MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Hitchcock, Psycho and the "Box Office To...

Hitchcock, Psycho and the "Box Office Top Ten of the Year"

posted 4 years ago by ecarle (14979)
3 replies | jump to latest

I've been re-reading the best Hitchcock biography -- Patrick McGilligan's, from 2003. I came upon this passage (page 494):

BEGIN:

"Only five Hitchcock films were listed among the top ten in the year of their release. The first two were Rebecca and Spellbound, but Rear Window ranked behind only White Christmas and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea among the top films of 1954. (North by Northwest also hit the Top Ten, and Psycho soared the highest, becoming the Number Two film of 1960.)

END

Lots of food for thought here.

First of all: only FIVE? I know that Hitchcock made 53 movies, but that counts the British ones. I don't think those make Top Ten box office lists. How many American films?(Starting with Rebecca, which, like Suspicion is a "pseudo British film," whereas Stage Fright and Frenzy are ACTUAL British films, yes?) Anyway, from the "American film count," five is still a rather low number of Top Ten grossers for a director as famous as Hitch.

What this tells me is that Hitch, for all his great fame and artistic merit, rather "flew under the radar" with his steady supply of thrillers. Shadow of a Doubt is great, but its from 1943, the year of Casablanca, and likely just didn't seem to MATTER as much as that big studio attraction. In 1950, the year of Sunset Boulevard and All About Eve, Hitchcock brought us: Stage Fright?

And when epics like Giant, Around the World in 80 Days, Bridge on the River Kwai and Ben-Hur were extant, Hitchcock was giving us: The Trouble With Harry, The Wrong Man, Vertigo(A-list but rather low key). OK, he gave us NXNW in the year of Ben-Hur, but Hitch at his MOST epic(NXNW) seemed smaller than Ben-Hur.

Speaking of Ben-Hur, McGilligan notes that Psycho was "Number Two box office of 1960" behind Ben-Hur, which was a late 1959 release. Which would make Psycho the REAL Number One of 1960 itself, except -- I've seen a book that listed Disney's Swiss Family Robinson as the Number One of 1960 and Psycho as Number Two(1959's Ben-Hur evidently wasn't eligible.)

Which reminds me: McGilligan shows that Rear Window came in third behind White Christmas and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. The latter was a Disney picture(his first big live action movie?) and thus, in 1954 and 1960, Hitchcock had to "line up behind a Disney at the box office." Which makes sense: Uncle Walt was serving a vast audience of boomer kids and their parents. All the more impressive for Hitchcock to get Psycho to Number Two with "adult audiences"(oh, hell -- a lot of teenagers made Psycho a hit , too. And evidently, some underaged kids who got the shock of their lives.)

What OTHER Hitchcock movies coulda/shoulda made the Top Ten of their years of release? The Trouble with Harry? No. The Wrong Man? No. Topaz? No. But I believe that To Catch a Thief and The Man Who Knew Too Much '56 were substantial hits -- I'll bet that they made the top TWENTY of their years of release. I'm surprised to see that The Birds didn't hit the Top Ten either. Its so famous and should have appealed to teens. But maybe it didn't -- its slower getting going and not as scary as Psycho.

Frenzy in 1972 made a LOT of Top Ten lists -- but not at the box office. It made CRITICAL top ten lists, which, frankly, Hitchcock had not done well on in my readings (outside of Rear Window, NXNW, and Psycho.) Indeed, with Frenzy coming in as a new generation of critics wanted to salute Hitchcock, it probably got on MORE Top Ten critical lists than any other Hitchcock film.

And yet: McGilligan tells us that the next Hitchcock film -- the FINAL Hitchcock film -- Family Plot was a disappointment at "26th on the box office list of 1976." I'd say that's pretty good, but I guess in the 70's, not all that many movies were made.

McGilligan has no box office placement for Frenzy in 1972, but I'll guess it made the top twenty. It certainly made some money --$16 million gross on a $2 million budget, plus a $2 million network TV sale(for a bowdlerized, G-rated version of an R-rated film).

Meanwhile, back at Hitchcock's five Top Ten grossers.

Spellbound made the top ten, but Notorious a year later did not? I've always linked those two films. Ingrid Bergman and a man...callow young Peck in Spellbound, skilled older pro Grant in Notorious. One word titles. Love stories over all. Selznick at the producer's helm(but less so on Notorious , which is why it is a better film, with a better script.)

I'm ambivalent about Hitchcock's movies from the forties in general, but Spellbound in particular seems rather too uninvolving to me. I don't quite know why -- the overwritten Freud stuff? Peck not really ready for stardom yet? Bergman too "nice"?(versus the saucy wench of her other Hitchcocks.) The Dali dream sequences are cool, as is that big Suicide Hand at the end. But, eh...I sure wish some OTHER Hitchocck movies were bigger grossers than Spellbound.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Here's something interesting:

Four of Hitchcock's five Top Ten box office performers:

Rebecca
Spellbound
Rear Window
Psycho

Four of Hitchcock's Best Director Oscar nominations:

Rebecca
Spellbound
Rear Window
Psycho

Could it be? Hitchcock got his Best Director noms ONLY for his Top Ten movies? Heh, yeah I guess so. Almost. (Its as if the Academy HAD to honor Hitchcock when he made the Top Ten.)

Except:

NXNW was Top Ten box office, but didn't get a Best Director nom(robbed! as Mr. Strutt in Marnie would say.) Lifeboat was NOT Top Ten box office, but DID get a Best Director nom.

Oh, well.

And now, a curveball:

Patrick McGilligan's Hitchcock bio is well respected as the best one out there, and his research seems impeccable. But movie history(particularly movie finance history) is a tricky beast to tackle, and:

I KNOW I once reviewed a list of Top Ten grossers of the year and found:

Strangers on a Train in the Top Ten of 1951.

I recall thinking: that made sense. Truffaut had called the film "a spectacular comeback"(after The Paradine Case, Rope, Under Capricorn and Stage Fright) and the film with its berserk carousel climax and flamboyant psycho villain were definitely "Hitchcock going for entertainment."

And yet: McGilligan doesn't quote Strangers as a Top Ten box office performer.

But wait, I've buried my lede:

McGilligan isn't REALLY quoting top ten GROSSERS at all. From his book on this point:

"This is the top ten according to U.S. and Canadian rental revenue as reported by the distributors, considered a more reliable indicator than total receipts at the box office."

OK...rentals(always lower than grosses.) But riddle me this: how could Strangers on a Train be a top ten GROSSER of 1951, but not top ten in RENTALS? I'll never understand Hollywood numbers.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

A couple of final points:

I would expect that making the Top Ten (rentals) in the 40's and 50's would be harder than making the Top Ten in the 60s, 70's and 80's because so many MORE movies were made back in the 40's and 50's. Top Ten out of 350 movies is different than Top Ten out of 100 movies.

And ending where I began: Hitchcock seems to have spun his iconic "stardom" out of movies which more often than not, were NOT "the important movies of the year." Or even the pop classics of the year. Gone With the Wind. Citizen Kane. Casablanca. An American in Paris and A Streetcar Named Desire(1951, the year of Strangers on a Train.) From Here to Eternity. On the Waterfront. South Pacific. Gigi. Bridge on the River Kwai. Cleopatra(1963, the year of The Birds.)

This continued right on up to the comeback success of Frenzy(in the year when the IMPORTANT movies were The Godfather and Cabaret.)

So how did Hitch get so famous?

ONE: Longevity. He was a success for six decades, as directors from Sam Wood to Michael Curtiz to Preston Sturges to Elia Kazan to Richard Brooks faded away.

TWO: The TV show. Made him a bigger, more recognizable star than ANY film director, even Cecil B. DeMille.

THREE: Thrillers. Someone asked Cary Grant: "Why does Hitchcock only make thrillers?" Grant replied: "Money." Thrillers will always be with us.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

FOUR: No risk budgets. Hitchcock was offered 1963's Cleopatra(on loan out.) His Caesar murder might have been cool but he knew -- no way. The budget risk. Hitchcock was one of a legion of Hollywood directors(Hawks and Wilder among them) who made his movies on budget and on time, usually making a tidy profit, sometimes making a BIG profit(Rear Window, Psycho) and rarely if ever losing much money. (Hitch claimed only The Trouble With Harry lost money and a small sum at that.) In return, Hitchcock lived well off a $250,000 salary per movie -- until his Psycho percentage brought in "zillions." But most of the time, Hitchcock was comfortable making a "millionaire's living" with a movie or two a year, plus the TV show...with the TV show ending and the movies dwindling at the end.

Indeed, the book has Hitchcock alive long enough to see Jaws and Star Wars hit big and he opined, "Its as if filmmakers today put a chip on the roulette wheel worth millions of dollars on just one movie...and seek only the big win."