Alfred Hitchcock: A Life In Darkness And Light (2003) - Plot & Excerpts
This exhaustive biography takes the middle way between the two most common views of Hitchcock. The first Hitchcock is “The Master of Suspense” Hitchcock. This is the man as he wished to be seen: the Alfred Hitchcock Presents Hitchcock, the baby-faced cameo in a score of movies. A thoroughly professional maker of popular films, a family man, and a convivial host, he is by nature a practical joker, an impish lover of dark humor, the gadfly of anyone who cannot take a joke.The second Hitchcock is “The Dark Genius” Hitchcock. This is the man as lauded by Truffaut and later pictured in Donald Spoto's biography. A neurotic frightened by the police, an impotent voyeur scarred by a Catholic childhood, he is first of all a great artist who wrestled with his conflicts in superb films about obsession, guilt and desire, but he is also a man whose obsessions never left him, whose sexual predations and sadisms darkened the end of his career.McGilligan's witty subtitle, “A Life in Darkness and Light,” shows clearly what his approach will be. First of all, it is a life best revealed to us as we sit in the darkness and view his creations, composed of darkness and light: it is in the art that the man will best be found. Secondly, Hitchcock's life—like all of our lives—is composed of both good and evil, and it is a mistake to see it primarily as one or the other. It is clear McGilligan thinks Spoto made this mistake, and unfairly blackened Hitchcock's reputation as a result. It is one that he himself is determined not to make.One of the ways he avoids this mistake is by spending a good deal of time on the sunnier, earlier period: Hitchcock's childhood, his early career in art and advertising, his work as an art director in film, and eventually as a director of British films. Seven of the book's eighteen chapters—230 pages of the 750 of text—occupy Hitchcock's life before he relocated to Hollywood. Much of this is interesting, but some of it is more detailed that it should be (for example, McGilligan prints the entire text of each of the mediocre five short stories young Hitchcock published in a trade paper.) The overall picture, though, is of a young man eagerly learning his craft, and discovering a life-long partner—both for work and for love--in Alma Reville. The fact that we like this young man and wish him well shows McGilligan's wisdom in spending so much time on the early years.The book is too filled with facts and film analysis for me to summarize it here, but I was particularly pleased with the detailed presentation of the genesis and realization of each film, from The 39 Steps to Family Plot, including the films that might have been but never were. (If you don't have time to read the whole book, you should really get hold of a copy (from the library? Like I did?) and check out the sections on your favorite films for yourself.I will, however, make a comment about the “dark” of “The Dark Genius” (I believe the “genius" to be self-evident). It seems that Hitchcock, impotent but salaciously fond of sexual voyeurism and gossip, became desperate in his final years, as he lost first his beloved stars, then his influence, his mental sharpness, his energy, his friends, and finally his wife Alma, the love of his life and the greatest of his collaborators. During his long slow decline he may have been--probably was--guilty of a few shabby acts, but this cannot obscure the light of his humor, his generosity, his capacity for friendship, or the luminous achievements of his legendary career. And I am sure author Patrick McGilligan would agree.
McGilligan's is an unenviable task to say the least. Books about movies have always to contend with the simple disparity in mediums, and when a medium on one hand is being revolutionized by one of the single most innovative and influential forces in film history, a daunting job becomes herculean. The very premise of this book is much of its weakness; it flirts always with the line between dissection and disfiguring. Hitchcock's movies are great because they saw the lady in half; McGilligan shows us where the mirrors are hidden. That can be deflating, at times.That not-so-minor quibble aside, McGilligan has certainly done his research. I had no previous knowledge of Hitchcock's personal life, and little idea of his directing style beyond the odd anecdote. His personality was his style, McGilligan shows us. Hitchcock's movies are brilliantly detailed largely because Hitchcock was obsessively dedicated to brilliant detail; he had the strange knack of manipulating the human actor to perfectly convey the fictitious character, cajoling, haranguing and psychoanalyzing. This information was enlightening and always entertaining. I wish it had been a little more specific from film to film, but in general, this is a rare chance to see exactly how these classics came to be, how indeed they would never have been classics had another director been at the helm.The book suffers a little from longwindedness. There's too much repetition brought on by the nature of its subject, and because of its subject little or no attention is paid to matters of style. The movies begin to run together, and that's a shame because at its best, the book inspires you to go watch the movies all over again. And that really is the highest praise I can pay it. It is aware, perfectly and appropriately, of its subject and his greatness; its effect, above and beyond its rather commonplace merits as a book, is to send you back into a bloody shower stall, into a high rise apartment looking into the neighboring windows. A lucky subject for this book; it wouldn't have made it on its own.
What do You think about Alfred Hitchcock: A Life In Darkness And Light (2003)?
This is a very thorough and comprehensive biography of Hitchcock, taking us from birth to death, covering the making of all fifty-three films and then some. The short review is: tiresome beginning, great middle, dreary ending.The book begins as more of a one-sided argument between the author and an earlier biographer (Spoto) that nearly caused me to book the book aside and chalk it up as a loss. Only scholars are interested in such meaningless debates. Fortunately, the author began focusing on the main character when Hitchcock enters the film industry during the silent era.The stories and backstories for all of the films are here and these are the strength of the book. Hitchock's exceptional visual imagination, aided by his drawing ability, is connected to specific shots and scenes so that the reader understands both the challenges the director faced and the ingenuity he exercised to overcome those challenges. We realize that Hitchcock has the personality of the architect, oscillating back and forth between vision and detail; and that the social Hitchcock was the ultimate host, performing for people more than relating to people. His odd relationships with the actors he referred to as "cattle" are described with balance and fairness; he may have been a difficult and demanding director but helped several achieve their greatest film performances.The ending returns to the author's argument with Spoto in between tales of Hitchcock's decline. The author describes the 1950's up through Psycho as his most sustained creative period. I do not agree (for some reason I don't care for any of Hitchcock's color films), but this is a matter of personal taste. Although the book is very long (and felt that way at both the beginning and end), the author certainly helped me understand and appreciate the extent of Hitchcock's contributions to film and culture.
—Robert Morrow
I have seen many of Hitchcock's films (most of the American ones), but I didn't know anything about his life. This book was a very story-like telling of the Hitchcock's life and brought in a lot of other biographer's work in a way that I thought balanced the picture of the various rumors and controversies. I found the fights that Hitchcock had throughout his career with censors, and the compromises that were made in the films to deal with those censors especially interesting. I would have liked to know more about Alma Hitchcock. It is clear that she was incredibly important to Hitchcock, both personally and professionally, but it isn't really clear who she was as an individual. There is a very detailed filmography (and a separate listing of TV credits) included which tells you where Hitchcock's cameo is in each film.
—Mary
Long (750 p.) but well worth it if you’re interested in Hitchcock’s films in general, Hollywood, the film industry… Really well written and compelling. Despite the great amount of detail, I was never bored. Each film‘s production, starting in the 1920s, is described in detail. How casting choices were made, the writing process, set and costume designs. Don't let put you off! I never realized how involved he was in writing almost all of his films. Other than a few of the very early films and Rebecca, he never made a film with an off the shelf script. And the relationship with Alma, his wife, is very touching. On the other hand, it seems he was quite sophomoric with the lewd humor and endless practical jokes. But it really gives me a renewed appreciation for his films--I put all of them on my Netflix queue!
—Kevin
