ALFRED HITCHCOCK

[MissGoddess]

On Location with Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo

MovieMorlock Kimberly Lindbergs' article and interview with Klara Tavakoli Goesche, creator of a new video which takes the viewer on a tour of locations used in Vertigo, including the Empire Hotel, now the Vertigo Hotel (I want to stay there!).

TCM Morlocks Article:
http://moviemorlocks.com/2012/05/10/on- ... t=My+Yahoo

Klara's video:
[youtube][/youtube]

[MissGoddess]

Most Hitch aficianados already know that Hitchcock was considered to direct the first 007 film. A telegram supporting this has been revealed in a new book by Robert Sellars (The Battle for Bond). It was sent in 1959 from the franchise's author, Ian Fleming, to novelist and screenwriter (and friend of Hitchcock) Eric Ambler.

The events outlined below by Fleming would become Thunderball, which was intended for the first Bond film with Cary Grant in the role of Bond. (Grant would only commit to one film only and since a series was planned, Sean Connery got the part.)

Eric Ambler 106420 Taranta Way Los Angeles 24 Cal.

Pro-Hitch

Have written Bond movie treatment featuring Mafia stolen atomic bomber blackmail of England culminating Nassau with extensive underwater dramatics. This for my friend Ivar Bryce's Xanadu Films Ltd which recently completed Boy and Bridge England's choice for Venice Festival but blasted by critics and flop at Curzon though now doing excellently on pre-release Rank circuit. Producer Kevin McClory. Would Hitchcock be interested in directing this first Bond film in association with Xanadu? Plentiful finance available. This purely old boy enquiry without involvement but think we might all have a winner particularly if you were conceivably interested in scripting.

Regardest Ian Fleming

------------------------------------------------------------
More here at the Daily Mail:
http://tinyurl.com/c6yc8kr

[JackFavell]

So, why didn't they get Hitch? I think he would have been fantastic!

[MissGoddess]

That part I don't know but I wish I did! Maybe when Grant pulled out Hitch lost interest although he did go on to direct Sean in Marnie and in a way, sort of pull the rug from under Sean's "invincible" image with the character of Mark Rutland. No doubt Hitch loved that irony.

[RedRiver]

Certainly, the first two Bond films have more in common with the Hitchcock spy adventure than with subsequent entries in the series. They're better grounded; hence, more exiting. So THUNDERBALL was considered for the first movie? Yet DR. NO was the one they settled on. I'd love to know what brought about that decision. No matter. The result is immeasurable entertainment.

Hitch must have loved the fight on the train in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE!

[MissGoddess]

Hi, Red
I will have to watch the first Bonds again with all this in mind (I don't need much coaxing, I love them!). And you're right, the train scene is VERY Hitchcockian. Some of Bond's comments are also very like the villains in Hitch---since his villains tend to be the more "cultured" characters.

****************
I invited a member at TCM's board to join us here because he posted some really fascinating (to me) stuff about Shadow of a Doubt and Dracula. I'd love to know what others here think of it. He's getting hammered by the usual suspects at TCM for his ideas.

[CineMaven]

Hitchcock directing James Bond.

WOW! That shakes up my imagination. (Another) thought that never occurred to me, but sounds ripe with possibilities. Handling the suspense, the action, the asides. Oooh, my mind's reeling.

* * *

I've skimmed Kon's hypothesis about "Shadow of a Doubt" as Dracula. If he brings it over here...I can read it in peace. Another imaginative thesis of extrapolation was Jack Favell's "Battle Cry" as "The Best of Everything." Either it's thinking out of the box, or it's plain as the nose on their faces. (Me...sometimes I can't see 'beyond the forest' for the trees).

CineMyopic.

[JackFavell]

Once again, the TCM website has screwed me out of my watched threads list... which means I haven't seen anything on that Hitch thread for the last few months, because I forget to actively go and look if I don't have a reminder. I can go in and reset my watched threads, and then, a few months later, the same thing happens, and I am booted off into no man's land again.

I will have to go read what he says, it sounds very interesting!

P.S. Maven, thanks for the interest in my Battle Cry review. It's pretty off the wall, but it's fun being off kilter.

[MissGoddess]

Where is your Battle Cry post, Wendy? Are there spoilers, because I've never seen it.

I've deactivated my watches for the most part, I just visit the same few threads anyway.

[RedRiver]

He's getting hammered by the usual suspects at TCM for his ideas.

Heaven help him if he misplaces a comma!

[CineMaven]

Where is your Battle Cry post, Wendy? Are there spoilers, because I've never seen it.
I've deactivated my watches for the most part, I just visit the same few threads anyway.

Yesterday I watched Battle Cry, a movie I knew only from having read that James Dean was somewhere in it. I watched because I have an unreasonable liking for Aldo Ray. The movie really struck me, because it didn't actually seem to be about war at all. It was more like some of the glossy soaps from the fifties. I enjoyed it very much, especially after I realized that it was kind of like a male version of The Best of Everything, with war substituting for the work world of a New York magazine empire...

TAB HUNTER tries to recruit DOROTHY MALONE

It is "spoiled" but it's a great read. You can check the rest of it out here if you haven't sought it out for yourself already, Miss G. Just scroll down this page:
http://silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/vie ... &start=240

[Konway]

SPOILERS FOR Stage fright (1950) and Rope (1948)

Stage Fright (1950)

I found Stage Fright to be one of Hitchcock's most interesting films. After the failure of Hitchcock's previous films (The Paradine Case, Rope, and Under Capricorn), Hitchcock was given a small budget for Stage Fright. In audio interview with Truffaut, Hitchcock called Stage Fright "A Small Picture." But even in this small Hitchcock picture, I found several things interesting.

I don't know if anyone noticed this. if you rewatch this film, then you will see that the characters are telling one lie after another from the beginning of the movie. And the story builds up based on lies- one after another. But we see exactly the opposite on the last part of the film. The last part builds up by revealing the truths - one after another. And when we enter into the last portion of the film, we reach to a point where we never expected the film to reach.

I believe "the audience" is a character in Hitchcock films. The function of the audience is to watch and wait while Hitchcock intensifies their role by using suspense in the film. Let me give an example. A Suspense Scene from the film "Rope." Its the suspense scene where Mrs. Wilson clears the things on the chest to put the books inside the chest. If we take a closer look, then we will realize that the audience will be the "only one" who will be "heavily" concerned about opening the chest in that suspense scene. Unlike Mrs. Wilson, all the other characters in the film aren't focusing on both Mrs. Wilson and the chest, because they are busy talking about David. But the audience is concerned about it, because of the suspense Hitchcock uses.


When Jonathan is telling the flashback story (which he created) to Eve (Jane Wyman), he is not only giving a visual idea of the story to Eve, but also to the audience through his "viewpoint." We are not the only one who ended up believing his story. Eve believed his story too. So he ended up convincing both Eve and the audience. By traveling through Eve and her father (Alastair Sim), we watch and wait throughout the movie to find the solution. By the end, the audience feels cheated when they find out the truth. But to me, what the audience doesn't realize is that they were able to share a true moment of feeling with a character in the film. We are not the only ones who were cheated. Eve was also cheated too. Its one moment where a fictional character (Eve) and the audience share the same feeling - "They were deceived by Jonathan Cooper (Richard Todd)." But the moment we see the horrifying side of Jonathan Cooper, we can completely feel the horror that is going through Eve. Both the audience and Eve feel the true feeling of danger, because both audience and Eve shared the same experience throughout the movie which is the desperation to find the solution. But when both the audience and Eve finds the truth, they both feel and share true moments of horror. Its not just Eve who wants to get out of that horrifying situation, but the audience also wants her to get out of there.


The story of the book "Outrun the Constable" also known as Man Running (the book Stage fright is based on) was very different. In the book, Freddie Williams is the killer. Jonathan Cooper in the book is innocent. But Hitchcock always liked to make his own adaptation. Alfred Hitchcock entirely created this lying flashback for the film. From what I know of, One "main" reason why Hitchcock created this flashback was because of the main character's name "Eve." In the Bible, Eve was deceived by the serpent in the "beginning" days of mankind. In the film, Eve was deceived by Jonathan Cooper in the "beginning" of the film by telling the false story to her. Hitchcock always made Biblical references in his films.


For Example, the line in Foreign Correspondent - "You cry peace, Fisher. Peace. And there was no peace." This line was borrowed from the book of Jeremiah.


The another example is The Man Who Knew too Much (1956) - The gunman at Albert Hall (Reggie Nalder) looks at the main villain, because he is wearing the uniform of priest. The gunman says at the villain "What does the old proverb says? A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing." A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing was borrowed from Gospel of Matthew in New Testament Bible.

[JackFavell]

Konway! It's fantastic to see you over here! Welcome! I am so looking forward to what you have to say about Hitch and especially what you have written about Shadow of a Doubt. But that will come soon enough.

I really really like Stage Fright, and I love what you have to say about it. It is quickly moving up on my list mainly because of the reasons you mentioned in your excellent interpretation of the film. I think for me the pivotal point is the one where Jane Wyman is confronted with her own nature. She wants to be an actress, yes, but suddenly realizes that she is no different from the woman she sees as evil - the lying Marlene character. She has lied to the man she has come to love, over and over again, and only at about the 2/3rds point of the movie realizes that she is no better than the woman she thinks is a scheming murderess. There is a stunning scene where Hitch makes the parallel between Wyman and Dietrich and it all registers on Wyman's face in closeup.

[Konway]

SPOILERS

Thank you, Jack Favell. I will post about Shadow of A Doubt soon right after we finish talking about Stage Fright. You made some great points about Stage Fright. I didn't think about that part. I forgot to mention something. When Cooper gives visual idea of his flashback story to Eve and the audience through his viewpoint, he is actually directing Eve and the audience like a film director. When he succeeded in convincing both Eve and the audience through his creative vision, he not only becomes A Great Director, but Stage Fright also becomes "a movie within a movie."

[JackFavell]

Wow! I am going to go back and watch now, with that in mind. It's great that we can go back and get so much out of Hitch's (and any) movies on subsequent viewings.

I love that you have voiced so many ideas about how we, the audience are lulled by Cooper, thus making the revulsion and fear factor jump when the big reveal of his true personality comes.