In a short piece titled “The Trouble With Alfred Hitchcock”, cultural critic Terry Teachout claims that North by Northwest has “no more content than a ride on a roller coaster”. That is to say: “The dialogue is sophisticated, the acting immaculate, the wide-screen cinematography gorgeously resplendent, while the film’s near-total absence of dramatic logic is rendered irrelevant by the fact that the plot is a mere pretext for the jewel-like visual vignettes that are strung on it.”
He then goes on to say that “[t]his lack of content defines the nature–and the limits–of Hitchcock’s artistic achievement…” These limitations of which he speaks have to do with the fact that Hitchcock was so consistently working within the thriller-horror-murder narrative, telling “twisted tales wrenched from the psyche of a man whose experience is unrecognizably idiosyncratic.” Teachout concludes, “[w]hile [Hitchcock’s] other key films are unfailingly involving and at times quite beautiful, their cramped emotional scale deprives them of the power of transcendent illumination without which no work of art can be truly great.”
What are your thoughts on this?
Teachable Moments 
Watching a Hitchcock movie shouldn’t be approached as if watching your favorite hockey team play a game, where you’re emotionally invested in one team and are rooting for them to win and for the others to lose. Nor is it to mimic the thoughts and opinions of your neighbor nor your friend and certainly not necessarily a “review opinion”.
Rather, a Hitchcock film should be approached and appreciated something akin to a really fascinating chess match, exploring the next 3 possibilities and also the underlying character motives, as well as directorial style. It’s meant to be taken at an objective level, to allow the genius of the action/story-plot/rendering to be what captivates you rather than your alignment with one side or the other of the critique world.
This objective examination allows you to enjoy both sides of the cat-and-mouse game in its multiple dimensionality, from the hero’s point of view, from the director’s point of view, from the victims point of view, from the secondary characters who add flavor, color and emphasis to the paradoxical aspects of male/female/relationships in all their facets, and the secondary characters though sometimes very brief in their appearance always make a statement or two ensnaring our reactivity – whether we agree or not. His movies uproot the blase and the jaded and take us just a little bit at a time, out of our complacency.
Perhaps most important is to examine Hitchcock and his voice regarding society and all its possibilities; where we were, where we are; and one cannot help but ask, where are we going?
Is our society really beyond redemption? or might Hitchcock offer a glimpse of hope? after all he cameos in all his movies, a clear statement that he feel he is part and parcel of that society.
After all isn’t the “cramped emotional scale” of characters precisely a rendering of society’s resultant imposition of standards and norms, alienating creativity and people’s ability to think for themselves? The fact that it “deprives them of the power of transcendent illumination” may after all be the illuminating factor (and Hitchcock’s hope) for the audience to wake up to reality.
Hitchcock is the “master of suspense” of his day. He plays with his intended audience’s nerves and makes them believe what he wants them to believe. He has played with many plots which have been reused over and over again since his time directing the original film, and has of course directed movies from the silent film all the way to the coloured film. It is fair to say that if Hitchcock wasn’t the director he was, we wouldn’t be taking a university level class about him.
As far as this critic’s idea about North by Northwest, “no more content than a ride on a roller coaster […]” I must agree. The movie, of course in comparison with today did not seem to have much for itself. Cary Grant is good, but you could get more emotion out of a toddler… But that may be a harsh opinion. Hitchcock has brought many things to the cinematic world: slashers for example. He has left behind movies which have no been forgotten and interviews of people who are forever touched in some way or another by his work.
To reply to the critic though, it seems that yes, Hitchcock has played with murder, psychopathic behavior, cool blondes, the wrong man and all these Hitchcock(ian) elements which we see in every one of his films. Such elements are appreciated and make for a good film, but are repetitive. Not to diminish his films of course, and to take away any of his achievements. But as the “semester” went on and we watched his films, I seem to know exactly what I was getting into, finding myself more often than not rooting for the murderer simply because I wanted to know how they would get away with it. This knowledge that his movies included murder, thrill and and the wrong man, I must agreed prevented him from achieving “transcendence illumination” within his work.
To answer the question “is Hitchcock overrated?” I will be honest here and say that yes he can be. Although I will always hold Psycho in my heart and watch it often my future years, Hitchcock’s film’s in my personal opinion were repetitive and in some way uneventful. Surely I appreciate them, but I don’t think many of them are as “good” as Psycho.
Personally, I disagree with this critic’s view on Alfred Hitchcock. Before this course, I had no experience with Hitchcock whatsoever. The name sounded familiar, but beyond that I had no idea what to expect from Hitchcock films. I am glad that I took this course and was acquainted with the genius of Alfred Hitchcock. I thoroughly enjoyed every film that we watched, though admittedly some were better than others. Hitchcock films are not empty and limited in any way.
Teachout claims that Hitchcock films cannot be considered great works of art. This is merely the opinion of one man and he can be countered with the claim that certain Hitchcock films are considered true works of art. For me, a work of art is something that is appreciated by a great number of people, it is popular for both the masses, as well as the critics. This is the case with the Hitchcock film, Psycho. Psycho was one of the most popular films of its time and is constantly being remade. This particular film was a hit in the box-office and was renowned by critics as a stroke of genius. Therefore, Teachout’s statement about how Hitchcock movies are not cannot be considered great works of art is false.
According to Teachout, Hitchcock was constrained within the thriller-horror-murder genre and therefore all his filmed had a “cramped emotional scale”. Just because Hitchcock stayed within a certain genre, it does not mean that he wasn’t an artist, he was, in fact, a great artist of the horror-suspense genre. Just because he did one kind of thing it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t good at it! Hitchcock is still (35 years after his death) considered to be the master of suspense. Hitchcock was an experimental artist always pushing the boundaries of film. Though Hitchcock was contained within a single genre, he experimented with it, looking for new ideas to make a film interesting. In Rope, Hitchcock performed a technological experiment, shooting in a single room, using only 14 cuts. Hitchcock insisted that he wanted to make Psycho despite the beliefs of the studio and funded the film himself. The film Psycho, brought the slasher genre to widespread audiences. Psycho also in no way had a cramped emotional scale. This great movie was filled with suspense, horror, sympathy and surprise. The audience worriedly travelled with Marion to the Bates Motel, judging her for stealing the money, yet feeling empathetic of her situation with her lover. There is then the horror and suspense within the shower scene. Then we wander along with Lyla, looking for her sister, feeling sorry because we know she is dead, at the same time curious if we will ever find the killer, Mrs. Bates. Finally, the horror and surprise when the spectators learn the truth about Norman’s mental illness and the multiple murders he committed. This film does not cramp the emotions of the audience, but touches on almost every one in this amazing roller-coaster called Psycho, personally my favorite Hitchcock film that is one of the greatest cinematic works of art ever made.
Teachout first takes a hit on Hitchcock’s 1959 film “North by Northwest”. I believe that the critic in this case was being a bit dramatic about how the movie lacks content. There are two extraordinarily action packed scenes to balance out the romance and mystery which include the iconic crop-duster scene and the final battle on Mount Rushmore. However, there is more than this simple action that hold more content “than a ride on a roller coaster.” I found that personally, the was an unexpected plot twist that Eve was in fact working for the spies trying to murder Roger was interesting. Especially so once they plan for her to pretend to murder Roger, which the audience does not known prior to. Their love eventually wins over for the both of them. Roger also faced moral dilemmas when he decided to go save Eve. There is more that meets the eye for this particular film.
Teachout does however make some valid point considering the rest of Hitchcock’s film career. He alludes to the common themes that Hitchcock’s films which are consistently thriller-horror-murder based. This reminds me of Pauline Kael’s critique on auteur theory. Kael asks why we would celebrate an artist for repeating themselves and justify it by referring to the repetition as making “consistent stylistic decisions”. I think Hitchcock’s success was partly driven upon the audiences expectations for a “Hitchcock film”. Although he directed what he wanted and had to work around many rules to do so, his decisions were ultimately dictated by the audiences’ approval. This shouldn’t necessarily be considered a bad thing but it does limit him artistically. Then there is a criticism on the “cramped emotional scale”. Personally, this also rings truth because I never got myself emotionally attached to a character. Shocked as I was to see them be murdered or die, I did not cry. This is partly because of the characters and how the actors portrayed them and the fact that the plot may not have established them as very likeable. Nevertheless, I do not think that this element of the cinema is absolutely necessary to make a great piece of art.
Overall Hitchcock may be generally overrated but this is mostly because he was able to market himself very well to the public by presented a certain persona. As for his work in film, some important factors such as true emotional attachment to characters were sometimes absent and repetition of themes may have seemed monotonous . However, Hitchcock always placed an interesting spin into his films and stylistic elements in combination with the story demonstrated him as an unparalleled cinematic master. He is an important person to study because he set many standards, achieved new heights and introduced several themes that were not considered to be elite cinema to the foreground. Even if history portrays Hitchcock as an “overrated” director his films are ones that deserve to be critiqued, analyzed and ultimately appreciated.
For starters, I do not have trouble with Alfred Hitchcock. There will always be critics and they are entitled to their opinions.
Teachout seems to single out “North by Northwest” as the Hitchcock movie he is most unimpressed by. It was not my favorite Hitchcock movie but I found it entertaining nonetheless. The gorgeous scenery, terrific acting and special effects made for an engrossing film. I always thought of Hitchcock as the master of suspense and he seldom disappoints me. His films transcend time and are popular today. Just looking at the hugely successful film “Psycho” and all the remakes, sequels and television shows it has spawned speaks volumes to the popularity of his works. Who decides what art is great and what are is not? It is all a matter of personal taste/preference. If you are critiquing a film and are trying to stay impartial, this is incredibly difficult to do. It is hard not to let personal feelings towards a director play a role in your exposé. I would be challenged to write a critique on Hitchcock films because I know that I am a fan and I would find good in almost every film. That being said, there are times when it seems like he is stretching for the sake of the thrill.
In “North by Northwest” the crop duster scene is thrilling but a bit unrealistic to me. Seeing Roger in the middle of a field that stretches for miles, being attacked by a plane seems preposterous. There appears to be no way out but all of a sudden he sees a huge cornfield where he seeks refuge. This seems incredibly convenient to me. Hitchcock wanted to film a thrilling, atypical chase scene and he did but some might consider the situation a bit implausible.
I think that Hitchcock was truly the master of his craft. He knew what he wanted and what he expected of his actors and crew. He exceptional vision and superior ability to grip an audience with his suspenseful, sometimes shocking scenes made him a true cinematic genius. While his films may not appeal to all, true fans of suspenseful, dramatic and frightening movies will be thoroughly entertained watching his movies. I know I have been.
As a sidenote, Ms. Schmidt, I just found out that “Bates Motel” has been renewed for two more seasons. Yes!
I’ve been thinking a lot about what you said in one of the first classes we had, comparing James Cameron to Alfred Hitchcock. It’s made me think so much about the way we view contemporary filmmakers, and the way Hitchcock was viewed, and underappreciated, in his own time. Just the fact that Hitchcock never won an Oscar, despite desperately wanting one, blows my mind. I’m not going to get into my whole rant about the Oscars being corrupt, and a ridiculous way to judge one’s career. The point is, Hitchcock clearly wasn’t recognized in his own time for his brilliance. Which is what surprised me about Teachout’s article, it was written in 2009. I think you would be pretty hard pressed these days to find someone in the film business that didn’t love or at least appreciate Hitchcock, and his cinematic achievements. So, clearly Teachout is going against the grain with his opinion. My first couple of reactions, were: WHAT!? THIS GUY IS AN IDIOT!? WHO THE HELL IS THIS FOOL!?!? Then I felt like maybe Teachout was just speaking out against Hitchcock to be a contrarian. A million articles have been written about Hitchcock’s greatness, one going against the popular opinion obviously gets more attention. I also considered that Teachout my be a critic come back from Hitchcock’s past, come to haunt us. I would also add, that roller coasters can be absolutely amazing and entertaining. Part of me also thinks that Hitchcock would have minded this critique that much, because I don’t believe that Teachout is saying Hitchcock films aren’t entertaining, he is just saying the don’t have the depth that other great films have. I have to disagree with that too though. Hitchcock films are entertaining AND have tremendous depth. I think about our ability to psycho-analyze them this semester, and the levels of meaning we were able to glean from them, really proves there is more to Hitchcock’s films. The final thing I want to add is that Hitchcock’s lack of “dramatic logic” is probably one of my favorite things about his films! He also leaves you guessing, wondering what will happen next. He has redefined traditional cinematic structure, and his films continue to be the benchmark for excellence in the medium of film.
I don’t believe that it is possible to qualify Hitchcock as overrated. In his time he was really quite underrated. He never won the Oscar he ‘deserved’. Though he received an honorary award, he was never rewarded for a specific film, or specific choices he made. He never won an Oscar and yet one of his films, Vertigo, is starting to be considered as the ‘best film of all time’. It is hard to believe that someone who made a film that great can be considered overrated.
Going into this class I knew very little of the works of Hitchcock. I had only ever seen Psycho and heard of The Birds. I was not a huge fan of Psycho, it was a little too scary for me. After watching all of the films for this class, I have a new found appreciation for Hitchcock. I am the type of person who really likes awful comedy and satirical movies. I’m not someone who will choose a drama or thriller over a goofy comedy movie. But I really did enjoy watching these films. I was always so invested in the characters and what was happening, and I think that is one reason that Hitchcock is so great. All of his movies produce many emotions in the audience and that is a great experience as a spectator. There is nothing worse than watching a movie that you do not care about.
Overall, I do not think that Hitchcock is overrated at all. I would say that he is still underrated. There are many people that have only seen one or two of his movies and really don’t appreciate the creative mastermind that he was. I believe that he is losing a bit of his ‘thunder’ in the new generation. People avoid watching older movies these days because they see them as boring or slow, when in fact, Hitchcock’s films are quite the opposite.
When reading Teachout commentary on Hitchcock’s work I couldn’t help but think about the discussion we had on the cultural hierarchy of art. It seems that Teachout views Hitchcock’s films as a from of low art, too accessible and therefore deprived “of the power of transcendent illumination”. Although, I somewhat agree that “North by Northwest” is more eye-candy than content, it’s impossible for me to agree that none of his films should be considered as “great” art.
We have to remind ourselves that Hitchcock’s art was not without limitations. That is to say that he was working in Hollywood, a money making machine with a set of specific rules. Rules that although he worked with, he pushed to their limits again and again, such as with “Psycho”. Limitations which did not stop him form making great movies, moving audiences again and again, and lets face it, make exuberant amount of money.
Moreover, like any other “great” art, Hitchcock’s life work is studied through and through by looking at their lasting effects and amazing technical worth. If is work was as shallow as suggested by Teachout, then there would not be as many essays discussing is work nor entire university courses devoted to it. Although he repeats themes and motifs over and over in his movies, he adapts the way he integrates them over and over again to create beautiful and suspenseful movies that are filled with commentaries on human nature and society.
As for his use technique, it is not only exemplary to this day, it was also often ground breaking. So much so, that he influenced entire generations of filmmakers who, to this day, idolize him. There are event traces of his legacy in multiple other media to this day.
Moreover, the simple fact that he was not recognized as a great artist during is career and never received the recognition he so desperately wanted, in a way, demonstrates that he was simply an artist, like so many before him, that was so far ahead of the pact that his genius could not be recognized in his time.
In my own opinion Hitchcock it is a great director. I have seen Psycho, the Birds, Rear Window, Rebecca, Vertigo, I love murder mysteries, and every Hitchcock synopsis sounds amazing to me. The only thing is that his endings always let me down. It seems to always be some kind of random occurrence that falls in place for the protagonist so he figures it all out. Rear Window profoundly bugged me because the protagonist jumps to conclusions at the beginning with no evidence and turns out to be right, Psycho is just very interesting in genre but the killer is just not that convincing. I really love a Hitchcock film until the end, because his solutions are always worth it. I choose Hitchcock any day. There is also a psychological underpinning to many of his films. The films of Hitchcock are a lot different from the ones I used to saw. Underneath the mainstream pap that is initially attractive with Hitchcock’s films are both some deeper and disturbing themes. I do really like Psycho and Vertigo is more than slightly overrated, But Rear Window, North by Northwest, Notorious, and Shadow of a Doubt, Rebecca, and Strangers On a Train. I still want to see more of his films. I don’t think his films are cold. They have character viewpoints and interesting arches and twists for these characters, he adapts the way he integrates them over and over again to create suspenseful movies that are filled with commentaries on human nature and society, the gorgeous scenery, terrific acting and special effects made for an excellent film.
I would like to start off by saying that I absolutely do not think Alfred Hitchcock is overrated. Of course there will always be critics saying otherwise no matter how great he was. I believe Hitchcock was in fact underrated in his time. He was the first to take many risks in film that truly got the genre of horror, more specifically psychological thrillers started. He took a lot of heat and criticism from many people, which I do not believe he deserved.
I do not agree with Teachout’s commentary about Hitchcock, it seems to me that he is just bitter. He singles out “North by Northwest” in particularly as an unsuccessful movie, but “North by Northwest” was Hitchcocks best film in my opinion. I can understand that in media today some of Hitchcocks films would be seen as drawn out, over exaggerated and somewhat unrealistic, but we must keep in mind that Hitchcock directed in a very different time than now and had many limitations limitations. For example, the iconic shower scene in Psycho gave Hitchcock a lot of trouble. It took a long time and convincing for producers to allow him to include that unforgettable scene in the movie, that became one of the most well known and talked about scenes in film history.
If what Teachout is saying is correct than why are Alfred Hitchcock films studied and discussed to the degree they are? The answer is simple, because he was an artist and not at all overrated. Hitchcock took chances and used techniques that paved the way for many directors of the following generations. I can accept and understand that not everyone would enjoy and appreciate Hitchcock films, but he should be respected and definitely not considered overrated.
The biggest fault in Teachout’s logic or argument, from this small excerpt, is the generalization(s) made off of seemingly subjective or unsubstantiated claims. He fails to qualify what great art ‘is’, other than vaguely stating that great art has the “power of transcendent illumination”. But again, we must admit that a certain subjective standard exists concerning what makes art great or highbrow. However it is patently obvious that people react differently to art and it seems pompous to say one kind must be better than the other. The qualifications for great art are thus only ever vaguely suggested; there is no rule book or guidelines, or even genres that are excluded or reserved – it means that something special but undefined is inherent to a piece of art that makes it better than others. The Mona Lisa is undoubtedly the work of a talented artist, not everyone could produce it, and as well it is extremely popular and highly scrutinized. A Hemingway novel is applauded as a text that is deeply insightful towards the human condition. Music from Mozart is similarly exalted. Each piece of art is great in its own right, it is evaluated against others and then the conclusion is reached that it is better, or reaches a certain intellectual standard. But what of art today that is extremely popular? Or is evidently something that not everyone could produce? Why is a distinction made? Some argue that the motive behind a work of art’s creation, combined with the apparent quality of the work, is what sets it apart or makes it great. Some argue that commercialized pieces of art are deprived of their intrinsic value and only concern with appealing to the most basic of senses. Why are older works of art heavily favored over the new? What is this aura of greatness? Who is allowed to judge? Do we separate the work from historical context? From the artists who created them? These questions, and thus what pieces of art should be called great are answered differently by different theoretical approaches. But yet the same works of art are universally agreed upon as great.
Hitchcock was famous, his films are famous, he made money, he had critics, he has tons of loyal fans and his work is surrounded by substantial critical discourse and analysis. Accordingly, I believe that the standard is based off of a mixture of; quality of work, popularity, known ability of the artist in question, critical discourse and most importantly, the response elicited by the work on its audience. Teachout’s evaluation fails to acknowledge the amount of critical thinking that Hitchcock’s work has invoked in scholarly and personal thinking. In this way, I think Teachout’s evaluation is unconvincing.