What do you think?
Rate this book
Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light
Alfred A Life in Darkness and Light is the definitive biography of the Master of Suspense and the most widely recognized film director of all time. In a career that spanned six decades and produced more than 60 films – including The 39 Steps , Vertigo , Psycho , and The Birds – Alfred Hitchcock set new standards for cinematic invention and storytelling. Acclaimed biographer Patrick McGilligan re-examines his life and extraordinary work, challenging perceptions of Hitchcock as the “macabre Englishman” and sexual obsessive, and reveals instead the ingenious craftsman, trickster, provocateur, and romantic. With insights into his relationships with Hollywood legends – such as Cary Grant, James Stewart, Ingrid Bergman, and Grace Kelly – as well as his 54-year marriage to Alma Reville and his inspirations in the thriller genre, the book is full of the same dark humor, cliffhanger suspense, and revelations that are synonymous with one of the most famous and misunderstood figures in cinema.
864 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2003
About the author
Patrick McGilligan
39 books48 followersPatrick McGilligan is the author of Clint one of America’s pre-eminent film biographers. He has written the life stories of directors George Cukor and Fritz Lang — both New York Times “Notable Books” — and the Edgar-nominated Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light. His books have been translated into ten languages. He lives in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 128 reviews
September 28, 2019
The first Hitchcock is “The Master of Suspense” Hitchcock. This is the man as he wished to be seen: the Alfred Hitchcock Presents Hitchcock, the baby-faced cameo in a score of movies. A thoroughly professional maker of popular films, a family man, and a convivial host, he is by nature a practical joker, an impish lover of dark humor, the gadfly of anyone who cannot take a joke.
The second Hitchcock is “The Dark Genius” Hitchcock. This is the man as lauded by Truffaut and later pictured in Donald Spoto's biography. A neurotic frightened by the police, an impotent voyeur scarred by a Catholic childhood, he is first of all a great artist who wrestled with his conflicts in superb films about obsession, guilt and desire, but he is also a man whose obsessions never left him, whose sexual predations and sadisms darkened the end of his career.
McGilligan's witty subtitle, “A Life in Darkness and Light,” shows clearly what his approach will be. First of all, it is a life best revealed to us as we sit in the darkness and view his creations, composed of darkness and light: it is in the art that the man will best be found. Secondly, Hitchcock's life—like all of our lives—is composed of both good and evil, and it is a mistake to see it primarily as one or the other. It is clear McGilligan thinks Spoto made this mistake, and unfairly blackened Hitchcock's reputation as a result. It is one that he himself is determined not to make.
One of the ways he avoids this mistake is by spending a good deal of time on the sunnier, earlier period: Hitchcock's childhood, his early career in art and advertising, his work as an art director in film, and eventually as a director of British films. Seven of the book's eighteen chapters—230 pages of the 750 of text—occupy Hitchcock's life before he relocated to Hollywood. Much of this is interesting, but some of it is more detailed that it should be (for example, McGilligan prints the entire text of each of the mediocre five short stories young Hitchcock published in a trade paper.) The overall picture, though, is of a young man eagerly learning his craft, and discovering a life-long partner—both for work and for love--in Alma Reville. The fact that we like this young man and wish him well shows McGilligan's wisdom in spending so much time on the early years.
The book is too filled with facts and film analysis for me to summarize it here, but I was particularly pleased with the detailed presentation of the genesis and realization of each film, from The 39 Steps to Family Plot, including the films that might have been but never were. (If you don't have time to read the whole book, you should really get hold of a copy--From the library perhaps? Like I did?--and check out the sections on your favorite films for yourself.)
I will, however, make a comment about the “dark” of “The Dark Genius” (I believe the “genius" to be self-evident). It seems that Hitchcock, impotent but salaciously fond of sexual voyeurism and gossip, became desperate in his final years, as he lost first his beloved stars, then his influence, his mental sharpness, his energy, his friends, and finally his wife Alma, the love of his life and the greatest of his collaborators. During his long slow decline he may have been--probably was--guilty of a few shabby acts, but this cannot obscure the light of his humor, his generosity, his capacity for friendship, or the luminous achievements of his legendary career.
And I am sure author Patrick McGilligan would agree.
March 23, 2022
For six decades, Alfred Hitchcock, the master of suspense and the magician of film, kept the public on the edge of their seats and is one of the most talked-about directors in film history. He began as an art director in German film during the height of that country's masterpieces and then returned to his native England and moved into the director's chair. He began to gain his reputation with the silent version of The Lodger (1926) and so it began. Several of his British films are considered classics.
He came to the US in 1939 and eventually became a US citizen. He made even more outstanding films, although he had a few misses: Under Capricorn (1949), Marnie (1964), Torn Curtain (1966), and Topaz (1969); the latter two made at the end of his career when he was ill and somewhat out of touch with the direction in which films were going.
He was not a very nice man with his crude, sexual "jokes" and actions, treatment of some of the actors with whom he worked, and his constant unwarranted criticism of his staff. But he was married for his entire adult life to his best friend and script writer, Alma Reville upon who he depended constantly. She became somewhat of a buffer between her husband and those that suffered at his hands.
The author gives the reader an inside look at the making of each of his films and some of the information is just amazing. The only complaint I have is that the author includes too many quotes from other books on Hitchcock and intimates that those authors were wrong. I wasn't necessary.
This is a very long book but keeps one interested. Is Hitchcock the best director in film history........probably not. Is he one of the most popular directors in film history......absolutely! Recommended.
He came to the US in 1939 and eventually became a US citizen. He made even more outstanding films, although he had a few misses: Under Capricorn (1949), Marnie (1964), Torn Curtain (1966), and Topaz (1969); the latter two made at the end of his career when he was ill and somewhat out of touch with the direction in which films were going.
He was not a very nice man with his crude, sexual "jokes" and actions, treatment of some of the actors with whom he worked, and his constant unwarranted criticism of his staff. But he was married for his entire adult life to his best friend and script writer, Alma Reville upon who he depended constantly. She became somewhat of a buffer between her husband and those that suffered at his hands.
The author gives the reader an inside look at the making of each of his films and some of the information is just amazing. The only complaint I have is that the author includes too many quotes from other books on Hitchcock and intimates that those authors were wrong. I wasn't necessary.
This is a very long book but keeps one interested. Is Hitchcock the best director in film history........probably not. Is he one of the most popular directors in film history......absolutely! Recommended.
April 3, 2022
I've seen Hitchcock's most well-known films, 'Pyscho', 'The Birds', 'North by Northwest', and 'Rear Window', as well as watching re-runs of his television series 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents'. I realized I didn't know much about his past or who he really was until I watched the 2012 movie 'Hitchcock' which was a biopic about his making of 'Psycho'.
This snapshot of Hitchcock's life created more questions in my mind, mainly on how he started out and became such an influential director in Hollywood. This book was quite the undertaking for the writer, as well as the reader who tackles the 800 plus page biography. (I downloaded onto my Kindle--didn't realize it was so long!) I wasn't bored for a bit of the journey, but the writer did go into seemingly every minor aspect of all fifty-four movies Hitchcock was involved with in his career. I won't go over the whole book--but include some things I thought interesting.
Hitch grew up outside London, his father was greengrocer. Early on he had a talent for writing and drawing and planned on becoming an engineer or navigator. His first job was working for a manufacturer of telegraph cables and equipment as a copy writer and graphic artist in their marketing department. He helped start and also edited their in house publication which included stories submitted by employees including himself. He enjoyed the creative aspects of his work, and the technical not so much. However, his technical mind seemed to help him later developing shooting techniques to compliment his envisioned stories.
To get into the silent movie business, he took a couple of novellas, storyboarded them and submitted his work to the London studios. His first movie job was as a title designer, and writing the letter cards. This was during the silent movie era--letter cards described what was going on between the actual filmed scenes. He was a very ambitious and determined worker, and advanced to becoming an art director and scenarist-- basically what we would call a screenwriter today. Eventually the opportunity arose for him to be an assistant director, and then director. Besides working in England, Hitchcock also had some move projects in Germany.
He met his future wife Alma during this time, who was one of the few women working on the creative side of film production. Besides collaborating with Hitch, she was a screenwriter and film editor on other projects. They shared the exact same birthday.
Hitchcock made the transition to 'talkies'. I never new how complex this transition was, and what a headache movie production became trying to work around noisy equipment and moving prop men. Hitchcock was a creative problem solver when it came to production techniques.
In 1939 Hitchcock and Alma moved to Hollywood for more opportunities. He originally was under contract to producer David O. Selznick, and then worked with other producers and studios before winding up at Universal. I found reading about the production of his American movies more interesting than his work in England. Living just outside Los Angeles and having toured most of the Southern California film studios probably has something to do with that!
Hitchcock could, and did do it all. He wasn't just a director. Hitch created his famous Hitchcock silhouette. Even when working on a project that was based on a novel, he would work the story to his specifications. Sometimes the movie was little like the original book. For most projects he had the writing team of what was called 'the Hitchcocks--himself, Alma, and what ever writer was in his favor at the moment. Sometimes the third Hitchcock would be a writer that worked on several projects, sometimes especially during his Hollywood period he would seek out more well known writers for projects. Frequently these writers wouldn't last through the end of the project, and their manuscript was heavily edited. On his English pictures he often had one writer draft the screenplay story without dialogue, then have another writer fill it in.
By the time a Hitchcock film was ready for production, he had everything specified regarding camera placement and direction. Many actors would observed him quietly sitting in his director's chair, even nodding off at times. That's because all of his hard work was done! What a journey Hitchcock had from black and white silent movies, through sound and to color.
Reading this makes me want to re-visit the Hitchcock movies I've seen and watch ones I haven't. The author includes a comprehensive filmography at the end, as well as a listing of his television credits. Also included is an amazing index and list of references. I can't recommend this monster of a book for everyone, but if you want to know more there is Wikipedia.
This snapshot of Hitchcock's life created more questions in my mind, mainly on how he started out and became such an influential director in Hollywood. This book was quite the undertaking for the writer, as well as the reader who tackles the 800 plus page biography. (I downloaded onto my Kindle--didn't realize it was so long!) I wasn't bored for a bit of the journey, but the writer did go into seemingly every minor aspect of all fifty-four movies Hitchcock was involved with in his career. I won't go over the whole book--but include some things I thought interesting.
Hitch grew up outside London, his father was greengrocer. Early on he had a talent for writing and drawing and planned on becoming an engineer or navigator. His first job was working for a manufacturer of telegraph cables and equipment as a copy writer and graphic artist in their marketing department. He helped start and also edited their in house publication which included stories submitted by employees including himself. He enjoyed the creative aspects of his work, and the technical not so much. However, his technical mind seemed to help him later developing shooting techniques to compliment his envisioned stories.
To get into the silent movie business, he took a couple of novellas, storyboarded them and submitted his work to the London studios. His first movie job was as a title designer, and writing the letter cards. This was during the silent movie era--letter cards described what was going on between the actual filmed scenes. He was a very ambitious and determined worker, and advanced to becoming an art director and scenarist-- basically what we would call a screenwriter today. Eventually the opportunity arose for him to be an assistant director, and then director. Besides working in England, Hitchcock also had some move projects in Germany.
He met his future wife Alma during this time, who was one of the few women working on the creative side of film production. Besides collaborating with Hitch, she was a screenwriter and film editor on other projects. They shared the exact same birthday.
Hitchcock made the transition to 'talkies'. I never new how complex this transition was, and what a headache movie production became trying to work around noisy equipment and moving prop men. Hitchcock was a creative problem solver when it came to production techniques.
In 1939 Hitchcock and Alma moved to Hollywood for more opportunities. He originally was under contract to producer David O. Selznick, and then worked with other producers and studios before winding up at Universal. I found reading about the production of his American movies more interesting than his work in England. Living just outside Los Angeles and having toured most of the Southern California film studios probably has something to do with that!
Hitchcock could, and did do it all. He wasn't just a director. Hitch created his famous Hitchcock silhouette. Even when working on a project that was based on a novel, he would work the story to his specifications. Sometimes the movie was little like the original book. For most projects he had the writing team of what was called 'the Hitchcocks--himself, Alma, and what ever writer was in his favor at the moment. Sometimes the third Hitchcock would be a writer that worked on several projects, sometimes especially during his Hollywood period he would seek out more well known writers for projects. Frequently these writers wouldn't last through the end of the project, and their manuscript was heavily edited. On his English pictures he often had one writer draft the screenplay story without dialogue, then have another writer fill it in.
By the time a Hitchcock film was ready for production, he had everything specified regarding camera placement and direction. Many actors would observed him quietly sitting in his director's chair, even nodding off at times. That's because all of his hard work was done! What a journey Hitchcock had from black and white silent movies, through sound and to color.
Reading this makes me want to re-visit the Hitchcock movies I've seen and watch ones I haven't. The author includes a comprehensive filmography at the end, as well as a listing of his television credits. Also included is an amazing index and list of references. I can't recommend this monster of a book for everyone, but if you want to know more there is Wikipedia.
November 5, 2013
I was reminded of this book just now by Jason as he's finished reading it and is going to write a review. I'm really looking forward to reading that.
This is a super book of Hitchcock's life, with excellent photographs, and a true insight into his mind. He was rather unusual too.
Highly recommended. My black labrador Jasper also loved it as he devoured half of the front cover of the hardback. I couldn't believe it when I saw it in his mouth. He obviously had good taste in more ways than one!
This is a super book of Hitchcock's life, with excellent photographs, and a true insight into his mind. He was rather unusual too.
Highly recommended. My black labrador Jasper also loved it as he devoured half of the front cover of the hardback. I couldn't believe it when I saw it in his mouth. He obviously had good taste in more ways than one!
October 20, 2011
I've read at least 20 books on Hitchcock, and this is my favorite. McGilligan is thorough, even-handed, and comes to his subject with no preconceived narrative. A fantastically well-rounded bio.
February 25, 2023
This is a well written biography which presents a balanced view of the great director. Unfortunately - as is usually the case with McGilligans book - he often doesn't see the woods for the trees. This biograpy is extremely exhausting with details (so if you are into gossip you've come to the right place).
Key takeaways:
- Hitch was a Catholic. I find this fact interesting althought he was a very English Catholic which meant taking the religion with a pinch of salt. In his jesuit school he learned three important things: "a strong sense of fear, how to be realistic and Jesuit reasoning power".
- Hitch was willing to do what was necessary to succeed. At the start of his career he took any job he could get in the movie industry. He started designing credits and then went on to become a production designer.
- Hitch looked for a "springboard situation" in a story source, and for any number of "dynamic situations" that might lend themselves to visual emphasis - that might be oculary interesting"
- "Hitchcock liked to start with a fifty to seventy five word description of the story's kernal, or main idea, articulating its thorough-line or narrative thread [...] Hitchcock liked to read the story in this prose form before launching into actual screenwriting. [...] At every stage of the scriptwriting Hitchcock liked to tell and retell the story, and have it told back to him by the writer or writers he was working with: it was a form of mental rehearsal that helped the director visualize key scenes, spot potential problems, and suggest emendations while changing the story into his story" (p. 113)
This reminds me of how Kubrick worked; often starting with a treatment rather than writing the actual script. One of the most important jobs for a director is never to lose track of the narrative thread of the film.
- Personal Branding. Hitch was from an early stage in his career aware of his public persona and put his charms to good use with the press. As an answer to the question of who is meant to be the audience of his movies Hitch replied "you make pictures for the press" because if you made yourself publicly known as a director then this would be the one way to become free to do what you wanted. "If you were known to the public then you would not be the prisoner of where you happened to be working"
- "Time and again in his career Hitch would break away from the easy path and take brave steps toward risk and independence" (p. 88). Hitch directed the movie Rope in one take which had never been done before, he made "The Birds" without a star or killing his main protagonist off halfway through the film (Psycho).
- Having fun was important to Hitch ergo his "it's only a movie" saying. Hitch would often interrupt a scriptwriter to tell a funny story in the middle of them trying to solve a problem. This was because you never solve anything when you try too hard. This also shies away from taking the history of movies too serious like many cineasts do. Life was as important as filmmaking.
- Hitch was a businessman who understood the fact that movies need to make money. He carefully took that into account when working on a picture. He frequently made deals with producers where he lowered his wage in order to become freer to do what he wished. He took all the risk producing "Psycho" and made it with a small crew. He also created the entire marketing campaign around the movie and - which was unusual at the time - did not allow journalists to watch the film before the average moviegoer. There is an unusual amount of strategic thinking behind many of his decisions. He understood that in order to become indepedent one must first master the craft and thus provide value to potential producers as well distributors.
- Hitch usually had an actor or actress in mind when writing the screenplay. He built the movie around that person. This is how the Coen brothers as well as PTA work.
- He evidently had a knack for delegating and finding the right people to work with. He knew what he mastered and let other people fil in the rest.
Key takeaways:
- Hitch was a Catholic. I find this fact interesting althought he was a very English Catholic which meant taking the religion with a pinch of salt. In his jesuit school he learned three important things: "a strong sense of fear, how to be realistic and Jesuit reasoning power".
- Hitch was willing to do what was necessary to succeed. At the start of his career he took any job he could get in the movie industry. He started designing credits and then went on to become a production designer.
- Hitch looked for a "springboard situation" in a story source, and for any number of "dynamic situations" that might lend themselves to visual emphasis - that might be oculary interesting"
- "Hitchcock liked to start with a fifty to seventy five word description of the story's kernal, or main idea, articulating its thorough-line or narrative thread [...] Hitchcock liked to read the story in this prose form before launching into actual screenwriting. [...] At every stage of the scriptwriting Hitchcock liked to tell and retell the story, and have it told back to him by the writer or writers he was working with: it was a form of mental rehearsal that helped the director visualize key scenes, spot potential problems, and suggest emendations while changing the story into his story" (p. 113)
This reminds me of how Kubrick worked; often starting with a treatment rather than writing the actual script. One of the most important jobs for a director is never to lose track of the narrative thread of the film.
- Personal Branding. Hitch was from an early stage in his career aware of his public persona and put his charms to good use with the press. As an answer to the question of who is meant to be the audience of his movies Hitch replied "you make pictures for the press" because if you made yourself publicly known as a director then this would be the one way to become free to do what you wanted. "If you were known to the public then you would not be the prisoner of where you happened to be working"
- "Time and again in his career Hitch would break away from the easy path and take brave steps toward risk and independence" (p. 88). Hitch directed the movie Rope in one take which had never been done before, he made "The Birds" without a star or killing his main protagonist off halfway through the film (Psycho).
- Having fun was important to Hitch ergo his "it's only a movie" saying. Hitch would often interrupt a scriptwriter to tell a funny story in the middle of them trying to solve a problem. This was because you never solve anything when you try too hard. This also shies away from taking the history of movies too serious like many cineasts do. Life was as important as filmmaking.
- Hitch was a businessman who understood the fact that movies need to make money. He carefully took that into account when working on a picture. He frequently made deals with producers where he lowered his wage in order to become freer to do what he wished. He took all the risk producing "Psycho" and made it with a small crew. He also created the entire marketing campaign around the movie and - which was unusual at the time - did not allow journalists to watch the film before the average moviegoer. There is an unusual amount of strategic thinking behind many of his decisions. He understood that in order to become indepedent one must first master the craft and thus provide value to potential producers as well distributors.
- Hitch usually had an actor or actress in mind when writing the screenplay. He built the movie around that person. This is how the Coen brothers as well as PTA work.
- He evidently had a knack for delegating and finding the right people to work with. He knew what he mastered and let other people fil in the rest.
December 12, 2018
Um livro interessante para caçar as anedotas de uma personagem maravilhosa: o medo dos polícias instilado pelo pai em criança, o pavor dos ovos, a fixação com a comida e com as louras, os actores como gado, ou humor britânico que nunca o largou. Talvez o propósito biográfico manche um tanto a narrativa com detalhes burocráticos. Contudo isso talvez seja menos um defeito do livro e mais um do leitor, habituado que está a usar os filmes para voar. Aqui os filmes fazem-se num vai e vem de detalhes do dia-a-dia, de olho para o negócio, de organização extrema, de gestão de pessoas (afinal isso é também o trabalho da realização). Vai-se o brilho, ficam-se a hipóteses de tentar rimar o real com o fictício do cinema hitchcockiano.
December 29, 2019
3.5 stars
Alfred Hitchcock was born in 1899 and died in 1980. He went from Great Britain to Hollywood and over six decades, starting with silent films in the 1920s up to only months before he died, he was working on movies, over 50 in total. He usually had two going at a time.
This is a very long book (over 800 pages). I was expecting more biography, but really, it was a very detailed account of behind-the-scenes of many of his movies, with a bit of biography thrown in here and there. There were definitely some interesting tidbits, though, enough that I’m rating it “good” (I was tempted to go with “ok”, but by the end I realized, I actually did think it was good, despite not being what I expected).
I’m sure real Hitchcock afficionados would love all the detail. Of course, the movies I’ve seen, or at least knew about, held more interest for me, as well as some that starred super-well-known actors (Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Marlene Dietrich, Grace Kelly...). It does make me want to go out and watch more (some again, since I don’t really remember); I already looked up some clips of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” intros that he did (also something I’d love to watch some of, again – if only I ever made time to watch movies or tv!).
Alfred Hitchcock was born in 1899 and died in 1980. He went from Great Britain to Hollywood and over six decades, starting with silent films in the 1920s up to only months before he died, he was working on movies, over 50 in total. He usually had two going at a time.
This is a very long book (over 800 pages). I was expecting more biography, but really, it was a very detailed account of behind-the-scenes of many of his movies, with a bit of biography thrown in here and there. There were definitely some interesting tidbits, though, enough that I’m rating it “good” (I was tempted to go with “ok”, but by the end I realized, I actually did think it was good, despite not being what I expected).
I’m sure real Hitchcock afficionados would love all the detail. Of course, the movies I’ve seen, or at least knew about, held more interest for me, as well as some that starred super-well-known actors (Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Marlene Dietrich, Grace Kelly...). It does make me want to go out and watch more (some again, since I don’t really remember); I already looked up some clips of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” intros that he did (also something I’d love to watch some of, again – if only I ever made time to watch movies or tv!).
December 15, 2011
This is a very thorough and comprehensive biography of Hitchcock, taking us from birth to death, covering the making of all fifty-three films and then some. The short review is: tiresome beginning, great middle, dreary ending.
The book begins as more of a one-sided argument between the author and an earlier biographer (Spoto) that nearly caused me to book the book aside and chalk it up as a loss. Only scholars are interested in such meaningless debates. Fortunately, the author began focusing on the main character when Hitchcock enters the film industry during the silent era.
The stories and backstories for all of the films are here and these are the strength of the book. Hitchock's exceptional visual imagination, aided by his drawing ability, is connected to specific shots and scenes so that the reader understands both the challenges the director faced and the ingenuity he exercised to overcome those challenges. We realize that Hitchcock has the personality of the architect, oscillating back and forth between vision and detail; and that the social Hitchcock was the ultimate host, performing for people more than relating to people. His odd relationships with the actors he referred to as "cattle" are described with balance and fairness; he may have been a difficult and demanding director but helped several achieve their greatest film performances.
The ending returns to the author's argument with Spoto in between tales of Hitchcock's decline. The author describes the 1950's up through Psycho as his most sustained creative period. I do not agree (for some reason I don't care for any of Hitchcock's color films), but this is a matter of personal taste. Although the book is very long (and felt that way at both the beginning and end), the author certainly helped me understand and appreciate the extent of Hitchcock's contributions to film and culture.
The book begins as more of a one-sided argument between the author and an earlier biographer (Spoto) that nearly caused me to book the book aside and chalk it up as a loss. Only scholars are interested in such meaningless debates. Fortunately, the author began focusing on the main character when Hitchcock enters the film industry during the silent era.
The stories and backstories for all of the films are here and these are the strength of the book. Hitchock's exceptional visual imagination, aided by his drawing ability, is connected to specific shots and scenes so that the reader understands both the challenges the director faced and the ingenuity he exercised to overcome those challenges. We realize that Hitchcock has the personality of the architect, oscillating back and forth between vision and detail; and that the social Hitchcock was the ultimate host, performing for people more than relating to people. His odd relationships with the actors he referred to as "cattle" are described with balance and fairness; he may have been a difficult and demanding director but helped several achieve their greatest film performances.
The ending returns to the author's argument with Spoto in between tales of Hitchcock's decline. The author describes the 1950's up through Psycho as his most sustained creative period. I do not agree (for some reason I don't care for any of Hitchcock's color films), but this is a matter of personal taste. Although the book is very long (and felt that way at both the beginning and end), the author certainly helped me understand and appreciate the extent of Hitchcock's contributions to film and culture.
October 25, 2021
Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light is a biography of Alfred Hitchcock, an English film director, producer, and screenwriter. Patrick McGilligan, an Irish American biographer, film historian and writer wrote this biography.
Alfred Joseph Hitchcock was an English film director, producer, and screenwriter. He is one of the most influential and widely studied filmmakers in the history of cinema. Known as the "Master of Suspense", he directed over fifty feature films in a career spanning six decades, becoming as well known as any of his actors thanks to his many interviews, his cameo roles in most of his films, and his hosting and producing the television anthology Alfred Hitchcock Presents.
A quiet Catholic boy from London's East End, Hitchcock began as a production designer on silent films and eventually became Britain's premier movie director. David Selznick tapped him for Hollywood, and although their relationship was stormy, it spelled success, which Hitchcock quickly redefined the medium.
He told his stories visually, invented innovative camera angles and reveled in suspense tales. Constantly with him was Alma Reville, his wife, which became an invaluable partner on every project. A Hitchcock film characteristically mingled light with darkness, possibly because its creator was so conflicted.
Hitchcock adored gossip, dirty jokes and icy blondes, though, sexually impotent, he could not consummate his desire as his voyeurism instead played out on screen. He relished the occasional cruelty, but it did not obscure his genius or his generosity. He worked tirelessly for the British war effort, though America was committed to neutrality until Pearl Harbor, and was deeply loyal to old friends.
Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light is written and researched rather well. McGilligan has crafted an inside look at this unique director and the studio machinations that sustained him. Film buffs will relish how power and creativity play out in Hollywood, while the rest will learn how obsession can produce art. Included are thirty-two pages of black and white photos.
All in all, Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light is full of the same dark humor, cliffhanger suspense, and revelations that are synonymous with one of the most famous and misunderstood figures in cinema.
Alfred Joseph Hitchcock was an English film director, producer, and screenwriter. He is one of the most influential and widely studied filmmakers in the history of cinema. Known as the "Master of Suspense", he directed over fifty feature films in a career spanning six decades, becoming as well known as any of his actors thanks to his many interviews, his cameo roles in most of his films, and his hosting and producing the television anthology Alfred Hitchcock Presents.
A quiet Catholic boy from London's East End, Hitchcock began as a production designer on silent films and eventually became Britain's premier movie director. David Selznick tapped him for Hollywood, and although their relationship was stormy, it spelled success, which Hitchcock quickly redefined the medium.
He told his stories visually, invented innovative camera angles and reveled in suspense tales. Constantly with him was Alma Reville, his wife, which became an invaluable partner on every project. A Hitchcock film characteristically mingled light with darkness, possibly because its creator was so conflicted.
Hitchcock adored gossip, dirty jokes and icy blondes, though, sexually impotent, he could not consummate his desire as his voyeurism instead played out on screen. He relished the occasional cruelty, but it did not obscure his genius or his generosity. He worked tirelessly for the British war effort, though America was committed to neutrality until Pearl Harbor, and was deeply loyal to old friends.
Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light is written and researched rather well. McGilligan has crafted an inside look at this unique director and the studio machinations that sustained him. Film buffs will relish how power and creativity play out in Hollywood, while the rest will learn how obsession can produce art. Included are thirty-two pages of black and white photos.
All in all, Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light is full of the same dark humor, cliffhanger suspense, and revelations that are synonymous with one of the most famous and misunderstood figures in cinema.
July 6, 2013
Though well researched, at times McGilligan's lengthy biography suffers under his implicit motivation for writing the book: to amend the Hitchcock legacy, tarnished by Donald Spoto's "Dark Side of Genius" (1983). McGilligan begins and ends "Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light" with warnings to the reader of Spoto's specious claims (claims, McGilligan notes, which have been refuted by people close to Hitchcock). Yet, puzzlingly, McGilligan often quotes from Spoto's work directly when he is not criticizing it. Further, many times McGilligan pauses his narrative to ask his readers leading, speculative questions concerning Hitchcock, performing the precise thing he criticizes Spoto for.
In addition to this distracting, and unnecessary, psuedo-critical approach, McGilligan as a storyteller is underwhelming. "A Life in Darkness and Light" reads like any stereotypical biography of celebrity: birth, life, death, with a few entertaining anecdotes in between. I found that the most interesting parts of this book were taken from secondary sources (which are heavily used). In particular, Francois Truffaut's "Hitchcock" (which compiles interviews between the two directors), and John Russell Taylor's "Hitch: The Life and Work of Alfred Hitchcock," which appeared in the fifties and remains the only authorized biography of the Master.
Distracting, too, is McGilligan's exceptional use of footnotes. Though some of these provide interesting facts and detail, they become rote and many times are unnecessary. McGilligan's footnotes, coupled with his frequent fractured sentences that at times are unclear upon first reading them, "A Life in Darkness and Light" becomes cumbersome by its midpoint.
While I came away from this book with a better idea about who Hitchcock was, I felt I would have had a more enjoyable time reading Truffaut's work and using the Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com) for chronological reference. Perhaps the record in fact needed to be set straight after Spoto's book, but I question how much influence his work still had twenty years after its initial publication at the time McGilligan published his biography. With hundreds of books about Hitchcock available, it appears that McGilligan is more set on establishing his biography as the "definitive" book about Hitchcock as opposed to offering something new and revealing about an icon who still captures public imagination.
In addition to this distracting, and unnecessary, psuedo-critical approach, McGilligan as a storyteller is underwhelming. "A Life in Darkness and Light" reads like any stereotypical biography of celebrity: birth, life, death, with a few entertaining anecdotes in between. I found that the most interesting parts of this book were taken from secondary sources (which are heavily used). In particular, Francois Truffaut's "Hitchcock" (which compiles interviews between the two directors), and John Russell Taylor's "Hitch: The Life and Work of Alfred Hitchcock," which appeared in the fifties and remains the only authorized biography of the Master.
Distracting, too, is McGilligan's exceptional use of footnotes. Though some of these provide interesting facts and detail, they become rote and many times are unnecessary. McGilligan's footnotes, coupled with his frequent fractured sentences that at times are unclear upon first reading them, "A Life in Darkness and Light" becomes cumbersome by its midpoint.
While I came away from this book with a better idea about who Hitchcock was, I felt I would have had a more enjoyable time reading Truffaut's work and using the Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com) for chronological reference. Perhaps the record in fact needed to be set straight after Spoto's book, but I question how much influence his work still had twenty years after its initial publication at the time McGilligan published his biography. With hundreds of books about Hitchcock available, it appears that McGilligan is more set on establishing his biography as the "definitive" book about Hitchcock as opposed to offering something new and revealing about an icon who still captures public imagination.
November 6, 2012
Hitchcock is in vogue. A film about Hitchcock and his wife, Alma Reville, starring Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren, is about to released. (Hopefully it will be an improvement over the tepid HBO film about Hitchcock and his obsession with Tippi Hedren, et al).
This is a detailed, almost exhaustive 700-page biography about Hitchcock and his films. In some ways, the book is designed to refute the sensational Donald Spoto biography that depicts Hitchcock as disturbed, sadistic, repressed and nutty about blonde stars. (Actually, Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman adored him and remained close friends with him).
At every chance, McGilligan disputes Spoto. Yes, the book details some very quirky behavior. (In his final years, Hitchcock hired a young secretary whose main job was to walk into his office, close the door and take off some of her clothes).
Who said geniuses don't have quirks?
But the point of his book is the man and his films, many of them classics. Hitchcock was a genius whose work is respected and analyzed here. He's depicted as unsnobbish, highly sensitive, likable, secretive, easily hurt when someone commented about his weight, and respectful and adoring to his wife and collaborator. When she suffered a serious stroke, Hitchcock was virtually destroyed.
The details in the book sometimes get in the way. His early career in London is, frankly, boring. But when he signed a contract with David Selznick (who exploited him), and moves to Hollywood the book becomes riveting.
McGilligan dissects each one of Hitchcock's films. (Hitchcock's relations with his best screenwriters, Ernest Lehman, John Michael Hayes, Ben Hecht,and Joseph Stefano often ended sbruptly poorly, when his judgement was questioned.) His favorite stars seemed to be Bergman and Cary Grant, who is depicted as somewehat difficult and stubborn. There are tidbits that are intriguing. In "Strangers on a Train," Hitchcock deliberately cast against sexual orientation: he cast Robert Walker as a homosexual, and Farley Granger, who was gay, as straight. Yes, there are too many details in this book. But it's fascinating.
This is a detailed, almost exhaustive 700-page biography about Hitchcock and his films. In some ways, the book is designed to refute the sensational Donald Spoto biography that depicts Hitchcock as disturbed, sadistic, repressed and nutty about blonde stars. (Actually, Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman adored him and remained close friends with him).
At every chance, McGilligan disputes Spoto. Yes, the book details some very quirky behavior. (In his final years, Hitchcock hired a young secretary whose main job was to walk into his office, close the door and take off some of her clothes).
Who said geniuses don't have quirks?
But the point of his book is the man and his films, many of them classics. Hitchcock was a genius whose work is respected and analyzed here. He's depicted as unsnobbish, highly sensitive, likable, secretive, easily hurt when someone commented about his weight, and respectful and adoring to his wife and collaborator. When she suffered a serious stroke, Hitchcock was virtually destroyed.
The details in the book sometimes get in the way. His early career in London is, frankly, boring. But when he signed a contract with David Selznick (who exploited him), and moves to Hollywood the book becomes riveting.
McGilligan dissects each one of Hitchcock's films. (Hitchcock's relations with his best screenwriters, Ernest Lehman, John Michael Hayes, Ben Hecht,and Joseph Stefano often ended sbruptly poorly, when his judgement was questioned.) His favorite stars seemed to be Bergman and Cary Grant, who is depicted as somewehat difficult and stubborn. There are tidbits that are intriguing. In "Strangers on a Train," Hitchcock deliberately cast against sexual orientation: he cast Robert Walker as a homosexual, and Farley Granger, who was gay, as straight. Yes, there are too many details in this book. But it's fascinating.
February 19, 2016
A long but fascinating look at a great director’s life and work. The author purposefully strikes a balance between two prior biographies, the authorized biography by John Russell Taylor and the darker version of Hitchcock’s life by Donald Spoto, as he traces Hitchcock’s life and career in careful detail. Even though this is a popular biography, the author presents his evidence and lays out his conclusions about the director’s life and personality, allowing the reader to follow and question/agree/disagree.
The most interesting part of this book for me were the many sections covering in depth the process of writing and making each of the 60+ movies Hitchcock directed. What made Hitchcock a successful director who was able to make so many great films was not just his artistic eye for a great shot or the ability to plan and execute those shots and the film as a whole, but also his ability to work successfully within the studio and censorship systems of the time. The author lays out how involved Hitchcock was in the preparation for his films, especially the story and script writing where he worked closely with many authors including John Steinbeck, Thornton Wilder, and Raymond Chandler. Hitchcock also apparently excelled at negotiating with the studios (a never-ending battle) over what finally would appear on the screen. The account of the making of “Rebecca” was fascinating as David O. Selznick and Hitchcock struggled over the details of how they would tell the story. And, I was surprised to learn some of Hitchcock’s best movies flopped at the box office and were only recognized later as masterpieces ("Vertigo", for example).
The book also includes a filmography which lists all of Hitchcock’s movies with key information including quotations from early reviews, a very helpful reference.
The most interesting part of this book for me were the many sections covering in depth the process of writing and making each of the 60+ movies Hitchcock directed. What made Hitchcock a successful director who was able to make so many great films was not just his artistic eye for a great shot or the ability to plan and execute those shots and the film as a whole, but also his ability to work successfully within the studio and censorship systems of the time. The author lays out how involved Hitchcock was in the preparation for his films, especially the story and script writing where he worked closely with many authors including John Steinbeck, Thornton Wilder, and Raymond Chandler. Hitchcock also apparently excelled at negotiating with the studios (a never-ending battle) over what finally would appear on the screen. The account of the making of “Rebecca” was fascinating as David O. Selznick and Hitchcock struggled over the details of how they would tell the story. And, I was surprised to learn some of Hitchcock’s best movies flopped at the box office and were only recognized later as masterpieces ("Vertigo", for example).
The book also includes a filmography which lists all of Hitchcock’s movies with key information including quotations from early reviews, a very helpful reference.
April 12, 2017
I am marking this as read although I read only about one third of it. The writing is speculative and overly familiar. The book is much too long for the subject, well over 700 pages. I recently read another very long book which truly repaid the reader for their patience: "A. Lincoln". This book is nothing like that. It is, unfortunately, smarmy, calling Mr. Hitchcock clever little names like "the bright boy". I don't have the time or patience to invest in this. Being old and ill makes me a very appreciative reader when given a book like "A. Lincoln" or "The Professor and the Madman". This book, however, because of its subject lead me to read longer than normal and it was rarely enjoyable.
February 17, 2024
An exhaustive biography of one of film's most influential directors. Hitchcock's early life is not particularly interesting, but the book picks up steam when he begins working in film. The biography provides insight into all Hitchcock's films, as the author describes how each one was written and made. Ingrid Bergman, Princess Grace, Cary Grant - they're all here. Most importantly, there is Hitchcock's wife Alma Reville, who was the most important person in his life, both personally and professionally, but who revealed very little of herself publicly. McGilligan tries to provide a balanced portrait of Hitchcock, though I think sometimes he is a bit too biased toward his subject when it comes to "Who wrote what" disputes.
March 14, 2020
Beware: this one is a decent sized commitment. I love all things from the Golden Age of Hollywood, particularly the 30s, 40s, 50s, and at least the early 1960s. So it stands to reason that I would pick up an exhaustive survey of Hitchcock's life, movies, backstory, and perspectives. "A Life in Darkness" doesn't disappoint on those accounts and, in my opinion, McGilligan handles the more intimate details associated with the director's relationships with the leading ladies of his films with frankness and the appropriate sensitivities. What I liked least was the more biographical information about his childhood and adolescence. Even though this content was probably necessary for the author to reveal his thesis, this kind of reading is challenging for me to get through. What I liked most was the movie-by-movie accounts and, in particular, the details surrounding Psycho, Dial M for Murder, and To Catch a Thief, but some of the earlier films were equally as interesting. I'd recommend this for only the heartiest of cinephiles, however.
November 3, 2021
I'm a big fan of McGilligan's film writing and this is one of his best. Hitchcock is a huge subject and complex subject to take on but the book is an excellent balance of storytelling, trivia and analysis of the films. Exhaustively researched, highly readable and essential to anyone interested in Hitchcock.
January 1, 2020
So comprehensive and full of the details I wanted: details about his professional life and choices. I didn’t know going in that Hitchcock’s entire life was professional, which was fascinating to read about.
July 15, 2022
Really excellent overview of the man’s life and films. I got a little teary at the end because it felt like watching the final days of a good friend. If anything, I would say the book is almost too detailed!
November 19, 2017
Alfred Hitchcock is a director whose name and appearance are instantly recognizable. Few moviemakers who spend their time behind the cameras are so famous. Perhaps it's because Hitchcock also came in front of the camera. He had cameos in almost all of his movies (of which he made fifty-three). More significantly, he hosted a TV anthology show called Alfred Hitchcock Presents where he made introductory and closing comments, often filled with self-deprecating (and sometimes sponsor-deprecating) humor. Movies like Psycho, North by Northwest, Vertigo, and Rear Window are often cited in top 100 movies of all time lists.
He was born in 1899 to a greengrocer in the outskirts of London. The family had several shops and were prosperous enough to afford good schools. Hitchcock's first break in the movies was in the silent era. He designed the intertitle cards at fledgling movie studios. His meticulous nature, willingness to put in extra hours, and ambition for more soon led him to directing and writing. He had his first big hit with The Lodger in 1926. He went to Hollywood in the 1930s where he had a challenging time dealing with studio executives like David O. Selznick and with the Production Code. His movies often revolve around crime, psychology, and sex. He pushed boundaries where he could and became quite adept at "playing the game" of negotiating with the studio bureaucracies and the Production Code censors. As a filmmaker, he meticulously planned movies, often having several successive screenwriters polish and refine scripts to the point where Hitchcock had every camera move and angle planned out ahead of time. His hard work paid off as he eventually became a co-owner of Universal Studios and developed more, if not complete, freedom in making movies. He died in 1980.
This biography goes into great detail about his life, focusing mostly on his film career. Like many other director biographies, this book goes from film to film, describing the pre-production phase, the shooting of the film, and the critical and box-office reception for the films. The stories are interesting and fans of Hitchcock like me will have fun seeing the different ideas Hitchcock had for casting and for plot developments. His personal relationships with stars, studio executives, and writers is given in detail. Anecdotal evidence could show that Hitchcock was hard on his actresses, sometimes even abusively so in order to get the performances he wanted. This book tells the stories of when he did do that and when he didn't. He got along with some people quite well. The book also delves into his sexual obsessions (though he hardly ever acted on), almost too often for my taste, though such obsessions clearly resonated in his movies. McGilligan paints an honest picture of the man, not just a rehash of his public persona and famous anecdotes.
Recommended, especially for Hitchcock fans. It is 800+ pages, so be ready for a deep dive.
He was born in 1899 to a greengrocer in the outskirts of London. The family had several shops and were prosperous enough to afford good schools. Hitchcock's first break in the movies was in the silent era. He designed the intertitle cards at fledgling movie studios. His meticulous nature, willingness to put in extra hours, and ambition for more soon led him to directing and writing. He had his first big hit with The Lodger in 1926. He went to Hollywood in the 1930s where he had a challenging time dealing with studio executives like David O. Selznick and with the Production Code. His movies often revolve around crime, psychology, and sex. He pushed boundaries where he could and became quite adept at "playing the game" of negotiating with the studio bureaucracies and the Production Code censors. As a filmmaker, he meticulously planned movies, often having several successive screenwriters polish and refine scripts to the point where Hitchcock had every camera move and angle planned out ahead of time. His hard work paid off as he eventually became a co-owner of Universal Studios and developed more, if not complete, freedom in making movies. He died in 1980.
This biography goes into great detail about his life, focusing mostly on his film career. Like many other director biographies, this book goes from film to film, describing the pre-production phase, the shooting of the film, and the critical and box-office reception for the films. The stories are interesting and fans of Hitchcock like me will have fun seeing the different ideas Hitchcock had for casting and for plot developments. His personal relationships with stars, studio executives, and writers is given in detail. Anecdotal evidence could show that Hitchcock was hard on his actresses, sometimes even abusively so in order to get the performances he wanted. This book tells the stories of when he did do that and when he didn't. He got along with some people quite well. The book also delves into his sexual obsessions (though he hardly ever acted on), almost too often for my taste, though such obsessions clearly resonated in his movies. McGilligan paints an honest picture of the man, not just a rehash of his public persona and famous anecdotes.
Recommended, especially for Hitchcock fans. It is 800+ pages, so be ready for a deep dive.
June 15, 2013
I'm a Hitchcock fan and I could not read this book. McGilligan seemed more interested in detailing the limitations of Hitchcock's marriage, hygiene, and quirks of character than in discussing his films or how he came to be so important a director. Yes, you get all kinds of information about the background of British film at the time and the power plays going on and the hurt feelings and the rampant drinking and partying and negotiating for new contracts and control and on and on and on...but nowhere do I get a sense of what made Hitchcock so much better at filmmaking than any of the other directors working at the time. Oh, he was sort of influenced by German cinema and the Bauhaus Movement, but really, really wanted to work in Hollywood because of the superiority of their technical ability and bigger budgets...at least, that's how it's presented by McGilligan. I just got weary of it.
In this book, Hitchcock comes across as an untrustworthy, frightened, grasping, cruel, needy little worm who happened to have a knack for shooting somewhat interesting movies on the cheap and liked to play with the new toys the industry offered, but who really just stumbled into his classic projects almost by accident and only because he lined up with good writers who could make his storyboard ideas work. No sense of why he set up images the way he did or became so obsessed with the "wrong man" scenario outside of the most banal suggestion he always liked to read about true murders and he had a successful background in art.
I don't really recommend this book for anyone who truly loves the man's works; its main goal seems to be de-mystifying him like so many others have tried to do. It's almost like reading a book that says the only reason Michelangelo crafted his "David" is because he liked men's butts, thought Da Vinci was interesting and wanted to see what he could do for himself. Plus it's written in a style that is so dry, you need to have a glass of water close by.
I give it 2 stars because it does show how little attitudes and negotiations in the film industry have changed in the last 90 years. That come close to making it a horror story.
In this book, Hitchcock comes across as an untrustworthy, frightened, grasping, cruel, needy little worm who happened to have a knack for shooting somewhat interesting movies on the cheap and liked to play with the new toys the industry offered, but who really just stumbled into his classic projects almost by accident and only because he lined up with good writers who could make his storyboard ideas work. No sense of why he set up images the way he did or became so obsessed with the "wrong man" scenario outside of the most banal suggestion he always liked to read about true murders and he had a successful background in art.
I don't really recommend this book for anyone who truly loves the man's works; its main goal seems to be de-mystifying him like so many others have tried to do. It's almost like reading a book that says the only reason Michelangelo crafted his "David" is because he liked men's butts, thought Da Vinci was interesting and wanted to see what he could do for himself. Plus it's written in a style that is so dry, you need to have a glass of water close by.
I give it 2 stars because it does show how little attitudes and negotiations in the film industry have changed in the last 90 years. That come close to making it a horror story.
August 8, 2010
McGilligan's is an unenviable task to say the least. Books about movies have always to contend with the simple disparity in mediums, and when a medium on one hand is being revolutionized by one of the single most innovative and influential forces in film history, a daunting job becomes herculean. The very premise of this book is much of its weakness; it flirts always with the line between dissection and disfiguring. Hitchcock's movies are great because they saw the lady in half; McGilligan shows us where the mirrors are hidden. That can be deflating, at times.
That not-so-minor quibble aside, McGilligan has certainly done his research. I had no previous knowledge of Hitchcock's personal life, and little idea of his directing style beyond the odd anecdote. His personality was his style, McGilligan shows us. Hitchcock's movies are brilliantly detailed largely because Hitchcock was obsessively dedicated to brilliant detail; he had the strange knack of manipulating the human actor to perfectly convey the fictitious character, cajoling, haranguing and psychoanalyzing. This information was enlightening and always entertaining. I wish it had been a little more specific from film to film, but in general, this is a rare chance to see exactly how these classics came to be, how indeed they would never have been classics had another director been at the helm.
The book suffers a little from longwindedness. There's too much repetition brought on by the nature of its subject, and because of its subject little or no attention is paid to matters of style. The movies begin to run together, and that's a shame because at its best, the book inspires you to go watch the movies all over again. And that really is the highest praise I can pay it. It is aware, perfectly and appropriately, of its subject and his greatness; its effect, above and beyond its rather commonplace merits as a book, is to send you back into a bloody shower stall, into a high rise apartment looking into the neighboring windows. A lucky subject for this book; it wouldn't have made it on its own.
That not-so-minor quibble aside, McGilligan has certainly done his research. I had no previous knowledge of Hitchcock's personal life, and little idea of his directing style beyond the odd anecdote. His personality was his style, McGilligan shows us. Hitchcock's movies are brilliantly detailed largely because Hitchcock was obsessively dedicated to brilliant detail; he had the strange knack of manipulating the human actor to perfectly convey the fictitious character, cajoling, haranguing and psychoanalyzing. This information was enlightening and always entertaining. I wish it had been a little more specific from film to film, but in general, this is a rare chance to see exactly how these classics came to be, how indeed they would never have been classics had another director been at the helm.
The book suffers a little from longwindedness. There's too much repetition brought on by the nature of its subject, and because of its subject little or no attention is paid to matters of style. The movies begin to run together, and that's a shame because at its best, the book inspires you to go watch the movies all over again. And that really is the highest praise I can pay it. It is aware, perfectly and appropriately, of its subject and his greatness; its effect, above and beyond its rather commonplace merits as a book, is to send you back into a bloody shower stall, into a high rise apartment looking into the neighboring windows. A lucky subject for this book; it wouldn't have made it on its own.
March 27, 2013
It's rare that I read a book more than once. Its even rarer that I re-read, in its entirety, a 750-plus page book that I only finished just 14 months prior. Yet that’s how good Patrick McGilligan’s exhaustive, intelligent, and insanely well-researched biography “Alfred Hitchcock: A Life In Darkness and Light” is. Having become an even bigger alfred Hitchcock fan since I first read the book...I was anxious to read it again...especially since it was on sale as a Kindle version (as there was no way I was going to carry around that gigantic hardcover version again).
With a great attention to detail, McGilligan takes the reader though every stage of Alfred Hitchcock’s 80 years on this Earth. From his childhood, to his earliest writing...through his first feature film as director in 1925 (THE PLEASURE GARDEN), all through the last film he tried to make in 1979 (the aborted,THE SHORT NIGHT)...McGilligan take you there...behind the scenes into each and every one of Alfred Hithcock’s 53 films, in addition to his shorts, wartime films, and television shows.
Better still, McGilligan explores many of the complex relationships Alfred Hitchcock had through the course of his life...from his beloved wife Alma Reville, to his favorite actors and actresses: Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelly, Jimmy Stewart...in addition to the producers, cameramen, designers, composers, editors studio heads, writers, and agents who all contributed to the vast collection of Hitchcock classic, and not-so-classic films.
Though my affection for the book wandered at times, I still found great value in reading the book again...knowing now, what I didn’t know then. For anyone who is a Hitchcock fan, Alfred Hitchcock: A Life In Darkness and Light” is a must-read. Yet even if you are not a fan, as I was not back when I first read it, I highly recommend you patiently read through what Patrick McGilligan has to offer...a great education of film history, and an inside look at one of history’s greatest filmmakers...
With a great attention to detail, McGilligan takes the reader though every stage of Alfred Hitchcock’s 80 years on this Earth. From his childhood, to his earliest writing...through his first feature film as director in 1925 (THE PLEASURE GARDEN), all through the last film he tried to make in 1979 (the aborted,THE SHORT NIGHT)...McGilligan take you there...behind the scenes into each and every one of Alfred Hithcock’s 53 films, in addition to his shorts, wartime films, and television shows.
Better still, McGilligan explores many of the complex relationships Alfred Hitchcock had through the course of his life...from his beloved wife Alma Reville, to his favorite actors and actresses: Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelly, Jimmy Stewart...in addition to the producers, cameramen, designers, composers, editors studio heads, writers, and agents who all contributed to the vast collection of Hitchcock classic, and not-so-classic films.
Though my affection for the book wandered at times, I still found great value in reading the book again...knowing now, what I didn’t know then. For anyone who is a Hitchcock fan, Alfred Hitchcock: A Life In Darkness and Light” is a must-read. Yet even if you are not a fan, as I was not back when I first read it, I highly recommend you patiently read through what Patrick McGilligan has to offer...a great education of film history, and an inside look at one of history’s greatest filmmakers...
December 28, 2013
This is one of the most balanced works that I have read about Alfred Hitchcock. Those interested in the details of what really went on in the dressing room on that fateful day between the director and Tippi Hedren had better look elsewhere. The book is very lean on idle speculation, dwelling more on what can be substantiated.
There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was obsessive. No one would have been able to focus on such seemingly minor details in his pictures that came together to become a much greater sum of their parts. What the writer centers on is how these obsessions were put to use to create some truly memorable classics.
The formula followed in the book is consistent for most of it. The director searches for an idea source that appeals to him, he brings a group together to brainstorm how to best construct the story into an involving screenplay, he then gathers the writers he needs to create that screenplay, we are given production tidbits ranging from innovative set-ups to set gossip, the reviews and release information is presented, then the process begins all over again. I enjoyed it, although I would have appreciated more variety in presentation style.
I especially appreciated how certain incidents in the director's life wound up as a cinematic moment in one or more of his films...carefully disguised, of course. It was also refreshing to read the truth behind a number of the more famous myths that have been perpetuated among various Hitchcock biographies.
When I had finished, I felt that I not only knew much more about the man, but had a good sense of what went into the creation of his Art. It has also caused me to scour the TCM listings to fill in the gaps in my Hitchcock film viewing.
Those desiring the standard life biography are likely to find this one disappointing. For those who have been curious about what was behind the Hitchcock films, there are some excellent revelations.
There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was obsessive. No one would have been able to focus on such seemingly minor details in his pictures that came together to become a much greater sum of their parts. What the writer centers on is how these obsessions were put to use to create some truly memorable classics.
The formula followed in the book is consistent for most of it. The director searches for an idea source that appeals to him, he brings a group together to brainstorm how to best construct the story into an involving screenplay, he then gathers the writers he needs to create that screenplay, we are given production tidbits ranging from innovative set-ups to set gossip, the reviews and release information is presented, then the process begins all over again. I enjoyed it, although I would have appreciated more variety in presentation style.
I especially appreciated how certain incidents in the director's life wound up as a cinematic moment in one or more of his films...carefully disguised, of course. It was also refreshing to read the truth behind a number of the more famous myths that have been perpetuated among various Hitchcock biographies.
When I had finished, I felt that I not only knew much more about the man, but had a good sense of what went into the creation of his Art. It has also caused me to scour the TCM listings to fill in the gaps in my Hitchcock film viewing.
Those desiring the standard life biography are likely to find this one disappointing. For those who have been curious about what was behind the Hitchcock films, there are some excellent revelations.
September 23, 2011
Patrick McGilligan has written what is undoubtedly one of the most authoritative and exhaustive biographies of Alfred Hitchcock available today. In the process of chronicling his life, the book covers each of Hitchcock’s movies (over 50 of them!) in plenty of detail, from their inception to the critical reception of the finished product. Of course, given the amount of analysis that his movies warrant (Psycho alone has tons of books examining it), there was a limit to the depth of each movie’s coverage, but I found it more than satisfactory. For each of his movies, the book contains tons of behind-the-scenes information, explanations of Hitchcock’s technical innovations, and even unused variations that were considered. Even though I was already a fan of his movies, I gained a much greater appreciation for them.
Beyond just the director himself, this book is a fascinating exploration of movie-making, from the silent era to the golden years of Hollywood. I found it amusing that there were just as many celebrity scandals back then - the only difference was that they weren’t public knowledge to people outside of Hollywood.
Since this book was written quite recently, it also benefits from recently-discovered information and it in fact points out several mistakes or misrepresentations in earlier Hitchcock biographies. The only real fault I can find with this book is that the author is quite obviously biased in favour of Hitchcock when discussing some questionable decisions or actions in his life. However, given that you’d have to be a fan of Hitchcock in order to write this book, and most probably a fan in order to read it, it’s certainly excusable.
Beyond just the director himself, this book is a fascinating exploration of movie-making, from the silent era to the golden years of Hollywood. I found it amusing that there were just as many celebrity scandals back then - the only difference was that they weren’t public knowledge to people outside of Hollywood.
Since this book was written quite recently, it also benefits from recently-discovered information and it in fact points out several mistakes or misrepresentations in earlier Hitchcock biographies. The only real fault I can find with this book is that the author is quite obviously biased in favour of Hitchcock when discussing some questionable decisions or actions in his life. However, given that you’d have to be a fan of Hitchcock in order to write this book, and most probably a fan in order to read it, it’s certainly excusable.
January 4, 2018
Entertaining biography
This is a very balanced bio of Alfred Hitchcock. I enjoyed it very much. I've always loved North by Northwest and To Catch a Thief (yes! Cary Grant). But beyond his most famous movies, I had no idea how long and how extensive Hitchcock's career was.
Long ago I read a really dark bio of Hitchcock, very off-putting. This one is more centered, realistic, balanced. The good and bad. The author is telling the story of a long and busy life. The other author's bio was written, I think, with an agenda. This one is more readable and more likely to be true.
Mcgilligan quotes lot of people, many behind the scenes who worked with Hitchcock on the writing, casting and camera work. He reports the positive and negative things he did dealing with actors and people in his life. It's no whitewash. And he shows how funny and lovable Hitchcock could be. He was a complicated, talented guy.
If you like show business bios, this is a good choice.
This is a very balanced bio of Alfred Hitchcock. I enjoyed it very much. I've always loved North by Northwest and To Catch a Thief (yes! Cary Grant). But beyond his most famous movies, I had no idea how long and how extensive Hitchcock's career was.
Long ago I read a really dark bio of Hitchcock, very off-putting. This one is more centered, realistic, balanced. The good and bad. The author is telling the story of a long and busy life. The other author's bio was written, I think, with an agenda. This one is more readable and more likely to be true.
Mcgilligan quotes lot of people, many behind the scenes who worked with Hitchcock on the writing, casting and camera work. He reports the positive and negative things he did dealing with actors and people in his life. It's no whitewash. And he shows how funny and lovable Hitchcock could be. He was a complicated, talented guy.
If you like show business bios, this is a good choice.
November 5, 2013
Finally! I'll get a complete review in shortly. But this has been exhaustive, fascinating, and something like a complete class on how to construct a plot and develop characters. Only read this book if you're interested in reading about Hitchcock and a plethora of writers and producers sitting around and working out plots ad nauseam. I am one of those types, so it was enjoyable to read, as well as educational.
Review to follow soon.
Review to follow soon.
February 5, 2014
At a whopping 864 pages, this book is not for the faint of heart, but it's a must-read for any serious Hitchock fan. So much of Hitchcock's character and motivations were illuminated to me through this book, and it engaged in painstaking detail of the inspiration, background and production of every single movie Hitchcock ever made.
April 21, 2015
A great read..
If you are a Hitchcock fan this is a must read. Tedious at first, but falls into a smooth rhythm.
If you are a Hitchcock fan this is a must read. Tedious at first, but falls into a smooth rhythm.
January 22, 2021
Academic historians usually consider biographies as somewhat suspect sources, despite the fact (as in this case) that considerable research may go into their production. It seems that it is rare that anyone writes a biography of a subject without being very invested in admiration and fascination of that person, sometimes to the point of being a raving fan-boy or –girl. The problem is compounded when the subject is a critical darling and a celebrity, perhaps even more so when the family’s estate has a vested interest in only collaborating with hagiographical accounts. And yet, biographies remain popular, and even somewhat necessary sources to understand individuals whose names and achievements survive them and the times in which they lived.
McGilligan states that his objective in producing this book was “in part…an effort to take into account all the new Hitchcock findings” in the twenty years after his death. Another twenty years have passed, and more findings have been made, and perhaps most importantly, new specifics have been attested to by witnesses who were less outspoken before. This book is therefore not current, but it is a good place to see get a sense of where Hitchcock scholarship has been, and what it is currently grounded upon. To the degree that new information is new, it departs from this version of the telling. And there are hints here that suggest that maybe the picture is less rosy than the Hitchcock Estate would have it, even if McGilligan seems at pains to turn his own eyes away from the darkness sometimes, especially in regard to Hitch’s treatment of women.
This book is quite thorough, and as I read through it, I watched the movies he described, many for the first time (especially the silents). This was a worthy endeavor, and I did learn something. It’s been said that Alfred Hitchcock may be the Shakespeare of the 20th Century, and I think this may be true – Shakespeare wasn’t necessary the best Elizabethan playwright, but he’s the one we know today, and the one all others are inevitable compared to. In five hundred years, it seems likely that Hitchcock will hold the same position in regard to Hollywood film, so it behooves us who study film to know him as best as we can today.
McGilligan states that his objective in producing this book was “in part…an effort to take into account all the new Hitchcock findings” in the twenty years after his death. Another twenty years have passed, and more findings have been made, and perhaps most importantly, new specifics have been attested to by witnesses who were less outspoken before. This book is therefore not current, but it is a good place to see get a sense of where Hitchcock scholarship has been, and what it is currently grounded upon. To the degree that new information is new, it departs from this version of the telling. And there are hints here that suggest that maybe the picture is less rosy than the Hitchcock Estate would have it, even if McGilligan seems at pains to turn his own eyes away from the darkness sometimes, especially in regard to Hitch’s treatment of women.
This book is quite thorough, and as I read through it, I watched the movies he described, many for the first time (especially the silents). This was a worthy endeavor, and I did learn something. It’s been said that Alfred Hitchcock may be the Shakespeare of the 20th Century, and I think this may be true – Shakespeare wasn’t necessary the best Elizabethan playwright, but he’s the one we know today, and the one all others are inevitable compared to. In five hundred years, it seems likely that Hitchcock will hold the same position in regard to Hollywood film, so it behooves us who study film to know him as best as we can today.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 128 reviews