The Alfred Hitchcock Filmography - A Chronological viewing (4 Viewers)

[Osato]

His most famous. It is so shocking.

I have only watched it maybe a few times.
It’s not one of my favorites.

The 2012 self titled Hitchcock film featured some behind the scenes regarding psycho too.

 

[Matt Hough]

It is a masterpiece of shock. I admire everything about it: script, performances, music, direction.

I don't think people today can understand how shocking this film was on first release. Hitch had never done a film like this before, so we weren't expecting the visceral shocks that he delivered. I jumped out of my seat screaming at each of the three shock moments, and hid behind my fingers for much of the movie after the shower scene because one didn't know when those unexpected "gotcha" moments were going to occur. Vera Miles' snooping around the house with the possibility of the crazy Mrs. Bates jumping out at any moment was completely unbearable. Though I don't scream out loud when I watch it today, I do have VIVID memories of my initial reactions to those famous fright sequences, and I can still be unnerved by them. And yes, that final shot of Tony Perkins with a skull subtly superimposed over his face can still give me nightmares, so I usually turn away when that moment arrives.

I think it's one of the great films of the 20th century because horror movies aren't supposed to be this good, made with such invention and imagination, and directed by a master still in full possession of his great talent.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Psycho is my favorite Hitchcock film because it was so ground-breaking as a film. It must have shock so many people when it was released in 1960.

 

[Nelson Au]

Matt, Robert, I know that Psycho was a shocking film when it was first released, and it surprised a lot of people. These kinds of films were not made before, and I can see why Hitchcock’s colleagues and Paramount studios were against his making it. It also covered several taboos of the time, not least showing a toilet.

I did not see it until years later and I’d seen Jaws and Alien first. So those were the shocking films of my youth. So Psycho didn’t shock me when I first saw it in its entirety in the 1990’s. Partly because the shower scene has probably been shown a lot and so I knew what to expect. That does not take away from the well crafted story and characters. Norman is first shown as a shy and introverted guy whose not what you’d expect. He’s under the rule of his domineering mother and so you feel bad for the guy. He’s really a sympathetic character. That’s why I liked the scene between Marion and Norman. And then to see what he’s really like was the shocker. And agreed Matt, the scenes after the murder are very suspense filled as you don’t know what’s coming next.

In reading up on Psycho, and how it was such a shocker in 1960, I found out there was another film that’s even more shocking with a similar story that precedes Psycho by several months. It’s called Peeping Tom and was about a serial killer of young women. It was not well received. I’ve not seen it but from what I read about it, the story is similar about s guy whose a loner who likes to kill women and photograph each killing. The director was also taken down for making such a film. History has been kinder to it and it’s no longer considered a cult film. I doubt I’ll seek it out.

Psycho gets all the praise and deserved it and also started the new modern horror film style.

By the way, I saw The Birds before I saw Jaws and Alien, that film was a scary film to me in my youth! It’s one of the earliest exposures to Hitchcock I had, so I saw that before I saw many of the other Hitchcock’s.

 

[Cineman]

I hope Universal finds it in them to drop the "edited-for-tv" version of PSYCHO that we have all been seeing in commercial theater screenings and on every home video version since the early 1970s and replace it with the true, original theatrical release version audiences saw in the early 1960s.

Here is a discussion of the recent beautiful Blu-ray release of that original theatrical version sourced from a rare original print of it:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...-at-psycho-uncut-the-third-secret-etc.361157/

I have that set now. I had to order it from Amazon Germany. It is expensive, but it comes with most of the subsequent sequels, which are generally irrelevant to any discussion of Alfred Hitchcock, of course. But, so far, that is the only way to get the original theatrical release cut of PSYCHO that I remember seeing in theaters in 1960 as a 7 year old and several more times over the next few years.

IMO, the three sections that were edited so as to make them less lurid, bloody and violent for television fare (not involving the shower scene btw) are far more critical in terms of audience manipulation, plot and logic than some have argued. Unfortunately, I am not sure once having seen it in its "edited-for-tv" version already, as virtually all of us have over the past 50 years or so, that those missing shots will have as much impact as they would have (and did have) if that is the first version we see of the movie. So, in a best case scenario, if you do know someone who has never seen PSYCHO before and you can get your hands on the newly available original theatrical release version of it on Blu-ray, make sure that is the one you screen for them.

 

[Nelson Au]

David, wow that’s an amazing bit of news. After looking at the link you posted, it reminded me that I did see that thread, but somehow I totally forgot it. It seems like a very small amount was edited. But I see it made a huge difference to you when viewing the movie.

I have to wonder as I don’t know if anyone really knows for sure, did Hitchcock edit this cut after it’s was initially released? Or was this current cut in the blu rays and earlier home video editions always the theatrical cut from 1960, or as you say, it’s a TV edit? A TV edit makes sense, but that’s amazing it was used all these years for the home video cut. And no one noticed? I’ll go back and check that whole thread, haven’t had a chance yet.

I see there are YouTube videos discussing the edits and locations, I chose not to watch them. If I ever get to see the uncut version, I want to see it myself.

 

[Cineman]

David, wow that’s an amazing bit of news. After looking at the link you posted, it reminded me that I did see that thread, but somehow I totally forgot it. It seems like a very small amount was edited. But I see it made a huge difference to you when viewing the movie.

I have to wonder as I don’t know if anyone really knows for sure, did Hitchcock edit this cut after it’s was initially released? Or was this current cut in the blu rays and earlier home video editions always the theatrical cut from 1960, or as you say, it’s a TV edit? A TV edit makes sense, but that’s amazing it was used all these years for the home video cut. And no one noticed? I’ll go back and check that whole thread, haven’t had a chance yet.

I see there are YouTube videos discussing the edits and locations, I chose not to watch them. If I ever get to see the uncut version, I want to see it myself.

The OP and Blu-ray reviewer on that thread says he saw an email from Universal that confirms the German source print is the original theatrical release version. For me, aside from my clear and distinct memory of those now missing shots in the original theatrical release, is the smoking gun photo evidence in the great book, HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT. In their discussion of PSYCHO, the authors (Hitchcock and Truffaut) included a still photo of perhaps the most notorious missing shot of Janet Leigh shrugging off her bra in the peephole scene. I would even argue the photo in that book of a raised butcher knife from the Arbogast murder scene is not the one that remains in the current distributed version either but one of the two that followed the only one now remaining. Those photos are included with no explanation or footnote mention that they are anything but memorable moments from a very famous movie under discussion. Yet those shots are no longer present in the generally distributed version of the movie today and have not been included for about 50 years. That book was first published shortly before the "edited-for-tv" version became Universal's go-to version for commercial theatrical screenings and home video versions.

I wouldn't say nobody noticed. I certainly noticed that there was something missing in the revival theater screenings of it I attended in the mid-1970s, before I even viewed a VHS home video version of it as did others. I also believe Universal knew they were authorizing the edited version for all those subsequent commercial theater and home video releases. But it still sold tickets, people still bought those home video versions (none of which were ever touted as "The Original Theatrical Release as Seen in 1960!" or anything similar, mind you) and life went on without them having to deal with any possible fallout from the more explicitly "sexual/nudity", bloody and violent original version.

Remember, a major attraction in a very family friendly theme park is directly based on the movie PSYCHO. If the million$ Universal takes in on that connection can continue without Mom and Dad worrying about covering the kids' eyes when or if they ever sit in front of a tv to watch the home video version of it then why rock the boat and put back the much more revealing shot of Janet Leigh removing her underwear in the peephole scene, the longer and more lingering shot of Norman's bloody hands during the bathroom clean up scene and the two additional stabs of the detective to make absolutely certain we know he is well and surely dead? That is my theory on why those shots have never been restored anyway.

Disney had and still has a similar problem with their theme park connection to the movie, SONG OF THE SOUTH. In fact, SONG OF THE SOUTH's fate is even worse than PSYCHO's in that the entire movie has been out of circulation for decades due to the owners of the rights' unwillingness or disinterest in dealing with the potential social fallout from distributing it again.Yet, there it is directly connected to rides, an iconic Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Disney anthem and an entire section of Disneyland. A movie that almost no one in the theme park under the age of 60 has ever seen or will ever see.

 

[Nelson Au]

I’m really curious now to see that original theatrical cut. I covered my eyes when I read your post so I didn’t see too much of what’s in the cut scenes.

 

[Cineman]

I’m really curious now to see that original theatrical cut. I covered my eyes when I read your post so I didn’t see too much of what’s in the cut scenes.

What do you feel would be gained if you don't see the missing footage? I'm not sure there is any reason not to see what was cut unless you have not seen the movie yet at all, which you have, of course. The edited footage simply takes the moment to a more effective place. The place Hitchcock wanted them to go in order to get the kind of audience reaction he got in 1960's movie theaters. Without those shots, the moment is watered down and less effective emotionally and in terms of logic. But it isn't as though there are plot secrets hidden or revealed in the cutting or restoration of the footage really. The shots as they exist in the "edited" version are simply extended longer by a few seconds here and there in the version we saw in theaters in the early 1960s.

 

[Gary16]

I don’t know that it’s totally accurate to call what we’ve seen over the years as the edited-for-tv version. I’ve had a tv version on 16mm that shortens the shower scene to a few seconds.

 

[Cineman]

I don’t know that it’s totally accurate to call what we’ve seen over the years as the edited-for-tv version. I’ve had a tv version on 16mm that shortens the shower scene to a few seconds.

I agree with you about that. I have been using that term in "quotes" because I really don't know what else to call it. It was certainly edited to make it more tame, less lurid, less bloody and less violent. Maybe that version was originally edited that way for, what, airline screenings? In fact, there is an edited-for-airlines version in the box set I bought and I checked it out but can't remember now how it differed. Perhaps the shower scene was tampered with as well as the three other scenes I've mentioned.

I would imagine the version I have been referring to as the "edited-for-tv" version, accurate or not originally, is the one that has appeared on broadcast television for some years. It's the one that still appears on Netflix whenever it is available on that service and I would guess it is the version that appears on HBO, Showtime, The Movie Channel, etc. if or when it is shown on those services.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don’t know that it’s totally accurate to call what we’ve seen over the years as the edited-for-tv version. I’ve had a tv version on 16mm that shortens the shower scene to a few seconds.

Right!

 

[Cineman]

I’m really curious now to see that original theatrical cut. I covered my eyes when I read your post so I didn’t see too much of what’s in the cut scenes.

Nelson, to give you or anyone else reluctant to see or read about what was cut from PSYCHO's original theatrical release an idea of what I was trying to say about the moments going further and for a reason in its original theatrical version, perhaps I can offer this hypothetical analogy; let's say that, despite our faulty memories about it lo' these many years later, it turns out the original 1958 theatrical release of VERTIGO and as it was shown in theaters all through 1959 included a shot of the policeman at the beginning of the movie actually hitting the pavement when he slipped and fell off the rooftop. However, let's further say that for whatever reason sometime in 1968 the footage showing his body actually hitting the pavement was edited to cut away while he was still falling, the way we see it in the movie today.

In this hypothetical analogy, it isn't as though we don't know his body was going to hit the pavement while we watched him falling from the rooftop. However, IF that had been an edit that was made to make VERTIGO more palatable to a television audience with kids in the room and so on, it really would not reflect what Hitchcock had originally intended in its original theatrical release version and presumably for a very good reason.

Of course, that ISN'T what happened to VERTIGO as we have seen it on every home video and commercial theater release over the past 50 years or so. But something similar to that analogy is indeed what happened to PSYCHO. Not that there are surprising plot secrets to be found in the restored footage. But the ultimate effect of what Hitchcock intended has certainly been altered. And, in my opinion, it has been weakened and made less effective in more important ways than other fans of the movie might and have argued fairly recently.

 

[Nelson Au]

I totally get what you are saying, David. And I figure that’s the case. I’m just avoiding descriptions and or seeing clips or photos. I want to see the scenes that were not cut without any information. It may not surprise me or change anything. It would be cool if it affected my reaction to the scenes.

I see the set is about $200.00 USD now at the German Amazon site.

 

[Cineman]

I totally get what you are saying, David. And I figure that’s the case. I’m just avoiding descriptions and or seeing clips or photos. I want to see the scenes that were not cut without any information. It may not surprise me or change anything. It would be cool if it affected my reaction to the scenes.

I see the set is about $200.00 USD now at the German Amazon site.

Without going into details for who, when, where and so on about it, I had the pleasure of watching this uncut version of PSYCHO in a small art house style commercial theater screening of it over the past few months. I knew ahead of time that it was going to be that version shown but it was not publicly promoted or advertised as the uncut version or as anything special or different than what most movie and Hitchcock fans would already have in their DVD/Blu-ray library. Consequently, the night I attended there were only 5 of us in the theater of about 50 seats. We were all strangers to one another, none of us sitting together. I have no idea if the other people in that audience knew what they were about to see as I did.

I realize there are several factors that could contribute and help account for it in this case. But I must report that was the first time in at least a half dozen public screenings I attended of that movie over the past 50 years since the edited version was the only one in circulation that I actually had the same chills, goosebumps and the complex, gut-wrenching combination feelings of horror, sadness, despair, helplessness and a disturbing sense of "responsibility" during the shower attack sequence that I distinctly remember feeling during its initial uncut theatrical run but went missing for me during the subsequent edited versions. And I am convinced that is in large part because I'd just a couple of minutes prior to that ruthless attack on her flesh found myself leering at her flesh longer and more intimately than I knew I should or had the right to do, intruding into her privacy right up to within a few frames of seeing her entirely naked and exposed from the waist up, far more intimately and, well, shamefully, than I felt or could feel in the edited version.

Just saying.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks for that story David. . It would be interesting if I can get a similar reaction if I see the uncut version.

 

[Cineman]

Thanks for that story David. . It would be interesting if I can get a similar reaction if I see the uncut version.

I hope you can see it soon, Nelson. Of course, that was my reaction seeing it again fully intact in a commercial theater setting with other people, strangers, which I believe is the the way Hitchcock intended all of his movies to be best experienced. And that is probably more true of PSYCHO than any of his movies. Among other things, a formal setting like that forces you to really focus on a movie from first scene to last with the least amount of potential distractions. I don't think that feeling would have hit me nearly as strongly, if at all, if I had fast forwarded to the scenes in question in my home theater set up and not taken the ride every step of the way leading up to them.

As an aside, there are two moments in PSYCHO that, from the very beginning, suggest an after-the-fact, post-production edit and patch up. The first one is the opening scene with Sam and Marion in the hotel room, where there is an oddly abrupt insert shot of the unfinished sandwich and dixie-cup soda, followed by an uncharacteristically clumsy new angle shot of the shirtless Sam standing beside the bed as Marion wheels around to a sitting position. It is my opinion that THAT is the moment Hitchcock's then assistant Joan Harrison is referring to in the "Making of PSYCHO" documentary that is included in many home video versions of the movie where she says Hitchcock bowed to the wishes of the censors to "tidy up" the scene of Janet Leigh and "her slip".

I hate to say it, but I think the documentary filmmakers made a mistake by following Harrison's comment with a clip of the peephole scene as though that was the scene she was talking about. In doing so, they inadvertently contributed to an ongoing confusion and controversy about whether or not Hitchcock edited out the scenes we've been talking about here before its initial theatrical release. The peephole scene has nothing to do with Janet Leigh's slip. It is all about her bra. Joan Harrison would not have confused the two.

I am certain she was instead talking about the opening scene where that jarringly uncharacteristic (for Hitchcock) clumsy edit and insert shot occurs. In that scene, we first see Marion/Leigh lounging on the bed with the full length of her legs and (white) slip in view. Sams delivers his line to her, "You didn't finish your lunch", and I suspect that, from that angle, there was a flash of a bit more than just leg under her slip as she separated her legs and wheeled around to sit up on the edge of the bed. The edit/cut of that flash and the odd insert shot of the unfinished lunch fits perfectly for the "tidying up" of the scene with "Janet Leigh's slip" that Joan Harrison was talking about. The peephole scene, which is all about showing us Marion/Leigh removing her bra well before she would even get to her (black) slip, would not.

But the other obviously edited moment I am thinking of has never been mentioned or addressed, to my knowledge. Maybe I missed a write-up or comment about it somewhere. Perhaps you or someone else here can enlighten. It has been there in every version of the movie I have ever seen all the way back to the initial release in 1960. I am talking about the scene between Lila and Sam in "their" cabin at the Bates Motel near the end of the movie. Sam is sitting on the edge of the bed fully dressed in a dark suit. Lila is standing next to the bed behind him. He has to turn around to look back at her to deliver his lines. At one point, he says something about what might give away the fact that, as they suspect, Norman somehow took possession of the money Marion stole. He says something like, "If he opens another motel in the area", and immediately there is a jump cut in his dialogue to something about "say it," which he delivers with a much more downbeat tone than his comment about Norman opening another motel. There is an unfinished line from Sam and it jumps to an unexplained phrase about "say it," whatever that is supposed to mean.

lol. Sorry, but I have always wondered what happened there. What was cut from his dialogue? And an entire sentence was not cut, only a portion of possibly two or more sentences, with some dangling and somewhat unrelated words left behind.

Anyone know what happened there?

 

[Osato]

It would be great to see some of these films announced in UHd Blu Ray soon. I’m hoping we get a few of the films on the format in the next year.

 

[Nelson Au]

The Birds
1963
119 minutes 1.85:1 Color
Tippi Hedren - Melanie Daniels
Rod Taylor - Mitch Brenner
Jessica Tandy - Lydia Brenner
Suzanne Pleshette - Annie Hayworth
Veronica Cartwright - Cathy Brenner
Ethel Griffies - Mrs Bundy
Charles McGraw - Sebastian Sholes
Ruth McDevitt - Mrs MacGruder
Lonny Chapman - Deke Carter
Joe Mantell - Traveling salesman
Doodles Weaver - Fisherman
Malcolm Atterbury - Deputy Al Malone
John McGovern - Postal clerk
Karl Swenson - Drunken Doomsayer in Diner
Richard Deacon - Mitch Brenner's neighbour in the city
Elizabeth Wilson - Helen Carter
Universal Studios
Viewed 10/26/19

Alfred Hitchcock The Masterpiece Collection Blu Ray box set, Universal, 2012

Synopsis

Melanie Daniels is a socialite in San Francisco who meets criminal attorney Mitch Brunner in a pet shop where he recognizes her from an earlier court case. She doesn’t recognize him and he plays a prank on her. She is upset by the prank, but is still intrigued and she pursues him up to Bodega Bay to deliver a pair of love birds for his sister’s birthday. Upon arrival, Melanie is attacked by a seagull followed by more attacks on the quiet town.

Impressions

The Birds is another Hitchcock film I saw as a preteen that stuck with me. Later as a teen, I watched it in its entirety on Creature Features. I didn’t really remember who the characters are and other details, I just liked the simple story of a town that’s attacked by birds. In later years I began to pay more attention to the story and the character relationships. And then the visuals of the film was beginning to get my attention such as the way Hitchcock edited the sequence when Melanie is waiting outside the school and slowly, more and more crows start to gather on the playground play equipment.

The sequence of the children running away from the school and then the later attack on the gas station and outside the restaurant are iconic now. So many showcase attack sequences are building throughout the film as it progress! Each case gets worse and worse.

One of the things that Hitchcock did that really heightened the tension right before the bird attack at the Brenner house was how Lydia was just climbing the walls as the sound of the birds approaching was too much for her. And Melanie was also filled with fear and trying her best to physically protect herself by balling up on the couch and lifting her feet off the floor.

The final attack on Melanie in the bedroom of the house was another sequence of heightened tension. It’s an unrelenting sequence of cuts. With Melanie injured badly, Mitch, Lydia and Cathy decide to leave the house and head out to get help. The final sequence reveal is a pretty amazing shot and the film ends in a great sense of hope but also we don’t know if they really get out ok.

I thought this was a really well cast film too. Tippi Hedren makes her feature film debut as another classic cool Hitchcock blonde. I mostly knew Rod Taylor from The Time Machine, one of my favorites. Jessica Tandy is quite a multileveled character as Mitch’s mother. On this viewing, I paid more attention to her suspicions of Melanie and it wasn’t clear what her feelings were towards Melanie. This relationship changes as the film moves along and I thought that was a more interesting one. ( kind of interesting that her husband Hume Cronin had appeared in so many of Hitchcock’s earlier films.) I always liked Suzanne Pleshette and see her in such an early role as Annie, Mitch’s ex girlfriend who was driven away by Lydia. It was interesting to see her performance as you can see she’s sort of cold and distant towards Melanie at first. You can see her feelings right away though when she meets Melanie and wishes her luck with Mitch. But she’s also feeling hurt as she watches Melanie and Mitch become closer. Veronica Cartwright has certainly had a long career from childhood to the first Alien film. I always confuse her with her sister Angela.

I think this film, more then Psycho, for me was what made me think as a kid that Hitchcock was a maker of horror films. This and Dial M for Murder had images that stuck with me as a kid who happen to see some scenes on TV out of context. I still like this film a lot, it feels like it has the same level of quality as the 1950’s films, yet experimental too.

The Aston Martin DB2/4

Melanie Daniels has a very cool car in this film. An Aston Martin drophead DB2/4. I thought this was a cool car similar to the car driven by Francie in To Catch A Thief. It’s from the early 1950’s and the type of car Melanie would own. It was an expensive car that was very sporty and did well at the race track too.

 

[Matt Hough]

Hitchcock was in a difficult position at this juncture in his career. He had produced and directed the highest grossing and most acclaimed horror film ever made, so what could he do for a follow-up? Just a simple suspense picture likely wouldn't cut it, so he had to find another subject that he could jazz up with visceral shocks.

What makes The Birds so unique for me (in addition to the nicely documented shocks mentioned above by Nelson) is the VERY slow build-up to the terror. It's an hour before anything of substance happens in terms of fright. There is plenty of character exposition, of course, and many picturesque location shots, but once the terror of the attacks begins, it accelerates (conversely to Psycho which added gobs of suspense but not greatly accelerated violence: just two more shock scenes after the shower murder).

And notice that after The Birds, Hitchcock backed away from visceral horror with his next three movies. Frenzy would be the next one that could approach (but not equal) the jolts of Psycho and The Birds.