MovieChat Forums > Alfred Hitchcock Discussion > Spielberg and Scorsese: About to Join Hi...

Spielberg and Scorsese: About to Join Hitchcock in "Longest Career"; Eastwood Already There

posted 3 years ago by ecarle (14979)
9 replies | jump to latest

I recall back in 1976 when I was a very young fellow reading about Alfred Hitchcock as he released his final film: Family Plot.

Many articles on Hitchcock in 1976 pointed out that he had released his first major film -- The Lodger -- in 1925. Some said it was The Pleasure Garden -- also in 1925(?) So he had a directing career of 51 years. Hitch hoped to make another film after Family Plot , but it didn't happen. He died in 1980. So -- 51 years.

Give or take. Word is that Hitchcock was working on "unfinished" German films as early as 1922. Which would put his career at 54 years.

But I will pick 51 years.

And here's the thing. In 1976, "51 years ago" was a long time, back to the silent days of the 20s and very primitive films.

But here in 2022, our real and potential "51 year directors" -- Eastwood, Spielberg, and Scorsese -- go back to...the 70's.

Seems like only yesterday to this kid. My, how time flies.

Clint Eastwood directed his first movie -- Play Misty for Me -- in 1971. So, 51 years. He's there.

Steven Spielberg in 1971 made HIS big splash with the ABC Movie of the Week(made for television) movie: Duel. But that doesn't count as a "movie movie" -- even though Duel was released AS a movie in Europe. No, Spielberg's first theatrical movie -- The Sugarland Express -- came out in 1974. So he has a few more years to go to 51 (2025, to be exact.)

Martin Scorsese made a few minor indies but "officially" began with Mean Streets -- in 1973. So he's getting close matching Hitchcock as well -- in 2024.

I suppose I've missed someone in there, but if not, these three directors -- Eastwood, Spielberg, Scorsese -- look to be the ONLY ones of the latter half of the 20th Century to reach Hitchcockian heights of longevity.

One assumes that Spielberg and Scorsese will eventually do BETTER than Hitchcock...they might have 60 year careers.

I'm hard pressed to see who else matches Hitchcock. Stanley Kubrick came close. Kubrick died at age 70, but I think he managed a 43-year career from Killer's Kiss to Eyes Wide Shut.

A lot of "70's hotshots" could not maintain Hitchcock-level longevity. These include William Friedkin, Peter Bogdanovich, Bob Rafelson, Sam Peckinpah, Roman Polanski, Hal Ashby. (Peckinpah and Ashby died relatively young.)

Francis Coppola "hit" with The Godfather in 1972, but was making movies from 1963 on ("Dementia 13.") HIS problem isn't the front end of his career -- its the back end. Hitchcock was working steadily with major theatrical releases for all 51 of his years. Coppola's last 20 years -- not so much. Still, Coppola IS a survivor and says that he WILL make more films.

I guess I will leave this question open-ended for now: who ELSE has matched, or will match, Hitchcock's 51-year long director's career. Ridley Scott maybe?

It won't be Quentin Tarantino. He has made 9 films and swears he will quit at ten. His first movie(Reservoir Dogs) was 30 years ago in 1992.

If he waits 21 more years to make his tenth and final film, QT will match Hitch...

PS. Hitchcock's 51 years are historic in this way: he worked from silent movies in the 20's to R-rated films in the 70s. The entire history of 20th Century movies are all in Hitchcock's career.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Roman Polanski has had a career spanning 57 years (Knife in the Water from 1962 up to An Officer and a Spy 2019). He has a film called The Palace currently in pre-production, assuming that gets released in 2023 his career would have spanned 61 years.

Ridley Scott could match the 51 years. He needs 6 more years in him...which would bring him to 90 years old, that's not something you can bet on but he seems in good health (physically and mentally) for his age and he's showing no signs of quitting anytime soon.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Roman Polanski has had a career spanning 57 years (Knife in the Water from 1962 up to An Officer and a Spy 2019). He has a film called The Palace currently in pre-production, assuming that gets released in 2023 his career would have spanned 61 years.

--

Well, there you go. I'll accept Polanski as beating Hitchcock's record. I "can't change rules in the middle of the stream," but I will note that -- rather as with Francis Coppola -- perhaps there is the issue of exactly how "major" the Polanski films of recent decades have been. His last American studio film (of only two) was Chinatown in 1974. Does this mean I must bring "foreign filmmakers" onto this list? Sure, hell, why not. What I'm looking for is: "Who matched or exceeded Hitchcock in career longevity?" Polanski exceeded him ..and will likely make more films still.

---

Ridley Scott could match the 51 years. He needs 6 more years in him...which would bring him to 90 years old, that's not something you can bet on but he seems in good health (physically and mentally) for his age and he's showing no signs of quitting anytime soon.

---

Well, Clint Eastwood just directed and starred in a film at 91 years old (Cry Macho.) Its not much of a movie, and Eastwood physically just doesn't look like a movie star anymore, but if Clint could do it, Ridley can do it.

Spielberg and Scorsese(and certainly Eastwood) are in better health than heavyset drinker Hitchcock was in his last decades. Hitchcock was seriously ill in the late sixties and seventies(which were also HIS late sixties and seventies), and it affected most of his work. I would think that our "new generation of old directors" have better health regimens and eating habits than Hitch did...they should be able to hit 60-year career marks. Ridley, too.

I certainly appreciate learning of other directors who meet or exceed Hitchcock's longevity. Thank you for the reminder on Polanski!

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I've took a quick look online to see if I could find any who match or beat Hitchcocks time span. Here are some I found;

Lewis Gilbert, a career spanning 54 years arguably best known for directing 3 Bond films; The Little Ballerina (1948) - Before You Go (2002)

Jean-Luc Godard, a career spanning 58 years; Breathless (1960) - The Image Book (2018)

Woody Allen, a career spanning 54 years; What's Up Tiger Lilly? (1966) - Rifkin's Festival (2020).

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Great stuff. Woody has beaten and will keep beating the Hitchcock record, but he is an interesting comparison.

Except for Midnight in Paris and Blue Jasmine, has anybody really SEEN Woody's movies in the past 20 years?

Its like Woody keeps making movie after movie...but nobody goes to see them. And they are generally "little tiny inexpensive personal films." Like short stories on the screen.

Also -- rather like Clint Eastwood -- Woody Allen was a big movie star in front of the camera for all of the 70s...he let his stardom rather "fade away" over the 80's and 90's, only occasionally starring in his movies again to remind us of what once was.

"Movie star Woody" has been gone for 20 years, too.

Hmm...I wonder why?

[–] christomacin (4655) 3 years ago

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Japanese director Kaneto Shindo (known mostly for the 1960's films "The Naked island", "Onibada", and "The Black Cat") directed his first film at age 39 (1951) and his last film at age 98 in (2010), that's a career of 59 years, 64 if you include his first screen-writing credit in 1947. And then there's Portuguese director Manoel de Oliveira (none of who's films I've seen and I doubt too many other people have). He directed his first film at age 34 (1942) and his last at age 104 (2013). That's a 71 year career, 84 years, if you count his first documentary at age 23 (1931

--

Thank you, chrisomacin, for this research. I suppose once one branches out past the "mainstream Hollywood directors," a few longer records do emerge. I think Kurosawa got a long career, as did Bunuel (who was born around the same time as Hitchcock, they travelled through time together) and Ingmar Bergman.

Hitchcock's career ends up a bit "apples and oranges" to the great American directors Ford, Hawks, and Capra. Simply put: those guys had some of their biggest hits and classics in America in the THIRTIES when Hitchcock was making lots of movies, but in ENGLAND. Hitchcock came to America in 1940 to make Rebecca, and thus his 'American studio period" was only 36 years, which is still a pretty long time.

I don't know the first year that Ford, Hawks, and Capra made films, but each man's career ended BEFORE Hitchcock's:

Capra's final film(Pocketful of Miracles) 1961 (one year after Psycho.)
Ford's final film (Seven Women) 1965.
Hawks final film (Rio Lobo) 1970 -- at least Hawks MADE it to the 70's.

The OTHER thing I'm trying to express with my OP is that, for people of MY age, we've gotten to see the ENTIRE careers of Spielberg, Scorsese and Eastwood. We grew up with them. Its been quite a ride and...1971 seems like only yesterday...

[–] christomacin (4655) 3 years ago

I was born in 1970 but mostly grew up with films from the same era as you due to the fact that cable, home box office, and video mostly showed or carried films from that era. So it's almost as if those were the films of MY youth as well. I really do wonder if directors in the future will have the long careers that some of the past have had. Studios seem increasingly skittish about have films helmed by people over the age of 65 or so.

[–] seagal72 (1959) 3 years ago

Surely Paul Verhoeven (and Brian DePalma) are in that club too?

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I'd say yes to each of them.

I suppose what "stuck out" about Hitchcock was how HIS 51 years covered a lot of movie history -- from silents to sound, from black and white to Technicolor, from Hays Code censorship to R-rated movies with cussing and nudity.

But we seem to have MORE of these long-range runners today...