What do you think?
Rate this book
Films of Alfred Hitchcock
Films of Alfred Hitchcock
- GenresFilm
Paperback
First published June 1, 1976
2 people are currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 27, 2017
This is the first book to do an analysis of all of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies in addition to the television episodes that he directed. The famous director was still alive when this was written, his final film (FAMILY PLOT) had debuted at a festival, but had not yet had its general release, five of his films were still unavailable since Hitchcock owned them and had pulled them from distribution, and the movies that were available generally came as 16mm prints from film rental companies. It was a much different viewing world from the one we live in today!
A big plus or big drawback to the book is that it includes a complete story synopsis in almost every case. If you are familiar with the film, then it quickly refreshes your memory especially when it comes to “signature” scenes (like the shower scene is PSYCHO or the crows gathering on the school playground in THE BIRDS). This becomes a problem, though, if you haven’t seen the film and plan to watch it. The major surprises have been given away and you very likely now know how the story ends. Of course, since the formatting of each entry is similar, you could skip over the synopsis if the show is on your “To Watch” list.
The writers were not studied film critics. Consequently, there are no ongoing threads of Hitchcock themes, little mention of his interests that found their way into his films, or only an occasional analysis of the influence he had on filmmakers and audiences. That is unfortunate because he was making movies for five decades! A thoughtful analysis can show the growth of trends in the film industry … silent to sound, black & white to color, theater performers to box office stars, square “academy” framing to widescreen, flat screen to 3D, suggestiveness to explicitness … and he was there for them all.
Instead, this is the work of two energetic and devoted fans. Don’t worry. It’s not gushing “fanzine” writing. However, the lack of scholarly study does result in a factual error or two. For instance, they mention that composer Bernard Herrmann came up with the unusual soundtrack used in place of music for THE BIRDS. While it is likely true that he was waiting in the background in case Hitchcock’s aural experimentation did not work, the famous electronic bird sounds were developed by two musicians who knew how to play a long forgotten device from the 1920’s, the electroacoustic trautonium.
It is refreshing that the writers’ comments aren’t gushing adoration of The Master. If they believe a film is flawed, very slow, too talky, or (in the case of MARNIE) technically inept, they say so. Nowhere else have I read a criticism of the classic STRANGERS ON A TRAIN that the dialogue is pretentious and unrealistic! (They did enjoy the story and suspense moments, though.)
There are some points they missed that surprised me. In talking about Karin Dor’s death in TOPAZ, they mention her dress opening up like a flower around her as she sinks to the floor. Literally every person I’ve discussed that scene with sees it as symbolic of a pool of blood spreading out from her body … a technique that easily skirted objections that would have come from the censors if actual blood was shown. I can’t imagine that Hitchcock was thinking of flowers when he shot that.
They are also adamant that PSYCHO and THE BIRDS are not horror movies. This seems to be because they are so stylistically different from horror films, especially in the humorous and romantic moments they contain. In fact, they mention that Alfred Hitchcock was quoted as saying he saw PSYCHO as a very, very black comedy. There were certainly those elements in it, such as the car that refused to smoothly disappear in the swamp. However, the commercial side of the director was also keenly aware of teen audiences that were going to the movies in droves, and there seems little doubt that he was putting his own “spin” on creating a new horror genre. (Makers of “mad slasher” films would do well to study the aforementioned shower scene in PSYCHO.)
The book also contains a huge collection of photographs from Hitchcock productions. If I’m not mistaken, there were even photographs from the few lost silent films. This is a treasure trove for the film fan who enjoys flipping through pages of “stills.”
To have an in-depth study of the Hitchcock Touch, I would recommend looking elsewhere. As a method for becoming familiar with Hitchcock’s films, though, it is satisfying.
A big plus or big drawback to the book is that it includes a complete story synopsis in almost every case. If you are familiar with the film, then it quickly refreshes your memory especially when it comes to “signature” scenes (like the shower scene is PSYCHO or the crows gathering on the school playground in THE BIRDS). This becomes a problem, though, if you haven’t seen the film and plan to watch it. The major surprises have been given away and you very likely now know how the story ends. Of course, since the formatting of each entry is similar, you could skip over the synopsis if the show is on your “To Watch” list.
The writers were not studied film critics. Consequently, there are no ongoing threads of Hitchcock themes, little mention of his interests that found their way into his films, or only an occasional analysis of the influence he had on filmmakers and audiences. That is unfortunate because he was making movies for five decades! A thoughtful analysis can show the growth of trends in the film industry … silent to sound, black & white to color, theater performers to box office stars, square “academy” framing to widescreen, flat screen to 3D, suggestiveness to explicitness … and he was there for them all.
Instead, this is the work of two energetic and devoted fans. Don’t worry. It’s not gushing “fanzine” writing. However, the lack of scholarly study does result in a factual error or two. For instance, they mention that composer Bernard Herrmann came up with the unusual soundtrack used in place of music for THE BIRDS. While it is likely true that he was waiting in the background in case Hitchcock’s aural experimentation did not work, the famous electronic bird sounds were developed by two musicians who knew how to play a long forgotten device from the 1920’s, the electroacoustic trautonium.
It is refreshing that the writers’ comments aren’t gushing adoration of The Master. If they believe a film is flawed, very slow, too talky, or (in the case of MARNIE) technically inept, they say so. Nowhere else have I read a criticism of the classic STRANGERS ON A TRAIN that the dialogue is pretentious and unrealistic! (They did enjoy the story and suspense moments, though.)
There are some points they missed that surprised me. In talking about Karin Dor’s death in TOPAZ, they mention her dress opening up like a flower around her as she sinks to the floor. Literally every person I’ve discussed that scene with sees it as symbolic of a pool of blood spreading out from her body … a technique that easily skirted objections that would have come from the censors if actual blood was shown. I can’t imagine that Hitchcock was thinking of flowers when he shot that.
They are also adamant that PSYCHO and THE BIRDS are not horror movies. This seems to be because they are so stylistically different from horror films, especially in the humorous and romantic moments they contain. In fact, they mention that Alfred Hitchcock was quoted as saying he saw PSYCHO as a very, very black comedy. There were certainly those elements in it, such as the car that refused to smoothly disappear in the swamp. However, the commercial side of the director was also keenly aware of teen audiences that were going to the movies in droves, and there seems little doubt that he was putting his own “spin” on creating a new horror genre. (Makers of “mad slasher” films would do well to study the aforementioned shower scene in PSYCHO.)
The book also contains a huge collection of photographs from Hitchcock productions. If I’m not mistaken, there were even photographs from the few lost silent films. This is a treasure trove for the film fan who enjoys flipping through pages of “stills.”
To have an in-depth study of the Hitchcock Touch, I would recommend looking elsewhere. As a method for becoming familiar with Hitchcock’s films, though, it is satisfying.
August 14, 2022
This book traces Hitch's career from his early (and forgettable) silent drams through his rise as The Master of Suspense and then The Man Who Made PSYCHO (plus mentioning the Alfred Hitchcock Presents TV show). I was surprised to realize that coming out in the mid-1970s it optimistically looks forward to Hitch doing more films after FAMILY PLOT (he died too soon).
The film is a good basic guide but I think it's shaped by dating to the pre-Internet days. Simply getting basic info such as a list of a director or actor's films was a miracle of sorts, and more than enough to justify buying a book. As a result, there's not as much depth as more recent books competing with IMDB and the like tend to provide.
The film is a good basic guide but I think it's shaped by dating to the pre-Internet days. Simply getting basic info such as a list of a director or actor's films was a miracle of sorts, and more than enough to justify buying a book. As a result, there's not as much depth as more recent books competing with IMDB and the like tend to provide.
July 3, 2025
Cleaning out my house and found this book. Reminds me of bicycling to Blockbuster to pick up classic videos to watch during my growing up years. I remember enjoying the book.
February 9, 2008
More my money this is the reference book concerning the films of Alfred Hitchcock. Divided into sections corresponding to periods of his career, each section is also divided into chapters, and each chapter is an essay about a specific film. I pick this book up each time I re-watch a Hitchcock film.
July 20, 2011
I read so many "Films of ..." books back in the seventies but this is the last one I'll put
on my list. I can't definitively remember them all. Possibly not the same book I read. Date read is a guess.
on my list. I can't definitively remember them all. Possibly not the same book I read. Date read is a guess.
November 30, 2013
Useful but workmanlike overview of each film. They really hate "Marnie," by the way.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews