# What Hitchcock movies should I watch? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 16, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073 "2005-01-16T20:58:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/1 "2005-01-16T20:58:16Z")
I’ve decided to try and watch all of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies. I’ve seen _Vertigo_, _The Birds_, _Rear Window_, _Psycho_, and _Rope_. Which other ones should I see? Is it worth it to see some of the early ones? I have most of them in my Netflix que. ---
**Author:** ![snorlax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@snorlax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snorlax)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/2 "2005-01-16T21:07:06Z")
\*North by Northwest \* is the obvious omission here. _Strangers on a Train_ is another slightly earlier classic. I’m also a fan of _The 39 Steps_. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/3 "2005-01-16T21:11:53Z")
Don’t miss _Rebecca_ , the only best picture academy award winner. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/4 "2005-01-16T21:20:11Z")
I’ve always enjoyed _Foreign Correspondent_. ---
**Author:** ![AveDementia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc8723/32.png) [@AveDementia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AveDementia)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/5 "2005-01-16T21:20:25Z")
I vote for _Notorious_. I saw it a few weeks ago and was spellbound. Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant are excellent. I thought it started kind of slow, but about 20 minutes in it picked up the pace. It was riveting. And the ending! Oh my god, I think I had my nose pressed against the screen! Newfound respect for everyone involved, let me tell ya. ---
**Author:** ![Julius\_Henry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@Julius\_Henry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Julius_Henry)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/6 "2005-01-16T21:37:49Z")
Another vote for Notorious. It’s my favorite. I also like _The Lady Vanishes_, _Shadow of a Doubt_, _Lifeboat_, and _Spellbound_. Watch quite of few more of his movies before you see _North by Northwest_. It’ll be easy to catch all of his jokes that way. ---
**Author:** ![richardb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/96bed5/32.png) [@richardb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/richardb)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/7 "2005-01-17T00:53:21Z")
“What Hitchcock movies should I watch?” Short answer: All of them! I certainly agree with everyone else’s choices. Another classic that comes to mind: either version of The Man Who Knew Too Much. The newer 1956 version is the one with Doris Day singing Que Sera Sera, but the earlier 1934 version is also good (how many directors remake their own films, anyways?) A Hitchcock oddity is The Trouble With Harry, Hitchcock’s only comedy (although still clearly a Hitchcock film: the trouble with Harry is that he is dead). His very early films are fascinating just from a film historian point of view. You can see him experiment with some early techniques. One early film whose title I can’t remember, for example, has an ordinary breakfast conversation being heard by a woman who had to stab a lecherous attacker to death the night before. Gradually all other words of the conversation get softer and softer until she just hears KNIFE! … KNIFE!.. KNIFE! A very cool scene. ---
**Author:** ![richardb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/96bed5/32.png) [@richardb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/richardb)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/8 "2005-01-17T00:56:52Z")
Oh, one more: Dial M For Murder. I doubt you can get it in on disk in it’s 3D version, but if you ever get to see it in 3D with the red and blue glasses at a 3D film festival, go for it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/9 "2005-01-17T01:24:49Z")
**Notorious** (1946) is probably Hitch’s most perfectly-realized film. Not a duff moment in it, with superb cinematography, performances, editing, etc. ent the Criterion edition, if you can specify that, and by all means check out the commentaries and other extras. Hitchcock’s personal favorite of all his movies, however, was **Shadow of a Doubt** ('42), and it is a charmer – a fairly lighthearted, understated slice of small-town Americana as menaced by a slick, big-city charmer (Joseph Cotten) who happens to be a sociopath. I’m also a big fan of Hitch’s romantic espionage thrillers of the 30’s/early WWII era: \*\*The 39 Steps \*\* ('35), **Sabotage** ('36), \*\*The Lady Vanishes \*\* ('38), \*\*Foreign Correspondent \*\* ('40), and \*\*Saboteur \*\* ('42) are the best-known and best-loved works from this period, with \*\*The Man Who Knew Too Much \*\* ('34) and \*\*Secret Agent \*\* ('36) are either less successful as films or less relevant or more problematic in their theme (in **Secret Agent** , John Gielgud plays a British agent during WWI on an justifiable assassination mission!). Similarly, such minor short war films like “Aventure Malgache” from this period and the 1939 Georgian period crime thriller **Jamaica Inn** , a dismissable one-off, are best left to the die-hards. (NB: in some ways, **Notorious** makes a very nice bookend for this war period, with both departures from and adherences to the pre-war formula.) All of these films deserve to be seen and appreciated not just for their signature “Hitchcock moments,” but also for their ideological themes. All have a similar plot: a (typically young or naive) innocent is endangered by sinister, shadowy conspiracy of cynical Central/Eastern European Anarcho-Terrorists [Communists?]/Ur-Nazis/Nazis, finds (or kidnaps) an attractive, key ally of the opposite sex. Together (albeit typically dubiously or unwillingly by the ally figure) they investigate and expose the plotters, and discover they’ve fallen in love during the process. [All together now: “awww…”.] What’s really interesting and particularly eerie about this enemy, as Hitchcock portrays it, is how intimately imbricated it is in our societies, and how respectable (even laudable) and well-camouflaged it is. The anarchist/Nazi enemy could be your husband and small businessman, a society dame and philanthropist, an innocuous-seeming stranger on a train, an eminent psychiatrist, or a diplomat… representing your own country and active in the international peace movement. In short, this enemy has all the advantages: the element of surprise, a well-established network of fellow conspirators, respectability, wealth, guns and the thugs willing to use them, and their ruthless disregard for the lives of others. The hero or heroine, by contrast, is completely outmatched (at least on paper), occupies a humble station in society, and, in countering the conspiracy, embodies some aspect of carnival, or at least departure from social norms. The hero(ine) is introduced as an unremarkable civilian blissfully unaware, as is his society, of the gathering threat. He or she is a naive fiancee or subservient wife, a factory worker, a tourist (or family of tourists) or young journalist out of his depth in a foreign land – or some combination of the above – and may discover the plot either through sheer dumb luck (by being buttonholed by a professional spy in trouble, or happening to witness an assassination, kidnapping, or the like. The old social categories are upturned in this clash between good and evil: the factory worker becomes a fugitive and de facto detective; the greenhorn journalist is toughened up by some swashbuckling field action; the wife sees through her husband and finds a new lover; the young fiancee becomes a detective (and finds a new lover). All the hero(ine) possesses to counter the conspirators is his or her dogged determination, pluck and courage, quick wits and powers of observation, their decency and humanity (which assists them in appealing to fellow citizens and making allies), and a bit of luck… If it hasn’t been done to death already, there’s a terrific dissertation in an examination of the role 1930’s-early '40’s films had in not just warning British and American audiences about the emerging Nazi (and also Stalinist) threat, but in how these films specifically encouraged women as well as men to defy the enemy and defend their communities and families, even at the risk of their own lives, and how that manicchean struggle against Nazism, etc. was portrayed as a romantic adventure, as well as with the usual trappings of espionage, combat, and geopolitics. So that’s my earnest recommendation: Hitchcock’s B&W prewar & early-war romantic espionage thrillers. Enjoy! ---
**Author:** ![E.Thorp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@E.Thorp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E.Thorp)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/10 "2005-01-17T01:45:48Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > I’ve decided to try and watch all of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies. I’ve seen … Which other ones should I see? The rest of them, of course. Not to kill a thread, but doesn’t the OP answer its own question? ---
**Author:** ![psychobunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@psychobunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychobunny)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/11 "2005-01-17T04:36:43Z")
I agree with watching the early English films. If you want to see the classic Hitchcock plot, I recommend watching the following three films in order: **The 39 Steps** , **Saboteur** , then North by **Northwest**. In many ways they are the same movie, and show the progression of his style through the decades. If you are looking for classic Hitchcock that must not be missed, you need to watch **Notorious** , \*\*Dial M for Murder \*\* (great in 3-D, but still excellent in 2-D), and **Strangers on a Train**. I also recommend **Frenzy**. If you are interested in the really early films, then get **Blackmail** (the one with the “knife, knife” thing) and **Murder**. Heck, I agree with see them all, except **Under Capricorn**. That one really sucks. I mean really, really sucks. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/12 "2005-01-17T04:46:12Z")
Of the later films, my vote goes to _Frenzy_ and _Family Plot_ - his last film. I have now seen _Torn Curtain_ twice and still think it was total bunkum. Julie Andrews was a mistake. _Topaz_ (the Cuban missile crisis film) attracts hostile reviews. I personally don’t think it’s really necessary to watch Saboteur. _The 39 Steps_ and \*North by Northwest are in a different class, and anyway the gap between _The 39 Steps_ and _Saboteur_ is only a few years, while there’s a quarter century between the other two. ---
**Author:** ![mrunlucky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mrunlucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrunlucky)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/13 "2005-01-17T06:53:58Z")
I recommend **Torn Curtain** long before I would recommend **Frenzy** , the latter of which seems like Hitchcock at his laziest, and most repetitive. I would wager that if you become a fan of Hitchcock you’ll like **Torn Curtain**. It’s typically maligned, but I think more because of the pacing and general grim mood. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/14 "2005-01-17T11:12:08Z")
> [@richardb](#): > > Oh, one more: Dial M For Murder. I doubt you can get it in on disk in it’s 3D version, but if you ever get to see it in 3D with the red and blue glasses at a 3D film festival, go for it. Nope, not red and blue glasses. _Dial M for Murder_ was a color movie, hence it was shown with uncolored polarized lenses on the projectors and in the eyeglasses. Fact is, even most black and white 3D movies were shown with polarized lenses, not the red and blue specs. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/15 "2005-01-17T11:20:54Z")
> [@richardb](#): > > A Hitchcock oddity is The Trouble With Harry, Hitchcock’s only comedy May I point out [The Farmer’s Wife](http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0018876/amazon) and [Mr. & Mrs. Smith](http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0033922/taglines). ---
**Author:** ![richardb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/96bed5/32.png) [@richardb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/richardb)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/16 "2005-01-17T11:45:39Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > May I point out [The Farmer’s Wife](http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0018876/amazon) and [Mr. & Mrs. Smith](http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0033922/taglines). Gee… for all these years I thought The Trouble With Harry was his only comedy! That’s what I get for repeating what I’ve been told without actually checking into it myself. I can understand not knowing about The Farmer’s Wife as it was made in 1928 and I’ve only seen a couple of his real early films (The Lodger and Blackmail, I think), but I’m surprised I am so unaware of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. (That’s not also the title of the new Brad Pitt / Angelina Jolie movie coming out, is it?) I’ll have to make a point to check it out sometime. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/17 "2005-02-15T13:51:51Z")
I just finished **Spellbound**. I hope this is the worst of Hitchcock’s movies, because this one was just too slow. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/18 "2005-02-15T14:26:22Z")
**North by Northwest** is the best of them. I didn’t care for the original **Man Who Knew Too Much** , honestly. I thought it was a bit hokey, and limped along. **Strangers on a Train** , **The 39 Steps** , \*\*Shadow of a Doubt \*\* - all excellent. ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/19 "2005-02-15T17:31:39Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > Of the later films, my vote goes to _Frenzy_ and _Family Plot_ - his last film. I have now seen _Torn Curtain_ twice and still think it was total bunkum. Julie Andrews was a mistake. _Topaz_ (the Cuban missile crisis film) attracts hostile reviews. > > I personally don’t think it’s really necessary to watch Saboteur. _The 39 Steps_ and \*North by Northwest are in a different class, and anyway the gap between _The 39 Steps_ and _Saboteur_ is only a few years, while there’s a quarter century between the other two. Roger! You got to nail Eva Marie Saint and \* North by Northwest \* isn’t your favorite?? It’s mine, and I’ve never had the pleasure… ---
**Author:** ![Odinoneeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/97f17d/32.png) [@Odinoneeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odinoneeye)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073/20 "2005-02-15T21:45:22Z")
Well since pretty much every film has been mentioned, I’ll just let you know my favorites. The Lady Vanishes (also could be considered a comedy) Strangers on a Train The Trouble with Harry North by Northwest Family Plot I read a few reviews of Family Plot that said it wasn’t that great. That he was already sick and it showed, but I loved it. It’s almost a reversal in that near the start of the movie, the audience has the whole backstory but the characters don’t so you see them making mistakes since they don’t know as much about whats going on as you do. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-hitchcock-movies-should-i-watch/285073.md?page=2)