The subject matter of Tony Lee Moral’s Hitchcock and the Making of Marnie is self-explanatory. It was published in 2002 and a revised edition followed in 2013.
I’m quite a fan of Hitchcock’s much maligned and much misunderstood Marnie. It’s a movie that has its problems but it has major strengths as well, it’s extraordinarily bold thematically structurally and stylistically and it’s ambitious. It sees Hitchcock once again attempting a different approach, just as he had done with Psycho and The Birds. It was savaged by critics who displayed unbelievable obtuseness in failing to comprehend that if Hitchcock made a movie in a particular way that was because he thought that that was the way that movie needed to be made. He always did things for a reason.
I’m always happy to see this movie get some attention, especially sympathetic attention. And Moral is certainly keen to see Marnie get a positive re-evaluation and recognition as one of Hitchcock’s major films.
There’s a lot to like about this book. The author offers us an exhaustively detailed account of the genesis of the movie, the various attempts to come up with the right screenplay, Hitchcock’s attempts to persuade Grace Kelly to take the lead role and the process of actually making the film. Moral seems somewhat suspicious of auteurist theory and (rightly) emphasises the contributions of Hitchcock’s extremely talented collaborators. We really feel that we are watching the making of the movie unfold.
The level of detail is impressive and absolutely fascinating.
He also addresses the absurdity of the attacks on the movie by film critics at that time. The movie was attacked for not looking realistic. You have to wonder if those critics had ever watched a Hitchcock movie, or rather you have to ask if they had ever understood a Hitchcock movie. Hitchcock was never slavishly devoted to realism, and Moral (correctly) points out that Hitchcock’s movies are uncompromisingly subjective. We see the point of view of a particular character whose view of reality is subtly, or sometimes seriously, distorted. The use of rear projection and the controversial use of an obvious painted backdrop in a crucial scene enhance the movie’s feel of subtle unreality. Marnie’s view of the world is distorted by her fears. Moral disposes of these silly attacks by critics in fine style.
He’s also determined to defends Hitchcock from some of the ridiculous and hysterical attacks on his character by people Donald Spoto.
Moral is incredibly good on the subject of the marketing and critical and commercial reception of Marnie.
When he tries his hand at interpretation of the movie he’s on much less solid ground, often resorting to meaningless film school waffle, ideological buzz-words and psychoanalytic mumbo-jumbo even sillier than that found in the movie itself. Moral would have been well advised to stick to giving us information about the production while letting us make up out own minds what the movie means.
There’s a silly chapter on the various pretentious arty types who have exploited the movie’s notoriety for their own ends.
The information on the dramatic changes the script went through at the hands of three separate writers is intriguing, and he deals well with the slightly controversial question of Hitchcock’s decision to fire Evan Hunter. The extra chapters added for the revised version give us more information than we could possibly require about the author of the original novel, Winston Graham, and the writer of the final screenplay, Jay Presson Allen. He also tells us at immense length abut Hitchcock’s abortive attempt to film J.M. Barrie’s play Mary Rose. This is reasonably interesting but it’s veering wildly off-topic.
This is not a particularly well written or well structured book. It really needed some attention from a good editor.
It’s the copious amounts of information on the journey from Hitchcock’s original idea of filming Winston Graham’s novel to the time the cameras started rolling, and on the movie’s fate after its release, that makes this book an essential read for Hitchcock fans. For those reasons, despite some flaws, it’s highly recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment