Tippi Hedren on Alfred Hitchcock

Share on Tumblr

In 2008, two articles appeared on the online version of the London Times. The first, on September 6, asks: Was Alfred Hitchcock a misogynist? He was adored by actresses. The second, just a few days later on September 11, contradicts the first: Tippi Hedren: Alfred Hitchcock tried to destroy my career. Of course, in 2005, the very same website contains an article with this headline: The birds attacked me but Hitch was scarier: Hitchcock’s iciest blonde talks about her terrifying time filming The Birds and the director’s unwelcome sexual advances

The second article – the one that’s sandwiched chronologically between two that starkly contradict it, states: “And even Hedren, despite her quarrels with Hitchcock over his more-than-professional possessiveness, had no complaints about the support he normally gave her.”

But she did, and I’ve been hearing this story since childhood. Quotes come from the first linked article.

In 1961, Tippi Hedren was an unknown actress who’d done one commercial. Suddenly Hitchcock wanted her to star in The Birds. Back then, that meant she had to commit to a contract with him – which she did, because it was a fabulous break. Things went well on set for some time, then:

But near the end of filming, Hedren shot the final attack scene where Melanie [Hedren's character] is brutally attacked by the birds. “An assistant producer came in and couldn’t look at me. He told me they were going to use real birds, not mechanical ones. Those birds pecked – I’d seen what had happened to the trainers. They tied the birds to me with elastic bands. They hurled birds at me. One of the birds tied on my shoulder only just missed scraping its claw into my eye. I shouted, ‘Get these birds off me’ and I sat in the middle of the sound-stage and cried. At the end I was so exhausted I was out cold. I don’t remember anyone driving me home. I realised that Hitch had chosen an unknown actress because no famous actress in their right mind would have done this movie.

Hitch had already told her, with some relish, about tying up Madeleine Carroll (the original Hitchcock blonde, star of The 39 Steps and Secret Agent) to a post and leaving her there all afternoon.

The story about Carroll is also famous, though to my knowledge she never complained about it. What many people don’t understand about Hollywood is this: women working on sets endure tremendous sexism, sometimes even downright sadistic misogyny, without complaint. Who would they complain to, after all? The industry as a whole is okay with this treatment of women. Hell, there seems to be some confusion about whether it’s okay to drug and rape little girls, so long as you’re a big famous director. The culture is that of a schoolyard in which all the other kids and the teachers see you being harassed and nobody does anything and, finally, other girls tell you, “It happens to all of us – you just have to be tougher than they are.” You learn to defend yourself through force of personality, by gathering blackmail materials, by befriending your harasser’s harassers or by getting close to their wives (which sometimes keeps them in check because anything they do to you could get back to the wife). That’s why “No actresses ever complained (publicly)” means absolutely nothing.  Just look at what does get reported in an atmosphere that hostile to women exercising their legal rights. And Hedren’s story isn’t over yet:

Afterwards Hitchcock didn’t mention the incident with the birds. “Not a word,” says Hedren. “Which is weird. He was extremely complicated. I think he was a misogynist – absolutely, no doubt about it. But I wasn’t a wimpy girl. New York had made me tough. I wasn’t frightened….

His attention was also firmly, too firmly, focused on Hedren. “It was the start of an obsession,” she says. “Women aren’t stupid. It was a very uncomfortable thing. I wasn’t interested in him like that. He’d want a glass of champagne after shooting. He watched me all the time. He wanted to have private lunches. He really wanted to control my life which is very difficult if you’re a grown woman with a daughter. It was very wearing and frightening.”

A couple of times Alma [Hitchcock's wife] said to her: “I’m sorry you have to go through this, Tippi.” Hedren thinks Alma loved him and he relied on her expertise and eye.

During the filming of Marnie, Hedren told him she wanted out of her contract. He refused. He said he would ruin her, and he did ruin her career: many directors and producers of note wanted very much to employ her, but he kept her under contract at $600/week, making no movies at all, until 1967. By then, those directors and producers had been forced to find other promising stars to take her place.

“I didn’t tell anyone about what had happened for 20 years because I was embarrassed. If it happened today I would be rich.” Because she would have sued him for sexual harassment? “Absolutely.” She felt “relief” when Hitchcock died. “It was so terribly hurtful.”

Hedren poured her money and time into a wildlife reserve called Shambala. She is a remarkable actress, and seems to be a most remarkable human being:

Shambala is her achievement and legacy, she says. In 2003 she successfuly lobbied for a Bill “stopping the interstate trafficking of exotic felines for personal possession”. Now she is campaigning for a federal ban on the breeding of those species for the same.

“Back in 2003 someone threatened to put explosives under my car and release diseases into Shambala. So this time I am going to ask Donatella [Versace, ‘she’s a friend of Melanie’s’] to make me a bullet-proof vest. All my ancestors lived to their late nineties. I’m planning on being around for a long time.” It’s that survivor instinct Hitch probably saw in her when casting the much pecked-upon Melanie Daniels; the same instinct he tried – unsuccessfully – to extinguish.

It’s not just a survivor instinct: it’s a willingness to take on people society deems more valuable than her. Some might consider that reckless behavior rather than a survivor instinct. But what are we surviving for, if we must always bow to to those who wield power irresponsibly or even sadistically?

Comments

  1. Anemone says

    What bothers me the most is that I can’t see anything changing any time soon. The unions do what??? And everyone seems to be like frozen rabbits, hoping if they hold very very still, they won’t get hurt themselves. (Perhaps especially the women in Women in Film that I met in Vancouver.) I just want to shake people.

  2. says

    I wonder how similar this is to Lars von Trier – not that von Trier has the kind of power that Hitchcock had, but I think at least Bjørk and Nicole Kidman vowed to never work with him again.

  3. Serena says

    Never liked Alfred Hitchcock. Always uncomfortable with the violence towards women (seems like Hitchcock’s a sicko who gets off on that) and the way they’re treated in general, in his movies. And I can’t understand why critics hail him as a genius… Ever since learning that Janet Leigh wasn’t given sufficient character backstory/motivation in Psycho, I’ve dismissed Alfred Hitchcock as one of those directors who cares more about the “cool” visuals and what he does with the camera, than directing the actual *actors* and helping them give their best performance… or just feel comfortable on-set.

    Now I know he went out of his way to make the actresses UNcomfortable. I’m glad you posted about this because even though it happened long ago, it’s still not common knowledge, and people seem to see Hitchcock as a *cuddly* character, or something…based on the way he portrayed himself in trailers or his tv show, I guess. It doesn’t help that critics in general gush about him, and (although I don’t go out of my way to read everything because I’m not a fan of Hitchcock, professionally or personally, as you can probably tell!) I never heard before that he “he relied on (his wife’s) expertise and eye.” That’s very interesting, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Hitchcock doesn’t even deserve all the credit he gets for the technical/visual style of his movies. It wouldn’t be the first time a man hogs all the glory while a talented woman stays hidden behind-the-scenes.

    I don’t understand why Alma would love or stay with such a man – except that there are too many women out there with low self-esteem, who are told “that’s just the way men are”. I admire Tippi’s courage. The story above definitely sounds to me like an abuser deliberately choosing a victim with less status/power, so he can get away with more. I gather from the article that she was a single mom with a child to support? That probably made her even more vulnerable and likely to put up with unwanted advances and dangerous stunts to make a living… in Hitchcock’s mind. And now I feel slimy, trying to figure out how someone like that thinks. I’ve gone from a vague distaste for the man and his movies, to downright hate and revulsion. Thanks! (No really, thank you for bringing these ugly things to our attention… there needs to be more outrage so things change.)

    • Anemone says

      I have long suspected that “genius” in the arts is associated with the kind of detachment that allows people to make art without any consideration for their models/performers, or for society either, and that the more inconsiderate/indifferent you are, the more you prove your “genius”. It seems to me that all the great “geniuses” have a sadistic streak, and that the truly good artists don’t make the “genius” cut without it, no matter how good they are. I see women in film following this model, too, to prove themselves.

      I think Alma Reville was quite happy with Hitchcock. She had a long and successful career, which might not have happened if she hadn’t teamed up with him, even though she got started before he did. I don’t think she was a feminist who cared about other women, though.

      • Serena says

        I’m embarrassed to admit my ignorance about Alma’s career… it’s a pity she’s not as famous a “name” as her husband. I blame the film critics/historians again for their tendency to ignore or downplay talented women. I should’ve done more research on my own though.

        Very interesting point about genius…that’s not my definition of the word, but you’re probably right! That would explain my usual reaction of puzzled distaste when certain people are hailed as geniuses (Roman Polanski, Andy Warhol, to name a few.) I guess I see “genius” as something that benefits humanity in some way. So attaching that label onto someone who’s known to have been cruel/sadistic… does not compute. If someone like Hitchcock makes a film that “benefits”/entertains the greater population (Debatable! I still think he’s a sub-par storyteller who didn’t pay enough attention to characterization and plot-holes), it doesn’t matter if he was an abusive asshole to select individuals? Like, hurting someone in the process of making his “Great Art”, is justifiable? Not to me. I don’t believe you *can* create something truly great, if cruelty or evil is involved. But then, some of the people I consider geniuses (Walt Disney, Frank Capra…) – wouldn’t make any snobby critic’s best-of lists, that’s for sure.

          • Serena says

            Oh that’s great! Thanks for sharing. :) I especially like:

            “Real genius creates, invents, discovers, envisions, unmasks and reveals. It gives something to the rest of the world — the phonograph, Atticus Finch, polio vaccine, Landscape at Auvers in the Rain, the Bo Diddley beat, key lime pie, the First Amendment, the theory of relativity, the 14th Amendment, the Chrysler building … or that oil-spill containment system our geniuses have apparently forgotten to get around to inventing just yet.”

            Zing! That makes me want to cheer…or sink into depression. :P

        • says

          I think making great movies DOES contribute to society in some ways, but is that what Hitchcock did? He had a great visual sense – every frame of his films would look good as a poster. But ditto on Irvin Kershner, who’s sadly best known for sequels like The Empire Strikes Back and Robocop II. Those are profoundly gorgeous films, AND Kersh is great at getting the best performances from actors (see: TESB compared to other two SW movies) while Hitchcock completely failed to recognize the importance of good acting even in genre flicks, saying “actors should be treated like cattle” (here are tons of quotes disparaging actors).

          So why is Kersh nowhere near as legendary as Hitchcock? Well, I think Anemone’s onto something. Regardless of the real definition of genius, the kind of genius the film industry recognizes is the one that comes with an abusive personality, and Irvin Kershner is a really cool and amazing person, according to many who know him in the industry. Assuming Anemone’s theory is correct, I have to wonder why Hollywood is so attracted to abusive personalities? I can’t buy “Because we’re in a culture that celebrates people who succeed without examining their means” because Hollywood helped *create* that culture. So why? Because it has more than its fair share of people stuck in the abuser/abused paradigm? Possibly. Because it’s really Hollywood, not women, who’s madly in love with bad boys? That would follow from the first point.

          I don’t know, but between Hitchcock and Polanski, ya gotta think there’s some massively sick thinking ingrained into the core of that industry.

          • says

            I don’t know. My guess would be that partly it’s the times they were in – Hitchcock was more influential than Kirshner. In my opinion, Hitchcock also has made more than one truly classic film: I recently rewatched “Rear Window”, and I was again caught up in the tension. North by Northwest, Psycho, etc. I mean, it’s not that critics only praise Hitch’s films because we was an ass.

            But a big part is probably due to people buying in to the image they’re presented with. Peoplke who’re easy to get along with are not people who would think of themselves as a genius, probably, whereas those who claim to be doing everything only in the pursuit of their vision are. When Hitchcock denigrates actors, it also means the actors play no part in the success of his films, i.e. it’s him who the praise is supposed to go to. And when he’s successful, people start believing that. Whereas someone like Kirshner will probably graciously allow for actors or composers or writers or others have a claim on success, and only by comparison do you see a difference (see Star Wars with Kershner and without him :))

            And yes, we are socialized with the idea of genius being isolated, aloof, so that helps, as well.

          • Anemone says

            Directors who are nice to the people they work with are sissies. Sissies can’t possibly be geniuses, because sissies can’t be real men, and geniuses must be real men. Ergo, people who are nice to work with are not geniuses. Even when (especially when?) they are.

            I didn’t know about Kershner. I’m glad you mentioned him. Maybe someone should compile a list of the talented directors who are good to work under, and promote them as an alternative set of role models.

          • says

            Anemone, that’s a great idea. I personally don’t know of many, simply because I wasn’t in a position to hear what people thought of working with [everybody]. It’s completely hit and miss who I know anything about. Hmm, not sure how to go about it. But yeah, I never understood why Kershner didn’t become an icon.

            Bertolucci is another director I’ve never heard bad about – his genius is recognized, but he kind of rejected Hollywood and went indie… which I think impresses them in an “anti-sissy” kind of way.

            Oh, and Francis Ford Coppola has a reputation for abusing actors. He actually kind of sounds like Hitchcock in that way.

        • says

          Erm, Walt Disney was a John Bercher, and I always get a skeevy anti-Semitic vibe off Maleficent, so… He also was a founding member of the anti-communist Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals and gleefully pointed fingers at union organizers and former animators in testimony in front of House Un-American Activities Committee, you know, Macarthy’s witch hunters. He accused the screen actors’ guild of being a communist conspiracy, too, and associated with known anti-Semites.

          I say none of this in defense of Hitchcock. The man from what I gather was a pig. But if you’re going to draw your line of genius that narrowly, please don’t include Disney.

          • Serena says

            Gleefully? You know this, how? I’m not saying Disney was a saint, with no flaws, who never made mistakes. But I still think he was an innovative genius and pioneer who achieved great things in many aspects of the arts. His work uplifts, educates and brings joy to many people all over the world. What the Disney company has become is a tragedy.

            I thought of Walt instantly in contrast to Hitchcock, not only because Disney was a better storyteller – I’ve never heard of him *abusing* his workers. In fact, he encouraged creativity, rewarded ideas, paid for lessons for his animators, encouraged his employees to take paid sick-leave, went out of his way to protect the financial rights of the writer of “It’s A Small World”, and made sure his child-stars felt comfortable and happy and were having fun making movies (quite a rarity compared to most studio environments which exploit children or ignore their feelings). I would *love* to work for someone like Walt Disney. His type of leadership is all too rare.

            You have a right to your opinion, but I don’t think you have a right to tell me how to define genius.

          • Patrick McGraw says

            What anti-Semitic vibes do you get from Maleficent? Walt Disney’s anti-Semitic leanings are pretty well-known, but I never saw any of that in Malificent, who is arguably one of the coolest villains ever committed to film.

            • Maria says

              When people say Maleficent is anti-Semitic, they’re generally refering to her horns, the shape of her face and nose, and how she’s got darker inkier curlier hair than the other characters in SB.

          • says

            I’ve never heard of him *abusing* his workers.

            Disney as a company was long legendary for this: animators had to work as apprentices for seven years, for very little. At the end, sometimes they got promoted into decent wages and job security, other times they were tossed like used tissues. It created a paranoid atmosphere because people needed these jobs – where else could animators hope to work, that had equal prestige? – and there was a lot of sabotage and in-fighting, as you would expect from an environment where people are deliberately kept desperate and competitive as tigers who don’t have enough prey to go around.

            This was under Walt. Later, the company got with the times. But during this period, I’d definitely say that qualifies as a form of psychological abuse.

            His work uplifts, educates and brings joy to many people all over the world.

            To little black kids who saw nothing like themselves on screen? Really? To little girls who had no desire to be a traditional girly nothing, i.e., princess? It’s great you enjoyed Disney films, but even as a child I felt Disney films were trying to force me into a role I didn’t want to play, AND teaching the world that deep down, I really wanted to be a princess and was just lying when I claimed otherwise and should be ignored and/or institutionalized, whichever shut me up the best.

          • Serena says

            I’m sorry if this is too long…

            Jennifer, I may be biased because I loved Disney films as a child, and still do. But I hope I’m free to share my viewpoint even if I disagree with you (And believe me, I’m used to agreeing with you on this website, so this is unusual!)

            I’m a bit stunned to hear you describe the situation as tossing workers aside like used tissues. I was under the impression that Walt rewarded employees based on merit/talent/good ideas. That means some people were let go (also some left because they wanted to be in charge/have more control/start their own business, etc). Maybe it’s not “nice” to let workers go if their work is sub-par, but personally I think it’s better than today’s environment (that which I’ve witnessed, anyway) where management can’t fire someone no matter how incompetent or ill-suited they may be for the job, or how badly they gel with the rest of the team. Then the quality of the product suffers. So Walt assembled a great team and produced great products that entertained and inspired millions around the globe… Isn’t that a good thing? I believe a somewhat competitive environment is a good thing, up to a point, of course. Doesn’t competition breed more creativity and higher quality? From all the books/documentaries/etc, about Disney’s history, I never got the impression that it was cutthroat. I admire Walt Disney for seeing people’s potential…there are many stories of him encouraging workers who didn’t even know they were capable of the job in question, and were grateful for the opportunities given. I still stand by my statement that I haven’t heard stories of him abusing anyone.

            I thought it was considered a fact that Disney’s characters, films, music, parks, etc, were beloved by people around the world. His stories are universal. Is it fair to criticize him for not telling more stories specifically for/about black people, when he wasn’t black? (I believe Song Of The South was progressive for it’s time, compared to the portrayal of the slaves in Gone With The Wind for instance.) Yes, I want to see minorities represented on-screen, and behind-the-scenes too, telling their own stories. But at the same time, it’s possible to relate to/learn from/be entertained by stories about people who don’t *look* exactly like you. I’ve had to do it (adapt and find something relatable in the stories/characters presented to me), much as I resent it sometimes… For whatever reason, Disney has just never been the source of my resentment in rarely seeing “myself” on-screen.

            It helps when the movie’s values promote love and kindness towards others, as Disney tends to do. As a child, I never got any hate messages from his films. I might be able to dig through them as an adult and find something questionable, but I’m the sort of person who tends to get easily offended, and nothing I’ve seen so far (haven’t seen every single Disney film or short though), has jumped out at me as hate-filled or offensive.

            I’m much more offended by modern-day Disney… what I see as the child exploitation of their TV/Pop Stars… and it hurts to think of the way Eisner killed the animation unit, promoting his cronies/business associates who knew and cared nothing about the art-form or storytelling, and then they had to justify their jobs by interfering with the animators… and ruining the movies. Eisner drove more animators to quit, and let more animators go, than Walt ever did. And for the wrong reasons: not because they weren’t doing a good job/didn’t share his vision …but simply to cut costs and do things on the cheap. (And pad those executive’s paychecks.) The exact opposite of Walt’s philosophy. Walt never became that rich or lived so extravagantly – he kept re-investing profits (and borrowed money) into future ideas/projects…always striving to create more and do *better*. I can’t help but respect that.

            Pushing their Princess agenda. I’m with you on that one, but I think Disney Today is much more guilty of it. Former employees of the Disney Store have described how they were forced to cater exclusively to the Princess Line, where once there was a greater variety of merchandise that would appeal to young and old… and to girls who weren’t interested in Pink Princess crap. These bad management decisions killed the chain and lost many their jobs. The modern-day TV shows aimed at girls also seem to promote conformity, focus on appearance, and limit specific career goals that girls “should” aspire to. Y’know, I can forgive a movie from 1930’s a lot more, for not challenging gender roles. But today? There were princesses in some Walt-era movies, yes, but when I watched them as a little girl… I didn’t feel inadequate, that I should change, that my interests were “wrong” for a girl. I’m truly sorry they made you feel that way. To me they were just fairytales, of their time, with much to enjoy even if I didn’t identify with the main character or want to live her life. I related more to aspects of later Disney heroines – Ariel’s rebellion against her father, Belle’s love of reading … and admired Mulan. But even in Walt’s day, a girl like me could enjoy Hayley Mills in The Parent Trap, etc. Or not-conventionally-“nice” (passive girly-girl) Alice (in Wonderland).

            I hope Walt Disney wasn’t anti-Semitic… I thought that was just a rumour/slander, and if it’s true I wonder why more people who worked with him (and so very many have been interviewed over the years) haven’t said so? I didn’t get that message from Maleficent – but I haven’t seen Sleeping Beauty since I was a child and totally ignorant of such things. I guess I’m still naive, because it wouldn’t occur to me to look at the character that way, without Maria’s description.

            One last thing, and I apologize again for the length of this post! Feel I should say something about HUAC. I admire the brave few in Hollywood who refused to participate in that, even though it hurt their careers & livelihood. I can’t know Walt’s reasons, but I hope he was motivated by desire to keep working, as many others were… or got swept up in a movement they later came to regret. I realize I hold him up on a bit of a pedestal as a childhood hero, but I’ve become disillusioned by so much as I’ve gotten older. Corny as it may sound, Disney movies and music have helped me through tough times, and I want to hold on to positive memories/associations.

            But I do respect other people’s opinions and experiences. Hero or Villain, or somewhere in between…. Walt Disney was remarkable, and my best definition of a genius.

          • Serena says

            P.S. Sorry, I know I wrote too much already! But re-reading my post I wanted to apologize if I came across as too definitive when expressing my opinions. For instance when I wrote “I thought it was considered a fact that Disney’s characters, films, music, parks, etc, were beloved by people around the world.” – I was thinking of the fact that people visit the theme parks from all over the world, and things like the popularity of international translations of the films and songs. Along with things I’ve read about Mickey Mouse being a globally recognized/beloved symbol.

            Also wanted to clarify if I seemed too insistent about Walt not being abusive (as far as I’ve heard). I meant I haven’t heard specific stories of abuse… like, Hitchcock levels of abuse (wow, I got back on the original topic! :)) …although I have heard stories of disgruntled employees wanting more credit/their names to be more prominent while Walt wanted to make the Disney name a recognizable brand that meant something. Since he succeeded, and since I and many other Disney fans loved being able to count on a certain level of quality from anything with the Disney name attached (gone in recent years, unfortunately)… well I tend to be more forgiving of his ego, I suppose. :) But I didn’t mean to say that the people who worked for him, couldn’t have legitimate complaints about their relationship with Walt. Maybe I’m being selfish in enjoying so much of the end result and not examining the process more closely? Still I honestly haven’t heard horror stories of abuse, and I hope I don’t, for the sake of my childhood nostalgia/illusions. There I go being selfish again!

            Please forgive the long-winded posts and excuse me if I became too defensive earlier.

          • Serena says

            P.P.S. Ack! I know! But I’ve been thinking about it some more and I’ve got to apologize again, if I made you feel like I didn’t respect your childhood impression of the whole Princess issue. Just because I feel like the Disney Princess thing is more out-of-control these days, with more aggressive merchandising and whatnot… and because I think the way Disney’s TV/Pop stars are marketed & aimed at young girls, sends worse messages than Classic Disney did… well that doesn’t mean I’m saying you shouldn’t have had a problem with it back then.

            Maybe you were more perceptive and sensitive to the messages than I was as a kid :) Maybe I was lucky growing up with programs like Free To Be You And Me, and Sesame Street, which probably helped me not feel so limited in my options as a girl…and made it possible to watch female characters in Disney films without feeling pressured to be like them? Or lucky in that my parents didn’t try too hard to make me act/dress more “girly” (although they made me feel not-good-enough in lots of other ways :P) Who knows.

            Point is, I really respect what you’re doing with this site, raising awareness of sexism, misogyny, etc. Disney may be my blind spot, but I hate gender role conditioning too, and the last thing I want is to downplay it’s existence, or dismiss someone feeling justifiably angry about it.

            • says

              You didn’t make me feel like you disrespected my opinion, and no apologies are needed, and of course you’re always welcome to disagree. I just wanted to clarify that the movies Walt Disney made caused some people to feel left out and marginalized, which has to be considered alongside all the joy you’re talking about them bringing. It doesn’t make what you felt wrong – I’m a believer in people finding joy wherever they can. It just means the good points of Disney weren’t so good to everyone.

              As for the employee abuse: the version of the story I relayed is one I’ve heard in Los Angeles. We… very often get very different versions of “the story” about entertainment lore than what our media feeds to the rest of the world, because we get it from second and third-hand sources to someone who was actually there. Which is not to say the version we get is right and what everyone else hears is wrong – I honestly don’t know, as everyone has reasons to lie in these situations. But the way I’ve heard the story from people around here, it was not a nice atmosphere at Disney for animators when Walt was running things. Since there are conflicting versions of the story, both plausible, I reckon everyone’s free to believe what rings true to them. My point was just that there ARE legit reasons some people might consider WD to have been an ass in some ways. I wasn’t saying you had to agree with them.

          • Patrick McGraw says

            On Maleficent: I can see now that with her features and the horns (which would even fit for period anti-Semitism, IIRC). Hadn’t thought about that aspect before, just thinking of the horns as generically demonic.

            Hair, though – I cannot think of a single instance in the film when we see Maleficent’s hair, or her headgear removed in any way. Was this something in concept art or abandoned scenes?

            • Maria says

              I honestly can’t remember, since it’s been years since I was big into Disney studies. BUT I BET HER HAIR IS DIFFERENT FROM THE NICE WHITE PEOPLE’S!!!

    • scarlett says

      OK, just answered my own question. Goold old IMDB. But I’d heard Hitchcock was a misogynist for a good ten year nows; I had thought it was general knowledge.

      • Serena says

        Maybe it’s because of my aversion to him… not reading enough about the man…but I didn’t know it was general knowledge. I thought it was just my impression that he was misogynistic. The few reviews I’ve read/featurettes I’ve seen, have portrayed him as “cuddly”. I remember an interview clip of Jane Wyman, on TCM, where she called him a teddy bear. (Maybe he didn’t bother her because she was usually a brunette :P …or had been married to Ronald Reagan/had sufficient status that he was afraid to mess with her.)

        In any case, I think the articles Jennifer linked to above, kind of illustrate how the media doesn’t really want to come right out and criticize/condemn Hitchcock. Contradicting Tippi, almost like they want to discredit her, even as they “allow” her to share her side of the story. I wonder if they published those articles *because* they thought the headlines would be shocking to the average person who *doesn’t* think of Hitchcock as a misogynist. I see more sensational, often exaggerated/misleading headlines, these days, to get web hits. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Tippi’s telling the truth, and has a good reason to speak up, rather than just craving attention. But maybe it’s “safer” to publish something critical of Hitchcock because of our environment of gossipy, trashy celebrity “news” that isn’t taken seriously?

        Or maybe, like Anemone suggested, there’s such a general acceptance of sadism and misogyny, that accusing someone of it and sharing painful memories of their mistreatment of you, will not really hurt the abuser’s reputation. Only enhance their “genius” cred. :/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.