Alfred Hitchcock's undocumented cameo in THE SKIN GAME (1931)
angelgl...@yahoo.com
lists of Hitchcock cameos. It seems to me that Hitchcock almost
certainly appears in THE SKIN GAME, approximately 0:21 minutes into the
film, at the beginning of the auction sequence. He is seated (left of
screen), impishly puffing a pipe, as people walk past him. Moreover it
contains the characteristic hallmaarks of his other cameos: a rather
impish or slightly befuddled appearance; puffing (a few other cameos
show him puffing cigars); corpulent, with a typical derby. Does anyone
care to check out this cameo, 21 minutes into the film, and confirm my
assumption? Thanks.
PS: I have checked contless websites on Hitch's cameos, including
Truffaut's annotated list in his interview book with Hitchcock, and
nobody credits this as a cameo.
Bill Anderson
I think it's not Hitchcock. From a distance it looks like him sitting
there, smoking the pipe. But then two women sit beside him and we get a
closer view and he even takes the pipe out of his mouth and talks to one
of the women about "getting the electric light soon." It's not Hitchcock.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
angelgl...@yahoo.com
I think it's not Hitchcock. From a distance it looks like him sitting
there, smoking the pipe. But then two women sit beside him and we get a
closer view and he even takes the pipe out of his mouth and talks to one
of the women about "getting the electric light soon." It's not Hitchcock.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
After reading your post, I viewed that section again. The print of my
movie is rather poor, as is the sound quality (barely audible), so most
of my focus was on simply following the dialogue. And when I thought I
saw Hitch, I lost continuity. There's no question that the person the
women talk to is not Hitchcock; still as I reviewed that part several
more times after your post, it's possible (though this is a long shot)
that he replaced himself with a regular actor for the next shot where we
see the character up close. (He does something similar in PSYCHO, where
he replaces himself with a similar man in a Texan hat in the following
shot). Except for the followup shot in SKIN GAME, I'm certain that
character would pass for Hitchcock, but the followup shot complicates,
even if it does not finalize, matters. Anyway thanks for your reply;
though you've dampened my enthusiasm a bit. In fact, I was so
enthusiastic thinking I had spotted Hitch in a cameo no others had
recognized, that I rewound that sequence several times and lost track of
continuity. You must admit: that comes as close to Hitch (in corpulence,
pose (slightly out of it, not seeming to be part of the scene),
character (impish, "poor soulish"), action (cigar/pipe smoking), attire
(hat, bulky overocat)) as one can get and not be Hitch!
Bill Anderson
> it's possible (though this is a long shot) that he replaced himself
> with a regular actor for the next shot where we see the character up
> close.
Possible but unlikely, I think. Seen from a distance the actor looks a
bit like Hitchcock but even more like the actor we soon see up close.
BTW, you may want to check your computer's date and time settings.
Calvin
Hitchcock, doing cameos in their own movies, but if not
obviously it would be an interesting one.
Though I didn't pick it out at the time, supposedly Van Sant
had a cameo of himself being lectured to by Hitchcock in
his 'Psycho' remake.
Cameron had at least two in 'Titanic', in the embarkation
sequence. Peter Jackson had one in the extended edition
of 'Return of the King', though that might be classified more
as playing a bit part than doing a Hitchcock-style cameo.
The more subtle the more interesting, perhaps.
angelgl...@yahoo.com
Calvin
______________________________
There are entries on Hitch's cameos and a cross-reference other cameos
in Wikipedia. Offhand, Scorsese had a bit part in a taxi in TAXI DRIVER;
Truffaut had main and bit parts in other films. And, real trivia,
director Raoul Walsh had a bit part as a member of the KKK in Griffith's
BIRTH OF A NATION (of course RW wasn't directing at the time)!
But nobody will ever do what Hitch did, that's for sure. The very body
that would have certainly worked against him as a romantic lead (!) was
perfect for his impish cameos. The man had a naturally comic
personality, shown in his TV introductions too. He had perfect comic
phrasing, as heard on his classic album, MUSIC TO BE MURDERED BY, as
well. He had good writers, but George Sanders had good writers too (for
his TV show of a similar nature to Hitch's); but Sanders could never
make you laugh the way Hitch could (except when he's slow burning
watching Peter Sellers shoot pool in one of the Pink Panther movies).
The fact is, imagine Walt Disney or Martin Scorsese or Cameron or Spike
Lee brusquely passing by on a street in a movie scene: where's the humor
in spotting either of them? None. So there's no fun. But Hitch's
corpulence, his impish behavior, alterantely dour or befuddled
expression, etc. all added up to humor. That combination will never
again be repeated in the history of cinema, I'm certain of that. Hitch
owns the cameo bit. Ironically, not even the sublime Chaplin could equal
a Hitchcock cameo; even though Chaplin TRIED to be funny (COUNTESS FROM
HONG KONG) while Hitch is mostly being himself--or at least he's not
ACTING funny!
angelgl...@yahoo.com
> it's possible (though this is a long shot) that he replaced himself
> with a regular actor for the next shot where we see the character up
> close.
Possible but unlikely, I think. Seen from a distance the actor looks a
bit like Hitchcock but even more like the actor we soon see up close.
BTW, you may want to check your computer's date and time settings.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
__________________
Thanks. My local time is set and I thought I was on automatic sync, but
I think my region was off. I assume it's fixed now.
I've been analyzing that SKIN GAME sequence; and I know I'm unlikely to
make converts. Still, I'd say it's a 50-50 chance that Hitch replaced
himself with a legitimate actor in that reputed cameo I supposedly
identified. The cut is one clue. But even more so, the reframing: that
is, Hitch first isolates the two women, then pans left to reframe the
man (before that, we see just part of his profile). That suggests a
deliberate attempt at surprise, so that when the pan (reframing) is
complete, we're surprised that's not Hitchcock. (I'm aware, of course,
that such reframings are common, to focus on characters; Hitch uses that
as well as anyone in ROPE.) It's still a long shot; but as they say in
Bible studies: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I see no
reason why I should be presumed wrong, when there's as much reason to be
presumed right! Perhaps some technically brilliant Hitch enthusiast can
do a computer analysis on the two figures.
But I'll tell you a story. I once got into an email communication with
one of the web's leading Hitch enthusiasts (unnamed out of courtesy). We
got into a discussion about Hitch crossing the street in ROPE. He
replied with a very firm email: that is DEFINITELY NOT HITCH; I should
believe him. He has done minute studies of Hitch's cameos, etc. and that
that man is far too thin for Hitch. I replied that Hitch was always up
and down with his weight; and he often slimmed down fairly well, not to
mention the long shot and bulky coat which would conceal some of that
famous corpulence. He was adamant and insisted Hitch only appeared 55
mts in the film as part of the neon sign.
I don't know what the consensus today is on the ROPE cameo. Most of the
websites I've checked recently list that cameo as one or one of two
cameos in the film; so does Truffaut in his famous interview book.
So that's the kind of contention one finds in this area. If I wanted to
be contentious (and I suppose I do), unless one could prove that Hitch
would NOT do a cameo where he replaced his cameo with a legit actor (as
he does in PSYCHO), then I still hold out hope that I've identified a
Hitch cameo in THE SKIN GAME. But like I said, possibly a computer
analysis might prove one way or the other my hypothesis; or maybe the
issue might never be proved.