What do you think?
Rate this book
The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock: An Anatomy of the Master of Suspense
Winner of the 2022 Edgar Award for Best BiographyAn Economist Best Book of 2021A fresh, innovative biography of the twentieth century’s most iconic filmmaker.
In The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock, Edward White explores the Hitchcock phenomenon—what defines it, how it was invented, what it reveals about the man at its core, and how its legacy continues to shape our cultural world.
The book’s twelve chapters illuminate different aspects of Hitchcock’s life and “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”; “The Man of God.” Each of these angles reveals something fundamental about the man he was and the mythological creature he has become, presenting not just the life Hitchcock lived but also the various versions of himself that he projected, and those projected on his behalf.
From Hitchcock’s early work in England to his most celebrated films, White astutely analyzes Hitchcock’s oeuvre and provides new interpretations. He also delves into Hitchcock’s ideas about gender; his complicated relationships with “his women”—not only Grace Kelly and Tippi Hedren but also his female audiences—as well as leading men such as Cary Grant, and writes movingly of Hitchcock’s devotion to his wife and lifelong companion, Alma, who made vital contributions to numerous classic Hitchcock films, and burnished his mythology. And White is trenchant in his assessment of the Hitchcock persona, so carefully created that Hitchcock became not only a figurehead for his own industry but nothing less than a cultural icon.
Ultimately, White’s portrayal illuminates a vital Hitchcock was more than a Hollywood titan; he was the definitive modern artist, and his significance reaches far beyond the confines of cinema.
In The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock, Edward White explores the Hitchcock phenomenon—what defines it, how it was invented, what it reveals about the man at its core, and how its legacy continues to shape our cultural world.
The book’s twelve chapters illuminate different aspects of Hitchcock’s life and “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”; “The Man of God.” Each of these angles reveals something fundamental about the man he was and the mythological creature he has become, presenting not just the life Hitchcock lived but also the various versions of himself that he projected, and those projected on his behalf.
From Hitchcock’s early work in England to his most celebrated films, White astutely analyzes Hitchcock’s oeuvre and provides new interpretations. He also delves into Hitchcock’s ideas about gender; his complicated relationships with “his women”—not only Grace Kelly and Tippi Hedren but also his female audiences—as well as leading men such as Cary Grant, and writes movingly of Hitchcock’s devotion to his wife and lifelong companion, Alma, who made vital contributions to numerous classic Hitchcock films, and burnished his mythology. And White is trenchant in his assessment of the Hitchcock persona, so carefully created that Hitchcock became not only a figurehead for his own industry but nothing less than a cultural icon.
Ultimately, White’s portrayal illuminates a vital Hitchcock was more than a Hollywood titan; he was the definitive modern artist, and his significance reaches far beyond the confines of cinema.
395 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 13, 2021
216 people are currently reading
3564 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews
March 4, 2022
The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock: An Anatomy of the Master of Suspense by Edward White is a 2021 W.W. Norton Company publication.
Alfred Hitchcock has always been an enigma. There are so many layers to his films, and of course to the man. He was a genius, far ahead of his time, but also controversial and leaves behind a complicated legacy.
While this book qualifies as a biography, it doesn’t follow the usual format for this category. Because Hitchcock has already been the subject of several standard biographies and he and his work are studied and scrutinized continually, the author almost had no choice but to choose a fresher approach to keep from simply repeating the same arguments, psychology, or philosophies.
The form White chose to follow is certainly an interesting one and presents the usual information, wrapped in new and improved package, but it is also a very deep dive into the life and career of ‘The Master of Suspense’, examining the many dark corners and contradictions of his subject.
As a fan of many of Hitchcock’s films I enjoyed going over the nuances, allegory, and symbolism in his movies. Personally, though, hearing about some of his behavior towards people- especially women, puts a chink in his respectability- but on the other hand, several top actresses praised Hitch and spoke about him with warmth and admiration. This is just one of many areas where Hitchcock was unpredictable and conflicting.
This book highlights many such paradoxes, while wondering about the various ways Hitchcock’s complexities revealed themselves in his films.
While I have heard some of these same conjectures, the book is still thought-provoking- albeit a little dry. My mind did wander off on occasion and I felt it ran out of steam towards the end.
Still, though, if you are a fan of the cinema, pop culture, biographies and of course, Alfred Hitchcock, this a very solid examination of both the man and his work.
4 stars
Alfred Hitchcock has always been an enigma. There are so many layers to his films, and of course to the man. He was a genius, far ahead of his time, but also controversial and leaves behind a complicated legacy.
While this book qualifies as a biography, it doesn’t follow the usual format for this category. Because Hitchcock has already been the subject of several standard biographies and he and his work are studied and scrutinized continually, the author almost had no choice but to choose a fresher approach to keep from simply repeating the same arguments, psychology, or philosophies.
The form White chose to follow is certainly an interesting one and presents the usual information, wrapped in new and improved package, but it is also a very deep dive into the life and career of ‘The Master of Suspense’, examining the many dark corners and contradictions of his subject.
As a fan of many of Hitchcock’s films I enjoyed going over the nuances, allegory, and symbolism in his movies. Personally, though, hearing about some of his behavior towards people- especially women, puts a chink in his respectability- but on the other hand, several top actresses praised Hitch and spoke about him with warmth and admiration. This is just one of many areas where Hitchcock was unpredictable and conflicting.
This book highlights many such paradoxes, while wondering about the various ways Hitchcock’s complexities revealed themselves in his films.
While I have heard some of these same conjectures, the book is still thought-provoking- albeit a little dry. My mind did wander off on occasion and I felt it ran out of steam towards the end.
Still, though, if you are a fan of the cinema, pop culture, biographies and of course, Alfred Hitchcock, this a very solid examination of both the man and his work.
4 stars
January 18, 2025
When I first picked this book up at my local library, I thought I was picking up an anthology of crime stories similar to what use to be a part of his mystery series on television years ago. So, when I was ready to read it, I was surprised to see that it was actually what was referred to as “an anatomy of the master of suspense.” What?
You mean this was a semi biography? I guess so.
In referring to Hitchcock as having 12 lives, the author broke them up into 12 chapters. Those chapters were titled: a boy who wouldn’t grow up, a murderer, an auteur, a womanizer, a fat man, a dandy, a family man, a voyeur, an entertainer, a pioneer, a Londoner and a man of God.
So, now that I knew that this wasn’t a mystery crime anthology, how did I really feel?
In this telling of Hitchcock’s story, I wasn’t sure how I felt about reading all these intimate details about this director I once admired because of his movies. This book appears very well-researched and indexed by the author. And yet, this book does not appear to be the best reflection of Hitchcock.
The 12 sides of him clash and contradict, making him a very unusual man. And, strange. And, brilliant. And, creepy. He had fetishes. To be honest, he appeared downright offensive and loathsome.
He also knew how to create a myth about himself to maintain his success despite his cruelties or abuses to the people he worked with. He preyed upon his actresses and assistants incessantly, even if he professed to be a good, adoring husband, to his wife, Alma. In many ways, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Alma. He was so visibly unkind.
Still, his films were unbelievably brilliant and unforgettable. He knew what he needed to make them memorable. And, even if he was afraid of the dark, his love of the movies was apparent in how he honored them with the ones he made. I was finding myself so conflicted about this person. Is this what the author intended for his reader?
Hitchcock appears to be an obviously complicated man. Were his films giving us hints of the real person? For whatever reason, that mystery doesn’t seem to be solved through the author’s story of Hitchcock in this book. I’m not sure how readers are going to feel about this Hitchcock. I still am not sure how I am feeling.
3.5 stars.
You mean this was a semi biography? I guess so.
In referring to Hitchcock as having 12 lives, the author broke them up into 12 chapters. Those chapters were titled: a boy who wouldn’t grow up, a murderer, an auteur, a womanizer, a fat man, a dandy, a family man, a voyeur, an entertainer, a pioneer, a Londoner and a man of God.
So, now that I knew that this wasn’t a mystery crime anthology, how did I really feel?
In this telling of Hitchcock’s story, I wasn’t sure how I felt about reading all these intimate details about this director I once admired because of his movies. This book appears very well-researched and indexed by the author. And yet, this book does not appear to be the best reflection of Hitchcock.
The 12 sides of him clash and contradict, making him a very unusual man. And, strange. And, brilliant. And, creepy. He had fetishes. To be honest, he appeared downright offensive and loathsome.
He also knew how to create a myth about himself to maintain his success despite his cruelties or abuses to the people he worked with. He preyed upon his actresses and assistants incessantly, even if he professed to be a good, adoring husband, to his wife, Alma. In many ways, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Alma. He was so visibly unkind.
Still, his films were unbelievably brilliant and unforgettable. He knew what he needed to make them memorable. And, even if he was afraid of the dark, his love of the movies was apparent in how he honored them with the ones he made. I was finding myself so conflicted about this person. Is this what the author intended for his reader?
Hitchcock appears to be an obviously complicated man. Were his films giving us hints of the real person? For whatever reason, that mystery doesn’t seem to be solved through the author’s story of Hitchcock in this book. I’m not sure how readers are going to feel about this Hitchcock. I still am not sure how I am feeling.
3.5 stars.
February 26, 2021
Alfred Hitchcock. His name alone can brings chills, fond spooky memories, discomfort, and nostalgia.
I was still ten years old in 1963 when I saw The Birds from the back seat of the family car, parked at the local drive-in movie theater. My parents thought I would fall asleep.
I didn't. The scene of a man missing his eye balls gave me nightmares for years.
The next year, in 1964, I was nearly twelve when I saw Marnie. I am sure my folks did not expect me to be asleep that time. I did not understand it, I had no concept of sexual dysfunction, so of course watched it every time it came on television, trying to puzzle out the feelings it raised in me.
Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955-1962) was a childhood staple. I learned the theme song, The Funeral March of the Marionette, on piano. It impressed the neighbor boy who was also a Hitchcock fan. I had story collections like Alfred Hitchcock's Ghostly Gallery: Eleven Spooky Stories for Young People.
Over the years, watching the classic films I had seen in the movie theater with my folks, including Vertigo. Rear Window, and North By Northwest, and those I only saw later on television, like Psycho, I understood things I could not as a girl.
And I wondered why in the world did Mom take me to see those films! Today, scenes of rape, obsession, murder, and suicide would not be considered proper fare for the under-13-year-old child.
As far as I can tell, the only harm these movies did me, other than nightmares about eyeless men, was a penchant for stylish suspense stories. I knew that birds would not flock and attack me in reality, or crop dusters chase me.
"He was a child, you know, a very black-comedy child" screenwriter Arthur Laurents said of Hitch. Perhaps that was his appeal to children. Raised on Dick and Jane while undergoing 'duck and cover' drills and watching adults glued to the news during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, we were ready for the safety of theatrical horror. War became daily television fodder and political assassinations punctuated our teen years and watching Hitchcock movies on television were not as shocking any more.
I had never explored the man behind the persona. The nine-line sketch Hitch walked into on his show was all I needed to know. The sketch, I learned in The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock, Hitch himself drew and propagated as part of his image.
Edward White's biography considers the man through the lens of twelve aspects of his personality, each fully explored through Hitchcock's life and art.
On the one hand, the book is hugely informative and gave me a full picture of the man and the artist.
On the other hand, Hitchcock remains a mystery. He carefully controlled his persona, as deliberately and thoughtfully controlling our image of him as his films controlled our responses.
Was his marriage to Alma platonic? Did he remain a virgin expect for once, resulting in the birth of his daughter? Did he lunge at actresses and ask his secretary to 'erotically entertain' him? I saw Tippi Hendren talk about her experience. Can we tell the difference between the persona Hitch offered and truth?
He grew up with WWI air raids, the 1918 flu pandemic, in a rough part of town, with a Catholic Education. There is a lot of horror to draw from with that background.
And yet, Hitch was averse to conflict and could not deal with "complex emotions." He would not use animal cruelty in his films and preferred to have his victims thrown off a building than shot as in American films.
Still, he was fascinated by violence and cruelty, grew up reading classic British crime fiction including G. K. Chesterton and John Buchan. He once expressed his belief that he would have made a great criminal lawyer.
I learned about his middle class, Catholic childhood, his struggle with his appearance, the art and film and stories that inspired him.
The book is always fascinating, always interesting, and often disturbing. Especially when I ask myself what kind of person is a Hitchcock fan, as perhaps it reveals things about myself I would rather not consider.
I received a free galley from the publisher through NetGalley. My review is fair and unbiased.
I was still ten years old in 1963 when I saw The Birds from the back seat of the family car, parked at the local drive-in movie theater. My parents thought I would fall asleep.
I didn't. The scene of a man missing his eye balls gave me nightmares for years.
The next year, in 1964, I was nearly twelve when I saw Marnie. I am sure my folks did not expect me to be asleep that time. I did not understand it, I had no concept of sexual dysfunction, so of course watched it every time it came on television, trying to puzzle out the feelings it raised in me.
Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955-1962) was a childhood staple. I learned the theme song, The Funeral March of the Marionette, on piano. It impressed the neighbor boy who was also a Hitchcock fan. I had story collections like Alfred Hitchcock's Ghostly Gallery: Eleven Spooky Stories for Young People.
Over the years, watching the classic films I had seen in the movie theater with my folks, including Vertigo. Rear Window, and North By Northwest, and those I only saw later on television, like Psycho, I understood things I could not as a girl.
And I wondered why in the world did Mom take me to see those films! Today, scenes of rape, obsession, murder, and suicide would not be considered proper fare for the under-13-year-old child.
As far as I can tell, the only harm these movies did me, other than nightmares about eyeless men, was a penchant for stylish suspense stories. I knew that birds would not flock and attack me in reality, or crop dusters chase me.
"He was a child, you know, a very black-comedy child" screenwriter Arthur Laurents said of Hitch. Perhaps that was his appeal to children. Raised on Dick and Jane while undergoing 'duck and cover' drills and watching adults glued to the news during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, we were ready for the safety of theatrical horror. War became daily television fodder and political assassinations punctuated our teen years and watching Hitchcock movies on television were not as shocking any more.
I had never explored the man behind the persona. The nine-line sketch Hitch walked into on his show was all I needed to know. The sketch, I learned in The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock, Hitch himself drew and propagated as part of his image.
Edward White's biography considers the man through the lens of twelve aspects of his personality, each fully explored through Hitchcock's life and art.
On the one hand, the book is hugely informative and gave me a full picture of the man and the artist.
On the other hand, Hitchcock remains a mystery. He carefully controlled his persona, as deliberately and thoughtfully controlling our image of him as his films controlled our responses.
Was his marriage to Alma platonic? Did he remain a virgin expect for once, resulting in the birth of his daughter? Did he lunge at actresses and ask his secretary to 'erotically entertain' him? I saw Tippi Hendren talk about her experience. Can we tell the difference between the persona Hitch offered and truth?
He grew up with WWI air raids, the 1918 flu pandemic, in a rough part of town, with a Catholic Education. There is a lot of horror to draw from with that background.
And yet, Hitch was averse to conflict and could not deal with "complex emotions." He would not use animal cruelty in his films and preferred to have his victims thrown off a building than shot as in American films.
Still, he was fascinated by violence and cruelty, grew up reading classic British crime fiction including G. K. Chesterton and John Buchan. He once expressed his belief that he would have made a great criminal lawyer.
I learned about his middle class, Catholic childhood, his struggle with his appearance, the art and film and stories that inspired him.
The book is always fascinating, always interesting, and often disturbing. Especially when I ask myself what kind of person is a Hitchcock fan, as perhaps it reveals things about myself I would rather not consider.
I received a free galley from the publisher through NetGalley. My review is fair and unbiased.
July 8, 2022
Праця, яка злегка відкриває завісу над життям і творчістю короля саспенсу. Можливо, праці не вистачає розлогості, але це досить класна стартова точка для знайомства з режисером. Тут є абсолютно все, що дозволить краще роздивитись огрядний силует маестро на тлі кіноіндустрії 20-го століття: комунікація та відносини зі знімальною групою, близькі контакти, взаємні симпатії та неприязнь з доброю когортою зірок Голлівуду, міцний шлюб, який тривав 54 роки, однак, за собою приховує потріскану ідилічність.
Крім того, це гарна можливість заглянути у вир фантазії Гічкока, відкрити нові сенси у картинах, які вражали до глибини душі мільйонів глядачів.
Крім того, це гарна можливість заглянути у вир фантазії Гічкока, відкрити нові сенси у картинах, які вражали до глибини душі мільйонів глядачів.
September 10, 2021
We all of us wear masks and have different sides of us, and this biography of Hitchcock, who took that theme to heart in many of his films, dives deep into the many different sides of a complex filmmaker and person.
Covering '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 Man of God,' each chapter dives deep into its theme and examines the myth, the reality, the way reality was affected by myth, and the way current scholars and society are reassessing the myth and legacy.
There was a lot of info an analysis in this book and even for those like me who have only seen a few Hitchcock movies, there was a lot to get out of it. As many of the chapters (but particularly 'The Auteur,' the 'The Entertainer,' and 'The Pioneer') make clear Hitchcock had an outsized influence on Movies, TV, and the way we think of the power of a director to implement a vision in and across a body of work. It's also interesting to reassess Hitchcock through the lens of Me Too - Tippi Hedren's story was really rough to hear.
The book dived deep into Hitchcock's personal life and life behind the camera, which makes sense for a biography, and these sections were very illuminating. And while I wouldn't want any of that cut, I would have loved more in depth discussion of the movies. This book is so good, I wanted it to be twice as long.
Covering '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 Man of God,' each chapter dives deep into its theme and examines the myth, the reality, the way reality was affected by myth, and the way current scholars and society are reassessing the myth and legacy.
There was a lot of info an analysis in this book and even for those like me who have only seen a few Hitchcock movies, there was a lot to get out of it. As many of the chapters (but particularly 'The Auteur,' the 'The Entertainer,' and 'The Pioneer') make clear Hitchcock had an outsized influence on Movies, TV, and the way we think of the power of a director to implement a vision in and across a body of work. It's also interesting to reassess Hitchcock through the lens of Me Too - Tippi Hedren's story was really rough to hear.
The book dived deep into Hitchcock's personal life and life behind the camera, which makes sense for a biography, and these sections were very illuminating. And while I wouldn't want any of that cut, I would have loved more in depth discussion of the movies. This book is so good, I wanted it to be twice as long.
May 17, 2021
Recommended. Even if you're a dyed-in-the-wool, thoroughly well-read Hitchcock maven, you may learn a thing or two — White is an excellent miner in the research department. And his assessment generator is a good steady one. He doesn't flinch from the artist's character flaws and bad actions, but approaches them with a level head and unusual compassion. It made me think about Hitchcock in ways that aren't quite new to my perspective...but encouraged me to go deeper with the author.
July 30, 2021
As a young fan of Hitchcock's (my favorites of his films being Rear Window and Psycho), I found this book an extremely fascinating look into the man and the various factors that influenced his most iconic works. I thought the section on his relationship to women (his female collaborators, actors and audiences) to be the strongest part, portraying the nuances of Hitchcock's personality, showing how he was capable of being both a domineering control freak and a supportive collaborator.
January 7, 2021
Edward White unravels the conundrum of filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock — “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,” as Churchill once said about Russia. His films still mesmerize but his reputation has been tarnished, especially since release of Tippi Hedren’s 2016 memoir, in which she documents his sexual abuse of her, and as scholarly papers explore his misogyny.
White explains Hitch’s many contradictions in this brilliant bio, which reveals his essence through 12 thoughtful chapters: 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 Man of God.
This kaleidoscopic approach helped me understand, for example, why I love “Rear Window,” yet why the relationship between characters Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly made me cringe. She has brains, beauty, and style (those Edith Head costumes!) but he gives her wounding mixed messages about her desirability. It’s typical of many male-female interactions in his films and truly maddening!
A must-read for Hitch fans and film buffs, and those who love substantive bios that entertain.
5 of 5 Stars
Pub Date 13 Apr 2021
#TheTwelveLivesofAlfredHitchcock #NetGalley
Thanks to the author, W. W. Norton & Company, and NetGalley for the ARC. Opinions are mine.
White explains Hitch’s many contradictions in this brilliant bio, which reveals his essence through 12 thoughtful chapters: 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 Man of God.
This kaleidoscopic approach helped me understand, for example, why I love “Rear Window,” yet why the relationship between characters Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly made me cringe. She has brains, beauty, and style (those Edith Head costumes!) but he gives her wounding mixed messages about her desirability. It’s typical of many male-female interactions in his films and truly maddening!
A must-read for Hitch fans and film buffs, and those who love substantive bios that entertain.
5 of 5 Stars
Pub Date 13 Apr 2021
#TheTwelveLivesofAlfredHitchcock #NetGalley
Thanks to the author, W. W. Norton & Company, and NetGalley for the ARC. Opinions are mine.
May 14, 2024
Кожен з нас, безперечно, бачив фільми Альфреда Гічкока чи чув про них. Геніальні "Птахи", "Психо", "Вікно у двір" та ще десятки кінокартин, які стали класикою. Але ким же насправді був їхній автор?
Едвард Вайт досліджує Гічкока у 12 есе. Хлопчик, який не міг вирости, убивця, жінколюб, товстун, денді, підглядач - хто ще?
Попри науково-популярний виклад, книга сприймається дещо складно. Відчувається, що це велика дослідницька робота (з приблизно 900 джерелами), яка зайняла всю дослідницьку жагу автора. Едвард Вайт вивчив різні біографії Гічкока, інтерв'ю про нього, інші дослідні роботи, щоб в есе на 30 сторінок написати найважливіше.
І я думаю, що в Едварда Вайта вийшла чудова робота, де баланс між дослідженням та публіцистикою такий, щоб текст був доступний масовому читачу. Попри те, я раджу цю книгу слухати в аудіоформаті, адже так це сприймається як дуже цікавий подкаст.
І щоб вам було цікаво послухати цю книгу та дізнатися більш про короля саспенсу, скажу, що я б не хотіла потрапити йому на очі. Ексцентричний, буркотливий, владний, егоїстичний, але відкритий до новаторства був чоловік. І саме це дало йому змогу стати особливим.
Не важливо чи любите ви фільм Альфреда Гічкока. Бо так чи інакше читати про нього цікаво. Як і про інших особливих людей, які народжуються раз на сторіччя чи навіть рідше.
Едвард Вайт досліджує Гічкока у 12 есе. Хлопчик, який не міг вирости, убивця, жінколюб, товстун, денді, підглядач - хто ще?
Попри науково-популярний виклад, книга сприймається дещо складно. Відчувається, що це велика дослідницька робота (з приблизно 900 джерелами), яка зайняла всю дослідницьку жагу автора. Едвард Вайт вивчив різні біографії Гічкока, інтерв'ю про нього, інші дослідні роботи, щоб в есе на 30 сторінок написати найважливіше.
І я думаю, що в Едварда Вайта вийшла чудова робота, де баланс між дослідженням та публіцистикою такий, щоб текст був доступний масовому читачу. Попри те, я раджу цю книгу слухати в аудіоформаті, адже так це сприймається як дуже цікавий подкаст.
І щоб вам було цікаво послухати цю книгу та дізнатися більш про короля саспенсу, скажу, що я б не хотіла потрапити йому на очі. Ексцентричний, буркотливий, владний, егоїстичний, але відкритий до новаторства був чоловік. І саме це дало йому змогу стати особливим.
Не важливо чи любите ви фільм Альфреда Гічкока. Бо так чи інакше читати про нього цікаво. Як і про інших особливих людей, які народжуються раз на сторіччя чи навіть рідше.
April 22, 2021
Well-researched book about a highly talented and controversial figure in 20th century film-making, and I own it.
That Hitchcock was talented, no doubt. Could do everything on a movie and often did. Directed, wrote, produced, worked on lighting, props, sound, transitional elements, special effects - could do it all. That he gave women work, plum jobs, credit, attention, also no doubt. That he deserves a special place in film history for his body of work, again, again, no doubts there. That he also had a somewhat seamy side, which was rare, but happened, yes, yes again. One thing though, when he made what we older folk would call 'a pass,' he didn't force the issue. He could also treat his actors like they were parts of the set - a light? a shoe on the floor? - yes again. There are many stories of actors actively disliking the man, but just as many where actors enjoyed working with him. Hitchcock came from a lower-middle class background, and in English terms, an acceptable one. He was an East Londoner and could affect a Cockney accent when it suited him. In 1939 he left England for the US, where he became an even bigger success than he already was. His films will go on forever, though he himself will be tainted by a few incidents which don't do him proud.
In many cases, with a man like this, I'd prob. say nah, not gonna read HIM anymore, or watch HIS films ever again. Can't do this here. This man was too complicated. He was teased and adored, berated for his weight, which he struggled to contain, and praised for his talent behind the camera. This particular book divides Hitchcock into his many 'personae' - the Londoner, the Auteur, the Family Man, the Man of God, etc. Anyone of us could prob. do the same with our own lives. (I'd be the Child, the Teacher, the One Who Drove Her Mother Crazy; you get the drift.)
At any rate, I found it a fascinating and thoroughly truthful read, with both sides represented as concerns some of the charges levied against him. Most of the actresses who worked with him found him to be a kind gentleman, though he expected a lot from them when it came to their acting roles. But this does happen even today. If one is accused of harassment, there'll be a dozen who say, 'not with me, he wasn't!' But my focus on reading this book was on the films: how he made them, what were his sources, why did he choose that book or that writer, how did he get that effect, how did he interact with Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Doris Day, Sean Connery - four of my fav. actors.
So overall, four stars.
That Hitchcock was talented, no doubt. Could do everything on a movie and often did. Directed, wrote, produced, worked on lighting, props, sound, transitional elements, special effects - could do it all. That he gave women work, plum jobs, credit, attention, also no doubt. That he deserves a special place in film history for his body of work, again, again, no doubts there. That he also had a somewhat seamy side, which was rare, but happened, yes, yes again. One thing though, when he made what we older folk would call 'a pass,' he didn't force the issue. He could also treat his actors like they were parts of the set - a light? a shoe on the floor? - yes again. There are many stories of actors actively disliking the man, but just as many where actors enjoyed working with him. Hitchcock came from a lower-middle class background, and in English terms, an acceptable one. He was an East Londoner and could affect a Cockney accent when it suited him. In 1939 he left England for the US, where he became an even bigger success than he already was. His films will go on forever, though he himself will be tainted by a few incidents which don't do him proud.
In many cases, with a man like this, I'd prob. say nah, not gonna read HIM anymore, or watch HIS films ever again. Can't do this here. This man was too complicated. He was teased and adored, berated for his weight, which he struggled to contain, and praised for his talent behind the camera. This particular book divides Hitchcock into his many 'personae' - the Londoner, the Auteur, the Family Man, the Man of God, etc. Anyone of us could prob. do the same with our own lives. (I'd be the Child, the Teacher, the One Who Drove Her Mother Crazy; you get the drift.)
At any rate, I found it a fascinating and thoroughly truthful read, with both sides represented as concerns some of the charges levied against him. Most of the actresses who worked with him found him to be a kind gentleman, though he expected a lot from them when it came to their acting roles. But this does happen even today. If one is accused of harassment, there'll be a dozen who say, 'not with me, he wasn't!' But my focus on reading this book was on the films: how he made them, what were his sources, why did he choose that book or that writer, how did he get that effect, how did he interact with Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Doris Day, Sean Connery - four of my fav. actors.
So overall, four stars.
October 27, 2021
I really enjoyed this! A fascinating, multi-layered but laser-focused look at the complicated genius. White does not hold back on his opinions on the man and his works and I am HERE for it. I straight up LOL’d at the single, honest sentence: “Topaz was terrible.”
December 7, 2020
Great artists can be jerks: I don't think that's a surprise to anyone. (I am always arguing that they don't *have* to be). And I am privileged enough to be able to decide how much their jerkiness matters to me when I read or listen to or see their work.
I find filmmakers to be the hardest to process: I can decide pretty easily whether to take or leave the work of Ernest Hemingway and William Burroughs, Wagner or John Lennon, Gauguin or Pablo Picasso. I find it easier to keep their personalities and actions separate from their work, and unless the work itself is specifically or spectacularly offensive, I can balance the person and the work in my head without a lot of cognitive dissonance. But the works of filmmakers --and also, I suppose, photographers, and comedians--are harder for me to keep separate. I find it very hard to like (or even appreciate) Woody Allen at all the way I did when I was in college, after seeing Husbands and Wives--and seeing Manhattan again after #MeToo. But I still love Love and Death, just like I still love parts of the early albums of Bill Cosby, and I have yet to come to terms with that.
Hitchcock is like that for me--I think Rear Window, Vertigo, Shadow of a Doubt and Psycho are all works of genius and are among my favorite movies. But Hitchcock himself is trouble, and how do you keep him out of the discussion when you can see what he did to Tippi Hedren right there on screen in The Birds? Can you have him as an auteur and visionary without also seeing him as a sadist and a womanizer?
All that is to say that this biography is able to address the issue effectively by using different ways of looking at Hitchcock in each chapter. Instead of feeling that there has to be a unified story that agrees with everyone's opinions of Hitchcock, this reads much more like an oral history, where the reader looks at Hitchcock as an Auteur, as a Womanizer, as an Entertainer (which includes a bit on his sadism) and nine other ways. There is a very loose chronological structure, but White is freed by this method to fold in any time periods and movies from Hitchcock's life. It works very well with Hitchcock's complicated personality.
White is a good writer, so he manages to handle the whole very well, and only the last couple chapters (Hitchcock as Londoner, Hitchcock as Catholic) don't really seem to work. This is not the book to learn about Hitchcock's accomplishments in filming (it is very non-technical), but it is the first view of Hitchcock I've read that seems to get behind the cartoonish and fictionalized view of himself that Hitchcock (and others) created and that most bios seem to embrace. Is he still a jerk? Yes, to a lot of people. Is he still a genius? Yes, to a lot of people. He also seems human, for once.
I read this as an ARC.
I find filmmakers to be the hardest to process: I can decide pretty easily whether to take or leave the work of Ernest Hemingway and William Burroughs, Wagner or John Lennon, Gauguin or Pablo Picasso. I find it easier to keep their personalities and actions separate from their work, and unless the work itself is specifically or spectacularly offensive, I can balance the person and the work in my head without a lot of cognitive dissonance. But the works of filmmakers --and also, I suppose, photographers, and comedians--are harder for me to keep separate. I find it very hard to like (or even appreciate) Woody Allen at all the way I did when I was in college, after seeing Husbands and Wives--and seeing Manhattan again after #MeToo. But I still love Love and Death, just like I still love parts of the early albums of Bill Cosby, and I have yet to come to terms with that.
Hitchcock is like that for me--I think Rear Window, Vertigo, Shadow of a Doubt and Psycho are all works of genius and are among my favorite movies. But Hitchcock himself is trouble, and how do you keep him out of the discussion when you can see what he did to Tippi Hedren right there on screen in The Birds? Can you have him as an auteur and visionary without also seeing him as a sadist and a womanizer?
All that is to say that this biography is able to address the issue effectively by using different ways of looking at Hitchcock in each chapter. Instead of feeling that there has to be a unified story that agrees with everyone's opinions of Hitchcock, this reads much more like an oral history, where the reader looks at Hitchcock as an Auteur, as a Womanizer, as an Entertainer (which includes a bit on his sadism) and nine other ways. There is a very loose chronological structure, but White is freed by this method to fold in any time periods and movies from Hitchcock's life. It works very well with Hitchcock's complicated personality.
White is a good writer, so he manages to handle the whole very well, and only the last couple chapters (Hitchcock as Londoner, Hitchcock as Catholic) don't really seem to work. This is not the book to learn about Hitchcock's accomplishments in filming (it is very non-technical), but it is the first view of Hitchcock I've read that seems to get behind the cartoonish and fictionalized view of himself that Hitchcock (and others) created and that most bios seem to embrace. Is he still a jerk? Yes, to a lot of people. Is he still a genius? Yes, to a lot of people. He also seems human, for once.
I read this as an ARC.
December 18, 2023
Якщо ви, як і я, хотіли розкрити для себе особистість короля саспенсу, то вам вистачить цієї цитати:
«Уся ця витонченість і обізнаність із тіньовим боком життя контрастує з тією гранню своєї особистості, яку Гічкок показував світові, з соромʼязливим братом-близнюком, забобонним вайлуватим страхополохом, який нічого не знав про життя за межами кінокадру. Можливо, всі ці двійники, підсадні качки й дублери, якими аж кишать його фільми, символізували співіснування суперечливих сторін одного «я», що постійно і гучно взаємодіяли. Він був водночас елітарним митцем і улюбленцем публіки, ніяковим дівичем і ловеласом, товстим вайлом і елегантним денді, чию життєву філософію найточніше описувало словосполучення «своєрідна краса».»
Про самого режисера можна додати лиш те, що він знав, як побудувати якісний особистий бренд.
Книга зайде в першу чергу тим, хто цікавиться кіномистецтвом трішки більше ніж просто сюжетом, а й магією його створення. Тут багато відсилок до фільмів й сприйняття їх критиками й глядачами на час виходу, приховані, явні й вигадані сенси, які в них вкладались. Пояснень, як той чи інший період життя режисера впливав на його творчість, свідомо й підсвідомо. Багато технічних моментів.
Пізнавально, цікаво.
«Уся ця витонченість і обізнаність із тіньовим боком життя контрастує з тією гранню своєї особистості, яку Гічкок показував світові, з соромʼязливим братом-близнюком, забобонним вайлуватим страхополохом, який нічого не знав про життя за межами кінокадру. Можливо, всі ці двійники, підсадні качки й дублери, якими аж кишать його фільми, символізували співіснування суперечливих сторін одного «я», що постійно і гучно взаємодіяли. Він був водночас елітарним митцем і улюбленцем публіки, ніяковим дівичем і ловеласом, товстим вайлом і елегантним денді, чию життєву філософію найточніше описувало словосполучення «своєрідна краса».»
Про самого режисера можна додати лиш те, що він знав, як побудувати якісний особистий бренд.
Книга зайде в першу чергу тим, хто цікавиться кіномистецтвом трішки більше ніж просто сюжетом, а й магією його створення. Тут багато відсилок до фільмів й сприйняття їх критиками й глядачами на час виходу, приховані, явні й вигадані сенси, які в них вкладались. Пояснень, як той чи інший період життя режисера впливав на його творчість, свідомо й підсвідомо. Багато технічних моментів.
Пізнавально, цікаво.
April 7, 2023
Сподобався підхід вивчення Гічкока через різні прояви його особистості. Це точно цікавіше ніж банальний переказ біографії. Проте в деяких розділах, здалося, автор почав трохи притягувати факти задля того, щоб тримати об'єм.
January 7, 2022
He has been dead for over 40 years. His last film (Family Plot) was released in 1976. Over 200 books have been published about his life and work, not to mention dozens of articles in scholarly journals and the popular press. Why, then, do we need another book about Alfred Hitchcock at this time?
In “The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock” (W.W.Norton 2021), British author Edward White intimates that earlier biographies oversimplified the 20th century’s most iconic filmmaker. Hitchcock was, White maintains, too complex, conflicted, contradictory, and controversial to be captured in a single word or phrase. Instead, White identifies 12 separate aspects of Hitchcock’s life and work — the 12 “lives” in the title — to explain the Hitchcock phenomenon: 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 man of God.
Those who are fond of psychoanalysis might well enjoy White’s “anatomy of the master of suspense” — the book’s subtitle. Frankly, I found it mostly silly. But White’s recitation of the facts on which he purports to deconstruct Hitchcock’s personality and oeuvre makes the book worth reading.
With the profusion of celebrity directors today, it is easy to forget the impact that Hitchcock had on the profession. He pioneered advances in special effects and sound design, and was one of the early adopters of technicolor. But when Hitchcock first got into the business, directors were not as esteemed as they are today. Indeed, White argues that Hitchcock was the first film director to be declared an “artist.” That designation came from a small group of French critics who were enthralled with Hitchcock’s work. Although Hitchcock at first dismissed the notion, he soon came to like being grouped with painters, sculptors, and authors.
While Hitchcock’s reputation as an artist rests largely on his movies — 53 in all, released between 1926 and 1976 — his popularity stems mostly from his long running television series. There were 263 episodes of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” that ran over an 11 year period. Which of us can forget the theme song of the series (Gounod’s Funeral March of a Marionette), Hitchcock’s silhouette at the beginning of the show, his intonation of “Good Evening,” or his comedic appearances at the end of each show? Yet, aside from his cameos, Hitchcock had virtually nothing to do with the television series. Both the ideas and the execution of those ideas rested with two of his trusted associates.
The movies were a different story. Although Hitchcock maintained in numerous interviews to which he submitted that the plots of his films came to his mind fully formed, that appears not to have been the case. Hitchcock developed general ideas for his films, but then spent days talking with screenwriters about how to translate those ideas into a movie. The writers with whom Hitchcock collaborated included John Steinbeck, Dorothy Parker, and Thornton Wilder. It would not be unusual for Hitchcock to employ multiple writers on a single film — one for the general plot outline, one for dialog, etc. Steinbeck was reportedly furious that Hitchcock hired other writers to rework his scripts.
Once filming back, Hitchcock was a micromanager. He took it upon himself to learn all the jobs involved in making a movie and had specific ideas about how everything should be done. For example, even though he worked frequently with multi-Oscar winning costumer Edith Head, Hitchcock himself dictated how his actors would be dressed. Because he controlled all aspects of production, Hitchcock rarely made any cuts in what he filmed and almost never did retakes.
Hitchcock appears to have been contemptuous of actors, having been quoted one time as saying that “actors are cattle.” But that view did not stop the leading performers of the day from flocking to his films. The actors appearing in Hitchcock’s movies included John Gielgud, Michael Redgrave, Cary Grant (Hitchcock’s favorite), Hume Cronyn, Peter Lorre, Montgomery Clift, Charles Laughlin, Paul Newman, and Jimmy Stewart. Actresses appearing in Hitchcock films — the infamous “Hitchcock blondes” — included Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman, Janet Leigh, Doris Day, Kim Novak, Julie Andrews, and Tippi Hendron.
Hitchcock’s relationship with his leading ladies is a matter of dispute. Some of his actresses — Tippi Hendron, in particular — have accused him of inappropriate behavior, while others have described him as a perfect gentleman. Whatever his behavior off set, it is clear that Hitchcock looked for a particular kind of actress to feature in his films. He tended not to like actresses like Kim Novak, whom he found overtly sexual. Instead, he preferred actresses who “were respectable on the outside but raging with passion on the inside.” He claimed that 80% of the audience for his films consisted of women, although there appears to be no support for that claim.
It is difficult to discern Hitchcock’s attitude toward women from his films. While it is true that he routinely put his lead actress in peril, it is also true that the actresses generally found a way to surmount the obstacles they encountered — “Psycho” standing as a notable exception. This ambiguity has led some critics to conclude that Hitchcock was a misogynist, while others claimed that he adored women.
One of the women Hitchcock adored was his wife, Alma. She was not only his biggest booster — particularly in his early days — but also his principal sounding board for new ideas. Actors, writers, and members of the stage crew knew that they had become part of Hitchcock’s inner circle when he invited them to join him for one of Alma’s home cooked meals.
Meals were an important part of Hitchcock’s life. When we think of Hitchcock, we think of him as “the fat man” — one of White’s 12 lives. While Hitchcock grew up at a time and place where “Victorian plumpness” was fashionable, that was not the standard when he emigrated to America (where he later became a citizen). Hitchcock was acutely self-conscious about his weight, and he dieted regularly — with varying degrees of success. Over time, however, Hitchcock decided to make his girth part of his “brand” — he was not only a great director, but also a gourmet and a gourmand.
Hitchcock’s legacy cannot be denied. His films garnered 50 Oscar nominations, winning six times. Hitchcock was himself nominated for the best director award 5 times, although he never won. Hitchcock was, however, awarded the Thalberg lifetime achievement award and knighted for his work by Queen Elizabeth. Many of his films would be included in anyone’s canon of the best films ever — including Vertigo, Psycho, North by Northwest, Rear Window, Dial M for Murder, Notorious, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Rebecca (the best film winner in 1941).
In many way, Hitchcock paved the way for Stephen Spielberg (who once tried to sneak onto one of Hitchcock’s sets), George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Stanley Kubrick, and others. He was the first director to establish his own brand. Publicity for his movies centered not on the plot, the source material, or the cast, but on Hitchcock himself. He was in every sense of the word a “pioneer” and, for that reason, worth knowing about — even if one needs to parse the psychobabble in this book to get to the information worth learning.
Rick Stuhan
February 5, 2022
Part biography, part film reviews, part analysis of the man, his work and legacy, this is an interesting book that breaks Hitchcock down into twelve personality aspects linked to his films by chapter such as “The Murderer”, “The Voyeur”, “The Womanizer”, “The Auteur”, etc.
Lots of tidbits and keen observations peppered throughout such as, 1.) the death of his father coinciding with the zenith of Germany’s attacks on England during WWI and the 1918 influenza pandemic sweeping across Europe soon thereafter all of which seemed to shape his childhood, 2.) that had he not gotten into movies, he claims he would have been a criminal lawyer, 3.) that he was a worrier, incredibly vain, hugely insecure and constantly needing and getting reassurance from his wife, 4.) that both Graham Greene and Ernest Hemingway refused to work with him, 5.) he was Universal’s third largest shareholder at one point, 6.) he didn’t like Paul Newman because he didn’t wear a tie and drank beer (not wine) at one of his famed post shoot dinners, 7.) that Cézanne was his favorite artist.
Certainly, a true original and yet, like many brilliant, creative icons, very much a creepy weirdo. That aside (if you can separate the man from his work), his movies and his influence remain both indelibly etched in our modern culture and presciently relevant more than 50 years after his death.
The book was a fun read and I like the various film interpretations the best.
Lots of tidbits and keen observations peppered throughout such as, 1.) the death of his father coinciding with the zenith of Germany’s attacks on England during WWI and the 1918 influenza pandemic sweeping across Europe soon thereafter all of which seemed to shape his childhood, 2.) that had he not gotten into movies, he claims he would have been a criminal lawyer, 3.) that he was a worrier, incredibly vain, hugely insecure and constantly needing and getting reassurance from his wife, 4.) that both Graham Greene and Ernest Hemingway refused to work with him, 5.) he was Universal’s third largest shareholder at one point, 6.) he didn’t like Paul Newman because he didn’t wear a tie and drank beer (not wine) at one of his famed post shoot dinners, 7.) that Cézanne was his favorite artist.
Certainly, a true original and yet, like many brilliant, creative icons, very much a creepy weirdo. That aside (if you can separate the man from his work), his movies and his influence remain both indelibly etched in our modern culture and presciently relevant more than 50 years after his death.
The book was a fun read and I like the various film interpretations the best.
April 28, 2021
Audiobook narrated by Qarie Marshall. Done clear and concise which made it very enjoyable to listen to.
50 years and 53 films. My favorite was Rebecca. Have you seen it? It was and still is a black and white film. That in my opinion is one of the greatest films I ever seen. I was a young adult and loved it.
Anxiety, fear, paranoia, guilt and shame are the emotional engines that drove his films. He was a son, brother, husband, father, grandfather. But first and foremost he was a talented director.
This book explores Hitchcock and the relationship with his films and:
• Women’s roles in his films
• His relationships with screenwriters
• His body image and the public
• His dedication to clothing
• voyeurism
• Catholicism
I throughly enjoyed this and recommend it if you love AH.
Thanks Dreamscape Media via Netgalley. I’ve voluntarily given my review.
50 years and 53 films. My favorite was Rebecca. Have you seen it? It was and still is a black and white film. That in my opinion is one of the greatest films I ever seen. I was a young adult and loved it.
Anxiety, fear, paranoia, guilt and shame are the emotional engines that drove his films. He was a son, brother, husband, father, grandfather. But first and foremost he was a talented director.
This book explores Hitchcock and the relationship with his films and:
• Women’s roles in his films
• His relationships with screenwriters
• His body image and the public
• His dedication to clothing
• voyeurism
• Catholicism
I throughly enjoyed this and recommend it if you love AH.
Thanks Dreamscape Media via Netgalley. I’ve voluntarily given my review.
June 10, 2024
Познайомилася з Гічкоком ще у шкільні часи, коли ми з подругою влаштовували марафони трилерів і жахастиків (великі скупчення птахів у небі досі викликають мурашки по тілу).
Однак, про біографію режисера я знала дуже мало. Ця книга трохи пролила світло на його життя і значно поповнила мій список фільмів для перегляду. 🍿
Однак, про біографію режисера я знала дуже мало. Ця книга трохи пролила світло на його життя і значно поповнила мій список фільмів для перегляду. 🍿
July 6, 2022
Нелінійна подача біографії Альфреда Гічкока під призмою психоаналізу - це справді цікаво. Особливо, якщо бути знайомим з фільмографію режисера.
July 20, 2021
Has there ever been an auteur like Hitchcock? Will there ever be again? The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock is fabulously well-researched, but after a time, I found its arbitrary divisions between different personality descriptors annoying (“the murderer,” “the entertainer”), and found myself wanting a more standard narrative flow than chapters that went all over the place under the frame of specific traits the author sought to prove. Still, this is a good read for Hitchcock fans.
March 7, 2021
For this and other book reviews, visit www.bargain-sleuth.com
I’m not quite sure when I discovered Alfred Hitchcock’s movies. It was sometime after Nancy Drew books and James Bond films aired on commercial television as the movie of the week. My best friend’s parents had a small selection of movies and we watched and re-watched Rear Window and To Catch a Thief over and over. Then, my freshman year in high school, we had a teacher who looked so much like Anthony Perkins in Psycho, we couldn’t help but dive deeper into the Hitchcock library of films. The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock: An Anatomy of the Master of Suspense by Edward White explores Hitch’s films and life through twelve different facets of his personality.
Who was the man behind some of cinema’s most classic suspense films? That’s what The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock attempts to explore, through different parts of his personality. Some chapters work better than others. “The Boy Who Couldn’t Grow Up”, “The Family Man”, and “The Voyeur” were some of the better chapters because they rely on Hitchcock’s real life as well as his films to study his personality.
“The Man of God” was very interesting; I had no idea Hitchcock was raised Catholic. Either this wasn’t mentioned in the biography I read years ago or it wasn’t touched upon other than a mention. White shows how certain Catholic teachings remained with Hitchcock as an adult, even though he did not go out of his way to show his Catholicism. But his daughter was raised Catholic and her children as well, and when Hitch was at the end of his life, he had regular visits from a priest to receive communion and a prayer service. I always thought I Confess, the Hitchcock movie that has a priest being accused of murder because he can’t reveal the confession of the real murderer due to his oat a rather good film, but Hitchcock didn’t like the end result.
“The Voyeur” was also a treat to read, because really, all Hitchcock’s films are about voyeurism in one way or another, but none so much as Rear Window, where James Stewart is house-bound by a broken leg and he looks out on the apartment building across the courtyard of his Greenwich Village home. Hitchcock took great delight in showing us things that hadn’t been seen before in movies, like a toilet in a bathroom in Psycho, or a woman still half-dressed after a mid-day romp in the same film.
The book goes back and forth in time, discussing Hitchcock’s films from Hollywood as well as his time in England. Indeed, I found a wealth of information about his early films, of which I’ve only seen a few. I’ve never seen his silent films, but count The 39 Steps and his original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much one of my favorite of his. He enjoyed the story so much he later re-filmed it in Hollywood with James Stewart and Doris Day. I enjoy both films, but the original seems more intense.
“The Fat Man” was a chapter I had issues with, only because in this day and age to call someone fat is offensive. Hitchcock constantly referred to himself as fat, and made frequent references to his girth. His repeated diets, his drawing of the Hitchcock silhouette with the extra chin, in fact, walking on camera in profile so one could see that rotund silhouette was something Hitch never shied from. He often made jokes at his own expense, which can be seen as a defensive mechanism: laugh about yourself so others don’t start teasing you.
Still, despite the thorough look at Hitchcock’s life through these facets of personality, I found him a man hard to know. He kept so much of himself private that only his wife and daughter and later grandchildren really knew him. Hitch constantly projected this serious side when in public, but he had an incredible sense of humor, which is often found in his films to break up the suspense. I’ve seen home movies of Hitchcock where he’s laughing and playing about in his rolled up shirt sleeves, and they’re odd to see since he always projected this image of a proper English gentleman with his dark suits and droll way of talking.
The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock is released to the general public April 13, 2021. Thanks to NetGalley and W.W. Norton Company for the ARC in exchange for my honest review. All opinions are my own.
I’m not quite sure when I discovered Alfred Hitchcock’s movies. It was sometime after Nancy Drew books and James Bond films aired on commercial television as the movie of the week. My best friend’s parents had a small selection of movies and we watched and re-watched Rear Window and To Catch a Thief over and over. Then, my freshman year in high school, we had a teacher who looked so much like Anthony Perkins in Psycho, we couldn’t help but dive deeper into the Hitchcock library of films. The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock: An Anatomy of the Master of Suspense by Edward White explores Hitch’s films and life through twelve different facets of his personality.
Who was the man behind some of cinema’s most classic suspense films? That’s what The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock attempts to explore, through different parts of his personality. Some chapters work better than others. “The Boy Who Couldn’t Grow Up”, “The Family Man”, and “The Voyeur” were some of the better chapters because they rely on Hitchcock’s real life as well as his films to study his personality.
“The Man of God” was very interesting; I had no idea Hitchcock was raised Catholic. Either this wasn’t mentioned in the biography I read years ago or it wasn’t touched upon other than a mention. White shows how certain Catholic teachings remained with Hitchcock as an adult, even though he did not go out of his way to show his Catholicism. But his daughter was raised Catholic and her children as well, and when Hitch was at the end of his life, he had regular visits from a priest to receive communion and a prayer service. I always thought I Confess, the Hitchcock movie that has a priest being accused of murder because he can’t reveal the confession of the real murderer due to his oat a rather good film, but Hitchcock didn’t like the end result.
“The Voyeur” was also a treat to read, because really, all Hitchcock’s films are about voyeurism in one way or another, but none so much as Rear Window, where James Stewart is house-bound by a broken leg and he looks out on the apartment building across the courtyard of his Greenwich Village home. Hitchcock took great delight in showing us things that hadn’t been seen before in movies, like a toilet in a bathroom in Psycho, or a woman still half-dressed after a mid-day romp in the same film.
The book goes back and forth in time, discussing Hitchcock’s films from Hollywood as well as his time in England. Indeed, I found a wealth of information about his early films, of which I’ve only seen a few. I’ve never seen his silent films, but count The 39 Steps and his original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much one of my favorite of his. He enjoyed the story so much he later re-filmed it in Hollywood with James Stewart and Doris Day. I enjoy both films, but the original seems more intense.
“The Fat Man” was a chapter I had issues with, only because in this day and age to call someone fat is offensive. Hitchcock constantly referred to himself as fat, and made frequent references to his girth. His repeated diets, his drawing of the Hitchcock silhouette with the extra chin, in fact, walking on camera in profile so one could see that rotund silhouette was something Hitch never shied from. He often made jokes at his own expense, which can be seen as a defensive mechanism: laugh about yourself so others don’t start teasing you.
Still, despite the thorough look at Hitchcock’s life through these facets of personality, I found him a man hard to know. He kept so much of himself private that only his wife and daughter and later grandchildren really knew him. Hitch constantly projected this serious side when in public, but he had an incredible sense of humor, which is often found in his films to break up the suspense. I’ve seen home movies of Hitchcock where he’s laughing and playing about in his rolled up shirt sleeves, and they’re odd to see since he always projected this image of a proper English gentleman with his dark suits and droll way of talking.
The Twelve Lives of Alfred Hitchcock is released to the general public April 13, 2021. Thanks to NetGalley and W.W. Norton Company for the ARC in exchange for my honest review. All opinions are my own.
April 25, 2021
Every few years, it seems that a new biography comes out about a celebrity that alters the perception long held by fans and even peers. THE TWELVE LIVES OF ALFRED HITCHCOCK falls into this category.
Edward White, author of THE TASTEMAKER: Carl Van Vechten and the Birth of Modern America, “dissects” Hitchcock into what could be considered multiple personalities, each one supposedly contributing to his genius (although when reading some passages, one might call the legendary director an evil genius).
We have seen some of the material within White’s overview before: Hitchcock’s obsession with blondes; his “voyeurism”; his legacy as a pioneer and auteur; the way he (mis)treated his actors, especially the women; and his childhood fear of police and authority. But what is especially interesting are chapters covering his attitudes regarding style and fashion, religion, and even his own weight issues.
Hitchcock was probably no better or worse than many of his contemporaries. He could be petulant, sarcastic and downright mean, but he was also a staunch family man and willing to take chances where others wouldn’t. I’m sure some of his performers and crew members could tell stories about perceived abuse, pettiness and jealousy, which was all part of the game. So in that regard, was Hitchcock more of a bad egg because he didn’t like to share the spotlight or credit with others (save his beloved wife, Alma)? Was he especially harsh on his actresses, like Tippi Hedren, Kim Novak and Grace Kelly?
The chapter “The Dandy” was especially entertaining and illuminating as we learn about the attention to detail taken when it came to wardrobe and set furnishings. Describing the elegant designs for Rope, which was set in New York and was one of Hitchcock's more technically original (if not box-office successful) films, White writes, “It was a material existence that Hitchcock understood, for it mirrored his own. It was he who guided the selection of the artworks to be hung on the apartment walls; he who stipulated the color of [the actors’] suits. Despite looking like a staid British bank manager, Hitchcock apportioned great depth to the surface of things. He wasn’t showy or decorative in his dress, but he was committed to the perfection of appearance as a way of exerting control over himself and the world around him.”
White doesn’t get into the nitty-gritty about Hitchcock’s filmography as Francois Truffaut did in HITCHCOCK. But it’s just this type of inspection that sets his book apart from previous examinations.
However, this is not a perfect book by any means. Some readers might look askance as the author seems to take a certain pleasure in pointing out Hitchcock’s not insubstantial faults, although those looking for gossipy tidbits might enjoy such disclosures. Similarly, there is a haughty film studies feeling in spots where White might discuss aspects of the movies beyond the casual fan’s education.
Overall, though, THE TWELVE LIVES OF ALFRED HITCHCOCK makes a worthy addition to the cinephile’s library and undoubtedly will appeal to Hitchcock devotees.
Reviewed by Ron Kaplan
Edward White, author of THE TASTEMAKER: Carl Van Vechten and the Birth of Modern America, “dissects” Hitchcock into what could be considered multiple personalities, each one supposedly contributing to his genius (although when reading some passages, one might call the legendary director an evil genius).
We have seen some of the material within White’s overview before: Hitchcock’s obsession with blondes; his “voyeurism”; his legacy as a pioneer and auteur; the way he (mis)treated his actors, especially the women; and his childhood fear of police and authority. But what is especially interesting are chapters covering his attitudes regarding style and fashion, religion, and even his own weight issues.
Hitchcock was probably no better or worse than many of his contemporaries. He could be petulant, sarcastic and downright mean, but he was also a staunch family man and willing to take chances where others wouldn’t. I’m sure some of his performers and crew members could tell stories about perceived abuse, pettiness and jealousy, which was all part of the game. So in that regard, was Hitchcock more of a bad egg because he didn’t like to share the spotlight or credit with others (save his beloved wife, Alma)? Was he especially harsh on his actresses, like Tippi Hedren, Kim Novak and Grace Kelly?
The chapter “The Dandy” was especially entertaining and illuminating as we learn about the attention to detail taken when it came to wardrobe and set furnishings. Describing the elegant designs for Rope, which was set in New York and was one of Hitchcock's more technically original (if not box-office successful) films, White writes, “It was a material existence that Hitchcock understood, for it mirrored his own. It was he who guided the selection of the artworks to be hung on the apartment walls; he who stipulated the color of [the actors’] suits. Despite looking like a staid British bank manager, Hitchcock apportioned great depth to the surface of things. He wasn’t showy or decorative in his dress, but he was committed to the perfection of appearance as a way of exerting control over himself and the world around him.”
White doesn’t get into the nitty-gritty about Hitchcock’s filmography as Francois Truffaut did in HITCHCOCK. But it’s just this type of inspection that sets his book apart from previous examinations.
However, this is not a perfect book by any means. Some readers might look askance as the author seems to take a certain pleasure in pointing out Hitchcock’s not insubstantial faults, although those looking for gossipy tidbits might enjoy such disclosures. Similarly, there is a haughty film studies feeling in spots where White might discuss aspects of the movies beyond the casual fan’s education.
Overall, though, THE TWELVE LIVES OF ALFRED HITCHCOCK makes a worthy addition to the cinephile’s library and undoubtedly will appeal to Hitchcock devotees.
Reviewed by Ron Kaplan
April 16, 2021
While dozens of books on Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980) already exist, Edward White ("The Tastemaker: Carl Van Vechten and the Birth of Modern America") sidesteps familiarity with an inventive and clever new way to present his biography and critical assessment of the filmmaker. Rather than tell Hitchcock's life in chronological order, White has written 12 lengthy chapters, each presenting a different aspect of his subject. "Only when all twelve are seen together will the full picture be complete," he writes.
The chapters (or "lives") begins with "The Boy Who Couldn't Grow Up," which examines Hitchcock's childhood phobias that seemingly lasted his entire life. "The Murderer" posits "Hitchcock had a lifelong fascination with cruelty and violence that fueled his creativity." "The Auteur" shows how Hitchcock's persona changed after decades of being regarded as merely a Hollywood hit-maker until French critics declared him an "artiste" in the mid-1960s. One of the more fascinating chapters is "The Womanizer," which looks at Hitchcock's wildly conflicted treatment of women on and off screen. Hitchcock was, White writes, "caught between feelings of admiration and resentment, identification and estrangement, an instinct to worship and a desire to control." Other fascinating chapters include "The Voyeur," "The Entertainer," "The Dandy" and "The Fat Man," which poignantly examines his lifelong relationship with food ("the source of joy and companionship, disgust and shame"). The final chapter begins in 1979 with Hitchcock in failing health and closing down his office at Universal studios. "Life away from work proved an oxymoron," writes White.
White's clever, authoritative and opinionated critical biography of Hitchcock is a treat for film buffs.
Edward White's outstanding Alfred Hitchcock biography divides his epic life and film output into 12 insightful and fascinating chapters, creating a vibrant portrait.
The chapters (or "lives") begins with "The Boy Who Couldn't Grow Up," which examines Hitchcock's childhood phobias that seemingly lasted his entire life. "The Murderer" posits "Hitchcock had a lifelong fascination with cruelty and violence that fueled his creativity." "The Auteur" shows how Hitchcock's persona changed after decades of being regarded as merely a Hollywood hit-maker until French critics declared him an "artiste" in the mid-1960s. One of the more fascinating chapters is "The Womanizer," which looks at Hitchcock's wildly conflicted treatment of women on and off screen. Hitchcock was, White writes, "caught between feelings of admiration and resentment, identification and estrangement, an instinct to worship and a desire to control." Other fascinating chapters include "The Voyeur," "The Entertainer," "The Dandy" and "The Fat Man," which poignantly examines his lifelong relationship with food ("the source of joy and companionship, disgust and shame"). The final chapter begins in 1979 with Hitchcock in failing health and closing down his office at Universal studios. "Life away from work proved an oxymoron," writes White.
White's clever, authoritative and opinionated critical biography of Hitchcock is a treat for film buffs.
Edward White's outstanding Alfred Hitchcock biography divides his epic life and film output into 12 insightful and fascinating chapters, creating a vibrant portrait.
November 29, 2021
The intro to Edward White's book makes some bold claims about Hitch’s greatness that aren’t so much disingenuous as untrue. Hitchcock’s work spanned an unusual number of genres? Surely he has about the narrowest range of any great director. Hitch is the only filmmaker whose mythology eclipses his movies? Not only is that a perverse metric, hard to quantify, but it probably doesn’t even apply to Hitch. And anyway, what about Orson Welles?
Then we get into the 12 lives and it’s suddenly terrific, full of neat connections and deep research. Only one chapter seems redundant – ‘Hitchcock the dandy’ is largely predicated on the idea that, like most people of his era and background, the director often wore a suit – and the ones zooming in on his relationships with his weight, his relationships with women and his status as a Londoner are simply outstanding.
Perhaps the best thing about White’s approach is that he is prepared to fully engage, from a progressive perspective, with the difficult elements of Hitchcock the person and Hitchcock the artist, without thinking that these in any way negate the art. He's interesting, too, on the significance of the director's TV career, and the way it helped shape his public image.
Like his subject, White's book is entertaining, provocative, provoking and occasionally pretentious. I only really realised while reading it that many people claim their favourite Hitchcock film is Marnie, which… well it’s not, is it. The author's gentle pisstaking about the film’s unintentional technical defects – and the way that pseuds have praised them as artistic virtues – is highly enjoyable.
Then we get into the 12 lives and it’s suddenly terrific, full of neat connections and deep research. Only one chapter seems redundant – ‘Hitchcock the dandy’ is largely predicated on the idea that, like most people of his era and background, the director often wore a suit – and the ones zooming in on his relationships with his weight, his relationships with women and his status as a Londoner are simply outstanding.
Perhaps the best thing about White’s approach is that he is prepared to fully engage, from a progressive perspective, with the difficult elements of Hitchcock the person and Hitchcock the artist, without thinking that these in any way negate the art. He's interesting, too, on the significance of the director's TV career, and the way it helped shape his public image.
Like his subject, White's book is entertaining, provocative, provoking and occasionally pretentious. I only really realised while reading it that many people claim their favourite Hitchcock film is Marnie, which… well it’s not, is it. The author's gentle pisstaking about the film’s unintentional technical defects – and the way that pseuds have praised them as artistic virtues – is highly enjoyable.
May 5, 2021
I don’t read biographies almost ever. But this one felt perfect for its kind. An incredibly well researched book, streamlining and synthesizing all things “Hitch” from a lot of long books about the famed director. The “twelve lives” are all very interesting and follow a nonlinear look into Hitchcock’s life and his films. It isn’t a book of criticism, but traces of criticism find there way in. White is able to give his opinion without dominating the book with it and in fact goes harder towards opening up the oft-repeated anecdotes and assumptions of Hitchcock to logical critique and/or questioning and/or complication. It is a winning concept, this book, and I must say I loved it. I simply must say it! When the cards on down, Hitchcock is my favorite filmmaker. So I had a bias in being interested. But this is a modern read, in that it is easygoing and gets out before the subject has a chance to get worn out. Come and get it, piggies! Suuuuu-eee!
January 14, 2022
It is hard to believe that such significant figures as Hitchcock can honestly believe that there work does not have out-sized impact on the culture in which they work. And White almost glosses past this as he describes the peculiarly special nature of Hitchcock. The one feature of Hitchcock's work that this work focused my attention on was the humor that Hitch was always working on sharing. I had been almost unaware that in North by Northwest the importance of keeping Cary Grant's suit clean and pressed was a major focus. An enjoyable listen.
May 20, 2022
Nicely written, with complete and honest coverage of previous studies of Hitchcock. I found the chapters, each on a different aspect of Hitchcock's personality, disconcerting at first, but then informative.
Hitchcock is still mysterious. He intentionally (or sometimes unintentionally?) misled interviewers and scholars. His work shows how innovative he was, in spite of his personal shortcomings. Even those are not entirely clear.
I've read several books on his films, but this is the first biography, and I recommend it.
Hitchcock is still mysterious. He intentionally (or sometimes unintentionally?) misled interviewers and scholars. His work shows how innovative he was, in spite of his personal shortcomings. Even those are not entirely clear.
I've read several books on his films, but this is the first biography, and I recommend it.
May 28, 2022
With several Hitchcock books and a college course under my belt, I LOVED this book. It was a great way to re-examine his movies. As I read each life, or theme, on Hitch I rewatched or watched for the first time sone of the very early movies. I took my time and finished after starting 6 months earlier. I highly recommend to Hitchcock fans. However, it might not be the book to start with on your maiden Hitchcock journey.
May 3, 2021
This was a very well researched book that made me strongly dislike the subject of the research. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at what a very powerful man got away with many decades ago. The book itself is good, I just can't give it more than 3 stars because of how it made me feel.
***I was given a copy of the audiobook by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
***I was given a copy of the audiobook by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
October 27, 2021
Very enjoyable read! Each chapter focuses on one aspect of his personality and how it informed various films he made at different stages of his life. Now I want to go back and watch some of his earlier movies.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews