Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/Archive 1

message: The citation for this is James Bemis, "Alfred Hitchcock: Spiritual Director?" in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, Vol. 12, No. 4, Fall 2003, p. 72. The citation given in the article is "Patricia Hitchcock interview with American Movie Classics cable channel, June 13, 2000." Patricia Hitchcock is his daughter. I am not sure of the best location for this piece of information. However, it is important to mention his faith, as it no doubt guided his choices; also, it is an important addition to merely stating that he grew up in an Irish Catholic household. Many people grow up in a Catholic household without maintaining themselves in that faith. Trc | [msg] 08:46, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute the factual accuracy of what you added; as far as I know, his belief and devotion to being Catholic is a well-established fact. I'm just not sure the 3rd or 4th sentence is the best place for it. It's not that I don't think it's important; just that it doesn't accomplish much to just say this, without explaining a bit how that affected his filmmaking. But, definitely there should be more coverage of this in the article. Revolver 19:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: So there can only be one reason why a writer or director makes a choice like that?  Point noted. Likewise, Huck and Jim are on the river because that's the fastest mode of travel, so there can't be anything symbolic about the river. 68.1.174.46 14:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  devout Catholic 

message: Because it is so important that Wikipedia articles be researched and cited properly, can someone confirm whether any of the works listed under 'Further reading' was actually used to confirm material in this article?  If so, those that can be confirmed should be moved to another section called 'References', or if not, new sources should be found, used, cited properly, and added to that section.  Further reading does not assure they have been used properly as sources, just that they are available for the reader to go find out more for themselves. Thanks - Taxman 15:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
: I've read Spoto's Art of Alfred Hitchcock and can confirm that it covers much of the same ground as this article, including a discussion of each of Hitchcock's films in chronological order.  However, Spoto's book contains numerous factual errors of its own (including fairly simple plot misunderstandings), so it would still be helpful to collate and cite the other sources.  -- Rbellin 23:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. --mav 03:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA status challenged 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alfred_Hitchcock article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 10:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Alfred_Hitchcock|Link suggestions]] 

message: There was no "contradiction" in the previous statements about Academy Awards. Let me set out the facts, as I understand them. If anyone has evidence that these statements aren't true, please let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to revert a bit.
#Hitchcock did not "receive" the Academy Award for Best Picture. Nor could you really say that any director "receives" their movie's Academy Award. To my mind, to say that someone "receives" an award means it is an award of clear individual merit, e.g. best director, screenplay, etc. One could argue that best picture is an individual award for the producer, but this seems less individual than say, director. In any case, Selznick produced Rebecca, not Hitchcock. Best picture does not apply here, and so it is true to say that Hitchcock never won an Academy Award of Merit. Leading to my second point,
#When people use the term "Academy Award", they almost always mean "Academy Award of Merit", the largest category of awards, which are voted upon by the members of the Academy, not a special committee. Therefore, the Irving Thalberg Award for Lifetime Achievement, although it is presented at the Academy Awards, is not strictly speaking, an "Academy Award". When most people ask, "Did Hitchcock ever win an Academy Award?", they mean "Academy Award of Merit", not liftime achievements awards. Further confusing this is the fact that by "Academy Award" most people mean "Oscars", the little statuettes. The Irving Thalberg Award is not an Oscar statuette, so this adds to the contention that it is not an "Academy Award".
#It seems doubly perverse to claim Hitchcock "received" the best picture oscar for Rebecca, given that he was denied the best director oscar, and that these two awards tend to be given in tandemn. It's almost as if the industry couldn't bare to give it to him.
Revolver 11:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Academy Awards" 

message: Still,one of Hitchcock's directorial priorities was to work love stories into his films.
:This was in response to Hitch being cynical of romantic relationships in his films. This statement seem completely redundant to me. It is impossible to be cynical about something without presenting it or discussing it. The very fact that Hitch was cynical about romance in his films logically implies that he "worked love stories into his films". In fact, the statement is a bit misleading, since it seems to imply that perhaps Hitch *didn't* take such a cynical view, after all. The assumption seems to be that if you work love stories into your movies, you must have a flattering opinion of romance. But by that reasoning, there would be no anti-war movies, e.g. Revolver 01:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romantic relationships 

message: The article is still a mess. Except for the intro, links, quotes, and so on. What to do, what to do?? Revolver 01:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of article 

message: I see that "Sir" has been added, bolded, as part of his name in the lead paragraph and in all of the Category links. Doesn't this go against Wikipedia policy on such titles? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, if (as the article states) he had taken out American citizenship well before he got his knighthood, then unless he retained dual British citizenship (about which the article is silent), the knighthood was honorary and he was never even entitled to use Sir.  I've sometimes seen him referred to as "Sir Alfred Hitchcock", but I'm beginning to suspect he's in the same category as Bob Geldof, Alastair Cooke, Spike Milligan, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Steven Spielberg and lots of others.  None of these was a British subject at the time of their knighthood (or in most cases, ever), and none of them is entitled to be known as "Sir".  JackofOz 01:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All fixed now.  Removed "Sir", and explained the honorary knighthood arrangements.  JackofOz 08:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Acquisition of U.S. citizenship on or after 1 January 1949 does not cause loss of British nationality.    Hitchcock naturalised in 1956, hence he remained British.   A similar case is Anthony Hopkins.    Alistair Cooke lost his British nationality upon naturalisation in the U.S. as he became American in 1941 (ie before 1949).    Bob Geldof is an Irish citizen who has not applied for British citizenship.    Spike Milligan's case is a little more complex, he was British by birth in India before 1949, and Irish by descent from his father.   Because he was an Irish citizen and neither he nor his father were born in the UK or its Colonies, he did not become a citizen of the UK & Colonies on 1 January 1949.   History of British nationality law has details.   Milligan could have applied for UK citizenship but chose not to do so.  JAJ 15:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sir" 

message: Please don't remove the "British-American" part, it's what Angela Lansbury says and is correct. Just as people are Irish Americans, German Americans, etc. after emigrating from their countries, he like Lansbury was a British American. Cheechie Chung 19:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would disagree with that usage. The very common "Irish American" or "Irish-American" usually implies "Irish ancestry but born in America". We would usually say "Irish-born American" for a US citizen born in Ireland but raised in the U.S., and "Irishman/Irishwoman who became a naturalized American citizen" (or, in Wikipedia, "Irish, later American") for one who emigrated as an adult. I can't think why this case should be handled differently. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then someone should change Lansbury's page, since she was born in London. Cheechie Chung 08:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you say (above) "it's what Angela Lansbury says" do you mean it is what she, personally calls herself (in which case, I suppose, she is fully entitled to it) or do you just mean it's what the article on her says? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant it's what the article on her says, read the first paragraph and you'll see what I mean. Cheechie Chung 20:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "British-American" 

message: In the "frequent collaborators" list was "Duncan King (subject of the dossier)". This makes no sense to me; if someone can explain and cite, feel free to restore. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duncan King? 

message: I reverted this edit because Rope doesn't appear as one long continuous take -- there are a couple of straight cuts. The JPS 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a stretch to say that Rope is openly gay-themed.  The subtext is there; it can certainly be inferred, but it's certainly not "open"  in the modern sense.  Rlquall 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although with the casting of John Dall, and the obvious references to the Leopold and Loeb case, it's pretty close. But I agree that the article shouldn't say "openly". - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rope]] 

message: Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry  probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006  (UTC)
:Note: This user has added similar requests to link to biographies hosted on the same site to about 50 different articles. Although I believe that these requests were made in good faith, adding the links to all of the articles would be spamming. In addition, the biographies tend to be not very insightful and/or minimally informative, and the webpages contain Google AdSense links.
:A fuller explanation of my own opinion on these links can be found here, if anyone wishes to read it.
:Hbackman 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: Needs a reference to Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine.  -Wfaxon 19:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine 

message: I was under the impression that he wanted to do a nude scene in Topaz but discovered that the actress in question (maybe Claude Jade?) had had some kind of surgery which eliminated that possibility (though why he couldn't have used a body double as he did in Frenzy escapes me). Also, in Psycho there are a few seconds when the viewer can see Janet Leigh's breasts (or at least what would be her breasts if a) it's Janet Leigh's body in the frame rather than a body double, and b) despite what JL claimed, she wasn't wearing moleskin). It happens at the point when she reaches out and tears down the shower curtain. I've seen the film probably 30-40 times, and I never noticed this until many many viewings...being so shocked and riveted by the scene as a whole and (at that point) by the absolutely mesmerizing image of her hand moving slowly toward the curtain.
So to say that Frenzy was the first time he allowed nudity or even considered it seems to me to be not completely accurate. Thoughts? Wspencer11 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Kaleidoscope Frenzy, or Kaleidoscope, which he began work on in the mid 60s would have been the first real appearance of nudity in a Hitchcock film.  Universal and MCA weren't keen on the film and it was shelved at the pre-production stage.  Hitchcock eventually reworked some of the ideas and themes into Frenzy.  There are some stills and screen-grabs (which feature some mild nudity) from the shot footage at http://www.daveyp.com/hitchcock/wiki/Kaleidoscope_Frenzy 86.3.4.244 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nudity? 

message: Two places in the article mention two different causes of death. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most sources I've seen say renal failure.  According to his Doctor (Dr. Flieg) Hitchcock was suffering from "mild hypertension, a heart condition, kidney problems, and a general physical deterioration" (McGilligan, pg 745) in the weeks before his death.  According to Spoto ("Dark Side of Genius" pg 554), in early April 1980 "his liver failed, his kidney function slowed, and his ... heart no longer responded to the [pacemaker]".  86.3.4.244 05:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  heart attack or renal failure? 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture. And when you create these, there is a :Category:In popular culture. - Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Alfred Hitchcock]] 

message: Can someone remove "Reba is the Shit" from the end of the biography? i tried, but it doesn't seem to appear in the normal editing  window for this section.
 Dimi
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.40.155.174 (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Much more could be said about the hardcover and paperbound books which Hitchcock supposedly edited.  The article is rather too dismissive of them, and most of the titles cited are children's story collections.  Actually the first few AH paperbacks (published by Dell) came out in the 1940s, long before his TV series began.  These include "Bar the Doors" and "Fear and Trembling," which are superb collections of first-rate mystery and horror stories.  It seems likely to me that AH was actually involved in the editing of these.  Another group from the 1960s were co-edited (some would say "ghost edited") by Robert Arthur.  These originally came out in hardcover and are also very fine anthologies.  They include "Stories for Late at Night" and "Stories That Scared Even Me."  Most of the post-1960 paperbacks were either abridged versions of the hardcovers, or collections of stories from the AH Mystery Magazine.  These latter books can usually be distinguished by the increasingly silly titles ("Let It All Bleed Out" and "Happy Death Day" are examples).  I strongly feel that this subject deserves more careful study; the books are still popular today (check out eBay) and I collect them.  Thank you. 209.144.167.158 17:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfred Hitchcock books (story anthologies) 

message: I'm pretty certain that at least two of the major Hitchcock biographies (including Patrick McGilligan's "Life in Darkness and Light") state that Hitchcock did drive, and another (possibly Charlotte Chandler's "It's Only a Movie") that he did eat eggs. There were several autobiographical stories that Hitchcock frequently told reporters (including the one where he was locked in a police cell as a boy) and it's difficult to know where the real truth lies in them. Davepattern 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole Phobias section should indeed be removed. 87.64.71.135 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just watched the "Alfred Hitchcock and To Catch a Thief - An Appreciation" DVD documentary and Hitchcock's daughter (Pat) and granddaughter (Mary) discuss Hitchcock and eggs.  Pat says "My father had a lot of food fetishes, I think one would say.  He loved souffles, and things like that, but he did not like cutting an egg open and seeing the yolk run."  I'll admit to knowing very little about "ovophobia", but it strikes me that someone with "an extreme fear of eggs" wouldn't eat anything as eggy as a souffle? Davepattern 10:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Sallyrob!  I think we're definitely talking about a dislike of certain methods of preparing eggs rather than a full blown phobia ("...an intense, unrealistic fear, which can interfere with the ability to socialize, work, or go about everyday life, that is brought on by an object, event or situation.").  I personally can't stand eating egg white, but will happily eat it if it's been mixed with the yolk (e.g. scrambled eggs, souffles, etc), and I wouldn't regard that as a phobia.  Davepattern 06:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phobias? 

message: Several of the pages for Hitchcock early films have had a statement added that they were until recently in the "public domain" -- I believe this is incorrect, as UGC UK (now part of Studio Canal) and Carlton (now part of Granada Internation) reasserted their US rights during 1997.  The films can be found listed in the documents at http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html (specifically 22/Aug/1997).  I'd like to propose that the "public domain" entries are removed. Davepattern 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain 

message: Why was the reference to his engineering studies at St. Ignatius removed? I'm pretty sure it's true. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edit? 

message: I have rewritten the sentence concerning this, but would like to get confirmation on one aspect from someone who knows more about it than I: as I recall, the dream sequence planned by Dali was essentially unshootable, so the notion of it being "cut" isn't exactly true since it wasn't shot. Is that so? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In her biography, Bergman claimed that more Dali footage was filmed but then cut, although (from memory) Patrick McGilligan says that Bergman was exagerating when she said that around 15 minutes of shot dream sequence footage was cut by Selznick. --Davepattern 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spellbound dream sequence 

message: I know it's a good thing to have the Rothman book on the list, but I found it to be almost completely impenetrable. It was as if he didn't want me to know what he was talking about... --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book in "further reading" 

message: Assuming this section should even be in here, what counts as a frequent collaborator? Joan Fontaine and Tippi Hedren made two films each with Hitchcock—I'd call them repeat collaborators, not frequent collaborators. Unless somebody protests, I'll edit the list so that it only includes actors who made at least three films with Hitchcock. Tomasboij 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that if the list is called "frequent", then it should be people who worked with Hitchcock 3 or more times.  It's also missing some key people -- e.g. Clare Greet worked with Hitchcock on 8 different films (9 if you include "Three Live Ghosts" from 1922 for which Hitchcock designed the titles). Davepattern 06:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited section using IMDb data. I see three alternative solutions: 1. If the point is actually to get across the point that Hitchcock worked with pretty much everybody, then restore the previous list, change title to "major collaborators", remove minor names, and add major names who were one-off collaborators (e.g. Henry Fonda and Janet Leigh). 2. If the point is to highlight people whose collaborations with Hitchcock defined either their own or Hitchcock's career, then restore the previous list, change title, and add some names (Anthony Perkins, notably). 3. Delete the entire section. Tomasboij 02:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added more names to the list from the pre-1940 films (in all instances they worked with Hitchcock on 3 or more of his major films).  Quite a few of them don't have existing Wikipedia articles -- hopefully this doesn't make them less relevant than some of the more well-known Hollywood names. Is it worth including authors whose works Hitchcock adapted in the list (e.g. Daphne Du Maurier and Helen Simpson (author))? Davepattern 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just spotted that an anonymous editor has added Tippi Hedren to the list, although she only collaborated with Hitch twice (Birds and Marnie) -- unless someone feels strongly, I'll remove Tippi. Davepattern 09:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've removed Tippi and also Jessie Royce Landis, as she only appears in 2 Hitchcock films.  Landis did appear in a single AHP episode, but it wasn't one that was directed by Hitchcock. Davepattern 07:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added about a dozen more names to the list (mostly crew), all who worked with Hitchcock on 3 or more films.  Not sure if anyone feels that the list is getting too long? Davepattern 06:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. A comprehensive list is probably more valuable than a selective one. Still, I wonder if it wouldn't be more worth while to transform it into a list of important or essential collaborators. As I see it, the purpose is to list those actors, sceenwriters, composers, etc., whose careers are intimately connected with Hitchcock's. Such a connection isn't necessarily a matter of frequent collaboration. I'd argue that Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins, to name two, are closely associated with Hitchcock in the general public's conception, maybe even more so than Cary Grant and James Stewart, who would have been major icons even if they hadn't starred in four Hitchcock films each. But of course, then there would no longer be an objective criterion for inclusion. Tomasboij 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent collaborators 

message: See BFI, second paragraph. Hitch worked as a director in Germany and was influenced by German Expressionism in Germany, not at a distance. Revolver 01:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still nothing about Hitchcock's time in Germany? Before directing his first film, Hitch worked as, I believe, an art director on a few things (had to destroy some of Lang's huge sets!) and, in McGilligan's book, there's direct mention of Hitch observing Murnau in action on 'The Last Laugh'. Also, most academic works about Hitchcock tend to emphasize the tremendous importance that being immersed in this high-point of German Expressionism had on him: actual film style, and the amount of creative freedom given to filmmakers to control all aspects of their creations. As it stands, I don't believe the article does any sort of justice to these ideas. Pacze Moj 01:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work in Germany 

message: I was at a trivia night last night, and one of the questions was "Which body part was Alfred Hitchcock missing?".  Nobody knew.  The answer was "One of his ears".  I'd never heard of that, and all the searches I've done shed no light on it.  Does this have any semblance of truth, and if so, what's the story?  --  JackofOz 06:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol -- definitely made up and isn't mentioned in any of the many biographies I've read. Davepattern 09:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I suspected.  Thanks.  I'll be having words with the question setter.  -- JackofOz 12:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I wonder if the question setter was half-thinking of the story about Hitchcock not having a belly button?  There's a quote attributed to Karen Black where she says Hitchcock "pulled up his shirt to show me his belly button – which he didn’t have. He’d had an operation and when they sewed him up, they took it away. His belly button was gone!".  Apart from the quote, I've never read anything to confirm that although apparently Hitchcock had several operations in the belly area and so it's feasible he lost it as the result of one of them! Davepattern 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't trust Karen Black to tell me the time of the day. Watch any interview with her, you'll see what I mean. Tomasboij 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Ear? 

message: A paragraph starting "It is widely known that as a child, Hitchcock's father once took him to their local police station and had an officer lock him away for a number of hours as punishment for behaving badly." was recently added.  I personally think this should be removed as it's based purely on an annecdote told many times by Hitchcock in interviews (there is an early version here), and quite of few of his most popular annecdotes were, at best, little white lies (e.g. that he never drove).  Many of the aspects of the story changed over time and in many versions he claimed only to have been locked in a cell for a few minutes.  Most versions also have the young Hitchcock going to the police station alone with the note. Davepattern 09:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I partially agree. One of the most authoritative interviews (by Truffaut) does include the anecdote (in the very first chapter of 'Hitchcock.'), but I indeed feel that the story's many variations are to be taken with a grain of salt. It is one of those elements that is eagerly put forward to explain Hitch's fascination with motifs such as guilt and the wrong man. However, I believe it may have been the sort of story Hitchcock loved to feed the press and critics, yet in reality it might have only been the most mundane of events in his life. 87.64.71.135 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  young Hitchcock and the police station 

message: It seems that this has gone back & forth several times...should the date be 1980 (correct) or 1982 (incorrect)? I think the idea behind 1982 is that this is when Alma died, but the date range concerns the marriage, not her lifespan. But it's confusing; it does rather look like she was born in 1926 (which of course she wasn't). How can we fix this so there's no confusion over what the dates refer to? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "(1926-1980)" seems sensible to me -- after his death, she was no longer his wife but a widow. As you say, the date range is for the marriage itself. The alternative could be to just state the year of the marriage ("m." and "md." appear to be widely accepted abbreviations for "marriage") - e.g. Spouse(s) Alma Reville (m. 1926) Davepattern 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the template, the present format is the correct one. I agree that it's confusing and would prefer if the date of the marriage preceded the name: Spouse (1926–1980) Alma Reville. However, that ought to be a general issue of revising the template, not any particular page. Tomasboij 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox dates 

message: Television program  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.103.42 (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfred Hitchcock Hour 

message: I read in a Yahoo group that Hitchcock briefly attended the Salesian College, Battersea as a boarder. Can anyone substantiate this?86.146.15.60 06:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing concrete, but apparently the young Hitchcock was only there for a short time (e.g. just a few months) before he started at St. Ignatius.  Salesian College was apparently much more strict.  According to Google Maps, Salesian was about 12 miles from where the Hitchcock's lived -- so, although the College had boarders, Hitchcock may have been a day student? Davepattern 09:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Education 

message: This is going to be tricky to express well in the article. Yes, in the 1976 analysis book Mr. Spoto admires Marnie greatly. Although I have not read it in a long time, I believe that in his (1980?) biography, he tones down that admiration. I also heard him give a talk at a screening of Marnie in Boston in the early 80s, where he also expressed some dissatisfaction with the film. So there ought to be a way to say so without relying just on the one book. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, presumably the solution is to find a copy of the 1980 book and quote a relevant passage...? Cop 663 14:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoto and Marnie 

message: I find it curious that there is no mention of how his belly button was removed via surgery  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.88.65 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: is this relevant?--Davmpls 03:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belly button 

message: Would someone more knowledgeable about this please determine whether he was (reportedly) under surveillance by the FBI or the CIA.  It is listed one way here, and another in the Notorious article.  It seems like a minor detail, but taken in the context of the time and political climate there is a noticeable difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.54.166 (talk • contribs) 9 Feb 2006.
:Agree that investigation would be significant, but not that the agencies involved are significant. (This isn't the article for a discussion about the focus of various US intelligence agencies.) For the purposes of this article, the questions would be "What aspects of Hitchcock were under investigation?" and "What effect did this have on his work?" 24.6.67.7 (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA or FBI 

message: Am I the only one who thinks the current photo isn't vintage Hitchcock? The Master of Suspense is most often portrayed as a stern director. A laughing Hitchcock is somewhat, well, un-Hitchcockian. Of course, I realize the current photo is a blessing with regard to copyrights and whatnot. But I think it doesn't convey an adequate image of Hitchcock.
Edit: The new one is even worse. Hitchcock on TV? Scanlines included?
 87.64.64.57 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the smiling Hitchcock better demonstrates his sense of humour throughout his works and his prankster personality. vote Keep  Rugz 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo? 

message: I just reverted an edit by Curveaway in which he was switched from English categories to American (American film directors, American film producers, etc.).  He clearly took American citizenship, but it was after he had achieved notability as a film director.  Therefore, based on WP:MOSBIO, it doesn't seem right to categorize him as an "American film director" -- you could certainly make an argument for "American television directors" though.  Any thoughts?  Rickterp (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, you simply include him in both categories. He was both an English director and an American director. I fixed it. Incidentally, the relevant passage in WP:MOSBIO is referring to the opening paragraph, not to categories. Cop 663 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorize as English or American? 

message: Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers]] priority assessment 

message: Anybody know which school? I did a quick Google search and came up with the following:
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/eece/
Is this it?--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to McGilligan's biography, it was the London County Council School of Engineering and Navigation, located on the High Street in Poplar, London (Google map).  In the 1927 "Official Guide to the Metropolitan Borough of Poplar", it says... "Keenly alive to the requirements of the locality, the L.C.C. School of Engineering and Navigation in High Street, reached by way of Woodstock Road, boasts a full muster roll. Considering how many of the rising generation of this borough adopt the sea as a profession, this School offers unique advantages. Among the subjects taught are seamanship and navigation, nautical astronomy, marine engineering, naval architecture, propulsion, electrical and marine engineering, carpentry and joinery, and theoretical and practical chemistry, physics, etc. The roof of the building is flat and especially adapted for astronomical observation. The School was opened on behalf of the L.C.C. by the late Sir William Collins, and is one of the best equipped of its kind in England; the fees are singularly moderate, and every encouragement is offered to the youth who is ambitious to excel." I think the site is now part of Tower Hamlets College (web site). Davepattern (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  School for Engineering reference 

message: The 'motifs' section is currently original research. While much of what it is saying may be true, it needs references to confirm that these motifs have been noted in reliable sources. Currently, the section contains numerous references, but they are all to the IMDb pages on the films and the actors. This is absurd as (a) these pages don't say anything about the motifs and (b) even if they did, IMDb is not a reliable source as it is constructed the same way as Wikipedia, by anonymous users. Cop 663 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with much of what you are saying but as far as IMDb - are you saying this website shouldn't be used at all? I assumed that the website was at least good for cast and crew information, etc. Should I leave the IMDb references in or, when I get a chance, take them out?--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The cast and crew stuff is usually fine since it comes directly from the screen credits anyway. The real problems, in my experience, are the 'Trivia' sections which are frequently garbled and are always unsourced claims by anonymous editors. Cop 663 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. FYI, I was re-watching "The Birds" this weekend and I can't get enough of deluxe DVD's which include commentaries, interviews, etc. The DVD edition that I have has interviews with Hitchcock's daughter, Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor (while he was alive) and some others. Very insightful on how they made this movie. Are there other editions of this film,--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the garbage about the number 13, most of the motifs will appear in Michael Walker's "Hitchcock's Motifs".  The section could certainly be trimmed, but at least half are well recognized and much discussed motifs. Davepattern (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm sure most are true, they just need sourcing. Most Hitchcock books will mention them, I imagine. Cop 663 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see from the table of contents of Walker's book "" that many of the motifs listed here are profiled. So how much of the book does one have to read to cite it for a motif? Also, I'm interested to note that neither crime nor espionage are listed by Walker as motifs. Does this go to the nature of a motif? Should crime and espionage be classified as larger structural elements of a story rather than motifs? In speaking of DNA, for example, a sequence motif is typically a short stretch of nucleotides. Jbening (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motifs: original research 

message: The article had been tagged as too long over 92 megabytes, or was it 96?. In any case I thought the logical way to split it was to move the account of the themes, motifs and plot devices into an article of their own. I am still working on this. Invertzoo (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article became too long -- created a separate article for [[Themes and plot devices in the films of Alfred Hitchcock]] 

message: Surely he only went to a college in Stamford Hill, not Enfield? Straw Cat (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Ignatious 

message: An editor deleted this section claiming 'a breach of trademark'. I think a single question would be apposite - where is this 'registered as a trademark'? To comment on motif and signature in a film is not in itself an infringement of intellectual property.
Such large scale deletions should be discussed beforehand. If necessary take up it up at :WP:MCQ. Thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes, plot devices and motifs 

message: There was a Parodies section deleted a while ago: given that AH was one of the most influential film directors in history - arguably the most influential - don't parodies form an important part of his legacy? They demonstrate that film audiences recognise that he contributed immensely to the medium of film. e.g Even a teenager of today, who has perhaps never seen the original Psycho - will appreciate a parody of the shower scene, or another key sequence from a Hitchcock film. MatthewTStone (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What, not even High Anxiety? This needs looking at again, these things are not necessarily trivia, but an important insight into how Hitchcock's work and motifs have been appreciated and reinterpreted by others. But they need proper sourcing and not just "In Family Guy, Stewie Griffin says Oh, mother, no!" shit. --Rodhullandemu 22:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parodies 

message: The image :File:Bateshower.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:File:Rebecca 1940 film poster.jpg
*:File:North Northwest.jpg
*:      File:BlackmailStill.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with File:Bateshower.jpg 

message: I removed the following text from the railfan article:
::Perhaps the most famous celebrity metrofan was film director Alfred Hitchcock, whose hobby was collecting and memorizing railway timetables, and who prided himself on being able to recite from memory every stop on the Orient Express.
In this reference work (by Paul Duncan) found on Google Books, it states (p19)
::"...he did enjoy geography, and this showed itself in his private study of the London bus network and timetable -- he was proud to have ridden on every bus route in London. This intense study extended to him memorising the streets of New York and every stop on the Orient Express railway."
Aside from the fact the the Orient Express is a train service, not a railway, this doesn't really fit in the Railfan article, so perhaps someone could add something appropriate here instead?
EdJogg (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railfan/metrofan? 

message: The section titled "Signature appearances in his films" isn't about that, it talks about some technical tricks Hitch used, only mentioning a cameo in passing. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looked to me as if some sections had become out of order, hence dislocated, and I've had a stab at sorting this out, at least initially. This whole bunch of headings should come under some sort of umbrella heading such as "stylistic features", but I can't think of anything better than this at present. Meanwhile, I've added brief overviews of the linked articles, and don't think they need citations here, but in those articles- but, really, they do need citations there. --Rodhullandemu 22:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect headings 

message: Just thought I'd mention that a documentary about Hitchcock's life and career before he moved to America has recently aired in Britain that could provide useful information and references for the article. Paul Merton Looks at Alfred Hitchcock, 1 March 2009, 10pm BBC 4. Available to watch here to those in the UK. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 22:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source 

message: This listing should include Hitchcock's daughter Pat, who appeared in Stage Fright, Strangers on a Train, and Psycho. 
The list correctly includes actor John Williams (who appeared in 3 films and several Alfred Hitchcock Presents programs) but links to the wrong John Williams. The page currently links to the composer John Williams (not the actor). The composer John Williams did work on Hitchcock's last picture - Family Plot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.186.202 (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actors and actresses appearing in three or more films 

message: Along with the list of robert Arthur-ghost-edited anthologies the short story magazine should get mention. If I recall correctly, it was the very last of the non-SF short story pulps to disappear, & kept the short story market on life support for a few years. Bustter (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine 

message: The comment that Hitchcock called actors cattle is stated as fact one place and as a rumor in another.  It seems more than a rumor, in thie 1973 interview he says he called actors cattle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-nlObHw7bE&feature=related.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.202.104 (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are interested enough in the cattle question to include the quote from the Truffaut interview; Rugz added a great quote from the same interview that is more serious on the question of how he felt about actors.Unclevinny (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cattle 

message: The introduction to this article includes a comment from the Telegraph that Hitchcock cruelly witheld information from his audience. This is precisely what Hitchcock didn't do. Hitchcock repeatedly and consistently stated his view that the audience must be absolutely aware of the full facts in order to generate suspense (e.g. http://www.borgus.com/think/hitch.htm "Step 11 - Suspense is information). He is particularly interesting upon this topic in his interview with Trauffaut. I can only assume that the author of the Telegraph article was ill-informed or was writing in haste As such, I will amend the sentence in the introduction to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A bright cold day in april (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is in the wrong place anyway - the lead should summarise the rest of the article; it's not for lengthy quotes. It should be removed or put in the main body of the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cruelly witholding crucial information... from us" 

message: The ARTICLE states:
1940s films
Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in Notorious (1946)
Hitchcock's films during the 1940s were diverse, ranging from the romantic comedy Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941) to the courtroom drama The Paradine Case (1947),[51] to the dark and disturbing film noir Shadow of a Doubt (1943).[52]
Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a Screwball comedy which is a sub-genre of the romantic comedy genre.  A commentator in the extra section of the DVD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._and_Mrs._Smith_%281941_film%29 Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941 film), states the term Screwball Comedy was coined based upon Carol Lombard having been described as a Screwball comedic actor.  Carol Lombard's first screwball genre film was "It Happened One Night" (1934) which ignited the screwball comedy genre.  http://www.tcmdb.com/participant.jsp?participantId=115700   Sponsion (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Carole Lombard (with an "e") was not in 1934's It Happened One Night — that was the brunette Claudette Colbert.  The blonde Lombard helped define screwball comedy in 1934's Twentieth Century and — even better — 1936's My Man Godfrey.  While Lombard the actress is undoubtedly a primary if not the primary actress of the genre, the "screwball" characterization of Mr and Mrs. Smith in the Wikipedia article is uncited, and from what you say about the DVD commentary, it seems the person is speaking about Lombard the actress, rather than that particular film.  Lucille Ball is also prominently known for screwball comedy, but many of her film comedies were not screwball comedies, if you see what I mean.  If you can find a notable reliable source attesting to this film as a screwball comedy, feel free to add and cite it.  Abrazame (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Screwball Comedy" 

message: Alfred Hitchcock's picture was clearly digitally altered, and we need a real picture for accuracy's sake. After all, he was not a jovial man, and considering his lifetime ban on smiles, there's no way he would be smiling as brightly as that. Furthermore, the article doesn't build up the terror and suspense that I've come to associate with Hitchcock, and thus I would recommend a complete rewrite for the sake of plot and character.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srysly2 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not scary enough 

message: The article currently has a subheading "Pre-war British career" that starts out "Hitchcock's last collaboration with Graham Cutts led him to Germany in 1924"... nobody in 1924 Europe would have referred to that time as "pre-war", and especially not in Germany. (also as an aside, Germany is not part of a British career.) WWI had just ended and it was the most devastating war the world had ever seen. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it is. WWI was over in 1918; Hitler was already head of the Nazi Party as of 1921. We don't write from the point of view of the times being discussed; we write from a current 21st century point of view. Pick nits much? Yworo (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind if I "inter" the discussion? The new title should (hopefully) satisfy everyone. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1924 is not "pre-war" 

message: Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment