Talk:Themes and plot devices in Hitchcock films

Creating this article by removing sections of the article Alfred Hitchcock

The main Hitchcock article was too long, at 92 megabytes, and was slow to load. Therefore to create this article seemed like a logical way to split it up. Invertzoo (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I also copied the following discussion from the main article talk page because it is relevant here. Invertzoo (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

........................................................

Motifs: original research

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)

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)

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)

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) say with even more materials?

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)

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)

I see from the table of contents of Walker's book "[1]" 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)

......................................................................

Why isn't the theme of homoeroticism ever mentioned? Hitchcock's films are full of homoeroticism. The article mentions sexuality only briefly to investigate why a train goes into a tunnel after Cary Grant climbs into bed with Eva Marie Saint. That's not good enough. Hitchcock was a student to Oscar Wilde material. Characters' sexuality is a lot more overt than people initially read in Hitchcock films. You talked about voyeurism, but that's only a start. Take "Rope," for instance, influenced by a real, famous murder incident, two friends plot a murder together and carry it out. Don't tell me they just like to drink together when they're plotting murders for their own personal enjoyment--and for nothing more. The bad guy is usually so likeable because he's usually a little bit gay. The joke is the innocent man getting presumed guilty of a crime he didn't commit, because this alone is humorously attractive to the homoerotic perspective. Take "North By Northwest," where James Mason and Martin Landau get into a fight, and the enjoyment they get in planning to throw Eva Marie Saint from an airplane to a watery death when they find out she's a secret agent, a scuffle they hide from her when she comes in asking about all the noise. Or, "Dial M for Murder," because Ray Milland is getting another guy, guilty of another crime, to murder his wife with her stocking, a sexual item. There's a distinction between the innocent and the guilty in their erotic pleasures. Something should be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurblenheim (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You’re right! This article would benefit from considerable expansion as well as rigid referencing. A probable starting point, as suggested twice above, is Michael Walker’s excellent and authoritative book. By the way, Hitchcock does not just give us a recurring gay element in his films but also bits of lesbianism (eg “Rebecca”) and transvestism (eg “Murder”). --Hors-la-loi (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree, though my word search of "homoerotic" through the article still does not catch anything after several months. I've done minor edits to articles mainly for grammar and punctuation and made some arguments, many of which go ignored, and have no experience authoring sections. But, I know homoeroticism is an important theme in film theory with Hitchcock. I actually studied homoeroticism in Hitchcock films as part of a first-year post-secondary introductory course, which shows--to me at least--how blatant this subject is to Hitchcock films. This is an essential theory of film history that is best studied under Hitchcock. --Arthur Blenheim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurblenheim (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Coming across this page again, I would suggest hat it still needs some work. A couple of thoughts: (i) shouldn’t examples under each heading be in date order? (ii) if a character in a film had a name, why is the name of the actor given instead? --Hors-la-loi (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Left-handed blondes

Wywtk added mentions of the left-handedness of the characters played by Eva Marie Saint, Kim Novak, and Tippi Hedren to their articles. I've deleted them. However, I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning here.

Hitchcock's most famous blonde characters, played by Eva Marie Saint in North by Northwest, Kim Novak in Vertigo and Tippi Hedren in The Birds and Marnie, are all left-handed.

Clarityfiend (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

At best, it should be "some of Hitchcock's..." as arguably Grace Kelly remains Hitchcock's most famous blonde? Davepattern (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Number 13

I've removed the following: "For example, in Psycho, Norman Bates reaches first for room key number 3, then number 1. Also, the license plate on the car Marion is driving adds up to 13." It not only consists entirely of original research, the claims of Hitchcock's intention are likely speculative. The entire "Number 13" section, like the rest of the page, needs citation. 07:28, 27 September 2008‎ Davepattern (talk | contribs)

Without specific examples from films (and none spring to mind), I'd argue that the "Number 13" section should be removed. Davepattern (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally. I think the fact that certain series of numbers in his films add up to 13 is not only OR but way too speculative. I have trimmed the section down drastically. This whole article is in sad shape because of so few citations and far too much OR. Invertzoo (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Still original research after 11 years

I found this article while searching for information about Hitchcock's bomb theory of suspense. (This was the revision at the time.) I see the discussion above of how it came to exist and I absolutely agree that it is the definition of original research. There are all of two sources cited over 28 sections. Black people appear in Hitchcock films, and this is significant according to ...? And editors are still adding new examples, such as the "Ships" section added in December. Yeah, a freaking ship appears in a film. So what?

I have considered putting the article up for deletion, or unilaterally redirecting it somewhere. But in the interests of gradual improvement, I am going to instead remove many sections from it and then see how it looks. Do not restore them without comment 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Combine with Hitchcockian topic?

There are a lot of similarities to Hitchcockian; should the pages be combined to some degree? It's been over a decade since this page was created, and it's still rife with original research. This specific page doesn't have much information not already in Hitchcock's filmmaking section. Immacritic101 (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)