Was Hitch Bi-Sexual?
cgarc...@my-deja.com
he hadn't met Alma, he might've gone "poof"...I remember hearing that
in the past too...but has there ever been any report of Hitch having
any kind of sexual encounter with any men? It seems to me there are
alot of homosexual subtext in his movies...Strangers on a Train, Rope
(of course), and many others...even Vertigo when seen enough times, one
can certainly read into what happened with the Midge/Scottie
relationship gone bad...did you take a good look at Midge's reaction
when Scottie says "But it was you who called it off, remember?" I don't
know about you people, but I'm convinced Scottie couldn't handle it in
bed with Midge, and this is why he's so obsessed with Madeline...she's
the only woman he's ever met who makes his hormones race...that
Hitch...what a mystery HE was as well!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
prufro...@my-deja.com
cgarc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I just read the post that said Hitch once confided to a friend that if
> he hadn't met Alma, he might've gone "poof"...I remember hearing that
> in the past too...but has there ever been any report of Hitch having
> any kind of sexual encounter with any men? It seems to me there are
> alot of homosexual subtext in his movies...Strangers on a Train, Rope
> (of course), and many others...even Vertigo when seen enough times,
one
> can certainly read into what happened with the Midge/Scottie
> relationship gone bad...
I don't know of any report of Hitch having sexual interaction with men,
but that's not the point, perhaps. I say in my book that EASY VIRTUE
(1927) demonstrates an early instance of 'Hitchcock's belief in a
free-flowing Eros as the surest means of keeping us all human'. So
there are photos of Hitch posing with, for instance Charles Laughton (a
known, if closeted, homosexual) in a merry, romping way; as indeed there
are home movies of Hitch larking with male family friends, etc., and
seeming to clutch at their genitals - all in high-spirited fun,
naturally. In parallel, Hitch would romp with his actresses, such as
Anny Ondra, 'exposed himself' to Madeleine Carroll (she told Dr Brian
McFarlane), would goose secretaries (I've recently heard), and once
suddenly French-kissed Karen Black. Get the picture? Hitch was
technically 'celibate' for much of his life (he more than once
admitted), but he let it all flow out in other ways, and not just in his
highly-charged movies. In a way, I'm reminded of Hinduism's notion of
'brahmacharya' (celibacy) that stresses the spiritual,
opening-to-the-world benefits of such a practice. Gandhi, for instance,
performed it, and was happy to sleep with - just sleep with, i.e.,
alongside - beautiful young women to maximise the gains of such a
practice (and no doubt to minimise the losses!) ...
As for what you say about a homosexual subtext in Hitchcock's movies,
including VERTIGO, yes, of course. This aspect of the films (along with
a fear of women), which Dr Theodore Price sees as central to them, has
been rather thoroughly, if almost obsessively, treated in Price's book
'Hitchcock and Homosexuality' (1992), unfortunately out of print. At a
more theoretical level, it's dealt with in Robert Samuels's 'Hitchcock's
Bi-Textuality' (1998).
Madeleine in VERTIGO is to Scottie (or Hitchcock), I suspect, rather
like those beautiful young women were to Gandhi. She is both flesh and
spirit, worldly and unworldly, a Helen of Troy-figure as I say in my
book. Graciously, Hitchcock allows Scottie to possess her in the Empire
Hotel scene (the hotel is significantly named, as commentators have
noted)...
I wonder if Steven DeRosa, who is superbly informed about aspects of
Hitchcock's life behind the scenes, and who has just returned from the
NYU Hitchcock Conference (see Steven's great Web site), may have some
comments on this matter of Hitch's 'bi-sexuality'?
- Ken Mogg (author of 'The Alfred Hitchcock Story' out next week in the
US, and with contributions from Dan Auiler, Steven DeRosa, and others).
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin
GK
<snip>
>Madeleine in VERTIGO is to Scottie (or Hitchcock), I suspect, rather
>like those beautiful young women were to Gandhi. She is both flesh and
>spirit, worldly and unworldly, a Helen of Troy-figure as I say in my
>book. Graciously, Hitchcock allows Scottie to possess her in the Empire
>Hotel scene (the hotel is significantly named, as commentators have
>noted)...
>
>I wonder if Steven DeRosa, who is superbly informed about aspects of
>Hitchcock's life behind the scenes, and who has just returned from the
>NYU Hitchcock Conference (see Steven's great Web site), may have some
>comments on this matter of Hitch's 'bi-sexuality'?
>
>- Ken Mogg (author of 'The Alfred Hitchcock Story' out next week in the
>US, and with contributions from Dan Auiler, Steven DeRosa, and others).
>http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin
Rather than bisexual, would asexual be a better description? He
may have considered sex in an abstract way and not as a physical
urge.
I recall seeing an interview with the actor Patrick McNee in
which he described himself as asexual. Is this description valid
for Hitchcock?
cgarc...@my-deja.com
Not as long as there's a Patricia Hitchcock it's not <g>.
cgarc...@my-deja.com
Constance Kuriyama
GK (geo...@mindspring.com) writes:
> Rather than bisexual, would asexual be a better description? He
> may have considered sex in an abstract way and not as a physical
> urge.
Abstract or physical, it's still sexual. Therefore asexual
won't work.
> I recall seeing an interview with the actor Patrick McNee in
> which he described himself as asexual. Is this description valid
> for Hitchcock?
I hardly think so. There's a great deal of interest in sex in his films,
though virtually all the relationships are vexed in one way or antoher.
I can't think of a single human relationship in the Hitchcock films
I've seen that seemed warm and spontaneous.
Connie K.
--
"Art walks the fine line between the real and the unreal."--Chicamatsu
GK
Kuriyama) wrote:
>I hardly think so. There's a great deal of interest in sex in his films,
>though virtually all the relationships are vexed in one way or antoher.
He could have an interest as far as making films, but not in his
personal life. It's the same with murder and crime. There is a
great deal of interest in murder in his films, but it is abstract.
prufro...@my-deja.com
geo...@mindspring.com (GK) wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 02:17:53 GMT, prufro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Rather than bisexual, would asexual be a better description [of
Hitchcock]? He
> may have considered sex in an abstract way and not as a physical
> urge.
> I recall seeing an interview with the actor Patrick McNee in
> which he described himself as asexual. Is this description valid
> for Hitchcock?
Well, I gave plenty of evidence in a previous post that Hitch was
highly-sexed despite his avowal (to Truffaut, et al.) that he was a
'celibate' of long-standing. And, psychologically speaking, I suspect
that he was at least as bisexual as he makes Alex (Claude Rains) in
NOTORIOUS. (At one point, Alex looks at Prescott at an adjoining table,
and remarks to Alicia, 'Handsome, isn't he?' This is a case of
considerable empathy on Alex's part, inasmuch as he is really, I think,
taking Alicia's viewpoint here. But that's precisely how a form of
psychological, non-physical, bisexuality may operate, isn't it?) But in
another way, the word 'asexual' may apply to Hitchcock, because a part
of him was certainly NOT interested in the actual practice of sex.
Doesn't screenwriter/playwright Arthur Laurents say in THE CELLULOID
CLOSET, or somewhere, that Hitch kept aloof from concerning himself with
what people are doing all the time in their bedrooms, that he felt
superior to such goings-on? (Yet Hitch was a master of the dirty joke,
which his wife said he could tell even in mixed company without
offending anyone!)
So the picture that emerges is of a man who was in some ways 'retarded',
still a little boy, who had still not got over his Oedipal problems. At
the same time, he was an enormously intelligent and, dare I say,
intellectual, man, who had 'mastered' everything, including sex, in his
head. I think that goes a long way to explaining why his films are so
fascinating in their endless nuances and power - the master is in
control, which is reassuring, but he keeps hinting at 'forbidden' things
in a cheeky and joking way, which is fun ...
- Ken Mogg (author, 'The Alfred Hitchcock Story').
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin
Cramnella
>can certainly read into what happened with the Midge/Scottie
>when Scottie says "But it was you who called it off, remember?" I don't
>know about you people, but I'm convinced Scottie couldn't handle it in
>bed with Midge, and this is why he's so obsessed with Madeline...she's
>the only woman he's ever met who makes his hormones race.
I think that scene implies that Scotty was impotent. The whole acrophobia
thing is a symptom of and symbol of impotence. I always thought that the
comment about him being known as, "Reliable Ferguson," was an ironic joke. I
do agree with you that Madeline was the first woman he met who got him hot and
bothered: frigid woman - impotent man = perfect match?
Marc Allen
Bill Warren
>> I recall seeing an interview with the actor Patrick McNee in
>> which he described himself as asexual. Is this description valid
>> for Hitchcock?
>
>I hardly think so.
It is not, or wasn't, true for Macnee (not McNee) either, since he has a
daughter, and I believe has been married more than once. But he's not young
any more, and maybe he left his sexual interest behind as he aged.
Bill Warren
>...remarks to Alicia, 'Handsome, isn't he?' This is a case of
>considerable empathy on Alex's part, inasmuch as he is really, I think,
>taking Alicia's viewpoint here. But that's precisely how a form of
>psychological, non-physical, bisexuality may operate, isn't it?
Yes, but it's also possible he was making an uninvolved commentary on male
attractiveness. I recognize which men are handsome without being attracted to
them.
But he's actually realizing that Alicia is finding the other guy
handsome, and letting her know he realizes it.
It's like when a friend of mine, working on a book on Fellini, said that
Fellini had a lot of non-consummated, hidden, homosexual relationships. My
wife said, "Those are called friendships, John."
Bill Warren
I don't think that his acrophobia is an indication of impotence at all; I think
it's an indication of acrophobia. I think he turned Midge down because he
didn't love her ENOUGH, and because he believed in the possibility of the
perfect match.
Damien...@webtv.net
From: bill...@aol.com.exx (Bill Warren) Re: Was Hitch Bi-Sexual?
From: prufro...@my-deja.com
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Warren, first you post from Dejanews patting
yourself on the back by saying what a great writer you are, when in fact
no publisher will tough your manuscripts with a 10 foot pole!
Now you have the nerve to do it again, only this time, you
admit to the world how STRAIGHT YOU ARE, when in fact it's common
knowledge you were GREAT buddies with GAY PORN PEDDLER BILL ROTSLER, and
now you "quote" your wife by claiming she told you the COLD HARD FACTS
about what constitutes a friendship????
Now we all know you're too chicken-shit to respond, but
please, spare us the taxing insults on our intelligence.
What's wrong Warren? Having an identity crises again?
PATHETIC!
Evil Against Evil
Constance Kuriyama
Well, OK. I think that's what Freud would have called sublimated
sexuality rather than asexuality.
muf...@labyrinth.net.au
bill...@aol.com.exx (Bill Warren) wrote:
> >From: prufro...@my-deja.com
>
> >...remarks to Alicia, 'Handsome, isn't he?' This is a case of
> >considerable empathy on Alex's part, inasmuch as he is really, I
think,
> >taking Alicia's viewpoint here. But that's precisely how a form of
> >psychological, non-physical, bisexuality may operate, isn't it?
>
> Yes, but it's also possible he was making an uninvolved commentary on
male
> attractiveness.
Bill, I was illustrating a general point about Alex being a rather
bisexual person. Apart from the fact that experience shows that such a
line in a Hitchcock film is almost invariably designed to resonate with
maximum, rather than minimum, possibilities, there's also the matter of
Claude Rains's performance overall - which has affinities with both Tony
Perkins's in PSYCHO and James Mason's in NxNW. The latter is clearly
that of a bisexual character (while the former is that of a
transvestite).
- Ken M.
muf...@labyrinth.net.au
bill...@aol.com.exx (Bill Warren) wrote:
> I don't think that [Scottie's] acrophobia is an indication of
impotence at
all; I think
> it's an indication of acrophobia. I think he turned Midge down
because he
> didn't love her ENOUGH, and because he believed in the possibility of
the
> perfect match.
Bill, again you're overlooking the context, including that of
Hitchcock's movies overall. (Cf my post, just sent, re NOTORIOUS.)
Scottie is one of several characters played by James Stewart, each of
whom is, clearly, impotent. Rupert with his limp in ROPE, Jeff with his
broken leg in REAR WINDOW, and Scottie with his corset and inability to
ascend high towers in VERTIGO (the script calls Coit Tower 'that
remarkable symbol') are three of a kind.
Your lowest-common-meaning approach to reading Hitchcock doesn't square
with what is known of the man and his films. (See, for example, Bill
Krohn's forthcoming 'Hitchcock at Work'.) Hitch LOVED, and EXCELLED AT
CREATING, these puns, symbols, cheating-of-the-censor moments, etc.
Bill Warren
>there's also the matter of
>Claude Rains's performance overall
True enough, but it's also true that Rains >naturally< had a kind of sardonic,
epicene British style that many interpret as homosexual, or at least sexually
ambiguous. (Which, of course, could well be why Hitchcock cast him anyway.)
Bill Warren
>Your lowest-common-meaning approach to reading Hitchcock doesn't square
>with what is known of the man and his films. (See, for example, Bill
>Krohn's forthcoming 'Hitchcock at Work'.) Hitch LOVED, and EXCELLED AT
>CREATING, these puns, symbols, cheating-of-the-censor moments, etc.
Clearly he did. But that does not mean that Scottie's >acrophobia< is a symbol
of anything other than acrophobia, particularly since the character in the
novel suffers from it as well. I don't think VERTIGO is remotely about
impotence; it's about obsession, failed >desire< (not a failed penis) and,
well, the path to true love has many a pitfall. Sometimes off the side of a
tower.
muf...@labyrinth.net.au
I think the earlier posts by 'Cramnella', et al., were dead right, Bill.
I think that VERTIGO IS about Scottie's impotence, amongst other
things. The 'phallic' symbolism of Coit Tower (and, to some extent, the
mission tower, though the latter has accrued many other 'meanings' by
the end of the film) can't be ignored. Gavin Elster, like Midge,
realised long ago that Scottie would probably 'never get up the tower',
and when Scottie is finally forced to confront his own limitations, at
the start of the film, that's when the real story takes off. Of course,
as I've tried to indicate, the suggestiveness (!) is multiple, and goes
way beyond sexual symbolism to include suggestions of spiritual insight,
worldly ambition, etc.
Damien...@webtv.net
From: bill...@aol.com.exx (Bill Warren) Re: Was Hitch Bi-Sexual?
Can we ALL assume that since you did not refute any of the alternative
sexual allegations made against you that they are true?
Evil Against Evil
Lasse Tveter Solbu
- necrophilia in "Vertigo"
- frigidity in "Marnie"
- s/m and rape in "Frenzy"
- transsexuality in "Psycho"
- homosexuality in "Rope"
...just to name a few. There's no coincidence, sex - and often sexual
perversions, was something that often appeared in his films - usually as
minor undertones. It's obvious that this was something he fantasised about,
and that film was his way of express these fantasies; but inside deasent
plots and human characters of course. There were many other things that he
wanted to express too, but this was one side of him, I am sure.
Sincerely
Lasse Tveter Solbu.
Iksnamhcok
>CREATING, these puns, symbols, cheating-of-the-censor moments, etc.
Such as the license plates in Psycho.
(Couldn't resist!)
Iksnamhcok
>mission tower, though the latter has accrued many other 'meanings' by
>the end of the film) can't be ignored. Gavin Elster, like Midge,
>realised long ago that Scottie would probably 'never get up the tower',
Much in the way the dialog and images in Psycho often suggest the theme of anal
retentiveness. (See David Sterritt's The Films of Alfred Hitchcock.)
Bill Warren
The trouble with this kind of discussion is that it confuses what the creator
actually intended and what is a legitimate interpretation.
muf...@labyrinth.net.au
iksna...@aol.com (Iksnamhcok) wrote:
> ... the dialog and images in Psycho often suggest the
theme of anal
> retentiveness. (See David Sterritt's The Films of Alfred Hitchcock.)
Actually, the anal, or cloacal, and lavatory puns and humour that are in
PSYCHO, a Hitchcockian black comedy (like THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY), was
first noted by Raymond Durgnat in a series of articles in 'Films and
Filming' that became the basis of his book, 'The Strange Case of Alfred
Hitchcock' (1974). The brilliant essay on PSYCHO in the latter contains
such observations as: 'the bathroom scene, very glossy and white, and
devoted to the theme of cleanliness, is followed by a scene in which
everything disappears into a thick black sticky cesspool. Norman has
pulled the chain.' And: 'Everything piles up in the swamp - and is
dredged up again. The film is not just a sick joke and a very sad joke,
but a lavatory joke. It is a derisive misuse of the key-images of "the
American way of life": Momism (but it blames son), cash (and rural
virtue), necking (and respectability), plumbing and smart cars.'
In 'The MacGuffin', #11, I wrote that Sterritt's chapter on PSYCHO 'is
probably [his book's] best, and it concentrates on the film's
running-gag concerning money and "anal-compulsive" behaviour. In
particular, Sterritt notes the characters' attachment to what they've
"made", beginning with Cassidy's pleasure in "dumping out" $40,000 for
the women in Lowery's office to admire, and how even after the car with
the wad of money in its boot has bottomed in a faecal swamp, Norman
retains his own "illicit bundle" - his mother's corpse. ...
'My sole criticism of this [I continue] is that it doesn't see the
pertinence of Hitchcock's joke. Sterritt should have read Norman O.
Brown's "Life Against Death" (1959) - incidentally, [a very Hitchcockian
title in itself] - and especially Chapter XV called "Filthy Lucre",
which spells out beautifully our society's unconscious equation of
faeces with child, gift, property, and even weapon; and why any
"puritanical" desire to transcend the body (such as I think Marion Crane
shows in Hitchcock's film) ironically posits that body's continued
status as excrement.'
Of course, the ANL numberplate fits with this imagery (but not the NFB
one, which we know was that of assistant director Hilton Green!).
Marion herself, and her car, are destined to end up in that sticky
cloacal swamp. Her stealing of the $40,000, as a gift to Sam, so that
they could have a baby, was what she had hoped to present to 'Daddy'
(Sam) so that he would 'reward' her. You could say that Marion meets
with a sticky end! (Cf Hitchcock's avowed interest in filming 24 hours
in the life of a city in which 'good' things finally end up in the
city's sewers, an idea that partly inspired FRENZY [1972].)
- Ken Mogg (author, 'The Alfred Hitchcock Story').
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin
AAnder8443
(Constance Kuriyama) writes:
>I can't think of a single human relationship in the Hitchcock films
>I've seen that seemed warm and spontaneous.
What about the inn keeper and his wife in The 39 Steps?
Andrew
Iksnamhcok
>>I've seen that seemed warm and spontaneous.
>
>What about the inn keeper and his wife in The 39 Steps?
What about George and Blanche in Family Plot?
Lasse Tveter Solbu
>
>What about George and Blanche in Family Plot?
And perhaps Richard and Barbara in "Frenzy"?
Lasse Tveter Solbu.
Constance Kuriyama
Iksnamhcok (iksna...@aol.com) writes:
>>>I can't think of a single human relationship in the Hitchcock films
>>>I've seen that seemed warm and spontaneous.
>>
Can't even recall that one--and I've seen it several times over the
years. It must be touched on lightly. I was thinking of major
characters, of course, but you're right to bring it up.
> What about George and Blanche in Family Plot?
What I mainly remember about that film is the weirdness of all the
characters, but I'll grant that some of them seemed happpy in their
weirdness. :-) I do vividly recall the wife who had no
interest at all in her hubby's dead body.
Constance Kuriyama
"Lasse Tveter Solbu" (lso...@online.no) writes:
>>>What about the inn keeper and his wife in The 39 Steps?
>>
>
>
Haven't seen that one.
Damien...@webtv.net
From: bill...@aol.com.exx (Bill Warren) Re: Was Hitch Bi-Sexual?
The 'phallic' symbolism of Coit Tower (and, to some extent, the mission
tower, though the latter has accrued many other 'meanings' by the end of
the film) can't be ignored. Gavin Elster, like Midge, realised long ago
that Scottie would probably 'never get up the tower',
of anal
retentiveness. (See David Sterritt's The Films of Alfred Hitchcock.)
The trouble with this kind of discussion is that it confuses what the
creator actually intended and what is a legitimate interpretation.
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷But
not in the case of the license plate. Hitch intended the very specific
NFB for his own personal reasons.
It was the genious in him that made him do it.
There's nothing more inconvenient than an old queen with a headcold!
-Victor/Victoria
Richard Schultz
: And, psychologically speaking, I suspect
: that he was at least as bisexual as he makes Alex (Claude Rains) in
: NOTORIOUS. (At one point, Alex looks at Prescott at an adjoining table,
: and remarks to Alicia, 'Handsome, isn't he?'
Were the screenwriters for "Casablanca" (or was it Curtiz) bisexual
(psychologically speaking) for giving Claude Rains the line about how
if he were a woman, he'd be in love with Rick? (I am aware that
there is an interpretation of "Casablanca" as a parable about repressed
homosexuality.) Or are there perhaps times when a cigar is just a cigar?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."
muf...@labyrinth.net.au
correct address in .sigfile wrote:
> Were the screenwriters for "Casablanca" (or was it Curtiz) bisexual
> (psychologically speaking) for giving Claude Rains the line about how
> if he were a woman, he'd be in love with Rick? (I am aware that
> there is an interpretation of "Casablanca" as a parable about
repressed
> homosexuality.) Or are there perhaps times when a cigar is just a
cigar?
A couple of possible non-sequiters here. The screenwriters of
CASABLANCA didn't have to be bisexual (in an active sense) to give Rains
a line that was in keeping with his perceived persona in this and other
films. According to Freud and others, we are all bisexual in a
psychological sense, at least potentially. Just as Hitchcock sometimes
commented on the importance of ACTORS being sexually fluid
(psychologically at least), so would a good SCREENWRITER have a similar
capacity of being able to 'be' many characters, of either gender, in
order to enter into the worlds of those characters.
The other possible (or actual) non-sequiter here is simply the 'Or are
there perhaps times ...' remark. Of course there are such times, but I
was saying that NOTORIOUS is not such a time. Its screenwriters may
well have taken the Bogart-Bergman-Rains triangle of CASABLANCA as the
model for NOTORIOUS's own Grant-Bergman-Rains triangle. In turn, I was
suggesting that Hitchcock was an exemplary instance of his own adage
about the importance of actors, screenwriters, etc. (i.e., most creative
people) being bisexual, psychologically at least.
And I gave considerable evidence for how Hitch was in fact sexually
'fluid' (psychologically at least), of which the astute depiction of the
Rains character in NOTORIOUS was only one instance.
- Ken Mogg
Hychkok
>> there is an interpretation of "Casablanca" as a parable about
>repressed
>> homosexuality.)
I would be more likely to pick "All About Eve" as a parable about
homosexuality, repressed or otherwise. I have a hard time with Margo and Eve
being female-- the whole film seems so gay. It works much better for me
thinking of Margo and Eve as an older and younger gay male. The bitchiness fits
better that way.