THE HITCHCOCK VILLAINS
This is my contribution to Maddy's 4th Annual Alfred Hitchcock blogathon, click here to learn more...
In 1962, French film director/critic Francois Truffaut spent a week sequestered at Universal Studios with Alfred Hitchcock, a filmmaker he admired extravagantly. There, the two explored each of Hitchcock’s films to date in detail. Discussing Stage Fright (1950), one of his lesser films, Hitchcock remarked, “The greatest weakness of the picture is that it breaks an unwritten law: The more successful the villain, the more successful the picture. That’s a cardinal rule, and in this picture the villain was a flop!” Truffaut was delighted, “The better the villain, the better the picture,” he exclaimed, “that’s an excellent formula!”
Hitchcock came to the U.S. in 1939 under contract to producer
David O. Selznick who was then completing production on Gone with the Wind. Rebecca (1940), an adaptation of
Daphne du Maurier’s 1938 gothic romance/mystery, was Hitchcock’s first picture
for Selznick. Rebecca is a love story wrapped in a mystery. The setting
is Manderley, a grand estate on an isolated stretch of English seacoast. The beautiful
mistress of the manor, Rebecca, has died and her husband (Laurence Olivier) remarries
to a naïve and unsophisticated girl (Joan Fontaine). When the newlyweds return
to windblown Manderley, they are greeted by a small army of servants, including
the dour head housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers.
Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers, Rebecca (1940) |
In discussing Rebecca,
Hitchcock agreed with Truffaut that the story was a Cinderella tale, and said, “The
heroine is Cinderella, and Mrs. Danvers is one of the ugly sisters.” Judith Anderson’s spectral performance as an
“ugly sister” whose repressed menace bursts into active vengeance earns her a
place in the pantheon of great Hitchcock villains. She also earned an Oscar
nomination for the role. The actress herself would credit her mesmerizing
performance to collaboration with her director. She said of Hitchcock, “I knew
I was in the presence of a master; I had utter trust and faith in him.”
~
Shadow of a Doubt (1943) has
been called Hitchcock’s own favorite of his films. When Truffaut asked him
about it, Hitchcock replied, “I wouldn’t say that…” But he would say he enjoyed
working with playwright Thornton Wilder, author of Our Town, on the script. When Wilder enlisted to serve
in WWII, Hitchcock turned to Sally Benson, author of the Meet Me in St.
Louis stories and novel, to complete the script. It’s no wonder, working with
Wilder and Benson, that the British filmmaker could so believably depict idyllic
small-town America in Shadow of a Doubt.
Joseph Cotten and Teresa Wright, Shadow of a Doubt (1943) |
By this time, Uncle Charlie has already been introduced and there
is good reason to be suspicious of him. He is first seen lounging in his room
at a seedy boarding house in an unnamed city. Men are after him and his sudden decision
to visit family is an escape plan. Joseph Cotten as Uncle Charlie portrays the
first in a series of Hitchcock’s “smiling psychopaths,” usually a twisted
mama’s boy. In this case, the boy was the baby of the family, doted on and
spoiled with little discipline and lots of toys. According to his sister, a
childhood bicycle accident effected a change in his personality…
Uncle Charlie grew up to be a real charmer. This would have been
no stretch for handsome, velvet-and-bourbon-voiced Joseph Cotten. At this point in his career he was portraying congenial
and attractive good guys in films like Citizen Kane (1941) and The
Magnificent Ambersons (1942). Uncle Charlie was a break in type for him,
for Charlie’s congeniality is, by turns, overblown and hard-edged, reflecting the
man’s artifice on one hand, and his volatility on the other. His complete lack
of empathy is exposed in an outburst that also lays bare his intense loathing of
people. When caught out as a killer by his horrified namesake, he snarls, “Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you
know if you ripped the fronts off houses you’d find swine?”
Accentuating the
man’s malevolence is the wholesome counterpoint young Charlie presents. And
just as Teresa Wright’s earnest portrayal of moral goodness heightens Cotten’s
portrait of irredeemable evil, his progressively more sinister Uncle Charlie amplifies
her character’s decency. Shadow of a Doubt is not only blessed with an
exquisite villain but also a superbly realized heroine.
~
Francois Truffaut
declared that Notorious (1946) was “truly [his] favorite,” at least
among the black and white films, and “the very quintessence of Hitchcock.” It
was also, without qualification, TCM host Robert Osborne’s favorite Hitchcock.
The director’s daughter, Patricia, would proclaim it “...a perfect film!” when
she watched Notorious again for the first time in many years.
With Cary Grant, Ingrid
Bergman, and Claude Rains on hand, we know before we catch our first glimpse of
the back of Cary Grant’s head in Ingrid Bergman’s living room that we’re likely to experience onscreen
magic. Providing the backdrop for what becomes a triangular tango is a post-war
tale of expatriate Nazis hatching a diabolical plot in South America.
Every aspect of Notorious,
from Ben Hecht’s script to Ted Tetzlaff’s cinematography and Roy Webb’s score, is
outstanding. Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman were both then major stars and at
the top of Hollywood’s glittering A-list. Claude Rains was already a well-respected character
actor, a three-time Oscar nominee who could deliver performances
ranging from the nastiest of villains to the most wise and kindly of fathers.
Leopoldine Konstantin, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains, Notorious (1946) |
Rains earned high
praise, along with another Oscar nomination, for his performance in Notorious.
We first encounter him as Alicia’s still smitten former suitor. As he begins to
court her again, he jealously probes her relationship with Dev as persistently as
he fawns over her. Mme. Sebastian, a classic devouring mother, does not favor her
son’s blossoming romance, so when he asks her to be nicer to Alicia, she sneers,
“Wouldn’t it be a little too much if we both grinned at her like idiots?” Rains depicts Alex Sebastian as a man of shifting moods. He is mistrustful
of Alicia before and after their marriage. He is an impetuous romantic. He is charming.
He is insecure. He will come undone in the face of betrayal. Claude
Rains will make of Alex Sebastian that most unnatural of oxymorons, a sympathetic
Nazi.
But Alex
Sebastian is not the only villain here. His mother, Mme. Sebastian, is played
to the cold-blooded hilt by Mme. Konstantin, an actress just three years older
than Rains. Alex is a mama’s boy who, when in trouble, always turns to mother. On
learning his bride is an American spy, he quickly makes his way to mother’s room.
Convinced his blunder will lead to certain death at the hands of his fellow Nazis,
he falls apart. And iron-willed mother takes over. Propping herself up in bed, she
pulls a cigarette from a bedside box and fires up. No, she assures him, “We are
protected by the enormity of your stupidity…for a time.” It is Mme. Sebastian
who concocts a plan to slowly poison Alicia so that her death will seem the
result of illness and not be questioned. Though Leopoldine Konstantin’s part is
smaller than Claude Rains’, she perfectly complements his portrayal of conflicted
evil with hers of unblinking resolve.
~
Hitchcock
directed four films after Notorious that were not very successful. His
fortunes changed with Strangers on a Train (1951), the film that launched
his golden decade. Adapted from Patricia Highsmith’s novel of
the same name, the story introduces Guy (Farley Granger) and Bruno (Robert Walker), two strangers who
meet on a train and begin to chat. It emerges that Guy, a rising tennis star, is hoping to
divorce his faithless wife and marry a Senator’s daughter. Spoiled rich boy, Bruno,
is chafing at the financial leash his fed-up father has put him on. In the
course of their conversation, Bruno suggests a “criss-cross” murder scheme. He will kill Guy’s wife and Guy will kill his father so that neither will be
suspected of murdering their adversary. “Sure, Bruno,” Guy says lightly. But
Bruno isn’t joking.
Farley Granger and Robert Walker, Strangers on a Train (1951) |
From the first instant Bruno appears in the club car insinuating
himself into Guy's life, to his final moments, when he mercilessly implicates
Guy with his dying breath, Walker dominates and energizes the film. Patricia
Hitchcock has said that for all her father's genius, it is Walker's daring
performance that 'made' the picture. Robert Walker died suddenly at age 32,
less than two months after the film’s release. He had appeared in more than 30
films, but it wasn’t until Strangers on a Train that he had the chance to demonstrate his range as an actor. Film critic/historian David Thomson wrote of Walker as Bruno,
"It is a landmark performance. You see it now and you feel the vibrancy of the
modernity..."
~
When scouting for the next mythic Hitchcock villain we jump to
1960 and Psycho. A sensation upon release, it truly was one of
Hitchcock’s favorites. He would tell filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich that he was
especially gratified by the film’s emotional impact on audiences. This spoke to the power of visual storytelling, he believed, or "pure cinema," as he preferred to call it.
The story begins with a scene of trysting lovers who bemoan the
sorry financial state of affairs that prevents them from marrying. When the
woman, Marion (Janet Leigh), later has the opportunity to make off with $40,000
in cash, she takes it and skips town. She will change her mind, but by this
time it’s dark, it’s raining and she will first spend the night at an out of
the way motel. Here she will meet Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who manages
the motel for his mother.
Anthony Perkins in Psycho (1960) |
Norman moves to the center of Psycho once Marion meets her demise,
but it’s unclear exactly what his role is. The viewer will wonder, “What’s
going on here?” We know there’s a killer on the loose but not much more. Which is
Hitchcock’s intent. He is “directing the viewers” in one direction so he can deliver
another knock-out punch at the climax. Not until the closing minutes of Psycho
do we realize who/what Norman Bates actually is. As brilliantly conceived and
directed as Psycho is, Anthony Perkins’s performance is one of the film’s
great strengths. He must unpeel Norman’s fractured personality layer by layer,
until the end of the picture. So well does he do this that, as critic Robin
Wood observed, “…the saddest casualty of Norman Bates’s murder spree was
Perkins’s career.” Of course, it is because of Norman, a character he revisited
in two Psycho sequels, that Anthony Perkins has his place in film history – and as
one of Hitchcock’s most magnificent villains.
~
Francois Truffaut was “convinced that Hitchcock was not satisfied
with any of the films he made after Psycho.” Maybe. It’s true Psycho
was an impossibly hard act to follow. However, the master still had hopes of
“topping” himself. Did he? His next film would debut at Cannes, be nominated
for an Academy Award, thrill audiences around the world and be
critically acclaimed. It was, like Psycho, a blockbuster. The villain in
Hitchcock’s 49th film would be of another breed. Literally. The
Birds (1963), based on a story by Daphne du Maurier, tells of widespread attacks
on humans by different species of wild birds. It was the story’s concept that
attracted Hitchcock who felt that with the proper execution it could rival Psycho.
The Birds (1963) |
The apocalyptic scenes of bird attacks are so spectacular and jolting,
and the constant gathering of more and more birds arouses such intense dread that
the film’s underlying storyline of budding romance and family relations loses its force. The horrific threat of massive, endless bird attacks becomes the story,
and the reason for these attacks along with the future of a romance are reduced
to MacGuffin status.
Six very successful films, each boasting a splendidly conceived
and portrayed villain - or villains. We can’t disagree with Hitchcock’s “cardinal
rule” or Truffaut’s assertion that, “The better the villain, the better the
picture…an excellent formula!”
References:
Hitchcock/Truffaut by Francois Truffaut (Simon & Schuster, rev. 1983)
Hitchcock/Truffaut documentary, directed by Kent Jones (2015)
Hitchcock's Films Revisited by Robin Wood (Columbia Univ. Press, rev. 2002)
1963 Peter Bogdanovich interview with Alfred Hitchcock via The Plot Thickens podcast (2020)
"Film Studies: Robert Walker, a great lost star" by David Thomson (The Independent, Sunday, August 15, 1999)
A magnificent look at those villains who both charm and repulse. I will keep this article for those special times when I revisit those films.
ReplyDeleteThanks! I'd be curious to know your reaction when you revisit these films.
DeletePatty, this is an excellent analysis of Hitchcock villains. (I loved, LOVED your description of Mrs Danvers as a "poker-faced housekeeper".) As for Notorious, I think the Sebastians are the most interesting characters in the film, especially that mother.
ReplyDeleteOne of my fave Hitchcock films is Shadow of a Doubt, which I was able to see on the big screen last fall. Even though I'd seen it several times at home, it was like watching it for the first time. The things that struck me the most were Joseph Cotten's chilling portrayal, and Theresa Wright's intelligence and strength. Like you said, she truly is a superbly realized heroine.
I've seen quite a few Hitchcock films on the big screen, but not Shadow of a Doubt. Know what you mean, though, about the experience of "like watching it for the first time." There's no question that these films were made and meant to be seen on theater screens.
DeleteThank you, Ruth.
Well that was a wonderful read, Patty. There are so many great villains in Hitch's films, but the ones you highlight here are indeed some of those who stick in the memory the most.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for joining me to celebrate Hitch and his work.
Thanks, Maddy, and thanks for hosting another Hitchcock celebration. No director deserves it more than he.
Delete“The better the villain, the better the picture"
ReplyDeleteI mean...how freakin' true is that?!
And who better than Hitchcock to prove that point?
DeleteA very interesting essay! I agree with five of your six choices. However, I don’t consider the birds to be “the villain” of The Birds. The birds serve merely as the film’s catalysts. The story is really about Rod’s mother and her desire to be the sole woman in her sin’s life. When she finally accepts Tippi, the movie ends. That’s the climax. So, I don’t think there’s a villain at all.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Can't agree with you, Rick. In terms of the story, yes, but in terms of the overall concept, no. The storyline of romance/family dynamics may end with the mother's acceptance of Melanie, but not the film. The final scene is a grim landscape blanketed in restless birds, birds that seem to be between forays. I believe Hitchcock intended this apocalyptic image of impending horror to be what stayed in the viewer's mind. The audience experiences the birds as the villains(s) and I think Hitchcock was as focused on audience reaction with The Birds as he was with Psycho.
DeleteI think his point with the ending was that the birds don't matter anymore. Why else would the birds let Mitch, his mom and sister, and Melanie walk right through them without attacking (as they did at the school and gas station)? The last close-up of the quartet reinforces Lydia's acceptance of Melanie by showing her holding Melanie in a comforting manner.
DeleteThat old Dave Mason song from the ‘70s, “We Just Disagree,” comes to mind. In your eyes the film ends with storyline closure, mother and girlfriend bond. I get that. I just don’t see it that way. We even read the final shot very differently. But enough said. I’m afraid we must agree to disagree and move on to the next picture.
DeleteA great premise for a Hitchcock essay and excellently done, Lady E!
ReplyDeleteI think that movies' greatest villains usually have, if not a sympathetic side, at least an empathetic one. That's why everyone remembers all of Bette Davis' non-heroine roles. Think Hitch knew this, too. Even his maniac characters like Bruno and Norman, there's the misfit side of them you can empathize with, and a small part of you that wants them to get away with their bad deeds. And Claude Rains may be one of the most sympathetic villains ever in Notorious!
Love reading your writing by the way,
Rick
Thank you very much, Rick. I imagine one of the key reasons Hitchcock cast against type for the roles of Uncle Charlie, Bruno and Norman was that each of the actors could not only play but also was already established in sympathetic roles. And Claude Rains...I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt a bit of sympathy for him at the end of Notorious when he had to go back up those stairs and into the mansion to face his fate.
DeleteGreat premise for your blog post Patty, and as you make so very clear, the focus for so many of Hitchcock's films. Indeed, virtually all dramas and super hero movies today need an equally evil villain, though sometimes it takes time to tell them apart. I agree with your assessment of Notorious, and it's my favorite. I tend to get impatient with villains that aren't multidimensional and have one-track minds. That would be my definition of a better villain. Thanks for highlighting this aspect of Hitchcock.
ReplyDeleteNotorious is a favorite of mine, too. I particularly like that all three leads are characters with dimension. It really is a perfect film. Most listed here are. The only improvements I'd make would be to drop Ruth Roman from Strangers on a train and replace her with Hitchcock's first choice, Grace Kelly, and I'd re-cast the leads in The Birds. I'd also improve some of the too artificial looking "outdoor" scenes in The Birds.
DeleteFantastic post! Mme Sebastian is one of the most chilling Hitchcock villains, and I'm glad she was remembered in this post, as well as Bruno Anthony from my personal favorite Hitchcock film.
ReplyDeleteAs for Stage Fright, still fresh in my mind, maybe the villain was weak, maybe he should have been played by an actor against type (like Perkins and Walker), or maybe it had more to do with the flashback than with the villain. But it's certainly food for thought.
Thanks for the kind comment!
Kisses!
Le
Hello, Le! I've always enjoyed Stage Fright, even though it isn't one of the greats. The false flashback doesn't bother me, in fact without it, what do we have? The film has its problems, but it's still a lot of fun to watch.
DeleteAn excellent subject for analysis, Lady Eve, and you've certainly risen to the occasion! I found myself smiling throughout as you made me recall these powerful performances. I could picture key scenes in my mind as you discussed what made these actors (and, in one case, animals!) create such indelible villains.
ReplyDeleteI love each one of these films and would be hard-pressed to pick a favorite from them. Of this group, I most recently rewatched "Strangers on a Train", and I couldn't agree more about Robert Walker's performance. He's mesmerizing. Of course, it all starts with a great script, and we can't give enough credit to Hitch's direction, but Walker does such an outstanding job. We're lucky he was cast.
Thanks again for a fun post!
Thank you, Paul. There's nothing more enjoyable for me as a blogger than exploring Hitchcock, and this post was lots of fun to research and write. I'm glad you liked it.
DeleteIn his memoir, Farley Granger wrote than when he was cast in SoaT, Hitchcock asked - with a twinkle in his eye - what he would think of Robert Walker being cast as the villain. Granger was surprised and then remembered the against-type casting of Joseph Cotten in SoaD and thought it was a brilliant idea.
Ha, I can imagine that twinkle quite easily! Glad to have found your page, btw -- I just "subscribed" to it, and followed your Twitter as well. Looking forward to future posts ...
DeleteI'm happy you found my page, too, and thank you for subscribing. Hope you enjoy future posts. Nice to meet you, Paul.
Delete