As I noted in my first read through, the lifestyles of Selznick and Hitchcock were incredibly distinct from one another. Selznick seeing things through a business lens; timetables, budget, and profit, while Hitchcock saw life through takes, artistry, and the final product. These worldviews can be seen in a lot of their interactions, Selznick begging for Hitchcock to speed up but Hitchcock wanting to take his time. While sometimes negative, there were of course many beneficial results of this. By having differing worldviews, each party was able to bring the best parts of that to the table. Hitchcock could get lost in making his work special and artsy, and Selznick could edit it into something that could sell. This can be seen when the two men were working and reworking the script of Rebecca, Hitchcock cutting narration as the main structure and Selznick keeping Hitchcock from completely reworking the story. Benefits were not always give and take, as one party could just have a better idea in general. Such as when Selznick wanted the Rebecca ‘R’ to be made of smoke in the sky but Hitchcock took the more intimate approach of having the ‘R’ be on Rebecca’s pillow.
The power dichotomy between the two is very conflicting. On one hand, Selznick is employing Hitchcock and therefore has power over him. However, Hitchcock was making Selznick money and therefore has a certain control of Selznick. To use a metaphor, a restaurant owner controls the chef, but the chef cooks the burger. If the burger fails, the owner fails so the chef decides the owners fate. This can be seen in many instances, where Selznick would criticize something that Hitchcock had done but then send kind words through memorandum. The relationship was a tightrope walk of compromise, neither side giving in fully but understanding that there was the potential for a fall. The power shifts over time as well, once Hitchcock becomes a household name and holds more negotiating power.
I want to take a moment to discuss how Selznick and Hitchcock are individually framed in the book, as there is a discrepancy. For starters, Selznick is framed as an extravagant drug user whose work life keeps him away from his family. Several times in the book, third parties accuse Selznick of abusing Hitchcock and there is hardly any rebuttal. His business attitude is shown only as a weakness, a hinderance and annoyance to Hitchcock’s art. The fact that he made money from Hitchcock is framed as a wrongdoing on Selznick’s part, even though it is the outcome of a capitalistic system where people can essentially own other people. On the flipside, Hitchcock is framed as a humble man whose only vice is alcohol sometimes. He has simple pleasures, like riding in a car that is going fast or a small get together with friends. He is shy in large company, but is able to ‘seduce’ (13) in one on one situations. While Hitchcock is sometimes difficult to work with, many actors love him.
The main takeaway from this is that the writer has a clear preference to Hitchcock over Selznick. Selznick’s life choices are put under scrutiny, while Hitchcock gets a much lighter sentence with it. As well, the word choices the author uses for Hitchcock frame him as someone the readers can relate to. Everyone can relate to a man who can eat a pint of ice cream in a sitting, not someone who throws lavish 30+ person parties and makes the guests “kowtow’ to him. The reader sees Selznick as a mustache twirling capitalist and Hitchcock as the hard working laborer. I personally don’t know enough about the two to say if it is justified or not.
I will take another bit of time to criticize Leff’s writing. Upon a second reading, I somehow find it more insufferable than when I read it before. To defend myself, I will bring up a passage from the book and discuss in detail the issues that I have with it. On page 10, Leff writes, “Whether or not apocryphal, Hitchcock’s recollections of his parents’ treatment of him suggest the formation of boundaries, the abridgment of freedom, and the limits of opportunity, all anathema to Selznick but the essence of Hitchcock’s best work.”
Take the time to read that a few times. I’ll wait.
In reading that, could you tell me exactly what Leff is saying?
Rarely do I read a book where I need to take two trips to the dictionary for a single sentence. Apocryphal and anathema, respectfully meaning questionably true and something that someone dislikes, are both not words commonly used and not the best words for the sentence that they take place in. The beginning of the sentence could read “True or not,” while the end could read, “all attributes Selznick disliked, but the essence of Hitchcock’s best work.” Instead, Leff opted to use less accessible language in order to appear more intelligent than the reader. As well, the sentence is much longer than it needs to be. “Hitchcock’s childhood trauma suggests the formation of boundaries, lack of freedom, and limits of opportunity, themes that appear in Hitchcock’s best work.” No need to mention Selznick’s dislike of these themes here, as that can be explored when describing how the men worked together.
The point isn’t that this one sentence is bad, the point is that there are many sentences just like this. Wordy sentences, pseudo-intellectual word choice, and unnecessary information take this book down like diseased rats in medieval Europe. I can hardly get into the material of the book when my eyes keep glazing over whenever Leff mentions Hitchcock’s weight for no reason (13,16,21,31,107, and more I couldn’t bother).
What I believe this points to is an underlying problem in film studies and criticism. There is a layer of pretentiousness that hovers over the whole industry that makes it difficult for people to get into it and understand it. A heavy dose of elitism spread from auteur to auteur maintains this culture of smug superiority so thick it can’t be penetrated by a drill. But I digress.
