Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Twist Endings"?

The article says that many of his films feature twist endings, that is bunk. Really only one of his films features a twist ending, Psycho. I thought of changing this to "some", but really there aren't "some" of his films that feature a twist ending. Thoughts? Disagree? Agree? Supertheman ^(talk) 04:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Phyllis Konstam and Spellbound

The acteur Phyllis Konstam writes about the german part of her family (her uncle Oskar Kohnstamm) - there is a relationship to the film Spellbound- and to the fairy tale Peter and Anneli's Journey to the Moon, which is written in the sanatorium of her uncle:

http://www.thomas-mann-neuforschung.de/#7.31

http://www.thomas-mann-neuforschung.de/#7.85

The model for Dr. Edwards was really a doctor - Peter Georg Konstam (with a portrait photo): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2550774/pdf/bmj00610-0049.pdf

The life of Peter Kohnstamm in the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kohnstamm

--Groth-Pfeifer (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Alfred Hitchcock Commutative Stamp 1998.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alfred Hitchcock Commutative Stamp 1998.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera Parody?

What was the name of the alligator that Hanna-Barbera used to parody Hitchcock? I think it mostly appeared in the Snagglepuss episodes; and, no, it WASN'T Wally Gator. CFLeon (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Cameo appearance actor?

I removed the reference to Hitch being a 'cameo appearance actor' from the lead, and was reverted. I received this message on my talk page, which I'm moving here to reach a greater number of interested editors:

'Not a Hitchcock fan, eh? Otherwise you'd have known that he is well-known for his cameo appearances, as described later in the article. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the article, it should not be removed from the lead. We even have an article List of Hitchcock cameo appearances. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC' )

I'm quite a Hitchcock fan, actually. I'm questioning the need to include this bit of information in the lead, and I object to the awkward way that it's worded. Hitchcock did not make a career, or even a sideline career, of making cameo appearances; he only did this in his own movies. It's well-known that he appeared briefly in most of his movies, and that in itself is quite distinctive, but it doesn't need to be shoe-horned into the lead in the way it is. Radiopathy •talk• 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. He was not an actor, he was a director who had a sly habit of sometimes blink-or-miss-'em appearances, only in his own films. The cameos are already noted elsewhere in the lead, and three other times in the article's text; the article also features a link to a list of the cameo appearances—all this is fine (well, explaining the Lifeboat cameo twice in a bio of this size is a bit redundant and overspoilery). But the phrase "cameo appearance actor" is awkward verbiage and something of a syllogism. Nobody is a "cameo appearance actor", they are actors or other people of note who do cameo turns in projects, some very much involving the craft of acting and others not so much. On the other hand, non-notable people whose appearances are limited to the sort of things Hitchcock does in his films are generally termed extras (notwithstanding the fact that several of his cameos are quite amusing bits of business).

It's certainly worthy of the note it now receives in the second paragraph of our three-paragraph lead overview, but it doesn't belong as part of a train of primary descriptors in the introductory sentence. Abrazame (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Former 'Technical innovations' section

I removed this passage because much of it was already duplicated in the chronology section of the article; the information not in the earlier sections has been moved there. The exceptions were the details about Spellbound and Vertigo. I thought the passage on Vertigo was too brief given its reputation, while an orphaned example from a (high) second division Hitchcock film was perhaps insufficient to sustain a section. Philip Cross (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Rm passage on Strangers & Rope

I have removed the following passage:

With Farley Granger reprising some elements of his role from Rope, Strangers continued the director's interest in the narrative possibilities of blackmail, murder, and homosexuality.

While the reference to "homosexuality" has just been added, it does not make sense to retain it without the rest which has had a citation request since February 2009. Philip Cross (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

A user keeps removing the "U.S." in the info box on this page, disregarding a valid edit summary when it was added back. To be a consistent and detailed encyclopedia, below the person's birth date and death date, we put in, a city and country/sovereign union. Or in this case, Hitchcock died in Bel Air, California, United States (U.S.). Tinton5 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Also, not to mention this user warning User:Kingharris inapropriately for being involved in an 3RR edit warn, when the user only edited the page once. Tinton5 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this is an article about an English native of the UK. The abbreviation U dot S dot is entirely inappropriate here, per MOS:NOTUSA and MOS:TIES. Secondly, the sovereign nation of which England is a constituent is the United Kingdom, but you and your fellow edit warrior never insist that 'UK' belongs in the infobox as well.

Please just leave the article as it stands unless there is an overwhelming consensus to change it. Radiopathy •talk• 03:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Added US and UK, which is standard formatting on this encyclopedia. A large consensus is not necessary for such a minor detail. I would ask you to leave it alone. If you continue to change it, I will start a discussion with administrators. Tinton5 (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't really read the above comment I made. It is a standard practice on ALL articles to add city, state, and sovereign state/nation inside the info box. The more information we provide, the better it is for the reader. I follow your edits, and you edited John Lennon recently, and while on that page, you left the US and UK on there, where in the infobox it says born in Liverpool, England, UK and died in New York, New York, US. How come you didn't remove those? You sir are hypocritical. I am taking this to a discussion board with higher authority to resolve because you have no idea what you're talking about. Tinton5 (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Phil Collins, Billy Joel, Liz Taylor, etc. are some prime examples. Tinton5 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The infobox usually has place/county/county for UK articles and places. Country being England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. Normally UK is omitted as it is unnecessary. Keith D (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

But adding US after California is fine. Tinton5 (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, you would not add US after California. Radiopathy •talk• 16:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't own the article and that's only one opinion. What is not consistent is that on several other pages which I listed above, you kept in the US and UK, or just the US. Why are you only making a debate here? That does not make sense. We should provide the reader with the most information possible. Also, a common practice on the English Wikipedia is to provide the location in the US, with the city, state and country. Tinton5 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would omit "United States". "England" is only required to distinguish from London, Ontario, etc. But above all, stop bickering children. This version is OK by me with "Leytonstone, London, England" and "Bel Air, California, United States". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera Parody

I found the identity of the Hitchcock-parody alligator in some Hanna-Barbera cartoons in the '60s. The character was named 'Alfie Gator', and appeared in the Yakky Doodle series on Yogi Bear. He was trying to catch the duck to use in some gourmet dish. CFLeon (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.131.183 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ibn-e-Safi as a Influenced?

I have provided reliable source http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/people/The-son-of-Ibne-Safi/iplarticleshow/8270314.cms but Cresix doesn't seems to think so. thanks Whatasurprise (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

From the source: "His favorite though was the TV presentation of the Alfred Hitchcock Hour, the weekly show on Pakistan TV. He loved watching Hitchcock movies and loved how he created and depicted suspense scenes without any music". The word "like" is not synonymous with "influenced by" (I challenge you to find a dictionary or thesaurus that says they are.) My wife is a professional violinist. She "likes" The Beatles, Hank Williams, Ludacris, and hundreds of other musicians, none of whom have had the least influence on her violin performances. One almost certainly "likes" someone who has influenced them, but that does not mean that they are certainly "influenced by" everyone they like. Cresix (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatasurprise (talk · contribs) posted this comment at this point in the discussion, then later removed it. Cresix (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are reaching your own conclusions (and it's quite a reach!) that "he was more susceptible to being influenced by Alfred Hitchcock"; here at Wikipedia that's known as original research and/or synthesis of information from a source to reach conclusions not in the source. That's not allowed on Wikipedia. And sorry, but a "hint" that he was influenced??? If that's your argument, you don't have a leg to stand on. I could search a few minutes on the internet and find LOTS of people who "like" Hitchcock, but the infobox parameter "Influenced by" was not intended to include every person in the film industry who "likes" Hitchcock. If Ibne Safi was truly "influenced by" Hitchcock, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a more substantial and less ambiguous source to support it. Cresix (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Glandular condition

It's stated that he was rejected in WWII because of his weight, a glandular condition, and his father's death. What was the condition - and was it related to his obesity? It doesn't say. It would also be nice to know why his father's death would have had anything to do with it. 69.158.141.104 (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitchcock's father died in 1914 and Hitchcock wasn't eligible for service until 1917, so I doubt it had anything to do with the death. More likely he was delcared "unfit for military service" due to his weight, although it's worth noting that many who knew Hitchcock at time later remarked that he was surprisingly athletic and was able to run up a long flight of stairs without getting out-of-breath Davepattern (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I shall revise the sentence and make of it something reasonable and readable :) Harfarhs (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of treatment of Tippi Hedren in lede

Due to the recent release of The Girl (2012) on HBO I believe discussion of Hitchcock's treatment of Tippi Hedren needs to be discussed in the lede section. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for seeking opinions. I must say, however, that your brief comment doesn't tell me much. I know very little about The Girl. More importantly, I am not sure why release of an HBO special changes the relative notability of the Tippi Hedren information compared to everything else that makes Hitchcock notable. I'm not defending Hitchcock's behavior with Hedren, but for such a notable director, I think we need a really good argument that controversial behavior should be in the lead. As an analogy, Roman Polanski's misdeeds were quite scandalous and had a major impact on his life and career. I think mention in the lead of that article is appropriate. Based on what I know about Hitchcock and Hedren (and I may not know everything), I'm not convinced it belongs in the lead. Cresix (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cresix for your input. I personally was shocked at what Hitchcock did to Hedren in terms of 5 days of having birds attack her in addition to being cut by broken glass. According to one article Hitchcock had issues with leading ladies, although not specifics were mentioned, with the exception of Hedren. I believe there is another documentary drama coming out on the making of Phycho. I do not understand how Hitchcock is applauded by critics when his films seem to be centered around sex, violence towards women, and murder. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I'm not defending his bad behavior, but I don't think there is much dispute about his status as a director. I think his misdeeds certainly need discussion, but not in the lead, IMHO. Cresix (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have my own personal view of Hitchcock, that he was a sensationalist, voyeurist, violent man, and his movies were an expression of his own personal perverted fantasies. That is only myself. I believe Hollywood is rarely critical of itself since the industry needs to keep selling films or videos. Critisizing Hitchcock would be detrimental to their business. With that said, I understand Wikipedia goes by sources, not original research or ideas. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your points and appreciate your discussing this issue. I must point out that a lot more people than Hollywood insiders would give Hitchcock's films high marks. Cresix (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sure Hitchcock has critical acclaim outside of Hollywood. Hitchcock had a way of playing with his audience like a cat and mouse. However, my view is that his graphic depictions of violence against women, especially the Psycho shower scene, were unnecessary and inappropriate, and may have been Hitchcock's own personal fantasies of committing violence against women. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I found a source that could be useful for the article; possibly the lede section: Donald Spoto (2008), Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies According to Spoto, p.251, Hitchcock was stalking Hedren and kept her from seeing her daughter. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source link: Tippi: Hitchcock 'made my life...miserable'. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is more on Hitchcock on Hedren and other leading ladies: Hitchcock the Psycho: As Birds Star Tippi Hedren reveals he tried to destroy when she spurned his advances, how all his blondes lived in fear of the sadistic director. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed lede change:

Hitchcock has recently received criticism for his treatment of leading ladies during filming. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for edit:

1. Recent release of The Girl (2012) HBO.

2. Recent research and interest in Hitchcock's treatment of leading ladies.

3. Alleged incidents were not isolated to only Tippi Hedrin. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be wary if Spoto is your only source, as his works on Hitchcock have a lot of inaccuracies, errors and half-truths (some of which would appear to be deliberate), and his central argument that Hitchcock was a sadistic misogynist has been widely criticised by Hitchcock scholars, those who worked with the director (including many actresses) and even the people Spoto originally interviewed... I'd even go so far as to acuse Spoto of a biographical form of pseudohistory. Many of the instances of violence against women (and just as frequently men) in his films are not of Hitchcock's creation, but are in the source materials — the murders in Psycho and Frenzy are very much toned down from what appears in the original novels. I'd recommend reading the Save Hitchcock blog for a critique of "The Girl" (which was largely based on Spoto) and Hedren's allegations (the author of the blog is Tony Lee Moral) and Hitchcock's Women on Hitchcock (from the Literature Film Quarterly journal). In my own opinion, the weight of evidence against Spoto's more extreme claims is compelling and I would prefer to see a balanced/impartial view on the subject than a sensationalist one. It's probably also worth bearing in mind that there are many instances of Hitchcock empowering the women around him — e.g. Hitchcock was responsible for Joan Harrison becoming a pioneering Hollywood producer (apparently she was 1 of only 3 women producers at the time). Davepattern (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

One other interview is worth reading -- Hedren has repeatedly claimed that Hitchcock abused Kim Novak on the set of "Vertigo", presumably because that's what Spoto told her, but Novak recently refuted that again: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9586303/Kim-Novak-tells-all.html Davepattern (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to this discussion...but there seems to be an unequal treatment of Ms. Hedren's experience here and how other celebrity scandals are covered on wikipedia. For example, Joan Crawford was deified and considered by many to be a great artist who changed forever the way women were seen on film (she was considered one of the first portrayals of the "flapper" archetype on film) and then her daughter exposed her abusive nature in her book Mommie Dearest which was then made into a movie. Some people who knew Joan agreed with the portrayal and film, some didn't. But it shed great light on the problem of child abuse. It seems to me that Ms. Hedren's own detailed public statements on the traumatizing sexual harassment of Hitchcock (and people's reluctance to believe the story) are exactly parallel, along with the potential of this story and film to shed light on traumatizing sexual harassment in the film industry. Like Christina Crawford, Tippi Hedren has said that she wanted to let other women know they can say "no" and seek help. The two situations are very parallel. On Joan Crawford's wiki page, there is an entire section devoted to Mommie Dearest and I think Ms. Hedren's experiences should be its own section, as well. Also, if you look at her screen test for The Birds, Martin Balsam and Hitchcock are sexually harassing her ON CAMERA, asking her about "paroxysms" (a euphemism for orgasms) and "necrophilia" and asking her to repeat her nickname and saying it refers to a part of her anatomy. So there is definitely cause to give this a larger treatment, including both sides, of course, as many people claim he did not treat them that way. But there is ample corroborating evidence to support Ms. Hedren's experience and I think this article is burying it when it should be its own section, like on Joan Crawford's page. I know many people think the Spoto's book and the HBO film are sensationalist, but that's what people said about Mommie Dearest, too.Amyluna13 (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What ample corroborating evidence? The only source for all this is Hedren herself, as told to Spoto decades later, and then others. You should read the post and links given by Davepattern just above. And that screen test you refer to is a scene from The Girl - it's not real. If you look at the actual screen test, available online and DVD, it's entirely professional, unlike the awkward affair that film depicts, and no one is harassing her at all. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The corroborating evidence I am referring to is that Gwyneth Hughes based her screenplay for The Girl on accounts from Hedren and Jim Brown, who was an assistant director on both of Hedren's films and who corroborated the sexual harassment. Other corroborating evidence of the credence of Hedren's story is that the scene with the birds did take 5 days to shoot and shooting was stopped by a doctor because Hedren was experiencing PTSD symptoms from the traumatic experience. Also, we know that Hitchcock kept her on contract for two years after she made Marnie and would not release her to do any other pictures even though he did not use her for any films. The screen test for The Birds that I'm referring to IS real. You can view it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxRgGLhOC6U and the inappropriate dialog about paroxysms and necrophilia can be heard at 4min11seconds. Even Hitchcock says, "We better change the subject" and a visibly uncomfortable Hedren says, "I think so, too." At 1min52seconds, Hitchcock makes the remark about her nickname referring to a part of her anatomy. The links provided by Davepattern don't really shed any light on this controversy. Hitchcock's biographer is reviewing the movie, not what happened in real life, and his evidence for it not being real is that it was "out of character" for Hitchcock to do those things, which isn't much of an argument, as we know that sexual predators are masters at keeping their predations secret from the world. And the AMC panel discussion with Hitchcock's leading ladies (which was from 1997) is not very relevant, either. The discussion is limited to Hitchcock as a director, not as a sexual predator. Hedren doesn't really say too much and it would have been a totally inappropriate forum for her to disclose her abuse, anyway. In any event, I'm not really even arguing if the allegations are true or not. I'm merely saying that this controversy is getting unequal treatment on this page compared to the controversies of other famous people's personal lives. I still maintain that this controversy is important and credible enough to warrant its own section (pros AND cons) for wikipedia to be consistent. Otherwise, wikipedia is coddling Hitchcock and that shows bias. Whether or not you believe them, Hedren's accusations and the film that depicted them warrants more significant attention. Amyluna13 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot say the original source is ample corroborating evidence. The late James H. Brown's wife denies he would back up any of the charges Hedren has brought up in recent years, as can be seen in this Telegraph article BBC under fire over Hitchcock drama. The Joan Crawford charges you brought up earlier - from her daughter - got far more attention in the media. That's why it gets more coverage on WP. This is not analogous to that. I had not seen the additional screen test scenes before, and they are interesting. But Hedren doesn't look very visibly uncomfortable to me. She handles Balsam rather well, and comes across a lot more cool and professional than in The Girl. You can call the dialogue inappropriate, but none of what you lay out here corroborates sexual harassment. Shooting a traumatic attack scene can be traumatic. And as others said, it's absurd Hitchcock would want to disfigure his leading lady's face before the film was finished. The only living source for these charges is Hedren. Several people at the links above were talking about the man they knew, and they all dispute this. Putting Hedren's charges in the lead of an article on Hitchcock would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. They're in the article body. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is productive about trying to convince each other of the truth of these allegations. From my perspective, I obviously think they are true and you obviously think they are false, and you and I are like many other members of the public, which is my point. There has been enough evidence to convince many people it is true. It is not the job of editors to determine the truth, but to report on significant events and circumstances and these allegations and the controversy they engendered warrant a deeper treatment. Also, the 2012 film Hitchcock also made reference to his sexual obsessions with his leading ladies, further giving necessity for a deeper treatment of this aspect of his character. Consider also that it's entirely plausible that in the atmosphere of those times, the women who enabled his flirting were not antagonized by Hitchcock, but Hedren, who clearly had a strong sense of herself and did not agree that the de rigeur flirtations of the day were appropriate, would have incurred his wrath. That would be consistent with what we know of the behavior of abusive personality types. They escalate the abuse when their authority is challenged. Kim Novak by her own admission experienced childhood rape, and we know that incest survivors often normalize abusive behaviors and also block them out, so her denials work neither for nor against Hedren's accusations. Same with Brown's wife. The only way many women of that time got through life was with a heavy dose of denial and expert practice at "handling" harassment "well" as you observed in the screen test. Haven't you ever watched Mad Men lol? Sexual harassment was pretty much standard operating procedure in those days. So the fact that some people are adamant that nothing inappropriate ever happened kind of suggests a bit of denial, considering we do know he was somewhat obsessed, at the very least. I mention all this, not to prove I'm right about the abuse, but to show that there is just as much argument for it being true as it being untrue. In any event, I did not suggest to put this info in the lead. What I suggested was that his sexual obsession with his leading ladies (portrayed in two recent films) warrants its own section, perhaps titled "Controversy" as is the case with scores of other celebrities on wikipedia. I still maintain that you are showing a bias in defending Hitchcock that is outside the purview of wikipedia editors. Of course we have a responsibility not to include malicious character assassinations from every sensationalist crackpot, but Hedren's testimony for many people clearly meets the bar of what should be given credibility and it's own section. Adding a section that summarizes both sides of this "Controversy" is not undue weight. It's standard procedure.Amyluna13 (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Somebody denying that harassment happened is not evidence that it happened, and there is not just as much argument for it being true as it being untrue. A lot of people object to the idea that if Hitchcock was obsessed, that means he also was engaging in sexual harassment. It's amazing how some people will make that leap. And then we get those who believe if a subject is important, it must be promoted in every WP article possible. I see you have argued for this type of thing before. A number of people with no knowledge of what happened or how films are made "believing" Hedren proves nothing, except that they believe the subject is important. What they should realize is that promoting unproven, dubious charges does not help their cause, it hurts it, and does nothing for real victims of harassment. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that you have chosen to resort to ad hominem attacks to prove your point (which is usually a sign that one's argument is weak). As I've said repeatedly, the issue is not whether or why you or I or anyone may believe or not believe Hedren's story. I could just as easily say that the arguments you are making have been made before in not believing the victim and assuming her allegations are malicious and untrue. I'm not sure what "subject" you are suggesting I find "important" but I can say that, yes, I've made the argument before as an editor not to treat people better or worse based on our own biases and I've succeeded each time, because it's a good argument and makes wikipedia a better place. You seem to keep missing my point. I am not trying to prove the allegations are true or "promote" dubious charges. I'm saying that the controversy is large enough (covered by the award-winning New York Times and Huffington Post and scores of other reputable news outlets) that not including it shows bias, a point you have yet to address. You seem to believe you know better than the national media that gave voice to her allegations and that's not the role of an editor. Other proof that you are not editing in good faith would be that I am making the argument to present both sides of the controversy and you are making the argument that it should not be included because it is false. You are making an absolute judgment (which is personal bias) and I am suggesting to show both sides (which is balanced and fair to both sides). Finally, I did not say that someone denying harassment is proof that it happened. I'm saying that an absolute denial is suspiciously absolute in a climate where harassment was acceptable and widely practiced. That's a completely logical argument to make. Again, as I've argued "before" on wikipedia, presenting all viewpoints is removing bias, not adding it. Perhaps you believe you have some expertise on how movies are made and, if you do, I agree that that should be respected. But others have expertise on other subjects, like sexual harassment and abusive personalities (which I've demonstrated and you have not). Being an expert on gender issues on wikipedia is just as valid as being a film expert. If you went around correcting bias in film articles because of your expertise on the subject, no one would accuse you of having an ax to grind, so please do me the courtesy of respecting my expertise and graduate level education in the area of biased rhetoric. The point is that the more knowledgable voices of reason that are heard, the better the articles are. Which is why I am, again, arguing for ALL views on this controversy to be represented. Perhaps it's time to call in some other editors.Amyluna13 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You're the one engaging in ad hominem attacks to prove your point. You throw around the word "proof" a lot with nothing to back it up. Your Other proof that you are not editing in good faith would be — something that I never said. As anyone reading my posts can see, I never issued anything like an absolute denial, and that you would claim I am making the argument that it should not be included because it is false shows you can't even read text and properly represent what it means. I never argued for not including any mention of the charges. I pointed out they're already in the body of the article. I am against giving them WP:UNDUE weight, which I clearly wrote above. Debating with someone who can't even understand what I've written and/or falsely represents what I said is not something I want to spend my time doing. And the national media have given relatively little attention to this, especially compared to Joan Crawford and any number of other celebrity controversies. But I agree others should weigh in on this page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Cooler heads should weigh in. I apologize if I misunderstood you or misquoted you. It's an easy thing to do. For example, you misunderstood me and misrepresented me when you assumed I was referring to the dramatized screen test in The Girl and not the actual screen test that I was referring to, but I gave you the respect to continue the debate and not attack you for that false assumption on your part. I made the statement that you were assuming her allegations were false because you yourself characterized her allegations as "dubious" which means "questionable as to truth" and you have continued to present proof that her claims were dubious, and I've challenged those proofs as specious due to what we know about abuse. Perhaps there is other better proof to challenge her, but I haven't heard it. Saying it was "out of character" or "other people didn't see it" doesn't really amount to a hill of beans in cases like this. I also pointed out that making a judgment about her claims being dubious (as you did in your own words) is irrelevant anyway, constitutes "original research" and is therefore outside the purview of wikipedia editors because it's not up to us to judge, but to determine about how much other people (such as national media) judged her to be credible, which I believe is on a par with Mommie Dearest and is certainly on a par with other controversies of other celebrities. I'll continue to research this and weigh in again.Amyluna13 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I assumed you were describing that scene from The Girl because that's what it sounded like, but I didn't misrepresent what you said - there's a big difference. I never misquoted you. And it's not hard to avoid misquoting someone. You just read their words on the page in front of you. But this seems to be beyond you. I have no faith in any research you might do. You continue to misrepresent what I've said. You claim I "have continued to present proof that her claims were dubious" when I never once used that word. Even after I pointed out numerous misquotes above, you come back and continue to make up quotes I never said. Perhaps you don't even know what the word proof means. That's what it looks like, from your writing above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Me:

"I think Ms. Hedren's experiences should be its own section, as well."

"this article is burying it when it should be its own section,"

You:

"Putting Hedren's charges in the lead of an article on Hitchcock would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight."

I did not suggest to put them in the lead. I clearly twice suggested to create another section.

But that's OK, sometimes people don't read too carefully, I understand.

Me:

"if you look at her screen test for The Birds, Martin Balsam and Hitchcock are sexually harassing her ON CAMERA, asking her about "paroxysms" (a euphemism for orgasms) and "necrophilia""

You:

"that screen test you refer to is a scene from The Girl - it's not real."

"I assumed you were describing that scene from "The Girl" because that's what it sounded like"

In the movie The Girl, they don't say anything about paroxysms or necrophilia, so clearly if you had been reading carefully, you would have realized that I was not referring to the film, and I specifically referred to Martin Balsam, who was not even identified in The Girl.

No worries, sometimes people respond without clearly reading what was written. I understand.

These are two examples of how you did not read my text carefully or correctly and responded to something I never actually said.

Arguments (or "proofs" as they are called in argumentation theory) that you suggested cast doubt on the veracity of Hedren's accusations:

"it's absurd Hitchcock would want to disfigure his leading lady's face before the film was finished."

"A lot of people object to the idea that if Hitchcock was obsessed, that means he also was engaging in sexual harassment. It's amazing how some people will make that leap."

"dubious claims"

I assumed you were arguing that her claims were dubious, because that's what it sounded like.

As I've said, I apologize if I misunderstood you.

Again, I'm going to propose an additional section and we'll see how that runs down the shower drain with the other editors. ;)

Amyluna13 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So I'm to take it you don't understand what the word quote means? There's a big difference between summarizing something and quoting someone. I said I never misquoted you. And none of those are me quoting you. My quote "Putting Hedren's charges in the lead of an article on Hitchcock would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight" was not in direct response to your quotes, as you falsely make it appear above. It was an attempt to wrap this discussion up, as that is the name of this thread. Quotes need to be in context. You said I "have continued to present proof that her claims were dubious" when I never once used that word. You just made that up. I have the right to point out certain claims are dubious without being accused of presenting it as proof. You not only misquoted me, you falsely summarized what I was saying many times as well, as I showed four paragraphs above. You claim expertise on other subjects, like sexual harassment and abusive personalities (which I've demonstrated and you have not). You wrote please do me the courtesy of respecting my expertise and graduate level education in the area of biased rhetoric. Respect has to be earned. I find that claim incredible - You're a self-described expert in rhetoric, but you can't even get the basics of quoting right. And is it expertise in sexual harassment that led you to write:

The only way many women of that time got through life was with a heavy dose of denial and expert practice at "handling" harassment "well" as you observed in the screen test. Haven't you ever watched Mad Men lol? Sexual harassment was pretty much standard operating procedure in those days. So the fact that some people are adamant that nothing inappropriate ever happened kind of suggests a bit of denial, considering we do know he was somewhat obsessed, at the very least.

Under that thinking, everyone of that time is assumed guilty until proven innocent. Most experts would disagree with that theory. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone wasn't "guilty." Everyone was sexist. Because our society was sexist at that time. Sexism was normalized and we can even see it in Hedren's screen test. It would be like if I said that there was no way a plantation owner was racist in the 1840s. That would be suspect because of course they would be racist by today's standards. People just didn't see it at the time. Which would explain the denials of his other leading ladies. Hedren's "sin" was that she was ahead of her time in recognizing it and standing up to it. And she paid for it. According to her, Hitchcock attacked her and tried to discredit her because she challenged his thinking. Like someone else I know. ;)

Amyluna13 (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone was sexist? Really. Everyone who doesn't go along with Hedren's charges to this day is a liar or delusional, I suppose. Most of those interviews you dismiss, such as in this Telegraph article BBC under fire over Hitchcock drama, were just in the last several weeks, not the 1960s. You are aggressively pursuing an agenda, but you're only preaching to the choir. No unbiased person will be convinced by your dogmatic arguments. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Remains vs cremains

Cresix removed my change of "remains" in the discussion of the disposition of AH's ashes to "cremains", the proper term for ashes that are the product of cremation.

cre·mains (kr-mnz) pl.n. The ashes that remain after cremation of a corpse. [Blend of cremated, past participle of cremate and remains.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevewaclo (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the sentence says "his body was cremated and his remains were scattered", it's clear what form the remains took - there's no need to introduce a slightly obscure technical term here. --McGeddon (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Alma mater

I suggest changing this to "London County Council School of Engineering and Navigation". True, it was only what would now be called a further education college but St Ignatius' College is a mere secondary school. Harfarhs (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Despite the public domain claim, the studio publicity still may not be legal for use. It is both undated and unsourced. Review the permission. Hitchcock is not a "film actor" as it incorrectly claims, nor is there a date/year of the image. The public domain claim itself also states the photo must be published between 1923 and 1963. Someone tell me how we know this photo complies without a date? How do we know it's not a 1964 or later photo? By contrast, someone has also removed an image with an OTRS ticket, so there is no question but that it can - and should - be used. That makes no sense. It's also a more recent and frankly, a better image, and was apparently taken by a well-known celebrity photographer too. So on the one hand you have a clearly legal, well-sourced and superior image and on the other you have a possibly illegal, undated and unsourced image and people are complaining? If someone can explain this logically, please do. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:D4A7:F6E3:8AC3:BD54 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You went against WP:3RR by putting in the same edit three times in less than an hour, despite being reverted by two editors. Now three editors. As User:Cresix said in reverting you, the Studio publicity photo is public domain and the better image for the infobox. I see you put a WP:Edit warring warning on his Talk page, even though he was the third editor to revert you, and only did it once. This after he put the same warning on your User talk:2602:304:5EA1:5289:44AF:D6AC:77D1:E320 page. No one has backed up your opinion that the Mitchell photo is better for the infobox. It has Hitchcock as an older man. The studio photo has him as he is much better known to the public, and as he looks less than 64 years old, one can assume it was taken between 1923 and 1963. Its permission entry says it is "PD-PRE1964", and it's being used on dozens of WP pages. You distorted that image when you placed it lower, and told me to fix it on my Talk page. There's no reason to use the most recent photo of someone who passed on more than 30 years ago in the infobox. You can place the Mitchell photo lower in the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I invited you to review what WP:3RR actually says before accusing someone of violating it. Clearly you failed to do that. I reverted 3 times. 3RR says "more than 3 times." Surely you can count? But if you want to split hairs, as you apparently do, if I am guilty of 3RR, then so are you and so is every editor who reverted me, since edit warring with no discussion on the talk page, is still a violation. As for what User:Cresix said, what's the factual basis for the comment? Or are you satisfied to mirror it simply because it agrees with you? So mere opinion is sufficient, as long as it's an opinion you agree with? I asked a legitimate, fact-based question and you have still failed to offer a serious, fact-based response. Since we don't know the age of the photo, tell me how you or anyone else can claim it's in the public domain? It's a really simple question, can you provide a simple answer? Also you violated WP:AGF with your accusatory tone, not to mention you repeated the same vacuous claim that I distorted the image. Nonsense. I did nothing but move the image to elsewhere in the article, where it conforms to the exact same size & shape as every other photo in the article. So if that "distorts" it, then you must be saying that all the other photos are "distorted" as well. As to your suggestion here that there's "no reason to use the most recent photo of someone who passed on more than 30 years ago", that also defies simple logic. By the same token then, should we use a photo of Louis B. Mayer, Cecil B. DeMille, John Huston, George Cukor or some other legendary screen directors when they were younger or just starting out, in the infobox? No, obviously you want a recognizable and interesting photo of someone when they were at the height of their game. The publicity still is as dry as toast, unlike the OTRS photo where a better photographer captured a much more interesting, indeed iconic, image. Google the OTRS photo. It's pretty legendary and I would think WP editors would be happy to be able to use it. Guess not. But if you had really wanted to collaborate constructively, you would have simply restored your undated/unsourced and possibly illegal studio still in the Infobox - but you would have also placed the OTRS photo elsewhere in the article, as a good compromise. Instead you just reverted me. Twice - in a matter of minutes. Then had the nerve to lecture me about 3RR? But, per your suggestion, I'll restore the OTRS photo to some other place in the article - although again, it was originally the Infobox photo long before anything I did. I'll also wait until well after 24 hrs have passed to do it. I just couldn't bear another 3RR complaint. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:7D90:770E:FB0F:A6D9 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Where do I start? You couldn't see that the studio photo was being squeezed vertically the way you put it in the article? That photo appears to be of Hitchcock when he was past the age of 50, some three decades after he started out. That's when Hithcock was at the height of his game, in the 1950s, not the 1970s. Louis B. Mayer was not a director, legendary or otherwise. And you're the one who needs to review what WP:3RR actually says, particularly Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. You did the same edit four times in the space of 24 hours and four minutes. You were clearly WP:Edit warring. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Now I see what the problems are: First, you can't count. I reverted 3 times not 4. An initial edit is not a revert. One revert from another editor's revert and twice more because YOU reverted TWICE. So now would be a good time for you to admit that you edit-warred. The edit summary is pretty clear. You really should exhibit enough self-awareness to review your own actions before accusing others of the identical conduct. Otherwise it makes you look hypocritical. Or worse, just dense. Second, regarding WP:3RR and your one-sided edit-warring claims, see WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others". You failed to follow that policy. I brought this to the talk page, not you. You were too busy edit-warring, then deflecting by finger-pointing. Finally, as regards your quote of 3RR: you're not an administrator - so the same rules apply to you that apply to the rest of us.

Now let's address the image. For the 3rd time now you've claimed I vertically squeezed the photo. Not once have you addressed my response that: the photo was the exact same size as every other photo in the article. Or my follow up: "So if that "distorts" it, then you must be saying that all the other photos are "distorted" as well." Not responding to either and simply parroting the same complaint over and over again instead, is also a sign of denseness. As regards Hitch's age at the time of the studio photo, he looks to be in his 40s in my view, which if you read the article, would place the photo in the section 1940s films. Whereas even the article notes, and you yourself concede, that the following decade were his peak years, which that studio still then pre-dates. But I'll go at it another way: do you know anything about photography? If so, can you honestly tell me the studio still is a superior image compared to the Mitchell pic? Hardly. I could discuss the quality of the photography with you, but I'm sure even you must concede, all things being equal, which is a better shot. But you also never addressed my core question: how do we even know the studio still is in the public domain, since it is neither dated nor sourced? I'm still waiting for you or someone else to address this fundamental question. Finally, you did successfully make one point: Louis B. Mayer was clearly not a legendary director. But obviously he was a legendary producer. Congrats on your one successful attempt at hair-splitting. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:A95E:C639:58B5:6D6B (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, where do I start? Where's the date on the Mitchell photo? Hitchcock is clearly past 65, my guess past 70. So that shot is not from his peak period. You distorted the studio photo when you moved it. I feel no need to discuss why other photos aren't distorted. You've been outvoted by three other editors as to the issue of putting the Mitchell photo in the infobox, so that issue is done. No one has backed your position. And the first thing you said above is a strawman argument at best. I wrote You did the same edit four times in the space of 24 hours and four minutes - which is entirely true. And you come back with I can't count? When I clearly said "edit", not "revert"? You were clearly edit warring. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I know where you can start: buy a mirror. You never denied you edit-warred - because you can't. You can only deflect. A rather desperate strategy actually. Accept personal responsibility for your own actions and don't worry so much about others. Your oft-repeated "distorted photo" nonsense is now so clearly, transparently ridiculous that even you can't defend it. So since you "feel no need to discuss" it, I "feel no need" to waste anymore time even dignifying it. Nor has anything been "voted" or "outvoted", because there has been no "vote." Just reverts without discussion on the talk page in violation of WP policy. Perhaps a formal RfC on the legality of the studio photo would give us an actual and definitive vote. Also perhaps a speedy on the photo, since it's provenance is in question, would also get some answers. At least we'd have an actual vote by people who don't have some ownership stake in the outcome - instead of by editors who seem to think they WP:OWN this article. If that consensus says it's status in the public domain can be assured, then fine. But the question is a reasonable one, deserving of a reasoned and reasonable response. I also don't know the date of the Mitchell photo or Hitch's age in it; but yes he looks older, which frankly, is the point. He looks how most people would immediately recognize him. He looks like Hitchcock the legendary director and film icon. I also know it's apparently a widely circulated & critically accepted photo so it must have some quality for all these various websites to use it. I also know that I asked you to compare the two images and challenged you to say which was the better photographic image. Your silent, no response, was telling. By comparison, how widely circulated is the poorer quality studio still? Mostly just on WP mirror sites. Deservedly so. It's a poor, generic washed out photo. It could have been taken at the DMV. But the bottomline is: here's something else that I do know with absolute certainty about the Mitchell photo, that you don't know with the same level of certainty about the studio still: I know it's completely & totally legal to use on Wikipedia. The End. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:112E:B710:7104:11C4 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm under no obligation to spend time answering all or any of your questions. You were outvoted by the fact three editors reverted you. No one has supported your position. You can call that The End if you want. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As I'm under no obligation to waste more time with you, since you're incapable of intelligent dialogue or coherent responses and are ignorant of WP policy - which you routinely either violate or misinterpret. So we're done. I will no longer feed the troll. 2602:304:5EA1:5289:5D6D:6CEE:FC28:69D3 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Director photo in Template:Alfred Hitchcock‎

There is a discussion on removing the little picture from the Hitchcock template seen on the bottom of every Hitchcock film article. You can comment at Template talk:Alfred Hitchcock#Removal of photograph - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

British-American

it's totally absurd to call Hitchcock simply "British", given he made his home in Hollywood for most of his life, where he died, his major movies are distinctly American, and Hollywood was integral to his life. his American citizenship is simply an additional factor. given that Hollywood is such a prominent part of American culture, and Hitchcock became a major force within that culture, it is just silly to deny him of his Americanism -- where most of his major movies take place. trying to use some rule to explain away why he is denied being called British-American is the height of irrelevant pedantry.

actually, to appease the pedants, and yet provide the common-sense education that Wiki should be about, the first line should read something like: "..was an English-born film director and producer who made many major Hollywood films." that is, if people here are truly interested in actually informing people rather than holding on to their unbendable (but often unhelpful) rules. the introductory paragraph should be, in fact, about giving the reader as much basic info as possible within a few sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.171.79 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

i would have changed this again myself, but unfortunately i am having log in problems. should definitely be "British-American". that is, for people who exercise common sense.

_____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.171.79 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, He's British with American citizenship. See Nicole Kidman] and the way they handled it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.94 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain someone's nationality is the citizenships they hold. It's a nuetral position and will stop a nationalist pissing war between Brits and Americans. How another page does it is irrelevant. I'll bow to a consensus here, not there.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

He was a British citizen when he became notable and was a US citizen for only the final third of his career; it seems best to emphasize that he was English. Perhaps edit the lede to read, "...Hitchcock moved to Hollywood in 1939, and became a US citizen in 1955." Ewulp (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Considered 'British-born American film director and producer'...? M Stone (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That could be misinterpreted to mean he moved to the U.S. as a child. The opening could simply read English film director and producer. Either way Hitchcock moved to Hollywood in 1939 and became a U.S. citizen in 1955 should stay in the lead as it seems like the best compromise and most accurate to me. The fact he became a U.S. citizen should not be only mentioned many scroll-downs into the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Anglo-American" is the way to go! He was not a British director; he was an English director AND an American director.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman was a U.S. citizen at birth. She doesn't reside in the U.S., and never turned her back on OZ. Hitch didn't make another movie in Britain for 30 years (Dial M for Murder was shot in Burbank).Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The opening paragraph explains his nationalities clearly and concisely. "Anglo-American" could be misleading as it has several definitions, for example "of or belonging to the British American colonies" or "An American of English or other white European origin, esp. in contrast to American Indians or (later) Hispanic Americans." (both OED) Hitchcock became notable as an English director in England (1921–39). Subsequently he was an English director active in the US (1939–55) and after 1955 was an English-born American director. The first three sentences already provide this information; why add ambiguity? Ewulp (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing too. English is best!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Refusal of a CBE

Is it worth mentioning that he turned down a CBE honour (assuming the A J Hitchcock on this government document is the same person) before later being knighted?--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 18:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Alfred Hitchcock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/05/hitchcock.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2007/2/2007_2_28.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040919085013/http://yorty.sonoma.edu:80/filmfrog/archive/hitchmap.html to http://yorty.sonoma.edu/filmfrog/archive/hitchmap.html

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hitchcock's age when he was married in 1926

Can anyone tell me how old was Hitchcock when he was married in 1926? --Brandon107 talk 23:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If he was born in August 1899 and married in December 1926, then... (suspenseful pause) The News Hound 20:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

His general impact as director

This is a good article, I dare not touch it. My knowledge of Hitchcock is limited. However I remember a TV-documentary which delt with Gone with the Wind, Rebecca and David O. Selznick, Selznick Productions and Hitchcock. And I learned that atleast in Hollywood and before Hitchcock's arrival there, a director was next to nothing, while the producers could be famous. In "Gone with the Wind" Selznick changed director several times (if my memory of this documentary isn't wrong, but I don't think sthat is the case). But when Hitchcock arrived in Hollywood, he (or his impact with films like "Rebecca") changed the order between producer and director. And ever since the early 1940's the directors of films have become the celebrities (together with the actors of cource) , while producers are seldomly famous anylonger, like Selznick and some other producers were. So also in that sence, has Hitchcock's legacy changed featured films ever since. I think this ought to be mentioned for instance in the "Selznick Contract" chapter, although I don't think the contract itself had much to do with the new status of film directors compared to producers. (What the documentary was called or who made it, can't I possibly say.) Boeing720 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The Paradine Case's critics

His last film under his contract with Selznick was The Paradine Case (1947), a courtroom drama which critics thought lost momentum because it apparently ran too long and exhausted its resource of ideas.

Which critics specifically? NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Television, radio, books

Not mentioned in the section "Television, radio, books", is the fact that Hitchcock published a book of solve-them-yourself mysteries in 1963. Here's the link:

https://lccn.loc.gov/63007818

I think this information should be added to the section. Do all concur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilapino (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Request to review/discuss the Infobox photo choice

On the one hand, we have this image of Hitchcock, which was specifically donated to this project by the photographer, Jack Mitchell, a few years before his death, in 2013.

As background, for decades Mitchell was recognized as, quite probably, the preeminent celebrity photographer of his time; who captured thousands of extraordinary and often iconic images of hundreds of luminaries in the fields of theatre, film, literature, music and dance. Upon his death, the New York Times called him: "An expert in lighting, he worked mostly, though not entirely, in black and white, and he was known — by his subjects, by the magazine and newspaper editors he worked for, and by critics — as someone who could make a photograph reveal character." It also included this passage:

“I have known or know or have met most of the people herein pictured and am constantly startled how much of the ‘soul’ of each one has been captured in these photographs, and by this I mean how much each of the images is precisely the individual I know,” the playwright Edward Albee wrote in a foreword to Mr. Mitchell’s 1998 book, “Icons & Idols.” “How can Jack Mitchell see with my eye, how can he let me see, touch, even smell my experiences? Well, simply enough, he is an amazing artist.”

He shot the last photos of John Lennon and Yoko Ono which appeared on the cover of People Magazine a month before Lennon's murder; and his unreleased photos of Whitney Houston, taken while she was still in high school, received significant coverage upon Houston's death. This is the short version of his bio, but you get the idea.

On the other hand, we have this image of Hitchcock, which is, by its own information, an early studio still, by an unknown photographer, taken decades before the Mitchell photo.

Despite all that, some may still believe the studio still is better than the Mitchell photo for the Infobox. I disagree. Here's why:

Even Hitchcock himself sat for Mitchell's camera more than once. So he must have appreciated Mitchell's photos of him. But some folks want to bury the Mitchell photo at the bottom of this very long article, and leave the studio still in the Infobox. But we generally only rely on those old studio stills because no better or more recent image is available. That's obviously not the case here.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I'm proud to be the editor who contacted the photographer, on behalf of Wikipedia, and solicited his release of some of his images for our use. Initially, he was very skeptical - for reasons we've seen here. He was afraid people would not appreciate the sacrifice of personal profit he'd make by releasing his valuable copyright of these images, so they could be used on this project. But I successfully argued that most editors would recognize the value of his contributions and use his work appropriately. Finally, instead of the one or two images I was hoping for, he generously gave use eight! This project is extremely fortunate to have these incredible images by this legendary photographer. It honestly took months of correspondence, before he finally agreed. I'm not looking for credit. I just want folks to understand how we got them and hope we use them wisely and make the effort worth it.

No question both photos should be in the article. But which should be in the Infobox? I believe the Mitchell photo is superior and iconic and a better portrait of Hitchcock, the man himself. The fact is, it was in the Infobox for years - from April 2011 until someone changed it with no explanation, no consensus, or even a comment in the edit log, six months later. The 1955 studio still seems better suited to the section about Hitchcock's films in the 1950s. Not to the man himself. The studio still related to Hitchcock's work. Mitchell's photo related to the man himself. This article is about the man - not just his work. But since these two photos have actually never been discussed, I would appreciate that discussion now. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, and the generosity of the photographer in providing these eight excellent photographs to Wikipedia. I note that six Wikipedia biographies (e.g., Leontyne Price, Truman Capote, Leonard Bernstein) use the Jack Mitchell portraits in infoboxes, where they serve splendidly. I think the Hitchcock portrait is less suitable for a lead image, being a shadowed psychological study that is rather obscure as documentation of the man's public visage. The photo at the head of a biographical article should satisfy a reader's curiosity about the person's appearance and reassure the reader that they have landed on the right article; it should present an image that will be familiar to the greatest number of people.

I am puzzled by your emphasis, here and in edit summaries, on the need to replace a photograph made in the 1950s with a more recent one. It is customary for the lead image in a Wikipedia biography to represent the subject in the prime of life, or at the height of their popularity or political power or creativity or notability of whatever sort. This can be confirmed by looking at a few dozen randomly chosen notable people of the last century. I checked Herbert Hoover, Harold Lloyd, Katherine Hepburn, Igor Stravinsky, Pablo Picasso, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lewis, Bette Davis, Orson Welles, and several other articles, all of which use photographs from early in the subject's heyday, even though if you scroll down you see that later photographs and old-age photographs are available. I think this is an example of the wisdom of the crowd guiding editorial consensus toward the most recognizable images. In the case of Golda Meir or Colonel Sanders, this means favoring photographs from their later years (Sanders only became notable after age 60; we wouldn't recognize him in a photo from his 20s). The 1950s studio portrait of Alfred Hitchcock seems to have been preferred for a period of several years; the Mitchell photo was in the infobox for six months in 2011 before being reverted, and for one day in 2016 before being reverted. Ewulp (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate you taking the time to compose a thoughtful response. I am also gratified that you appreciate Mitchell's contributions to this project. But at that point, our views diverge significantly regarding these two photos and their utility here. In fact, your suggestion that the Mitchell photo is less suited for the lead, because of your view that it is "a shadowed psychological study that is rather obscure as documentation of the man's public visage" was already refuted by the NYT article, which specifically noted that Mitchell was "An expert in lighting, he worked mostly, though not entirely, in black and white, and he was known — by his subjects, by the magazine and newspaper editors he worked for, and by critics — as someone who could make a photograph reveal character." Seems to me that is exactly what you want in a lead photo - a portrait that is, quintessentially, its subject. And as to your suggestion that the Mitchell photo is "obscure" - that presumption is easily disproved by a simple Google search. I would also take issue with the notion that the studio photo "present[s] an image that will be familiar to the greatest number of people,," because it suggests that anyone seeing the Mitchell photo wouldn't instantly recognize that it is of Hitchcock. Very unlikely. But if you really wanted images that are most illustrative, then likely either this, this or even this would be the way to go. But unfortunately, we don't have them. Maybe we should get them.

Which leads to your comment about the use of studio stills. While we may use these ancient stills to illustrate a time frame where subjects are at the height of their powers; that is not the primary reason we use them. We use them because the copyright has expired and/or we can. Or we can claim fair use. Period. Most of them are washed out or overexposed images - like the Hitchcock still - but they're available with little fuss or worry. So we use them. But to say we actually prefer them over superior images, is wholly inaccurate.

It's also rather curious to claim that, because the Mitchell photo was removed by a single editor, who, as I noted: did so with no discussion, no consensus, or even mentioning it in the edit log; that somehow, post-facto, that constituted a consensus? That defies logic. What's more likely, is that no one cared enough to revert it. Or visited the article enough to even notice. Because again, there was zero mention in the edit summary. Just as, obviously, no one cared for over half a year, when I originally replaced the studio still with Mitchell's photo. Dozens, if not hundreds or editors saw it during that period - no doubt many saw it several times - and no apparently thought it was inefficient, ineffective, too obscure or too shadowed a psychological study, to serve as the lead photo.

But anyway, I suspect we'll just agree to disagree, and that's fine. I could RfC the question to get more input, but I think the easiest compromise is to just leave the studio still intact. However, I will move the Mitchell photo up from the tail end of the article, where it currently languishes. I believe that's a fair resolution which should keep everyone happy. X4n6 (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred Hitchcock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514093259/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/directors-directors.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/directors-directors.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock and the Academy Award for Best Director

I find it extremely odd that Alfred Hitchcock, considered one of the greatest directors of all time (and this is reflected in the lead of the article as well, it is not simply a case of me having a point of view, has never won an Academy Award for Best Director. MovieMaker called him the "best", as did Daily Telegraph, as well as a host of other publications. Obviously, this is not objective, and quite a subjective topic, but that is as close to "unanimously best director" as you can get. Certainly best "British" director.

Given this, I find it surprising that Hitchcock has never won an Academy Award for Best Director (although he has been nominated five times). Should there be a secondary section, or at least explaining paragraph in the article, explaining why this is? I'm sure there are others reading this, besides myself, who are wondering why the article talks him up so much, only to reveal that he never gained the most coveted prize in all of film and for all directors. I think, similarly, if there were a universally-agreed-upon terrible director who had won an AABD, then there should be some explanation as to why that had occurred. I see this as a reverse case.

Obviously, there are plenty of great directors who never won an Academy Award (Stanley Kubrick comes to mind), but I don't think any of them have been called "the greatest" as consistently as Hitchcock. If I'm not mistaken, he has the most nominations without a win as well.

At the very least, I think this should be reflected in the lead somehow. It's a bit odd that the article just glides over this glaring topic. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Nationality (redux)

@RichardHarris22 @RichardHarris22: Alfred and Alma Hitchcock were naturalized U.S. citizens. This cannot NOT be included in lede, text, and in categories; to do so is nonsensical. The following threads from prior conversations, which you told me to check out, support inclusion in lede ([1], [2], [3]) with an apparent consensus as "English-born American director". To quote from one, "Obviously, you simply include him in both categories. He was both an English director and an American director."

I am not going to edit war or violate 3RR but this must be addressed. It is a basic fact and cannot be ignored. Quis separabit? 13:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a distinction between nationality and citizenship. Many people have multiple citizenships, Bobby Fischer for example, American and Icelandic, but he became widely known as an American, as Hitchcock did an Englishman which he also identified as being (as did P.G. Wodehouse). Prior to his knighthood the world's best known film critic Roger Ebert complained why Hitchcock hadn't yet been knighted like other British directors, and after being knighted his long time agent referred to him as Sir Alfred. Having become globally famous as an English director, and referred to himself as English, If someone tells me they are [insert any nationality here] who am I to tell them they are not? He's an English director who held multiple citizenships; like Fischer in his case; Wodehouse in his. DavidTimlin (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Final Cut

I think there should be included the video game inspired by Hitckcock called Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Final Cut, maybe in the books, radio section Johnnyboytoy (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)