Hitchcock's Films Revisited

Rating:
Summary: Well worth a second glance
Review: Good news first. This book is very good on the films of Hitchcock's Great Decade (1954-1965, from Rear Window through Marnie). There are extensive analyses of all Hitchcock's greatest American films, and there's also a lot of interesting feminist stuff on works like Spellbound and, especially, Notorious and the American (1956) version of The Man Who Knew Too Much. A lot of this was in the original edition, and I'm not sure that the revisit has been greatly to the book's benefit, though Wood deserves credit for leaving the original as it stood and contenting himself with comment rather than alteration. It's frustrating, for example, that Wood admits the inadequacy of the original version as regards Hitchcock's career in Britain but, rather than repairing this omission, devotes considerable space to a strident and largely fatuous attack on David Lynch in general and Blue Velvet in particular (a film which, in some ways, curiously resembles Wood's beloved and to my mind vastly overrated Vertigo, though Blue Velvet, like DePalma's Obsession, is both gentler and more sympathetic). Wood also has the invidious habit of praising Hitchcock's films by denigrating the work of others - most notably (and idiotically, through a disgracefully shallow and superficial interpretation) Kubrick's Paths of Glory. On the whole, though, especially in the sections on such still-underrated works as Marnie and Rope (and perhaps even Psycho, whose reputation still seems more largely owing to sensationalism than to appreciation of its considerable sensitivity), and for as long as the author can stay down off his Marxist-Freudian hobbyhorses, this is an extremely valuable book.

Rating:
Summary: Long winded trype!
Review: I couldnt even get past the first chapter of this god-awful book. Full of homo-this and homo-that it just became a total and utter bore to read in 10 minutes. No talk of craft or anything constructive - beware!

Rating:
Summary: Predigested Platitudes
Review: Occasional insights obscured by thickets of doctrinaire Freudianism. Let the reader beware!

Rating:
Summary: Not bad
Review: Robin Wood writes an excellent exposition on several of Hitchcock's later films in this book. I have to say though that I liked The Art of Alfred Hitchcock by Donald Spoto better, because it covers a wider range of Hitchock's films beginning in the 30's, whereas in this book Robin Wood discusses in depth only from late fifties or so onward. He had a very nice write-up on "Marnie", which I greatly appreciated. Much of the book discussed the homosexual angles of "Rope" and "Strangers on a Train", and I personally thought Mr Wood went a bit overboard there, since I don't see either of those films as very homosexual - particularly "Strangers". That aside, I would still recommend this book for anyone who is wanting to read lots of books on Hitchcock. But if you want one book that covers everything at least a bit, get Donald Spoto's book.

Rating:
Summary: The occasional page is more or less sensible
Review: The first thing to get past is Wood's prose style - it's grammatical and clear, yet it leaves one with the impression that the Wood wrote the book in one long sulk (lasting from 1965 to 1988). The second thing is all that Freudian rubbish. (Not that Freudian rubbish is the only kind of rubbish present - merely the most obtrusive and irritating.) The section in which he outlines Freud's views, using success terms like "Freud discovered that" and "Freud realises that", is just embarrassing, as is the use to which he puts it (the broken leg in "Rear Window" signifies castration, and so does the missing finger in "The 39 Steps", and this doesn't even begin to convey the sheer battiness of what he has to say about these films). And while Wood seems to be of the opinion that Hitchcock's films can all but cure leprosy, he rarely has a kind word to say about anyone else's. He's particularly hard, in a blunt and imperceptive way, on Clouzot's "Les Diabolique" and Donen's "Charade", films which have committed the crime of being similar to Hitchcock's, and just as good. Wood doesn't have a critical viewpoint; he has a religion.

But there's a difference between Wood's book and, say, Donald Spoto's "The Art of Alfred Hitchcock". The two are equally preposterous (sometimes inadvertently entertaining), but Spoto is shallow, has no ideas to speak of, and spends his time disguising the fact; Wood actually has ideas, lots of them, TRIES to argue for them - and by sheer chance, some of his ideas are good. He has intelligent things to say about "Lifeboat", for instance. A pity his account of that film lasts just two pages, while the utter guff he writes about "Strangers on a Train" occupies at least fourteen.

THE book to get about Hitchcock remains the extended Hitchcock/Truffaut interview, which is a delight to read, and far more illuminating.

Rating:
Summary: Robin Wood is the Preeminent Authority on Hitchcock
Review: The methods of the great pioneers have often puzzled conventional minds. I am not a great pioneer. I am puzzled. And what the heck does conventional mean?

Robin Wood is without question the greatest authority on the cinematic works of Sir Alfred Hitchcock. Years ago after seeing many films as I was growing up I decided to do some reading on the role of the Director. By pure chance I picked up and purchased Robin Wood's original edition of this book. Obviously it was at that time, myself still being in school very challenging reading for me. However, I was able to recognize brilliance over hypocrisy. Robin Wood has ever since remained the preeminent authority on Hitchcock's films. He has honestly admitted that his perspectives on some of his analysis have changed. This is not an outright statement that has had a change of heart or acquired a new taste in the aesthetics of Hitchcock's films. On the contrary, through ongoing analysis he has come even closer to the secret of Hitchcock's mastery of his art. An artist creates a work. A great portion of that work is constructed with conscious deliberate thought, some is intuitive and a small portion may be subconscious. Robin Wood, I believe has showed a continuum in his analysis of Hitchcock's work. Wood continues to explore the avenues of the intuitive and subconscious nature of Alfred Hitchcock, which manifests itself in his films. To this end I believe Wood has devoted a good portion of his life.

Rating:
Summary: Robin Wood is the Preeminent Authority on Hitchcock
Review: The methods of the great pioneers have often puzzled conventional minds. I am not a great pioneer. I am puzzled. And what the heck does conventional mean? Robin Wood is without question the greatest authority on the cinematic works of Sir Alfred Hitchcock. Years ago after seeing many films as I was growing up I decided to do some reading on the role of the Director. By pure chance I picked up and purchased Robin Wood's original edition of this book. Obviously it was at that time, myself still being in school very challenging reading for me. However, I was able to recognize brilliance over hypocrisy. Robin Wood has ever since remained the preeminent authority on Hitchcock's films. He has honestly admitted that his perspectives on some of his analysis have changed. This is not an outright statement that has had a change of heart or acquired a new taste in the aesthetics of Hitchcock's films. On the contrary, through ongoing analysis he has come even closer to the secret of Hitchcock's mastery of his art. An artist creates a work. A great portion of that work is constructed with conscious deliberate thought, some is intuitive and a small portion may be subconscious. Robin Wood, I believe has showed a continuum in his analysis of Hitchcock's work. Wood continues to explore the avenues of the intuitive and subconscious nature of Alfred Hitchcock, which manifests itself in his films. To this end I believe Wood has devoted a good portion of his life.

Rating:
Summary: Occasionally insightful and obscure at the same time
Review: Wood's seminal book was first published in 1966 and he has revised it since then on a number of occasions. This latest revision allows Wood to revisit his past and comment on both his acute observations on Hitchcock's films and comment some of the sillier concepts that dotted the original book as well. It's appropriate that Wood cites Freud as often as he does; Hitchcock was fascinated with psychoanalysis and it figures significantly in a number of films in one form or another. On the other hand, Wood also revisits many of the same films in the newer material and while the observations are always interesting, they are, at best just as overblown as some of his original inflated claims for Hitchcock as well.

Hitchcock's Films still stands as an essential read for Hitchcock fans and film students but much of what Wood has to say should be taken with a grain of salt. Wood frequently becomes so anayltical that he loses touch with the power and joy in Hitchcock's craft. Hitchcock's films are as much about his technique as they are about the themes that fascinated him. Hitchcock's Films isn't a bad book; it's a book that needs to be read by someone who has already developed enough critical skills to recognize when the author's arguements have become as full of hot air as a balloon.

Like all the hyperbole written about an important artistic figure, Wood's book has a number of noteable insights but, again, he reads more into the material than is there sometimes. I much prefer Patrick McGilligan's fine biography of Hitchcock. McGilligan manages to mix his observations with comments from people who actually were involved in the making of the films. We get insight from the artist's that collaborated with Hitchcock vs. second hand observations from someone sitting in a darkened cinema.