![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineThis isn't a long book. If I hadn't alternated with other reading, I would have finished it weeks ago. Of course, that's not the only reason. Even good biographies are never my idea of page turners.
In keeping with the title, Edward White divides the bio into twelve chapters, each with a title descriptive of the man: “The Boy Who Couldn’t Grow Up,” “The Murderer,” “The Auteur,” “The Womanizer,” “The Fat Man,” “The Dandy,” “The Family Man,” “The Voyeur,” “The Entertainer,” “The Pioneer,” “The Londoner,” and the “The Man of God.” These so-called lives, of course, have a fair amount of overlap. No chapter gives events in pure chronological order -- it's more a series of essays, making points as they come to mind, interspersed with B&W photos -- but there is a sense of overall progression, with the last chapter covering his death.
You can tell it's a recent publication, because it makes a number of modern references, suggesting that Hitch's influence endures. If White means to emulate the sense of humor that pervades the Hitchcock oeuvre, he falls far short, but at least he doesn't shy away from choice quotes as appropriate.
If one theme turns up in every chapter, it's a drive for control. That's kind of to be expected of a director, but Hitchcock seemed to take it further than most. At the same time, he was surprisingly aloof on set, leaving others to figure things out on their own until later. It sounds like once he had established his brand, he could count on key collaborators to do the heavy lifting of making things the way he'd probably like, and what he didn't would simply end up cut.
That ties in with another recurring theme: dichotomy. Almost any behavioral trait attributed to Hitchcock could be met with counterexamples. The same could be said of lots of people I know, but we rarely notice this measure of it from celebs. In several ways, he remains a mystery, and not for lack of research on White's part. Perhaps the Master of Suspense wanted it that way.
Yes, Hitch could be a big jerk, and not just literally big: arrogant, unchivalrous, slow to compliment, overly cruel in pranks, lying frequently to the press...nonetheless, he was undoubtedly interesting in person as well as by reputation. I'm uncertain how I'd feel if I could meet him in some capacity.
White acknowledges when claims are neither proven nor disproven, but that doesn't make him a neutral observer. He makes his opinions of various works clear. For the most part, I agree, having seen 29 Hitchcock movies and a few episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. But White notes qualities I hadn't noticed. I may have to rewatch some films or even check out ones I hadn't planned to now.
Let's just say that this book captures Hitchcock in 3D better than Dial M for Murder ever could. Whether you've seen even more of his filmography than I have or barely have a mental picture of the man, you should get something out of it.
My next book is Naomi Novik's A Deadly Education. Blurbs make it out to be something of a darker Harry Potter type with a more sinister school.
In keeping with the title, Edward White divides the bio into twelve chapters, each with a title descriptive of the man: “The Boy Who Couldn’t Grow Up,” “The Murderer,” “The Auteur,” “The Womanizer,” “The Fat Man,” “The Dandy,” “The Family Man,” “The Voyeur,” “The Entertainer,” “The Pioneer,” “The Londoner,” and the “The Man of God.” These so-called lives, of course, have a fair amount of overlap. No chapter gives events in pure chronological order -- it's more a series of essays, making points as they come to mind, interspersed with B&W photos -- but there is a sense of overall progression, with the last chapter covering his death.
You can tell it's a recent publication, because it makes a number of modern references, suggesting that Hitch's influence endures. If White means to emulate the sense of humor that pervades the Hitchcock oeuvre, he falls far short, but at least he doesn't shy away from choice quotes as appropriate.
If one theme turns up in every chapter, it's a drive for control. That's kind of to be expected of a director, but Hitchcock seemed to take it further than most. At the same time, he was surprisingly aloof on set, leaving others to figure things out on their own until later. It sounds like once he had established his brand, he could count on key collaborators to do the heavy lifting of making things the way he'd probably like, and what he didn't would simply end up cut.
That ties in with another recurring theme: dichotomy. Almost any behavioral trait attributed to Hitchcock could be met with counterexamples. The same could be said of lots of people I know, but we rarely notice this measure of it from celebs. In several ways, he remains a mystery, and not for lack of research on White's part. Perhaps the Master of Suspense wanted it that way.
Yes, Hitch could be a big jerk, and not just literally big: arrogant, unchivalrous, slow to compliment, overly cruel in pranks, lying frequently to the press...nonetheless, he was undoubtedly interesting in person as well as by reputation. I'm uncertain how I'd feel if I could meet him in some capacity.
White acknowledges when claims are neither proven nor disproven, but that doesn't make him a neutral observer. He makes his opinions of various works clear. For the most part, I agree, having seen 29 Hitchcock movies and a few episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. But White notes qualities I hadn't noticed. I may have to rewatch some films or even check out ones I hadn't planned to now.
Let's just say that this book captures Hitchcock in 3D better than Dial M for Murder ever could. Whether you've seen even more of his filmography than I have or barely have a mental picture of the man, you should get something out of it.
My next book is Naomi Novik's A Deadly Education. Blurbs make it out to be something of a darker Harry Potter type with a more sinister school.