Suspicion - little known Hitchcock TV series - featured several Welles players

[Harvey Chartrand]

Episodes of Suspicion featuring Orson Welles’ colleagues:

Richard Long (The Stranger): Four O'Clock (1957) [directed by Alfred Hitchcock]

Burgess Meredith (Five Kings): Hand in Glove (1957)

Everett Sloane (Citizen Kane, Journey into Fear, The Lady from Shanghai, Prince of Foxes): The Flight (1957)

Joseph Cotten (Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, Journey into Fear, Touch of Evil, F for Fake) and Philip Van Zandt (Citizen Kane): The Eye of Truth (1958) [based on a story by Eric Ambler, author of Journey into Fear]

Roddy McDowall (Macbeth): The Woman with Red Hair and The Imposter (1958)

Agnes Moorehead (Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons): The Protégé (1958)

Edmond O’Brien (The Other Side of the Wind): Death Watch (1958)

Michael Rennie (The Black Rose): The Woman Who Turned to Salt (1958)

There was even an episode titled A Touch of Evil (1958), starring Audrey Totter, John Carradine and Harry Guardino.

Cinematography on some episodes was by John L. Russell, DOP on Welles’ Macbeth.

[Glenn Anders]

Harvey: You might lead us down a road with no end in this fertile topic.

You should add, in your more succinct form, that Edmond O'Brien, incidentally a fellow magician, acted for Welles as Brutus in his 1938 Modern Dress Julias Caesar. O'Brien left Broadway shortly to go to Hollywood to begin his long film career. Because O'Brien has a major role in THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, it may be said that, like Jed Leland, he was with Welles before the beginning and then at the end.

Glenn

[mteal]

PB: Alfred Hitchcock is a terrible actor

OW: He's not an actor, he's a personality. He's a comic turn. That's not an actor.

PB: OK, we'll drop that.

OW: He's not an actor. He does that comic turn at the beginning and end of his TV show. That's not acting. It's only acting when it's not him. It's a comic turn, like you do at a party.

PB: I see what you mean, yes.

OW: It's like "Peter, do your imitation of Jerry Lewis". So Hitchcock does his imitation of Hitchcock.You can't call that acting. It may be an admirable comic turn, or it may be unendurably painful, as I find it. So I don't know where to look, so that every dear friend of mine, and all women simply cannot keep the TV on when he starts, they find it so disgusting. And I must say I do.

PB: Well, that wasn't what I was referring to.

OW: I know it's supposed to be funny, but it's deeply painful.

PB: I never even saw those shows.

OW: They're on every night. I'll show you tonight if you want.

[Tashman]

"so disgusting" / "deeply painful"

Might have been overstating his case just a touch. I assume Peter's opening line here was in reference to Welles' idea that all directors are actors?

[The Night Man]

I suspect there was a deep (and largely unspoken) mututal rivalry between Hitchcock and Welles, which makes these comments particularly interesting. Both men came to Hollywood at about the same time and saw their first Hollywood productions released within spitting distance of one another.

Hitchcock was a relentless self-promoter who prided himself on his artistic and technical advances in the cinema. Although REBECCA won an Academy Award for best picture, it was essentially a very conventional film (though a thoroughly accomplished one). CITIZEN KANE did not win best picture, but it was a recognized cinematic milestone and undoubtedly Hitchcock was aware of it and its reputation. Hitchcock had had to toil under the heavy thumb of David Selznick while Welles enjoyed carte blanche at RKO (which had passed on signing Hitch). I doubt that Hitchcock's healthy ego would have responded well to the contrasting situations.

I also can't imagine he was unaware of Welles' success at self-promotion throughout the Thirties. Hitchcock had also learned the benefits of self-promotion early in his career.

But then Welles hit a wall when his RKO tenure ended so disasterously.

Is it total coincidence that the hero of Hitchcock's 1942 SABOTEUR is named Kane? Is it total coincidence that Hitchcock used Joseph Cotten in his 1943 SHADOW OF A DOUBT? Is it coincidence that Hitchcock used Norman Lloyd in both SABOTEUR and SPELLBOUND? Certainly the Houseman connection must be taken into account, but is that connection pure coincidence? There are other, later, intersections in the two men's work (some of which have probably already been discussed here), the most obvious being the Janet Leigh-in-a-motel aspects of TOUCH OF EVIL and PSYCHO.

Norman Lloyd was, I believe, the producer of the television show SUSPICION as well an associate producer of ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS and THE ALFRED HITCHCOCK HOUR. That would explain some of the use of so many Welles-associated actors in both those series. Welles' FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH seems to me to aspire to a certain ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS-like quality. Welles was surely aware that from 1955 to 1960 Hitchcock's show was rated annually as one of the most popular programs, and perhaps he hoped to create a similar success. Welles' unused F FOR FAKE trailer also strikes me as an attempt to pull off (in his own way) a Hitchcock-like moment - a coming attraction similar to Hitchcock's own well-known humorous trailers. And what about the similarity of the bulging-eyes-and-tongue close-ups of the strangled characters in TOE and FRENZY?

Maybe all this is old news to people here, but reading Welles' somewhat vicious comments on Hitchcock brought this to mind.

[Harvey Chartrand]

Orson Welles once predicted that Alfred Hitchcock's films would date quickly and be forgotten, while John Ford's more timeless work would endure.
The exact opposite seems to have happened, with Ford vanishing into the mists of time while Hitchcock is still uppermost in the public consciousness. Hitchcock's old TV shows are now being released on DVD; 50 years on, they are splendid. The adjective "Hitchcockian" is now part of our daily vocabulary, used to describe a scene of unbearable suspense. I don't hear the adjective "Fordian" used at all to describe a certain western ambience. Ford was too homespun and too much of a jingoistic flag-waver for today's audiences to accept, whereas Hitchcock's darkly humorous world view travels well. (THE JAR, a 1964 episode of THE ALFRED HITCHCOCK HOUR, is Hitchcock's spooky take on the dark side of John Ford; the episode was directed by Norman Lloyd and co-starred Jane Darwell from THE GRAPES OF WRATH.)
Welles' attitude toward Hitchcock shows that he really had no conception of what went into making a commercially successful film. He tried and tried, but just couldn't get the hang of it. Commercial success eluded him precisely because he couldn't integrate high art with crowdpleasing stories the way Hitchcock did.
As for the attacks on Hitchcock's physical appearance, shame on you, Orson! Then again, Welles asked that the insulting comments he made about Hollywood personalities who were then still alive be deleted from THIS IS ORSON WELLES.

[Store Hadji]

I'm not a fan of bowdlerizers, personally.

[Tashman]

Is it a total coincidence that Hitchcock used Joseph Cotten in his 1943 SHADOW OF A DOUBT?

No. They both were under contract to Selznick. (I do wonder—and it's pure speculation on my part, I'm not any great reader of Selznick bios or memoranda—if Cotten's contract wasn't helped a great deal by starring on the stage in The Philadelphia Story with Hepburn, in addition to his work with Welles.) But note the attraction to Cotten for the director: by most accounts and by outward appearance one of the kindest souls in the business, and played to type by Welles and Selznick, Cotten's persona was flipped by Hitchcock in DOUBT. And in UNDER CAPRICORN he played him physically against type as well, some would say to his disadvantage; Hitchcock let him stretch.

Is it total coincidence that the hero of...SABOTEUR is named Kane? ...that Hitchcock used Norman Lloyd in both SABOTEUR and SPELLBOUND?

I think yes, these are most likely coincidences. Among the other, later intersections, Bernard Herrman would be the one notable name. But even there, Herrman was simply great independent of who he was working with, or who launched him to prominence. ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY and THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR are two of his finest works, for instance. And Hitchcock didn't link up with him until the mid-'50s, and then used him quite distinctively.

However, I probably disqualify myself from the conversation, since I've never subscribed to the idea that there's any great revelation in the common denominators of TOUCH OF EVIL and PSYCHO, the observation of which is seemingly always used to imply something against the latter. But if it's allowed that Hitchcock was directly inspired by seeing Leigh abducted in a motel in black-and-white (and by "directly", I mean more than in just a casting decision), then the only conclusion that follows is how vastly different and personal a movie he came up with around that inspiration. Two minutes of visual comparison tells you who the filmmakers are, and that they are miles apart from one another, just as the films bear no resemblance thematically or in atmosphere. It's true that Hitchcock utilized his television dp for PSYCHO who happened to have once worked for Welles. There again, if anything, the result of Hitchcock's experiment only underscores that his visual style was his regardless of the circumstances, and was not dependent on Robert Burks (nor the influence of other filmmakers).

Ford was too homespun and too much of a jingoistic flag-waver for today's audiences to accept, whereas Hitchcock's darkly humorous world view travels well.

It is one stumbling block for Ford with today's audience that when he puts a flag in a picture, and finds meaning in flags, that he will be called jingoistic as a result. But inasmuch as this is a problem, the problem isn't Ford's (who was rarely if ever a jingo – though perhaps in his Irish pictures he was). The bottom line, however, is much more depressing than this. Today's audience, no matter how you slice it, is only more awake to the idea of Hitchcock than to the idea of Ford. In fact, as a rule they will sit down to watch neither one's films. Should they happen to do so, the directors are found equally inadequate to their standards of drama or entertainment. I suspect today's John Wayne fans prefer his films (save for maybe THE QUIET MAN) with Hathaway or Hawks. And if they use the word Hitchcockian about a film, they mean it was suspenseful – like someone saying their favorite kind of music is Sinatra.

[mteal]

I've never subscribed to the idea that there's any great revelation in the common denominators of TOUCH OF EVIL and PSYCHO, the observation of which is seemingly always used to imply something against the latter. But if it's allowed that Hitchcock was directly inspired by seeing Leigh abducted in a motel in black-and-white (and by "directly", I mean more than in just a casting decision), then the only conclusion that follows is how vastly different and personal a movie he came up with around that inspiration.

Here's another similarity that Welles noticed-

PB: What about the Dennis Weaver character in TOUCH OF EVIL? I've always loved that character and it's completely Wellesian.

OW: Well, what's fascinating about that character is that he appeared three years later in a motel played by Tony Perkins.

It seems apparent from these excerpts that Welles was envious - or even jealous - of Hitchcock as a far-more-successful rival act, one that kept stepping on his toes artistically. Here he tries to make amends somewhat by giving Hitchcock a rather back-handed compliment:

OW: We've got a weakness in our dialogue which we've got to rectify. That's why we've got to resurrect other opinions and critics and get me on that. Because, you know, I really don't disagree with you except on a few people and then only in degree. Only a few that I really disagree with. For example, you've got the Hitchcock thing wrong entirely, because I really do think he's a supreme craftsman, and I have more respect for the really good craftsman and entertainers then most people do. Therefore, when I say someone is a supreme craftsman that is more of a compliment then it would mean from most. But I do deny that (Hitchcock) is an artist, or has ever been brushed by the wings of art for a moment.

PB: That's where we disagree.

OW: Yes. Meanwhile, I don't know if we want to get into a thing like that where I disagree with you. I don't want to get on Hitchcock.

PB: No.

OW: But I think we should get onto something where we disagree. But I don't think our disagreement about Hitchcock is fruitful, because it isn't strong enough to be entertaining or informative.

[Tashman]

Yeah, the trouble with Norman/Night Man comparisons, and maybe the bottom line for this whole parlor game, is the name Robert Bloch. Unlike Welles and "Badge of Evil," Hitchcock actually followed his author:

INT: How did you feel about the adaptation?

Bloch: I was absolutely delighted. You know, it's generally the case that they take a title and the book and change it radically. But, in this case, it was about ninety percent from my book. He made only two drastic changes. He downgraded the age of Norman Bates, which was necessary visually. If they had presented a middle-aged man on the screen at that time, you'd automatically suspect that he must be the villain. So, that was a brilliant stroke on his part. The other thing he did was take a large segment of scenes that were in the book, but didn't describe fully. But the rest of it, the characters, the setting, various devices, all came from the book, right down to the last line.

INT: How did the novel get to Alfred Hitchcock?

Bloch: It had been published by Simon & Schuster and had had a very laudatory review in The New York Times, which Hitchcock read. He immediately decided to buy it, it was that simple.
------

I agree with mteal that Welles had a minor complex about Hitchcock. (And in his defense, working in Hollywood will make anyone paranoid.) I just don't agree with others that this was in any way a mutual gamesmanship situation. I don't think Hitchcock gave much thought to anyone but himself.

For those of us who don't have these tapes handy, mteal... Did Bogdanovich say Hitch was a bad actor in the context of Welles' theory about all great writers and directors being actors?

[mteal]

For those of us who don't have these tapes handy, mteal... Did Bogdanovich say Hitch was a bad actor in the context of Welles' theory about all great writers and directors being actors?

I don't have the original tapes, so I don't know the context in which Hitchcock's 'acting ability' was discussed. These are merely random transcribed scraps of OW/PB conversation I obtained, that for the most part, did not make it into the final published edition of TIOW. Some of these conversation scraps were literally on scraps of paper themselves, as if they were to have been thrown away. I would assume Bogdanovich still has the original recordings, but you never know. After the book and audio cassette of TIOW were released, alot of the leftover stuff may possibly have been junked. I would hope not, though.

[The Night Man]

Yeah, the trouble with Norman/Night Man comparisons, and maybe the bottom line for this whole parlor game, is the name Robert Bloch. Unlike Welles and "Badge of Evil," Hitchcock actually followed his author

My guess is that everyone here is already aware that Bloch wrote the novel PSYCHO and that Hitchcock followed it closely, but thanks for pointing it out. The real bottom line, however, is that it was Hitchcock's choice to turn Bloch's novel into a film and cast Janet Leigh, just as it was Hitchcock's choice to cast Joseph Cotten in SHADOW OF A DOUBT - Selznick didn't force Hitchcock to use him.

I agree with mteal that Welles had a minor complex about Hitchcock. (And in his defense, working in Hollywood will make anyone paranoid.) I just don't agree with others that this was in any way a mutual gamesmanship situation. I don't think Hitchcock gave much thought to anyone but himself.

And of course that's exactly what Hitchcock would want you to think. If there were only a couple of intersections in their work I might agree with you, but there are too many for me to buy that Welles was just being paranoid.

I may have overstated the case when I said they had a "deep" mutual rivalry because I certainly don't think they sat around obsessing over one another, but I do believe that they were well aware of each other's work and there was some professional rivalry between them.

[R Kadin]

"It is perfectly acceptable to borrow from others, my dear; what we must never do is borrow from ourselves."

- Jake Hannaford