This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alfred Hitchcock article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Alfred Hitchcock is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Images: Look for images of Hitchcock as a boy, St Ignatius College, and the Henley Telegraph and Cable Company. Verify copyright status of all other images.
Reliable sources: Check that everything is reliably sourced. Multiple editors and IP addresses have written the article over many years, then others have added sources after the fact. A significant number of citations covered just one issue in the preceding sentence or paragraph, or the issue needing a source was mentioned by the source only in passing, or the sources were not reliable (e.g. unstable websites and dead links). I've fixed a lot of these and tagged others. I've probably checked about a third at this point.
Appropriate sources: We should try to move the article in the direction of relying on a smaller number of authoritative sources. We shouldn't say (or imply) "according to newspaper X in 2017", when really it's "according to Truffaut in 1967".
Citations: Lots of citations had details missing or wrong, e.g. authors, dates, page numbers. I've fixed a lot, and I'm tagging the rest.
Text: The multiple authorship means there is good writing followed by poor followed by tangents. Portions of the text remain in place from 2008 and earlier. For example, "Storyboards and production" on 30 December 2008 was pretty much the same as on 16 December 2017 and mostly unsourced. The writing section consisted of nothing but quotations.
How he got into film: There was no information about how he made the move from technical clerk for Henley's to working in film. I've added an explanation (final paragraph of Henley's section and first paragraph of Silent films section).
Germany: We should say a bit more about his time in Germany.
The man is missing. After the childhood and education sections, there is very little about the person; most of the article is a straightforward description of the films. See how Charlie Chaplin discusses the man throughout. As we discuss Hitchcock's career, the article should focus on how his style and skills developed; any problems during filming with producers, actors and others; his marriage and collaboration with his wife; how the move to the US affected him; how World War II affected him; his mother and brother dying within a few months of each other in 1942; his deteriorating health; his sense of humour and irony; what he said about himself (he was known for his tight control over his image); his view of his films. Suggested sources:
(1) For Hitchcock's view of himself (this is a long interview with Truffaut): Truffaut, François (1983) [1967]. Hitchcock (Revised ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster.
(2) Authorized biography: Taylor, John Russell (1996) [1978]. Hitch: The Life and Times of Alfred Hitchcock. New York: Da Capo Press.
(3) Spoto, Donald (1992) [1976]. The Art of Alfred Hitchcock (2nd ed.). New York: Anchor Books.
(4) Spoto, Donald (1999) [1983]. The Dark Side of Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock. New York: Da Capo Press.
(5) McGilligan, Patrick (2003). Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light. New York: Regan Books.
(6) Spoto, Donald (2008). Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and his Leading Ladies. New York: Harmony Books.
Health. This was an issue throughout his life but the article barely discusses it. I've added some but we need more. Already in 1943 (when he was only 44), the Occidental Insurance Company of Los Angeles refused him life insurance. Hitchcock told Balcon: hernia, jaundice, gall bladder removed, internal bleeding (all in 12 weeks), gout, pacemaker installed in 1974. His wife's health: cancer 1958, two strokes 1971 and 1976.
Estate. We say nothing about his estate when he died.
Analysis: There is almost no analysis. The themes and motifs section is almost empty. The article says little about how the films were received at the time and how that differs from now (as Sloan asks: "deep artist? superficial manipulator?"). Views of Hitchcock have changed; the article presents a very positive view as though that was always the case. Suggested sources:
(1) Wood, Robin (2002). Hitchcock's Films Revisited (Revised ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
(2) Walker, Michael (2005). Hitchcock's motifs. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
(3) Sloan, Joan E. (1993). Alfred Hitchcock: The Definitive Filmography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Representation of women. Add a summary of the scholarly literature. Suggested sources:
(1) Modleski, Tania (2016) [1988]. The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and Feminist Theory (3rd ed.). New York and London: Routledge.
(2) White, Susan (2015). "Alfred Hitchcock and Feminist Film Theory (Yet Again)". In Freedman, Jonathan (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Alfred Hitchcock. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 109–126.
Tippi Hedren: Hedren's experiences were mentioned in one paragraph in the "After 1961" section, discussing Marnie and were argued against. No mention of what happened during filming of The Birds. No mention of the Marnie rape scene or the screenwriter being removed when he objected to it. No mention of Grace Kelly accepting the part then cancelling. The film The Girl (about Hedren) was first mentioned in the Awards and honours section. I expanded the text; it's currently in The Birds and Marnie sections.
Writing: Tighten the writing throughout.
Citation style: Make citation style consistent; for example, there are full stops after the long refs but not the short (changing from harvnb to sfn will fix that).
Hitchcock is often described as an auteur; François Truffaut wrote that “Because he exercises such complete control over all the elements of his films and imprints his personal concepts at each step of the way, Hitchcock has a distinctive style of his own. He is undoubtedly one of the few film-makers on the horizon today whose screen signature can be identified as soon as the picture begins.” Anthony Lane writes『I once asked a friend who had never seen Marnie to guess the director. Skipping the opening credits, I started a stopwatch on the first shot—Tippi Hedren's clutch bag under her arm as she walks along a station platform. 'Hitchcock,' he said, and I checked the watch. Twelve seconds.』2601:281:8300:9AF0:552B:C4B0:A82F:49A4 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of basic math would that be? He was born in August and died in April, making him 80 years and about 8 months old. When giving someone's age, we typically say the number of completed years. In Hitchcock's case, that was 80. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]02:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We had the article describing him as "English" and I changed it to "Anglo-American" because that is how to more accurately introduce him to the reader. There was an editors note suggesting not to change it, to wit:
But, I can't see much merit in that. He was an immigrant to America, spent half his life and most of his adult life in Los Angeles, made more than half of his films, including of his most famous and great ones, while living and working in America, and had dual citizenship from 1955.
And all Fallaci has (in the ref) is Hitchcock saying "And then it must be because I’m English", explaining why he naturally finds imaginative and amusing ways for his characters to be killed. It's not like he's saying "I don't consider myself American, at all" or something. (And even if it was, subjects are not good sources for unbiased facts in biographies. Lots of people self-identify as having various qualities that they actually don't. It's a data point but no more.)
I'm confident that Hitchcock would have preferred to stay in Britain and only came to America because he had to in order to have an A+ level career, and that's too bad for Britain, and not really fair either. But it is what it is. It'd smack of special pleading to introduce him as either just "American" or "English".
Generally in such instances we place precedence in how the the subject chooses to self-identify in reference to nationality, so I would agree with the reverseal back to "English". I do not understand how exactly this is misleading at all. (We do not describe Einstein as German-American despite a lot of portion of is spent in the US). Spy-cicle💥 Talk?01:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and in additition to self-identity, notability is also key here and he became globally famous as an Englishman. As is noted he had also become critically acclaimed/celebrated prior to any Hollywood film ("Three unique and valuable institutions the British have that we in America have not: Magna Carta, the Tower Bridge and Alfred Hitchcock, the greatest director of screen melodramas in the world.") Para Clark (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mnmh, I hear you. But, I can't agree still, cos:
We're not deciding if he should be characterized as "English" or "American". If we had to chose one, it's reasonable to hold that it be "English". But that's not what we're doing here. In dispute, if a compromise is available, that can be a good solution, and "Anglo-American" is sort of a compromise. Sort of.
There's no slam-dunk argument either way. There are data points on each side and we weigh them. Data points that we might consider are:
Self-identification, but that is quite low on the list, as I said. It's personal opinion that's probably biased. People are just poor sources for their own bios (for many facts). They are very good sources for if they hava an opinion, but not for if the opinion is true.Grey Owl said he was an Indian, maybe even kinda-sorta thought he was an Indian, in a way. But his birth name was Archibald Stansfeld Belaney and we don't describe him as an Indian. Etc.
Identification by others (as seen in "Three unique..." quote). In other words, what sources say. How notable and neutral the sources are matters a lot (also how much standing they have to weigh in). This goes high on the list. But not quite as high as if we were debating objective facts, e.g. how tall he was etc. We're talking about opinions here. (One reason why reliability doesn't matter here; all source are very reliable for their own opinions.)
Current usual practice, if there is one. Pretty high I guess. (If there is rule (E.g. WHO_IS_WHAT_NATIONALITY also, that's another data point, but only if it codifies usual practice anyway rather than having been written by seven people 16 years ago or whatever.)
Our own actual consideration and logic. If -- if -- there is a good majority of the most notable and unbiased sources saying one thing, and other things also weighing on that side, that's different. But if there isn't, just using our own wits matters.
Probably other things I'm not thinking of. I'm going to look at some of these presently, but not right now. There's no hurry here (as my edit was rolled back, IMO, and it's not super important. Herostratus (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hitchcock referred to himself as English, and self-identification takes precedence, it's who you are. He was also renowned as a particular type of English as articulated by a biographer in the Chicago Sun Times from 1978 who called him 'a straightforward middle-class Englishman who just happened to be an artistic genius'. He made his name in England as a peerless filmmaker which is why he got the Selznick contract, with The Telegraph summing up the overwhelming view of his status in Britain by calling him 'unquestionably the greatest filmmaker to emerge from these islands'. We go with identity, who the person is. It's as straightforward as that. Gabriella MNT (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Looked at MOS:NATIONALITY. It seems like the recommendation there, in a disputed case like this, would be to omit characterizing his nationality at all, in the lede or probably anywhere. Let the reader decide what nationality she wants to peg him to, if she cares, based on the material in the article. We don't want to lead the reader. If we did go with the double countries, it should be "British and American", not "Anglo-American." Did not know this. For Einstein, they have "German-born" which would at least be an improvement here. I suppose that is because "German and Swiss and American" would be unwieldy and possibly debatable. Herostratus (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]