After Hitchcock: Influence, Imitation and Intertextuality, David Boyd and R. Barton Palmer, eds., (2006)
Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 290 pp., ISBN-13:978-0-292-71338-3 (pbk), $22.95

It is only appropriate that one of the most popular directors to quote from on film – Alfred Hitchcock - should have a book dedicated to the analysis of exactly how all these different kinds of quotations are used. Intertextuality works on many different levels within film and film culture and is a very characteristic element in the aesthetics of both mainstream cinema and art film. This is also true of the films of Hitchcock because many of the films are landmarks in modern film history and thus constitute a popular frame of reference that not only hard core film buffs are able to recognise. This is at least one of the explanations why Hitchcock’s body of work has had such a great influence on both the American and the European film, mainstream as well as art film.

After Hitchcock is definitely an informative and eye-opening experience, even though it can be a difficult task to say something radically new about Hitchcock. However the general aim of this anthology is to analyse how the films of Hitchcock can be traced in other films and this is done from several different perspectives: many of the essays in After Hitchcock succeeds in presenting fresh insights as to how the films of Hitchcock have served as an intertextual sounding board in many different ways for American as well as European films.

After Hitchcock is divided into six different parts each with a different focus: The first part concentrates on Psycho (1960) and in the first article Constantine Verris makes a good case for evaluating the remakes of Psycho as not only a homage but also a specific re-viewing of a masterpiece. Verris chooses though to downplay the financial argument that a successful remake is also a lucrative business. The following article by Lesley Brill presents a comparative reading of Psycho and The Silence of the Lambs (1991). There are many striking similarities; however, as is often with comparative analysis, the shoe fits a little too nicely, meaning that when the films of Hitchcock are the only points of reference, other significant influences are overlooked. For example, the serial killer genre in general (inspired by Psycho, I know) could have been taken into account and thus broadened the perspective on The Silence of the Lambs, as well as the influence from Hitchcock.

In the second part of the book two articles analyse the horror genre in relation to Hitchcock from two different perspectives. Adam Knee presents an analysis of the B-movie The Return of Dracula (1958), which is as it turns out a remake of Shadow of a Doubt (1943). This is an interesting analysis of a lesser know B-film; however, The Return of Dracula is worth looking at both in terms of how the Hitchcock film is used but also with regard to how the film is part of the teenage horror genre so typical of the late 1950s. The analysis of ‘the Hitchcockian echoes’ of the elegant thriller Dead Again (1991) by Ina Rae Hark is a rather more traditional, if thorough and detailed psychoanalytical analysis with a special focus on how the film employs the paranormal.

The third section is called ‘The Politics of Intertextuality’ and the contributing editor R. Barton Palmer presents the first article about Hitchcock and the 1970s paranoid thriller, concentrating on The Parallax View (1974) and The Conversation (1974). The juxtaposition of Hitchcock’s ‘moral view of the human condition’ versus the paranoid thriller’s lack thereof is precise and illuminating. The following article by Walter Metz is an analysis of the ideology of True Lies (1994) in comparison with the films of Hitchcock with a special focus on the representation of family and post Cold War-issues.

The fourth section analyses Hitchcock in relation to European films – and more specifically to the films of Claude Chabrol, Michelangelo Antonioni, Pedro Almodovar and the Italian giallo genre. Especially the analysis of Chabrol’s The Butcher (1970) and The Unfaithful Wife (1969) by Richard Neupert and the analysis of Almodovar’s Women on the Verge of a nervous Breakdown (1988) by Ernesto R. Acevedo-Munoz stand out as particularly interesting because they situate the Hitchcockian perspective in a European cultural context – the French New Wave criticism and post-Franco Spain respectively – as well as being sensitive to the specific intertextual references to his films. The comparative analysis of Blow-Up (1966) and Rear Window (1954) is very meticulous and traditional and points out how the modern mainstream Hitchcock influences the modernist art film of Antonioni. The analysis of the Italian giallo genre by Phillip Met offers a new perspective on a sub-genre not (yet) very well documented.

The fifth part of the anthology has a theoretical focus beginning with a brief but informative overview, by Robert Sklar, of how Hitchcock’s cinema has been theorised in terms of identification and a more general outline, by John Belton, of how the work of Hitchcock has been an inspiration to different paradigms within film theory. Neither of the articles mentions in greater detail the cognitive approach, as a more recent development of the film theoretical paradigms within film studies, that is relevant indeed for discussions of identification. This addition would have completed the otherwise very informed theoretical outlook.

Last but not least there is an analysis of the films of Brian De Palma’s use of Hitchcock’s work aptly titled ‘How To Steal from Hitchcock’ by Thomas M. Leitch. It gives a good insight into how De Palma quotes, paraphrases and steals from Hitchcock’s films in different ways and what the consequences have been for De Palma’s reputation. Perhaps, though, the author could have elaborated on where De Palma’s originality lies, beyond inspiring filmgoers to see the originals.

All in all, After Hitchcock is a readable and informative anthology that dares to present a different take on Hitchcock. The theoretical discussions are – apart from the introduction and the articles of Sklar and Belton – kept to a minimum. One explanation is, of course, that After Hitchcock’s main purpose is analysis; still it would have made some of the arguments on offer more convincing if they reflected on the consequences of the chosen intertextual approach. The structure of the anthology makes sense; however, I do miss an analysis of some of the more recent films from the past ten years and their use of Hitchcock. But perhaps this could be the subject of After Hitchcock: The Sequel. Overall, I think that this anthology is an important contribution to the Hitchcock literature, aptly demonstrating how different kinds of intertextual analysis can be performed.

Contributor details

Helle Kannik Haastrup, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.