Alfred Hitchcock- The definitive auteur?

The auteur theory suggests the capacity for a director to place their own personal stamp on their work. Discuss this concept in relation to at least two films from one director.

The auteur theory is a concept in film that has been studied endlessly since its origins in France in the late 1950’s. While it has been a key point in determining the credibility of great film makers for over fifty years, its definition is still abstract at best. Although the theory is applied directly to film, its premise could be used alongside virtually any art form. For instance, like Picasso and Van-Gogh had tell-tale characteristics that immediately identified their work as their own, so too do film directors like Tim Burton, Quentin Tarrantino, and Alfred Hitchcock. In 1962, American film critic Andrew Sarris attempted to simplify the auteur theory, stating that a great director with an established body of work will have distinct traits in their films, covering areas including their understanding and application of the technical elements, a distinct and identifiable personality within their films, and the interior meaning of the films [cited in Mast, G Marshall, C Braudy, L 1992 p.585-558]. With these points in mind, it is hard to not be in complete agreement with the fact that Alfred Hitchcock is one director who embodies the auteur theory.  Known worldwide as The Master of Suspense, this title alone gives Hitchcock credibility to be considered the definitive auteur; however his methods of delivering suspense are merely the tip of the iceberg in regards to his distinguishable style.  Having had his films studied and analysed by critics, film students, and movie-goers for half a century, it has become apparent that Hitchcock has an endless list of recurring themes, motifs, and character qualities. While the list of similarities may seem endless, this essay will focus on a just a few aspects that Hitchcock revisited on numerous occasions.

Throughout his years as a film maker, Hitchcock shocked the world with his unique talent at building and delivering suspense, giving enough information to make the audience anxious, yet keeping an equal amount of information hidden. In Psycho (1960), the audience knew of every viscous murder, however Norman Bates’ secret was left in the dark until the final act. In Vertigo (1958), the staging of Madeline’s suicide was revealed far earlier to the audience than when Scottie discovered the truth, creating a state of un-ease for the audience as they waited for Scottie to eventually uncover Judy’s secret. In an interview with Oriana Fallaci, Hitchcock explained his method of creating suspense by way of example- he suggested that if her tape recorder were to be rigged with a bomb, unbeknownst to both themselves and the hypothetical audience, the shock and horror after the explosion would be short lived. Had the audience known of the bomb, however, they would be anxious, restless, and feel uneasy waiting for it to be discovered [as cited in Gottlieb, 2003, p. 61]. It is this fashion of choosing which information to divulge to the audience, whilst keeping the characters in the dark, that is a Hitchcock signature- We knew in Psycho that Marion Crane was dead as soon as she hit the bathroom floor, but Detective Arbogast and her sister Lila were on a hunt to find her alive. We knew that Madeline and Judy was in fact the same person as soon as Scottie left Judy’s apartment for the first time, but he was clueless for quite some time after their first encounter.

In the same way that Hitchcock rationed information to the audience to generate suspense, he employed a similar method in the structure and treatment of his female leads. Speaking with Arthur Knight in 1973, he described how he preferred to take a more indirect approach to presenting female beauty and sexuality on-screen. Hitchcock told Knight

I've never wanted to have the obvious blonde, the one who has her sex hanging around her neck like jewellery, the big-bosomed girl. Neither the Marilyn Monroe type nor the Jean Harlow type was for me, because the statement was there too openly- look, sexy blonde! You’ve said it right away. I prefer to have the audience discover it. One shouldn't know at first whether she’s sexy or not. She probably looks cool maybe frigid [as cited in Gottlieb, 2003, p. 176].

Fifty years later, there is more variety in the qualities and personalities of actresses, but in that point in time however, it was no wonder The French saw a uniqueness in Hitchcock, as he essentially helped in pioneering a dominant model for women on screen. While Hitchcock was developing his own female archetype, the typical female lead in Hollywood still followed suit of the stereotype of the helpless and often ditzy woman, who served a purpose akin to aesthetically appealing stage props. His treatment of Kim Novak in Vertigo as a manipulator of James Stewart, and Janet Leigh’s defiance in Psycho, broke the mold of the typical female characterisation- juxtaposed with female characters of other films of the time, this approach to shaping the personalities of women onscreen could easily be argued as a Hitchcock signature.

It wasn't just the intellectual and emotional qualities of his actresses that began to form a pattern though- the appearance of these women bear striking similarities, which in essence casts the physical presence of the actresses under the motif umbrella. Just as James Stewart tried to recreate the image of a woman he had lost in Vertigo, Hitchcock began a pattern in his career of creating what was later to be dubbed “the Hitchcock Blonde”. According to Vertigo’s screenwriter, Samuel Taylor,

He did try to make over women into the actresses he liked to work with. He would have liked to have worked all his life with Grace Kelly. And actresses that he used were in his mind like that [Kirby, 1999].

This desire to control the appearance of his female leads may have merely been a part of Hitchcock’s dominance and wish to control every aspect of his films, or as Taylor suggests, it may have been a desire to resurrect and recreate a previous working relationship- regardless of the motivation behind these actions, the result is just another notch in the belt of familiarity and recurrences in his films.

While the treatment and presentation of his female leads holds some merit in interior meaning, the majority of Hitchcock’s portrayal of these women was evident on a surface level, which is perhaps why the Hitchcock blonde is bought up so often when he is discussed as an auteur. His use of staircases in his films on the other hand, while appearing almost as frequently as his token blonde, carry meaning on a deeper level. In The Penguin dictionary of symbols, Chevalier and Gheerbrant state that

The stairway is the symbol of the acquisition of learning and of the ascent of knowledge and transfiguration (p. 923)

It is with this very definition that Hitchcock’s tools for building and delivering suspense can be seen; When Detective Arbogast was climbing the stairs to Mrs Bates’ bedroom in Psycho, it was his sudden demise that awaited him at the top; and not too long after his death was Lila’s descent down the staircase into the cellar, which triggered the climatic plot twist and defeat of Norman Bates. Only two years earlier in Vertigo, the stairwell in the Mission San Juan Bautista bell tower was the setting for the pivotal moment of Madeline’s apparent suicide, Scottie’s triumph over his acrophobia in the third act, and of course the famous “vertigo zoom”, where the camera physically moves forward whilst the zoom is pulled wider, creating a disorienting feeling for the viewer.

To the masses who subscribe to the Freudian theories, Hitchcock’s use of the stairwell could be analysed alongside sexual overtones. In a study of Hitchcock’s recurring themes and motifs, writer Michael Walker applies these ideas in relation to Scottie’s inability to triumph over his acrophobia in the stairwell, drawing a parallel between this act and a suggestion of his sexual incompetence with Madeline- all the while the incident took place under Gavin Elster’s preconceived plan, painting him as the puppet master manipulating Scottie [Walker, 2005, p. 367].

With all of these recurring themes and motifs taken into consideration, along with the endless list of other thematic and visual motifs in Hitchcock films, it can still never be solidified that Alfred Hitchcock is the definitive auteur- or even an auteur at all- as the definition itself is built on vague grounds, even after Sarris’ simplification of the theory. What is undeniably conclusive however, is that Hitchcock was famed for his methods of building and delivering suspense- and whether he did it using stairs, intelligent and independent blonde women, or through the rationing of information, you can be sure that each method would occur in more than just one film.

Reference & bibliography

Hitchcock, A (Director) Coleman, H (producer) (1958) Vertigo [Film]. United States of America: Paramount Pictures.

Hitchcock, A (Director/producer) (1960). Psycho [Film] United States of America: Paramount Pictures. 

Walker, M. (2005). Hitchcock's Motifs. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. 

Gottliebb, S. (Ed.). (2003). Alfred Hitchcock Interviews. Mississippi, United States of America: University Press of Mississippi. 

Mast, Gerald, Marshall Cohen, Leo Braudy (Eds.). (1992) “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962”. Film Theory and Criticism. 4th Edition. Oxford University Press, New York.

Kirby, T. (Director/producer) (2006). Reputations: Alfred Hitchcock [Television documentary] Great Britain: BBC.

Gheerbrant, A Chevalier, J (1996). The Penguin Dictionary of Symbols. London, Great Britain: Penguin, London.

Bitches be crazy

Documentaries are usually meant to shock people. They are meant to make people say Holy shit this is real. I can’t believe this really goes on. SHENANIGANS! BLASPHEMY! SHAME ON SOCIETY! 

In a sense they share the same qualities that a light night infomercial has- This is our deal. Buy it. Buy into it. Do both, and do it now.

Unless you take a historical documentary for example, virtually every documentary ever produced is untruthful- it is always biased, because no matter how much of the information that comprises of said documentary, it is the information that the film maker has fed to you. They’re the ones feeding the information to the uneducated audience, and while they are allowing you to make up your own mind, it’s all under the guidance of their steady hand- You make the decision based on the information they provide.

Take for example, the First Person documentary about Sondra London. You take a woman who has ideals and a view point that are debatably crazy. Then during production of the interview, you choose obscure and dramatic camera angles, and couple this with harsh lighting that casts odd shadows on her face, and then incorporate some sly editing techniques that add to your cause and you have a subject that can by no means be described as of a sound mind.

Sondra London- Batshit crazy.

Personally, I think she was crazy, with or without the biased production- to fall in love with a rapist and savage murderer is not something a sane person could do.

Had the documentary have portrayed her in an unbiased manner, she probably would not have come across as the way she did (I’d still think she was crazy, just less crazy). But that’s just the issue I’m trying to point out. The film maker has said these are the facts I’m giving you, and it’s all true- make your own decision. But how exactly is an audience supposed to gain a true understanding of the truth when it’s delivered in such a way?

The truth is there is no truth, in any form of film. Every piece of moving footage ever documented is taken from a particular viewpoint. When any film is edited, reality and time are automatically dissected and reassembled. The only thing you can be certain of, is that you will never have an unbiased opinion, but hopefully you will have the intellectual capabilities of understanding what is biased, and what is not.

In-class ink blot tests

I think ink blot tests are a therapist’s way of testing how much shit is on your mind- they just throw 50 random images at you and gauge your response. That was basically the jist of last week’s class- 3 hours, a dozen clips, and a discussion on each clip immediately after each screening.

Whether this is worth mentioning or not, one thing that struck me about The Cabinet of Dr Caligari was that if Tim Burton were to ever be in the therapist’s office (and perhaps taking inkblot tests), he would describe this film as something that haunted his dreams as a child. Black blacks and white whites, surreal and almost childlike sets which seem to mirror the nightmarish emotion of the film, and some very pale characters- Not to mention that “Edward Scissorhands” comes up as a related search on Google- The film has to be an early influence on him.

The Cabinet of Dr Caligari

I wish I could keep writing about Caligari, if only to procrastinate and avoid moving on to discussing the clip which had the biggest effect on me… or rather AFFECT... I’m still unsure which word I should be using here- I need a grammar Nazi biting my ankles so i can be sure- Given that my reaction to the scene was almost physical, I wanna say affect.

I’m big on tough justice- rapists should be strung up and have their “weapons” removed, in the most painful way possible. But having seen this act carried out on screen, I…

* I've been stuck on this sentence for about 15 minutes, I don’t actually have the words to describe how I feel about that scene*

I think I need to jump back a little.

I Spit On Your Grave- The bathtub scene.

Claymation still wouldn't have softened the blow of this scene.

I don’t know if it was the victims delayed reaction to what happened; the screaming; the way the blood just bubbled up from below the surface of the water; or even just the casual way that Jennifer jumps into a chair after throwing a record on to drown out the sounds of a man screaming and bleeding to death behind a locked door 10 feet away.

As much as I don’t want to think about it, it keeps coming back to me, and I don’t know why. About the only thing I know for certain is that I never ever (ever. ever. EVER) want to have my penis removed with a butcher’s knife.

To be honest, I already knew that, it’s just that watching this scene has cemented that fact. No knives.

Ever.

Please.

Cheers.

Time Travel

In class Oral presentation-

Pick a clip, roughly 2 minutes, from a film, music video, TV show... anything really- that has had some sort of impact or influence on you. Then talk about why it had an impact on you.

I think post production is ace. So I guess it makes sense to talk about my first conscious realisation of that fact.

Jump back in time to December 1999.

I had just started skateboarding, and what comes with that, is watching an obscene amount of skateboard videos.

While they were great to watch, the production lacked style and creativity.

For the average skate video, post production went a little something like this- import your footage- cut it- drop it in the time line- slow motion on a few tricks- add music track- export.

The style and aesthetic at that point in time was very simple, and every video kind of looked the same. Nobody really complained, they were just happy to see some skateboarding. But it was around this time that Transworld Skateboarding Magazine decided to start producing videos as well; The thing that would set them apart (and ultimately raise the bar for all future skate video productions) was that they were going to adopt cinematic principles, from preproduction right through to postproduction.

Chris Ray (Transworld cinematographer) preparing his kit, circa 2003

With more planning and consideration gone into shooting methods (lens type, camera angles etc.), this was already a big leap from the older method of just shooting from wherever was convenient, with whatever equipment you had with you. A lot more coverage of the environment was also shot, which would become crucial in what was to be the biggest change of all- post production.

Utilising all of the extra footage that was planned in preproduction, film makers now had the chance to edit thematically. In the example I gave in class (Transworld's First Love), the concept of passion for the sport is depicted using segments of voice overs from interviews of the featured riders. The actual footage of the urban environment is coupled with the skateboarding clips to edit to the beat of the music.

 

 

Gone are the days of shooting interviews in the kitchen with the cameras internal mic.

 

This element had an immediate impact on me, and how I perceived what was possible with post production. Having always been interested in the actual process of filming when my friends and I were skating on the weekends, I started to try to emulate the Transworld video productions- paying special attention to editing clips to the beat of the music.

I think the biggest thing i took away from these videos as a kid is that there is no right or wrong way to edit. If 200 editors working independantly are all given the same lot of footage and told "here, cut this together", you are going to get 200 different results. There may not be right or wrong, but just like any art form, some results are going to be more aesthetically pleasing than others- and it takes a whole lot of planning, instinct, and trial and error to get the best result.

 

I think i jumped the gun last week...

I’ve got it stuck in my head that I don’t want to be that guy who attends a class, and then simply transfers the notes from class to my blog. Aside from being boring as hell, I figure it doesn’t really demonstrate an understanding of the in-class discussions. So what I have tried to do each week is to pick one topic and let my brain vomit Times New Roman style onto the unsuspecting online world (I can see I’ve had 64 hits so far, I’m destined for blogger stardom).

The problem with this approach is that I might head off on a tangent and accidentally cover something that hasn’t yet been covered in class. This week, that problem has occurred- the topic of society's changing television viewing habits.

It’s no big deal though, because that means I can talk about Girls (the HBO series that is. There’s got to be a million other blogs where you can hear about fellas whining about girls).

Girls

 Before seeing it I was given the description of “Sex and the City for mid-20’s hipsters.” And after seeing it, that description seems pretty spot on. That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy it though- and the question of why we enjoyed it was something we kept coming back to all afternoon.

The most obvious answer is that it is relatable. But to paraphrase Mark, can you really relate to a group of people with such disgusting personalities? How can you see yourself in such a selfish contrived bitch?

(The joy I find here is that I can lump all of the female lead characters under that label. And Charlie. That boy needs to grow a pair.)

A rare exception to the un-likable characters. Adam is pretty damn weird though.
 

Maybe the addictiveness of the show is that the problems that the characters find themselves in are relatable? That’s probably the most plausible answer. No money, uncertainty, and awkward sex- I think most people can get behind that.

Because when you can create a piece of fiction that seems to fall not too far short of a truth that you have lived (or are living), a close relationship can be formed with the characters, whether you like them or hate them, because they are mirroring either you or your friends when you were (or are) in that situation.

That sounds legit right? I’m going to say yes. If there is a film or television series where you can say “I’ve lived this”, of course it’s going to spark an interest. Because to be perfectly honest, there is no such thing as a person who isn’t self-obsessed in some way.

WHY WASN'T BECKER MENTIONED IN CLASS?!

I just need to know that. A 3 hour discussion on sitcoms and no one even gave that show a mention. I guess this is the conundrum faced by anyone entering tertiary education as a middle aged student.

After talking about the paradigm of situation comedy last week, I started to think a little about one point in particular- the structure of sitcoms, and how it is adapted to commercial television in regards to advertisement breaks. Under normal circumstances, a half hour slot for a sitcom will allow for 2 commercial breaks, roughly 4-6 minutes each, and the template (for lack of a better phrase) used to shape each episode accounts for this, in the same way the 3 act structure is a defining form of narrative film.

This is the way it is. Because that’s the way that commercial television works. Without ads, we're without commercial television.

The point that I’m (slowly) making is that I don’t think I know a single person under the age of 30 who actually watches television anymore. Sure, they’ll turn it on if they’re home, and sure, they’ll leave it on if something they like is on- But less and less people are saying “oh shit I need to get home in time for Parks and Recreation!”*

The fact is that people are working longer hours. They’re getting married and starting families at an older age. In 2013 work is the centre of everyone’s universe, now more so than ever. And while most still have favourite TV shows, they don’t actually watch TV anymore, because they just don’t have the time. What they do have however, is unlimited broadband at a monthly cost of less than a case of beer. So rather than tuning in once a week to watch The Big Bang Theory, people are smashing through 24 weeks worth of illegally downloaded programs in 12 hours whilst powering through bottles of Gatorade on the couch on a hung-over Sunday- and they’re doing it all without commercial breaks.





Love it or hate it, when you think "sitcom", Seinfeld comes to mind



So if the “template” used for sitcoms and commercial television really is crafted to accommodate for commercial breaks, shouldn’t that structure eventually shift, given that our viewing habits are changing, and ultimately making commercial breaks redundant? Will commercial television eventually wind up feeling cinematic?

I’m curious about that last question. Because last week I watched The Shawshank Redemption with the director’s commentary, and I most certainly did not hear Frank Darabont say anything like “and at this scene, we thought the audience might need a break for a minute- maybe to piss, or grab a bevvy, or just to unwind from the film for a little, so we just threw in a 5 minute nonsensical scene…”

When you combine this with the fact that it is becoming increasingly common to watch TV shows on a laptop in bed and in the dark (This is starting to drag on a little so I’ll let you all draw the parallel between the cinema experience and the bed + laptop experience), surely there has to be at least some discussion in the industry that the structure of commercial TV shows is in need of serious reform.

Viewing habits are changing fast, and it’s almost as if everyone else has made the step forward, we’re all just waiting for the networks to catch up.

*You also never hear anyone say this because Parks and Recreation is about as enjoyable as Hep C.

It's true!

... Why is he always leaning? Promotional photographers need to refresh their ideas.