Anybody who’s ever watched an Alfred Hitchcock movie—seen Tippi Hedren clawed to items by dozens of gulls and ravens or Janet Leigh repeatedly stabbed within the bathe—must surprise concerning the director’s angle towards ladies. When it got here to his main actresses, he was identified to have walked a line between stringent and outright sadistic. And but the actual nature of Hitchcock’s collaborations with these ladies continues to function fodder for examine and debate, even if the small print of those relationships are roughly undisputed: With Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelly, Eva Marie Saint, Kim Novak, and Leigh, the director would veer between the courtly and the coarse, at one second inviting them to dine together with his spouse at his home in Bel Air, the following peppering them with filthy jokes in his trailer. And a minimum of one allegation signifies that his conduct could have moved from the volatility lengthy related to Hollywood administrators into one thing we in the present day would name abuse. In a 2016 memoir, Hedren says that Hitchcock sexually assaulted her twice, whereas engaged on The Birds and Marnie, and that she skilled retaliation from him on set after she rebuffed him.
Hitchcock’s dynamics with ladies have been amply examined within the a number of biographies of the person. The director blended paternalism and cruelty as he tried to form the looks and efficiency of his lead actresses, and subjected their characters to various however all the time intense levels of psychosexual torment. Throughout filming of The 39 Steps, for instance, he shackled his two leads, Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll, collectively in handcuffs and refused to launch them between takes when Carroll wanted to make use of the toilet. Earlier than taking pictures Vertigo, he invited Novak over for dinner, the place he proceeded to humiliate her by holding forth on positive artwork and wine, realizing full properly that she is likely to be uncomfortable given her working-class background. These had been strategies for getting what he wished to see on the display, with seemingly little regard for the way they’d have an effect on the actresses.
Laurence Leamer’s Hitchcock’s Blondes arrives then to handle a query that is still unanswered—why did Hitchcock insist on torturing his lead ladies?—whereas additionally inviting the reader to see his movies by the lens of those relationships.
Leamer’s new guide follows on the heels of the creator’s enormously profitable, and satisfying, Capote’s Girls, which traces Truman Capote’s complicated and infrequently merciless relationships with a sequence of high-society ladies, whom Capote referred to as his “swans.” In a way, Leamer, a journalist who has written convincingly on such diverse topics as Johnny Carson and the rise of the underground press within the Sixties, appears an ideal match for this subject. Regardless of a title which will come off as objectifying, Leamer’s guide is in some ways empathic and considerate, and he appears prepared to coach a beneficiant eye on these actresses, to extract them from Hitchcock’s shadow with out shoving the director below the wheels of his personal limousine. The Hitchcock depicted in these pages is lonely and distant, but additionally controlling and infrequently vicious, without delay terrified of and fixated upon intercourse, a loyal caregiver to his spouse throughout her later years and, as Leamer shouldn’t be the primary to invest, probably undiagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. The intention right here shouldn’t be a lot to redraw our understanding of Hitchcock as it’s to shift the emphasis altogether: to supply a brand new image, or somewhat a sequence of images, of the actresses whose lives and careers are too typically seen in relation to the director’s.
The issue is, Leamer doesn’t fairly convey sufficient to the desk. He doesn’t have a lot in the best way of latest info, and nonetheless nobly he strives to foreground the ladies in Hitchcock’s orbit, the guide involves life solely when the director emerges from the wings to reclaim the stage. Leamer’s consideration to the small print of the actresses’ erotic lives may give off a whiff of misogyny. In between, the reader is handled to a reliable however not wildly enlightening historical past of how Hitchcock shifted his focus from one main actress to a different, from Bergman (who in Leamer’s telling units the template for future leads together with her mix of coolness and open sexuality) to Kelly (with whom the director rebounded after Bergman decamped to Italy to work with Roberto Rossellini) to Novak (who escaped from her sad contractual association at Columbia Footage to provide her sensible, career-defining efficiency in Vertigo) and so forth. This method begins out solidly sufficient, however as Leamer follows every determine by the contours of her upbringing, early profession, work with Hitchcock (dutifully recapping the plot of every movie alongside the best way), and subsequent occasions, earlier than returning to the director’s subsequent movie and subsequent star, one’s consideration begins to flag.
An issue that initially appears merely structural grows worse because the guide proceeds with out providing any deeper perception into the inventive struggles of the actresses in query, whose work deserves extra profound consideration, or into Hitchcock and his movies, which Leamer examines capably however with out a lot penetration or fireplace. Maybe if the director himself had been higher illuminated by these capsule biographies, or by evaluation of his movies, the guide would possibly acquire in momentum, however he seems right here in his acquainted austere and emotionally impenetrable guise. Nonetheless, there are moments all through the place Leamer’s writing spreads towards epiphany—the picture of Eva Marie Saint, who starred in North by Northwest, alone in her Wilshire Boulevard residence with solely the sound of the gardeners working outdoors for firm evokes a world of loneliness, the silence that’s left when fame fades away.
Catch a Thief (1955) (SSPL / Getty).
In one other scene, Leamer writes poignantly of Hitchcock, lifted out of his late-in-life, alcohol-filled isolation and reunited together with his main actors, as he receives a Life Achievement Award from the American Movie Institute in 1979. Of the considerably rote, ghostwritten speech Hitchcock gave upon accepting the award, Leamer writes, “The fault didn’t lie within the author, however within the director himself. His artwork was typically sensible and all the time restricted. He not often reached out to tragedy or profound love, to passionate, singular feelings. He touched that neither in his artwork nor in his private life, and he was not going to show his emotions on this public area.” An identical fault is likely to be situated in Leamer’s guide, which, missing important depth or an impassioned, motivating argument, arrives, as a substitute, at a considerably bland center floor.
After all, Hitchcock’s work could also be “restricted,” a minimum of in its emotional expressiveness, however it is usually, at its greatest, inexhaustible, as wealthy in its spectrum of interpretation because the writings of Henry James. After the French actress Brigitte Auber rejected Hitchcock when he pressured a kiss on her, just a few years after she’d appeared in 1955’s To Catch a Thief, she remarked, “It’s troublesome when somebody is so ugly, like him. That turned-out decrease lip. When somebody is ugly, it isn’t their fault. The poor cabbage had an exquisite soul, I do know.” I wish to think about that great not in a charitable sense (it’s troublesome to think about Hitchcock as an exemplary soul) however within the ambiguous one during which James himself continuously deployed the time period to imply, additionally, its reverse. That very doubleness is the factor, in any case, that offers Hitchcock’s greatest work its cost, that offers Vertigo the wallop of tragedy whereas flooding it, too, with probably the most scrumptious present of irony. It isn’t that his individuals aren’t simply criminals or voyeurs or monsters however somewhat that they’re fully in order that makes them so pitiable. For Hitchcock to really feel himself, the unattractive youngster of emotionally withholding mother and father, to be a monster, and for him to attempt for a measure of revenge towards the form of beautiful beauties who may need spurned him in actual life is one factor. However his means to show, say, James Stewart, the all-American star of It’s a Great Life and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, into the emotionally disfigured Quasimodo of Vertigo and the Ahab-like obsessive of Rear Window—to take this monstrousness and invite the viewers to establish with it—is partially what provides his movies their psychological depth.
One needs Hitchcock’s Blondes had a hint extra venom in it, or a few of the arch wit with which the director approached his personal topics. Because it stands, Leamer’s makes an attempt to color the actresses in Hitchcock’s movies in all their complexity (Kelly’s exuberant sensuality, Novak’s class insecurities, what he phrases Hedren’s “narcissism”) have the alternative impact, flattening the ladies out till each appears weirdly diminished. Although Hitchcock’s Blondes is an interesting-enough information to accompany his movies, I nonetheless can’t assist however suppose the time studying it is likely to be higher spent rewatching Psycho or Strangers on a Prepare. Hitchcock’s relationship with the actresses in his movies may need been difficult, however the characters they performed by no means fell into simple classes: For each hapless and depressing determine like Barbara Bel Geddes’s Midge in Vertigo there’s a assured, succesful one like Teresa Wright’s Charlie Newton in Shadow of a Doubt. It’s this very richness that helps render Hitchcock’s physique of labor unfathomable, and certainly inexhaustible.
If you purchase a guide utilizing a hyperlink on this web page, we obtain a fee. Thanks for supporting The Atlantic.
