Alfred Hitchcock’s definition of pure cinema: “Like notes of music make a melody”
There aren’t many directors to have left their mark on cinema in the same way as Alfred Hitchcock, with the influence of the ‘Master of Suspense’ continuing to be felt more than 40 years on from his death.
One of the select few filmmakers to have their name welcomed into the cultural lexicon, the word ‘Hitchcockian’ has been thrown around with reckless abandon, and it’s been a term associated with plenty of movies that don’t deserve it.
Conversely, the best examples have earned the right to be compared with the legend’s work, the finest of which continue to stand the test of time. The percentage of auteurs who create a film that can inarguably be called one of the greatest ever made is small, and the percentage of those who’ve done it more than once is even smaller still.
Of course, Hitchcock is in that elite club, having steered a mind-boggling volume of classics straight towards timeless status, ranging from Rear Window, Rebecca, and Strangers on a Train to Psycho, North by Northwest, and Vertigo via The 39 Steps, The Birds, and Notorious.
The shadow he casts over cinema looms larger than most, then, so when Hitchcock offers his assessment of what defines the medium in its purest form, it carries a lot of weight. When being interviewed by Peter Bogdanovich, the cameo-happy icon set out his stall.
“Pure cinema is complementary pieces of film put together, like notes of music make a melody,” he offered. “There are two primary uses of cutting – or montage – in film. Montage to create ideas, and montage to create violence and emotions.”
Suffice to say, Hitchcock was an expert in both, citing Rear Window as a benchmark. “For example, in Rear Window, where Jimmy Stewart is thrown out of the window in the end, I just photographed that with feet, legs, arms, heads. Completely montage,” he said. “I also photographed it from a distance, the complete action. There was no comparison between the two. There never is.”
Casting his eye on the “barroom fights or whatever they do in westerns”, Hitchcock suggested that shooting them from a distance wasn’t maximising their cinematic potential. “It is much more effective if it’s done in montage,” he elaborated. “Because you involve the audience much more. It’s limitless, I would say, the power of cutting and the assembly of the images.”
The newer generations weren’t immune from criticism, either, with Hitchcock denigrating “young directors” who utilised first-person perspectives before revealing a character in a mirror shot. If he thinks “it’s a terrible mistake” that’s “keeping back from the audience who it is”, then it’s hard to argue. If the ‘Master of Suspense’ says it’s not pure cinema, then it’s best to take him at his word because he knows better than most people to have ever stepped behind the camera.
