bridgerpalmer

[bridgerpalmer]

Strangers on a Train

     After Shadow of a Doubt, I was pleasantly surprised by Strangers on a Train. I’m deep in the routine I go through before watching a film. Because I want to be a screenwriter, I usually research the film first. I take notes of the genre, plot, and overall story arc. By gathering this knowledge beforehand I can spend more time on analyzing why and how the director and screenwriter chose to make the film the way they did. I spend most of the time observing character arcs and dialogue among other analytical elements.      I went into Strangers on a Train blind on purpose. I figured that Afred Hitchcock had his motifs and cliches. I expected this film to be the same way. I was pleasantly surprised; I totally expected Guy to go through with the murder of Bruno’s father, and I totally expected that he would go to jail while Guy went to jail. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the final sequences on the tennis match, train, and carnival. Imagine my surprise when Bruno’s hand unfolds to reveal he has the lighter!      I’m in the process of writing my own screenplay right now, and I can say without exaggeration that it is the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do for school in my whole life. The average person underestimates the degree of difficulty creating your own characters, dialogue and plotting an entire story takes. It is not easy. Writing my own has given me a newfound appreciation for many elements of film, but especially dialogue. I struggle with dialogue. Film dialogue is supposed to sound like real dialogue while providing exposition and characterization. The dialogue in Strangers on a Train often flashes screenplay brilliance.      There are a couple notable examples. As I said, I went into the film blind. When Bruno told the old woman at the Senator’s party (gathering?) “everyone is a potential murderer” I thought I had the film figured out. At that moment I thought for certain that Guy Haines was himself a potential murderer. But Hitchcock fooled me. Another example is when Bruno Antony gets in with the Morton’s at Guy’s tennis match. When Guy approaches, Bruno reintroduces himself so as not to create suspicion in the family if Guy somehow knew who Bruno was beforehand. Bruno tells Guy he’s a huge fan and says “I follow everything you do.” Now, the Mortons take this as him being a huge fan of the sport of tennis, but we as the audience have observed Bruno stalking him. He literally follows everything he does. A small line, followed quickly by more dialogue, but it only takes a moment for Hitchcock to flash his brilliance.

[bridgerpalmer]

S.o.a.D/Stoker

This was a hard one. The political landscape was different in 1943: not quite so much in 2013. The two films differ in their representation of the niece. In Shadow of a Doubt, their relationship is played off as family. The younger Charlie likens their relationship to that of twins, even if our modern lense has us read it as something closer to incest. In Stoker, the niece is clearly actually infatuated as she uncovers the truth about Uncle Charlie. In SoaD, the young Charlie becomes increasingly repulsed instead of lustful, but the relationship in both films is unquestionably odd. Stoker pays homage to Shadow of a Doubt in many ways, including the dutch tilts and long shots down the staircase that represent the distance between the two Charlies. Obviously they borrow different plot points, and the overall structure of the film. Shadow of a Doubt was personally a more intriguing watch, but Stoker wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t excellent. I can see why Shadow of a Doubt was Hitch’s personal favorite.

[bridgerpalmer]

Excellent write up for a number of reasons. While the lense I used to view this sequence was story structure, you focused on the more classic elements of lighting and architecture. Those are the two most abundant elements in this sequence so you were able to provide a lot of context and evidence in a thousand words. Mrs. Danvers is mentioned throughout not to the post’s detriment. She is lit in a way that makes her - as you say - blend in with the architecture, almost as if she is one with the house. The only living embodiment left of Rebecca aside from this room, which she keps absolutely pristine. Your quotes of “Lingers like perfume” and “Like a life support on a brain dead body” catapult me center room. I can smell the space. Life support is an excellent metaphor for what this room is for Rebecca. I wish I could provide a better critique, but you have left me no room! But I digress.

The Bedroom Scene

The bedroom scene in Rebecca relies a lot on its dramatic lighting to bring out the tension of the scene. The primarily bottom up lighting echoes a lot of horror movies of the time and sharpens the features of Mrs. Danvers as well as casts long shadows that seem to leave the room a good while after the actors do, allowing presences to linger. The floor to ceiling windows, as well as the tall lamps and huge floral arrangements tower over Mrs. de Winter making her look very small and powerless in the shot. Of course lamps are a staple in Hitchcock films and Rebecca is no exception. Hitchcock uses them to create unique shadows on his actors faces and, especially in his black and white movies, add contrast to an otherwise flat shot. Mrs. de Winter later uses the shadow of the flowers in a desperate attempt to hide from Mrs. Danvers but none the less fails to avoid the servant, reflecting her failure to blend in to the new life style she married into. Shadows play a very important role in this scene, the most prominent being the initial shot of Mrs. Danvers behind the room dividing curtain as an ominous silhouette gliding across the floor towards our cowering leading lady. The curtain is also very effective at diffusing the light from the windows and casting softer light on to the actresses which helps them look smoother and softer in the close ups of their faces. The fact that Hitchcock uses one “thing,” the curtain, to both create unease as well as to beautify a scene speaks lengths to his creativity.  However, Mrs. Danvers does not need much assistance to define her presence. The way that Mrs. Danvers is lit throughout this scene is done so in a way that her dark hair and clothes blend her into the house so she becomes one with her surroundings. She is more an other imitating part of the house, and her new life, than individual person to Mrs. de Winter.

Accompanying the intricate and precise lighting is quite the set. The ornate beauty and elegance of Rebecca’s room contrasts with Mrs. de Winters constant anxiety as well as her simple and plain button up and skirt. This further pushes the visual awkwardness that she doesn’t fit in the room and its obvious she doesn’t feel she belongs there either. Just Rebecca’s room is grande and tall in a house already so luxurious. Just her room is about the size of an apartment and the way its set up and the way its decorated continues to display Rebecca’s power over the household and its residents. From the immaculate  vanity to the walk in closet full of pricey fur coats, Rebeccas presence lingers like perfume. With rooms so expensive it’s easy to become gaudy but this particular room has a lot of taste and elegance. Obviously we can’t see the colors but the textures of the bed frame to the cabinets and the lamps compliment each other nicely. The basic architecture of the room is also just as elegant and intimidating being that is so physically large and is opened even further by the window wall and the placements of mirrors everywhere, possibly a nod to Rebecca’s vanity. 

All this to say that Rebecca’s room reflects her knowledge on how to play the part. Everything is placed just so so that she can continue playing the role of the perfect rich mans wife while having all of the power in the relationship and the house. While she is villainized throughout this movie she has developed a skill of using her femininity as her strength in a system that is meant to oppress her. This is obvious of her character throughout the film and her room is just an other part of her character. It is clear that this room was designed by a woman for a woman and everything in it accentuates her control and feminine essence. And of course we can’t talk about the set without talking about Mrs. Danvers immense up keep of it. From the immense flowers to the vanity set up being exactly the same, Mrs. Danvers love for Rebecca is shown at its most potent in this scene. No one not totally in love would go to such lengths to keep a dead woman’s room so perfect, and eventually burn it down out of spite. Her treatment of the room is the cherry on top of Rebecca’s control and power over Mr. de Winters life. He doesn’t even enter the west wing anymore because he knows that nothing has changed and the fact the room isn’t rotting away and its being preserved seems unnatural. Like a forced life support on a brain dead body, the room haunts the new couple until it is finally demolished by the same woman who vowed to upkeep it.

[bridgerpalmer]

Sequence Analysis: Rebecca

Hitchcock’s Rebecca is a classic psychological thriller. After accidentally murdering his wife Rebecca, Maxim De Winter meets another woman. He brings her back to his manor, and the new Mrs. de Winter is faced with the challenge of winning over her now indifferent husband, as well as his housekeeper Mrs. Danvers. That’s the short version, but the story structure is there. As an aspiring screenwriter, this sequence analysis will focus largely on the structure of the scene and how exactly it evokes the feeling of suspense. Hitchcock quite literally made a career out of suspense. Rebecca was one of his more successful pictures with both critics and and viewers. The sequence of Danvers and Mrs. de Winter in Rebecca’s room is perhaps the most iconic scene in the entire movie.

Hitchcock’s title of “master of suspense” was well accredited. How do you build suspense? What even is suspense? Simply put, suspense comes from characters. How can Mrs. de Winter please Mr. de Winter? Can she win over Mrs. Danvers? These are the overall suspense-building questions of the film. You cannot build suspense for an entire film without answering a few questions along the way. You have to deliver on the questions the audience will have during any given scene. Through a series of sequences you can clue the audience in on the larger questions, but Hitchcock was the “master of suspense” because he built and released suspense throughout every sequence in the scene. Suspense is the equation of tension build plus tension release. First you put the character in a situation that creates tension. In this scene, Mrs. de Winter has finally dared to step into Rebecca’s old room. The outer conflict that gives suspense is that we don’t know what she will discover, what exactly she is there for, and what her consequences will be if she is seen. Mrs. de Winter’s inner conflict is of uncertainty and insecurity. She slowly feels unwelcome in the manor, contrasted to Rebecca’s clear comfort in this space, as Danvers tells her in this scene. She is simply the new Mrs. de Winter, not even given a name, in contrast to Rebecca. In this sequence, the room is dimly lit with the windows closed. Mrs. de Winter opens the curtains to let some light in the room, then she is scolded by Danvers. This contrast between dark and light shows just how opposed these two women are in the manor. In this sequence Hitchcock delivers on overarching narrative tension, and the contrast of tension building and release in just this scene alone. We see Mrs. de Winter walk slowly toward the door, clear worry on her face. The next shot matches her pace as we zoom in slowly on the door. Here, we are Mrs. de Winter. She opens the door, letting a bit of light from the hallway in. We cut to the inside of the room, where we see the disproportionately large shadow of Mrs. de Winter cast onto the wall. She closes the door, steps inside, and she is now small in the frame. She cannot live up to the size of the shadow Rebecca, and by extension her room, creates. She looks around, making her way through the dark room. She opens the curtain, lighting a small section. A small move of confidence. A small bit of tension released. She examines the vanity, and a photo of her husband set atop it. She steps away, when we hear the first sound of the scene, the wind knocking the window around. She looks back, tension created. But it was only the wind, right? (We’ll come back to this later). Danvers appears, questions why she is in the room. When Mrs. de Winter lies, Danvers catches her immediately. Another build of tension. Danvers offers to show her around the room. She goes to the adjacent curtains and opens them, letting even more light in. Tension released. 

Next they move to the wardrobe, where Danvers shows Mrs. de Winter Rebecca’s clothing. She grabs the sleeve of a jacket and runs it slowly along her jawline in much the same way you would with a knife to someone you were attempting to intimidate. Creepy, and definitely building tension.  She recalls tales of Rebecca, contrasting the relationship she has with Rebecca and Mrs. de Winter Danvers. She moves to where Rebecca kept her undergarments and handles them with a little too much familiarity. Creepy, and absolutely building tension. Danvers moves to an even more intimate part of a women’s room, the bed, and shows her just how thin Rebecca’s lingerie was. By this point we are just as uncomfortable as Mrs. de Winter is. She tries to leave the room and just before she can reach the door, she is again stopped by Danvers. At this point, Mrs. de Winter is close to breaking. Danvers chides her about Rebecca. She tells her that sometimes if you listen really closely, you can almost hear her in “all the rooms in the house.” She asks her “do you think the dead come back and watch the living?” Mrs. de Winter breaks out in tears. DAnvers continues, “sometimes I wonder if she doesn’t come back to Mandalay. To watch you and Mr. de Winter. You look tired, why don’t you stay here awhile and rest? Listen to the sea. So soothing. Listen to it.” High, high tension at this moment right here. She isn’t asking her to listen to the sea, nor is she really inviting her to stay. The tension of the scene is relieved when Mrs. de Winter finally escapes out the door, but the overall suspense of the narrative is heightened by this conflict between the two women. Danvers’ comment about the dead Rebecca haunting this place adds more suspense during rewatches. The window could have just been blown open by the wind. But we have now alluded to another presence in the room. Could it have really been Rebecca haunting her former room?

[bridgerpalmer]

Supplimentary Thoughts

David O. Selznick was a cinema tycoon, a man that never saw his job as real work, and an ambitious director and producer. Selznick learned the art of cinema from his father, Larry. Larry Selznick, an entrepreneur, decided he wanted to move past his business of selling jewelry for something greater. Larry Selznick, along with his two sons David and Myron, created “Selznick Pictures.” While David’s friends would be out playing, he would use his free time to “read voluminously and prepare evaluative reports of characterization, plot, and themes in the classics.” David was taught to be a story editor, and his brother Myron a director. When their father’s business went bankrupt, David resolved to follow his aspirations to Hollywood. Using his father’s connections to score him a job at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), David’s work eventually led him to the producer’s chair. He was a growing person of interest in the industry, and in 1930 he founded “Selznick International Pictures” with funding from a millionaire sports player. Once Selznick grasped power, his efforts grew exponentially. Though Selznick was the producer, he supervised more than may have been necessary. Selznick had more stamina for work than most. Because of his background, Selznick had more stamina for work than most. He supervised nearly every single part of production, communicating to each individual of his term via memo every day, sometimes more than once. But Selznick’s assessment was right more often than not, and that’s why he came into power and why he kept it. His resources in Hollywood were plentiful and allowed him to see his vision. Though obviously very successful, he understood that every member of the crew was necessary to see his vision through. He was reportedly not a difficult man to work with, though he was very particular, he was still highly regarded. He was not without hubris, but wouldn’t you be if you were that successful?

Alfred Hitchcock was making the climb to critical acclaim on his own in Europe when David O. Selznick was scouting him. He studied the silent German films for inspiration, as well as the Russian montage. These influences of style and cinematography are noticed in many of his films. Like Selznick, Hitchcock saw his vision as the correct one. And like Selznick, he too was a cinema genius. But critical and popular acclaim did find Hitchcock as quickly as it did Selznick. Hitchcock first developed a sort of cult following. He directed a few duds. A musical, a stage play, hardly what one thinks when they think of Hitchcock today. He needed to take that extra step. “The Man Who Knew Too Much” put him on the right track, but it was becoming clear that his continent was holding him back. He began to look across the pond for a future, and that future turned out to be Selznick. The two cinema moguls would eventually unite, and with it a difficult working relationship. 

It would seem two men that both hoarded creative control would have friction. But Selznick pursued Hitchcock, and the two men’s egoes nearly stopped them from coming to a contractual agreement. In 1939 they found a common ground, and Alfred Hitchcock was now backed by stronger funding and resources. But he was also backed by Selznick. 

The two men’s styles clashed while creating “Rebecca”. Selznick did not see the adaptation from book to film as his chance to take creative liberties. The story was there, and he didn’t think too highly of himself to change someone else's art. Hitchcock had no such objections.When Hitchcock turned in the Rebecca treatment, Selnzick lamented his “weakness as an adapter.” As always, the men found a middle ground. But this was the working dynamic between the two. Selznick didn’t want to pigeonhole his director into making something he didn’t want to, he wanted to guide Hitchcock. Hitch often did not see it that way. The two argued relentlessly over casting decisions. Hitchcock was not a confrontational man, but if he wanted his way he was not above ignoring decisions or missing deadlines in order to have things his way. This of course irked Selznick, as he was a workhorse and delays weren’t happening when he was the sole creative force. Hitch was slow to finish principle photography. He would film what Selznick told him, then sneak in thirty minutes of his own shots. He infamously clashed with actors, overworking Joan Fontaine, resulting in her hours being cut, delaying the film further. But the growing pains eventually went away, and Selznick used Hitchcock’s name and popularity in the industry to his own gain. Through their spats, it was a relationship of mutual need and respect and the two men knew as much. Of course, Rebecca was a critical success, but Hitchcock later tried to distance himself from the film, calling it “not a Hitchcock film. It’s a novelette really.” He made that comment later on in his career once his legacy was more cemented, but this was classic Hitchcock. Diminishing the contributions of others to play up his public persona. Maybe he actually didn’t care for Rebecca. It doesn’t matter if he did or not. His time working with Selznick molded him into a real director, and grew him into the Hitchcock we read about today.

[bridgerpalmer]

Hitchcock and Selznick

I was surprised at how the relationship between the two men was described. I had heard of their friction prior, but in only knowing Hitchcock as a legend, I imagined Selznick to be the business man, restricting Hitchcock’s art to better suit the masses, ensuring their box office success. But I learned that Hitchcock was more the man to make movies for critics while Selznick was really for the mass audience, not quite the money. He still wanted the film - the art - to be good.  Selznick was the bigger artist before Hitchcock came to America. Selznick was every bit the visionary and cinema buff Hitchcock was, and perhaps even more, at least during their first two years of filmmaking. In fact, from the book it seemed like Selznick’s vision for Rebecca won over Hitchcock’s, and that it was his guiding hand that ensured box office success. Later, Hitchcock tried to distance himself from the film’s success, simply saying that “it’s not a Hitchcock film. It's a novelette really.” Hitchcock’s hubris served his career well obviously, but it was those quotes stirred tension between the two men. Hitchcock was talented no doubt, and when Selznick pushed him hard he would prove himself to be worthy. This was evident by the beginning even during contract negotiations. Hitchcock learned the art of directing quickly, adapting and becoming more efficient, to Selznick’s pleasure.

[bridgerpalmer]

Dial M for Murder

The entirety of Hitchcock’s “Dial M for Murder” is shot inside of an appartment. The conflict in the film - an unfaithful woman versus her vengeful husband - is both the internal and external conflict. The suffocating atmosphere of the singular location mirrors mirrors the conflict between the two characters. This is a man versus his wife. They are directly opposed in the film; the husband with his overwhelming knowledge and meticulous planning versust the completely oblivious wife. Mr. Wendice’s motivation for killing his wife is to collect her money from the will of which he is the sole beneficiary. But is that really his primary reason? I think not. Of course, he has figured out her love affair, and has stumbled into the chance to kill two birds with one stone. 

     As this is a Hitchcock film, we suspect that the opening sequence of Mr. & Mrs. Hubbard and Mr. Haliday all behaving cordially is of course a ruse. We find that Mr. Hubbard is exceedingly calculated in his approach to the murder. So meticulous, in fact, that My. Haliday, a mystery writer, correctly theorised how a murdered may have framed her wife for something that she did not in fact do. We follow Mr. Hubbard’s perspective almost exclusively. The story is framed through his conflict, and just as Mr. Mallard alludes to, things don’t always go as you’d like them to go.

[bridgerpalmer]

Suppliment to Hitchcock/Truffaut

     My initial critique of Hitchcock/Truffaut was far from an in-depth look. Only about a page in length, it cannot possibly analyze the 80+ minutes of the documentary. Aside from lacking a certain depth, and because I lack many social and cultural lenses, there are a number of things I unintentionally omitted, and feel necessary to include in a supplementary blog post. The following ideas are not exclusively mine, though many of the thoughts will be my own. During the discussion (the best I’ve had, I might add) my peers offered their own unique insight to the critically acclaimed documentary. Score one for teamwork. There were a series of seven prompts we were asked to consider: the primary focus, the confusing or informative nature of the detailed discussion, the book’s attachment to the film, the intermittent audio clips, what about the interviews struck us, unfounded omissions, and the dominant feeling that the film left us with. Here were our thoughts in the aforementioned order:      Obviously, the primary focus of the film was Alfred Hitchcock, cinema genius. More narrowly the film answered the question of why he was so revered, as well as the impact his movies left on future filmmakers.      The documentary was at no point confusing for any of us. We shaded more closely to the side of informative, maybe even past it, as it made us want to find out more. References to the book being called “The Bible” were never expanded upon further, like how it has shaped the entire scope of cinema. The film only sporadically mirrored the book, as it was intercut with interviews and sound segments. The nature of film makes you cut out certain aspects from the books they are based on, as 80 minutes fails to properly convey hundreds of pages worth of content.       The audio tracks were, to us, the true heart and soul of the documentary, and it is to its detriment that there are not more. Hearing Hitchcock’s voice adds another layer of context to his genius: he never stumbles over words, he answers questions immediately, and if he had something to say that couldn’t be filmed he would simply say “cut the track.” He was calculated in every way of his art form, and you can hear the confidence in his voice. Words can convey more thoughts, but more doesn’t always equate to better.      As for the interviewees, an issue we raised was the lack of diversity in nationality, occupation, and gender. There was one asian man, 4 white men. There were four directors, and one screenwriter. There were no women, and five men. How might a different eastern filmmaker feel about Hitchcock? Directors obviously deify the man, but how might an actor feel? Especially when Hitchcock belittled the entire job, likening them to “cattle” needing “reigned in.” How has Hitchcock influenced women directors, writers, and aspiring filmmakers? We wouldn’t know. They weren’t invited. Yes, Wes Anderson and Martin Scorsese are in the upper atmosphere of film, but the two are redundant, and the documentary missed the chance to give us more information in a way that wouldn’t have added to the total runtime.      Aside from the omission of certain interviewees, we wish more was talked about how he did what he did rather than the way he created it. He was famous for his set geography. Shave five minutes off talking about ‘Psycho’, and time has been created for other aspects of Hitchcock as an architect of film. The documentary could’ve been twenty minutes longer and given us a broader perspective.    If your dominant feeling after this documentary is not of inspiration and amazement, I’m unsure if you’ll ever enjoy film. Part of appreciating something is where it came from and what made it how it is today. In the blink of an eye the industry went from producing short, realistic, silent, and black and white films like Hitchcock’s to long (really, really long), unrealistic, loud, colored films like Michael Bay’s. These men exist in the same profession even if one is considerably more adequate. This fascinated me, and it should fascinate you too. Looking for more Hitchcock? Consider the link below. I haven’t found a more comprehensive blog of Hitchcock the man and Hitchcock the legend. https://the.hitchcock.zone/welcome/

[bridgerpalmer]

Response to Hitchcock/Truffaut

Francois Truffaut began as a film critic. Nationally French, it came as a surprise to many that Alfred Hitchcock (or Hitch to those stateside) was among his favorite film makers. Truffaut got the chance to spend over a week interviewing the ‘master of suspense’ in 1966, turning the series of interviews into one comprehensive book titled “ Le Cinéma selon Alfred Hitchcock” for the French, translating to “Cinema according to Alfred Hitchcock”. In America, the work was simply titled “Hitchcock/Truffaut.”

The book is widely regarded as a must-read for any cinema buff or aspiring film maker. Hitchcock goes into depth on each one of his works individually, answering every question posed by Truffaut in a masterful way. In 2015, the book was adapted to the screen in the form of a documentary by the same name of the book. The film is critically acclaimed, currently holding a 95% on the movie review site Rotten Tomatoes. One Variety author called it “intelligent yet accessible” which is a compliment to Truffaut for being an excellent interviewer, a job that, when done well, is often underappreciated. It is an even bigger compliment to Hitchcock as he is the one answering questions in a digestible way: succinct yet sufficient, jargon-infused yet laymen enough for those that may be viewing the film at an entry point.

Hitchcock was not known as an easy person to work with, but really is anyone that is considered a genius of their craft? Stanley Kubrick was infamously unaccommodating, and at times outright cruel to work with (in The Shining, he made Nicholson’s son re shoot the same scene 148 times. He quit acting after this film.) Hitchcock was cut from the same cloth, famously stating that “actors are cattle.” Hitchcock was the visionary. He had entire movies, scene for scene, in his head. He already finished the story. It only needed to be filmed.

In the documentary “Hitchcock/Truffaut”, Hitchcock retells a story of when the actor’s vision crashed with his own. Montgomery Cliff, a star in his own field, starred in the Hitchcock film “I Confess.” The scene shows Cliff leaving a building, greeted by a crowd of onlookers that he’ll have to push his way past before he can reach the hotel across the street. The actor was to exit, look at the crowd, briefly look at the hotel, then continue onward to it. When directed to do so, Cliff claimed that “(I’m) not sure if I would look to the hotel.” But Hitchcock, head full of scenes and plots, knew that that brief look at the hotel was important for the arch of the character. Hitchcock was uncompromising in his stance. Cliff, a method actor, eventually relented, and Hitchcock had his way again, as he often did.

Near the end of the interview, as Hitchcock was running out of films for Truffaut to inquire about, Hitchcock wondered aloud that maybe he should have experimented more. He was unrelenting in the way he reigned in his cattle, but he wondered if he should have allowed them more leeway. He was the master of suspense, but he wished he would have broadened his horizons. One film maker in the documentary highlights that although Hitchcock was a household name, he really was ‘at the outer edges of things’ referring to the style and genre of Hitchcock’s works.

Personally, I find Hitchcock’s worries on his career a side effect of his perfectionism. Say Hitchcock had let his actors experiment more, or if he had made ‘different’ films than he did. Would he not still find something to look back on with regret? Hitchcock retired from film before his death, and I think that with that time to reflect, and become part of the audience, he saw that no one was taking up his mantle. Yes, suspenseful and near horror films were produced and distributed, but there is a reason the creators of those works are not held in the same legendary standing as Hitchcock. If there were a mount Rushmore of cinema-industry erected directly above the Hollywood sign, Hitchcock would (in this author’s opinion) be unanimously voted to be sizzled into stone. Hitchcock was not without his faults, but the interview with Truffaut doesn’t dance around them, it embraces them, painting a comprehensive picture of the man that dominated cinema for much of his life.