Hitchcock (Revised Edition)

After reading this book, you will not know much more than you did about Hitchcock's personal life. They were intensely private people. But if you read the book in the first place, that isnt what you were looking for anyway.

This book is an eye opener to how he did what he did on about every film he ever made. You can actually see when you watch the films how his explanations are plausible. I recomend this to anyone who is interested in filmmaking. If you value the illusion, and are interested in keeping the awe, read it anyway, but if you want to have the mysterious edge that his films are famous for, Dont read this. It is pretty much a tell-all about what he did in his films.

Did you know in Notorious He placed a lightbulb in the glass of supposedly poisoned milk Cary Grant was carrying up to his wife? He wanted the milk to stand out in the shot. Also, the milk is pretty much always in the center of the screen. That is how he conveyed the feeling of dread when the viewer saw the glass of milk.

For anyone who is a fan of Hitchcock, and/ or is a serious student of Hitchcock's works, this is an essential reference.

It has been quoted in many other books written about Hitchcock and his films.

Alfred Hitchcock rarely granted interviews. He did so only when it was required for publicity for his TV series and his movies. But in the late 1960s, French director Francois Truffaut interviewed Hitchcock at length (something like 2 or 3 hours a day for five days straight) and from a director-to-director standpoint, the book covers each and every one of Hitchcock's movies and "in-his-own-words" format. So Hitchcock is constantly commenting about his films. Truffaut thankfully, lets Hitchcock do much of the talking. There is no other book like this one and of the three must-have books on Alfred Hitchcock, this is on the top of the list.

Examples: When Truffaut asked Hitchcock why he appears at the close of the opening credits of NORTH BY NORTHWEST, the director commented that his in-joke of appearing in "almost" every movie distracted audiences spending time looking for him, shortly after the success of the TV show, hence the reason why the director made his on-screen appearances in the beginning of each of his movies after 1956, and not in the middle or end. Remember the scene in which Eva Marie Saint pulls a gun out and shoots Cary Grant towards the end of the picture? Hitchcock commented that a blooper is in that scene. A young boy in the background puts his fingers in his ears BEFORE she pulls the gun out of the purse. When Truffaut commented that Hitchcock won his only Oscar for Rebecca, which won the Academy Award for best picture of the year, Hitch corrected him saying he did not. He wold have had he won best director. The best picture Oscar went to Selznick, the producer.

There is no other book like this. It's filled with page after page of info.

(The other two must-reads are the Donald Spoto's "Art of Alfred Hitchcock" book and Grams and Wikstrom's "The Alfred Hitchcock Presents Companion". Together with these two and this book, you have the essential library and all-you-really-need references for all things Hitchcock.)

Yes, I'm one of those who can't hear Gounod's "Funeral March of a Marionette" without thinking of the Alfred Hitchcock Presents series that used it for a title theme.

This book is about Hitchcock and his more than 50 movies. And it is a fine work. Francois Truffaut writes it by supplying us with the results of a set of interviews with Hitchcock, and I think this works very well.

Hitchcock was an unrivaled master of suspense. Other considerations were secondary. Did the villains seem to take absurd chances or appear inadequately motivated? Well, sometimes they did, but that was not a big problem. Even in "Vertigo" Hitchcock admits that there is a "flaw" in the plot, as the entire idea by which the murderer has planned to escape might not work at all. But that did not bother me, and I doubt that it bothered Hitchcock very much either.

Another minor consideration was the exact nature of the items that the bad guys (or the good guys) make such desperate moves to acquire or defend. Hitchcock simply called such an item (such as some secret documents) a "MacGuffin." In the superb "North by Northwest" we see the exact nature of this item reduced to total insignificance (with the only comment being "government secrets"), and the movie is not any poorer for it. We do find out in this book that in 1944 (well before Hiroshima), Hitchcock wanted to use uranium as a MacGuffin, and he explained to a producer that the uranium was going to be used to make an atom bomb. Of course, when Hitchcock tried to ask a well-known physicist how big an atom bomb would be, he got a very evasive reply (and it turned out that the FBI put Hitchcock under surveillance for three months after that).

As Hitchcock explains, suspense is very different from surprise. If something dramatic happens out of the clear blue sky, the audience will be surprised. But suspense is achieved by letting the audience know that something is probably about to happen. Of course, surprise is not bad; it too is an essential element of many Hitchcock films.

Hitchcock gave himself bit parts in pretty much all of his movies; it was one of his trademarks. I'd always look to see where he'd show up when I saw a Hitchcock film. And Truffaut tells us and shows us quite a bit about these roles as well.

I admit that I was not very happy with one of the first Hitchcock movies I saw. You see, in John Buchan's exciting book, "The Thirty-nine Steps," the hero cracks the code of a now dead man to figure out the story left in a notebook. And there is this phrase in it that gets repeated a few times.

"('Thirty-nine steps') was the phrase; and at its last time of use it ran--('Thirty-nine steps, I counted them--high tide 10.17 p.m.')."

It is interesting to see the mystery worked out. And I was wondering how Hitchcock would handle it. Perhaps he would have either the victim or the hero miscount the steps! I was disappointed. The movie, albeit suspenseful, had nothing to do with either 39 or steps. It would have been better had it been titled with some mild double-entendre, such as "The Rubber Band" (the name of a very different mystery that has nothing to do with Hitchcock).

On the other hand, I truly enjoyed many other Hitchcock movies (one of my favorites is "The Trouble With Harry"). And this book is a very good and rather comprehensive tribute to Hitchcock and his cinematography. By the way, Truffaut dedicated it to Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, who appeared in at least three of Hitchcock's movies and played an important role in "Strangers on a Train."

If you liked some of Hitchcock's movies, you'll probably find this book fascinating.

This book is a simple idea - Francois Truffaut interviews Alfred Hitchcock about his career. The simplicity makes for an engaging read. The book offers a unique look into the art of film. While it's technically an interview, it reads more like a casual conversation between two people who are incredibly skilled at what they do. If you love behind-the-scenes history of movies, you must pick up this book. Hitchcock talks about everything from casting to costumes to set design for every movie he ever made.

The book starts with Hitchcock's childhood and his first days making silent films in England in the 20's. The interview traces his career all the way to 1966's Torn Curtain. The concluding chapter includes a short interview on Frenzy, Hitch's 1972 hit, and offers Truffaut's comments on Topaz and Family Plot. It also gives a brief summary of The Short Night, a screenplay Hitch was working on shortly before his death. Truffaut also objectively examines the decline in quality of Hitchcock's films toward the end of his career, and explains his interesting theory of great flawed films.

If you love Hitchcock movies, the history of cinema, or the theory of directing, you'll enjoy this book.