Glenn Garvin TV Reviews

Documentary Delves Deeply into Hitchcock's Filmmaker Mind

A critical analysis every film buff should watch



Hitchcock/Truffaut. HBO. Monday, August 8, 9 p.m.

There's a brief scene early in Alfred Hitchcock's 1952 drama I Confess in which Montgomery Clift, playing a priest wrongly suspected of murder, emerges from his church, glances up at a high-rise hotel across the street, then walks away down the sidewalk. But shooting that five seconds of film triggered an argument between the star and the director.

I don't know if I should look at the hotel, brooded Clift. Maybe my character wouldn't do that. Why would he? Maybe he'd look at the people on the street outside the church. Hitchcock's reply was the very antithesis of Method Acting: The priest looks at the hotel because I want the viewers to understand that the hotel is across the street from the church. Now, let's shoot it. Ten years later, speaking to French director Francois Truffaut, Hitchcock could still barely control the anger and contempt in his voice. "An actor is going to interfere with me, organizing my geography?" he exclaimed. "That's why all actors are cattle."

That exchange is a microcosm of what made Hitchcock a great director: His painstaking construction of every scene. His command of the grammar of film. His insistence that he, and not the director of photography or the screenwriter and certainly not the actors, was telling the story.

It is also the reason why, if you're even remotely interested in movies, you should watch Hitchcock/Truffaut, writer-director Kent Jones's superb documentary, which—after a painfully brief and constrained theatrical release last December in a vain attempt to cop an Oscar nomination—gets its first exposure to the public this week on HBO.

It's both based on and an account of the preparation of Truffaut's landmark book Hitchcock, which the documentary correctly labels "one of the few indispensable books on movies."

The book is built around 50 hours of tape-recorded 1962 conversations between Truffaut, then the hottest of the young French New Wave directors, and Hitchcock, who though only a couple of years past the wild box-office success of films like Rear Window and Psycho was being dismissed by American critics as a lowbrow melodramatist and TV hack. (Truffaut decided to do the book after hearing an American critic dismiss Rear Window because it wasn't a realistic portrayal of Greenwich Village.)

Truffaut worked longer and harder on the book than he ever had on a film—It took four years to write—and the result was a remarkable in-depth discussion of dozens of Hitchcock films, often on a shot-by-shot basis. In the 1960s and '70s, it was practically mandatory reading for cinema buffs, many of whom turned into directors. Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Royal Tenenbaums), interviewed in Hitchcock/Truffaut, says his copy is so well-used it's "not even a book anymore, it's a stack of papers with a rubber band around it."

Hitchcock/Truffaut is, in part, a multimedia rehash of the book, employing film clips to illustrate points as the two men discuss them. But it's also much more than that, incorporating interviews with directors like Anderson, Martin Scorsese and Peter Bogdanovich to make their own points about Hitchcock.

And Jones has obtained access to at least some of the original tapes of the Hitchcock-Truffaut interviews, which offer revealing and sometimes hilarious expansions of what appeared in the book. Among the most tantalizing is their discussion of the 1958 Vertigo, in which detective James Stewart is obsessively trying to remake his new girlfriend Kim Novak into a carbon copy of one who died.

In the book, Hitchcock said a famous scene in which Stewart waits outside a bathroom door for the remade Novak to emerge wearing the clothes and hairstyle of the other woman had a not-entirely concealed psychological subtext: "What Stewart is really waiting for is the woman to emerge totally naked this time, and ready for love."

But the audio recording in Hitchcock/Truffaut goes a bit further: "While he was looking at that door, he was getting an erection. We will now tell a story—shut the machine off." And, click! Whatever followed is lost to history.

Not every new bit of Hitchcock/Truffaut is so salacious, but they're all fascinating. Though Hitchcock is clearly endeared by Truffaut's love of his films and determination to rehabilitate his reputation, he is not above deflating some of Truffaut's critical conceits. When Truffaut says Vertigo has phantasmagoric elements that could only be informed by Hitchcock's dreams, the British director all but snorts. "A form of necrophila, that's what it really was," he explains.

Mostly, though, Hitchcock/Truffaut is two extraordinarily talented directors talking less about the art of filmmaking than the craft. Hitchcock reveals that in the strangely transfixing scene in 1941's Suspicion in which Cary Grant walks up a darkened staircase with a glass of milk for his paranoid new wife Joan Fontaine (is he trying to poison her?), he drew viewers' eyes to the milk by concealing a small light inside it.

That tightly shot two-and-a-half-minute kiss between Grant and Ingrid Bergman in 1946's Notorious, which continues even as they walk from an apartment balcony through the living room into the kitchen, may have been preposterous, as the unhappy actors told him, but he knew it would work: "I don't care how you feel, I already know what it's going to look like on the screen."

And speaking of preposterous, or at least implausible, yes it does seem unlikely that the airplane buzzing Grant in a flat, open field in North by Northwest would manage to hit a passing gasoline truck, the only thing over three feet tall for miles around. "But you see, to me, plausibility for the sake of plausibility doesn't help," shrugs Hitchcock. "I have a little saying to myself: Logic is dull." Hitchcock/Truffaut never is.

NEXT: Nuclear Warfare Between the Greens: New at Reason

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hitchcock’s reply was the very antithesis of Method Acting:

    Yet another reason Hitchcock was a great directory. Ignore the people prancing around in black leotards. They’re annoying.

    1. director*

      Hitchcock had an editor…

      1. I should throw a bird at your face.

      2. Riley . if you think Scott `s comment is really great… on friday I got a great new Lancia when I got my cheque for $6472 this past five weeks and just a little over 10 grand this past-munth . it’s definitly the best-job I have ever had . I actually started 3 months ago and almost straight away started bringing in over $75 per-hour . see here ??????

    2. I’m making over $16k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,… Copy This Link inYour Browser…. http://www.Trends88.Com

    3. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week, pretty cool. working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. here is i started.. Go this website more info work…

  2. in 1941’s Suspicion in which Cary Grant walks up a darkened staircase with a glass of milk for his paranoid new wife Joan Fontaine (is he trying to poison her?), he drew viewers’ eyes to the milk by concealing a small light inside it.

    An early example of a movie ruined by the studio for externalities – in the original version Grant’s character really is a psychopath who’s going to kill Fontaine’s character. But the studio was busy building Grant into a likeable lead man for Rom Coms, and didn’t want to risk his appeal to audiences.

    So they re-shot the ending (IIRC correctly he tries to throw her off the cliff in the end, but she throws him instead) to make it “all a big misunderstanding,” and turned it into one of Hitchcock’s lamest movies.

    1. One of the reasons movies (and actors) are better is the studios don’t shape them into a singular personality that traverses the entire canon of their work.

      Yes, there are still lots of actors who essentially play themselves (or one type of character)– but that’s largely on the actor. I truly enjoy modern actors who can stretch themselves from an affable comedic dufus in one film, to a sinister, twisted unlikable villain in the next.

      1. Should read “are better in the modern day”

      2. There’s some truth to this, but I also like the way someone like Hitchcock was able to use typecast actors to his purposes – to me the classic example being the remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Feakin’ Day.

        He took a basic suspense/intrigue movie about a child getting caught up in international politics, and makes it be about post-WWII American loss-of-political-innocence just in his casting choice. Genius.

      3. I’m not buying your thesis. Studios will never hire an actor under 40 for a RomCom that has had a famous role as a twisted, sick villain. (Any exception you can name is probably a box office flop.) Occasionally they will do so with an actress, but that’s because guys are dragged to RomComs and just want eye candy.

    2. And he seals his own fate by dropping Fontaine’s letter that he’s trying to kill her in the mailbox.

      Grant was already a lead man in rom coms by the time Suspicion was made: he’d already done The Awful Truth and Bringing Up Baby, among others.

      The same year he did Suspicion, he did a serious turn in Penny Serenade that got him one of his two Oscar nominations.

    3. It’s still better than Under Capricorn.

      (And Vertigo is way overrated.)

      1. Good point – I should have clarified “of canonical Hitchcock movies.” He’s got some stinkers among the titles you never hear of.

  3. I saw a 90-minute Dick Cavett Interview of Hitchcock about a week ago. A good bit of it dealt with special effects. I learned that the reason those scenes in the birds looked so real is because all of the birds were real. They used over 2,000 trained birds. Hitchcock said that fake birds would have looked fake and that of all the birds, the seagulls were the most viscous.

    1. I seem to recall something about why he got such a good performance out of Tippi Hedren was because she was actually terrified of the birds trying to attack her.

    2. “Hitchcock said that fake birds would have looked fake”

      Nuh uh! / the makers of Birdemic

  4. “Rear Window” was the first ‘grown-up’ movie I liked. Then I saw the 1998 made for TV remake, which was the first ‘grown-up’ movie I hated.

  5. Prefer Truffaut’s movies to Hitchcock’s work.

    Two greatest directors for me:

    1. Kubrick
    2. Truffaut

  6. i get paid over ?79.91 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over ?9185 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,……

  7. I Leave my office job and now I am getting paid 96 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

  8. Hitchcock was a great director, but he was a little over the top about his actors. One of my professors quoted Hitchcock as saying, that actors were supposed to remember their lines and avoid bumping into the furniture. Despite that attitude he got some epic work out of his actors. I suspect he just didn’t want actors taking over the story.

  9. I’m got $92 an hour working from home. I See when my neighbor told me she was averaging $120 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. Check It out what I do..

  10. my best friend’s mom makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $19746 just working on the computer for a few hours. find more information …

  11. Hudson . although Henry `s article is flabbergasting, last thursday I bought a brand new Buick after having earned $7028 recently an would you believe ten-grand this past-munth . it’s actualy the most-comfortable job I have ever had . I began this 4 months ago and practically straight away started making a nice at least $83.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.