MR. AND MRS. SMITH was NOT Hitchcock’s only comedy; it was just his only comedy without a suspense plot. Almost all of Hitchcock’s films were comedies, with exceptions like Rebecca and The Paradine Case. Family Plot is an entire hoot; ditto NxNW and the Boids.
. . . or artificial and archetypical. Dickens is a good analogy: his characters had depth and range, but only his protagonists had any real humanity; all else were foils. Ditto in Ford: great supporting ensembles–comic choruses–but Ford was hardly a realist. I’d argue that Peckinpah, coming after the Italian Neorealists, was the first director to move the Western off of the soundstage (stylistically speaking; I know Ford shot on location) and into the dust.
That’s my point EXACTLY. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. What makes that sequence so misogynist is the O’H is complicit in her degradation: she lacks the basic human dignity to protest. Or perhaps more accurately, her (and her culture’s) brand of female dignity included such abuse; did not see such treatment as anything a woman would have a right or a reason to object to, even to herself.
That argument would be valid if I were saying that Ford was “required” to make films specifically about female empowerment, which I’m not. I’m saying his films specifically bought into and reinforced women’s position as a second-rates species.
Not quite: Ford puts Jimmy Stewart in an apron to degrade his dignity: the apron is a symbol of Stewarts’ emasculation. His use of the apron reinforces my position, rather than undermining it. The apron is a symbol of weakness and ineffectualness.
Not gonna say this again: I never said it did. I said Ford was a great director, and I said that his misogyny was worth noting. I never suggested they were mutually exclusive. I do not have a litmus test for artistic “greatness,” which is what you’re suggesting.
Chaplin’s women are certainly anything but independent or strong-willed, and I don’t think anyone would deny Chaplin’s greatness. Where’s a strong woman in Hitchcock’s work? . . . .
[/QUOTE]
I would deny Chaplin’s “greatness.” I use the word as a kind of synonym for “genius,” and I don’t use it lightly. Chaplin was important and influential, but for greatness or genius there’d have to be a kind of transcendance of the medium, which I see in Ford, but not in (personally) in Chaplin. Monsieur Verdoux almost achieves greatness, but not quite, IIMHO. (Chaplin’s habit of constantly addressing the camera with his eyes is extremely problematic for me; it seems to serve no purpose, and breaks the flow for me. It also constantly impresses upon me a sense of Chaplin’s smallness, his subconscious need for reassurance and approval, which diminishes his work for me a little.)
Hitchcock’s characters were stylized, but his subtext was almost ALWAYS about the strength and power of women. The Birds is about Woman as a force of nature; most of his other films revolve around a woman–often surrounded by weak or cruel men–who must rely on her own strength and resolve to rise above her situation. (This is why I tend to link Hitchcock to Sirk and Verhoeven.)
Unfair? I don’t think it’s unfair to distinguish those artists who DID rise above their times from those who didn’t. Again, I still think of Ford as a great director, a great artist–personally, I place him above Hitchcock. In any case, you seem to contradict yourself. You can’t have it both ways, CK: either Ford DID in fact portray strong, complex human characters, or he didn’t; either he DID rise above his times, or he didn’t. By suggesting he didn’t rise, you excuse for his misogyny, which you’ve already denied.