W
hy should we take Hitchcock seriously? Considering all of the books and documentaries about his work, the DVD re-releases and remakes of his films, not to mention his direct influence on several generations of filmmakers, it seems like a downright silly question to ask today.
But film critic and scholar Robin Wood (1931-2009) was quite earnest when that very question prefaced his 1965 book Hitchcock’s Films (Tantivy Press), the first serious English-language work on the Master of Suspense, which led to both a widespread acceptance of American film criticism and the prominence of critical director biographies. While teaching secondary school in England, Wood began his investigation of
Hitchcock’s oeuvre with an article examining the theme of sex and money in Psy- cho. Rejected by British film journal Sight & Sound on the grounds that Wood did not “get” that Hitchcock intended Psycho to be taken as a joke, it was eventually published by its French counterpart, Cahiers du Cinema, where Hitchcock had long been championed by its various contributors, namely Francois Truffaut, Éric Rohmer, Claude Chabrol and Jean-Luc Godard. Wood followed this essay up with his groundbreaking book, which further ex-
amined Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds and Marnie, and correctly predicted that they would garner ongoing critical attention in the ensuing years. In the preface, Wood argues that, although technically and visually brilliant,
Hitchcock’s American productions were populist, commercial films and when compared to the works of Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni, they didn’t warrant the same serious academic appreciation. But, while he criticized the Cahiers du Cinema flock for often over-analyzing and misguiding the films in order to serve a thesis, Wood used the book to champion the study of cinema as an autonomous art, worthy of the same respect given to other art forms. At the time, film criticism, especially in England, drew heavily from literary criticism and not the relatively new language of cinema. But Wood emphasized the need for examination on a visual level, not just on plot and performance – these weren’t stage plays, after all.
For instance, he describes the scene in Psycho where Norman Bates car-
ries his mother’s limp body to the cellar. On the page, there is nothing ex- ceptional about the scene, but cinematically, the way the camera looks down upon Norman, it enables the viewer’s understanding of the characters by plunging them into a sense of what Wood referred to as “metaphysical ver- tigo,” sinking deeper into darkness. Unlike so much dry academic drivel, Wood’s prose was witty and provided
rich descriptions. With Psycho, he boldly called the shower scene one of the most horrific incidents in a feature film, not because of its graphic nature, but due to its utter meaninglessness. He pointed out how the viewer had so far identified with Marion Crane, but her death left the film devoid of a pro- tagonist (even though she had stolen the money, Marion sought salvation, says Wood). The film, and sense of guilt, now shifts to Norman, and here too a sort of sympathy emerges, what Wood referred to as a likeable human being in an intolerable situation. Wood used Hitchcock’s Films as a springboard to explore other horror works
throughout the 1970s. While a professor at Toronto’s York University, he co- wrote – along with his partner, Richard Lippe – The American Nightmare: Es- says on the Horror Film (Festival of Festivals, 1979), the first academic look at American genre cinema, linking repression, conflict and the reactionary wing of the 20th century to the celluloid nightmares of the screen. In it, he champi- oned the works of Brian De Palma, George A. Romero (he hailed Day of the Dead as a brilliant satire of masculinity run amok in the Reagan era), as well as Larry Cohen – at a time when (De Palma excepted) these filmmakers re- ceived little positive critical or box office attention. Wood’s frank examination of Hitchcock’s career also opened the doors to
other works – such as Donald Spoto’s The Art of Alfred Hitchcock (1974), which took on the slightly more ambitious task of analyzing all of Hitch- cock’s films – as well as the multitudes of other books and genre pub- lications on the director that followed.
ERIC VEILLETTE
RM126
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128