Talk:Alfred Hitchcock

Glandular condition

It's stated that he was rejected in WWII because of his weight, a glandular condition, and his father's death. What was the condition - and was it related to his obesity? It doesn't say. It would also be nice to know why his father's death would have had anything to do with it. 69.158.141.104 (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitchcock's father died in 1914 and Hitchcock wasn't eligible for service until 1917, so I doubt it had anything to do with the death. More likely he was delcared "unfit for military service" due to his weight, although it's worth noting that many who knew Hitchcock at time later remarked that he was surprisingly athletic and was able to run up a long flight of stairs without getting out-of-breath Davepattern (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I shall revise the sentence and make of it something reasonable and readable :) Harfarhs (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera Parody

I found the identity of the Hitchcock-parody alligator in some Hanna-Barbera cartoons in the '60s. The character was named 'Alfie Gator', and appeared in the Yakky Doodle series on Yogi Bear. He was trying to catch the duck to use in some gourmet dish. CFLeon (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.131.183 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ibn-e-Safi as a Influenced?

I have provided reliable source http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/people/The-son-of-Ibne-Safi/iplarticleshow/8270314.cms but Cresix doesn't seems to think so. thanks Whatasurprise (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

From the source: "His favorite though was the TV presentation of the Alfred Hitchcock Hour, the weekly show on Pakistan TV. He loved watching Hitchcock movies and loved how he created and depicted suspense scenes without any music". The word "like" is not synonymous with "influenced by" (I challenge you to find a dictionary or thesaurus that says they are.) My wife is a professional violinist. She "likes" The Beatles, Hank Williams, Ludacris, and hundreds of other musicians, none of whom have had the least influence on her violin performances. One almost certainly "likes" someone who has influenced them, but that does not mean that they are certainly "influenced by" everyone they like. Cresix (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatasurprise (talk · contribs) posted this comment at this point in the discussion, then later removed it. Cresix (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are reaching your own conclusions (and it's quite a reach!) that "he was more susceptible to being influenced by Alfred Hitchcock"; here at Wikipedia that's known as original research and/or synthesis of information from a source to reach conclusions not in the source. That's not allowed on Wikipedia. And sorry, but a "hint" that he was influenced??? If that's your argument, you don't have a leg to stand on. I could search a few minutes on the internet and find LOTS of people who "like" Hitchcock, but the infobox parameter "Influenced by" was not intended to include every person in the film industry who "likes" Hitchcock. If Ibne Safi was truly "influenced by" Hitchcock, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a more substantial and less ambiguous source to support it. Cresix (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of treatment of Tippi Hedren in lede

Due to the recent release of The Girl (2012) on HBO I believe discussion of Hitchcock's treatment of Tippi Hedren needs to be discussed in the lede section. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for seeking opinions. I must say, however, that your brief comment doesn't tell me much. I know very little about The Girl. More importantly, I am not sure why release of an HBO special changes the relative notability of the Tippi Hedren information compared to everything else that makes Hitchcock notable. I'm not defending Hitchcock's behavior with Hedren, but for such a notable director, I think we need a really good argument that controversial behavior should be in the lead. As an analogy, Roman Polanski's misdeeds were quite scandalous and had a major impact on his life and career. I think mention in the lead of that article is appropriate. Based on what I know about Hitchcock and Hedren (and I may not know everything), I'm not convinced it belongs in the lead. Cresix (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cresix for your input. I personally was shocked at what Hitchcock did to Hedren in terms of 5 days of having birds attack her in addition to being cut by broken glass. According to one article Hitchcock had issues with leading ladies, although not specifics were mentioned, with the exception of Hedren. I believe there is another documentary drama coming out on the making of Phycho. I do not understand how Hitchcock is applauded by critics when his films seem to be centered around sex, violence towards women, and murder. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I'm not defending his bad behavior, but I don't think there is much dispute about his status as a director. I think his misdeeds certainly need discussion, but not in the lead, IMHO. Cresix (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have my own personal view of Hitchcock, that he was a sensationalist, voyeurist, violent man, and his movies were an expression of his own personal perverted fantasies. That is only myself. I believe Hollywood is rarely critical of itself since the industry needs to keep selling films or videos. Critisizing Hitchcock would be detrimental to their business. With that said, I understand Wikipedia goes by sources, not original research or ideas. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your points and appreciate your discussing this issue. I must point out that a lot more people than Hollywood insiders would give Hitchcock's films high marks. Cresix (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sure Hitchcock has critical acclaim outside of Hollywood. Hitchcock had a way of playing with his audience like a cat and mouse. However, my view is that his graphic depictions of violence against women, especially the Psycho shower scene, were unnecessary and inappropriate, and may have been Hitchcock's own personal fantasies of committing violence against women. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I found a source that could be useful for the article; possibly the lede section: Donald Spoto (2008), Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies According to Spoto, p.251, Hitchcock was stalking Hedren and kept her from seeing her daughter. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source link: Tippi: Hitchcock 'made my life...miserable'. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is more on Hitchcock on Hedren and other leading ladies: Hitchcock the Psycho: As Birds Star Tippi Hedren reveals he tried to destroy when she spurned his advances, how all his blondes lived in fear of the sadistic director. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed lede change:

Hitchcock has recently received criticism for his treatment of leading ladies during filming. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for edit:

1. Recent release of The Girl (2012) HBO.

2. Recent research and interest in Hitchcock's treatment of leading ladies.

3. Alleged incidents were not isolated to only Tippi Hedrin. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be wary if Spoto is your only source, as his works on Hitchcock have a lot of inaccuracies, errors and half-truths (some of which would appear to be deliberate), and his central argument that Hitchcock was a sadistic misogynist has been widely criticised by Hitchcock scholars, those who worked with the director (including many actresses) and even the people Spoto originally interviewed... I'd even go so far as to acuse Spoto of a biographical form of pseudohistory. Many of the instances of violence against women (and just as frequently men) in his films are not of Hitchcock's creation, but are in the source materials — the murders in Psycho and Frenzy are very much toned down from what appears in the original novels. I'd recommend reading the Save Hitchcock blog for a critique of "The Girl" (which was largely based on Spoto) and Hedren's allegations (the author of the blog is Tony Lee Moral) and Hitchcock's Women on Hitchcock (from the Literature Film Quarterly journal). In my own opinion, the weight of evidence against Spoto's more extreme claims is compelling and I would prefer to see a balanced/impartial view on the subject than a sensationalist one. It's probably also worth bearing in mind that there are many instances of Hitchcock empowering the women around him — e.g. Hitchcock was responsible for Joan Harrison becoming a pioneering Hollywood producer (apparently she was 1 of only 3 women producers at the time). Davepattern (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

One other interview is worth reading -- Hedren has repeatedly claimed that Hitchcock abused Kim Novak on the set of "Vertigo", presumably because that's what Spoto told her, but Novak recently refuted that again: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9586303/Kim-Novak-tells-all.html Davepattern (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to this discussion...but there seems to be an unequal treatment of Ms. Hedren's experience here and how other celebrity scandals are covered on wikipedia. For example, Joan Crawford was deified and considered by many to be a great artist who changed forever the way women were seen on film (she was considered one of the first portrayals of the "flapper" archetype on film) and then her daughter exposed her abusive nature in her book Mommie Dearest which was then made into a movie. Some people who knew Joan agreed with the portrayal and film, some didn't. But it shed great light on the problem of child abuse. It seems to me that Ms. Hedren's own detailed public statements on the traumatizing sexual harassment of Hitchcock (and people's reluctance to believe the story) are exactly parallel, along with the potential of this story and film to shed light on traumatizing sexual harassment in the film industry. Like Christina Crawford, Tippi Hedren has said that she wanted to let other women know they can say "no" and seek help. The two situations are very parallel. On Joan Crawford's wiki page, there is an entire section devoted to Mommie Dearest and I think Ms. Hedren's experiences should be its own section, as well. Also, if you look at her screen test for The Birds, Martin Balsam and Hitchcock are sexually harassing her ON CAMERA, asking her about "paroxysms" (a euphemism for orgasms) and "necrophilia" and asking her to repeat her nickname and saying it refers to a part of her anatomy. So there is definitely cause to give this a larger treatment, including both sides, of course, as many people claim he did not treat them that way. But there is ample corroborating evidence to support Ms. Hedren's experience and I think this article is burying it when it should be its own section, like on Joan Crawford's page. I know many people think the Spoto's book and the HBO film are sensationalist, but that's what people said about Mommie Dearest, too.Amyluna13 (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What ample corroborating evidence? The only source for all this is Hedren herself, as told to Spoto decades later, and then others. You should read the post and links given by Davepattern just above. And that screen test you refer to is a scene from The Girl - it's not real. If you look at the actual screen test, available online and DVD, it's entirely professional, unlike the awkward affair that film depicts, and no one is harassing her at all. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The corroborating evidence I am referring to is that Gwyneth Hughes based her screenplay for The Girl on accounts from Hedren and Jim Brown, who was an assistant director on both of Hedren's films and who corroborated the sexual harassment. Other corroborating evidence of the credence of Hedren's story is that the scene with the birds did take 5 days to shoot and shooting was stopped by a doctor because Hedren was experiencing PTSD symptoms from the traumatic experience. Also, we know that Hitchcock kept her on contract for two years after she made Marnie and would not release her to do any other pictures even though he did not use her for any films. The screen test for The Birds that I'm referring to IS real. You can view it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxRgGLhOC6U and the inappropriate dialog about paroxysms and necrophilia can be heard at 4min11seconds. Even Hitchcock says, "We better change the subject" and a visibly uncomfortable Hedren says, "I think so, too." At 1min52seconds, Hitchcock makes the remark about her nickname referring to a part of her anatomy. The links provided by Davepattern don't really shed any light on this controversy. Hitchcock's biographer is reviewing the movie, not what happened in real life, and his evidence for it not being real is that it was "out of character" for Hitchcock to do those things, which isn't much of an argument, as we know that sexual predators are masters at keeping their predations secret from the world. And the AMC panel discussion with Hitchcock's leading ladies (which was from 1997) is not very relevant, either. The discussion is limited to Hitchcock as a director, not as a sexual predator. Hedren doesn't really say too much and it would have been a totally inappropriate forum for her to disclose her abuse, anyway. In any event, I'm not really even arguing if the allegations are true or not. I'm merely saying that this controversy is getting unequal treatment on this page compared to the controversies of other famous people's personal lives. I still maintain that this controversy is important and credible enough to warrant its own section (pros AND cons) for wikipedia to be consistent. Otherwise, wikipedia is coddling Hitchcock and that shows bias. Whether or not you believe them, Hedren's accusations and the film that depicted them warrants more significant attention. Amyluna13 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot say the original source is ample corroborating evidence. The late James H. Brown's wife denies he would back up any of the charges Hedren has brought up in recent years, as can be seen in this Telegraph article BBC under fire over Hitchcock drama. The Joan Crawford charges you brought up earlier - from her daughter - got far more attention in the media. That's why it gets more coverage on WP. This is not analogous to that. I had not seen the additional screen test scenes before, and they are interesting. But Hedren doesn't look very visibly uncomfortable to me. She handles Balsam rather well, and comes across a lot more cool and professional than in The Girl. You can call the dialogue inappropriate, but none of what you lay out here corroborates sexual harassment. Shooting a traumatic attack scene can be traumatic. And as others said, it's absurd Hitchcock would want to disfigure his leading lady's face before the film was finished. The only living source for these charges is Hedren. Several people at the links above were talking about the man they knew, and they all dispute this. Putting Hedren's charges in the lead of an article on Hitchcock would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. They're in the article body. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is productive about trying to convince each other of the truth of these allegations. From my perspective, I obviously think they are true and you obviously think they are false, and you and I are like many other members of the public, which is my point. There has been enough evidence to convince many people it is true. It is not the job of editors to determine the truth, but to report on significant events and circumstances and these allegations and the controversy they engendered warrant a deeper treatment. Also, the 2012 film Hitchcock also made reference to his sexual obsessions with his leading ladies, further giving necessity for a deeper treatment of this aspect of his character. Consider also that it's entirely plausible that in the atmosphere of those times, the women who enabled his flirting were not antagonized by Hitchcock, but Hedren, who clearly had a strong sense of herself and did not agree that the de rigeur flirtations of the day were appropriate, would have incurred his wrath. That would be consistent with what we know of the behavior of abusive personality types. They escalate the abuse when their authority is challenged. Kim Novak by her own admission experienced childhood rape, and we know that incest survivors often normalize abusive behaviors and also block them out, so her denials work neither for nor against Hedren's accusations. Same with Brown's wife. The only way many women of that time got through life was with a heavy dose of denial and expert practice at "handling" harassment "well" as you observed in the screen test. Haven't you ever watched Mad Men lol? Sexual harassment was pretty much standard operating procedure in those days. So the fact that some people are adamant that nothing inappropriate ever happened kind of suggests a bit of denial, considering we do know he was somewhat obsessed, at the very least. I mention all this, not to prove I'm right about the abuse, but to show that there is just as much argument for it being true as it being untrue. In any event, I did not suggest to put this info in the lead. What I suggested was that his sexual obsession with his leading ladies (portrayed in two recent films) warrants its own section, perhaps titled "Controversy" as is the case with scores of other celebrities on wikipedia. I still maintain that you are showing a bias in defending Hitchcock that is outside the purview of wikipedia editors. Of course we have a responsibility not to include malicious character assassinations from every sensationalist crackpot, but Hedren's testimony for many people clearly meets the bar of what should be given credibility and it's own section. Adding a section that summarizes both sides of this "Controversy" is not undue weight. It's standard procedure.Amyluna13 (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Somebody denying that harassment happened is not evidence that it happened, and there is not just as much argument for it being true as it being untrue. A lot of people object to the idea that if Hitchcock was obsessed, that means he also was engaging in sexual harassment. It's amazing how some people will make that leap. And then we get those who believe if a subject is important, it must be promoted in every WP article possible. I see you have argued for this type of thing before. A number of people with no knowledge of what happened or how films are made "believing" Hedren proves nothing, except that they believe the subject is important. What they should realize is that promoting unproven, dubious charges does not help their cause, it hurts it, and does nothing for real victims of harassment. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that you have chosen to resort to ad hominem attacks to prove your point (which is usually a sign that one's argument is weak). As I've said repeatedly, the issue is not whether or why you or I or anyone may believe or not believe Hedren's story. I could just as easily say that the arguments you are making have been made before in not believing the victim and assuming her allegations are malicious and untrue. Yes, I've made the argument before as an editor not to treat people better or worse based on our own biases and I've succeeded each time, because it's a good argument and makes wikipedia a better place. You seem to keep missing my point. I am not trying to prove the allegations are true. I'm saying that the controversy is large enough that not including it shows bias, a point you have yet to address. Other proof that you are not editing in good faith would be that I am making the argument to present both sides of the controversy and you are making the argument that it should not be included because it is false. You are making an absolute judgment (which is personal bias) and I am suggesting to show both sides (which is balanced and fair to both sides). Finally, I did not say that someone denying harassment is proof that it happened. I'm saying that an absolute denial is suspiciously absolute in a climate where harassment was acceptable and widely practiced. That's a completely logical argument to make. Again, as I've argued "before" on wikipedia, presenting all viewpoints is removing bias, not adding it. Perhaps it's time to call in some other editors.Amyluna13 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Remains vs cremains

Cresix removed my change of "remains" in the discussion of the disposition of AH's ashes to "cremains", the proper term for ashes that are the product of cremation.

cre·mains (kr-mnz) pl.n. The ashes that remain after cremation of a corpse. [Blend of cremated, past participle of cremate and remains.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevewaclo (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the sentence says "his body was cremated and his remains were scattered", it's clear what form the remains took - there's no need to introduce a slightly obscure technical term here. --McGeddon (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Alma mater

I suggest changing this to "London County Council School of Engineering and Navigation". True, it was only what would now be called a further education college but St Ignatius' College is a mere secondary school. Harfarhs (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)