Hitchcock provides only one of many possible approaches to cinema. He is not and never has been a raw realist. To enjoy Hitchcock's films, one must accept the fact that he reprocesses reality into pliable cinematic images. His is, therefore, more a cinema of signs than of essences. He has never been interested in sensuality for its own sake. His vision of life is more Freudian than Jungian, in that he does not allow any possibility of heroic regeneration. Fear is far more common than courage, and helplessness more prevalent than courage. His theory of character could be faulted on Aristotelian grounds if there were any claims made for Hitchcock as a cinematic tragedian, but there are not and have never been. His most frequently employed mode of expression is a dark and morbid variety of comedy, which he himself has invented. (p. 46)
Andrew Sarris, "The Hitchcock Heritage," in The Village Voice (reprinted by permission of The Village Voice; copyright © News Group Publications, Inc., 1979), Vol. XXIV, No. 14, April 2, 1979, pp. 45-6.
This is a free excerpt of 176 words. There are 180 words (approx.
1 page at 300 words per page) in the full critical essay.
Read the rest of this Criticism with our (Sir) Hitchcock, Alfred 1899–1980: Critical Essay by Andrew Sarris Access Pass.
