MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Why Didn't Hitchcock Make Another "Psych...

Why Didn't Hitchcock Make Another "Psycho"?

posted 6 years ago by ecarle (14979)
46 replies | jump to latest

As we shall see, its rather a trick question.

But there it is. Hitchcock got his most giant of blockbusters and most talked-about film by making a horror movie. It is the first slasher movie because it is the first movie where the horror (and the set-piece action) derived not just from murder, but from SLAUGHTER: two attacks on human beings that were marked by their savagery, their bloodshed, their lingering length(especially the first one, but the second one "stretches out" down the staircase to the floor); and the utter monstrous madness of the killer. Throw in a moody Haunted House on a Hill, and Hitchcock had the formula for a superhit, a landmark film, a classic.

And by all accounts, it drove him crazy. The conveyer belt of pre-production at Hitchcock's production company shut down as he searched for "a movie to top Psycho." He'd been releasing one to two movies a year up til 1960 and Psycho. He ended up releasing nothing in 1961 and nothing in 1962, before offering up The Birds in 1963. It took that long to find the project, write the project, film the project, and oversee the post production effects on the project.

In certain ways, The Birds DID top Psycho. It had more set-pieces -- about 6 to the 3 in Psycho. It was a more dazzling exercise in cinematic effects. It looked very HARD to have made (getting all those birds to act, to fly, to dive -- whether animated, puppets, or real.)

And -- in Technicolor yet -- The Birds DID try to match Psycho in blood. We had the famous "farmer with the pecked-out eyes" scene. We had -- during the attack on Bodega Bay -- one anonymous man run up to the phone booth where Melanie is trapped, blood pouring down his face(ala Arbogast), a bird dragging him away. And we had a final attack on Melanie that not only matched the shower scene in technical dexterity(shots per minute), but was HARDER to film because of all those damn birds. (But Melanie SURVIVES, its not a fatal attack.)

And yet, The Birds didn't make half of what Psycho made. Word must have gotten out: the first hour was way too slow and involved(Hitchcock's sop to the cineastes, and a grab for Oscar); the birds simply weren't as believeable and terrifying as a crazed human with a big knife; there was no "screeching shock music" to accompany the bloodshed. Psycho -- smaller, cheaper, and shorter than The Birds -- simply had some powerful dark magic going on. (And a very sexy woman that The Birds didn't have, and a very fascinating madman that The Birds didn't have.)

On the evidence, it would seem that Hitchcock threw in the towel on trying to top -- or match -- Psycho -- after The Birds underperformed. And Hitch seemed to have a desperate desire to make "serious dramatic thrillers" in a bid to get that elusive Oscar. So we got Marnie(a throwback to Rebecca, Spellbound, Notorious and Vertigo in its tale of mental illness and twisted love); and then two Cold War spy dramas in a row. This wasn't a crazy idea -- Cold War movies WERE the rage in the sixties. But for the young teenage fans of Psycho(and to a lesser extent, The Birds), Hitchcock had abandoned his Youth Cult in favor of trying to please adults who would never accept him.

As we know, after that stretch of 60's decline, Hitchcock spent 1970 preparing, and 1971 filming...Frenzy. Which finally allowed Hitchcock to bring a psychopath back on screen. The film had an extended strangling sequence that matched the Psycho shower scene in editing dexterity yet missed its screamable shock value. And this was a SEXUAL psychopath, who rapes his victims. We see one of these rapes and 1972 is announced for Hitchcock(R-rated.)

Box office was good for Frenzy, but not great. And while the critics loved it(it graced many a Top Ten of the year list, which means it WAS good), audiences seeking another Psycho eventually gave up on it (too much talk, only one murder shown, too much disturbing sexual content.)

And Hitchcock moved on to the fun and lightweight Family Plot(released almost four years after Frenzy, almost a "post retirement afterthought" , closed out his career and died.

Only The Birds and Frenzy attempted to replicate the shock thrills of Psycho as a matter of genre. But Hitchcock couldn't help but put the violence of Psycho into his "dramas": Marnie leads up to the flashback bloody bludgeoning of a sailor john by the hooker's little daughter. Torn Curtain eschews crop dusters and Mount Rushmore for a music-free, lingering and realistic killing of a man that goes on for minutes. Topaz lacks a big gory murder sequence, but piles on a demoralizing array of "murders of good people," often shown with blood on their faces AFTER murder or torture. Its a grim film; Psycho, not North by Northwest hangs over it.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

So you could say that, after Psycho, Hitchcock at once never made a true shocker again and yet made sure that the tone and violence of Psycho got into everything he did after -- whether love story(Marnie) or spy drama(Torn Curtain, Topaz.) Frenzy revisited the psycho violence of Psycho but added sex and removed screams. Family Plot was made in REACTION to all of Hitchcock's movies from Psycho on. It was almost a renunciation of them, Hitchcock pleading at death's door to be remembered as an entertainer, not a monster.

But for all of that, the question is begged: why didn't Hitchcock, after Psycho, simply make ANOTHER shocker, with blood and knife violence? His B-level inspiration, William Castle, rather made the same movie in Macabre, House on Haunted Hill, The Tingler and 13 Ghosts; and copied Psycho with both Homicidal and Strait-Jacket(with Psycho novelist Robert Bloch writing it and axe murders in for knife murders.)

Is it that Hitchcock could not bring himself to be...William Castle?

Maybe, maybe not. For evidence in books published long after Hitchcock's death shows us that actually, Hitchcock DID move on trying to produce another "psycho shocker" after Psycho hit so big.

What Hitch moved on was developing material for what might be "a prequel to Shadow of a Doubt." In other words, a study of a serial killer, perhaps a strangler, as he claimed victims and was hunted. Several writers developed this material from about 1964 on; one of them was none other than Robert Bloch himself. (Hitch made millions after paying Bloch only 9,000 for Psycho; he felt he owed him.) But Bloch wasn't a good writer for films(see: Strait-Jacket)) and Hitch let him go(while still producing Bloch stories for the TV series.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Came 1967, Hitchcock felt he had his next "Psycho" ready to go. A writer had gotten it to the finish line and it was to be called Frenzy. This piece would have nothing to do with the Frenzy he made five years later. THIS Frenzy(called The First Frenzy in some circles, and Kaleidoscope in others, except Warren Beatty made a movie with that title in '66) was to be set in New York City, and to feature some trendy nudity and sex in accord with "Blow Up" and other foreign films that Hitchcock was fixated on. I've read portions of the First Frenzy script, and the first murder takes place as a woman is CONSENSUALLY making love with the killer(named Willie), by a waterfall. The camera pulls back slowly and we come to realize that the struggles of love are actually the struggles of death. This psycho killer, like Norman, uses a knife, but more quietly.

The First Frenzy also features a cinematic second murder set on an old abandoned ship in a mothball fleet as boats race to stop it. It read like a pretty exciting script, with a return to a knife-wielding mad man.

But Lew Wasserman said NO. Now that Hitchcock was at Universal, Wasserman said, he didn't want any psycho movies. He wanted spy movies. Hitchcock dutifully made Torn Curtain before Frenzy was rejected; Hitchcock dejectedly made Topaz AFTER Frenzy was rejected.

Why did Hitchcock finally get to make ANOTHER "Frenzy" at Universal? Evidently the main reason was that Richard Nixon, a Republican, was now President. Wasserman had been friends with Dem President LBJ and didn't want Universal making "sick" movies that would embarrass him in DC. But with Nixon in, Wasserman didn't care anymore. And he saw that Hitchcock had had too many bombs, and needed to be allowed to make a story HITCHCOCK wanted to make. Thus, the Final Frenzy. The biggest critical success of Hitchcock's career since North by Northwest(Psycho had drawn some bad reviews.)
CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

So the answer to the question - "Why didn't Hitchcock make another Psycho?" can be answered: he tried. But trouble with material and writers slowed him down for a few years, and then Lew Wasserman stopped him.

But that accounts for the aborted First Frenzy only. We have the final Frenzy, and though Hitchcock was finally given free reign to make another psycho killer movie, it clearly isn't Psycho no matter how much they match up. The shocks are different, the atmosphere is different(wonderful atmosphere though -- Covent Garden),the British players and settings are different, the psycho killer is different(and not on screen a lot.) Still, Frenzy is arguably the best movie Hitchcock made in the years after Psycho, and the fact that the subject IS a psycho is part of that. We will always be fascinated with the human monsters around us -- what makes the human mind go wrong like that?

Hitchcock himself said of Psycho, in an interview years later when his career was in decline, "Well, that was a once in a lifetime occurrence. I knew I could never do that again."

Maybe he was right.

[–] [email protected] (1732) 6 years ago

First of all, he was an artist who didn't try to copy himself. Secondly, while "Psycho" may be his most famous
film it is arguably not his best film. (I'd go with "Vertigo").

You can't really compare "Psycho" to "The Birds." They're two very different films.

At any rate, "The Birds" is arguably his last GREAT film. "Marnie" is no masterpiece, and "Torn Curtain" was
really the beginning of the end.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I think all of those answers are on point, gbennet. Biggest being: he didn't try to copy himself. Though I think the record shows he tried to develop another psycho killer movie from about 1964 on, and finally got to make Frenzy for his efforts.

===

As to your other points:

Secondly, while "Psycho" may be his most famous
film it is arguably not his best film. (I'd go with "Vertigo").

---

Funny thing. One of the stars of Psycho -- Vera Miles -- pretty much said the same thing while promoting Psycho II in 1983. She didn't name what the best film was, but I, too, would guess Vertigo would be Miles' answer. (More irony: Miles' was Hitchcock's first choice for the Kim Novak role in Vertigo; she quit over pregnancy.)

I would guess that Vertigo would be Miles' answer because I think that Vertigo and Psycho have devolved down to the two top candidates for "Hitchcock's greatest film." Rear Window lacks a Bernard Herrmann score, which lowers it a bit. North by Northwest(WITH a Herrmann score and a Saul Bass credit sequence like Vertigo and Psycho) is Hitchocck's great entertainment, but evidently too derivative of some of his other works to make "greatest."
Some candidates from the 40s -- Rebecca, Shadow of a Doubt, Notorious -- seem to be lacking the Hitchcock style and maturity of his later works.

---

---

You can't really compare "Psycho" to "The Birds." They're two very different films.

---

Well, as the psychiatrist in Psycho says: "Yes...and no."

Yes: They have different settings, characters, narrative arcs, etc. (And The Birds is in color.)

No: Hitchcock seems out to match Psycho not only with an emphasis on shock and blood, but with specific scenes: the final attack on Melanie is like the shower scene; an early talk between Melanie and Annie in Annie's house, is shot and cut like the Norman/Marion parlor scene; Melanie's climb up the stairs to her attack is reminiscent of Arbogast's climb(but much more "intense" in the close-ups.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

At any rate, "The Birds" is arguably his last GREAT film. "Marnie" is no masterpiece, and "Torn Curtain" was
really the beginning of the end.

---

Naming the last great film is...its own Hitchcock parlor game.

That last great film just might be...Psycho. The Birds couldn't beat it at the box office and it seemed flawed as a matter of scripting, character, and maybe, acting.

But The Birds was such a famous film(as famous as Psycho ) and such a stunning technical achievement, with such an astonishing final shot, that...yes, it could be the last great Hitchcock film.

But...some will go that extra distance and name Marnie the last great Hitchcock film. Largely, I think, because it was the final time The Gang's All Here: Herrmann, cinematographer Robert Burks, editor George Tomasini.
Also because Marnie takes up the Vertigo genre, and moves AWAY from entertainment. Still, Marnie is very botched film, script-wise and technically. (And if you are with me in feeling that Tippi Hedren was neither a true star nor a particularly great actress, the movie depends on her, and that's a problem.)

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"Torn Curtain" was
really the beginning of the end.

---

Yes. Here we have the movie that Hitchcock FIRED Herrmann from. The worst and most craven thing Hitchcock ever did(though I will equate his treatment of Hedren with it, almost -- Herrmann was a greater collaborator). Hitchcock simply didn't hire Robert Burks to film it, and editor George Tomasini had died of a heart attack. Couple that with Hitchcock's discomfort in working with "young, hot stars" Newman and Andrews and...it is the beginning of the end.

But oddly, not a straight decline.

Frenzy is in there to refute the idea that Hitchcock was senile (he came back strong.) And Family Plot was lightweight and fun.

But Family Plot was not very well made, and thus joins Torn Curtain and Topaz in a "straight line of decline."

Only Frenzy holds the fort against the "straight decline" idea and...it has its "old man moments"(too much exposition, too many scenes of people talking in rooms.) Still, I find the overall feeling of Frenzy to be great(its return to England, emphasis on Covent Garden; its three set-pieces and its sexual savagery) and so, it just might be Hitchcock's last great film, too. Which is pretty good given that he only made one film after it.

Categorizing Hitchcock's career IS a game. It seems that he had a "male menopause" period between Notorious and Strangers on a Train that is only saved by Rope. The movies after Psycho are debated as to whether or not another great film IS there.

And the stretch from Strangers on a Train through Psycho is an incredible run, arguably unmatched by any other filmmaker. Strangers and Rear Window; the Big Three in a Row(Vertigo,NXNW, Psycho) which just might be the Big Four in a Row if you let The Birds in. And in between: hits(To Catch a Thief, Man Who Knew Too Much), personal works(The Trouble With Harry, The Wrong Man.) Just an INCREDIBLE run.

[–] [email protected] (1732) 6 years ago

I think "The Birds" IS great, so since it was made AFTER "Psycho", and before "Marnie", "Torn
Curtain", etc., I would put it as his last great film. I do believe "Psycho" is the more perfect
of the two.

What hurts "The Birds" is the dated special effects. The skill and artistry BEHIND them holds up
(all great art holds up), but many of the process shots don't.

To say a Hitchcock film isn't great just because Herrmann didn't score it doesn't work for me.
"Rear Window" is a great film, and its music-less moments are haunting. (I love the jazzy,
opening score, as well as "Lisa", the song used in the film, even though its melody borrows
a lot from Rogers and Hart's "Where or When)."

"Frenzy" is a near-great film. Very disturbing. It's not as fun, as it's soooooo dark.

I really enjoyed "Family Plot", too.

Vera Miles. Wow. What a great actor, she was. She was/is unquestionably a greater actor than
Kim Novak, although "Vertigo" does contain her overall best performance. But Miles would've
been superior. No doubt about it.

Miles rarely gave interviews, but I bet she regrets not being able to do "Vertigo."

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I think "The Birds" IS great, so since it was made AFTER "Psycho", and before "Marnie", "Torn
Curtain", etc., I would put it as his last great film. I do believe "Psycho" is the more perfect
of the two.

---

Well, that's the funny thing. Hitchcock, as with a handful of other auteur directors in his time, made quite a few "great films" -- and its really in some ways only a matter of degree as to whether or not "one is greater than the other." The American Film Institute twice in 10 years picked the same four Hitchcock films as the films for their list of great films: Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, and Psycho. It would be hard to say than any one of those is "greater" than the other; its likely more a matter of personal taste. (Personally I rank Psycho and NXNW ahead of the other two, they are "bigger" entertainments.)

As a technical matter, and a matter of directorial prowess, I think The Birds IS greater than Psycho. It just looks bigger and more difficult to have pulled off. But Psycho wins on script, terror, characterization...acting

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

What hurts "The Birds" is the dated special effects. The skill and artistry BEHIND them holds up
(all great art holds up), but many of the process shots don't.

---

I guess so. I'm still pretty impressed by a lot of those shots. Principally: the high in the sky overhead shot of the seagulls filling the frame and diving down on Bodega Bay, and...that incredibly great final shot of the film(it took MONTHS, I believe, for all the elements to be put into place.)

I also love the penultimate close-up on some crows on the Brenner porch, fluffing their feathers as if to say "WE own this house, now" in triumph.

Still, yes, some of the bird effects look "transparent" and cheesy all these years later.

---

To say a Hitchcock film isn't great just because Herrmann didn't score it doesn't work for me.
"Rear Window" is a great film,

---

That was a risky statement by me, and I will clarify it: if there is a reason that Vertigo and Psycho ARE great...it is the Herrmann music. You can't imagine either film without their Herrmann scores. Psycho has the famous screeching violins to make everybody scream, but the rest of the score captures mood and dread perfectly. Vertigo needs its wraparound symphonic score both to impart dizzyiness and obsessive love fulfilled(when "Madeleine" comes out of the bathroom.)

Rear Window indeed often has no music...or just the distant purr or radio music. More often, it is an exercise in what one critic called "Hitchcock's air pockets of silence."

But might not Rear Window have soared even higher with something by Herrman on the soundtrack?

---

and its music-less moments are haunting.

---

Agreed. And I love how Burr's final invasion of Stewart's apartment is backdropped by silence and...traffic sounds outside the window. The city goes on.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

(I love the jazzy,
opening score,

---

It ain't Herrmann, but it has its own "life in the city" hipness, and does set the stage for the hipness of Rear Window itself.

---

as well as "Lisa", the song used in the film, even though its melody borrows
a lot from Rogers and Hart's "Where or When)."

---

Hitchcock told Truffaut that he couldn't quite pull off the idea of "Lisa"....that we would hear the song being slowly written over the course of the film until it emerged in full flower at the end. I KIND of get that effect, but it is a lovely song and a lovely way to announce Lisa's romantic victory at the end.( Interesting point about "Where or When.") Restored prints of Rear Window in 2000 went out with Dino's "That's Amore" over the new end credits. Not quite right -- the song appears but briefly in an instrumental in the movie.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"Frenzy" is a near-great film.

---

I'm torn between two reviews on its release:

Newsweek: "Hitchcock has fooled us again. Frenzy is one of his very best."

Time: "It is not at the level of his greatest work, but it is smooth and shrewd and dexterous, a fitting reminder than anyone who makes a suspense film is an apprentice to this master."

Back and forth I go, from Newsweek rave to Time "near rave." I find myself agreeing more with Newsweek as the years go by.

----

Very disturbing. It's not as fun, as it's soooooo dark.

---

Though Frenzy is filled with style and atmosphere and good story structure, I've come to believe that it is its ablity to disturb that makes it great. When Bob Rusk corners Brenda Blaney in her office, you get no sense that somebody yelled "Action" and "Cut." You are THERE, trapped with Brenda as the situation slowly rolls out of control and into bedrock animal brutality.

To me, the most heartbreaking moment is when Rusk quickly gets that necktie wrapped around Brenda's neck. It is clear she cannot undo that "knot." The tie is secure to strangle her, and all she can do is fruitlessly beg "Somebody please help me" as Rusk mercilessly pulls it tight. The sadness for Brenda -- and rage towards Rusk --are deep emotions within me that I have never really lost. All from a "make believe" movie.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I really enjoyed "Family Plot", too.

---

After Frenzy, it sure was enjoyable. I think people shouldn't discount the emphasis on that runaway car scene -- rather than a horrible murder -- as the key set-piece. Its a lesson in Hitchocckian POV(we never see the hood of the car; we never really go outside the car except once) and a mix of roller coaster thrills(seen on the big screen, your stomach jumps) and laughs(Dern and Harris ARE funny, bickering away in the face of death.)

Too much of the first hour of Family Plot is slow and clumsy -- the work of an "old man" -- but in the second hour, it miraculously comes to life and everything comes together. Half a great movie, and a more fitting farewell -- with a wink -- than Frenzy.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Vera Miles. Wow. What a great actor, she was.

---

She was, wasn't she? Beautiful and heartbreaking in The Wrong Man....and making the most of a "nothing role" in Psycho. (When Julianne Moore played Lila, she complained "I have no role to play here," but there IS a role..and Vera proved it.)

---

She was/is unquestionably a greater actor than
Kim Novak, although "Vertigo" does contain her overall best performance. But Miles would've
been superior. No doubt about it.

---

When Vertigo was made, Kim Novak was a bigger star than Vera Miles -- but only recently. Picnic, The Man With the Golden Arm, and Pal Joey did it. Novak was also being sold as more of a MM "va va voom" type. It was for these reasons that Hitchocck wanted Vera Miles and NOT Novak for Vertigo.

The story has changed on Miles not getting Vertigo. Originally: she got pregnant, so Hitchcock had to film without her. Now; she got pregnant, but she gave birth and was ready to film Vertigo which hadn't started filming yet -- BUT Paramount and superagent Lew Wasserman wanted Hitch to use the bigger Novak instead.

Who knows? As it turned out, Novak got Vertigo, her best performance(especially as Judy) and her most famous film(but not for decades after it came out.)

---

Miles rarely gave interviews, but I bet she regrets not being able to do "Vertigo.

---

Probably. Though at the time she said "Hitchcock got his movie. I got a son," as if to point out that movies aren't THAT important.

Whether or not Vera Miles could have been a big star is debateable. What is not debateable is that she was in four classics by two great directors: The Searchers, The Wrong Man, Psycho, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Because she is in those movies, Miles will be famous forever. (And as I write this, she is still alive, albeit not seen in public in decades. That's her choice.)

[–] [email protected] (1732) 6 years ago

"Frenzy:" I would agree with the Time review.

I do NOT for a split second feel that "Rear Window" would've been greater had
Herrmann scored it. Movies are a collaborative art form (which makes them
a less "pure" art form than paintings, plays or books...many hands in the
making). True, "Psycho" wouldn't have been the SAME great film without
Herrmann's shattering score...but it sill would've been a great film.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I will accept both your points...and particularly give thought to the one about Rear Window and Psycho and their scores.

Funny thing: Frenzy doesn't have a Herrmann score, and I do like the film. So there you go.

A bit of trivia about Bernard Herrmann:

Hitchcock fired him off of Torn Curtain in 1966. As it turned out, Herrman lived until late 1975, so he COULD have scored all the Hitchcock movies from Torn Curtain to Family Plot(which came out fairly early in 1976.)

And as Hitchcock didn't make any more movies after Family Plot, thus Herrmann and Hitchcock could have collaborated together through the entire Hitchcock canon after Psycho.

But it was not to be.

Hitchcock used these composers instead:

Torn Curtain...John Addision
Topaz...Maurice Jarre
Frenzy...Ron Goodwin
Family Plot...John Williams

Of that group, John Williams was famous; he did Family Plot between Jaws and Star Wars! (And thus, Family Plot rather sounds like a Lucas-Spielberg movie.)

Of the rest, Maurice Jarre was the most famous(Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, The Professionals) and Topaz has the best post-Herrman score other than Family Plot.

i think the Addison score for Torn Curtain has a great overture, but is sub-par elsewhere. And I think Ron Goodwin's score for Frenzy is rather harsh and pedestrian(except for a nicely sinsister Waltz that Rusk gets for the potato truck scene start-up.)

Frenzy was first to be scored by the famous Henry Mancini, but Hitch fired HIM, too(what was UP with Hitch?) Mancini's overture for Frenzy can be found on YouTube, I think it is better than Ron Goodwin's.

And...thank you for conversing with me today.

[–] Horrorlover656 (36) 2 years ago

Hi. Hope I didn't disturb you.

I made this account just to chat with you. I'm a big fan of your Hitchcock posts.

"I've read portions of the First Frenzy script"
Can you give me the source? I've read the scripts for Mary Rose and The Short Night, but not Kaleidoscope Frenzy. I desperately want it.

Thanks for your contributions

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"I've read portions of the First Frenzy script"
Can you give me the source? I've read the scripts for Mary Rose and The Short Night, but not Kaleidoscope Frenzy. I desperately want it.

Thanks for your contributions

--

Thank you.

I've never been able to read the entire "First Frenzy" script. I've read a few "summaries of the plot" and I think I can picture the film. Interestingly, as with the "bare bones plot" of both Psycho and the "Final Frenzy" films, the screenplays are rather simple affairs. A psycho killer. Two violent murders. The killer is captured.

One regret I have about "the First Frenzy" and "The Final Frenzy" are that both stories are about a psycho who ONLY murders women. And sexually, too. Thus, men watching these two stories(made or unmade) need not feel fear -- only outrage at the attacks on women.

Versus: Psycho. Where the second victim is a fairly tough man(a private eye) whose murder is just as shocking and terrifying as that of the woman victim in the film. Thus, men AND women sat through Psycho in terror and the movie feels a little less misogynistic. (That said, in real life, male killers DO kill women for sexual reasons.)

A few pages of the First Frenzy script can be read in Dan Auiler's book "Hitchcock's Notebooks." The pages comprise the two murders in the film. The killer, "Willie" (not much of a name) stabs both female victims, so Psycho is referenced a bit. The first murder is in Central Park(NYC) by a waterfall; the second is in an old battleship as part of a "mothball fleet" in the Hudson River.

Evidently, in The First Frenzy, "Willie the psycho" is the handsome son of a female Broadway star(a role penciled in for Ingrid Bergman.) The film takes up twomurders and then a third attempt(ala Psycho) with a female decoy cop(near gas tanks on a hillside near the ocean -- in NYC?)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

One of the Hitchcock books(I can't remember which) had Truffaut's notes back to Hitchcock after he was allowed to read The First Frenzy script. Truffaut is very respectful to Hitchcock, but it is clear that he doesn't much like the story. He does note in passing of a police detective character in the First Frenzy that he doesn't much care for the character "but perhaps you can make him as interesting as Arbogast."

Now one for you(if you wish to respond): I have never read a script for Mary Rose. Where does one find this? Did you like it?

[–] Horrorlover656 (36) 2 years ago

"One of the Hitchcock books(I can't remember which) had Truffaut's notes back to Hitchcock after he was allowed to read The First Frenzy script. "
I think it was the Hitchcock Truffaut interview book. There's another book:- Alfred Hitchcock: A life in darkness and light, where this is also mentioned.

"Now one for you(if you wish to respond): I have never read a script for Mary Rose. Where does one find this? Did you like it?"
Here you go:-http://www.writingwithhitchcock.com/scripts/mary_rose.pdf

I like the surrealistic vibe and the ideas he had(such as lighting a woman in green, like Madeleine in Vertigo). He even suggested it to Truffaut.

It's sad that Universal didn't let him make these projects. They could have started a second golden age for Hitchcock - a gritty one marked by the overall grittiness and explicitness of 60s and 70s movies(Imagine Hitchcock directing Chinatown instead of Roman Polanski. Maybe we would get the story from both Noah Cross and Gittes' P.O.V. And the Mulwray's body would be the macguffin.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"Thus, men watching these two stories(made or unmade) need not feel fear -- only outrage at the attacks on women."
I think I can agree on that. The rape scene from Frenzy was hard to sit through. I don't know how Hitchcock would have made us empathise with Willie, if the violence was going to be even more brutal than 'The Final Frenzy'. I really hated Bob Rusk after that scene.

---

Yes...its interesting how Psycho was constructed so that we never really HATE Norman Bates...we so strongly believe in Mother as the killer that its hard to switch our minds to Norman as the killer until the very end. (But WHAT a killer..more of a merciless monster who wields a knife like a Cuisinart.)

But Rusk we see "up close and personal, the clear killer" from the get-go. And his whole approach to his rape and murder of Brenda Blaney is enraging, cowardly and sickly. He taunts, terrorizes and manhandles his victim -- who has done NOTHING to merit her selection for murder -- before raping and killing her and I for one, have always "ended" Frenzy in my mind with Blaney crossing the room and beating Rusk with that tire iron -- not fatally, but painfully (knees, groin, teeth).

---

From the readable pages of The First Frenzy, it looks like Willie is nice and handsome enough to attract young women for consensual sex (it is the "hippie free love era"), which makes his murder of his first victim disturbing in a different way for Hitchcock. Unlike Rusk, Willie doesn't take by force, attack and rape his victim, rather he elects to kill her even as she THINKS she is having sex with a man who loves her. At first.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

The Final Frenzy was from a 1966 novel (Goodbye Picadilly, Farewell Leiceister Square) set in London and Hitchcock decided to shift his "Frenzy" title to that material and to tell an entirely different story. (Hitch added the cinematic motif of the necktie as a murder weapon; Rusk used his hands and in one case, a stocking in the book.)

The First Frenzy was a rare thing , an ORIGINAL screenplay rather built upon by various writers under Hitchcock's direction to give him another "Psycho." It was set in New York City, not London. Personally, I've always been intrigued by the climax near gas tanks on a hillside near the ocean. There ARE such tanks(multi-colored to look pretty) near SAN FRANCISCO, and Hitchcock made a few movies around there. Evidently, he was going to move them (on film) to the New York area.

Dan Aulier surmised (wrongly, I think) that "Willie the psycho" is triggered to kill "near bodies of water." The Central Park waterfall for the first murder, the mothball fleet on the Hudson River for the second. (Funny, there was a mothball fleet near SAN FRANCISCO, not far from those gas tanks -- was Hitchcock just going to substitute one coastal US city for another?)

There is some 16 millimeter footage filmed by "somebody" at Hitchcock's request to demonstrate how he wanted The First Frenzy to look. It can be seen in the documentary Dial H for Hitchcock. Unknown male and female models stage some of the scenes from the script -- Willie rowing one victim to the mothball fleet -- and some of the shots feature nudity.

Hitchcock put this project into motion in 1967 -- perhaps he knew that the MPAA code was about to allow R movies and wanted to join in immediately. But Lew Wasserman shut the project down. Hitchcock ended up taking 1967 and 1968 off and moved on to Topaz...hardly perverse material.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Evidently, Mary Rose fell apart during this period as well --again, Lew Wasserman, once Hitchcock's protector and pal as an agent(he fought FOR Psycho), now Hitchcock's boss as a studio head, said "no.""

-----"Now one for you(if you wish to respond): I have never read a script for Mary Rose. Where does one find this? Did you like it?"
Here you go:-http://www.writingwithhitchcock.com/scripts/mary_rose.pdf

---

You have made my day! Always wanted to read that script. Note that the screenwriter is Jay Presson Allen, a rare female Hitchcock collaborator who had written the final script for Marnie (after Joe Psycho Stefano wrote a treatment and Evan The Birds Hunter was fired). I think Hitchcock had Tippi Hedren in mind for a role in this, but THAT fell apart too.

There is a big ol' list of "unmade Hitchcock projects" out there (one called No Bail for the Judge had Audrey Hepburn, Laurence Harvey and John Williams on board before Hepburn bailed) but none seems so "missed" to me as "Mary Rose." I have not read the script yet, but it has always seemed to me that Hitchcock in his "Vertigo" vibe could have delivered one of his greatest films with that one -- hopefully with Bernard Herrmann on board for the music.

Hitchcock -- who had invented the famous ungrammatical "The Birds Is Coming!" for that movie, wanted THIS one advertised as: "Mary Rose, A Ghost Story By Alfred Hitchcock." His FIRST truly supernatural work and...why couldn't we have that?

Several of the "unmade" Hitchcock movies have scripts written for them. I suppose it would take a lot of lawyers to free any of the scripts for the making, and their time has passed -- along with the best man to make them.

CONT

I like the surrealistic vibe and the ideas he had(such as lighting a woman in green, like Madeleine in Vertigo). He even suggested it to Truffaut.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"(That said, in real life, male killers DO kill women for sexual reasons.)"
If I remember, I think Hitchcock based Uncle Charlie on the Gorilla Man, who was a necrophile and sex murderer who killed women. Kind of make me wonder whether Uncle Charlie had sexual motivations. Or if Bob Rusk was a necrophile.

----

I like to note that Hitchcock only rarely "went to the well" of psychopathic killer villains. By my books, it was one a decade, each allowed to be more graphic in his killings than the last:

The forties: Shadow of a Doubt -- Uncle Charlie(Joseph Cotton) No murders shown.
The fifties: Strangers on a Train -- Bruno Anthony(Robert Walker) a fairly brutal strangling segues into a fancy "mirror shot."
The sixties: Psycho -- Norman Bates(Anthony Perkins). The most graphic, bloody and long murders in movies to that date (stabbings; Hitch usually favored stranglers.)
The seventies: Frenzy -- Bob Rusk(Barry Foster). More graphic murder(a strangling this time, no segues) and sex is added in the R-rated rape.

ALL of these psychos save Bruno in Strangers on a Train were based on real-life psycho killers who, frankly , performed far worse atrocities on screen than anything Hitchcock was willing to film.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

The R-rated Bob Rusk is a literal "sex maniac"(so often that term is used in jest), based on several real-life British psychos, but the earlier American Hays Code psychos had their sexual issues, I'm sure. Norman was "aroused" by Marion and Mother(Norman) had to kill her ("The rape Norman dare not attempt" wrote one critic, becomes the stabbing.) Uncle Charlie rather professes a "rationale" for his female victims: he sees them as fat, wheezing widows who pushed their husbands into working themselves to death and then spent the spoils ("Eating the money, drinking the money, losing the money at cards.") That was perhaps dangerously "supportable" to hard working husbands in the audience in 1943, but women work a lot now.

Uncle Charlie's hatred seems class/gender based, but Bob Rusk in the book that became Frenzy IS a necrophiliac with at least one of his victims' corpses. Hitchcock said he never would have put that in his movie. Hey, it was sick enough as it was.

---
"A few pages of the First Frenzy script can be read in Dan Auiler's book "Hitchcock's Notebooks." "
Now, that's a book I really need to get.

---

Its a good book, if a little hard to read (one critic said "Its like Aulier dumped a bunch of Hitchcock's file drawers on the floor and stapled the pages into a book.)

Interstingly, Auiler writes that he found nothing of interest in the files for the 1972 Frenzy, so he skips that movie. But ANOTHER author found those files and wrote an entire book about the making of Frenzy that is VERY interesting in showing how many takes Htichcock did of scenes and how, despite age and injury, he showed up to do a LOT of work on the film.

But Auiler's book has many detailed pages on all the various iterations that Hitchcock scripts went through: a LOT.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

It's sad that Universal didn't let him make these projects. They could have started a second golden age for Hitchcock - a gritty one marked by the overall grittiness and explicitness of 60s and 70s movies(Imagine Hitchcock directing Chinatown instead of Roman Polanski. Maybe we would get the story from both Noah Cross and Gittes' P.O.V. And the Mulwray's body would be the macguffin.)

---

Its a hard call. On the one hand, Hitchcock made Frenzy at age 72 -- only two movies from the end -- and it was well-made, VERY well reviewed, and somewhat of a hit.

But so many of the movies around it "at the end" reflect the flaws of a great artist who was starting to lose it --health, drinking, age, tiredness, an inability to compete with the times(James Bond was a real competitive foe to Hitchcock's work.)

In a perfect world, Hitchcock would have been treated like Scorsese, Spielberg and(with foreign funding) Woody Allen today -- Lew Wasserman would have said YES to The First Frenzy and Mary Rose and let Hitchcock make whatever he wanted. to the end. It could not have been worse than, say, Topaz (which is pretty good in my book; its HITCHCOCK.)

Its interesting that you mention Chinatown.

When Chinatown opened in 1974 (as a SUMMER movie!), Paramount took out a two-page ad in the LA Times filled with good reviews of the film. And one big headline across the top from one critic's piece said: "FORGET HITCHCOCK -- WE'VE GOT POLANSKI!" How mean. How sad. Hitchcock lived in Los Angeles among others in the industry. He had to wake up that morning knowing many in the industry were reading that ad. What an insult to a man who gave Paramount some of its greatest hits and classics. Oh, well -- as it turned out, Hitchcock ended up making a lot more American studio movies than Polanski.

[–] Horrorlover656 (36) 2 years ago

"From the readable pages of The First Frenzy, "
If you don't mind, can you please send pictures of the pages over Google Drive or some other site. I'm afraid I can't help it. This unmade project intrigues me so much.

"triggered to kill "near bodies of water.""
That's a pretty weird motive for a serial killer, unless the killer is planning to dispose off the body immediately(a la Norman). According to some sources, Willie might have been a necrophile.

"Lew Wasserman, once Hitchcock's protector and pal as an agent"
Didn't he also suggest Kim Novak for Madeleine Elster?

" (one called No Bail for the Judge had Audrey Hepburn, Laurence Harvey and John Williams on board before Hepburn bailed)"
I wonder if there's a script for this one. Off topic: While reading the script for Mary Rose, I pictured Mr. Morland(Mary Rose' father) as John Williams for some reason.

"based on real-life psycho killers who, frankly , performed far worse atrocities on screen than anything Hitchcock was willing to film."
Absolutely. I've read about the case of Neville Heath from a book known as 'Handsome Brute: The True Story of a Ladykiller'. The segment's describing his murders are nauseating. What he did to those innocent women was extremely vile. Though the book is a very well researched interesting read, I would not recommend it.

""FORGET HITCHCOCK -- WE'VE GOT POLANSKI!" How mean. How sad."
Really? I love Chinatown but that's plain recency bias. I would like this opportunity to say that the culture of bashing someone's else preferred entertainment to push one's own to the forefront is annoying.

[–] Horrorlover656 (36) 2 years ago

As a side note, I've got a request for a future post.
Can you write one on both obscure and non obscure Psycho influenced thrillers from the 60s and 70s?

This idea was sparked by the following taglines I've come across in the past:
"In the tradition of PSYCHO!"(from both the poster of Sweet Kill 1973,starring TAB HUNTER, and the cover of Goodbye Piccadilly farewell Leicester)
"Enough screams to make even Hitchcock jump!"(from the poster of Twisted Nerve 1968)

It would be good if you discussed the similarities and differences between the classic and the 'disciples'.

Thank you.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"From the readable pages of The First Frenzy, "
If you don't mind, can you please send pictures of the pages over Google Drive or some other site. I'm afraid I can't help it. This unmade project intrigues me so much.

---

I don't really have the talent or capacity to do that sort of thing. I don't post links either. I am sorry.

There's not all that much out there on the First Frenzy. Maybe two pages of script in the Aulier book. Plus, I learned the general outline of the story at various places.

Its funny. I've read the scripts for Psycho and Frenzy, and neither of them really "transmit" how much they would transform into such classic movies. Don't get me wrong, both scripts CLEARLY have great dialogue and structure (with Psycho having a more unique story) but it took Hitchcock's visuals , Herrmann's music(on Psycho), the actors -- a LOT to bring forth from the page the classic films(Psycho) and very good film(Frenzy).

The First Frenzy reads pretty slight. One can only imagine the movie. But reports are that Hitchcock wanted to do it "late sixties style" -- gritty and handheld with odd angles, etc.

I will note this: the second killing in the First Frenzy takes place inside an old military battleship and Willie stabs his victim as viewed through the lattices and metal bars of the ship's ladder. It reads pretty "Psycho" ---indeed, it is the fall from the ladder and a head blow that kills the victim permanently. But you cane SEE the scene.

Later, in a night scene, a small armada of police boats surround the battleship and there is a high overhead shot of all the boats' their lights shining on the ship. I could picture THAT as a great Hitchcock shot, too.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

The script of the First Frenzy must have "gone public in Hollywood" in the late sixties. A book on superagent Sue Mengers (who represented Anthony Perkins), noted that she offered a different handsome young actor to Hitchcock for the role of Willie the Psycho: John Phillip Law (the "bird man" from Barbarella.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"triggered to kill "near bodies of water.""
That's a pretty weird motive for a serial killer, unless the killer is planning to dispose off the body immediately(a la Norman).

---

I found the analysis unconvincing. The murders were STAGED near/on bodies of water(near a waterfall, on a mothball fleet of ships) but I don't see this as the kind of motif Hitchcock engaged in. The VISUAL, maybe.

---

According to some sources, Willie might have been a necrophile.

---

Hitchcock never crossed that line, and he could have in Psycho or Frenzy. I think Hitchcock had "a limit," and I'm glad he did. He could leave the really sick stuff for others. Still, the topic is "in the air" what with the female bodies in both films(including Mother in Psycho.)

---

"Lew Wasserman, once Hitchcock's protector and pal as an agent"
Didn't he also suggest Kim Novak for Madeleine Elster?

---

Yes he did.

The story is that Hitchcock DESPERATELY wanted his "discovery," Vera Miles ("The Wrong Man") to star in Vertigo, but that she got pregnant and then he reluctantly took Kim Novak on Wasserman's suggestion.

But a LATER story(based on more research) said: No. Miles got pregnant, but Hitchcock got sick and needed several surgeries. So that delayed Vertigo long enough for Miles to have her baby and to do Vertigo. But by then, Wasserman and Paramount execs had pushed for a "bigger star": Novak. Novak had to be loaned out by Columbia chief Harry Cohn, who reportedly told her "I think the script is crap...but you've gotta do it. Its Hitchcock."

CONT

" (one called No Bail for the Judge had Audrey Hepburn, Laurence Harvey and John Williams on board before Hepburn bailed)"
I wonder if there's a script for this one

--

There is, but I've never found it, just read of it. There is also a source novel with the same title, now out of print.

Madonna tried to buy "No Bail for the Judge" for a movie in the 80's. Also, Elliott Gould tried to buy the script for 'The Short Night"(Hitchcock's final scripted film, unmade.) But these sales did not go through. I did some "internet asking" about the climax of No Bail for the Judge and evidently two were written -- in one, the main villain is trampled at the horse track, in another, he falls from a chandelier! Hardly Mount Rushmore.

---
. Off topic:

---

That's OK.

--

While reading the script for Mary Rose, I pictured Mr. Morland(Mary Rose' father) as John Williams for some reason.

--

Good casting. Hitchcock used Leo G. Carroll in the 40s and 50's; Williams in the 50s. Both were active in the 60s, I'm sure that Willliams had an inside track on Mary Rose.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"based on real-life psycho killers who, frankly , performed far worse atrocities on screen than anything Hitchcock was willing to film."
Absolutely. I've read about the case of Neville Heath from a book known as 'Handsome Brute: The True Story of a Ladykiller'. The segment's describing his murders are nauseating. What he did to those innocent women was extremely vile. Though the book is a very well researched interesting read, I would not recommend it.

---

When he cast the little known British actor Barry Foster as killer Bob Rusk in Frenzy(after Michael Caine turned the role down), Hitchcock "gifted" Foster with books on Neville Heath and JohnChristie to prepare for the role. I daresay Foster likely didn't enjoy reading THAT stuff. Its odd - very little of the "really bad stuff" made it into the movie, but the rape-murder scene in Frenzy is certainly bad enough just with what IS shown. There is a difference between READING material and watching really good actors create the horror in front of your eyes.

""FORGET HITCHCOCK -- WE'VE GOT POLANSKI!" How mean. How sad."
Really? I love Chinatown but that's plain recency bias. I would like this opportunity to say that the culture of bashing someone's else preferred entertainment to push one's own to the forefront is annoying.

---

I agree. Go with what you've got. By 1974, Hitchcock had more than made his name as one of the greats(if not so much recently). Why disparage him to salute the Polanski film?

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

In the 70's, Brian DePalma was the "official Hitchcock homager," but Roman Polanski was compared to Hitch a LOT in the 60's, what with Repulsion("Makes Psycho look like a Sunday School picnic!" wrote one reviewer), and the "art thrillers" Knife in the Water and Cul-de-sac.

Then came the Dynamic Duo of Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown. Neither of them was REALLY much in accord with Hitchcock (the first was too supernatural, the second too Bogart nourish) but the style was there.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

As a side note, I've got a request for a future post.
Can you write one on both obscure and non obscure Psycho influenced thrillers from the 60s and 70s?

---

Well, thank you. I think my only response to that can be that I DO write about these films from time to time...often here, sometimes elsewhere.

On this page,swanstep often writes up very good critiques of these films -- and has seen far more of them than I have.

The irony of my posts centering on Psycho is that I'm not terribly a horror movie buff at all. Indeed, the whole idea of movies centered on ONLY women being killed has rather put me off more and more with passing years. I make an exception for Psycho -- and, to a lesser extent(lesser movie), Frenzy -- largely because of Hitchcock's artistry, "script control," and selection of actors.

The "giallo" thriller particularly repulses me. What was done pretty quickly and tastefully in Psycho has been stretched out to sadistic lengths in the giallos I've seen. Mainly female victims, yes? And yet -- I know that TRUE horror buffs really go for that stuff.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

This idea was sparked by the following taglines I've come across in the past:
"In the tradition of PSYCHO!"(from both the poster of Sweet Kill 1973,starring TAB HUNTER, and the cover of Goodbye Piccadilly farewell Leicester)
"Enough screams to make even Hitchcock jump!"(from the poster of Twisted Nerve 1968)

---

Well, Hitchcock cast the killer of Frenzy -- Barry Foster -- because he saw him in Twisted Nerve. I've seen it too -- funny thing, there is a psycho in the movie, but it isn't Barry Foster, he plays a normal guy. I expect Hitchcock cast him because he looked and sounded like Michael Caine.

"In the tradition of PSYCHO" was a tagline on movies pretty much in every year from 1961 through 1973. Once The Exorcist hit in late 1973, it got a lot of "ad ink" too - but Psycho really led the way on horror. PSYCHO as a word(and from critics mouths) was a main part of the print ads for both Night of the Living Dead and Bird with the Crystal Plumage(that one was a giallo.)

And I recall all the way out in 1991, many ads for Silence of the Lambs focused on one critic's line: "The best thriller since Psycho." Not The Exorcist. Not Jaws. Not Halloween.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"Enough screams to make even Hitchcock jump!"(from the poster of Twisted Nerve 1968)

--

Irony, there. Thanks to Psycho, and to The Birds , Hitchcock ended up with a "horror director" brand when really much of his career had been much more glamourous and sedate Hays Code thrillers, often with romance.

And what Hitchcock was REALLY known for was: spy stories. Given the build-up to WWII and its aftermath, Hitchcock went to the spy drama heavily in the 30s and 40s. He eased back for awhile and then gave us two in the 50's(The Man Who Knew Too Much and North by Northwest) and two in the Cold War 60's(Torn Curtain and Topaz.) He really wan't a horror director much at all -- EXCEPT the spy story of Torn Curtain is centered on one pretty gory murder which brought horror INTO the spy template.

[–] Horrorlover656 (36) 2 years ago

"Plus, I learned the general outline of the story at various places."
http://stevenderosa.com/writingwithhitchcock/frenzy.html Are you talking about this outline?

"Hitchcock never crossed that line, "
Maybe not graphically. But there are references to necrophilia(in subtext) in some of his films. In Rebecca, Mr's Danver has an infatuation with the first Mr's Dewinter. Scottie wants to 'go to bed with a dead woman'(in Hitchcock's own words). After Marion's death, Sam is seen writing a love letter to her, oblivious to the fact that she's dead. But, it's all metaphorical. I've read that after Kaleidoscope was cancelled , he was depressed. Alma Reville invited Samuel Taylor and his wife for dinners and lunches, where Hitchcock talked about necrophilia. Maybe he was planning to push the envelope further.

"The Short Night"(Hitchcock's final scripted film, unmade"
I would like to know your thoughts on the script. I read it a long while ago and remember thinking it would make a good Hitchcock film.

"I daresay Foster likely didn't enjoy reading THAT stuff."
I have watched the Making Of Frenzy, where Foster says it was unpleasant, for both him(the irony!) and Barbara, to act out the rape scene and that they consoled each other before and after shooting. However, he liked acting in the rest of the movie. Him and Hitch became friends!

[–] Horrorlover656 (36) 2 years ago

"Silence of the Lambs"
I wonder how Hitch would have handled the material, if he were alive. I actually wonder how he would go along in the current film industry.

"swanstep often writes up very good critiques of these films"

That's another poster whose posts I find interesting. Both of you're doing a great job keeping this board alive!

"Hitchcock ended up with a "horror director" brand "
One of those things pop culture history got wrong. I would also put the credit on Alfred Hitchcock Presents, which had macabre horror episodes.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"Plus, I learned the general outline of the story at various places."
http://stevenderosa.com/writingwithhitchcock/frenzy.html Are you talking about this outline?

Yes, I am! At least that's one of them and I DO remember it because of those "staged photos with unknowns." You can see some "16 mm" movie footage of the same people in the documentary "Dial H for Hitchcock."

I think with that material, you have as good a sense of "The First Frenzy" as I do. On the one hand we can worry that "old man Hitchcock" wouldn't have been able to join "the New Wave" as he wanted to , here. On the other hand, we have "The Final Frenzy" as a pretty good exercise in style and cinematic prowess.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"Hitchcock never crossed that line, "
Maybe not graphically. But there are references to necrophilia(in subtext) in some of his films. In Rebecca, Mr's Danver has an infatuation with the first Mr's Dewinter. Scottie wants to 'go to bed with a dead woman'(in Hitchcock's own words). After Marion's death, Sam is seen writing a love letter to her, oblivious to the fact that she's dead. But, it's all metaphorical.

---

Well, I suppose Vertigo was most "direct' about the idea of necrophilia, but it wasn't REALLY. He didn't want to have sex with a corpse. He wanted to bring his greatest love "back to life" through another person.

Still pretty sick...and indeed all metaphorical.

---

I've read that after Kaleidoscope was cancelled , he was depressed. Alma Reville invited Samuel Taylor and his wife for dinners and lunches, where Hitchcock talked about necrophilia. Maybe he was planning to push the envelope further.

--

Maybe, all though -- the Hitchcock/Truffaut book proves -- Hitchcock liked to say all sorts of outrageous things while "musing aloud," he had a sense of the kinky side of life and talked about things he would never film, really.

But: he also knew that a lot of people in the PUBLIC dug this stuff.

Look no further than right now(2022): the biggest hit series on Netflix is about Jeffrey Dahmer -- a psycho who killed and had sex with his male victims -- and ate them. Folks are eating this up! They are pulling out OTHER Dahmer films(and audio tapes of the real guy) because "the subject is hot right now!" I'd say its somewhat depressing but hey, I love Psycho and Frenzy so...

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"The Short Night"(Hitchcock's final scripted film, unmade"
I would like to know your thoughts on the script. I read it a long while ago and remember thinking it would make a good Hitchcock film.

---

Well, I have to disagree with you a bit here(if that's OK.) It read to me like it would have been another Torn Curtain or Topaz...and without much in the way of good "Hitchcock set pieces." (Torn Curtain at least had the Gromek murder.)

Hitchcock told colleagues he was trying for another "Notorious" with The Short Night. Which meant to me: no action. No NXNW set pieces. Hitch knew he was too old to pull that off.

Worse: this "Cold War spy story" opens with the villain -- just busted out of prison -- being left alone with a woman. He tries to rape her, she fights, he strangles her to death. We're back to Frenzy but here -- why? What WAS going on in Hitchcock's mind at this time?

The script I read was part of a grim book called "The Last Days Of Alfred Hitchcock," written by a young untried screenwriter assigned by Univeral to work on The Short Night script(recently abandoned by Ernest Lehman) -- and to babysit a mentally and physically failing Hitchcock. Truffaut noted that Hitchcock really needed a nurse at that time, not a screenwriter.

Hitchcock somewhat sadly took meetings with Clint Eastwood for the lead and was working on Walter Matthau for the villain(the rapist?) Liv Ullman and Catherine Denueve were mentioned for the leading lady and Sean Connery was under consideration by Hitch if Eastwood said no. But it was all not to be. Even if Hitchcock COULD have made it, I doubt he could have landed big stars...he also talked to Ed Lauter(Maloney the henchman in Family Plot) about the villain role in Short Night. THAT might have happened.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"I daresay Foster likely didn't enjoy reading THAT stuff."

I have watched the Making Of Frenzy, where Foster says it was unpleasant, for both him(the irony!) and Barbara, to act out the rape scene and that they consoled each other before and after shooting.

--

One pictures here the "job of acting" as requiring people to enact the most intimate of violations at a director's request. Its easy to get "no name" actors to do that. Hitchcock tried for "names" first -- Michael Caine for Rusk and Glenda Jackson for Brenda(Jackson was no stranger to nudity and rough stuff -- she worked for Ken Russell.)

But he got Barry Foster and Barbara Leigh-Hunt instead, and I sort of figure that's why the scene is so powerful -- these actors were willing to "go all the way" in emotion(JUST emotion ) and to sell the horror of it all.

--- However, he liked acting in the rest of the movie. Him and Hitch became friends!

---

Yes, word is that Hitchcock disliked the actor playing the hero --Jon Finch personally very much, so he ended up liking Foster. Foster came to Hitchcock's home in Beverly Hills later in the 70's as a guest.

You could say this followed a trend. Hitch preferred Anthony Perkins to John Gavin, and Joseph Cotton to MacDonald Carey. Robert Walker and Farley Granger, he rather liked the same. (These are the villains and heroes in Psycho, Shadow of a Doubt and Strangers on a Train -- "Psycho" movies along with Frenzy.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"Silence of the Lambs"
I wonder how Hitch would have handled the material, if he were alive. I actually wonder how he would go along in the current film industry.

---

Well to the latter question first: I don't think we can fit him INTO the current film industry -- we have other "giants' now (Scorsese, Spielberg, Lucas...QT, The Coens) ..Hitchcock had to "yield the field" for a new generation.

I DO think this: Hollywood REJECTED special effects and matte paintings and process in the late 60's /early 70's and Hitchcock tried to comply: Frenzy is very realistic and gritty; Family Plot has process for car drives but is otherwise "real."

BUT: Once Spielberg and Lucas "brought back" mattes paintings and (good) process and then CGI came along -- Hitchcock with HIS fantastical matte paintings and process work would have been right at home. He would have used CGI religiously.

---

"Hitchcock ended up with a "horror director" brand "
One of those things pop culture history got wrong. I would also put the credit on Alfred Hitchcock Presents, which had macabre horror episodes.

--

That's true. I forget that Hitchcock had that 10-year, 300 episode run of shows that often pushed murder and the macabre and downplayed spy stuff.

And Hitch pushed a "murder" persona in his many short story collections and even children's books.

So...yeah...closer to a horror director.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

"Silence of the Lambs"
I wonder how Hitch would have handled the material, if he were alive

---

Well, its hard to put Hitchcock and HIS style and superimpose it on SOTL. For one thing, I don't think he would have indulged Jodie Foster's many monologues and the emphasis on her character.

Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter always struck me as a merger of Norman Bates(Mrs. Bates) with Philip Vandamm -- James Mason's suave spy villain in North by Northwest. Mason was dead by the time SOTL was made, but I could see him in the role when he was alive and younger. Lecter is a brilliant fusion of super-intelligence and animalistic psychopathy -- like Jeffrey Dahmer -- he EATS his victims.

I doubt Htichcock would have "fit" the policier aspects of SOTL but he would have LOVED to help create Hannibal Lecter.

Also: SOTL won Best Picture and Anthony Hopkins as Lecter won Best Actor. These should have been awarded to Psycho and Anthony Perkins in 1960 -- the two movies share a "prestige" and intelligence far beyond the usual bloodbath.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Back to Hitchcock's spy movies:

History will record that Hitchcock was very much a "vessel of World War II." His films gave warning of the coming Nazi menace in The Lady Vanishes and Foreign Correspondent; then covered the INTERNAL US Nazi menace in Saboteur, then moved on to the Nazi politics of Lifeboat and THEN covered the "Nazis after WII trying for a comeback" in Notorious. That's a mix of his greatest (Notorious) and not-so-great(Saboteur) films, but Hitchcock saw the Nazis as to be beaten. He didn't go over and get as involved as Ford and Stevens and Capra et al, but he did his part.

Came the fifties, Hitchcock shifted to Stalinesque Communists as the villains, but could not CALL them such in The Man Who Knew Too Much and North by Northwest. There was too much internal Communist debate going on in Hollywood.

Came the 60's, Hitchcock got specific about the Communists and two of their most dire projects: The Iron Curtain(Torn Curtain) and The Cuban Missile Crisis(Topaz.) For his trouble , Hitchcock was declared an enemy of the state by the Commies and feared that one of his flights might have to stop in one of those countries. Internally in the 60's not all film critics thought the Communists SHOULD be villains. So Hitchcock rather phased out of spy films. His 70's films were not spy films. Of course, he only made two.

--

Also, thank you for your kind remarks, horrorlover656. We try!