Hitchcock - the man and the movies

To kick off the obligatory Hitchcock thread, it seemed logical to start with the end:



Notice anything odd about this cast pic from Family Plot?

Looks like that was taken before Hitch canned Thinnes.

I enjoyed "Family Plot". It's not up to par, visually, with some of his masterworks, but is still quite solid. Would have liked it if Hitch went on to do one more, just to go out with a bang.

Was "The Short Night" ever written, or was it just an idea by the time Hitch passed?

Mr. Brown wrote:

Was "The Short Night" ever written, or was it just an idea by the time Hitch passed?

Yeah, the script's in The Last Days of Alfred Hitchcock. I don't think we missed much.

Coming back to that photo, anyone know why Thinnes was sacked?

ambler wrote:

Coming back to that photo, anyone know why Thinnes was sacked?

Apparently William Devane was originally unavailable, so Hitchcock went with Roy Thinnes, and shot a few scens with him. Later Devane's other project ceased, and Hitchcock instantly kicked out Thinnes for him.

Thinnes later met Hitch in a restaurant, and asked him why he was fired. There he remained silent, and waited for Thinnes to give up and leave.

He was an odd man, to say the least.

Sharky wrote:

ambler wrote:

Coming back to that photo, anyone know why Thinnes was sacked?

Thinnes later met Hitch in a restaurant, and asked him why he was fired. The he remained silent, and waited for Thinnes to give up and leave.

But you really can't beat Devane in that role. Perfect mix of charm and sleaze.

I like FAMILY PLOT. I think it's an enjoyable, if minor, film. Strange that Hitch wasn't happy, from what I've heard, with the title. I think it's perfect, even if it's not a one word title.

Love Barbara Harris in this. I love anything to do with sprititualist frauds.

Speaking of his lesser works...

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I defend TORN CURTAIN. I think it's workable. I think it shows Hitch's talent in a strange way because even though every other element failed him (DP, ....composer...., script, actors he didn't want, etc) he still turned out what I think is a watchable and at least mildly interesting movie. Those other elements weren't awful on their own to me, but after his run of STRANGERS ON A TRAIN through MARNIE, they were very subpar for Hitchcock. I think his direction is the best thing about the film. He's sorta doing what he knows, employing the tricks he knows. It's a lesser film, but I still think it speaks of him knowing what the hell he's doing.

If it had been Joe H. Workman directing, it might be looked at more kindly.

I've got a hankering to watch it. Ya know, some movies you've just got a soft spot for even if you know they don't add up to as much. With TORN CURTAIN, I think it's quality is a relative thing. Is it NORTH BY NORTHWEST? No. Is it technically better than a lot of what you would see now in the thriller genre? Probably. And it probably beats most director's stabs at a Hitchcock homage or pastiche.

Add to that, it's a Hitchcock movie. I'm not saying everything he did was great, but most everything he did was at least interesting and worth seeing because virtually all of his films have at least one scene or moment worth the price of admission.

I've seen so many people write off TORN CURTAIN as simply a piece of S***, but I think it has good things and I stand by what I said in that quoted post. I probably like it better in many ways than THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH '56, which is one of his weakest films from the 50's.

http://annyas.com/saul-bass-vertigo-movie-poster-design/

Was reading about Vistavision earlier today, and came across this small tidbit:



The source says:

Quote :

Of the twenty feature films listed, only six were announced to be made in VistaVision. One of them never got made, "No Bail For The Judge", (above right), was to be Alfred Hitchcock's last picture under his Paramount contract. Paramount bean counters resisted the planned use of VistaVision for the film by itemizing the cost of the large format system in his previous film, Vertigo, which had not been a huge money maker in its first release.

I didnt recall reading about this in my Hitchcock biography (though I did read it a fair few years ago now), instead I looked to the internet and came across this...

Quote :

No Bail for the Judge
Alfred Hitchcock's Lost Masterpiece

If there is a single unproduced project which stands out as a great loss in the Hitchcock canon, it is No Bail for the Judge. To follow the great North by Northwest, Hitchcock planned a return to his native London, to make a film full of wit, excitement and danger. For his leading lady, Hitchcock turned away from his penchant for cool blondes, and instead chose a cool brunette -- Audrey Hepburn. Much of what has been written about No Bail for the Judge is misleading and inaccurate. Here I hope to set the record straight on a few of those points, and shed some light upon this missing link, which I consider Hitchcock’s “lost” Masterpiece.

The Novel

In the 1950s and 1960s Henry Cecil (pseudonym of Henry Cecil Leon) authored a series of novels which centered on the British legal system. Cecil had been a barrister and during the period when most of his novels were published, a judge. In one way or another, Cecil's work leaned toward comedy, but his stories were varied in that some were pure comedy, some were detective stories, and some were mysteries. In his best work, Cecil's characters manipulated and exploited loopholes in the British legal system, often allowing the author to disguise keen social observations in the form of legal humor. Distinctively British and often "Hitchcockian", it is no wonder that Alfred Hitchcock desired to bring Cecil's No Bail for the Judge to the screen. (Hitchcock later directed an adaptation of Cecil's Independent Witness for The Alfred Hitchcock Hour.)

The novel concerns Sir Edwin Prout, a High Court Justice and widower who lives with his only daughter, Elizabeth. While walking home one night, the judge leaps to save a small child in the path of an oncoming car. Shaken by the incident, the judge is taken in by a prostitute named Flossie French, who gives him a bed for the night. The following morning, the judge is still not feeling himself, but is determined not to miss any time on the bench and worry his daughter. The judge arranges to remain at Flossie's flat until fully recovered, and has Flossie put him in a taxi each day and send him off to court. After a few days, the judge lets himself into Flossie's flat and discovers her murdered with a knife in her heart. While leaning over her, the judge collapses and awakens some time later to find his hand on the knife. Although the judge has no recollection of what happened, it appears to himself and to the police that he must have killed Flossie, and so he is charged with her murder and remanded to the hospital ward at Brixton Prison where he will await trial while recuperating.

While awaiting her father's trial, Elizabeth meets Ambrose Low, a gentleman-thief who prides himself on carrying out successful burglaries by making elaborate arrangements which involve preparing for the possibility of being caught. It is while attempting to steal the judge's prized stamp collection that Low meets Elizabeth. Impressed by the extensive preparations undertaken by Low to steal her father's stamp collection, Elizabeth enlists Low's aid to smoke out Flossie's killer and exonerate her father. Low begins his investigation by renting a flat and engaging a staff of retired military officers to seek out prostitutes who may have known Flossie. One of the ex-officers, Colonel Brain, a confused, but good-natured chap, brings a prostitute named Cora Morrison to the flat to be interviewed by Low. From Cora, Low learns it is likely that Flossie was controlled by her landlord. Low's investigation is halted when the flat is raided by the police and Low is charged with living off the earnings of prostitution. Elizabeth offers to give evidence on Low's behalf, but he turns her down saying it would ruin any chances of clearing her father if their plan became public knowledge.

Believing Low is trying to cut in on their business by starting a prostitution ring of his own, the Migoli brothers seek to insure Low's conviction by getting Cora and two other prostitutes to give damaging evidence at Low's trial. But the brothers' plan backfires when the prostitutes get their testimony confused, and the charges against Low are dismissed. Free to resume his investigation, Low proceeds to uncover the identity of Flossie's landlord, Sydney Trumper. Low accumulates evidence that Trumper was in the same business as the Migoli brothers. Having established that Trumper had been Flossie's pimp, Low puts into effect a plan to snare Flossie's murderer by anonymously telephoning Trumper and asking "Why did you kill Flossie French?" Low then subjects Trumper to a combination of persistent anonymous phone calls and an exasperating meeting with Colonel Brain which sets him into a panic.

Although the trial of Sir Edwin had begun, Low arranges with Elizabeth's help to put the second phase of his plan into effect. Low and Elizabeth present Sir Malcolm Morley, the judge's barrister, with statements from three witness which would throw suspicion of Flossie's murder on Sydney Trumper. Low, of course, does not confide that the witness statements are false and that his hope is that Trumper will give himself away in panic. The evidence causes a sensation when presented at the judge's trial, and Trumper sends an anonymous note to the police turning in Sam Sprigg, the man he engaged to murder Flossie. This is exactly what Low had hoped for. When Sam Sprigg is interviewed by the police, he turns on Trumper and gives evidence against him in court.

To Elizabeth's delight, Sir Edwin is quickly acquitted and a warrant is issued for Sydney Trumper's arrest. Seeking revenge, Trumper visits Sam Sprigg and shoots him before turning the gun on himself. Elizabeth and Low finally get together and it seems a romance between them will blossom.

Hitchcock becomes interested

Hitchcock first became interested in the screen potential of No Bail for the Judge in the summer of 1954 while filming To Catch a Thief. At this time, Hitchcock was in the middle of his successful collaboration with the writer John Michael Hayes. Hayes helped to lift Hitchcock out of a commercial and critical slump with his successful adaptations of Rear Window and To Catch a Thief. Just as the writer and director had begun work on their third feature, The Trouble with Harry, based on a British novel of the same name, Hitchcock asked Hayes to read No Bail for the Judge, in order to get his opinion of the material.

Hayes thought the book would make a wonderful Hitchcock picture and hoped he would get the job of writing the script for the director. But the Production Code Administration's reaction to No Bail for the Judge put the project off for sometime. In the interim, Hitchcock filmed a remake of his own The Man Who Knew Too Much and Vertigo for Paramount, The Wrong Man for Warner Brothers, and he was in the middle of pre-production on North by Northwest for MGM when he again took up interest in No Bail for the Judge.

It may have been the failure of The Wrong Man and the lukewarm reception of Vertigo that lead Hitchcock to seek out less "heavy-handed" story material. Having just scripted one of the directors greatest comic-thrillers, North by Northwest, Hitchcock believed Ernest Lehman would be up to the task of adapting Cecil's comic novel, and offered the writer an amazingly generous contract wherein he would receive a salary of $100,000 plus five percent of the producer’s profits.

According to Hitchcock biographers John Russell Taylor and Donald Spoto, Lehman began to have doubts about his suitability for the project, and told the director he would have to turn down the assignment. Annoyed at Lehman's rejection of such a generous contract, Hitchcock refused to speak with the writer for four days, even though they were in the middle of production on North by Northwest. Hitchcock was disappointed by Lehman's departure, but determined to see the project through.

Although Vertigo was not performing at the box-office as Hitchcock had hoped and expected, his collaboration with Samuel Taylor had been a happy one. Within days of canceling the contract with Lehman, a similar contract was drawn for Taylor to write the screenplay for No Bail for the Judge — the only difference being that Taylor would not receive any percentage of the film’s receipts. Taylor reported to Hitchcock's office at Paramount on November 11, 1958 to begin work on Story Fund 89120, No Bail for the Judge.

Shaping the Screen Story (Added 8/10/1999)

Hitchcock’s usual method of adapting previously published material was to take the basic idea, and build a scenario from there. However, in adapting No Bail for the Judge, the director was not only interested in taking elements of the novel’s plot which suited his film, but hoped to capture the essence of the author’s style. When Samuel Taylor reported to Paramount Pictures to begin work on the screenplay he was given no less than a dozen of Henry Cecil’s books as research material.

While Taylor dove into the world of Henry Cecil, noting bits of dialogue and interesting characters, Hitchcock had begun making general notes which would guide the writer in his work while the director and his wife, Alma, took their Christmas holiday abroad. One of Hitchcock’s notes indicates his decision to depart from the novel by creating a whole new villain who is behind one of London’s leading prostitution rings. Hitchcock writes:

THE HEAVY

MAKE HER A WOMAN

Let us make her one of those women one finds in every great city: wealthy, smart, fashionable, hard, witty, yet not really known; one does not know who her husband was, where her money came from, what her background it; one merely knows that she is there, knows everyone, goes everywhere, is seen with very smart people, gives very smart parties. She either has a lovely house in Mayfair, or perhaps she lives in Albany, in Byron's chambers. She has a good domestic staff, mostly male, and we note particularly the butler and the chauffeur. It is the butler who collects money for her,- not from the girls themselves, but from a hired collector, who knows only the butler, does not know he is a butler, does not know of the woman or the connection. So that there are no leads.

THINK HARD ABOUT THE ALBANY.

MIGHT BE A VERY GOOD PLACE FOR A CHASE. PERHAPS UP THE STAIRS TO THE ROOF, AND WHAT IS THE ROOF OF ALBANY LIKE? LOOKS OUT ON PICCADILLY, IN OTHER DIRECTION TO WEST END CENTRAL POLICE STATION, PERHAPS TO THE ROYAL ACADEMY.

WOULD IT BE TRITE OF IT TURNED OUT THAT THE BUTLER IS HER HUSBAND?

Early on Hitchcock knew that he would have to beef up the part of Elizabeth, who is rather insignificant in the novel. An early note suggests that she could be a “young power in politics”, so that at a crucial moment in the picture she would have to make a speech. Another suggestion was that she could be a famous economist, and that “in (a) love scene, he asks her about investments.” Whatever Elizabeth’s profession, Hitchcock dictated she would be a “cool, clear-thinking, no-nonsense type, who knows she is a match for any man,” adding:

THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THIS SURENESS OF HERS SHOULD CARRY THROUGH THE FIRST PART OF THE STORY TO GIVE US THE CONFLICT. IT IS WHEN SHE BECOMES INVOLVED, HERSELF, AND BEGINS TO FEEL THE STIRRINGS OF SEX THAT SHE BEGINS TO FALTER, TO BECOME UNSURE, AND THEN TO BECOME INCREASINGLY DEPENDENT. LOVE HAS TO STRIP HER OF HER POSE AND HER ATTITUDES, IN ORDER TO HUMANIZE HER AND WOMANIZE HER.

Finally, and logically, Hitchcock and Taylor agreed to make Elizabeth a barrister.

Hitchcock’s Cool Brunette

At the same time that Hitchcock was trying to steer No Bail for the Judge past the censors in 1955, Audrey Hepburn conveyed to Herbert Coleman, Hitchcock’s associate producer, her desire to work with the director. Coleman had worked with Hepburn on William Wyler's Roman Holiday, and was scouting locations in London for The Man Who Knew Too Much when he informed Hitchcock:

March 12, 1955

Dear Hitch,

... I talked to Audrey Hepburn on the telephone Wednesday, and she wanted to know when you would be willing to do a picture with her. She is really most anxious to work for you. There is some sort of deal going on over here for her to do "House of Mist", but she won't do it until she gets a director she wants. Knowing you and Willie Wyler are not available, she is trying to have them get Howard Hawks ...

Doc joins me in sending love to you, Alma and the rest.

Herbie

No Bail for the Judge seemed a perfect vehicle to bring Hitchcock and Hepburn together, and it would appease Hitchcock's desire to make a movie with a cool brunette, instead of his usual cool blonde.

Much of what has been written about Hepburn’s association with No Bail for the Judge is inaccurate at best. While it is true that the leading lady’s departure from the project ultimately led to its cancellation, the circumstances surrounding Hepburn’s withdrawal from the production are a little more complex than has been previously reported. Several accounts have stated that Hepburn objected to the addition of a scene in which her character would be dragged into Hyde Park and raped — one account further embellished the story by reporting that it was in the “second draft” of the screenplay that Hitchcock had included the objectionable scene. It is interesting to note, that Samuel Taylor only drafted one treatment and one first draft script for No Bail for the Judge. And more importantly, that “additional” scene was in the treatment as well as the script.

In an attempt to create further controversy, one Hepburn biographer indicated that the actress didn't even like watching Hitchcock's films, and quoted a source who stated that she "had no recollection at all of any joint project" with Alfred Hitchcock. This is pure nonsense, as born out by Audrey Hepburn's own words in Diana Maychick's biography of the actress (not to mention Herb Coleman‘s letter to Hitchcock), where she not only revealed her fondness for Hitchcock, but a very clear recollection of the plot.

"I adored the script that Mr. Hitchcock sent over," Hepburn told Maychick. "I'll never forget the story. I was to play a barrister in London. My father, a judge at the Old Bailey, is wrongly accused of murdering a prostitute and I was supposed to defend him. I hire a crook to help gather evidence, and the crook was to be played by Laurence Harvey. I was so excited, I told Mr. Hitchcock to send over the contracts."

Copyright 1999-2010 Steven DeRosa

its better formatted at its original address - here: http://www.writingwithhitchcock.com/nobailforthejudge.html

and the Hitchcock wiki has this to say:

Quote :

An adaptation of the thriller novel by former judge Henry Cecil about a barrister who, with the assistance of a gentleman thief, has to defend her father, a High Court judge, when he is accused of murdering a prostitute. In a change of pace from his usual blondes, Audrey Hepburn would have played the barrister, with Laurence Harvey as the thief and John Williams as the Hepburn's father.

Samuel A Taylor ("Vertigo", "Topaz") wrote the screenplay - after Ernest Lehman passed on it - which included a scene not in the book where the heroine disguises herself as a prostitute and has to fend off a rapist. Hepburn left the film, partly because of the near-rape scene but mostly due to her pregnancy. Without Hepburn the project didn't have the same appeal for Hitchcock, who told Paramount Pictures it was better to write off $200,000 than spend another $3 million for a film he no longer cared for. A brochure sent by Paramount to theater exhibitors to promote Paramount releases for 1961 includes this film, says it would star Hepburn and Harvey, and be filmed in Technicolor and VistaVision.

Sounds quite interesting indeed.

Great find, Colli. Shame that nothing ever came about.

Didn't Harms once mention of an abandoned project called KALEIDOSCOPE? I think that was back at Studio B.

http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/Kaleidoscope_Frenzy

Another trip into voyeurism, sexual obsession and murder. It's probably Hitchcock's most complete unfinished work. From what I've seen, it looks a lot more promising than FRENZY. Though for good or worse, it sounds and looks ahead of its time.

Hitch just couldnt help but be drawn to Tippi Hedren...



Looks like he's combative a massive urge for something.

Looks more like he has a bad case of the s***s.

It's too bad about the falling out between Hitchcock and Hedren. I think she would have grown into a good film star had they further collaborated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/aug/03/alfred-hitchcock-film-new-zealand

Makeshift Python wrote:

Looks more like he has a bad case of the s***s.

It's too bad about the falling out between Hitchcock and Hedren. I think she would have grown into a good film star had they further collaborated.

I think her falling out with Hitch also meant her falling out with Hollywood.

Still a GMILF, though.

Mr. Brown wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/aug/03/alfred-hitchcock-film-new-zealand

Nice!

Quote :

Makeshift Python wrote:

Looks more like he has a bad case of the s***s.

It's too bad about the falling out between Hitchcock and Hedren. I think she would have grown into a good film star had they further collaborated.

I think her falling out with Hitch also meant her falling out with Hollywood.

Yup. Didn't he blacklist her or something?

Quote :

Still a GMILF, though.

Indeed. I like it when film stars don't fall for plastic surgery over the years. Ursula Undress should have known better.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Quote :

I think her falling out with Hitch also meant her falling out with Hollywood.

Yup. Didn't he blacklist her or something?

Yep, among other things...
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article377531.ece

Quote :

Quote :

Still a GMILF, though.

Indeed. I like it when film stars don't fall for plastic surgery over the years. Ursula Undress should have known better.

Agreed. Sophia Loren's "enhancements" also do her no justice.

All of the man's movie trailers can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/thefilmarchive#g/c/9C32B9F4C0CAC847

Makeshift Python wrote:

Quote :

]Still a GMILF, though.

Indeed. I like it when film stars don't fall for plastic surgery over the years. Ursula Undress should have known better.

I've got to side with Connery and Herrmann here. Hedren never did much for me. Too Goddamn thin and mousy.

Eva Marie Saint's a better GMILF.



Fuck yeah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-4Nwght0#t=0m26s

Sharky wrote:

Eva Marie Saint's a better GMILF.



Fuck yeah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-4Nwght0#t=0m26s

Won't argue with that.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Eva Marie Saint's a better GMILF.



Fuck yeah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-4Nwght0#t=0m26s

Won't argue with that.

I love her eroticism in this scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sKTO32r5Zs

It's always amusing watching the two characters first meet and five minutes in they're already talking about fucking. No pretenses, just straight to the chase.

x

When did I become responsible for whatever comes out of Germaine Greer's mouth? :shock:

Rebecca (1940)

Started a Hitchcock countdown with his American debut Rebecca. When I first saw it I called it his best work but on this second viewing I won't call it that but it's still a very strong flick and there's so much I love about it. The cast, the sets, the cinematography, and the special effects of its day is still impressive for 1940. Only saw it once long ago not knowing any of the twists so it was fun to watch it knowing the whole story and seeing the little touches you wouldn't have noticed at first.

Foreign Correspondent (1940)

Now here comes the kind of flick Hitchcock is better known for with a globetrotting adventure with intrigue and romance (though I think the latter is a bit naff). Not that great, he did better stuff in The 39 Steps and later North By Northwest, however it's still a solid entry and worth an occasional view.

Next would be Mr. & Mrs. Smith but I think I'll just skip that. Saw it already last year and once was enough. Not that it was bad, but screwball is just not Hitchcock's forte. I remember getting the feeling Hitchcock would have wanted to add more black humor that suited him. Thus Suspicion is next and that's something I should actually try finishing. I dunno, last couple of times I would just tune out. How is that possible? It's got two great leads. Either way I'm determined to finish it. In the meantime...

Rebecca
Foreign Correspondent
Mr. & Mrs. Smith

I remember watching The Rear Window for the first time on VHS and it kept me on the edge of the seat!!

I was white knuckled and screaming at what's going on the tv screen.

Forgot to add: Laraine Day, indeed I would.