The Alfred Hitchcock Encyclopedia

THE ALFRED HITCHCOCK ENCYCLOPEDIA THE ALFRED HITCHCOCK ENCYCLOPEDIA Stephen Whitty ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • London Published by Rowman & Littlefield A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB Copyright © 2016 by Rowman & Littlefield All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Whitty, Stephen, 1959– author. Title: The Alfred Hitchcock encyclopedia / Stephen Whitty. Description: Lanham, Maryland ; London : Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015051217 (print) | LCCN 2016004225 (ebook) | ISBN 9781442251595 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781442251601 (electronic) Subjects: LCSH: Hitchcock, Alfred, 1899–1980–Encyclopedias. Classification: LCC PN1998.3.H58 W55 2016 (print) | LCC PN1998.3.H58 (ebook) | DDC 791.4302/33092–dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015051217 ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America To my wife, Jacqueline— my partner in life and art and first, last, and best reader. CONTENTS Acknowledgments ix Introduction xi A Note on the Text xv Entries A–Z 1 Bibliography 519 Index 521 About the Author 531 n VII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ven a one-man encyclopedia is not cism, Hitchcock’s Films; and, of course, the a one-man job. I owe a great deal go-to reference book for the director’s own to Leslie Halliwell, whose ground- memories, Hitchcock/Truffaut. A particu- Ebreaking Filmgoer’s Companion showed me larly helpful website is www.the.hitchcock more than 40 years ago that it was indeed .zone.com, which has myriad links to period possible for a single person to undertake a reviews, news articles, interviews, and docu- mad task like this, and to David Thomp- mentary transcripts. (Other sources can be son, whose later A Biographical Dictionary found in the reference lists to individual of Film proved that a fact-crammed refer- entries and in the bibliography.) ence book could still be idiosyncratic and I would also very much like to thank opinionated. I never would have begun all the people I interviewed over the last this project without their early, formidable 20 years, sometimes multiple times, about examples. Alfred Hitchcock, the man and the film- I need to also acknowledge the books maker—particularly (although not only) and sites that formed the backbone of my Jay Presson Allen, Karen Black, Peter Bog- own research. Donald Spoto’s several works, danovich, Brian De Palma, Bruce Dern, of course (but particularly his passionate Farley Granger, Norman Lloyd, Shirley The Dark Side of Genius); Patrick McGil- MacLaine, Kim Novak, Patricia Hitchcock ligan’s more measured but also important O’Connell, and Eva Marie Saint. They were Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and all generous to a fault, and any faults in this Light; Robin Wood’s seminal work of criti- book are my own. n IX INTRODUCTION hy should we take Hitch- of entertaining thrillers or even a slick cock seriously?” More than craftsman but as someone whose works half a century ago, that was spoke to guilt, doubt, alienation, and all the “Whow Robin Wood began his slim book, anxieties of the modern world, an artist to Hitchcock’s Films. At the time, it was not an be given the same consideration we give absurd question to ask. any great author. Yet at the time, Wood’s Today, of course, Alfred Hitchcock strong, simple answer to his own rhetori- is probably the most famous director in cal question—we should take him seriously history—and, perhaps, the most analyzed because he’s a serious artist—was still met artist since William Shakespeare. His life with raised eyebrows. and work continue to be discussed in aca- Shortly after Wood’s book, however, demia and revisited in popular culture. the exhaustive Hitchcock/Truffaut came Two autobiographical movies (Hitchcock, out. There was another wave of apprecia- The Girl) have been recently released; a tions following Hitchcock’s Irving G. Thal- famous book-length interview with him berg Memorial Award from the Academy (Hitchcock/Truffaut) is the subject of its of Motion Picture Arts and Science in 1968, own new documentary. His films—includ- a more harshly critical summing-up after ing some once thought lost—are currently the bleak disaster of Topaz the next year— available in a multitude of formats and and then a further, more positive reappre- continue to inspire new works (a televi- ciation after the surprise success of Frenzy sion prequel to Psycho, a comedy stage in 1972. version of The 39 Steps, in-development And Hitchcock, never publicity shy, remakes of The Birds and Strangers on a took full advantage of the new interest, Train). making time for interviews and public But in 1965, when Wood asked that appearances, including sitting for a PBS question, Alfred Hitchcock was, at best, documentary, agreeing to a New York only damned with faint praise as the “Mas- Times Magazine piece, and retelling his ter of Suspense.” Although Peter Bogda- favorite anecdotes on a multi-episode run novich had interviewed the director for a of TV’s The Dick Cavett Show. His films good, concise monograph in 1963, Wood’s were re-released to theaters and revived for pioneering work was the first lengthy Eng- television. Meanwhile burgeoning cinema lish-language work to strip away the usual studies departments turned out new schol- condescension and, indeed, take Hitch- ars yearly and new pieces regularly. His cock seriously—not just as an assembler reputation increased. Since the filmmaker’s n XI XII n INTRODUCTION death in 1980, that interest has only grown. Alma Reville? Whose films often centered And grown more controversial. on the oppression of women and dramati- In 1983, Donald Spoto’s groundbreak- cally detailed how a patriarchal culture and ing critical biography The Dark Side of male-dominated power structure kept them Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock took in bondage, forced them into prostitution, a lengthy look at the man’s art and his life, denied them any real independence? portraying him as an increasingly obsessed Which Hitchcock should we study? loner whose fetishes finally led him to both Is it the popular entertainer—who ulti- dark masterpieces and gross acts of sexual mately judged the failure or success of any harassment. Twenty years later, Patrick production based on how warmly it had McGilligan’s gentler Alfred Hitchcock: A Life been received by audiences, who stuck to in Darkness and Light offered, right from its the most commercial genre available to title, a more evenhanded approach, prais- him, who liked to work with only the big- ing the films while dismissing some of the gest Hollywood stars? Who coldly crafted worst accusations in Spoto’s book (although, images, storyboarding every moment in ironically, also offering a few new ones). the film, insisting his actors do nothing that And in between those two biographies—and interfered with the movements and angles of continuing to this day—has been an ever- his camera, creating movies in which emo- increasing pile of purely aesthetic analyses, tion, plot, plausibility are all sacrificed to the taking so many different approaches that as perfection of every shot? Whose films are a whole they raise a new and perhaps even among the world’s best known and whose more controversial question. profits made him enormously wealthy? Which Hitchcock should we take seri- Or is it the experimental artist—who ously? Is it the misogynist director—who immediately embraced German expres- liked to quote the writing advice of the sionism and Soviet montage, who delighted French dramatist Victorien Sardou (“Tor- in taking on new technical challenges or ture the women!”); took exquisite care film- disrupting narrative rules, who cast stars ing scenes of his heroines being strangled, against type and character actors in star- stabbed, raped, and shot; and was himself ring roles? The anguished creature of emo- accused of verbally abusing and sexually tion who consciously worked out his own harassing some of the actresses on his sets? worries about sin and temptation, his own Whose films are built around the objecti- conflicts between freedom and duty, in fying and diminishing effects of the male every film he made? Who shone those mas- gaze, which reduces women to mere legs sive studio lights into the darkest, shabbi- and lips and hair and ultimately turns vio- est corners of his own mind—and thereby lence against them into popular entertain- illuminated something secret and painful ment? Should we look to him? and powerful in all of us? Whose films are Or is it to the feminist filmmaker— continually analyzed by serious scholars who identified so strongly with his hero- and working filmmakers alike? ines that he often told his stories from their Which Hitchcock should we take points of view; who took such enormous seriously? All of them. Because in the end care with his leading ladies that many they are all equal and essential Hitchcocks returned happily to work with him again and integral to the creation of those films. and again; who collaborated closely and And if those works do not, on first glance, confidently with female colleagues like Joan seem to always accurately reflect our world, Harrison, Edith Head, and his own wife, then they brilliantly, dreamily create their INTRODUCTION n XIII own—a complicated, indeed constantly alphabetically; words appear in all capital contradictory, one in which women are letters on first reference point to separate, simultaneously villain and victim, heroes related entries.

Load more