PDF The Architect of Desire: Beauty and Danger in the Stanford White Family by Suzannah Lessard in Arts-Photography

Review

4 of 6 people found the following review helpful. HitchcockBy Michael D. ThompsonOH MY GOSH! When I first learn this book was out; I just HAD to have it. I was totally thrilled to find it under our Christmas tree! I am such a Hitchcock fan; I can not wait to read about the "Mother Issues".5 of 7 people found the following review helpful. Great insight!By Martha A BickelThis book breaks down the world of Hitchcocks villains; explaining details into their choices. A must for Hitchcock devotees! Great read.2 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Terrible Hitchcock bookBy Douglas Keith McEwanWell; I finished reading this book. It took me longer than a book so slim should; but I could not stand to read more than two chapters consecutively. This is a bad book. I do not recommend it. Dont bother reading it.Its not the grammatical problems. (The authors never met an infinitive they wouldnt split.) Its not that they use "Hero" and "Protagonist" interchangeably as synonyms; and "Antagonist" and "Villain" interchangeably as synonyms. (Theyre not. In ROPE; for example; the villains are the protagonists and the hero is the antagonist.) Nor was it that kept referring to him as "Sir Alfred" instead of "Hitch." (NO ONE called him Sir Alfred.) Mind; you; those aspects did keep annoying me.Part of what I hated about this book was their delusion that they had insight into Hitchcocks psyche. Each chapter on a specific villain closed with a couple paragraphs on why Hitch WAS that villain; as they cheerfully psychoanalyzed this man they never met; depending way too much on Donald Spotas libelous hatchet job books. I DID meet Hitch; and I would not presume to psychoanalyze him; They kept insisting that Hitch was a friendless; lonely; sexually frustrated outsider; alienated from his family and his domineering mother. Hitch had MANY close; long term friendships; was known for his entertaining at home; with lavish dinner parties his wife cooked personally. He was not lonely. He was close to his family; both his wife and daughter and his siblings and; up until her death; his mother; with whom he had a close loving relationship. (She died while he was filming SHADOW OF A DOUBT; and he gave the mother in that movie her name; Emma; and she was the most warm and loving mother in all of Hitchs oeuvre.)As for his "Sexual Frustration;" no one but Hitch and Alma could speak in an informed manner on that; and neither ever would. (Hitchs claims that he was "Celibate" and that his daughter was conceived with the use of a turkey baster must be taken with a gigantic grain of salt. Its hardly the sort of thing the image-conscious Hitchcock would have discussed truthfully in public; but he knew a good story when he told one.)They are aware that their most outrageous claim is that Jimmy Stewarts "Scottie Ferguson" in VERTIGO is the "Villain" of Vertigo; ignoring that he is the hero; victimized by the actual villains; Gavin Elster and Judy Barton. They decide that Scotties remaking of Judy back into Madeline is villainy; and twice refer to it as "Enslavement;" despite the fact that there is nothing preventing Judy from walking away from Scottie. She CHOOSES to let him remake her; partly because shes in love with him; partly because she feels guilty; knowing that her own perfidy has made this psychological mess of him (Not to mention it being part of murdering an innocent woman for her money); and partly out of fear of having her crimes discovered. Shes the reprehensible one. He is the victim.The authors damn poor old dotty Mrs. Anthony in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN for being complicit in her sons madness. Nonsense. Shes too separated from any reality to be culpable for any of his crimes; except if he maybe inherited her madness (In a more virulent strain) genetically.They repeatedly call Claude Rainss Sebastian in NOTORIOUS "Sympathetic" and a "Nazi sympathizer." No; hes a NAZI; and no Nazi is sympathetic.In PSYCHO they go so far off the rails; it makes me wonder if they ever saw the movie. Here is an exact quote from them on Normans backstory: "The sheltered Bates had fallen in love with a woman; but his mother would not allow it. She forbade Norman to see her. So son kills mother; then; racked with guilt over what he had done; preserves the body."Where the hell did they get that? Not from the movie. Not from the novel. Normans backstory is stated in the movie three times. His mother was the one who fell in love; with a man who "Could have talked her into anything." Norman; jealous; poisons both of them and makes it look like a murder-suicide. Norman tells Marion the official version; the sheriff repeats the official version to Sam and Lila; and the psychiatrist tells everyone the true version. No mention of Norman EVER falling in love with ANYONE except his mother is EVER mentioned! That literally made my jaw fall open in disbelief. I could not believe what I was reading was actually printed on the page.In recounting one of Normans speeches; they quote it thusly: "No one really runs away from anything. Its like a private trap that holds us in a prison. You know what I think? I thin were all in our private traps..." All well and good; except that Norman NEVER says that second sentence; "Its like a private trap that holds us in a prison." That sentence is not in the movie. I dont know where the hell they got it from.And of course; they fall into the easy trap of assuming that Norma Bates was a monster. All we know of Norma Bates is Normans perceptions of her; and hes an unreliable source. Its highly doubtful that she was a warm and loving woman; but thats no reason for accepting a psychotic matricides crazy version of her as a fact. No one else who actually knew her testifies to what she was like.I could go on and on. Do not bother buying or reading this misguided mess of a book.