Talk:Alfred Hitchcock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alfred Hitchcock article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy Alfred Hitchcock appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 19, 2004.
Alfred Hitchcock was selected as the Portal of Horror Horror-related biography of the month for September 2006.

Contents

[edit] Work in Germany

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)

[edit] Romantic relationships

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)

[edit] State of article

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


[edit] "Sir"

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)

[edit] "British-American"

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)

[edit] Duncan King?

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)

[edit] Sir revisited

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[1] 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.[2]
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[3]. 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)

[edit] British/American 2

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)

[edit] CIA or FBI

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.

[edit] Rope

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)

[edit] External link

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)

[edit] Characters and effects in his films

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).

[edit] Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine

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)

[edit] Nudity?

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)

[edit] heart attack or renal failure?

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)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Alfred Hitchcock

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)

[edit] Vandalism

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).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/f/Talk%7EAlfred_Hitchcock_e5fb.html"