I’m Dylan Ross, an MVC major in the University of Redlands class of 2021. Before beginning college, I had very little exposure to film analysis. This blog is a journey of my learning how to view films analytically and as I learn more about the elements that comprise film.

Hitchcock/Truffaut

This film provided an interesting look into the mind of a filmmaker I have heard so much about, yet have never been too familiar with. My lone exposure to a Hitchcock film, other than word of mouth, came in a class last semester when Psycho was assigned. As someone who personally detests the horror genre on account of the fact that I do not like to be scared, I was nervous to watch it. After realizing that Hitchcock creates a different type of film, that does not align with what would be considered horror today, I became very intrigued by his work. Obviously with the title “Master of Suspense,” he is absolutely incredible at keeping an audience in the palm of his hand. Hitchcock/Truffaut was a lovely stepping stone to bridge my inexperience with Hitchcock with our Hitchcock heavy syllabus. It painted a very flattering picture of Hitchcock, however every piece of media has an agenda. While it alluded to his critics and those who have casted off Hitchcock’s work as unrealistic, it did not focus heavily on their complaints. Each time, the film countered with a quote from Hitchcock about how “logic is dull (19:55).” While this concept fascinates me as a new film maker, I am still intrigued to see how as I watch more of his films, Hitchcock balances his boredom with reality, while still making films that captivate an audience. All in all, this film felt very informative and truly captured the light Hitchcock brought into the cinema. To see all these highly acclaimed directors practically drool over him really demonstrates his everlasting impact on film.

Dial M for Murder

This film was far and away my favorite Hitchcock film I have seen so far. Perhaps it is the newfound tools I can now use to decipher films, or Hitchcock’s incredible ability to keep the viewer glued to the screen, but I never found myself wishing the film would end. Dial M for Murder follows a husband who consults an old classmate to murder his wife, who is in the midst of an affair, to claim her inheritance. The husband and his associate hatch the “perfect” murder plan, with no potential flaws in their eyes. Obviously, things begin to go wrong and the majority of the plot revolved around the fallout of this failed murder attempt.
Before beginning my screening of Dial M for Murder, I began thinking critically about Hitchcock, albeit with my rather limited knowledge. The first thing people talk about when it comes to Alfred Hitchcock is that he is the “master of suspense.” I started breaking down what created suspense in the cinema. Obviously there are numerous ways in which to manipulate an audience, but I arrived at foreshadowing as a top candidate. When the audience knows something will happen, but does not know exactly what or when, is the time in which they are in a state of suspense. After coming to this conclusion, I began my screening, looking for elements of foreshadowing.
As one can only know something was foreshadowing once the actual event occurs, I would write down anything I thought alluded to a future action, or result. My list ended up being fairly accurate. The first thing I noticed was the very first shot of a policeman standing in front of the flat, looking curiously around. That combined with the title told me someone would die in the flat and the cops would be heavily involved. What told me that Tony (the husband) would be behind it was Margot (the wife) talking about how Tony had changed. Tony had changed, just not in the way Margot thought. Another thing I picked up heavily on throughout the film was how Hitchcock used music as a foreshadowing device. For instance, the cops all searched the apartment, and found nothing pointing towards Margot or Tony, but the next morning an inspector shows up. As soon as he steps foot in the apartment, ominous music plays. This lets the viewer know on a subconscious level that he will eventually be the one to uncover Tony’s entire scheme. Another device Hitchcock uses is when Mark (the man Margot had an affair with) tries to convince Tony to go to the police with a made up story, which happens to be the entire plot. Tony then confesses this to the police officer sarcastically. This leaves the audience on eggshells, watching a man confess his scheme directly to the authorities and them laughing about it. Another instance occurs just after Tony has explained his scheme initially to the audience. He talks to Mark, a crime writer, and asks him if the perfect murder exists. Mark responds by saying it exists on paper, but in real life nothing ever goes the way its planned. This essentially sets up the failed attempt, as well as Tony’s failed coverup.
Hitchcock’s use of foreshadowing creates an incredibly spun tale full of suspense. Early on the audience understands that things will take a turn for the worse, yet Hitchcock remains a step ahead in some spaces and there are still twists and turns that shock the viewer. Dial M for Murder is a wonderful thriller that kept me on the edge of my seat, primarily with Hitchcock’s excellent foreshadowing.

Hitchcock and Selznick

I feel as though I have learned about Alfred Hitchcock entirely backwards. I first heard his name echoed amongst the greatest directors in history. Before I even had a concept of what his movies were like, it had already been engrained in me that his talents were “legendary.” Then, last year I saw my first Hitchcock film, years after being told how impactful they were. Psycho didn’t blow my mind by any means, but I saw glimpses of what they meant, and how he furthered the suspense genre. Lately, I have been becoming more familiar with his work, having quadrupled my amount of Hitchcock films seen. And finally, I am learning about the background that was behind every movie. To see how Hitchcock came to be has been incredibly interesting, especially considering the backwards route I have taken to his art.
In Leonard J. Leff’s book Hitchcock and Selznick, Left dives into the complex relationship that loomed over Hitchcock as his American career began. Left begins by detailing how Selznick operated, from his upbringing, the control he needed to maintain, to the ungodly hours he worked, to the drugs that allowed him to work such hours. This working style took a serious toll on Selznick. Leff’s focus then shifts to Hitchcock. His initial success in Europe was promising, but he struggled to score an American contract.
He publicly declared he wanted to work for Selznick, but there was much concern about Hitchcock’s pace, and thus the budgets on his films. Eventually Hitchcock hired Myron Selznick as his agent in order to have an “in” with Selznick International. Finally, Selznick and Hitchcock reached a deal and Hitchcock moved to America to further his blooming career. Rebecca was his first project under Selznick. Their differences were immediately clear. Selznick’s controlling nature clashed heavily with Hitchcock’s desire for total independence. Also for Rebecca specifically, Selznick wanted to essentially reproduce the book, whereas Hitchcock wanted to take the skeleton and add his own ideas to it. With Selznick paying the bills, Hitchcock had to follow many of his demands. As a result, Hitchcock was not entirely pleased with Rebecca despite it’s success.
Hitchcock’s contract was then loaned out to other companies where he had more freedom. None of his next few films were deemed spectacular, despite an Oscar nomination. However, they showed range (Mr. and Mrs. Smith) as well as Hitchcock’s newfound efficiency. As he found more independence with other film companies, his vision became clearer. He wanted to start his own production company where he would not have anyone to answer to. Unfortunately, he still remained under contract to Selznick and this dream would have to wait until he had completed his obligations.

---

Rebecca

I had mixed emotions concerning Hitchcock’s 1940 film Rebecca. Initially, I had a hard time keeping track of characters, partially due to auditory issues with our screening, and partially to the fast pace of the film. The lack of chemistry between the two leads seemed very apparent to me and made it hard for me to really involve myself in the story. Despite that, I felt it was a beautifully shot piece of cinema.
For me, one reoccurring motif I picked up on was the ringing phone. Throughout the film, the phone would ring and often be left ringing. This added suspense to an already suspenseful plot. The fact that as an audience, we never saw Rebecca, nor heard much about her other than vague comments created an aura of mystery. This built and built, with the audience suspecting that it was de Winter’s love for Rebecca that kept him from truly giving himself to his new bride. Yet, in a masterfully narrated confession scene, the true nature of their relationship, and the circumstances of her death are revealed to us. Although as a viewer you knew something was going to happen, the plot twist of Rebecca being evil and their marriage being a sham was one I did not see coming. In fact, I had suspected de Winter had killed her, so finding out she died from a fall and he only hid the body was another unexpected turn.
Obviously, as the master of suspense, Hitchcock usually seems to be one step ahead of the viewer. Another tool he used to build suspense was the fog. When big moments were about to happen, an exterior shot would reveal ominous fog. One shot specifically in which the style Hitchcock decided to shoot in greatly enhanced the suspense was the scene where Mrs. de Winter is ready to reveal her costume for the ball. Her excitement is palpable, as she makes her way down the stairs. Hitchcock uses a very long tracking shot of her as she can’t wait for her husband to see the dress she believes he’ll love. The camera then switches to Mr. de Winter and he freaks out because it is revealed that is a dress Rebecca wore. Her spirit and death loom large over the new de Winter’s relationship, but not for the expected reasons. In the end, with “Danny” burning down Manderley, they are essentially released from both Rebecca and the life they’ve both come to dread.

Pitchfork

One blog I found particularly interesting was Pitchfork. A famous music company, that does everything from research, to putting on festivals, they are a large name within the industry. I enjoy both their blog layout, as well as their reporting style. In my opinion, the horizontal feed is aesthetically pleasing. Besides their headings that keep the site well organized, their homepage has many different options. Just under the headings are the most recent posts. Below that are individual album reviews. Something I appreciate as a fan of many genres, is that their reviews are not limited or biased to certain genres like many music blogs today. Many are either stuck in the past, or close minded to anything that is not current. From indie, to alternative, to hip hop, to rock; Pitchfork covers them all fairly and has very interesting insights. The only flaw I find with their layout/blog are the ads. They sometimes shift the actual page in order to generate more clicks. Other than that, the blog is well run and very informative.

Re-reading of Hitchcock and Selznick

With Rebecca being their first project together, and Hitchcock’s first in the US, the cinematic world was anxious to see how both the relationship and the film would turn out. While both geniuses in their own rights, they could not have differed more in their preferred working environments. Selznick obsessed about everything, and wanted to be in control of every single aspect of every film that Selznick International produced. It is the reason they only put out about two films a year, whereas single directors were putting out five at other companies. Hitchcock (as has already been established) wanted complete and total independence to execute his very strong and certain visions. Being famous for his lack of extra footage due to the fact that he already had the film in mind with every shot, he did not work well with others.
Another spot in which they clashed greatly was casting. Because of Hitchcock’s inability to execute his vision with the screenplay, he hoped he could at least control the casting. Laurence Oliver was quickly cast as Maxim de Winter, and Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers. The main issue came with the role of the second Mrs. de Winter. Selznick was intent on Nova Pilbeam, a choice Hitchcock resented. Oliver wanted Vivien Leigh cast, but again Hitchcock fought back. Despite many negative opinions of her, they went with Joan Fontaine.
Hitchcock wanted a 48 day shooting schedule, and Selznick undercut him by 12 days. The shoot was tough for Hitchcock. He repeatedly had to demonstrate actions and reactions for the inexperienced Fontaine. On top of these conflicts, there was conflict with authorities as to what was appropriate for the screen. They forced a change of the big reveal scene, in order to make Rebecca’s death an accident and not a murder like in the book. Also they altered Mrs. Danvers and Rebecca’s relationship so there was no vague trace of a “perverted relationship” (Leff, 70). Despite all the conflict and hardship that occurred during the shooting, Rebecca was incredibly well received initially. Although Hitchcock resented the way in which Selznick operated, it helped him rid himself of the stigma that he was a slow director. This also helped Selznick loan his contract to other studios, a move that would benefit Selznick financially and Hitchcock with the freedom he desired.
Hitchcock’s first project on loan was Foreign Correspondent which he shot for Walter Wagner. With the freedom he was given, Hitchcock went way over budget and spent well over a million dollars on the picture. Despite this, he still managed to bring in over fifty thousand in gross profits. He then directed Mr. and Mrs. Smith, a comedy, for RKO productions. Again he was given the freedom he desired, and in turn produced a film that showed he had range beyond his famous thrillers. Hitchcock then began work on an original, titled Saboteur. He was offered ten percent of the gross profits as long as he did not overspend. He flew through the production and collected $15,000 in profit. Hitchcock was beginning to really make a name for himself in Hollywood.
The relationship between Selznick and Hitchcock should have never worked on paper, yet it seemed to work out on paper. Selznick’s pushy and controlling nature forced Hitchcock to learn to collaborate. This also, maybe more importantly, helped him shed the label of a slow director. Selznick wanted efficiency out of Hitchcock because it saved him money. Also if Hitchcock was seen as efficient, he could be loaned out for more money. It was a win win for Selznick, and although it made Hitchcock miserable, it really did help launch his career. The power differential was ultimately what kept order in this unstable relationship. The fact that Selznick cut the checks gave him final say at the end of the day. Hitchcock knew how to still influence pictures, but under Selznick he could never produce his exact visions. It also influenced the loyalty of employees at Selznick International.
In Hitchcock & Selznick, the lengthy chapter three is devoted to the production of Rebecca, whereas chapter four covers the multiple films that occurred just after. The in depth analysis of Rebecca and what occurred behind the scenes is a vessel to give more insight into the Hitchcock-Selznick relationship. Their legendary clashes, whether it be on adaptation, casting, timeline, or general philosophy are all highlighted within this very first production. Chapter four mostly focuses on the pictures Hitchcock made while he was loaned out as Selznick took a break from filmmaking. Therefore, chapter 3, while only dealing with one film, gives vastly more insight to their relationship and how it directly translated to the screen and Hollywood culture.
To me, Leff seems to strike a solid balance between casual and academic. His insight into the characters that were David O. Selznick and Alfred Hitchcock comes off as personable, yet mostly unbiased. He is able to highlight the things that made each of them great, yet flaws and character weaknesses that hindered them as both individuals and a unit. He quotes a lot of sources from the time, allowing us to get information secondhand, as opposed to him telling a narrative of the period and relationship. Granted, this is essentially my only exposure to the lives of both Selznick and Hitchcock, so there could be some bias I am missing, but as of now it comes off as a balanced piece transcribing an influential period in American Cinema.

Rebecca Bedroom Scene

The scene where Mrs. de Winter finally sneaks into Rebecca’s room is especially important in the progression of the film. Visually, the lighting on the wall when she first opens the door is cool, it gives the feeling that she is completely alone. Then, Mrs. Danvers shows up, severely startling her. One aspect about this scene that I found particularly intriguing was the score. It begins with a crescendo as she climbs up the stairs, and as she reaches the top there is a note with each step. Then as she enters, it gets lighter and gives a sense of wonder. When Danvers appears it gets very ominous and takes a dark turn. The music then stays steady in the background and is very peaceful as Danvers is opening drawers to show Mrs. de Winter Rebecca’s things. However, this peaceful music actually builds tension because the viewer can clearly see a dissonance between the timbre of the music and Mrs. de Winter’s actions on screen. She is very nervous and intimidated my Mrs. Danvers. It then returns to being ominous and crescendo’s as she makes her way across the room. Danvers comes over and asks her if Mrs. de Winter believes if the dead come back to watch the living, it is essentially foreshadowing the fact that Rebecca’s death, not their love, is what is between her and Maxim’s happiness. As she is doing this, she gets closer and closer and the music crescendo’s with her movement. The score of this scene greatly contributes to the tension the audience feels. With its wave like structure, it has the viewer in knots by the time Mrs. de Winter finally sneaks out of the room.
Also, after reading Leff, the big photo of Maxim on the desk is striking, considering the background behind it being placed there. Mrs. Danvers is dressed in dark colors, while Mrs. de Winter is in light, possibly foreshadowing Danvers’s dark turn. As the scene progresses, Mrs. de Winter clearly gets more and more overwhelmed to the point she sneaks out of the room. This scene helps the viewer understand just how much Rebecca meant to Mrs. Danvers. Also, the big photo of Max helps feed the illusion that Rebecca and Maxim were happily married, leading to an even bigger twist when the facade comes crashing down.