264 81, 98, 102, 107, 108, 111–12, Torn Curtain (1966), 107, 135, 161, 115, 119, 167, 201, 203 168, 234, 257n16, 264 stars, stardom, star images, celebrity, 12, Toulouse-Lautrec, 251n4 14, 28, 31, 32, 34, 40, 42, 60, Transatlantic Pictures, 38, 72, 245n3, 75, 78, 79, 90, 130, 84, 86, 90, 255n8 97–109, 103, 111–12, 115, 119, transvestitism, 241n3, 241n11, 246n4 122, 123, 124, 126, 129, 136, Tripp, June, 115, 250n9 137, 138, 139, 142, 143, 148, Tristan and Isolde, 41 167, 173, 176, 177, 178, 179, Trouble with Harry, The (1955), 107, 180, 183, 184, 199–209, 223, 257n16, 264 230, 245n5, 247–8n4, 248n5, Truffaut, Francois, 3, 5, 6, 160, 251n11, 248n8, 249n16, 249n17, 250n3, 261n15 251n6, 253n13, 258n3, 258n4, typecasting, 61, 65, 66, 67, 74, 127, 258n7, 259n13 131, 138, 140, 244n17, 245n5, female stars, actresses, 78, 79, 84, 90, 247n18, 249n20 130, 248n11 ideal blonde, 77, 115 UFA, 29 Stefano, Joseph, 84, 85, 239n13 Un Chien Andalou (1929), 142 Stewart, James, 79, 98, 102, 247n3, Uncanny, the, 80, 85. See Freud 248n6, 249n20 Under Capricorn (1949), 38, 169, 235, Storm Clouds Cantata (Benjamin), 245n3, 247n3, 249nn16, 17, 263 257n15 Universal Pictures, 38 Strangers on a Train (1951), 3, 11, 35, 102, 126, 157, 160, 161, 163, Valli, Virginia, 103 164, 170, 171, 180, 199–209, Vertigo (1958), 2, 11, 14, 23, 24, 38, 42, 211, 214, 221, 223, 231, 233, 71–82, 83, 85, 88, 100, 105, 118, 234, 235, 238n10, 249n20, 158, 163, 164, 181, 209, 226, 256n5, 256n14, 258–9nn1–17, 234–5, 239n7, 245–6nn1–16, 258n4, 263 246nn2, 7, 8, 247n3, 249n20, Strangers on a Train (Highsmith), 199 257n16, 259n1, 262n5, 264 Strasberg, Lee, 252n3 Vertov, Dziga, 30 Strauss, Johan, 216, 260n10 Von Sternberg, Josef, 158 Strauven, Wanda, 184, 256n16 voyeurism, scopophilia, scopic desire, 9, structuralism, 8 14, 24, 49, 73, 80, 87, 115, 128, studio system, studio culture, 4, 20, 25, 158–9, 162, 163, 164, 171, 204, 28, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 51, 59, 64, 205, 206, 211–12, 213, 215, 216, 75, 88, 102, 148, 160 220, 259n1 Susanna and the Elders, 90 suspense. See Hitchcock, suspense Walker, Michael, 234 Suspicion (1941), 12, 58, 216, 237–8n9, Walker, Robert, 249n20, 258n7 247n3, 260n11, 263 Waltzes from Vienna (1934), 216, 263 Sydney (aka Sidney) Street siege, 34, 168, Warner Brothers studio, 38, 118, 249n17 240n23, 255n13 Wasserman, Lew, 260n6 282 Index

Webster, Margaret, 252n7 World War II, 101 Wells, H. G., 30 postwar, 57, 133, 134, 143, 146, 159, Wexman, Virginia Wright, 79 226, 247n17 White, Susan, 98 prewar, 53, 121, 123, 127, 162, 168, Who Is He? (Vachell), 250n1 185, 188, 189 Who Killed Cock Robin? (1935), 55, 162 Wrong Man, The (1956), 262n4, 264 Williams, Linda, 158 Wylie, Philip, 247n17 Wollen, Peter, 8, 251n7 Wood, Robin, 7, 15, 21, 29, 61, 73, 74, Yacowar, Maurice, 15, 41, 54, 116, 128, 76, 81, 88, 90, 124, 146, 152, 146, 158, 191, 234, 262n2 199, 200, 211, 237n4, 246n9, Young, Robert, 108 258n2 Young and Innocent (1937), 112, 165, Woolf, C. M., 36, 113–14, 166, 182 234, 235, 254n1, 255n10, 263 Woolrich, Cornell, 260n8 Worland, Rick, 237–8n9 Žižek, Slavoj, 93, 220, 224, 261n3