Alfred Hitchcock, known as “The Master of Suspense,” has been the subject of many books, documentaries and feature films over the years. Now, with “My Name is Alfred Hitchcock,” filmmaker Mark Cousins puts his own spin on the auteur.
This insightful and illuminating documentary essay began production in 2022 and considers six aspects of Hitchcock's work — escape, desire, loneliness, time, fulfillment and heights. Cousins has English impressionist Alistair McGowan voicing Hitchcock, as he guides viewers through various case studies to address these themes.
"My Name Is Alfred Hitchcock" showcases dozens of clips from Hitchcock’s films, ranging from his early silent features “The Farmer’s Wife,” “The Pleasure Garden” and “The Ring,” to mid-century classics like “Vertigo,” “Psycho” and “North by Northwest,” to his late-period films “Marnie,” “Torn Curtain” and “Family Plot.” They illustrate the points Cousins makes about how Hitchcock used his camera to show not tell. When characters climb the stairs in “Blackmail” and the camera rises like an elevator, McGowan as Hitchcock observes, “You can’t do this in theater, can you? Or in painting,” to emphasize the magic of cinema. “It’s a unique kind of uplift, I think,” he intones, capturing the director’s cheeky sense of humor.
Cousins makes many astute points about Hitchcock’s process, such as his use of a ramp in “Notorious” to allow Claude Rains to appear the same height as costar Ingrid Bergman in a scene, or how in “Saboteur,” viewers can’t hear the wind rustling the hair of a character dangling from the Statue of Liberty — but one can hear the character’s breathing.
In a recent interview with Salon, Cousins spoke about making “My Name Is Hitchcock.” This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Your film explores how Hitchcock masterfully plays with comfort and fear, often blending squirm-inducing tension with moments of shock. He was known for manipulating his audience, and in your film, you employ similar techniques—such as the voiceover by Alistair McGowan, the “lie.” You also make a personal appearance and include some contemporary scenes. Could you talk about your approach to examining Hitchcock’s work, especially in how you “look at him from unusual angles?"
I thought, the world does not need another Hitchcock film, or book for that matter, because there has been so much. But then my producer said that it’s going to be 100 years since his first film, “The Pleasure Garden.” And Covid was happening, and I thought I could say something new about Hitchcock in the light of Covid. If you remember, with Covid, we spent more time alone, and we asked questions about fulfillment. So when I looked back on the Hitchcock films, I was seeing loneliness, solitude, and fulfillment in his work. So this was looking back at him through this new lens the whole world was experiencing and that enriched my sense of him. I thought there is something to say about him that is playful in this era of TikTok. I was also delighted to find Alistair McGowan, who is completely believable [as the voice of Hitchcock].
I am interested in how you make the connections you do—are they things you actively look for, or do you watch all these films and have “aha” moments? I loved all the examples of Hitchcock’s omniscient point of view. Likewise, there is a marvelous sequence where you talk about shooting in real time, for “The Birds” and “Rope” or the killings in “Blackmail” and “Torn Curtain.” But you also show time as a way of reliving the past, as in “Rebecca,” “Rope” and “Marnie.” Can you describe your process of reading his films? Do you look for these moments or things that connect?
I scribbled some themes — desire, loneliness, and time, etc. and I rewatched all 53 pictures only through the lens of these themes. Watching every film with these ideas in mind, I would see something interesting about time, and I would put a little T in my notebook, so when it came to making the documentary, I got sandwich boxes and put all the “time” points in this sandwich box. This is what the script looked like.
I really appreciated how you showed Hitchcock’s way of using sound or music (or silence) effectively, as well as camera movements, and even color in some scenes to draw viewers in. The clip from “Topaz” was a scene that made me go “Wow!” You cherry-pick some great clips, both famous scenes (like the crop dusting sequence from “North by Northwest,” to silent films that even your narrator claims you probably haven’t seen. What makes you say, “This is a moment I have to show?” You have all your “time” moments, but you pick 3-4 of the most interesting ones.
It's visual thinking. Hitchcock was one of the greatest visual thinkers of the 20th century, most obviously in the history of cinema. I’m a big fan of Temple Grandin, who is neurodiverse, and wrote a book called “Visual Thinking.” For those of us who are not great at words, we are good at seeing how color, composition and movement can create a world and say things like language can say things. I’m always looking for things like that in Hitchcock. I must say, it’s a pretty rich truffle hunt. “Topaz” is not a great film, but that moment of the purple dress is fantastic visual thinking.
When you talk about “Height” I anticipated scenes of the key in “Notorious,” I was pleasantly surprised by the clip from “Vertigo,” (that it wasn’t the famous dolly zoom) and disappointed you didn’t use the overhead shot of Arbogast (Martin Balsam) being killed in “Psycho.” Can you talk about choosing the clips you did to illustrate your points?
I was aiming for all of that. We’re dealing with a filmmaker who is very well known. Every movie fan knows Hitchcock. People are expecting the Arbogast scene. A film like this is aiming to be entertaining, so you want to provide the viewer with the satisfaction of what they expect but also the surprise that they are seeing something new. People think they know Hitchcock really well, but I wanted to surprise them with images and thoughts and moments from this huge career which perhaps are not well known, and not the obvious films. If I said all the things that have been said before about Hitchcock, you’d be ahead of me and guess what’s happening next, and we probably wouldn’t be speaking now.
What film did you select that you thought people should know but are not going to recognize.
I think a film like “The Ring” is one people don’t really know very well. It’s been restored beautifully. Some early silent films are redolent of “Vertigo.” The conventional opinion about Hitchcock is that he did British comedies that were fun, fast and light. Then he had his interim period, then he got into the Freudian stuff, “Vertigo,” “Marnie,” “The Birds,” etc. But it’s more complicated than that. The silent films had some of the intensity of desire and the dreamlike quality that “Vertigo” has. A film like “The Ring” or “Downhill” has this heightened, flooded feeling about them, so that’s something I hope is a bit new.
You talk about desire, and Judith Anderson’s Mrs. Danvers in “Rebecca” as an example of queer desire. But you didn’t mention Martin Landau’s character in “North by Northwest,” who has a desire for his boss, James Mason, or the two guys in “Rope.”
“Strangers on a Train,” or the “Pleasure Garden,” where there is explicit lesbianism. I think there is a lot of queerness in Hitchcock, isn’t there? He was a progressive and wasn’t a reactionary. Therefore, he was interested in the full spectrum of sexual identities. He was also interested in transgression. So, we get quite a lot of queerness throughout his career.
There are some great insights in the film, from Hitchcock’s admission that he didn’t want to include the psychiatrist’s explanation in “Psycho.” Can you discuss your research? So much has been written about Hitchcock, what did you discover?
I didn’t do much more research. I have a pretty good visual memory. I have a shelf of books, and I have read the French stuff, and I’ve seen all the films, so I didn’t need to read much more. But one book that was really important for this film was Patricia Hitchcock’s book on her mother, Alma. I’ve always been interested in the question of feminism around Hitchcock, and drew on the very good book by Joan Harrison, who was a producer and writer for Hitchcock (“Rebecca,” “Foreign Correspondent”). Pat is seeing him from a family perspective — giving weekend parties, being in the garden with his sleeves rolled up, and that domestic, happy, fulfilled side of HItchcock is one we don’t hear about as much.
What observations do you have about Hitchcock’s career? He was a genius who changed cinema forever. He’s been the subject of numerous books and films and may be the most discussed director. Thoughts on his appeal and why it endures? His films are not “scary,” save “Psycho;” they are suspenseful.
One reason he endures is because a lot of the society we see is Grace Kelly in beautiful frocks and Cary Grant in gorgeous suits in cocktail world drawing rooms. And he seems to be saying those worlds are one step away from chaos, from the void and from violence. These films take us into glamorous worlds of beautiful people, which is one of the reasons for going to the cinema. But then, they also take us to the dark side, the frisson and the sense of being on the edge of tragedy. That combination is delicious. We still love that. A lot of the most popular literature and films tread that path — desire and the void. He speaks the language of cinema very well. You can understand a lot of these films even if you don’t speak English. It’s purely using the medium like a great musician uses their instrument.
Also, of his 53 films, 26 are masterpieces. That’s a high count. The 1930s were his most productive period. In the 1940s, he made 12 films. There is an energy and a simple beauty about this work. His sense of the beauty of human beings and how they can be dressed in clothes. In the era of “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” look at the silhouettes of the men and women — they are remarkable. He is working with great costume designers. I was lucky enough to know Sean Connery well, and he talked about Hitchcock plucking his eyebrows in “Marnie” so there would absolutely be the perfect eyebrow.
What is your favorite Hitchcock film, what is the most underrated, and which one do you not really like? (This is my f**k, marry, kill question).
The only one I always cry at is “Notorious” and the ending with Ingrid Bergman — and she is central to the understanding of Hitchcock — is one of the most moving of its time. That sense of betrayal; she is working undercover and then she says, “You love me. You love me.” It is a very mature film.
The more I watch “Rope,” the better I think it is. In the era of the far-right in the U.S. and other countries, the speech Jimmy Stewart makes about fascism is incredibly important.
The most underrated film for me is probably “Saboteur,” 1942.
My favorite! Robert Cumming is so good in that film. I agree with you completely!
Hitchcock is in America, and he makes “Rebecca,” which I love, but it’s not really American. But he makes this road movie, (“Saboteur”) and you can feel him falling in love with vast expanses of the American landscape. It’s a really politically progressive film if you remember the scene with the circus performers. I’d almost say it is my favorite Hitchcock.
I also love “Foreign Correspondent.” I recently assigned it to my film discussion group, and no one had seen it.
I love it. Again, it has that visual thinking — the windmill going backward, and the umbrella scene, all the famous moments. I think it’s a really good film.
What’s your least favorite?
“Topaz” is sort of rubbish. I don’t know what happened. Hitchcock was always interested in the control of the image. Then he makes this film that looks tinny, like bad TV. And I’m not interested in the plot. It’s really the only bad one, I think.
I believe there are two kinds of people in this world. Those who like “Vertigo” and those who like “Rear Window.” My twin and I fight about this.
[Laughs] I like both, unfortunately, but I think “Vertigo” has the edge for me. “Rear Window” is perfect. It’s a perfect piece of classical filmmaking and I particularly love Jimmy Stewart’s backstory as a foreign correspondent. I think “Vertigo” is better because it is more f**ked up, and more weird, and transgressive. The plot doesn’t really make a lot of sense. All the things the critics hated when it first came out, all its supposed weaknesses, look like strengths to me. There is no rationale for that ending, yet there is a metaphysical reason.
To me, “Vertigo” is a puzzle and requires critical thinking, whereas “Rear Window” tells you what to think and feel the whole time. I will grudgingly concede that “My Name Is Alfred Hitchcock” made me want to revisit “Rear Window” because of how you present it.
“Vertigo” has flaws. I think Jimmy Stewart is miscast in “Vertigo,” and I think Hitchcock felt that as well, that he was too old for the part. But all that messed-upness is what is exciting. It doesn’t resolve itself. It’s more a film from the unconscious, whereas “Rear Window” is more for the conscious.
“My Name is Alfred Hitchcock” opens Oct. 25 in select theaters and expands nationwide Nov. 1-15.
