Becoming Hitchcock: The Legacy of Blackmail

Becoming Hitchcock... the Making of Blackmail is a 2024 documentary I just saw on TCM.

It takes a look at the first Hitchcock talkie, Blackmail, also released as a silent film, and how he framed moments differently in each.

The documentary also traces back those Hitchcock touches and how he applied them to his various films - his use of landmarks, types of murders, food, artwork, screams, etc., all fascinating, some less obvious than others until you see them brought together in a documentary.

At one point, the narrator directed the viewer to a partial sign in one scene that read sex to come - we don't know what the rest of it said, but it was deliberate on Hitch's part.

I'd like to point out some other subtle sexual references- the obvious train going into the tunnel at the end of North by Northwest is one. However, the best is the magazine Grace Kelly is reading at the end of Rear Window: Himalayas.

In Blackmail, there is a scene where Anny Ondra is undressing as Cyril Ritchard plays the piano and sings about a date night. Very reminiscent to me of Kim Novak, now transformed back in James Stewart's vision, emerges from the bathroom. Hitch described that as a man waiting to make love to a woman.

These moments, so many captured in this documentary, help us appreciate the subtleties in Hitchcock's work, sometimes missed as we watch the attractive villain, the normal man in unusual circumstances, the bomb we but the characters don't know is about to go off.

Highly recommended.

This documentary focuses on elements of Hitchcock's style found in Blackmail, Hitchcock's and England's first talking film, and relates it to other films that Hitchcock made both before and after Blackmail.

The plot in Blackmail is pretty simple - perhaps that is why it was chosen as an example? In it, a girl has an argument with her cop boyfriend and ends up in the apartment of an artist who attempts to rape her. She fights back and ends up stabbing him to death with a bread knife. She's observed leaving the scene, and is blackmailed as a result.

By analyzing different scenes in Blackmail the narrator talks about common themes in Hitchcock films - "The Blonde", the importance of food, landmarks, artwork, etc.

Another interesting thing that this documentary does is compare the silent and sound versions of the breakfast table scene in Blackmail. In the sound version, Alice jumps at every mention the neighbor makes of the word "knife". She's discussing the murder that Alice committed, and you can't hear anything else she's saying other than the word "knife" as the camera focuses on a traumatized Alice. The silent version can't do anything nearly as artistic with this scene.

I guess one of the things I took away from this documentary that really was never directly mentioned is that, from the beginning, Hitchcock really understood how to direct talking film. That may not seem like much until you look at the early sound work of other directors, including many prominent ones such as John Ford, who seemed to forget, at least temporarily, everything they ever knew about the art of motion picture making when confronted with sound in film.

I'll admit my bias off the top: I think Hitchc0ck in England was a cinematic genius. Whereas Hitchc-ck in Hollywood was a hack. So this little documentary should interest me, yes?

Wrong.

I mean, the movie images are there.

But the writing is so dull my attention kept wandering. Yet it gets worse: the narration drove me to imdb to check whether it was generated by AI. Who talks like this? Apparently, Elvis Mitchell does.

He speaks like he's inserting random commas and periods in sentences. Very distracting.

He's also a monotone.

I'd be interested in re-watching this documentary if they re-record the narration. There might actually be something interesting here.

This is a wonderful documentary that I think Hitchcock fans will enjoy. I watched it on TCM in conjunction with watching both the silent version of Blackmail and then the talkie version and it was the ultimate set up allowing me to enjoy Blackmail in a way I wouldn't have otherwise. The clips and images in this documentary were my favorite part as the narrator cycles through the common themes of Hitchcock's films. Food, Sex, the cameo, the blond, the villains, the music, iconic locations, the big chase scene, and murder weapons...all discussed with cross film comparisons and mostly starting right here in the first Hitchcock talkie, Blackmail.

My favorite part of this documentary was the side by side comparisons between the Silent and Talkie versions of Blackmail. Absolutely worth watching.

Elvis Mitchell talks us through Hitchcock's first sound feature, and discusses how to view Hitchcock's later works by repeated themes and techniques.

There is a conflict in looking at artists in any medium. Do we value them for their protean ability or for their particular style? Do we admire William Wyler, who could work in many, disparate genres and produce great movies, or the specialist, like Hitchcock. Hitchcock worked mostly with thrillers, his themes murder, death, pursuit, and flight. Yes, yes, his morbid wit was always on display, and he directed several straight comedies, and even one musical. But is anyone going to claim greatness for MR. AND MRS. SMITH or WALTZES FROM VIENNA? I think not.

The best thing to do is to admire both Wyler and Hitchcock when they are on their games. We admire Hitchcock for his constant visual inventiveness. Yet , as Mitchell points out, he reused stuff constantly, from the blonde leading lady to the mirror shot. Was this the first time Hitchcock used these? Frankly, I couldn't say. But Mitchell claims it, so for the sake of argument, I will concede the points. Does this lay hob with the assertion of his constant inventiveness?

Yes. In fact, it argues a particular style. Critics love style, because it offers them a cheat-sheet approach to a work of art. Pointing out style can make someone look clever, like being able to identify a particular painter. Us less exalted audience members enjoy them because they work. They're a technique that works. Unless they're used at every opportunity until they become lazy and cloying Look at one Margaret Keane painting, and you may appreciate them. Look at a thousand of her big-eyed subjects and they become monstrous and lazy. Hitchcock may have been monstrous. I think he enjoyed that. But he was never lazy.