Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies [Hardcover]

A vulture is a bird of prey that feeds on the flesh of dead animals. This brings to mind Donald Spoto whose third book on Alfred Hitchcock, "Spellbound by Beauty," is a shabby rehash of his second Hitch book, "The Dark Side of Genius," which itself is an exercise in sleaziness. Interestingly, Spoto's first Hitch book, "The Art of Alfred Hitchcock," is an enlightening critical analysis of Hitchcock's movies. And since Hitchcock was still alive when Spoto wrote it, he had only praise for the director.

(This is the same Donald Spoto to whom Hitchcock gave the rare privilege of watching him direct his last feature, "Family Plot." On the book jacket of "Spellbound" is a photo of Spoto with Hitchcock, who is smiling, unaware that that this writer that he has befriended would repay that kindness years later by savagely attacking him and his family.)

After Hitch died, Spoto's claws emerged and he wrote "The Dark Side of Genius," in which he construed every aspect of his subject's life in derogatory ways, using pseudo-psychology to paint a portrait of a mean-spirited serial lecher. The book has an abundance of gaffes, probably because many of those closest to Hitch suspected Spoto's motives and didn't speak to him. Ultimately, it is more fantasy than serious biography due to the author's fabrication of murky sexual motivations for virtually everything Hitch did - on screen and off. Like all artists, Hitch was human and had flaws but Spoto's portrait is simply not the man that his friends and colleagues knew.

Following publication of "Dark Side," friends like James Stewart (who said that he "never saw a dark side"), Cary Grant, Norman Lloyd and numerous others vehemently denied Spoto's horrendous portrait. Hume Cronyn described Hitch as a man of "generosity, kindness and sympathy." Writer Whitfield Cook said "Hitch was difficult sometimes but not a monster" and called Spoto's deductions "ridiculous." Production associate Herbert Coleman called the book simply "false." But positive portraits do not sell books so Spoto created a fiend whose jocular appearance concealed a pathological sadist.

(Patrick McGilligan provides a more objective and honest biography with his "Alfred Hitchcock - A Life in Light and Darkness." The author avoids sensationalism and tells the story of a complex but decent and jovial man who dedicated his life to making movies. McGilligan doesn't gloss over Hitch's failings, but neither does he embellish or create false ones. Also of value is John Russell Taylor's "Hitch," which is far more truthful than Spoto's smear.)

"Spellbound by Beauty" repeats the same rubbish as "Dark Side," with its subject's life and work again filtered through Spoto's warped perspective. He describes Hitchcock as a miserable man filled with self-loathing, a cruel misogynist who verbally abused and sexually harassed his actresses. Once again, the apex of the book is the disputed "Marnie" incident that Spoto alleges represented the pinnacle of the director's repressed desire for his actresses. The source of this incident, in which Hitchcock is supposed to have sexually propositioned Tippi Hedren, is Hedren herself. There were no witnesses so we only have Tippi's word that this happened. It doesn't occur to Spoto to question the veracity of Hedren, whom he elevates to saintly status, because that wouldn't fit into his biased agenda.

(For a far more balanced view of what may or may not have happened, see Tony Lee Moral's "Hitchcock and the Making of Marnie," which exposes many of Spoto's inaccuracies and misstatements about the film's production.)

Spoto's tendency to maliciously interpret everything Hitchcock did and then support his theories with spurious psychiatric jargon is pure psychobabble. He even extends his pseudo-analysis of Hitchcock to his wife and daughter. He depicts a dysfunctional family, portraying Alma as a weak-willed wife whose lack of control over Hitch's mistreatment of women resulted in her "unwitting collusion" to his supposed abuse. Hedren, whose story seems to continually expand with the passing of time, reports that Alma apologized to her for her husband's abusive acts. But Alma is dead so she cannot dispute this. Spoto then describes daughter Patricia's relationship with her father as "tangled and problematic." Spoto nastily implies that Pat's devotion to her father since his death is not genuine but the result of the fact that she "inherited his millions."

(He is childishly punishing Patricia because she responded to "Dark Side" by saying that "Spoto took things and twisted them." For a truthful account of the warm and close relationships of the Hitchcocks, see Pat's "Alma Hitchcock: the Woman Behind the Man" and Charlotte Chandler's "It's Only a Movie," both of which indicate that Spoto not only twisted things but fabricated them.)

The dressing room incident can be interpreted many ways. One example: Prior to filming, it is reported that Grace Kelly is returning to Hollywood to star in "Marnie." But Grace has to withdraw and Hitchcock gives the role to Tippi, who resents being second choice. She knows that she lacks Grace's charisma and, when "The Birds" was released, was stung by critics' unfavorable comparisons of her with Kelly. Feeling inferior, her anger steadily increases during production. One day, Hitch visits her in her dressing room and jokingly engages in sexual banter, which he did with many actresses, most of whom joked along with him. But Tippi explodes with all of her pent-up rage and excoriates the director. After Hitch cancels her contract, offers for other films do not occur. Charles Chaplin sympathetically gives her a supporting role in "A Countess from Hong Kong" and this becomes her last appearance in a major movie as her career then deteriorates into minor roles in B movies and on television. Meanwhile, her bitterness toward Hitch, whom she blames for the collapse of her career, magnifies and looks for an outlet. Enter Spoto who, sensing a goldmine, embroiders her story and provides for her the fame that she never achieved as an actress.

(Grace Kelly's letter of regret to Hitchcock for not being able to star in "Marnie" is one example of the pleasant relationships Hitch had with his actresses; the letter and Hitch's cordial reply can be seen in Bill Krohn's book "Hitchcock at Work." Janet Leigh's "Psycho: Behind the Scenes of the Classic Thriller" provides another example. Janet once referred to Hitch as "an adorable and mischievous teddy bear;" when asked her opinion of Spoto, her irate reply is unprintable.)

The above alternative interpretation of the "Marnie" incident has more credibility than the Spoto-Hedren account in view of the many words of respect and gratitude from - in addition to Grace Kelly and Janet Leigh - such Hitchcock actresses as Ingrid Bergman (who cherished his friendship for the rest of her life), Jane Wyman (who called him "a pussycat"), Joan Fontaine, Teresa Wright, Eva Marie Saint and many others.

Patrick McGilligan provides another more plausible explanation of Hedren's story. When Tippi told Joan Fontaine her version of the incident, Joan told her that it was Hitch's habit to tease his leading ladies by pretending to be a dirty old man but it was always in jest. Joan's correction to Tippi must have made Spoto furious. In "The Art of Alfred Hitchcock," he praised Joan in "Rebecca," for "an extraordinarily delicate and fragile performance that neither she nor we are likely to ever forget." Apparently he forgot, because in "Spellbound," he attacks her acting as inadequate and writes that her performance was "remarkably enhanced in the editing and dubbing rooms." Like a spiteful child, he peevishly reacted to Joan's truthful statement by unjustly castigating her for daring to provide an account of Hitch's actions that has more authority than his own.

Tony Lee Moral provides additionl clues which are useful in determining the truth. Spoto writes that, following Tippi's supoposed rejection of Hitchcock, he was furious and lost all interest in the movie. However, Tony quotes the film's star, Sean Connery, as saying: "I know that Hitch was intrigued by that blond Grace Kelly type of woman but I find it kind of sad to be looking for something like that against somebody as special as Hitch was." Pathetic might be a better word than sad to describe Spoto's obsession. Sean adds, "I adored and enjoyed working with Hitchcock tremendously. He never lost his patience or composure on the set. He certainly wasn't an emotional basket case." In all probability, the tension on the set after the incident and Hitchcock's distance from Tippi was due to her totally inappropriate reaction to Hitch's teasing, something a more experienced actress would never have done.

Spoto attempts to tarnish Hitchcock's genius by writing that his skill was a by-product of his tortured personality. He also tries whenever possible to deny Hitchcock's auteur status by transferring credit for his successes to others. He writes that the triumph of Hitchcock's films are due to "the number of extraordinarily talented women without whose courage, grace and patience we would not have some of the most deeply rewarding movies ever made." It is a wonder that he doesn't accompany this sentence with a drawing of Hitchcock twirling a handle-bar moustache while mercilessly whipping his actresses.

(Though film is a collaborative medium, numerous books attest to Hitchcock's extensive involvement in his films, from pre-production through filming and post-production. No matter how many talented people he worked with, his style and vision always predominated. Thus, Donald, he was an auteur. See "The Alfred Hitchcock Story," by Ken Mogg, "Hitchcock's Notebooks" by Dan Auiler, "Hitchcock -The Murderous Gaze" by William Rothman and "Hitchcock's Films" by Robin Wood, among many others.)

Spoto quotes unnamed people like "a reporter" or "a doctor" to support his slimy portrait. Other assertions also seem to lack truthfulness. He writes that, while Tippi was under contract to Hitchcock, an "impressive list of directors" asked for her services but all were rebuffed by Hitchcock. He does not name any of these directors and he does not explain why they did not again "ask for her services" after she became a free agent. It is also illustrative that Hedren, who displayed skill in her two starring Hitchcock roles, was merely competent in all of her other roles. It is equally informative that Hedren's subsequent career included a terrible television sequel "The Birds II," an equally terrible television remake of Hitch's "Shadow of a Doubt" and an episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents," the revival series filmed after his death. One would think that, since she has repeatedly expressed only contempt and disgust for Hitchcock, she would never again want to be associated with his name. Spoto ignores this incongruity.

Spoto pompously implies that he is the only honest writer on Hitchcock. He chastises other authors for not having the courage to write about Hitchcock's "suffering or the suffering he caused others," implying that only he has such valor. He claims that other authors ignored Hitch's alleged misconduct due to his iconic status. He doesn't consider the fact that these honest writers do not invent squalid falsehoods to sell books. He boasts of his supposed honor in other ways. In explaining the disparity between the narratives in "Dark Side" and "Spellbound, he writes that "several sources asked me to omit their comments until after their deaths," thus proclaiming that his nobility can now allow him to reveal more salacious "facts" in the new book. Of course, someone who is dead cannot call him a liar.

Many years ago, Spoto appeared at the Brattle Theater in Cambridge Massachusetts to host a presentation of "Marnie," which he called "a wonderful film." He even expressed admiration for Hitchcock for "wearing his heart on his sleeve" while making the movie. His hypocrisy knows no bounds. Furthermore, he proclaimed that the name Marnie was Hitch's deliberate combination of the names of the heroines from his two previous movies: "Mar" from Marion of "Psycho" and "nie" from Melanie of "The Birds." One person in the audience disputed this by saying that the movie was based on a novel of the same name. Spoto replied that the novel was "written for Hitchcock." This has since been proven (in Tony Lee Moral's book and by the novel's author Winston Graham) to be totally untrue.

How many other lies does Spoto invent to support his spicy speculations and to sell his sleazy books? If other so-called facts are lies, then the bogus theories they support are without foundation and his house of cards collapses. "Spellbound by Beauty" is a house of cards. It is also the drivel of a vulture.

It is unfortunate that Spoto has taken the gutter route with his two Hitchcock books. Since he was once a respected biographer and film analyst, his artistic decline must upset him. In this latest book, he unconvincingly bemoans his portrait of Hitch as a monster and even implies hollow sympathy for him. This doesn't ring true. Sorry, Donald, but you have no genuine grief for Hitchcock; `Tis Donald you mourn for.

For the record, Donald Spoto has already penned two books on legendary filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock.

Apparently he can't quite get off the subject, because he got around to writing a third -- "Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies," a seething little memoir about Hitch's assorted leading ladies and his reputed sexual obsessions with them. But he can't quite keep the vitriol out of his writing.

The women themselves are an intriguing bunch -- they range from cinematic legends such as Ingrid Bergman, Joan Fontaine, Grace Kelly and Marlene Dietrich to lesser-known actresses like Alida Valli, Margaret Lockwood and Teresa Wright. This exploration of these assorted actresses stretches from the very earliest movies of Hitchcock's fledgling career to his last few movies.

That, for the most part, is the good stuff.

Unfortunately Spoto clearly has some issues with Hitchcock himself. Not only does he lovingly pore over the accounts of Hitchcock's sex life, blonde fetish and crushes on his actresses, but also over any sexual jokes or pranks he played to get the required response from them. Oh horrors -- he brought a pumpkin pie to make someone look grossed-out on set.

And Spoto's obvious contempt for his subject explodes all over the pages with the birds. Spoto seems almost infuriated with Hitchcock for his crush on Tippi Hedren, and works hard to portray him as a revolting old pervert who wants to utterly control the beautiful women in his movies. And his rather lackluster last movies are portrayed as being the sole result of a man who got rejected and fell to pieces. Spoto must really have a crush on Hedren.

The real good point of "Spellbound by Beauty" is that it gives some biographical information on the assorted women who worked with Hitch, who normally don't get attention (such as the vibrant, busy Italian actress Valli or little-known German actress Reinhold Schunzel). Additionally, it explores some of Hitchcock's earlier movies such as "The Lodger," which most people now have not seen.

Unfortunately Spoto goes off the rails after awhile, and starts devoting himself to finding sinister, sexually-charged meaning in everything that Hitchcock ever said or did to an actress. And his tendency to make-over and mold actresses for roles -- or even a series of roles -- is regarded with nothing but the most malevolent motives.

In fact, this goes on and on. Not expressing his thoughts to an actress, making a movie about gay men, sexual jokes, dialogue about attractive women, possible jealousy of attractive men, and even a liking for blondes are all regarded with leering suspicion. And even the most innocent of quotations is often repeated in a rather sinister manner, such as Ingrid Bergman talking about how the movies were "the fantasy of seeing the picture in his mind."

And Spoto's increasingly rabid anger is not restricted to Hitchcock: he sneeringly dismisses Joan Fontaine as a pitifully mediocre actress who happened to be in half-decent movies by a great director. According to him, her well-deserved Oscar was a total mistake.

In short, it's difficult to sift truth from innuendo. Spoto's obvious dislike of Hitchcock and his tendency to apply whatever motives he wants to Hitchcock's actions ("Hitchcock chose fantasy over reality") leaves the book a confusing muddle of contempt and resentment.

Despite a promising premise, "Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and His Leading Ladies" is interesting mainly for the lesser-known actresses it highlights, and not for the contemptuous listing of a great director's flaws.

I have to agree in large part with Mr. Anez's review of this book, particularly regarding its mean-spiritedness dressed up in the guise of responsible journalism, as defined by Mr. Spoto of course.

One particular discrepancy stands out for me and it's related to the author's description of the alleged "make yourself sexually available" incident with Tippi Hedren: In "The Dark Side of Genius" this incident is stated as having taken place in "late Feburary" of 1964. "Alone with Hedren in her trailer after the day's work, he made an overt sexual proposition that she could neither ignore nor answer casually, as she could his previous gestures." In "Spellbound by Beauty" Hitchcock's and Hedren's relationship is stated to "have reached its breaking point in March 1964, near the end of production on the day Tippi was drenched with water for the closeups in the scene in which Connery saves her from an attempted suicide by drowning..." Regarding Hedren's recollection of the incident, Spoto states "Her memories are acute and indelible. 'We were ready for the scene when Hitch called me into his office on the set.' She then goes on to describe his request she be sexually available to him and her reaction to that statment.

So which is it, in February or March? Alone in Hedren's trailer at the end of the day or in Hitchcock's office on the set during the workday? Spoto, who claims to be a responsible journalist in presenting a less than flattering portrait of the director, makes no attempt to reconcile his previous account with his newest one. How is this disregard for reporting facts responsible and how, as a result, are we expected to accept any of his reporting as accurate and responsible?

Hedren herself told the Times Online in 2005 the following:

Twenty-five years after Hitchcock's death, is Hedren now willing to reveal what really happened? "No," she states. "I probably never will."

Why is that? Would it harm his reputation that much? "Yes, I think it would and, you know, it's over and I don't think it's anybody's business."

It wasn't actually a sexual pass? "No, not that."

"More something he said?" She nods.

(See the complete interview by Googling "The Birds Attacked Me, But Hitch Was Scarier").

So, what's the truth? Hedren states to the Times Online that she probably never will say what happened and goes so far as to strongly imply it wasn't sexually related. So did she change her mind and really tell Spoto that it was a sexual pass (assuming that requesting one be "available sexually" counts as a "pass"). What did she tell Spoto when he interviewed her for "The Dark Side of Genius"? She told the Times Online that she had never revealed what really happened.

Who are we expected to believe in this tangle of accusations that hasn't been successfully resolved since Spoto decided to make it an issue in 1983? Was Tippi lying in 2005 or is she lying now? Is Spoto guilty of insinuations and lies instead of responsible journalism?

I prefer to stick with respected film scholar William Rothman's statement made in his review of "The Dark Side of Genius" that none of us can ever know what went on in that trailer (or Hitchcock's office on the set or wherever Spoto and Hedren will have us believe it transpired).

My first thoughts upon reading Spoto's dismissal of Joan Fontaine's remarks and acting abilities are exactly as Mr. Anez describes: sour grapes at being criticized for "The Dark Side of Genius" by a wonderful actress who certainly knew Hitchcock well in the time they worked together.

So make up your own mind as to what you believe happened, which is all any of us can do when presented with yet another attack on anyone, particularly a world famous personality, who is no longer around to defend themself. But always consider the facts that do exist in making your decision as to what you will believe. Spoto, in this new publication, doesn't act responsibly in addressing these and other issues. He only calls his veracity into further question.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 14 reviews  2.6 out of 5 stars