The one movie Alfred Hitchcock always regretted never making: “Practically impossible”
There are a number of reasons why filmmakers fail to get their passion project off the ground; they could be limited by the technology of their time, struggle to find the funding, or struggle to clear the final creative hurdle to make it a reality. For Alfred Hitchcock, it was a combination of all three.
That’s curious in itself when the ‘Master of Suspense’ built his career and reputation on pushing the boundaries of cinema. Several of the techniques he pioneered revolutionised the art form and became standard practice, but even Hitchcock encountered obstacles he couldn’t hurdle.
The filmmaker is responsible for a handful of the greatest movies ever made and became so influential that his name evolved into an adjective used to describe the cavalcade of Hitchcockian thrillers to swap theatres in the decades since he was operating at the peak of his powers. Still, despite casting a shadow over celluloid that looms larger than most, some nuts proved too tough to crack.
His talent, standing, and reputation didn’t mean that he could simply will a film into existence, though. The Blind Man was famously torpedoed by Walt Disney when Psycho so abhorred the family-friendly magnate that he refused Hitchcock permission to film on the grounds of his theme park.
Similarly, Kaleidoscope had the potential to be the next addition to Hitchcock’s back catalogue of masterpieces, but it was too ahead of its time and too controversial to get the green light. However, he didn’t wistfully regret those abandoned projects for over three decades, which he did with Life of a City.
The title is fairly self-explanatory, with Hitchcock planning a city-sized epic that would have explored what really goes on behind the walls of a bustling urban metropolis. In a 1963 interview with Peter Bogdanovich, the ‘Master of Suspense’ lamented that even after more than 30 years of trying, he still didn’t know how to pull it off.
“This is something I’ve wanted to do since 1928,” he admitted. “I want to do it in terms of what lies behind the face of a city, what makes it tick. In other words, backstage of city. But it’s so enormous that it is practically impossible to get the story right. Two or three people had a go at it for me, but all failed. It must be done in terms of personalities and people, and with my techniques, everything would have to be used dramatically.”
Hitchcock would helm another five features after ruing Life of a City as the one that kept getting away before his final film, Family Plot, was released in 1976. And yet, try as he might, he could never get the pieces to fit in the way he wanted to make his long-held dream a reality.
