MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Where Was Hitchcock When....?

Where Was Hitchcock When....?

posted 5 years ago by ecarle (14979)
24 replies | jump to latest

ONE: Where was Hitchcock when...

...the overhead shot of the initial attack on Arbogast was filmed for the final cut of Psycho?

I was inspired to this post by a photo from the production of ...To Catch a Thief(1955.)

In that behind-the-scenes photo, Hitchcock is way up standing on a scaffolding (with a wooden barrier to protect him), looking down with some associates onto the soundstage below him. I've determined(guessed?) that Hitchcock was somehow setting up that GREAT shot from above Cary Grant with his arms outstretched on a high rooftop, the police and Grace Kelly down below in their ball costumes. Soon Grant would stand somewhere near, a process screen would be set up with the view below and...VOILA!

But Hitchcock stood on that scaffoldling and looked down.

CUT TO: The filming of Psycho, in the weeks of January 1960.

We are famously told (Hitchcock to Truffaut, and others) that Hitchcock had the flu on the day that he was to film Arbogast in the foyer and climbing the stairs, and let Hilton Green film it. But -- everyone was adamant -- Hitchcock PERSONALLY directed(supervised?) the actual murder of the detective. Funny, I thought: only the director gets to KILL people.

And so, are we to believe that Hitchcock himself stood -- high up in the rafters, on a catwalk, looking down -- to direct Mother to run out of that door and bring the knife down at Arbogast's head(as actor Martin Balsam reared backwards away from the blade?)

Yes, I think so.

After all, this was one of the BIGGEST effects in the whole picture, designed to make audiences scream while also carefully designed to "hide Mother's face"(you can see the tip of her nose, that's about it, from above.)

So Hitchcock stood up there, likely yelled a quiet "Action!" and followed the action as Balsam finished his walk up the stairs, put his hand on the post at the top(the "signal" for Mother to come out) and supervised EXACTLY the right details -- how fast Mother came out; how she raised the knife blade so a light caught it in a flash; even the shadows on the wall to the right of Mother's stabbing arm coming down at Arbogast(hapless Van Sant put a bird display glass case there...and lost the shadow effect entirely.)

And how MANY times did Hitchcock direct that overhead tableau? Couldn't have been one. Maybe two. Probably more. Hitchcock said (in an interview on Frenzy) that he directed a "ten to one ratio" of takes to print; but a book on the making of Vertigo noted many times he did fewer.

The Rebello book tells us that while Hitchcock filmed other dramatic scenes for Psycho, at the end of the day, a small group rehearsed and rehearsed and REHEARSED Mother's overhead attack on Arbogast. Balsam wasn't there; his double was. A "little person" doubling for Mother. Was DP John Russell up in the rafters with his camera? Or someone else WITHOUT a camera. In any event, when it came time for Balsam to get in the shot and Hitchcock to direct it, other people had evidently honed everything: how Mother came out, how Arbogast reared backwards, the flash on the knife, the shadows on the wall...

Movie history.

And Van Sant blew that shot, btw. No shadows. Arbogast looking the wrong way. Mother coming out at such high speed as to leave out the flash of the knife. Etc.

TWO: Where was Hitchcock when...

...the shot was made where the camera "swung down under Anthony Perkins' jaw" as he nervously talked to Arbogast.

Its a helluva shot..an "outta nowhere" camera flourish that screams "Hitchcock" without looking "overdone."

There's no way that Hitchcock could duck under the camera and direct that shot?

Or was there?

They didn't have video feedback in those days(which is why Psycho is all the more impressive a LOT of the time, it doesn't have video feedback, computers and lightweight cameras to work with), but maybe...a MIRROR? Under the camera? To show Hitchcock the shot?

In any event, Hitchcock very famously knew how to match lenses to size of shots(close-ups, medium shots) and perhaps he simply told DP Russell what lens to use, and what "wheel" to rig up to move the camera under Perkins throat and...but wait...

...Hitchcock had to DEVISE the shot in the first place. Perhaps Perkins' chewing of Kandy Korn inspired Hitch. Or Perkin's bird-like chewing gulps. Or Perkins thin neck, to begin with.

In any event...where WAS Hitchcock? (During this shot?)

THREE: Back to the landing at the top of the stairs...Perhaps Hitchcock simply stood on the scaffolding for the attack on Arbogast overhead shot...but..

Where was Hitchcock when....?

...the shot was directed of the camera following Perkins up the stairs to get Mother?

Hitch COULD have stayed in the foyer and watched the camera float up, up , up into the rafters...OR he could have been up IN the rafters(somehow out of camera range) waiting for the hanging camera to arrive , turn in space, and look back down on the landing where we saw Arbogast get attacked.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It seems to me that the camera,as it climbs towards the rafters, takes in the "ceiling" of the upstairs area in a way so that Hitchcock could NOT be up there. He would have to trust the camera(and cameramen ON the camera?) to go up there, make the turn, and look back down on the landing ala "the Arbogast attack."

My point with these three examples is this: Hitchcock as a director may have IMAGINED these shots, and dictated the lenses and camera moves necessary to capture them, but...as a director...where WAS he when the shots were made?

Over the staircase landing?(For the overhead attack on Arbogast).
Under Anthony Perkins throat?(for his Kandy Korn chewing)
In the Bates house foyer?(to watch the camera follow hip-swinging Norman up the stairs and into the air?)

My other point is: we'll never know. We'll never know EXACTLY how our favorite shots in our favorite movies were actually MADE.

Nor how...in this case...Hitchcock DIRECTED those shots.

It must be some kind of a mystery...

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Umm.bump.

Its about Psycho, after all...

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

You checked in books, no? You never laid eyes on photos, no?

Couldn't resist.

These are among the most frustrating of movie-centric questions to which we'll never get answers. Come to that, they're probably questions that never occur even to most classic film devotees. The only stories you hear tend to be ones involving some derring-do on the part of directors and cinematographers - Busby Berkeley on his camera platform suspended high above stage floors to get those kaleidoscopic shots; Peter Yates and Bill Fraker racing alongside the Bullitt cars in their custom-designed-and-built camera car - or those involving some technical innovation or Rube Goldberg-like rigging.

It's hard to imagine Hitchcock up on some narrow catwalk or platform, and yet there's that To Catch A Thief photo. The Marnie trailer opens with him swooping down to floor level on a camera crane (something that gives me vertigo imagining myself in his place). There are a couple photos of the Notorious rig built to fly down into the closeup of the key clenched in Ingrid Bergman's hand, in one of which Hitchcock's nowhere to be seen and the other showing him down on the floor near her, and both suggesting there'd have been little room for him on the thing anyway.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c0/cb/65/c0cb65b024ac3d9398c0de197a09bf55.jpg

https://sandroesposito.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/1946-robert-capa-ingrid-bergman-and-alfred-hitchcock-on-the-set-of-notorious-1946.jpg

In most photos I've seen of him lining up or directing a shot, he's as close to both camera and players as he can get, but they generally depict rather routine setups. And there doesn't seem to be any way that he could have accompanied the camera while it traveled down those stairs in Frenzy, for example.

Cont'd...

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

You checked in books, no? You never laid eyes on photos, no?

--

Hot creepers!

---

Couldn't resist.

---

Ha. Well, the truth is, I HAVE read some books, and seen some photos...and sometimes they "solve the mystery" and sometimes they don't...more often, they "plant the seeds" for thought.

For instance, I remember now that in that photo of Hitchcock up on the scaffold (catwalk?) for To Catch a Thief, just below him was part of a tile roof -- the roof upon which Grant would likely stand for that process shot of the small crowd way below.

---

These are among the most frustrating of movie-centric questions to which we'll never get answers. Come to that, they're probably questions that never occur even to most classic film devotees. The only stories you hear tend to be ones involving some derring-do on the part of directors and cinematographers - Busby Berkeley on his camera platform suspended high above stage floors to get those kaleidoscopic shots; Peter Yates and Bill Fraker racing alongside the Bullitt cars in their custom-designed-and-built camera car - or those involving some technical innovation or Rube Goldberg-like rigging.

--
I would expect that it must drive some directors NUTS not to be able to show the audience what they did - daring do wise -- to get certain shots.

---

Some context on these "how'd he do it?" ruminations on Hitchcock and Psycho:

Modernly, if I see a movie like Avengers: Endgame...I got no idea at ALL how certain scenes were shot. All in front of a green screen? With CGI crowds and buildings put in later? I can't even TRY to wrap my mind around it.

But Psycho is from "low tech" Hollywood...back in 1959/1960 and Hitchcock had to somehow transfer these great shots in his head onto the screen....in ways that maybe we CAN surmise.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

So, if Psycho has these "great shots" like Arbogast getting attacked on the landing, or the camera swinging under Norman's throat...one can at least try to PICTURE how Hitchcock did it. And where he would have physically placed himself to get the shot in his mind...on film.

Hence, I expect Hitch WAS up in the rafters to look down on the overhead attack on Arbogast. But -- of course -- NOT able to ride the camera up and over the landing on the later shot where Norman ascends.

Some of the extreme close-ups in Psycho were likely something Hitch could only see in the viewfinder, or in the rushes. Norman's eye in profile at the peephole(The book "Hitchcock at work" shows Hitchcock's own crude ink drawing of that shot.) Marion's eye and her dead head on the bathroom floor. And yes, the swing under Norman's throat.

Still, this was an era in which Hitchcock created problems for himself and solved them...all to "get the right shot."

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It's hard to imagine Hitchcock up on some narrow catwalk or platform, and yet there's that To Catch A Thief photo.

---

Well perhaps a good solid steel or wood staircase led to that catwalk; no "ladder climbing" for Hitch.

---

The Marnie trailer opens with him swooping down to floor level on a camera crane (something that gives me vertigo imagining myself in his place).

---

Yes, he looks quite daring floating down in that little chair, doesn't he? Some writings on Hitchcock as a human being, rather than a film God, point out that despite all that weight, he actually moved pretty fast -- played tennis in his youth -- and had a lot of stamina. He didn't really even need any major surgeries until his late fifties.

---
There are a couple photos of the Notorious rig built to fly down into the closeup of the key clenched in Ingrid Bergman's hand, in one of which Hitchcock's nowhere to be seen and the other showing him down on the floor near her, and both suggesting there'd have been little room for him on the thing anyway.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c0/cb/65/c0cb65b024ac3d9398c0de197a09bf55.jpg

https://sandroesposito.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/1946-robert-capa-ingrid-bergman-and-alfred-hitchcock-on-the-set-of-notorious-1946.jpg

---

Great photos. I'll note that the camera move in Notorious was pretty much "straight down" -- that Psycho move over Norman compels the camera to twist at the top in a way that I still can't fully figure out (it twists and THEN points down -- SOMEBODY had to do it; I guess DP John Russell and/or an assistant -- I've read that two men were necessary on the camera to film Arbogast climbing the stairs, one to operate the camera, one to work the focus...

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

In most photos I've seen of him lining up or directing a shot, he's as close to both camera and players as he can get, but they generally depict rather routine setups. And there doesn't seem to be any way that he could have accompanied the camera while it traveled down those stairs in Frenzy, for example.

---

No, he likely had to watch that Frenzy camera descend...from a distance. And that was on the SOUNDSTAGE. Then he traipsed on out to Covent Garden to direct the camera coming out the door into the marketplace(actually, the Covent Garden locations were done FIRST, come to think of it. So, as Willy Wonka used to say "reverse that!")

I'm reminded again -- with due respect for the man -- that Billy Wilder didn't seem to have liked to do such intricate camera moves. He spoke against them("If someone says 'that's a great shot' -- it isn't -- because you noticed it.") But I'm not sure Wilder could DO them(conceive them, direct them.) But Hitchcock seemed to use all manner of camera cranes and jerrybuilt platforms to get his high angles and moving shots.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Thinking about the questions you've posed leads me to another. In the first use of the overhead shot, the camera has traveled up from the foyer part of the set until it's aimed down at the landing. I wonder if, having gone to all the trouble of getting it up there for Norman carrying Mother downstairs, they shot the overhead part of the Arbogast attack on the same day while the camera was still nicely lined up.

---

That's a great thought! And definitely one I had not thought of....and it makes all sorts of sense.

We can figure that Perkins and Balsam were both available that day(or couple of days) ...they'd shot their scene together. Now, Perkins could do the climb(camera ends up over the landing) and then Balsam could get attacked.

And this: Given the shots of Balsam in the foyer that start his murder scene well....Mother finishes him off on the foyer carpet so again...likely the beginning of Arbogast's climb(him in the foyer looking around) could be shot(by Hilton Green?) and then the part at the end with mother killing him could be shot(by Hitchcock?) Maybe the next day, but the camera in the same place.

Which means: the process shot of Arbogast falling could be done entirely at a different sound stage...with a process screen available(perhaps where Janet Leigh filmed the close-ups for Marion's drive.) Maybe on a different day.

And then all mixed together.

Which reminds me: in Frenzy, in the prelude to the potato truck screen, Barry Foster's Bob Rusk is shown three different times going into or coming out of the door to his apartment building, spaced out across a few minutes of film. But I expect Hitchcock just put the camera there once, and directed: "OK, Barry...walk in the door." "OK Barry, run out the door!"

We see the "continuity" of the finished film. Getting there is somebody else's fun. But again, with the Arbogast murder: some of it filmed up on the landing, some of it filmed on the foyer floor...but the staircase fall...filmed in an entirely different soundstage, likely.

By the way, about that Psycho scaffolding above the staircase landing. Hitchcock went from Psycho to shooting a TV show(not for his series) called "Incident on a Corner" with Vera Miles. I've seen that episode, and at one point, the camera is high above several people and keeps moving down closer, closer, closer to them. My guess: Hitchcock still had that Psycho overhead shot scaffolding...so why not use it again?

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I've watched a lot of scenes for films and TV shows being shot, both on stages and locations, and when picturing them in the mind's eye of memory, I've almost no recollection of cameras or crews; only the action. The rest has just faded from recall. Just a quirk of my particular memory, I guess.

---

That's interesting. It is as if the "fiction of the story" was stronger in memory than the fact of the people and equipment making the film. Which means "the power of the film" is right there.

---

All sorts of details about the names, dates and places involved in various productions can still be found in payroll records, call sheets, camera and location manager reports and whatever other documents still exist, no matter how deeply buried in whatever storage facilities, but unless someone aimed a still camera in the right direction at the right time, where this or that director was when they made this or that shot is unlikely to be among them.

--

True. Two books about the making of two Hitchcock films -- Vertigo and Frenzy -- at least have some of those call sheets, and , more importantly, a record of how many takes were done on certain scenes ---I was impressed to read only two were done of Bob Rusk(Barry Foster) coming through the door of Brenda Blaney's office. (Its Don Siegel's directing rule as noted by Clint Eastwood: "Know what you've got when you've got it." ) And the Vertigo book dispatches the theory that Hitchcock made Kim Novak jump in the studio tank over and over and over for the Golden Gate dive in that film(more like three takes.)

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Of little or no help, I know. I'm just ruminating.

---Its all I was doing too -- and you made me realize that both "high angle staircase landing shots" could have been done back to back.

This ties into my post of a few weeks ago about how Arbogast canvassing motels was filmed -- and by who (Hitch? or Hilton Green?)

Its as if I am trying to "break down" the making of Psycho into component parts -- and how "close" Hitchcock needed to be to direct these scenes.

In my net surfing recently, I found James Mason saying this about Hitchcock: "He casts very , very carefully, and he knows he has chosen people who can play his parts well -- thus he doesn't really have to direct them."

I can see Hitchcock standing by to direct his actors (say, the parlor scene with Norman and Marion) as a courtesy to those actors...and yet leaving much of the acting work to THEM while he makes sure his camera is tilted up or down for the proper angles on the people.

And when NOT directing his stars? Well, it all probably depends on the effects Hitchcock wanted to get and how invested he was in being there to oversee them.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Given the shots of Balsam in the foyer that start his murder scene well....Mother finishes him off on the foyer carpet so again...likely the beginning of Arbogast's climb(him in the foyer looking around) could be shot(by Hilton Green?) and then the part at the end with mother killing him could be shot(by Hitchcock?) Maybe the next day, but the camera in the same place.

Which means: the process shot of Arbogast falling could be done entirely at a different sound stage...with a process screen available(perhaps where Janet Leigh filmed the close-ups for Marion's drive.) Maybe on a different day.

Which reminds me: in Frenzy, in the prelude to the potato truck screen, Barry Foster's Bob Rusk is shown three different times going into or coming out of the door to his apartment building, spaced out across a few minutes of film. But I expect Hitchcock just put the camera there once, and directed: "OK, Barry...walk in the door." "OK Barry, run out the door!"

- That's thinking just like a UPM. You'd have made a good one.

And Hitchcock's Shamley crew on Psycho, in particular, would have been both comfortable and expert with those efficient and economical practices. Yet I daresay the shoot (what was it...8 weeks, 10?) would have seemed positively luxurious in the relative leisure of its schedule.

"By the way, about that Psycho scaffolding above the staircase landing. Hitchcock went from Psycho to shooting a TV show(not for his series) called "Incident on a Corner" with Vera Miles. I've seen that episode, and at one point, the camera is high above several people and keeps moving down closer, closer, closer to them. My guess: Hitchcock still had that Psycho overhead shot scaffolding...so why not use it again?"

- I remember the show, but not the shot just offhand. Saw it once a couple or so years ago. Sounds like a good guess. It aired in Apr '60, so it had to have been done right after Psycho wrapped. Ah, here it is: IMDB says it shot in Feb '60.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

That's thinking just like a UPM. You'd have made a good one.

---

Ha. I really dunno. I know that I HAVE read about the need, when making films, to film out of continuity on the same sets and at the same location scenes that may be disbursed throughout a film.

The detailed book on the making of Frenzy pointed out that all the Covent Garden location scenes were done first. One noteable detail: when Blaney first meets Rusk at his fruit stand, Rusk is wearing a brown striped suit and tie. Rusk will later in the film wear a tan leather jacket(to kill Brenda) and a blue striped suit with purple tie(to kill Babs.) But LATER, Rusk is back at his fruit stand, wearing the brown suit and tie -- talking to Felix Forsythe. It makes " story sense" that Rusk would need to wear the same suit on certain days, but as a matter of filmmaking , Barry Foster in his brown suit probably filmed his one "fruit stand" scene with Blaney and then his OTHER fruit stand scene with Felix, same place, same day, same suit.

----

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And Hitchcock's Shamley crew on Psycho, in particular, would have been both comfortable and expert with those efficient and economical practices. Yet I daresay the shoot (what was it...8 weeks, 10?) would have seemed positively luxurious in the relative leisure of its schedule.

---

Hitchcock hadn't begun his hour series yet when he filmed Psycho; his half-hour episodes took three days to film, that's it(with about one day for "walking the set and rehearsals"). These techniques transferred to Psycho with the Shamley crew, evidently for the many scenes in the movie that were "just dialogue." Hitch was shooting a lot of pages a day on Psycho, I've read. EXCEPT for the murder scenes, each of which required a lot more time and effort. And though the shower murder took seven days to film, crew interviewed for the Rebello book said that THAT murder was "easy" to get on film (the camera is pretty much at level or slight tilt for all shots, plus a couple of overheads.) The STAIRCASE murder was much harder to get on film.

Still, evidently even with a luxurious eight week shoot, Psycho was shot pretty quickly. And Hitch reportedly balked at his TV crew for not "getting his vision" as well as his movie crew -- he complained to a friend about the TV crew's inability to get certain shots without a lot of direction.

Oh, well. Psycho is such a great work that it proves the TV crew DID get Hitchcock's vision and COULD deliver the shots and effects he wanted.

I'm impressed by the fact that if the dialogue scenes were filmed very quickly -- they're all very good, from the incisive acting to Hitchcock's innate sense of composition and angles on shots -- everything is interesting to look at and to listen to.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"By the way, about that Psycho scaffolding above the staircase landing. Hitchcock went from Psycho to shooting a TV show(not for his series) called "Incident on a Corner" with Vera Miles. I've seen that episode, and at one point, the camera is high above several people and keeps moving down closer, closer, closer to them. My guess: Hitchcock still had that Psycho overhead shot scaffolding...so why not use it again?"

----

- I remember the show, but not the shot just offhand. Saw it once a couple or so years ago. Sounds like a good guess. It aired in Apr '60, so it had to have been done right after Psycho wrapped. Ah, here it is: IMDB says it shot in Feb '60.

---

That's pretty incredible, for while Hitchcock "formally" wrapped Psycho in January 1960, the Rebello says he still shot some "last pick up stuff" for Psycho in FEBRUARY 1960(including new shots of Martin Balsam ; I'm guessing Hitch reshot the rest of the Hilton Green work.)

So Hitch literally moved from one production to another in a matter of days, likely, keeping one actor from Psycho(Vera Miles, then on a personal contract with Hitch) and evidently one scaffold. Its possible some "Fairvale rooms" were used for Incident on a Corner; nothing from the house or motel. And Incident on a Corner is in COLOR, so if any Psycho sets were used, here's our chance to seem them in color...

Hitch was a true multi-tasking dynamo back then. He'd have one movie at the theaters while another one was in production and a third was being scripted. All while overseeing his TV shows scripts(at least the stories) and directing a few of those. Plus approving the books and records and mystery magazine put out in his name.

The success of Psycho, famously, shut a lot of that down. Hitch would direct only one of the hour shows, in 1962, and back off from supervising the series. No new Hitchcock movie was being scripted while Psycho was being made, or in theaters(a LONG run in theaters, such a success.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Hitchcock moved from Paramount to Universal for his movies in 1962 as well, and -- a bit cowed by "how to top Psycho" -- spent over two years deciding on The Birds. (Still , that's better than the 12 years James Cameron dithered between Titanic and Avatar.)

He would end his high-rated TV show at the ten-year mark(1965; maybe looking to avoid color TV production -- too cheap looking.) After Torn Curtain in '66, he would back off from " a movie a year" for the rest of his career. The gaps became three years...four. (He was like QT by then.)

But ah, in 1960, the year of Psycho, Hitchcock looked upstoppable. Making movies, making TV, making books...a box office king and a French critic's artist.

It was a very good year.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I've read that two men were necessary on the camera to film Arbogast climbing the stairs, one to operate the camera, one to work the focus..."

- At a minimum. And in those days, camera operators like Leonard South and his 1st Assistant (or "focus puller") didn't get billing. Now everyone from camera assistants and crane operators to drivers and coffee & doughnut servers on the craft service table get their places in the end crawl. Bless 'em.

I've made it a point almost as long as I've been going to movies to stay in my seat and read every last name out of respect (speed permitting, which has become something of a challenge in more recent decades as literally hundreds of names have to be displayed in a relatively few minutes).

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"I've read that two men were necessary on the camera to film Arbogast climbing the stairs, one to operate the camera, one to work the focus..."

- At a minimum.

---

Aha. Yes, a learning experience for me....did two men "ride the same camera," or did one perhaps have to walk alongside the camera? Note that these guys felt they blew it -- the background behind Balsam was a bit out of focus. Hitchcock said "I can live with that" -- the light blurriness creates the idea that Arbogast is in a "surreal otherworld."

---

And in those days, camera operators like Leonard South

---

Who would end up, finally with full DP credit for Family Plot...before moving on the the camerawork on "Designing Women"(?) and (with big billing there.)

---

and his 1st Assistant (or "focus puller") didn't get billing. Now everyone from camera assistants and crane operators to drivers and coffee & doughnut servers on the craft service table get their places in the end crawl. Bless 'em.

I've made it a point almost as long as I've been going to movies to stay in my seat and read every last name out of respect (speed permitting, which has become something of a challenge in more recent decades as literally hundreds of names have to be displayed in a relatively few minutes).

---

I sit through the credit crawls as well. It would be an interesting historical exploration (for some really PATIENT film scholar) to try to pinpoint how and when credit crawls started to grow and grow like that.

Take Hitchcock.

Psycho ends with the car emerging from the swamp , Bass' breakaway titles and "THE END." And that's it. Not even a cast of characters list. Hitchcock gave theater owners instructions to leave the curtains open and things dark and silent at that point -- he wanted the shocks to linger in the minds of his audience.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The Birds ends without even a "The End" sign, just a fade out on doom and "A Universal Picture." (This was the first return to that name after "Universal-International," evidently at Hitchcock's request. And for his final 6 Universal films, Hitchcock NEVER used the usual Universal spinning globe opening logo, he hated the name "Edward Muhl, Chief of Production" on it in the beginning("He didn't work on my movie") and evidently thought it was cheap anyway.

The films from Marnie through Frenzy end with "Cast of Character" credit crawls. Interesting for Frenzy: Barry Foster is third billed in the opening credits, second billed at the end -- and it is not "order of appearance" billing.

Family Plot anticipates the long credit crawls to come. Hitchcock has room at the beginning of his fiml for only three credits: "Alfred Hitchcock's" and "Screenplay by Ernest Lehman" and "Directed by Alfred Hitchcock."

At the end, for the final credit crawl, FINALLY the actors names appear(but not apart, they're bunched together) and the crew. At top speed.

I'll guess that perhaps the long credit crawl era began with "Star Wars" and "Raiders" -- movies that had lots of effects workers and matte artists.

Indeed, I had a college friend who got end crawl credit for Empire Strikes Back and ET. He was a painter, very talented, and found a career at Industrial Light and Magic doing matte paintings. I was proud to see HIS name on the credit crawl.

One more like that. A male friend of mine was on a plane ride from Vegas, had as a seatmate a man who worked in movie post-production. The friend's daughter was a film student so her father pitched her -- and she got hired by the man on the plane, to do "gofer" post production work on a movie. SHE got end credit billing...I saw the film with her father and shared his pride (but she never worked in movies again; she's a teacher now.)

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Still, this was an era in which Hitchcock created problems for himself and solved them...all to 'get the right shot.'"

- Or, from time to time, the right film: Lifeboat (one tiny set); Rope (one continuous take); Rear Window (one POV). And, of course, Psycho, with all it entailed. It wasn't the last time he'd impose a challenge upon himself, but do you think it would be fair to say it was the last of his "grand experiment" films?

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"Still, this was an era in which Hitchcock created problems for himself and solved them...all to 'get the right shot.'"

- Or, from time to time, the right film: Lifeboat (one tiny set); Rope (one continuous take); Rear Window (one POV).

---

Yes...I'm reminded that Truffaut called the rotand and sedentary Hitchcock, "the ultimate athlete of cinema" for these very reasons. I think he was fine with actors, but there can be no doubt that his movies were rather like elaborate experiments in sight and sound. The pact with the audience was: "Take a look at all the marvelous ideas and shots and sounds I'm going to do in THIS movie." I contend that with the star-free Topaz, Frenzy and Family Plot, Hitchcock went in even MORE for the crazy shots and visual/sound gimmicks. He didn't have to "service star close-ups."

---

And, of course, Psycho, with all it entailed.

---

Ah yes, an experiment that took on the Hays Code, revolutionized movie-going("You must see it from the beginning); played up Hitchcock's showmanship(the trailer), messed with story(the heroine dies EARLY); and filled the screen with flashes of montage and sinuous camera movement. All while making audiences worldwide scream like they had never screamed before -- because Psycho went distances with bloody violence that movies had never dared before.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Psycho wasn't the last time he'd impose a challenge upon himself, but do you think it would be fair to say it was the last of his "grand experiment" films?

---

Perhaps. The Birds is pretty experimental in its massive dose of special effects and its open-ended ending. I'll maybe go with that one.

The movies from Marnie to Family Plot were successively "easy to direct", rather on the "drama"side, and exposition heavy, but the experimenting continued. I'll repeat that I think Topaz, Frenzy and Family Plot made up for the lack of stars with Hitchcock "starring" by giving us such scenes as the silent defection in Copenhagen; Juanita De Cordoba dying like a blossoming petal; the "Farewell to Babs" staircase scene in Frenzy (and the sound trick with "Got a place to stay?" that opens it); the high overhead shot of Dern and the Widow Maloney moving like chess pieces in a graveyard, etc.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Speaking of "where was Hitchcock when..."

Where was Hitchcock when ...the shower scene was being filmed.

Recall that Saul Bass -- in a 70's interview -- said that Hitchcock let HIM film the shower scene, "with Hitchcock nearby."

Recall that all the way in the 00's, Janet Leigh and Hilton Green forcefully retorted that no, HITCHCOCK directed that scene, not Bass.

And recall that there exists one photo -- but only one -- of Hitchcock in his suit directing Janet in bare shoulders in the Psycho shower. So Hitch was there for THAT.

But storyboards exist OF the shower scene - done by Bass (who told Truffaut that Bass only did storyboards for the staircase murder, that were rejected: EVERYBODY lies , here.)

And yet the storyboards don't fully predict the shots or shot sequence in the scene.

SO: again, where WAS Hitchcock for the seven days that the shower scene was filmed?

I'll guess: around but not always "directing."

He could have told assistants: OK get the shots of Mother stabbing."

I'll assume that Hitch was there to personally direct Leigh screaming; and we know he was there to direct Leigh dead on the floor(he would snap his fingers when the camera left her face, so she could relax.)

Anyway, I don't really know, but somehow it seems that Hitchcock was not to be held responsible for directing all 70 camera set-ups and all 45 shots (or whatever the hell it was) in the shower scene.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

But this: the record shows that 12 years later, an older and more tired Hitchcock let assistants direct all the shots in the back of the truck(on a soundstage) for the potato truck scene. So...it was POSSIBLE others could direct the shower scene.

PS. Word in some interviews is that the shower scene was directed with more than one camera at once...one of them being either an "Eymo" or "IMO" lightweight camera. How this works...I have no idea.

PPS. And I've read that, WHILE filming the rape and strangulation of Brenda Blaney(Barbara Leigh Hunt) on the Frenzy set, Hitch had a MOVIOLA brought in to look at the previous day's "rape murder" footage so as to match one day's work to another. That's detail!