View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Wits Institutional Repository on DSPACE “DIRECTOR OF AUDIENCES”: A STUDY OF ALFRED HITCHCOCK’S MANIPULATION OF HIS AUDIENCES. Rebecca Webber (97 00 33 7X) A dissertation approved for the degree of Master of Arts by the University of the Witwatersrand. Johannesburg, 2007 Abstract This Master’s thesis identifies and elucidates upon the motifs/themes/images, which Hitchcock utilized in his films to ultimately manipulate and thereby direct his audience’s perception and understanding of his films’ narratives. The devices that are described and investigated in detail in this thesis are found to be recurrent in most of Alfred Hitchcock’s films. That highlights the question: why are they recurrent? What purpose do they serve? I believe that the answer to these questions is that these devices were used by Hitchcock to serve the end of manipulating the audience. The efficacy of these devices as used by Alfred Hitchcock is elaborated on in each chapter that addresses each motif in turn. Each chapter which deals with one of the motifs Alfred Hitchcock used in his manipulation of his audience contains examples from films and investigates how the motifs are used within each film to manipulate audience comprehension. These examples are strengthened with theory from academics, theorists and critics who have made a life-long study of Hitchcock. My theoretical framework includes audience research and Metz’s theory of ‘suturing’ which addresses the meaning of camera position and the different point of view that the audience take up. By means of this research I aim to explain the way in which Hitchcock consummately manages to manipulate the audience to follow ‘red herrings’ and ultimately surprise the audience. This thesis acknowledges the premise that all film directors manipulate the audience and does not attempt to persuade the reader that Hitchcock was unique in this. It does aim to explore and explain how Hitchcock’s unique use of specific motifs was utilized in order to manipulate audiences. This thesis resulted in my understanding Hitchcock’s method of directing his audiences as much as his films and I think that in a broader context explains the use and need (both Hitchcock’s and the films narrative’s) for the repetitive devices for which Hitchcock is renowned, rather than merely investigating them as isolated pieces in Hitchcock’s films. I would suggest that there is evidence in these films of a repetition compulsion, as if the films are attempting to solve a conundrum very much in the way that academics have attempted to solve the conundrum that is the work of Alfred Hitchcock. Search words: Hitchcock, director, film, thriller, manipulation, audience, double, Psycho, scatology, voyeurism, auteur, spectator theory, Truffaut, narrative, scopohilia. Declaration I declare that this dissertation is my own unaided work. It is submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any other degree or examination in any other university. day of 2006 Rebecca Webber Dedication To my family with sincere thanks for their love and encouragement during the writing of this thesis Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge and thank my supervisor, Prof. Jane Taylor for her support and intellectual assistance in the preparation of this dissertation. CONTENTS 1. Parts of the thesis 1.1 Title Page………………………………………………………………….1 1.2 Abstract…………………………………………………………………....2 1.3 Declaration……………………………………………………..………….4 1.4 Dedication…………………………………………………..……………..5 1.5 Acknowledgements……………………………………..…………….…...6 1.6 Contents………………………………………………………..…………..8 2. Introduction………………………………………………………………10 3. Audience…………………………………………………………………15 3.1 Understanding the Audience…………………………………………..…22 4. Use of the ‘Star System’…………………..………………………………….37 4.1 Casting and Physical Types……………….....………………………37 5. The Homosexual Other ……………………………………………………….49 6. The Role of Women…………………..……………………………………...63 6.1Scopophilia………………………………………………………………..63 6.2 Performances within Performances………….…..……………………….64 6.3 Hitchcock’s Cameos...…………………………………………………..77 6.4 The Figure of the Voyeur…………………………………………...…..82 6.5 The Elusive Blonde…………………..………………………………….91 6.6 Characters present in absence…………………………………..………100 6.6.1 The Vanishing Lady………………………………..…………………100 6.6.2 The Mother Figure……………………………………………………110 7. Scatology………………………………………………………………....127 8. The Double……………………………………………………………….168 9. Conclusion……………………………………………………………....182 10. References……………………………………..………………………..186 11. Bibliography…………………………………………………………….191 Appendix A…………………………………………………….…………...200 Appendix B…………………………………………………………….…...208 2. INTRODUCTION The enigma that seems to be Alfred Hitchcock has long been analysed by film critics and academics alike. Hitchcock was a figure who was larger than life, a name that conjures up stories of strange and macabre occurrences. After all, that was Hitchcock’s trademark as a director, the strange and uncanny. It was the basis of the persona he projected to other people. ‘What is he? He’s a horror! ‘A horror?’ ‘He’s - God help me if I know what he is!’1 He has been described as eccentric and as a genius and has achieved something of a cult status. In this thesis I aim to discover how Alfred Hitchcock’s direction of his films and consequent manipulation of the audience via the use of motifs is unique and specific to him as a director. I do not aim to suggest that Hitchcock is unique as a director in terms of manipulating the audience – as it is inherent in the title of ‘director’ that all film directors to a greater or lesser degree guide and direct the audience’s perception. I am however, venturing to reveal what it is about Hitchcock’s direction that is special to him as distinct from other directors. 1 SPOTO, D. 1977. The Art of Alfred Hitchcock. London: W.H. Allen & Co. Ltd. p. 113 Alfred Hitchcock was a man who thrived on scaring people or rather manipulating people to feel fear or unease: Fear? It has influenced my life and my career. I remember when I was five or six. It was a Sunday evening, the only time my parents did not have to work. They put me to bed and went to Hyde Park for a stroll…They were sure I would be asleep until their return. But I woke up, called out, and no one answered. Nothing but night all round me. Shaking, I got up, wandered around the empty, dark house and, finally arriving in the kitchen, found a piece of cold meat which I ate while drying my tears.2 It is this memory that Hitchcock recalled of a nascent genius, terrified and alone which perhaps spurred him on to manipulate others to feel as he did. The preoccupation and curious comfort that he found in food also found its way into his films and will be discussed in a later chapter. One of the first things people think of when questioned as to what is unique to Hitchcock, is the curious relationship Hitchcock forged with his audiences. Hitchcock himself noted, “Is a listener allowed to choose the notes he’ll hear? If you free the spectator to choose, you’re making theatre, not cinema.” 3 Quite obviously, cinema was a means for Hitchcock by which he could achieve the end of audience manipulation because the film audience is given information on many levels that are not available in the medium of theatre. Cutting, editing close-ups and other tools used by filmmakers are solely the domain of film. 2 SPOTO, D. 1983. The Life of Alfred Hitchcock. London: William Collins & Co. Ltd. (pp.) 18-19 3 SAMUELS, C.T. 1972. Encountering Directors. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. p. 234 Christian Metz designates the difference between film and theatre in terms of holding the audience’s attention as being as simple as the differences in the viewing atmosphere for the audience: When a stage actor sneezes…the brutal interruption by “real” reality disrupts the reality of the fiction, it is equally apparent that such interferences exist not only in the caricatural and unusual form of a sneeze, but that they have a thousand more insidious embodiments…since one finds then arising from the audience as well as from the stage, in the “man’s pose of independence, in the woman’s dress and make-up.” By hermetically isolating fiction from reality, film instantly dismisses this set of resistances and levels all obstacles to spectator participation.4 Cinema (for Metz as well as Hitchcock) was a more malleable art form especially in the manipulation of audiences than theatre. This dogmatic approach to directing has become a ‘trademark’ of Hitchcock’s directing method and there are many other ‘trademarks’, themes, elements or motifs that have become synonymous with Hitchcock’s work. It is these upon which I will extrapolate and investigate to explain exactly how unique Hitchcock’s style and methods of directing are. One of his great admirers, Truffaut, made just this case: In recent years there have been countless imitations of Vertigo, North-By- Northwest and Psycho, whether it is acknowledged or not, there is no doubt Hitchcock’s work has long influenced world cinema. 5 4 METZ, C. 1974. Film Language. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 11 5 TRUFFAUT, F. 1984. Hitchcock by Truffaut. London: Columbia University Press. p. 13 So on one hand he has influenced world cinema. It is well known that the term ‘Hitchcockian’ as a relatively new word, stands on its own in advertising jargon, signifying a masterful control of suspense as well as a guarantee of audience satisfaction. This is clearly indicative of Alfred Hitchcock’s legacy of being a masterful manipulator and of leaving audiences relatively powerless as to which subject position they are going to take up. Rather than staying within the boundaries of film and performance, his influence has been translated into an independent concept across various cultural fields.