The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and Feminist Theory

by Tania Modleski

Although Alfred Hitchcock's films have been central to the formulation of feminist film theory, and to the practice of feminist film criticism, there has never been a book-length feminist study of a director whose cinematic treatment of women has been notoriously controversial.

In The Women Who Knew Too Much, Tania Modleski claims that critical approaches to Hitchcock have falsely fallen into two camps: either he is seen as a misogynist, or he is seen as sympathetic to women in his demonstration of women's plight in patriarchy. In opposition to these positions, Modleski asserts that Hitchcock is deeply ambivalent towards his female characters. The Women Who Knew Too Much examines both the director's complex attitude toward femininity, and the implications of that attitutde for the audience. The book represents a significant contribution to the debates in film theory around the issue of gender and film spectatorship; in particular, it seeks to complicate the view that women's response to patriarchal cinema can only be masochistic, while men's response is necessarily sadistic.

Applying the theories of psychoanalysis, mass culture, and a broad range of film (and) feminist criticism, Modleski offers compelling readings of seven Hitchcock films from various periods in his career.

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, Feminism, Academic, Theory, Psychoanalysis, Criticism

200 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1988

Reviews

[Blair · Rating 5 out of 5]

Modleski gives a unique, exacting and complex feminist reading of Hitchcock's work. She isn't afraid to take titans like Laura Mulvey and Robin Wood to task, while still treating them in high regard. This even-handed approach dovetails with her thesis: Critical analysis of Hitchcock tends to end up labelling the director's work as either misogynist for his treatment of female characters or sympathetic to their subordination. Modleski works hard to complicate this tradition by showing how Hitchcock's work also needs to be regarded in terms of audience reception; that gendered roles beyond the screen play a formative role. I am especially fond of the chapter on Notorious.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muy sesudo pero muy interesante y está todo muy bien explicado. Además hay salseo porque en un capítulo la autora se mete con Zizek (entre otros). Lo único, sí pone de relevancia un tema que me entristece - en parte por sigue ocurriendo - y es cómo los críticos de cine normalmente sólo se citan entre ellos evidentemente con todo lo que implica para la labor de las mujeres en este campo.

[Racheli Zusiman · Rating 3 out of 5]

ספר מעניין שמנתח בקריאה פמיניסטית כמה מסרטיו של היצ'קוק וכן ביקורות וניתוחים שנכתבו עליהם. הספר די אקדמי ולא הבנתי הכל, אבל היה מעניין לקרוא.

[Kenneth Lota · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book as a whole serves a useful response to Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," the article which basically kicked off both feminist film criticism and a great deal of Hitchcock scholarship. Modelski is more nuanced in her assessment of Hitchcock's work than Mulvey was, giving Hitchcock more credit on gender issues and paying more careful attention to the films themselves.

[Celeste Zimmerman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the Freudian analysis of Rebecca

[Marnie Cannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Modleski provides a refreshing and interesting take on Hitchcock and some of his works. I found the chapter on Rebecca especially interesting on the discussions of the Electra complex and off-screen space.

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book with the burning passion of a thousand fiery suns. Seriously. It's that good.

[Orla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Modleski buys into Freudlian/Lacanian psychoanalysis more than I would but she argues well and uses rational thought, a rare gift among film scholars.

[Dan Humphrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Still one of the best books in feminist film studies. Should be required reading for anyone wanting to combine these two fields in their own scholarly work. Oh, it's very entertaining, too.

[Martin Raybould · Rating 5 out of 5]

Film criticism at its finest. Opinions based on personal insights rather than slavishly rehashing other people's viewpoints.

[David Sterritt]

I’ve just reread Tania Modleski’s cleverly titled study “The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and Feminist Theory,” this time in its third edition, and its heavy deployment of psychoanalytic theory strikes me as more problematic than before; although I’ve long found this paradigm useful and interesting in many respects, Modleski relies on it so foundationally and uncritically that many of her arguments are hard to swallow if you don’t buy into every Freudian and Lacanian hypothesis as completely and unguardedly as she does. The afterword to this edition is especially irksome, striking a petulant, tendentious tone that the book would be better off without. Modleski is a smart and resourceful scholar, but I regret to say that my regard for her work on Hitchcock has declined.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5

[ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

dilo reina dilooo

[Valerie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting but it didn't blow me away.

[Teresa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had to pick this up as a reading for one of my film studies classes on the subject of Hitchcock's film Vertigo and it provided a fairly detailed criticism and analysis on the construction of female characters for male characters and spectators.

Modleski is able to discuss the ways in which Hitchcock portrays femininity and the idea that it is a male construct, created in order to fulfill the male desire, as well as discussing aspects of voyeurism and patriarchal ideologies associated with these notions.

[Hana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall pretty interesting with some really good points and solid references but I felt like there lacked a good conclusion - or rather everything wasn't tied up, summarised, and ended in a comprehensive final paragraph(s).

[Josephine Bozek]

I hate it so far. I really don't think she is a good writer.