This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The main Hitchcock article was too long, at 92 megabytes, and was slow to load. Therefore to create this article seemed like a logical way to split it up. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I also copied the following discussion from the main article talk page because it is relevant here.
Invertzoo (
talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
........................................................
The 'motifs' section is currently original research. While much of what it is saying may be true, it needs references to confirm that these motifs have been noted in reliable sources. Currently, the section contains numerous references, but they are all to the IMDb pages on the films and the actors. This is absurd as (a) these pages don't say anything about the motifs and (b) even if they did, IMDb is not a reliable source as it is constructed the same way as Wikipedia, by anonymous users. Cop 663 ( talk) 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
......................................................................
Why isn't the theme of homoeroticism ever mentioned? Hitchcock's films are full of homoeroticism. The article mentions sexuality only briefly to investigate why a train goes into a tunnel after Cary Grant climbs into bed with Eva Marie Saint. That's not good enough. Hitchcock was a student to Oscar Wilde material. Characters' sexuality is a lot more overt than people initially read in Hitchcock films. You talked about voyeurism, but that's only a start. Take "Rope," for instance, influenced by a real, famous murder incident, two friends plot a murder together and carry it out. Don't tell me they just like to drink together when they're plotting murders for their own personal enjoyment--and for nothing more. The bad guy is usually so likeable because he's usually a little bit gay. The joke is the innocent man getting presumed guilty of a crime he didn't commit, because this alone is humorously attractive to the homoerotic perspective. Take "North By Northwest," where James Mason and Martin Landau get into a fight, and the enjoyment they get in planning to throw Eva Marie Saint from an airplane to a watery death when they find out she's a secret agent, a scuffle they hide from her when she comes in asking about all the noise. Or, "Dial M for Murder," because Ray Milland is getting another guy, guilty of another crime, to murder his wife with her stocking, a sexual item. There's a distinction between the innocent and the guilty in their erotic pleasures. Something should be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurblenheim ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wywtk added mentions of the left-handedness of the characters played by Eva Marie Saint, Kim Novak, and Tippi Hedren to their articles. I've deleted them. However, I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning here.
Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following: "For example, in Psycho, Norman Bates reaches first for room key number 3, then number 1. Also, the license plate on the car Marion is driving adds up to 13." It not only consists entirely of original research, the claims of Hitchcock's intention are likely speculative. The entire "Number 13" section, like the rest of the page, needs citation. 07:28, 27 September 2008 Davepattern (talk | contribs)
I found this article while searching for information about Hitchcock's bomb theory of suspense. ( This was the revision at the time.) I see the discussion above of how it came to exist and I absolutely agree that it is the definition of original research. There are all of two sources cited over 28 sections. Black people appear in Hitchcock films, and this is significant according to ...? And editors are still adding new examples, such as the "Ships" section added in December. Yeah, a freaking ship appears in a film. So what?
I have considered putting the article up for deletion, or unilaterally redirecting it somewhere. But in the interests of gradual improvement, I am going to instead remove many sections from it and then see how it looks. Do not restore them without comment 24.7.14.87 ( talk) 20:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of similarities to Hitchcockian; should the pages be combined to some degree? It's been over a decade since this page was created, and it's still rife with original research. This specific page doesn't have much information not already in Hitchcock's filmmaking section. Immacritic101 ( talk) 04:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The main Hitchcock article was too long, at 92 megabytes, and was slow to load. Therefore to create this article seemed like a logical way to split it up. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I also copied the following discussion from the main article talk page because it is relevant here.
Invertzoo (
talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
........................................................
The 'motifs' section is currently original research. While much of what it is saying may be true, it needs references to confirm that these motifs have been noted in reliable sources. Currently, the section contains numerous references, but they are all to the IMDb pages on the films and the actors. This is absurd as (a) these pages don't say anything about the motifs and (b) even if they did, IMDb is not a reliable source as it is constructed the same way as Wikipedia, by anonymous users. Cop 663 ( talk) 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
......................................................................
Why isn't the theme of homoeroticism ever mentioned? Hitchcock's films are full of homoeroticism. The article mentions sexuality only briefly to investigate why a train goes into a tunnel after Cary Grant climbs into bed with Eva Marie Saint. That's not good enough. Hitchcock was a student to Oscar Wilde material. Characters' sexuality is a lot more overt than people initially read in Hitchcock films. You talked about voyeurism, but that's only a start. Take "Rope," for instance, influenced by a real, famous murder incident, two friends plot a murder together and carry it out. Don't tell me they just like to drink together when they're plotting murders for their own personal enjoyment--and for nothing more. The bad guy is usually so likeable because he's usually a little bit gay. The joke is the innocent man getting presumed guilty of a crime he didn't commit, because this alone is humorously attractive to the homoerotic perspective. Take "North By Northwest," where James Mason and Martin Landau get into a fight, and the enjoyment they get in planning to throw Eva Marie Saint from an airplane to a watery death when they find out she's a secret agent, a scuffle they hide from her when she comes in asking about all the noise. Or, "Dial M for Murder," because Ray Milland is getting another guy, guilty of another crime, to murder his wife with her stocking, a sexual item. There's a distinction between the innocent and the guilty in their erotic pleasures. Something should be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurblenheim ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wywtk added mentions of the left-handedness of the characters played by Eva Marie Saint, Kim Novak, and Tippi Hedren to their articles. I've deleted them. However, I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning here.
Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following: "For example, in Psycho, Norman Bates reaches first for room key number 3, then number 1. Also, the license plate on the car Marion is driving adds up to 13." It not only consists entirely of original research, the claims of Hitchcock's intention are likely speculative. The entire "Number 13" section, like the rest of the page, needs citation. 07:28, 27 September 2008 Davepattern (talk | contribs)
I found this article while searching for information about Hitchcock's bomb theory of suspense. ( This was the revision at the time.) I see the discussion above of how it came to exist and I absolutely agree that it is the definition of original research. There are all of two sources cited over 28 sections. Black people appear in Hitchcock films, and this is significant according to ...? And editors are still adding new examples, such as the "Ships" section added in December. Yeah, a freaking ship appears in a film. So what?
I have considered putting the article up for deletion, or unilaterally redirecting it somewhere. But in the interests of gradual improvement, I am going to instead remove many sections from it and then see how it looks. Do not restore them without comment 24.7.14.87 ( talk) 20:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of similarities to Hitchcockian; should the pages be combined to some degree? It's been over a decade since this page was created, and it's still rife with original research. This specific page doesn't have much information not already in Hitchcock's filmmaking section. Immacritic101 ( talk) 04:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)