Hitchcock and Bogus Information

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
5,973
Real Name
Bob
In the new Hopkins film, the statement is made, supposedly by Hitchcock to the head of Paramount, that "the last five Martin and Lewis pictures lost money."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Before this myth becomes fact, I present the following.
Martin and Lewis were the sixth top grossing motion picture stars in 1956, and the seventh top grossing stars in 1955.
Here is where their movies ranked on the top 100 grossing films for each year, according to Daily Variety:
THREE RING CIRCUS - #24, $4,000,000
YOU'RE NEVER TOO YOUNG - #28, $3,400,000
ARTISTS AND MODELS - #21, $3,800,000
PARDNERS - #24, $3,600,000
HOLLYWOOD OR BUST - #23, $3,300,000
As you can see, they ranked among the top third-grossing films for each year.
I HATE mis-information like this!
 

Persianimmortal

Screenwriter
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
1,376
Location
Canberra, Australia
Real Name
Koroush Ghazi
I can see some cause for concern, given people all too often swallow any "fact" presented in a movie. Look at how many still think that Amadeus is an accurate portrayal of Mozart's life.
But anyone with even an inkling of interest in Jerry Lewis and/or Dean Martin should have some idea of the truth - that they split when they were still an extremely profitable commodity. I can't imagine how anyone could accept that any of their films flopped, much less five in a row! But yes, no doubt this type of misinformation doesn't do any favors to Lewis and Martin's legacy.
 

benbess

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,039
Real Name
Ben
Bob Furmanek said:
In the new Hopkins film, the statement is made, supposedly by Hitchcock to the head of Paramount, that "the last five Martin and Lewis pictures lost money."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Before this myth becomes fact, I present the following.
Martin and Lewis were the sixth top grossing motion picture stars in 1956, and the seventh top grossing stars in 1955.
Here is where their movies ranked on the top 100 grossing films for each year, according to Daily Variety:
THREE RING CIRCUS - #24, $4,000,000
YOU'RE NEVER TOO YOUNG - #28, $3,400,000
ARTISTS AND MODELS - #21, $3,800,000
PARDNERS - #24, $3,600,000
HOLLYWOOD OR BUST - #23, $3,300,000
As you can see, they ranked among the top third-grossing films for each year.
I HATE mis-information like this!
Have you seen the new high definition master of Artists and Models that's available on Netflix? It looks great. And I thought it was a funny movie. How would you rate these other VistaVision movies? Are they about equally funny?
 

Matt Hough

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
22,323
Location
Charlotte, NC
Real Name
Matt Hough
I agree; this kind of incorrect information is exactly what gets passed down as fact through the years. Thanks for pointing this out, Bob.
 

bluirv

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 30, 2012
Messages
106
Real Name
Irv Haas
Another factual beef I had with HITCHCOCK was that the film suggests he mortgaged his house in order to finance PSYCHO. I was already aware that he had to finance it himself.
After the string of hits he had with Paramount in the 50s, wouldn't you think that he had saved enough cash that he would not have to mortgage his house?
 

Steve...O

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
4,376
Real Name
Steve
The film itself is an enjoyable, if lightweight, piece of fluff. The historical accuracy of many of the scenes can certainly be called into question since either Mr. or Mrs. Hitch would have had to provide the "inside scoop" on what really happened between them and that clearly didn't happen for this film. IMDB says that their daughter didn't want anything to do with the film so there was no involvement from any of the Hitch clan on this.

My sense of this film is that the bigger picture on the storyline is probably fairly accurate but the dialogue and detailed scenes were either fictionalized or based on prior interviews with Janet Leigh, etc.

For a biopic, "Lincoln" is a much superior film in my opinion.
 

classicmovieguy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
3,353
Location
Australia
Real Name
Byron
benbess said:
Have you seen the new high definition master of Artists and Models that's available on Netflix? It looks great. And I thought it was a funny movie. How would you rate these other VistaVision movies? Are they about equally funny?
I love "Artists and Models". Treated well, that movie will look spectacular when/if it ever comes to Blu-ray.
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
5,973
Real Name
Bob
benbess said:
Have you seen the new high definition master of Artists and Models that's available on Netflix? It looks great. And I thought it was a funny movie. How would you rate these other VistaVision movies? Are they about equally funny?
Ben, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 5 being average, here's how I would rate them:
ARTISTS - 10
BUST - 7
PARDNERS - 6
YOUNG - 5
CIRCUS - 3
 

aPhil

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
739
Location
North Carolina
Real Name
Phil Smoot
I saw "Hitchcock" today (Friday Dec 21, 2012).
I'm afraid this thread is a bit of a jump on the facts, as Hitchcock does not say that the last 5 Martin & Lewis movies lost money -- That line is not in the film.
I can't give the exact line from one theatrical viewing, but it is nothing about the boxoffice or financial returns of those films.
What he does say is a facetious line (to a Paramount exec) defending the quality of the film that he is about to make --
Something to the effect that Psycho will be (at least) to the high degree of artistic and moral integrity of the last 5 Martin & Lewis films.
It's actually one of the better lines in the movie.
 

Ejanss

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
2,660
Real Name
EricJ
Bob Furmanek said:
In the new Hopkins film, the statement is made, supposedly by Hitchcock to the head of Paramount, that "the last five Martin and Lewis pictures lost money."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I HATE mis-information like this!
The sheer NON-STOP assault of sentimentalized retro-pop malarkey in this movie (Hitch filmed it on the Paramount lot?...The HECK?), and you got upset about the Martin & Lewis references? :eek:
I know it's a personal thing for you, but how tunnel-vision can you get?
The actors were good, but it's hard to know where to begin with picking out the dopey pop-fantasia "Ed Wood Meets Mad Men" mistakes in this movie--
The script seems preoccupied with portraying Hitch as a busybody poking into everyone's secret sexual hangups, and not his canny self-aware sense of film storytelling. We get maybe two anecdotes in the entire 100 minutes that actually came from the set (I kept waiting for the movie's version of Hitch's famous "Miss Crane, this is Master Bates" line), and Hitch is portrayed as if he suddenly one day decided to do an A-list horror movie (watch William Castle's "Homicidal" and Psycho's Castle-like "no admittance" gimmick, and tell me Hitch and Castle didn't have their own personal game of one-upmanship for who could self-promote and out-ballyhoo the other)
Ever since Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander did their "pop-bio" trilogy of Ed Wood, People vs. Larry Flynt and Man on the Moon, there's been sort of a genre rules set for any historical bio of a pop-culture figure...If you thought Paul Schrader's Bob Crane "Auto Focus" was routinely playing it by the numbers, well, these are the numbers, and this movie sticks to them.
Here, wrtier McLaughlin was so determined to start of with #1, the "All his previous efforts were flops until he had his big idea!" trope, they have to make North By Northwest into a "flop"--Well, okay, it wasn't a flop, they admit, it just got ONE bad review, but look at all that money Vertigo lost! :rolleyes:
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
bluirv said:
Another factual beef I had with HITCHCOCK was that the film suggests he mortgaged his house in order to finance PSYCHO. I was already aware that he had to finance it himself.
After the string of hits he had with Paramount in the 50s, wouldn't you think that he had saved enough cash that he would not have to mortgage his house?
By the time Hitchcock made Psycho, he was a major stock holder in MCA. At one time Hitchcock was the 3rd largest share holder in MCA/Universal. He wouldn't have needed to mortgage anything in order to make an $800,000 movie.
Doug
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
5,973
Real Name
Bob
Ejanss said:
The sheer NON-STOP assault of sentimentalized retro-pop malarkey in this movie (Hitch filmed it on the Paramount lot?...The HECK?), and you got upset about the Martin & Lewis references? :eek:
I know it's a personal thing for you, but how tunnel-vision can you get?
I haven't seen the film. I just read the Martin and Lewis comment on a Jerry Lewis site.
It was not my intent to offend.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,230
According to IMDB, here's the quote in question:




Alfred Hitchcock: My contract guarantees me final cut on all of my pictures.
Barney Balaban: It also states that Paramount doesn't have to release anything that might cause the studio embarrassment!
Alfred Hitchcock: As opposed to those last five Martin and Lewis pictures you released?
Maybe there was another quote in the movie - I can't remember - but I suspect this is the actual quote.

BTW, shouldn't this thread be in "Movies (Theatrical)"? Not sure why it's in Blu-ray...
 

Mike Williams

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,019
Funny that Bob can't stand MIS-INFORMATION, yet this entire thread is based on one, since the line he is so outraged by doesn't even exist. LOL!
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Premium
Ambassador
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
20,706
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
Bob, you're usually on top of things, this one not so much as it seems.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
345,193
Messages
4,733,522
Members
141,402
Latest member
lendrena