D Cairns

Selznick was a force for good AND bad. He had considerable creative input into GONE WITH THE WIND, in some ways more than the director. He argued in favour of THE THIRD MAN's downbeat ending, and tried to protect THE FALLEN IDOL from the US censor. He insisted that Hitchcock honour the original novel of REBECCA, which Hitch resented but which arguably pushed Hitch into more interesting territory.
Of course he also tampered with the Maerican cut of THE THIRD MAN and massively slashed INDISCRETION OF AN AMERICAN WIFE. I think his problem was a desire to somehow direct films by remote control. Sometimes his interference helped the film, more often it hindered.

batman

That's what I meant ... he released US versions of The Third Man and Gone To Earth (as The Wild Heart). I read a biogrpahy of Selznick and many of his collaborators say the he did, indeed, want to direct films but he knew he did not have the technical expertise to do it properly, so he tried to bulldoze his ideas into films by using the infamous re-writes and memos.
Bats.

I'm the cutest bottom judge!

Aaryk Noctivagus

He was a right pain in the neck.

Aaryk Noctivagus

I beg to differ. Hitchcock didn't like sticking close to his source material (unless it was a stage play)... it was his style to take from novels what interested him and dump the rest. Hitch understood that sticking too close to a novel when making a movie is seldom a good idea.

Now, I must admit, in the hands of lesser Directors... I personally prefer them to stick as close as possible to their source material... but in the case of great Director's it is always better to give them as much room as they desire.

Hitchcock had career-long practise at outmanoeuvring people who wished to interfere with his movies and often included material in his screenplays that he knew would not pass the sensors or Selznick so that he could negotiate things that were more important to him but otherwise would have been removed.

Yes, Hitch grew to resent Selznick... who wouldn't have in Hitchcock's position!

D Cairns

"I beg to differ. Hitchcock didn't like sticking close to his source material (unless it was a stage play)... it was his style to take from novels what interested him and dump the rest. Hitch understood that sticking too close to a novel when making a movie is seldom a good idea."

Of course. But REBECCA is an awfully good film, and Hitch wouldn't have made anything like it without Selznick shouting at him. Hitchcock's American films are deeper, more psychological, stranger and more artisitic than his British ones (to take nothing away from them -- many are brilliant), and it all starts with REB.

I mean, at the very least, it's better than JAMAICA INN.

I'm not suggesting, mind you, that Selznick could have done it without Hitchcock.

Aaryk Noctivagus

I cannot accept that Hitchcock's later movies had anything whatsoever to do with Selznick's interference in 'Rebecca'. Its a good movie, but probably the least Hitchcockian of all the American output. I believe it would have been better without Selznick, and that the non-Selznick Hitchcock movies would have been just as good without the experience of 'Rebecca'.

Indeed Selznick was a bit of a blight on Hitchcock's early career progression.

There is no hint whatsoever that the experience of making 'Rebecca' had any affect on Hitchcock's later movies or style, except other Selznick produced ones, 'Spellbound' and 'The Paradine Case').

Also talking about 'Selznick shouting at him' does not reflect what their relationship really was like. If somebody shouted at Hitch, he would simply walk away, and even off set if necessary. Hitchcock was not one who usually permitted himself to be entangled in argument and I think there is only one recorded account of any shouting match between them... and that was later in their relationship and not on a film set.

Selznick's interference was mainly in the script stage of production... Hitch kept him away from Production... and in Post Production Selznick returned (although often manoeuvred around). The guy even kept Hitchcock's (and other Directors) wages down so that they would not be so independant, and had them wrapped up in contracts to their eye-balls.

Selznick was a control freak... and not one which usually aided the artistic elements of the movies he was involved in.

As for the differences between Hitchcock's later American movies and his British ones... well he had more money in America... both in his pocket (after his Selznick years) and in his budgets... this gave him much greater freedom than he had had in Britain (and under Selznick in his Selznick years).

Moor Larkin

I cannot quite recall all the details and it doesn't quite fit your topic but Joseph Losey had a torrid time directing The Gypsy & The Gentleman. He more or less disowned the film in the end because John Davis kept bringing other directors/producers in to speed up the filming. Losey's biggest bugbear was the music apparently - he had liased some specific compositions but was totally over-ridden. He hated it so much that years later when some enthusiasts wanted to show it, he agreed only on condition it was shown as a silent movie!!

I have a feeling an alias of his appeared on the credits at the time, but I think that may have had as much to do with his Hollywood black-listing as anything else. For those that haven't seen the film it prefigures much of 'The Servant' with Keith Michell being reduced to a drink-wrecked man by the insinuating Mercouri gypsy. Mcgoohan plays a sort of evil genius pushing Mercouri along. Torrid sexual desire links the triangle together. Nigel Green features as 'Pug' a bare knuckle fighter and honourable blacksmith....

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

christoph404

That sounds like an interesting film, I've never heard of it! I shall have a look for it, Im a big fan of McGoohan, anything he is in is worth watching, even the episodes of Columbo he guested in during the seventies!!

Steve Crook

That sounds like a case where an "Alan Smithee" would be used. They are used when the director is so disgusted with a film, usually because of outside interference, that they don't want their name to be associated with it. Because every film must have a credited director (according to the American rules) the director's name is given as "Alan Smithee". Look up Alan's credits on the IMDb

Steve

batman

The Yanks have changed it now .... because of Joe Esterhaz's film 'An Alan Smithee Film' the Directors Gulld of America are now using a different name each time a director wants to 'do a Smithee' .... the first one was 'Thomas Lee' used by Walter Hill on 'Supernova' (2000). However, some other countries still use 'Smithee'. There's a good section on this subject on Wikipedia.

Bats (aka Alastair Smythee)

I'm the cutest bottom judge!

rskershaw

Kubrick took over from Mann's direction of 'Spartacus', but ultimately Kubrick was forced to comply with the studio and Douglas' idea of the film, hence, eg., the overtly sentimentality ending.

Aaryk Noctivagus

Why on earth did he wish to disown 'Supernova'?

batman

Is it any good? Ghosts of Mars got slated at the sdame time but I enjoyed that.

Bats

I'm the cutest bottom judge!

Aaryk Noctivagus

I personally like 'Supernova'... very different from 'Ghosts of Mars' though, which I didn't enjoy. Some nice science fictional ideas in 'Supernova'... I wonder why the Director wished to disown it... I guess he was interfered with... I wonder what his vision for the movie was.

batman

According to IMDB the film sat on the shelf for two years while they wondered what to do with it. The suits apparently didn't like it. Francis Ford Coppola was brought in to re-edit and so Walter Hill took his name off it. It also says Walter Hill was a late relacement as director for Geoffrey Wright who quit due to script problems.

Bats

I'm the cutest bottom judge!