The two classic movies Alfred Hitchcock couldn’t stand: “It’s just scenery”
Alfred Hitchcock was such a cinematic genius that no one batted an eye when he insulted a couple of all-time classics.
Alfred Hitchcock isn’t just one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, but a figure of such influence that the word “Hitchcockian” is used to describe other great films. Beyond creating innumerable classics that have stood the test of time, Hitchcock has been praised by other directors as their reason for getting into the industry.
The level of respect that other filmmakers have for Hitchcock may be a result of the odd mentorship position he had within the lives of many cinephiles. When discussing his films in interviews, Hitchcock was keen to talk about the techniques he used to manipulate the audience’s attention and create intrigue. One film he took particular pride in was The Birds, a film which required meticulous planning in order to stage the terrifying bird attack scenes.
While The Birds isn’t necessarily considered to be a masterpiece on the level of Vertigo or Rear Window, it did prove that Hitchcock was loath to follow the rules that had confined so many other artists. Working with animals is a challenge that the industry tends to avoid, but Hitchcock created realistic moments in which flocks of gulls prey upon innocent victims.
One of the most impressive aspects of The Birds is that it wasn’t a grandiose production that required an expansive budget, even if it did end up earning an Academy Award nomination for ‘Best Special Effects’. To Hitchcock, the creativity and effort needed to plan out such elaborate scenes was a much greater achievement than simply creating massive sets that employed hundreds of extras.
In Hitchcock’s eyes, period epics like Cleopatra and Ben-Hur required “just quantities of people and scenery,” and took “nothing” when compared to the difficulties that he faced with The Birds. To him, reconstructed pyramids and extras in Roman armour were a feat in production design, but didn’t take any real filmmaking talent.
Although it might be easy to frame Hitchcock as a cranky cynic who enjoyed taking shots at other directors, his point about emphasising inventiveness over expenses is not wrong-headed. In fact, it was Hollywood’s insistence on pouring massive budgets into period epics that led to a disastrous series of box office bombs in the late 1960s, which led to a brief period of vacancy before the revival of the “New Hollywood” movement.
One of those notorious ticket office bombs was in fact Cleopatra. Some movies go down in history for greatness, others for rather different reasons. An infamously unwieldy production, the movie nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox. It did quite well at the box office, and even got itself a ‘Best Picture’ Oscar nod, but thanks to costs, it didn’t make back its budget.
Hitchcock’s dismissal of Ben-Hur, however, may have been the result of jealousy, rather than any kind of real disgruntlement. William Wyler’s groundbreaking epic is still considered to be an achievement in both spectacle and craftsmanship. While it did require the expenses that Hitchcock mentioned, Ben-Hur was ahead of its time with its kinetic set pieces, including the famous chariot chase that ends the film.
Hitchcock’s insults to Ben-Hur and Cleopatra may have something to do with their awards success, as the “Master of Suspense” infamously never won the Oscar for ‘Best Director’, despite directing the ‘Best Picture’ winner, Rebecca. Ben-Hur set an all-time record with eleven Oscar wins, which would only be tied with Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Cleopatra didn’t sweep, but it did win the ‘Best Special Effects’ trophy over The Birds, which may have kicked off Hitchcock’s one-sided feud.
