This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I hate to be a spoilsport, but I don't consider this article to be very well-written at all, let alone good enough to be a "featured article". See my comments below. I made those comments several months ago, and no one has responded, nor have any of the concerns I raised really been addressed or corrected in the article. I still stand by those comments and criticisms. This article is in desperate need of overhaul. There are so many things wrong with it I feel like I don't even know where to start without practically rewriting the whole thing from scratch (keeping small portions intact, though). Since it's been several months since I made my original criticisms, and since virtually nothing has been done to address any of the criticisms, I'm tempted to do this. Revolver 19:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

UPDATE: I hate to be a spoilsport again, but despite minor and occasional improvements, I still feel the majority of my criticisms below remain unaddressed and the article is far below "featured article" quality. Really, I would give it about a C+ in freshman high school English class. I've given almost a FULL YEAR for something to be done about this, so again I'm tempted to delete and/or completely rewrite entire sections, or be glad to see someone else do this. Really, we can do a lot better. Revolver 02:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uuhh, so fix it? -- NoPetrol 21:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I normally do, but in this case, it would be a major project, and the result (beyond the intro) would look substantially different than it does now. So, I keep pecking away at articles that I can peck at. Sue me. Revolver 03:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's a concrete criticism. One of the things that I find confusing about the article is that it starts one place, wanders somewhere else, and ends up in a different world. For example, beyond the intro, we start a "biography". That's fine. But very soon we start to wander into a laundry list of all the films. This becomes more prominent, until we enter passages that are almost entirely comments about film theory or criticism. So now, the "biography", the "list of films", and the "criticism" are all mixed up into one big mess. Then there is "themes and devices", which is a bit confusing, since a significant part of the "biography" section was already themes and devices. (??) This section is a mix of more criticism, along with technical details and comments on film technology. "His character and effect on films" is more about themes, but I think we should be very careful exactly what we attribute to his "character". A lot of perceptions of him as a person have been rumours. "His style of working" repeats some ridiculous myths (he planned every single shot before filming, and he was mean to actors). Then we hear about the television series and books (which belong more in biography).

So, you can see why I think it would be a "major project" to "fix" the article. Revolver 03:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm interested to hear you say that it is a "ridiculous myth" that he planned every single shot before filming. While I I am sure that it is a bit of an exaggeration, I have heard more than one person who worked with him say roughly that to an interviewer; in particular, that the studios were often frustrated they couldn't re-cut his films, because there were essentially no "spare" scenes or even different camera angles floating around. There might be enormous numbers of takes of essentially the same shots, but that was it. Is this false? Are there known to be any films for which he shot any significant number of extra scenes, or shot the same scene in significantly different ways? I don't have any expertise here, but this is the first contrary statement on this that I've ever heard. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a myth that he planned most every shot — the myth is that he in essence "storyboarded" every scene on paper or in his mind, and knew visually in his mind how each shot would look prior to filming. Most of the "storyboards" you see were part of publicity stunts, done after the fact, rather than genuine storyboards. The famous cropduster storyboard from North by Northwest, e.g. is essentially a fake — it was drawn after shooting. He certainly planned perhaps more than anyone else. And it is true that he was relatively efficient and did plan many scenes down to every shot. But the myth is also that he held strictly to the plan he had, that he was not open to ideas and suggestions. This is not true; some of the most famous shots or scenes are partially improvised. And at times, he was even shooting with an unfinished script (North by Northwest, e.g. commenced shooting without an ending worked out). So, yes, while it is true that he had a clear idea what he wanted, and had more visual idea of shots worked out than most directors, the idea that he "had the entire film done in his head before shooting" or that he thought "shooting was a bore", etc., etc. are ridiculous. (An interesting book to see in this regard is Hitchcock at Work.) Revolver 23:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Curious if every single movie Hitchcock made needs to be linked to a review/remark. Many of his silent movies aren't listed, but so what? (Noticed this with other articles too. "Fantastic" magazine with 13 links? Nah, it's just hooked to an empty link 13 times in two articles...) Wikipedia could get bogged down in minutia if every single actor, actress, key grip and best boy needs to given a "full share."

No one is suggesting every key grip or best boy gets their own separate link. But I don't think having an article written for most (or even every) Hitchcock movie is going overboard, considering he is arguably the most prodigous and influential director in film history, and there is more written on Hitchcock than on any other director (at least 200 in print in English alone). Even many of his lesser well-known films and overlooked films are now receiving a good deal of popular and critical attention (e.g. Rich and Strange, Young and Innocent, Rope, The Trouble With Harry, Family Plot).

---

Egospark ----------

---

These bits do not deserve to be in the article:

Some see misogyny in Hitchcock's films; but if it's there, it is strongly undercut by a sense of humor, and an admiring sense of the strength and grace of women.

With 8-10 great films, and many others of enduring value, Alfred Hitchcock is one of the giants of cinema history.

First off, we can't presume Hitchcock's attitude from his films--we don't know Hitchcock and shouldn't presume to know what he thinks (it's hard enough guessing what your significant other is thinking); second, we shouldn't be defensive ("If it's there" etc.); third, misogyny and humor are not at odds with each other; and fourth, there are plenty of feminist critics who take what you, dear author, see as admiration as something closer to sexism and condescension. So: just the facts, huh. If the article needs discussion of misogyny and defenses to it, the arguments should be attributed to someone, and someone other than the person typing them.

Now: I agree that Hitchcock is one of the greatest directors who ever lived. I'll be happy to gossip & gush about him & Ingmar Bergman & Francois Truffaut & Robert Altman by email, but this kind of talk has has no place in an encyclopedia article.

In other words: be neutral. Please.

Each of his films contain a short appearance of Hitchcock himself: the director was sometimes confused in a crowd, or sitting in a public place, or crossing a road, or something similar, always little visible, or very shortly.

I've reworked the bits above because "each" is not correct: his earliest works do not have cameos, and they are not "always" little visible or very shortly: he's seen in Rear Window in an apartment across the courtyard winding a clock--visible enough--and in another film, he's boarding a bus when someone cuts in front of him. In that case he's the center of attention. In Lifeboat someone's in closeup reading a paper, and Hitch is on an ad on the outside page. Perhaps you meant that by the point Hitchcock shows up, the story has already started and people are more involved in it than in finding a director's cameo.

Koyaanis Qatsi

---

In Alfred Hitchcock's Rope we say it was "shot on a single set" but in this article we say "a film shot entirely from one place, and one point of view" and then go on to say things that imply differently. It's been a long time since I saw it, so maybe someone can clear this up. Ortolan88

PS -- Near useless information that may make it into the wikipedia someday: the part of the composer in Rear Window is played by Ross Bagdasarian, nephew of William Saroyan and better known as David Seville, creator of the Chipmunks.

---

After a brief exterior shot from the apartment, the entire rest of the film takes place within the apartment, tracking back and forth between the living room and the kitchen. It's been awhile since I saw it too. I don't see the contradiction? It must be written poorly somehow, though--would you care to clear it up? --KQ

Well, "from one place and single point of view" seems to imply no camera motion. I'll change it to say "shot on a single set", absent an actual re-viewing.

I wish I had a good source for that Bergman quote. I am almost certain it came from a review of Frenzy by John Simon in the New Leader. There was some ghastly food in Frenzy, prepared by the policeman's wife, who had taken up gourmet cooking, and that, plus the nude body in the potatoes, was probably what evoked the quote. Ortolan88

The wife in Frenzy cooked some of the least appetizing food I've ever scene; and of course the potato truck scene, with the onset of rigor mortis, was something to write home about.  ;-) But I wonder if what provoked the quote might have been the necktie business with the man saying "lovely. lovely. lovely." --KQ

---

The Truffaut book is full of inaccuracies. IIRC, one of them was that the woman in Rebecca (not Rebecca, the servant) was never seen moving, but was always suddenly there beside Rebecca. Completely ridiculous. Another of them had to do with how Hitch wanted the doorknobs high on the door to make Rebecca look small, when, if it did do that, then of course it made everyone else look small also. I can't find my notes from class, else I'd add a short bit giving the reader a caveat. Koyaanis Qatsi

---

The article says:

In To Catch a Thief, glamorous blonde Grace Kelly is a cat burglar.

I don't think this is correct. Grace Kelly plays Frances Stevens, the American heiress. She talks about committing thefts, but doesn't actualy do one, and when she's confronted with a real theft, she's horified and angry. The cat burglar is played by Brigitte Auber.

---

SOME BRUTALLY HONEST COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS:

Here are some thoughts that came to my mind reading the Hitchcock article. They may sound harsh at times, I'm just being honest. I'd like to contribute to and/or edit this article, but there were so many things I saw that I might want to change or completely overhaul, that I thought it would be best to raise things in the talk page first.

1. The article as a whole seems rather disjointed. There doesn't seem to be any real logic as to why one section follows another. All of the "period" parts could be drawn together together into a single overview of his film career. The other parts need to be reorganized by theme or motive. Instead of several short, small pieces, organize into a handful of overarching aspects (e.g. biography/history, collaborators and actors, artistic themes, criticism, and impact and influence on film).

2. A lot of the bits in this article are just anecdotes, jokes, and urban legends. These are fine, I guess, but after a while it gives the impression of a fanzine. Moreover, many of the anecdotes and jokes are KNOWN not to be true, and simply presenting them as anecdotes is the equivalent of spreading gossip in an article that is supposed to be factually accurate or faithful.

3. The article gives a lot of the standard facts but doesn't really go into much depth as to why Hitchcock is so important as a FILMmaker, i.e. there is very little mention of the enormous impact of German expressionism on his filmmaking, and how he took this style of filmmaking and developed it into a worldwide form. Nor is there any real discussion of how he continually used point-of-view shots, and esp. alternating point-of-view shots, to allow the viewer to identify with a character. There is also a TON of stuff out there on Hitchcock criticism, maybe this could form a separate article, say Hitchcock criticism.

4. Hitchcock didn't really plan every single second of every movie before shooting; although he did plan probably more than any other direction, the notion that he storyboarded every single shot before filming is a myth. (See "Hitchcock at Work") Also, despite the "cattle" line, he was well-liked personally by many actors, actresses, and others who worked with him. In fact, when Donald Spoto's "biography" of Hitch came out painting him in a bad light (forever morose, depressed, sexually deviant, miscreant), numerous actor friends came forward to express their disagreement.

5. Truffaut's interview is essential reading, but hardly the "most intriguing insight" into his work. Modern criticism and analysis has given a far richer and more probing interpretation. Truffaut's interview was important mainly for its mere existence -- just the idea that the popular films of Hitch were worth "serious scrutiny" or worthy of being judged as "art" was very revolutionary. But for serious criticism, much better is available now. ("Hitchcock at Work", "The Hitchcock Murders", "Hitchcock's Films Revisited", etc.)

6. We need some mention of ALMA!!! Revolver

In my opinion, the body of the article should not name any film that is not considered major, either for its merit or for technical innovation. Take Paradine Case for instance -- it gets listed and then we learn who it starred and that it was never well-regarded. And result is it's hard to find Notorious, one of H's best films. So why not leave Paradine for the list at bottom, then? 68.1.174.46 14:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Note to Koyaanis Qatsi (andybody else who's interested). The part of Rebecca in the film of the same name was played by ... NOBODY. She never appears in the movie AT ALL, not even in a flashback. Rebecca was the name of the previous wife of Max de Winter (played by Laurence Olivier), and it is her memory and the loyalty still shown to her by the housekeeper Mrs Danvers (played by Dame Judith Anderson) that Max's new wife (played by Joan Fontaine) has such a struggle with. Cheers JackofOz 02:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The citation for this is James Bemis, "Alfred Hitchcock: Spiritual Director?" in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, Vol. 12, No. 4, Fall 2003, p. 72. The citation given in the article is "Patricia Hitchcock interview with American Movie Classics cable channel, June 13, 2000." Patricia Hitchcock is his daughter. I am not sure of the best location for this piece of information. However, it is important to mention his faith, as it no doubt guided his choices; also, it is an important addition to merely stating that he grew up in an Irish Catholic household. Many people grow up in a Catholic household without maintaining themselves in that faith. Trc | [ msg] 08:46, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't dispute the factual accuracy of what you added; as far as I know, his belief and devotion to being Catholic is a well-established fact. I'm just not sure the 3rd or 4th sentence is the best place for it. It's not that I don't think it's important; just that it doesn't accomplish much to just say this, without explaining a bit how that affected his filmmaking. But, definitely there should be more coverage of this in the article. Revolver 19:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

In Psycho, Norman selects room one because there's a hole in the wall.

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

---

The efforts of the gentleman who re-wrote the section on the early history of Hitchcock's career is appreciated; but personally I feel that this section is now too much of a laundry list; it's less of a piece of "writing" than it is a checklist that sounds like "He made this, then this, then this and this and this." I'd like to revert the previous part of this section, which I will include here, though since there have been several edits since then I'd like to get some opinions on the change -- either in favor of, or against.

Previous text:

As a major talent in a new industry with plenty of opportunity, he rose quickly. His first important film, The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog was released in 1927. In it, an attractive blonde is murdered, and the new lodger in a nearby apartment falls under heavy suspicion. He is, in fact, innocent of the crime.

Downhill (1927) portrayed another innocent man accused, this time a young man accused of a theft at his school and thrown out of his house as a result. The man later has an affair with an older woman, and in the morning, as she wakes in their bed of passion, he sees her aged face, while people outside carry a coffin past their window. Hitchcock would repeatedly return in his films to the notion that sex and death are linked.

Hitchcock developed his unique style of storytelling during the 1930s, reaching the peak of his British filmmaking career with The 39 Steps (1935) and The Lady Vanishes (1938). By this time, he had caught the attention of Hollywood, and was invited to make films in America.

David O. Selznick pursued Hitchcock to make some Hollywood films. With Rebecca in 1940, Hitchcock made his first American film, and he worked in America for the rest of his career. Rebecca evokes the fears of a naive young bride who enters a great English country home and must grapple with the legacy of the dead woman who was her husband's first wife. The droll touches of humor are still there in his American work, but suspense became his trademark.

Because it is so important that Wikipedia articles be researched and cited properly, can someone confirm whether any of the works listed under 'Further reading' was actually used to confirm material in this article? If so, those that can be confirmed should be moved to another section called 'References', or if not, new sources should be found, used, cited properly, and added to that section. Further reading does not assure they have been used properly as sources, just that they are available for the reader to go find out more for themselves. Thanks - Taxman 15:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've read Spoto's Art of Alfred Hitchcock and can confirm that it covers much of the same ground as this article, including a discussion of each of Hitchcock's films in chronological order. However, Spoto's book contains numerous factual errors of its own (including fairly simple plot misunderstandings), so it would still be helpful to collate and cite the other sources. -- Rbellin 23:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. -- mav 03:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

The article currently describes Blackmail as one of Britain's first sound pictures. Adam Mars-Jones writing in Granta 86 ("Quiet, Please"), claims (on p. 249) that it was the first. Does anyone have any reason to doubt this? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:07, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The explanation of "MacGuffin" in the article is incoherent and borders on self-contadictory: "a red herring: a meaningless, unimportant detail that solely existed to serve as a reason for the story to exist."

"Unimportant" but "a reason for the story to exist"?

Also, the wording here strongly suggests that it is a paraphrase of something Hitchcock said, but it is not clear how close a paraphrase. Why not a quotation (and a citation)?

Unless someone can provide a quotation (and a citation), would anyone object to my rewording this as "a red herring: a detail with no inherent meaning or motivation, but which serves as a reason for the story to exist" and then adding at least one example of a "MacGuffin"? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The MacGuffin article gives a much better definition, and cites a Hitchcock/Truffaut interview; I agree that this one, by contrast, makes very little sense. By all means, let's try to improve both versions. -- Rbellin| Talk 02:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I gather you didn't like my effort to improve the article's definition? That's fine -- but "red herring" is really not the best way to describe a MacGuffin, since its importance to the characters in a Hitchcock film is completely justified, not a mistake or a false lead. (If the Nazis in Notorious had gotten the uranium from Claude Rains's cellar, they really would have built a bomb with it... and the Notorious article says "uranium" not "radioactive diamonds," so we ought to resolve this inconsistency. But I've forgotten the film's details.) -- Rbellin| Talk 00:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feel genuinely free to revert me. And you are right that a MacGuffin is not necessarily a red herring. I'm pretty sure about those diamonds, but I saw the film over 30 years ago, so I could have two films confused. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Several Google hits -- including this transcript of a Hitchcock-Truffaut interview [1] indicate that the "uranium" MacGuffin was the one in the film, while the switch to or from "diamonds" was discussed but not produced. I can't find anything about "radioactive diamonds" except for Wikipedia citations, so I have to assume this is an inadvertent confabulation of the two possible MacGuffins into one. I'm going to change this and the MacGuffin article to "uranium" for now. Anyone who wishes can go watch the film to check up on this and confirm or deny. -- Rbellin| Talk 04:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was no "contradiction" in the previous statements about Academy Awards. Let me set out the facts, as I understand them. If anyone has evidence that these statements aren't true, please let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to revert a bit.

1. Hitchcock did not "receive" the Academy Award for Best Picture. Nor could you really say that any director "receives" their movie's Academy Award. To my mind, to say that someone "receives" an award means it is an award of clear individual merit, e.g. best director, screenplay, etc. One could argue that best picture is an individual award for the producer, but this seems less individual than say, director. In any case, Selznick produced Rebecca, not Hitchcock. Best picture does not apply here, and so it is true to say that Hitchcock never won an Academy Award of Merit. Leading to my second point,
2. When people use the term "Academy Award", they almost always mean "Academy Award of Merit", the largest category of awards, which are voted upon by the members of the Academy, not a special committee. Therefore, the Irving Thalberg Award for Lifetime Achievement, although it is presented at the Academy Awards, is not strictly speaking, an "Academy Award". When most people ask, "Did Hitchcock ever win an Academy Award?", they mean "Academy Award of Merit", not liftime achievements awards. Further confusing this is the fact that by "Academy Award" most people mean "Oscars", the little statuettes. The Irving Thalberg Award is not an Oscar statuette, so this adds to the contention that it is not an "Academy Award".
3. It seems doubly perverse to claim Hitchcock "received" the best picture oscar for Rebecca, given that he was denied the best director oscar, and that these two awards tend to be given in tandemn. It's almost as if the industry couldn't bare to give it to him.

Revolver 11:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And it was 1967, not 1968. Go to the official website Thalberg dates and don't change it back to 1968, please. Revolver 11:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gramatical errors could use a little touch to it, eh? (anon 5 April 2005)

My sister found a book called "Sinister Spies" by Alfred Hitchcock but I have not found it in this article. Anyone know about it? I dont want to read the book.-- TKGB

• Hitchcock's name is on a lot of books; typically they are ghostwritten. I don't know this one in particular, though. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 04:41 (UTC)

" British-born American film director" seems wrong to me. He made plenty of films in the UK. He became a U.S. citizen in his mid-50s, when his career was well established. I'd either just say " British film director", or maybe " British (later American) film director". Comments? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Still,one of Hitchcock's directorial priorities was to work love stories into his films.

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

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

If you're talking about the Hitchcock article as a whole, I agree -- the grammar and punctuation is a mess (I just quoted three sentences in a post on IMDB, and had to redo the whole thing for it to make sense). Plus, the article contradicts itself about the cause of Hitch's death. At the top it says heart attack; at the bottom it says renal failure. Need to definitely fix that. 08:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) A. Victoria

I think the article should have B-classification Karel leermans 17:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Karel Leermans

I see that "Sir" has been added, bolded, as part of his name in the lead paragraph and in all of the Category links. Doesn't this go against Wikipedia policy on such titles? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, if (as the article states) he had taken out American citizenship well before he got his knighthood, then unless he retained dual British citizenship (about which the article is silent), the knighthood was honorary and he was never even entitled to use Sir. I've sometimes seen him referred to as "Sir Alfred Hitchcock", but I'm beginning to suspect he's in the same category as Bob Geldof, Alastair Cooke, Spike Milligan, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Steven Spielberg and lots of others. None of these was a British subject at the time of their knighthood (or in most cases, ever), and none of them is entitled to be known as "Sir". JackofOz 01:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

All fixed now. Removed "Sir", and explained the honorary knighthood arrangements. JackofOz 08:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Please don't remove the "British-American" part, it's what Angela Lansbury says and is correct. Just as people are Irish Americans, German Americans, etc. after emigrating from their countries, he like Lansbury was a British American. Cheechie Chung 19:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would disagree with that usage. The very common "Irish American" or "Irish-American" usually implies "Irish ancestry but born in America". We would usually say "Irish-born American" for a US citizen born in Ireland but raised in the U.S., and "Irishman/Irishwoman who became a naturalized American citizen" (or, in Wikipedia, "Irish, later American") for one who emigrated as an adult. I can't think why this case should be handled differently. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Then someone should change Lansbury's page, since she was born in London. Cheechie Chung 08:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

When you say (above) "it's what Angela Lansbury says" do you mean it is what she, personally calls herself (in which case, I suppose, she is fully entitled to it) or do you just mean it's what the article on her says? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant it's what the article on her says, read the first paragraph and you'll see what I mean. Cheechie Chung 20:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is a big deal in any case, but I think there should be a general resolution. I've raised the question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Nationality. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"British-American" suggests mixed parentage and/or upbringing, or someone raised in the US to British parents. The problem is that its not very clear what it means and it then has to be explained, "born and raised in Britain and later became an American citizen", so you might as well say that from the outset. I prefer the version we have now because its unambiguous. JW 08:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure that it was just a honoury knighthood he received. Unless he renounced his British citizenship he could still receive a full knighthood. Although theres then an odd situation where he could use the title within the United States. Anthony Hopkins is a similar situation. josh 02:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I made the same point back in October (above). There must be evidence somewhere that would put to rest the question of whether he had dual British-American citizenship, or whether he renounced British upon becoming an American. For now, the assumption is that he dropped his British citizenship. This would be the usual way of doing things. Retaining one's original citizenship along with the new citizenship would be the exception rather than the rule. It could have happened, but where's the evidence? JackofOz 02:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't find anything directly but the BBC refer to him as Sir Alfred Hitchcock [2] and there is a Sir Alfred Hitchcock Hotel in London. josh 03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Have had a good look around Google. Plenty of references to him becoming a US citizen in 1955. No hits at all for anything to do with dual citizenship or retaining British citizenship. The eponymous hotel does not settle the matter. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I propose that the status quo remain, ie. he was born British, became an American, his knighthood was honorary, and he is not entitled to "Sir". JackofOz 05:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't found anything to say he revonounced his citizenship either. Tried looking in the London Gazette and found this.

By Royal Warrant bearing date 1st August 1980 HerMajesty The QUEEN has been graciously pleased to ordain and declare that Alma Hitchcock, widow of Alfred Joseph Hitchcock, Esquire, deceased, shall have, hold and enjoy the same style, title, rank and precedence to which she would have been entitled had her husband survived and received from Her Majesty the title and dignity of a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. Her Majesty's said Order and Declaration has been recorded in the College of Arms. [3]

Makes no mention of it being honoury but it seems that he still wasn't a proper knight until he received it in person from the queen, which he never did. josh 06:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Just found this josh 06:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And the gazette entry josh 09:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, well, well. These might seem to provide support for both sides of the argument at first glance.

• Hitchcock himself believed that he was not entitled to the title Sir. But maybe he was confusing 2 things. (a) Knighthoods are available only to British subjects, and (b) the USA does not normally permit its citizens to accept foreign awards and honours. If he believed he was American and only American, then both reasons (a) and (b) would have been relevant. But they would not have prevented him from being awarded an honorary British knighthood, and they would not have prevented him from using KBE after his name. [Note: It is customary for Americans not to use postnominals, so in the USA he would probably not have done so (just as Steven Spielberg, Norman Schwarzkopf, George Bush Sr and Colin Powell do not, even though they are all honorary KBEs)].

• The Royal Warrant of 1 Aug 1980 calls him Alfred Hitchcock, Esq, not Sir Alfred Hitchcock, which suggests he did not receive the KBE. If we look closer, though, the point of the warrant seems to be to convert his widow from Mrs Alma Hitchcock into Lady Hitchcock, because it talks about giving her the style she would have had if he had been knighted. The Gazette notice of December 1979 lists him as a recipient of a KBE, with no mention of anything honorary, and the award was announced on New Years Day 1980. Honorary knighthoods are normally separately announced, and not part of the other New Years or Queens Birthday honours lists. If the KBE were honorary, there’s no way his wife or widow could be called Lady Hitchcock.
  • An analogous case is Robert Falcon Scott (of the Antarctic). His widow was awarded the rank and precedence but not the style of the widow of a KCB. This means she was treated as if she were the widow of a KCB in all official matters, but was not entitled to be called Lady Scott. This was because Scott was not knighted, either while he was alive, or posthumously (because that is simply never done), and the best they could do for him was to treat his widow as if he had been knighted. But because he was not actually knighted, he wasn't Sir Robert, and she wasn't Lady Scott.
• Lady Hitchcock seems to be the opposite case. Which means that on balance, I think josh is right: Hitchcock was awarded a full KBE which was officially announced, but he died before he could be formally invested. Nevertheless, the fact of the announcement entitles him to be referred to as Sir Alfred Hitchcock KBE. If the Yanks don't like giving him his full due, nominally speaking, that's up to them.
• It also seems Hitchcock was mistaken about his own entitlement to the title Sir Alfred. He certainly is not the first case of a person being unaware of or confused about his true citizenship status.
• I need to say another thing about confusion. The commentary on Hitchcock’s letter says: Hitchcock had become a U.S. citizen in 1956 and he was right when he said U.S. citizens cannot hold titles of nobility. But because Britain allows dual citizenship, he was still a British citizen and could use his title there.
  • Just because Britain allows dual citizenship does not necessarily mean that it did so in Hitchcock’s case. I don’t think this part of the commentary adds any value.
  • Also, it suggests that a title can apply in one country and not another. This is not right. If he were entitled to be called Sir Alfred at all, then that means he was a British subject, and despite being also an American citizen, he was still a British subject when he was in America and he would have been perfectly entitled to call himself Sir Alfred there. American custom might dictate he downplay his titles, but would have no effect on his legal entitlement if he wanted to press the point. The American prohibition on its citizens accepting foreign awards applies only to the extent that they are citizens. Where a person is a dual national, when they wear the other country’s hat US laws do not impinge on them. JackofOz 10:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally. Just had a word with one of the people working on the honours articles. He said that Sir Fred would have got the full title (Sir and KBE) when it was announced. So it would seem that the second Gazette entry was just clarification/protocol. josh 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, one does not have to renounce British citizenship to adopt foreign citizenship. As far as the United Kingdom was concerned, Hitchcock was still a British subject and therefore entitled to use his knighthood. I can also confirm that he appears in the honours list published in The Times, the UK newspaper of record, on 31 December 1979 in the Diplomatic Service and Overseas List as a substantive KBE, not an honorary KBE (unfortunately, I can't provide a link to it as it's a password-only database). That seems pretty conclusive to me. -- Necrothesp 14:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Josh has already provided the link above, so it is now beyond dispute that he was Sir Alfred. However it is not necessarily true that a British subect keeps his citizenship when adopting foreign. What about Alastair Cooke, KBE? He was born in Britain, later adopted US citizenship, then given an honorary knighthood, honorary because he was no longer a British subject. Maybe he chose to renounce his original citizenship, or maybe under US law at the time he was required to - who knows? International citizenship laws are a minefield of technicalities, and they keep changing. JackofOz 22:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

During my research last night I found out alot about citzenship in the UK. The only way you can lose your citizenship if you renounce it by informing the Home Office (and paying for the privilege). Even if the other nation requires you to have exclusive citizenship you still have to renounce yourself before taking on the new nationality. I don't think giving it up voluntary is common (if you do you can never retake your British citizenship). Alastair Cooke took American citizenship during the second world war before the first tax treaty between the UK and US in 1945 [4]. So probably renounced his British citizenship to avoid double taxation.

The difference between Alastair Cooke and Alfred Hitchcock is that Cooke became American in 1941, while Hitchcock did in 1956. 1 January 1949 was the cutoff, British people who became American before that date normally automatically lost British nationality, those who became American afterwards normally kept it (unless they specifically chose to renounce it under British law). JAJ 15:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why people have to keep changing this. The previous version "British film director...who later became an American citizen" is correct and unambiguous. The current version "British-born (later British-American) film director" is unnecessarily clumsy. JW 19:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that he never ceased to be British as this suggests. Unlike Alastair Cooke who renownced his British citizenship and thus was British born (later American) he never did. josh 20:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, we could change it to "later took up dual citizenship". The first few lines are supposed to introduce the subject before going into more detail. The fact that later in his life he had dual British and American citizenship (and according to the article, he didn't have it until he was well into middle-age) is not really that important to the subject. "British-born (later American-British)" is an ugly and unnecessary cobble-up. JW 20:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

See my talk page for similar response to an anonymous user.

As a general statement, I would agree that dual nationality is not important to the introductory information about a subject. But where the subject's name has been changed through knighthood, and that was only possible because of dual nationality, then it becomes highly important. As stated on my talk page, saying he became an American and leaving at that, misleads the reader and invites questions about the appelation "Sir" that have already been answered. JackofOz 22:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I was the anonymous user. We've got a new version now; I'm not sure if its better or worse. The trouble is it now mentions his US citizenship twice in the opening paragraph, which is overdoing it a bit. I would suggest changing it to "British-born" and explaining the citizenship issue later, as its not really that important. JW 22:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is absolute rubbish that "he has never been credited with or used the title "Sir", which is therefore inappropriate for the lead-in here". I have seen him listed as "Sir Alfred Hitchcock" many times. Maybe he is not in America, but he certainly is in Britain. It was used in his obituary in The Times, for instance. And we have proof from the honours list that his knighthood was, in the eyes of HM Government, substantive, not honorary. It is therefore wholly appropriate to use it in the lead-in. -- Necrothesp 01:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because Rope doesn't appear as one long continuous take -- there are a couple of straight cuts. The JPS 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a stretch to say that Rope is openly gay-themed. The subtext is there; it can certainly be inferred, but it's certainly not "open" in the modern sense. Rlquall 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Although with the casting of John Dall, and the obvious references to the Leopold and Loeb case, it's pretty close. But I agree that the article shouldn't say "openly". - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt ( talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This user has added similar requests to link to biographies hosted on the same site to about 50 different articles. Although I believe that these requests were made in good faith, adding the links to all of the articles would be spamming. In addition, the biographies tend to be not very insightful and/or minimally informative, and the webpages contain Google AdSense links.

A fuller explanation of my own opinion on these links can be found here, if anyone wishes to read it.

Hbackman 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I omitted the following:

Hitchcock's last blonde heroine was French actress Claude Jade as the secret agent's worried daughter, Michele, in Topaz (1969).

This is incorrect. Claude Jade does not fit the description of a typical "Hitchcock Blonde". First of all, she has dark hair. Second, she has a rather small part in the ensemble film. She's really only in a few scenes, and is not really a pivitol character in the film. In place of this, I used the example from his last film, Family Plot, which featured not one but possibly two blonde heroines (if you count Karen Black's character).

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

• I agree. I've added it to "See also" for now. -- MisterHand 20:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that he wanted to do a nude scene in Topaz but discovered that the actress in question (maybe Claude Jade?) had had some kind of surgery which eliminated that possibility (though why he couldn't have used a body double as he did in Frenzy escapes me). Also, in Psycho there are a few seconds when the viewer can see Janet Leigh's breasts (or at least what would be her breasts if a) it's Janet Leigh's body in the frame rather than a body double, and b) despite what JL claimed, she wasn't wearing moleskin). It happens at the point when she reaches out and tears down the shower curtain. I've seen the film probably 30-40 times, and I never noticed this until many many viewings...being so shocked and riveted by the scene as a whole and (at that point) by the absolutely mesmerizing image of her hand moving slowly toward the curtain.

So to say that Frenzy was the first time he allowed nudity or even considered it seems to me to be not completely accurate. Thoughts? Wspencer11 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Kaleidoscope Frenzy, or Kaleidoscope, which he began work on in the mid 60s would have been the first real appearance of nudity in a Hitchcock film. Universal and MCA weren't keen on the film and it was shelved at the pre-production stage. Hitchcock eventually reworked some of the ideas and themes into Frenzy. There are some stills and screen-grabs (which feature some mild nudity) from the shot footage at http://www.daveyp.com/hitchcock/wiki/Kaleidoscope_Frenzy 86.3.4.244 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Two places in the article mention two different causes of death. — Steve Summit ( talk) 12:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Most sources I've seen say renal failure. According to his Doctor (Dr. Flieg) Hitchcock was suffering from "mild hypertension, a heart condition, kidney problems, and a general physical deterioration" (McGilligan, pg 745) in the weeks before his death. According to Spoto ("Dark Side of Genius" pg 554), in early April 1980 "his liver failed, his kidney function slowed, and his ... heart no longer responded to the [pacemaker]". 86.3.4.244 05:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture. And when you create these, there is a Category:In popular culture. - Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone remove "Reba is the Shit" from the end of the biography? i tried, but it doesn't seem to appear in the normal editing window for this section.

Dimi

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.40.155.174 ( talk) 01:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

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

I'm pretty certain that at least two of the major Hitchcock biographies (including Patrick McGilligan's "Life in Darkness and Light") state that Hitchcock did drive, and another (possibly Charlotte Chandler's "It's Only a Movie") that he did eat eggs. There were several autobiographical stories that Hitchcock frequently told reporters (including the one where he was locked in a police cell as a boy) and it's difficult to know where the real truth lies in them. Davepattern 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole Phobias section should indeed be removed. 87.64.71.135 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just watched the " Alfred Hitchcock and To Catch a Thief - An Appreciation" DVD documentary and Hitchcock's daughter (Pat) and granddaughter (Mary) discuss Hitchcock and eggs. Pat says "My father had a lot of food fetishes, I think one would say. He loved souffles, and things like that, but he did not like cutting an egg open and seeing the yolk run." I'll admit to knowing very little about "ovophobia", but it strikes me that someone with "an extreme fear of eggs" wouldn't eat anything as eggy as a souffle? Davepattern 10:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The primary reference to Hitchcock's dislike of eggs is on page 18 of Patrick McGilligan's book, A Life in Darkness and Life. He wrote, "His father, for example, is said to have detested cheese and eggs, and Hitchcock shared the latter dislike, exploiting it to comic effect in his films." McGilligan cites a scene in Sabotage where Desmond Tester says, "Poached egs are the worst in the world." I always remember the scene in To Catch A Thief where the older, wealthy woman in the story stubs her cigarette on a plate of fried eggs. I am sure there are other instances where Hitchcock expressed his dislike of eggs. I think it may have been the appearance of eggs, rather than their actual usage, that bothered him. He clearly didn't like the way the yolk of fried eggs would break, creating the effect of yellow blood flowing. Sallyrob 18:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Just making my way through Charlotte Chandler's biography ("It's Only a Movie") and she quotes Pat Hitchcock as saying her father learnt to drive (and got his driving licence) shortly after they moved to California. If I can track down another reference elsewhere that Hitchcock drove, then I'll remove the statement that he didn't drive from the "Phobias" section. I'm fairly sure I've read elsewhere that Hitchcock regularly drove Pat to school, and that he drove during the family holidays in Europe. Davepattern 20:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I have rewritten the sentence concerning this, but would like to get confirmation on one aspect from someone who knows more about it than I: as I recall, the dream sequence planned by Dali was essentially unshootable, so the notion of it being "cut" isn't exactly true since it wasn't shot. Is that so? -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In her biography, Bergman claimed that more Dali footage was filmed but then cut, although (from memory) Patrick McGilligan says that Bergman was exagerating when she said that around 15 minutes of shot dream sequence footage was cut by Selznick. -- Davepattern 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Assuming this section should even be in here, what counts as a frequent collaborator? Joan Fontaine and Tippi Hedren made two films each with Hitchcock—I'd call them repeat collaborators, not frequent collaborators. Unless somebody protests, I'll edit the list so that it only includes actors who made at least three films with Hitchcock. Tomasboij 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that if the list is called "frequent", then it should be people who worked with Hitchcock 3 or more times. It's also missing some key people -- e.g. Clare Greet worked with Hitchcock on 8 different films (9 if you include " Three Live Ghosts" from 1922 for which Hitchcock designed the titles). Davepattern 06:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited section using IMDb data. I see three alternative solutions: 1. If the point is actually to get across the point that Hitchcock worked with pretty much everybody, then restore the previous list, change title to "major collaborators", remove minor names, and add major names who were one-off collaborators (e.g. Henry Fonda and Janet Leigh). 2. If the point is to highlight people whose collaborations with Hitchcock defined either their own or Hitchcock's career, then restore the previous list, change title, and add some names (Anthony Perkins, notably). 3. Delete the entire section. Tomasboij 02:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added more names to the list from the pre-1940 films (in all instances they worked with Hitchcock on 3 or more of his major films). Quite a few of them don't have existing Wikipedia articles -- hopefully this doesn't make them less relevant than some of the more well-known Hollywood names. Is it worth including authors whose works Hitchcock adapted in the list (e.g. Daphne Du Maurier and Helen Simpson (author))? Davepattern 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted that an anonymous editor has added Tippi Hedren to the list, although she only collaborated with Hitch twice (Birds and Marnie) -- unless someone feels strongly, I'll remove Tippi. Davepattern 09:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed Tippi and also Jessie Royce Landis, as she only appears in 2 Hitchcock films. Landis did appear in a single AHP episode, but it wasn't one that was directed by Hitchcock. Davepattern 07:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added about a dozen more names to the list (mostly crew), all who worked with Hitchcock on 3 or more films. Not sure if anyone feels that the list is getting too long? Davepattern 06:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. A comprehensive list is probably more valuable than a selective one. Still, I wonder if it wouldn't be more worth while to transform it into a list of important or essential collaborators. As I see it, the purpose is to list those actors, sceenwriters, composers, etc., whose careers are intimately connected with Hitchcock's. Such a connection isn't necessarily a matter of frequent collaboration. I'd argue that Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins, to name two, are closely associated with Hitchcock in the general public's conception, maybe even more so than Cary Grant and James Stewart, who would have been major icons even if they hadn't starred in four Hitchcock films each. But of course, then there would no longer be an objective criterion for inclusion. Tomasboij 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished analyising all of the "complete cast and crew" pages on the IMDB for the 53 major Hitchcock films -- I've put the data into an Excel spreadsheet for anyone who's interested. I think to complete the Frequent Collaborators with the data might make it too large (should I go ahead and do it anyway?). Interestingly, the most frequent cast member was Bess Flowers ("The Queen of the Hollywood Extras"). Both Leo G. Carroll and Clare Greet appeared in 6 films. Apart from Alma, Hitchcock's most frequent collaborator was Leonard J. South, who worked as the Camera Operator or Cinematographer on 14 films from 1951 to 1976. Davepattern 09:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See BFI, second paragraph. Hitch worked as a director in Germany and was influenced by German Expressionism in Germany, not at a distance. Revolver 01:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I was at a trivia night last night, and one of the questions was "Which body part was Alfred Hitchcock missing?". Nobody knew. The answer was "One of his ears". I'd never heard of that, and all the searches I've done shed no light on it. Does this have any semblance of truth, and if so, what's the story? -- JackofOz 06:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

lol -- definitely made up and isn't mentioned in any of the many biographies I've read. Davepattern 09:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected. Thanks. I'll be having words with the question setter. -- JackofOz 12:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder if the question setter was half-thinking of the story about Hitchcock not having a belly button? There's a quote attributed to Karen Black where she says Hitchcock "pulled up his shirt to show me his belly button – which he didn’t have. He’d had an operation and when they sewed him up, they took it away. His belly button was gone!". Apart from the quote, I've never read anything to confirm that although apparently Hitchcock had several operations in the belly area and so it's feasible he lost it as the result of one of them! Davepattern 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Karen Black to tell me the time of the day. Watch any interview with her, you'll see what I mean. Tomasboij 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A paragraph starting "It is widely known that as a child, Hitchcock's father once took him to their local police station and had an officer lock him away for a number of hours as punishment for behaving badly." was recently added. I personally think this should be removed as it's based purely on an annecdote told many times by Hitchcock in interviews (there is an early version here), and quite of few of his most popular annecdotes were, at best, little white lies (e.g. that he never drove). Many of the aspects of the story changed over time and in many versions he claimed only to have been locked in a cell for a few minutes. Most versions also have the young Hitchcock going to the police station alone with the note. Davepattern 09:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree. One of the most authoritative interviews (by Truffaut) does include the anecdote (in the very first chapter of 'Hitchcock.'), but I indeed feel that the story's many variations are to be taken with a grain of salt. It is one of those elements that is eagerly put forward to explain Hitch's fascination with motifs such as guilt and the wrong man. However, I believe it may have been the sort of story Hitchcock loved to feed the press and critics, yet in reality it might have only been the most mundane of events in his life. 87.64.71.135 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• So mention it if he repeated it frequently, but add that it should be taken with a pinch of salt. Malick78 13:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither Lacan nor Zizek are film theorists. Lacan is one of the most important psychoanalysts in the history of the field and now is identified as the founder of one of the two major schools of psychoanalysis, and Zizek is a philosopher, Marxist and cultural critic. Calling them film theorists is absurd. That paragraph (the one on Shadow of a Doubt) desperately needs a rewrite.

It seems that this has gone back & forth several times...should the date be 1980 (correct) or 1982 (incorrect)? I think the idea behind 1982 is that this is when Alma died, but the date range concerns the marriage, not her lifespan. But it's confusing; it does rather look like she was born in 1926 (which of course she wasn't). How can we fix this so there's no confusion over what the dates refer to? -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"(1926-1980)" seems sensible to me -- after his death, she was no longer his wife but a widow. As you say, the date range is for the marriage itself. The alternative could be to just state the year of the marriage ("m." and "md." appear to be widely accepted abbreviations for "marriage") - e.g. Spouse(s) Alma Reville (m. 1926) Davepattern 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the template, the present format is the correct one. I agree that it's confusing and would prefer if the date of the marriage preceded the name: Spouse (1926–1980) Alma Reville. However, that ought to be a general issue of revising the template, not any particular page. Tomasboij 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Added years active to infobox, using IMDB dates (from title designer for The Call of Youth in 1921 to director of Family Plot in 1976). Tomasboij 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I read in a Yahoo group that Hitchcock briefly attended the Salesian College, Battersea as a boarder. Can anyone substantiate this? 86.146.15.60 06:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing concrete, but apparently the young Hitchcock was only there for a short time (e.g. just a few months) before he started at St. Ignatius. Salesian College was apparently much more strict. According to Google Maps, Salesian was about 12 miles from where the Hitchcock's lived -- so, although the College had boarders, Hitchcock may have been a day student? Davepattern 09:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Well, presumably the solution is to find a copy of the 1980 book and quote a relevant passage...? Cop 663 14:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it curious that there is no mention of how his belly button was removed via surgery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.88.65 ( talk) 23:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

http://ronmwangaguhunga.blogspot.com/2004/02/hitchcock-has-no-bellybutton-from.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.88.65 ( talk) 23:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

is this relevant?--Davmpls 03:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls ( talk • contribs)

Would someone more knowledgeable about this please determine whether he was (reportedly) under surveillance by the FBI or the CIA. It is listed one way here, and another in the Notorious article. It seems like a minor detail, but taken in the context of the time and political climate there is a noticeable difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.54.166 ( talk •  contribs) 9 Feb 2006.

Agree that investigation would be significant, but not that the agencies involved are significant. (This isn't the article for a discussion about the focus of various US intelligence agencies.) For the purposes of this article, the questions would be "What aspects of Hitchcock were under investigation?" and "What effect did this have on his work?" 24.6.67.7 ( talk) 06:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks the current photo isn't vintage Hitchcock? The Master of Suspense is most often portrayed as a stern director. A laughing Hitchcock is somewhat, well, un-Hitchcockian. Of course, I realize the current photo is a blessing with regard to copyrights and whatnot. But I think it doesn't convey an adequate image of Hitchcock.

Edit: The new one is even worse. Hitchcock on TV? Scanlines included?

87.64.64.57 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the smiling Hitchcock better demonstrates his sense of humour throughout his works and his prankster personality. vote Keep Rugz 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer a smirking Hitchcock rather than a laughing one. Cop 633 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this recently uploaded picture has a place somewhere in this article. This is a picture made between takes in Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, while he was directing his last picture, Family Plot. Stan Osborne ( talk) 03:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The first entry under this heading doesn't really add up. It currently reads like this: 1. Placing an ordinary person into extraordinary circumstances is perhaps the single most important element of Hitchcock's film style. Hitchcock regarded Shadow of a Doubt as the finest showcase of his dramatic techniques and cinematic vision. Shadow of a Doubt begins in the small, quiet town of Santa Rosa, California, where we are introduced to a prosperous and relatively happy family. After painting a portrait of domestic tranquility that is so tranquil as to be boring, Hitchcock sends into the family's home an estranged relative who may be a serial killer. Shadow of a Doubt illustrates the dramatic value of this arrangment: viewers must feel that the jeopardy experienced by the story's character is jeopardy into which they could be placed. The more normal the characters and more mundane the setting, the more proximal and plausible is the danger which Hitchcock sends their way.

Who is the ordinary person? Uncle Charlie? Hardly an "ordinary person," it seems to me. The family? Hardly a "person." While I agree that the device of placing an ordinary person into extraordinary circumstances is an important one for Hitchcock, this film does not do that, I don't think. Thoughts before I change it? -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Teresa Wright's character is the ordinary person—she even complains about it, in tears, before her uncle's arrival, an arrival which she takes to be a relief from ordinariness. Further, remember that the homicide detectives are working undercover as magazine reporters chronicling the life of an emphatically ordinary American family. It's a good choice of film to illustrate the theme, although there are several others which would do equally well (Psycho, The Wrong Man, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, etc., etc.). Tomasboij 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore this is not the "single most important element of Hitchcock's film style," and does not deserve to be on the list, especially not number 1. Placing an ordinary person into extraordinary circumstances is true for most films, Hitchcock did not create the trend nor exclusively use it. Rugz 07:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Although it would certainly be worthwhile to discuss whether the theme is really as central to Hitchcock as it's made out to be, Wikipedia is not the place. The element in question is identified as essential to Hitchcock in probably every single published survey of his films. If they all happen to be wrong, then somebody needs to write and publish a piece correcting them, and then we can begin to revise accordingly. Doing it ahead of time would amount to original research, a strict no-no. Tomasboij 03:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, please source a credible reference. Rugz 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Browsing the library shelf, I found discussions of the ordinariness element in Mark Glancy's The 39 Steps: A British Film Guide (p. 41 and onwards), in Robert Phillip Kolker's Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho: A Casebook (several passages, particularly p. 75 and onwards), Truffaut's famous Hitchcock (e.g. p. 48 of the revised English edition), and most importantly in David Sterritt's discussion of Shadow of a Doubt in his Films of Alfred Hitchcock (p. 52 and onwards). I really believe you could just pick any item from the article's bibliography and that's your reference.

(In case you're interested, I'll explain briefly why I believe the consensus is right and that the theme is indeed essential. You write that the theme is present in most films and is thus not unique to Hitchcock. However, you'll find that Hitchcock not only established his characters as ordinary, but that he persisted on highlighting their ordinariness. It's not part of the set-up, it's part of the story. Watch the hotel scenes in The Lady Vanishes where Margaret Lockwood takes farewell of her girlfriends to pursue life as an ordinary housewife, or Joan Fontaine doing her chores as a travelling companion in Rebecca, or Joel McCrea in Foreign Correspondent being assigned to Europe simply because he's an ordinary person without any insight in high-stakes international politics, or Janet Leigh famously flushing the toilet in Psycho, or the entire Shadow of a Doubt. No doubt many filmmakers have done similar things. I suppose, for example, that it's standard fare in war movies to emphasize that soldiers are average Joes. But Hitchcock kept on doing it in film after film.) Tomasboij 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you really don't want Shadow of a Doubt to represent the theme of the common man, then I'm not going to protest, but Rear Window is not a good replacement. It opens with a montage of exotic photographs and sensational news articles to illustrate James Stewart's adventurous life, and much of the suspense comes from the possibility that the wheelchair-bound Stewart might be imagining a sordid murder plot because that's the kind of thing he's used to. Also, the mother in Strangers on a Train is hardly intrusive and domineering, but rather the opposite. The idea is that she's ludicrously over-indulgent and blind to Robert Walker's insanity. I've replaced them with Psycho and Notorious, respectively. Tomasboij 17:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Numbers adding up to 7 in his movies - is there any truth to this one? Rugz 15:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing. It replaced a previous statement that Hitchcock used the number 13 a lot in his films, although the two examples given seemed tenuous. The only thing I could find on a quick Google search was this PowerPoint which states "Hitchcock has a nearly obsession of the number seven, wich was included everywhere", although again no evidence is provided. Davepattern 06:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's true—which I don't know—I wouldn't call it an element of Hitchcock's film style. Although his films include much bad luck (13) and cardinal sinning (7), I don't believe he ever related any of it to a particular number. I'd say it's an Easter egg rather than an exploration of the significance of either number. Tomasboij 13:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice someone's added a couple of "examples" for the number 13 (Janet Leigh's number plate and the motel room keys). The number plate ("NFB 418") has long been part of an urban myth (possibly started by Spoto) that it stands for "Norman Francis Bates" (or even " Norman Ford Bates"), although Norman's middle name is not mentioned in either the original book or the shooting script dated 01/Dec/1959 (Joseph Stefano also denied that number plate had anything do Norman). Some even go so far as to state that it represents Saint Francis of Assisi (patron saint of birds). However, according to assistant director Hilton A. Green, the number plate actually came off his own car (i.e. Hitchcock did not have it custom made). As for the motel room keys, surely the numbers 3 and 1 add up to 4, not 13? Unless anyone strongly disagrees, I'll remove these examples of wishful thinking. I'm sure if Hitchcock was really obsessed by the number 13, then the caption at the start of the film might have read "Thursday, December the Twelfth" (so that Marion would have been killed on Friday 13th). If you look hard enough you can find all sorts of things (e.g. "Norman" and "Marion" have 5 letters in common, and those 5 letters are "Norma"), but it doesn't mean that were deliberately placed there by the filmmakers. Davepattern 08:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, I sat down and worked out what the chances of the digits of a number adding up to 13 are. For a number between 0 and 999, 13 is actually the most likely outcome (7.5% probability). Although I still don't believe that Hitch peppered his films with significant numbers, it is perhaps worth noting that he was born on Sunday 13th August. Davepattern ( talk) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just tagged the claim about the number 13 as requiring a citation - the examples given seem pretty unconvincing to me. Colonies Chris ( talk) 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by Curveaway in which he was switched from English categories to American (American film directors, American film producers, etc.). He clearly took American citizenship, but it was after he had achieved notability as a film director. Therefore, based on WP:MOSBIO, it doesn't seem right to categorize him as an "American film director" -- you could certainly make an argument for "American television directors" though. Any thoughts? Rickterp ( talk) 15:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you simply include him in both categories. He was both an English director and an American director. I fixed it. Incidentally, the relevant passage in WP:MOSBIO is referring to the opening paragraph, not to categories. Cop 663 ( talk) 20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Anybody know which school? I did a quick Google search and came up with the following:

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/eece/

Is this it?-- MurderWatcher1 ( talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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 " [5]" 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)

The article had been tagged as too long over 92 megabytes, or was it 96?. In any case I thought the logical way to split it was to move the account of the themes, motifs and plot devices into an article of their own. I am still working on this. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

There was a Parodies section deleted a while ago: given that AH was one of the most influential film directors in history - arguably the most influential - don't parodies form an important part of his legacy? They demonstrate that film audiences recognise that he contributed immensely to the medium of film. e.g Even a teenager of today, who has perhaps never seen the original Psycho - will appreciate a parody of the shower scene, or another key sequence from a Hitchcock film. MatthewTStone ( talk) 05:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What, not even High Anxiety? This needs looking at again, these things are not necessarily trivia, but an important insight into how Hitchcock's work and motifs have been appreciated and reinterpreted by others. But they need proper sourcing and not just "In Family Guy, Stewie Griffin says Oh, mother, no!" shit. -- Rodhull andemu 22:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The image File:Bateshower.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Rebecca 1940 film poster.jpg
• File:North Northwest.jpg
• File:BlackmailStill.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following text from the railfan article:

Perhaps the most famous celebrity metrofan was film director Alfred Hitchcock, whose hobby was collecting and memorizing railway timetables, and who prided himself on being able to recite from memory every stop on the Orient Express.

In this reference work (by Paul Duncan) found on Google Books, it states (p19)

"...he did enjoy geography, and this showed itself in his private study of the London bus network and timetable -- he was proud to have ridden on every bus route in London. This intense study extended to him memorising the streets of New York and every stop on the Orient Express railway."

Aside from the fact the the Orient Express is a train service, not a railway, this doesn't really fit in the Railfan article, so perhaps someone could add something appropriate here instead?

EdJogg ( talk) 13:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The section titled "Signature appearances in his films" isn't about that, it talks about some technical tricks Hitch used, only mentioning a cameo in passing. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It looked to me as if some sections had become out of order, hence dislocated, and I've had a stab at sorting this out, at least initially. This whole bunch of headings should come under some sort of umbrella heading such as "stylistic features", but I can't think of anything better than this at present. Meanwhile, I've added brief overviews of the linked articles, and don't think they need citations here, but in those articles- but, really, they do need citations there. -- Rodhull andemu 22:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This listing should include Hitchcock's daughter Pat, who appeared in Stage Fright, Strangers on a Train, and Psycho.

The list correctly includes actor John Williams (who appeared in 3 films and several Alfred Hitchcock Presents programs) but links to the wrong John Williams. The page currently links to the composer John Williams (not the actor). The composer John Williams did work on Hitchcock's last picture - Family Plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.186.202 ( talk) 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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

erp! it didn't disappear...someone seems to have brought it back! http://www.themysteryplace.com/ahmm/ Bustter ( talk) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment that Hitchcock called actors cattle is stated as fact one place and as a rumor in another. It seems more than a rumor, in thie 1973 interview he says he called actors cattle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-nlObHw7bE&feature=related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.202.104 ( talk) 10:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

               *****

In the DVD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._and_Mrs._Smith_%281941_film%29 Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941 film), in the extra section titled Mr. Hitchcock Meets The Smiths, Alfred Hitchock's Grandaughter claims that Hitchock actually said, "Actors are like cattle." Sponsion ( talk) 02:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Another commentator in the same DVD stated that Hitchcock said, "Actors are like children and have to be coddled and sometimes spanked". Sponsion ( talk) 02:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sponsion ( talk) 02:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added a nice quote from Hitchcock to Truffaut about this issue. I hope it helps! Unclevinny ( talk) 02:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think people are interested enough in the cattle question to include the quote from the Truffaut interview; Rugz added a great quote from the same interview that is more serious on the question of how he felt about actors. Unclevinny ( talk) 03:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The introduction to this article includes a comment from the Telegraph that Hitchcock cruelly witheld information from his audience. This is precisely what Hitchcock didn't do. Hitchcock repeatedly and consistently stated his view that the audience must be absolutely aware of the full facts in order to generate suspense (e.g. http://www.borgus.com/think/hitch.htm "Step 11 - Suspense is information). He is particularly interesting upon this topic in his interview with Trauffaut. I can only assume that the author of the Telegraph article was ill-informed or was writing in haste As such, I will amend the sentence in the introduction to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A bright cold day in april ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, though many (myself included) will agree with your discussion above, the text in the introduction is a cited quote. If it is a quote you can't misrepresent it by altering it. If you believe the summation by the Telagraph (source quoted)to be incorrect then it would be better form to edit the quote out completely or expand the text to create a view you can cite as per your post above. Hope you understand the logic for my reversal. Boongie ( talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote is in the wrong place anyway - the lead should summarise the rest of the article; it's not for lengthy quotes. It should be removed or put in the main body of the article.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The ARTICLE states: 1940s films Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in Notorious (1946) Hitchcock's films during the 1940s were diverse, ranging from the romantic comedy Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941) to the courtroom drama The Paradine Case (1947),[51] to the dark and disturbing film noir Shadow of a Doubt (1943).[52]

Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a Screwball comedy which is a sub-genre of the romantic comedy genre. A commentator in the extra section of the DVD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._and_Mrs._Smith_%281941_film%29 Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941 film), states the term Screwball Comedy was coined based upon Carol Lombard having been described as a Screwball comedic actor. Carol Lombard's first screwball genre film was "It Happened One Night" (1934) which ignited the screwball comedy genre. http://www.tcmdb.com/participant.jsp?participantId=115700 Sponsion ( talk) 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Carole Lombard (with an "e") was not in 1934's It Happened One Night — that was the brunette Claudette Colbert. The blonde Lombard helped define screwball comedy in 1934's Twentieth Century and — even better — 1936's My Man Godfrey. While Lombard the actress is undoubtedly a primary if not the primary actress of the genre, the "screwball" characterization of Mr and Mrs. Smith in the Wikipedia article is uncited, and from what you say about the DVD commentary, it seems the person is speaking about Lombard the actress, rather than that particular film. Lucille Ball is also prominently known for screwball comedy, but many of her film comedies were not screwball comedies, if you see what I mean. If you can find a notable reliable source attesting to this film as a screwball comedy, feel free to add and cite it. Abrazame ( talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose could do with some work (eg. "as his wife being a private person she was keen to avoid public attention"; there is overlinking, particularly in the lead, which, along with multiple cites in the lead, makes it a bit distracting.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

   The most obvious problem is that the article needs more citations. There are quite a lot of {{ citation needed}} tags, some of which have been there since February 2009. There is at least one direct quote without an inline citation, which is required by WP:WIAGA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is already a large article. I see that sections have been split off in the past, more may need to be split, but summary style needs to be employed. At the moment, there are two sections on important aspects of the subject, that are each only two lines long. I also worry about the broadness of the article given that there are several books in the "further reading" section that haven't been used, and others that have only been used minimally.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm afraid there's too much work to be done to list the article as a GA at this time.

There are also far too many external links, a fact that the nominator apparently agrees with. Some of them may be useable as sources, in which case they should be used. Otherwise, if a website adds nothing that a potential featured article can't provide, it shouldn't be linked to. Check the toolbox links above to see an automated peer review that has some suggestions. The Checklinks tool shows some dead links in the references. The article needs some work, but with an article like this that is already large, has had many editors over the years and has so much source material to draw from, I'd really recommend taking it to peer review before a further GA nomination, and perhaps asking for help at the biography and film wikiprojects.-- Beloved Freak 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The article currently has a subheading "Pre-war British career" that starts out "Hitchcock's last collaboration with Graham Cutts led him to Germany in 1924"... nobody in 1924 Europe would have referred to that time as "pre-war", and especially not in Germany. (also as an aside, Germany is not part of a British career.) WWI had just ended and it was the most devastating war the world had ever seen. 68.174.97.122 ( talk) 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is. WWI was over in 1918; Hitler was already head of the Nazi Party as of 1921. We don't write from the point of view of the times being discussed; we write from a current 21st century point of view. Pick nits much? Yworo ( talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind if I "inter" the discussion? The new title should (hopefully) satisfy everyone. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs citing, cleaning ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 03:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)