Dr. Douglas Cunningham
Interviewee: Dr. Douglas Cunningham
Interviewer: Johanna Bringhurst
Description: Sir Alfred Hitchcock is arguably the most celebrated and admired film director in history. Dr. Douglas Cunningham joins Johanna to talk about the essential Hitchcock films everyone needs to watch and what we learn about ourselves through his work.
Date: 2023-12-04
Topics:
The visual topic map is hidden for screen reader users. Please use the "Filter by Topic" dropdown menu or search box to find specific content in the transcript.
Johanna Bringhurst: Hello everyone, and welcome to Context. This program is brought to you by the Idaho Humanities Council with funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The views expressed here today do not necessarily represent those of the IHC or the NEH. My name is Johanna Bringhurst and joining us today is Douglas A Cunningham. Doctor Cunningham is a film historian and filmmaker who serves as an adjunct professor of film studies and humanities at several universities in the Intermountain West.
He is the editor of and the author of two essays for The San Francisco of Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo: Place, Pilgrimage, and Commemoration. Doctor Cunningham is also the editor of, and the author of An Essay on the Birds for Critical Insights: Alfred Hitchcock, as well as the coeditor of A Wiley Companion to the War Film. His other essays have appeared in academic journals such as screen, Senate Action, The Moving Image, and Critical Survey.
He co-wrote and directed Listen Darkly, a short fiction film produced as a complex tribute to Hitchcock's Vertigo. Listen Darkly went on to screen at film festivals in 2015 and 2016. His most recent short film, Highway, is a suspense thriller. Highway is currently on the festival circuit where it has won several awards. Cunningham earned a PhD in Film Studies from the University of California, Berkeley.
He is currently completing a new book that examines representations of American masculinity in films produced by the US Army Air Forces during World War Two. Doctor Cunningham, thank you so much for joining me today to talk about arguably one of the best known and most admired film directors, Sir Alfred Hitchcock.
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Thank you. I'm honored to be here.
Johanna Bringhurst: So could we start with your explanation of why Hitchcock is so well known and so admired?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, Hitchcock is a figure that, you know, has been making films for decades. By the time that he passes away in 1980. He had fairly early on established a reputation in Britain and then later in America as being a, a singular voice in cinema, and particularly a singular voice in suspense films. The result is that as he grew more and more well-known and more and more adept in his craft, he became increasingly famous.
He was one of the few directors, throughout his career, that was able to claim a name above the title, for almost every picture that he made from the 1940s onwards. And this in and of itself is, you know, quite an achievement. But today I think we remember Hitchcock mostly for his large body of films, almost all of which are regarded with great admiration and affection, but also for his style, for his own personality in front of the camera, which he did much to develop, both in terms of promoting his films and his television shows and for, the ways that he is able to keep us on the edge of our
seats. These are the reasons why we remember him so fondly. Even today.
Johanna Bringhurst: He really is the master of suspense. And I've heard other directors like, M. Night Shyamalan, Steven Spielberg talk about how inspirational he was in their work. Do we see a lot of Hitchcock's techniques still in use today?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Oh, yes. Almost every modern director, whether American or international or whether men or women, who are working in suspense films, but in films in general owe a great debt to Hitchcock in terms of, the kinds of techniques that they employ, the way that they engage the audience, the way that they play with the audience and the audience's expectations.
These are all, techniques and ideas that have been derived from generations of, you know, people watching Hitchcock films. You know, you can see the work of Hitchcock on display in some of our most, esteemed directors today, from Martin Scorsese to David Fincher to Christopher Nolan. Spielberg, Shyamalan. As you mentioned, Kathryn Bigelow, many others.
It is, a kind of timeless set of technical and, stylistic flourishes that continues to, you know, be passed down from generation to generation of filmmakers.
Johanna Bringhurst: So let's talk about some of those films that are most known and most remembered. Many people probably do not know that Hitchcock made silent films during the silent film era, and that he produced the first British talkie film. And so he has work, as you said, that we know, from the 1920s, but also the 30s, 40s, 50s into the 70s.
So he was really a prolific director.
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: You know, and it's very rare to find someone that has such an extensive filmography as Alfred Hitchcock and covers so many, significant periods. You know, we have very, prolific directors out there, people who have continued to make films through the decades, you know, and have achieved a kind of critical, and audience acclaim for, each one of them.
But very few of them saw so many changes in the industry and so many different kinds of, changes, in terms of audience tastes and, audience, reactions, as Alfred Hitchcock, saw over the course of his career. You mentioned the silent period. We can look back on the silent period of Hitchcock in the 1920s and, find masterpieces even in then, in the beginning of his career that, you know, rival, things that were produced, near the end of his career.
And this was what's truly remarkable is the consistency of the quality of his work over those decades.
Johanna Bringhurst: Two of his best known films from the 1930s period are the 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes. Many of us have seen several versions of the 39 steps. That was a book by John Dunning that has been remade several times since, but Hitchcock's version is most admired and most known. What were the styles that he was using in the 1930s that were so unique that really captured the attention of film goers?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, with with specific reference to the 39 Steps. You know, I think one of the big things that's on display from the very beginning is the influence, the influence of German Expressionism on Hitchcock's style. There's a real, sense of danger and atmosphere, stylistic atmosphere in the visuals that are created in the 39 steps, that, you know, I would argue comes directly from, the German Expressionist style of directors like, F.W. Murnau, G.W. Pabst.
In Germany during the 1920s, Hitchcock had actually, studied under F.W. Murnau, for the production of at least one film. And that style seems to have had a major influence on the films of the 1930s. Very, I should say I we're very the films are very atmos, This film's very atmospheric. It's, has a lot of creative use of light and shadow that is very reminiscent of, German Expressionism.
And in addition to that, it has a real sense. It creates a real sense of place, even though much of it is shot inside the studio. As the hero, Hannay, played by Robert Donat, travels, from the south of England to, the northern part of England and to, Scotland. And the way in which he's able to Hitchcock, the way in which Hitchcock is able to, you know, create a sense of mood and atmosphere through light and shadow in those latter scenes, particularly as he, ventures north, becomes something that's really, fascinating, I think, to watch.
Johanna Bringhurst: The same could be said, I think, of The Lady Vanishes. Like you said, he creates such a mood and a feeling in the film that you are on the edge of your seat the whole time. You don't know what's happening, but you can feel almost the violence and the fear in the air. How did Hitchcock create that feeling, that atmosphere?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, a lot of it has to do with, the set designers, you know, the cinematographers that are hired, the ways in which, the sets are lit by the gaffers. You know, these are all things, technical aspects of what we call the the mise en scene, all the things in front of the camera. Mise en scene is a kind of, term of art that basically in the, you know, from the French translation means to put in the scene, and so we're talking about sets, set decoration, lighting, as I said.
And these things play a large role in creating that sense of, of doom, that sense of impending, tension and so on. I think we see it most on display. And I do want to get back to the lady managers, but I think we we see it most on display in the larger from, 19, the late 1920s.
1927, in The Lodger, which is really the first, true Hitchcock film in the sense that, he is in full command of what's happening on set and in full command of his powers. You know, we get the first wrongfully accused, film in Hitchcock's, body of work. And this film, The Lodger, has a very, particular style that's very derivative of German Expressionism.
As I said, the Lady Vanishes, also creates a real sense of mood. But it's it's a film that includes a sense of a sense of dread that's mixed with a kind of charm and charisma that, the main, you know, the lead actors, bring to the film, you know, through their performances. So this is another thing that we get in The Lady Vanishes is this interesting mix of, of dread and tension.
Coupled with, the charm and charisma and wit that, you know, would later come to full fruition. In the Hollywood films, from the mid and later parts of his career. So I think one of the things that makes The Lady Vanishes, The Lady Vanishes rather so special, is that it combines these things in a way that, is really, charming for the audience.
And the 39 steps does this as well. You know, the casting along with the, the mise en scene, all of these things together, create a sense of combined tension and a sense of charm and wit. For which Hitchcock would become very well known in subsequent decades.
Johanna Bringhurst: You said that so? Well, in The Lady Vanishes, the main character is traveling across Europe on a train, and one of the passengers that she met briefly disappears and vanishes off the train, which is seemingly impossible. But because she is so charming and clever, as you said, we want to. We don't necessarily know that this character has gone missing, but we are curious what she's going to do about it and how she's going to find out what's happened to this person.
And throughout the course of the film, the tension and that atmosphere built by Hitchcock never leaves us in that state all the time. There's, humor and romance and other factors to the story that take the edge off of that suspense. But you're still in the story. How does he do that?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, Hitchcock himself was a very, humorous kind of, person. Right? Somebody who, you know, in the, in the parlance of the day and even, you know, in our current, vocabularies, I guess, would, you know, be referred to as as droll. Right. Somebody who, you know, was able to mix, mordant references, with, witticisms that, you know, normally wouldn't seem to go together, but come together in ways that are, very, you know, very charming, and because of that aspect of his own personality and his own, you know, sense of humor, I think it's very easy for that to be translated into the screen.
I mean, he was very actively involved with his screenwriters in the development of these scripts, almost to the point in many cases of being a co-writer, although he didn't take credit for that. It's no surprise, then, that this kind of mordant wit, this droll illness, would find its way into, the scripts of films like the 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes.
Although there are, you know, a number of films that have a much more serious tone, than those two examples. I already mentioned The Lodger. But Rebecca, as well is another film that, with a few exceptions, you know, takes itself very seriously and has a, an air of, an air of darkness and dread that overwhelms, the attempts at humor.
And there are some successful attempts at humor in, in Rebecca, but the overall, the overall mood and atmosphere is, is, one that's very dark and, foreboding. So Hitchcock wasn't above that. You know, making something very dark. But often there are small moments of charm, and wit mixed in there as well.
Johanna Bringhurst: Right. The Lady Vanishes really captured the attention of Hollywood producers like David O. Selznick, who ultimately was able to bring Hitchcock to Hollywood to make films thereafter. And Rebecca was the first film that they made together in 1940. Again, that film has been remade a few times in the intervening years, but most people remember Hitchcock's version. He received his first Oscar nomination as Best Director, and the film won the Academy Award for Best Picture that year, and the cast of the film is just fantastic.
Sir Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine it's really, a beautiful film and, an interesting snapshot of Hollywood in 1940. What do you think it was that made Rebecca so enormously successful, both with the critics and at the box office?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, it's a great suspense film. First of all, it is, an adaptation of a novel, that has a very Gothic sort of horror feel to it. It creates a real sense of, the, the, the, the larger property, the mansion, Manderley, as being, possessed or kind of, haunted. And this is a done again, you know, through effective use of the, the mise en scene, the, the lighting and the, set design.
And, you know, all of these, the set decoration and so on, all of these different things come together in a way that, you know, makes it so, effective in terms of portraying that sense of, of possession or, being haunted. The music also contributes to this in a really major way as well. But it's really the the central performance of Joan Fontaine, I think, who stands in as a kind of surrogate for the audience.
So, a kind of wide eyed, sort of ingenue who's brought into this, world of, you know, great wealth and, great privilege, you know, only to find that she is constantly being overshadowed by the memory of, her new husband's previous wife, who died under mysterious circumstances. And the ever presence of, the memory of the previous wife, Rebecca, is something that haunts not only Joan Fontaine's character, but also, the audience as well.
And it is, shown in a number of ways that are really creative, particularly through shots of a very haunting sort of, painting of Rebecca that is constantly referenced throughout the film. You know, so these are some of the ways that that's accomplished in Rebecca. One thing it's interesting to note is that, Selznick, and his influence over Hitchcock's career, early career in Hollywood, is something that's been written about quite a bit.
You know, one of the arguments that commonly is, you know, sort of put up, with regards to this era is that, you know, much of what we interpret of as being Hitchcock in these early films, from the Hollywood era is actually, kind of a collaborative effort on the part of, Selznick who was, you know, prone to interfering with Hitchcock's, Hitchcock's work during this period.
And I think there are there are truths to this argument. But at the same time, the Hitchcock flourishes, that we see in these films are recognizable, in other parts of his career as well, both before and after. The themes, such as the idea of, the presence of a, how should I say, the posthumous presence of, of a woman that is, haunting a particular, kind of space, the way that the camera is used, it's movement throughout, the spaces, in Rebecca, the larger, themes of the past, haunting the present, and preventing, you know, or standing in the way of
the happiness of the protagonists. These are themes that, you know, we see both before Hitchcock and after, particularly after I would say, but they're not unheard of in, you know, prior Hitchcock films either. So, yes, I think there's some major influence from Selznick. And his interference here. And it's not always negative interference. But also, you know, it's still very much a Hitchcock product, in the films that, are made for Selznick.
Johanna Bringhurst: In Rebecca and other films, Hitchcock took his source material from literature. Rebecca was a a popular book by Daphne de Maurier and other films. He was inspired by real life crimes and criminals like 1943's Shadow of a Doubt. I have to admit I have not seen this one before, one of the few I haven't seen, and I read that this was Hitchcock's favorite film that he made.
At the end of his life, he said this was his favorite. And it was, the plot was inspired by a real life, crime that he had read about in the news. This film is darker and more psychologically complex than films that he made prior. There's kind of a shift in his style here. What are your thoughts on Shadow of a Doubt?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, I mean, it's a masterpiece. I mean, there's no there's no doubt about that. I think it's significant, that this is a film that is produced during World War two. It's not about World War two. You know, but it is a film that's taking place during a time where there is a lot of fear, a lot of paranoia already present within the American psyche.
And so I think this contributes a lot to its reception as well as to the way that it's produced and directed and performed and, put together. You almost you almost feel, in shadow of a doubt, the shadow, if you will, of the war hanging over all of these events. I mean, one of the big questions is, at least in my mind when I watch the film is, you know, why is Uncle Charlie, the character played by, Joseph Cotten
you know, why isn't he in the war? You know, is. And it could be, you know, I mean, there could be any number of reasons why. But his presence is already, unsettling for for that reason, at least contextually, right now, a modern audience might not think about, things like that. But the fact that Uncle Charlie is, you know, of draft age and is, you know, traveling around the country scamming, and then murdering, the women, the older women that he marries is in some ways a kind of metaphor for the larger fear of, you know, saboteurs or, espionage or, a fifth column in the United States
during World War two. And this is a reading that you don't often get when you're studying, critiques of Shadow of a Doubt. But it's it's one that I think is worth considering and one that's really interesting. But what's also interesting more, you know, in a more conventional level, what's also interesting about Shadow of a Doubt is that it's one of the films, one of the first American films where we really start to see Hitchcock, employing the techniques that will make him famous in his American films.
The way in which he builds tension, the editing style, the way that the performances are nuanced, the way that specific, items are focused on as, as tells things that can give the characters away and betray their, their true intentions. And then sort of the, you know, there are some Oedipal sort of, issues going on, or some ancestral issues going on, with Shadow of a Doubt as well, that I think are interesting, not explicit, but the relationship between the two Charlies the young Charlie, played by Teresa Wright.
And the older Uncle Charlie, played by Joseph Cotten. As I said, there's there's kind of an interesting relationship there that has a kind of edge to it that is, a little bit unsettling. They're very fond of one another. They're both excited to see, one another. But there's also a kind of, shared affection there that seems a little bit, at least to my mind, a little bit.
Maybe not unnatural, but, unsettling. I, I hate to keep going back to that word, but there's just something strange about this relationship and the affection that's shared between these two characters. And when Hitchcock starts to show that the younger Charlie is developing a suspicious kind of attitude towards the Uncle Charlie, the older Charlie, we start to see, those kinds of bonds of affection, you know, sort of, start to crumble and, fall apart.
And the, the old kinds of tricks that, of charm that Uncle Charlie had usually relied on to pull the wool over other people's eyes, he's finding, are not quite as effective with his namesake, his niece and, you know, these larger, ways in which he starts to give himself away through his inconsistent explanations for things and so on, you know, are part of what helped to build, the suspense that we feel over the course of Shadow of a Doubt, that continuing affection they share even as they end up on opposite sides of the law, is something that I think makes this film particularly unique.
I referenced earlier that there's a kind of unsettling, relationship, that they have, not because of anything that the younger Charlie, does or anything that she does wrong. But it's it's almost as if there is a relationship there that has a kind of hidden incestuous quality that is never quite, resolved, never quite fully explained.
And I think it does even more to make Uncle Charlie, to the audience, appear to be even more of a suspicious kind of, unsettling character. And yeah, I think that's what I would have to say about Shadow of a Doubt.
Johanna Bringhurst: I really appreciate the points that you brought up. It made me think about other films in which Hitchcock really layers the way that you learn about the psychology of the the protagonist or antagonist. As you said, unsettling is just the best word to explain that, there are subtle clues and hints that he gives you in different layers that make you suspicious, or make you concerned or fearful for someone.
In 1946, Hitchcock released notorious, one of his films that actually did deal with World War Two head on, and the plot is set during the war and deals with, Nazi spies and American spies. And this is one of the films that star Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant, who, were partnered together in several films, and they are so wonderful together.
They just ooze charm and the way that they look each other. You see such deeper feelings and thinking going on than you realize. In the plot of Notorious, while the characters are in love with each other, they don't get to, be in love because they are working as spies. Is that right?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Yeah. And it's, one important detail I would add is the fact that Ingrid Bergman's, character is expected as, a spy, to marry a, a Nazi, who has fled the war and is living, in South America. And in this capacity as his his wife is supposed wife, she is forced, of course, to, you know, have sexual relations with him and so on.
And this, upsets the character of Devlin, played by Cary Grant. To no end. Because he has these very particular, ideas about, women's virtue, and as the film begins, the virtue of Ingrid Bergman's character is already very much, presented as something that's in question. She's regarded as being a party girl, perhaps being a woman of, easy virtue, if you will.
Which is, interestingly, the name of one of Hitchcock's early silent films, Easy Virtue. And so Devlin is suspicious of her from the beginning in terms of how genuine love from her could ever be, because he feels that, her reputation as being a kind of, loose woman, if you will. However true or not true, that may actually be, can't support, you know, a larger, idea that she could ever be faithful to him.
And so this isn't helped at all by the fact that she's then assigned by Devlin's, boss, to, become intimate with the Nazis. Sebastian, played by Claude Rains. And to marry him. And so, to make things even more complicated, this this upsets Devlin. And so he becomes very jealous and, very cold towards, Ingrid Bergman's character in moments when she.
What she really needs, is support because she's in so much danger all the time. So it's really a movie that is suspenseful, but it's what it's really about is about judgment and chauvinism and sexism, and, and prejudice and ideas about, you know, what women can do with their bodies. And you know, how we judge women based on not just what they do with their bodies, but what they are alleged to do with their bodies.
And for this reason, Notorious really, to my mind, is one of the great, films of Hitchcock's that deal with genuine feminist issues. It's really thinking deeply about how Cary Grant character Devlin is dealing with his very chauvinistic feelings about, her, and about what he perceives to be her behavior and the, directions of her affections, even though she continually tries to assure him of her allegiance to him.
Despite this marriage to, the Nazi Claude Rains. Sebastian, he's. Devlin is very cold towards, her throughout. And just as you're watching the film, you just keep wanting to say, you know, wake up, you know, recognize this woman for the person that she is and and for her sincerity and for the very dangerous and difficult situations that she's been placed in and that you need to, you know, you need to help her.
And this this, to me, is one of Hitchcock's most powerful films. I mean, I, I would say it's one of his three top films. In truth, because of just how deeply he probes these questions of what do we mean when we talk about virtue? What do we mean when we talk about the way that women engage with their sexuality?
You know what? What do we mean when we judge them for that? These are, these are ideas that are way ahead of their time. In 1946.
Johanna Bringhurst: Watching Notorious as a woman in 2023, Devlin's character is almost repugnant in a way, and it's so hard to see his point of view and to sympathize. Whereas Claude Rains, who is just fantastic in the film, is a loving, doting husband, and he is, there's some question about where his loyalties are, in the Nazi Party, but how did audiences react to the film at the time?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, the film was a success. You know, largely because you know, it's a great script. It's a it's a great film. And, you know, it's very difficult to, you know, tell, you know, Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman to talk to the hand. I mean, you know, you can't you can't resist these these performers as to whether or not audiences walked away with the larger messages that I feel, Hitchcock, conveys in the film is another question, but something that is important.
and again, the the world, World War two context makes a difference here, is that World War two is the moment where many women who might otherwise have been relegated, simply to the domestic space for the rest of their lives, world War two, because all of the men are gone overseas, you know, gives women the opportunity to enter into the workplace to backfill, many of those roles.
And so as a result of that, I think there were many people in the audience who would have been ready to think about women in different ways, and from different points of view. Them had their two for been, the case largely because women in, you know, factories and in industrial spaces during World War Two had played such a large role in contributing to victory in the war.
Yeah. This film, being produced in 1946, is riding on the heels of that. And while many of those women would be pushed back into the domestic space, after the war, in some ways, the genie that is women's liberation can't quite be put back in the bottle. And in that regard, Notorious is very much a sign of its times and a sign of things to come.
Johanna Bringhurst: I really appreciate you adding that historical context that women viewing this film in the nine, in 1946 could maybe relate to the issues that arose when they joined the workforce and left the traditional roles that they had been made used to, and would have maybe viewed this relationship with more complexity than we expect. When we look back. Well, in go ahead.
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, let me just say, and I think some men would have viewed things differently as well. Maybe not all, you know, certainly not all, but some men, you know, may have had different ways of understanding what they had previously come to understand as the role of women in society. As a result of women in the workplace during World War two.
I don't mean that to sound like a hashtag. Not all men kind of explanation. That's not my intention. But what I am saying is, I think that Notorious is a film that has the power to speak to men, who are willing to listen. And there must have been some, in 1946.
Johanna Bringhurst: Absolutely. I appreciate that point. The 1950s was almost the heyday. I mean, I hate to say Hitchcock had a heyday because every day was a heyday, but he made some of his most iconic films in the 1950s. In 1951, he released strangers on a train that was based on a thriller by Patricia Highsmith. Again, this plot has been, you know, reused in many films and in television.
But this idea of two, two gentlemen who meet while, riding a train and they jokingly suggest that they exchange murders so that both can be rid of someone difficult in their life. And neither could be traced to the crime. One of them thinks it's a joke and one doesn't. And and carries out the first murder. There are.
There's so much to unpack in this film. Tell us your thoughts on Strangers on a Train.
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, Strangers On a Train is probably the film that first, at least among the American films, that first introduces us to a, an American, psychopath. And this is, of course, the the character in the film who believes that the, you know, the joke isn't a joke, but that he really is going to go murder somebody.
After that conversation on the train. And what's really interesting about it is the fact, that, you know, this psychopathic character, you know, regards it all as a kind of, a kind of game in some ways, a genuine exchange. And when he commits the murder, that he believes this, other, man on the train, played by, Farley Granger when he commits the murder, you know, he's waiting for this other man to, you know, do his part and the continual sort of harassment of this other man to undertake, the psychopath for this other man to undertake the murder, that he's expecting, is
what creates the tension in the film. And you know what's really interesting as well about strangers on a train is that the psychopathic character is, you know, just so, kind of, patient and, and, charming. I mean, he's not, you know, this drooling, you know, out of his mind, you know, ranting kind of figure, but rather a figure who is, you know, well, kempt and, presents himself, relatively well.
He is he's perhaps is a bit annoying, but, beyond that, we wouldn't, you know, write him up as being, anything more than just, a stranger on a train, as it were. And yet somehow his constant and increasing presence throughout the film, in the company of the, character played by Farley Granger, becomes very menacing, throughout, particularly, in scenes where, you know, he does commit, you know, the murder and, commits other, crimes to convince Farley Granger to carry through on his part of the bargain.
Strangers on a Train is a really, you know, unique, high concept, kind of, mystery suspense thriller. But it comes through again, primarily, through to the audience in terms of its, performances. The performances, again, are what really make this, a powerful experience, for the audiences. Interestingly, too, strangers on a train also features, Patricia Hitchcock as one of the victims of murder.
In, in the film. And Patricia Hitchcock, of course, is Hitchcock's own daughter. And so there's something kind of strange about, you know, this as well. You know, that Hitchcock stages his own daughter's murder. I mean, I'm sure there's nothing to it, but, it's kind of yet another example of of, the droll nature of of Hitchcock's, sense of humor, that he would cast his own daughter in this, in this part and then stage her murder.
Johanna Bringhurst: Yeah, that's really interesting. If we were trying to unpack Hitchcock's inner psychology, I think we would find some some really interesting juicy tidbits here. And another interesting thing about Strangers on a Train. Is there some homoerotic allusions during the film? We talked about in Notorious how there, you know, there's just, sexuality oozing throughout the film, but it's never directly discussed.
Was that by design, by Hitchcock to get by the censors, to still be able to address some of these themes? What do you think?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Yeah, it's a it's a production code issue. The, the so-called Hays Office, often known as the Production Code Office, you know, would not have permitted, more explicit references to these kinds of things, although, you know, over the 50s, we start to see, a few more things, slipping in, than might have been permissible during the 1940s or 1930s.
The Production Code office spends a couple of decades, getting, how should I say, sort of, sort of crumbling, I guess, you know, its its standards, start to weaken and weaken as each year, goes by after World War two, so that by the time that you get to the 60s, you know, they're, they're pretty much, on their way out.
And, by 1968, of course, we have the establishment of the MPAA rating system, which in which, it's still with us today, you know, in a, a modified form, but, yeah, it would have been difficult for more explicit explanations of certain issues regarding sexuality and so on, particularly homo eroticism, to have surfaced.
And yet this isn't, Hitchcock's first kind of foray into, suggestions of homoeroticism. We see a lot of this hinted, I would say even more explicitly, at in 1948 wrote another Hitchcock film, that makes, you know, very explicit reference to the Leopold and Loeb case, from earlier in the century. And there are and interestingly, this also stars Farley Granger.
There are much more, I think, explicit suggestions of homosexuality in Rope than in Strangers on a Train. But I'm not denying that the suggestion of a homosexual or a homoerotic kind of attraction exists, in the subtext of Strangers on a Train as well. So I'm glad you brought that up.
Johanna Bringhurst: After making and releasing strangers on a train, Hitchcock moved to Paramount Film Studios and one of his possibly his most seen film, Rear Window, was released in 1954. This film is about a wheelchair bound press photographer who breaks his leg and becomes an invalid, and entertains himself by looking at the his neighbors in the apartment building across the street, and he observes what he thinks is the murder of a woman by her husband, and he enlists his girlfriend in helping him, figure out what has happened to this woman.
It's a very voyeuristic film where spying on people throughout the film as the audience, and that is kind of part of the appeal and the magic is that you feel like you are, seeing and thinking through and trying to understand what's happened in the mystery as well. And this was another Oscar nomination for Hitchcock, for Best Director.
I should say. He never won. I think he was nominated four times. Five times, you know, four times and and never won. But Rear Window is just such an iconic American film made by this British director.
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Yeah. It's hard to think of a film that has a a better script, than Rear Window has. Of course. It's based on a short story. By, I want to say Cornell Woolrich. But this the script for Rear Window is so understanding about what voyeurism is, and it thinks very deeply about, not only whether voyeurism is ethical, among the characters within the film, within the context of the films.
But as you've you've said, I mean, it it extends that question out to the audience who are engaged in the voyeuristic act of watching the film itself. I mean, film is the voyeuristic act, par excellence. Right? It's it is, voyeurism in the deepest sense. It is voyeurism is the act of watching from a safe and unseen place.
And usually the act of voyeurism involves some kind of, sexual charge. Right? Some kind of, eroticism as well. Peeping Tom kind of eroticism. And, you know, Rear Window, also contains scenes in which, you know, there is some erotic, erotic tension that is brought about as a result of, you know, watching, you know, other people, with a sexual intent.
But interestingly, the, the real, object of focus in Rear Window is the act of just watching itself. There's no suggestion that the, obsession that the Jimmy Stewart character L.B. Jefferies develops, with the potential murder of his across the courtyard neighbor, is sexual in nature, per se. Although. The fact that he has, you know, sort of been rendered impotent by this broken leg, and the fact that, this impotence, has largely carried over into his relationship with his, girlfriend Lisa, played by, Lisa Fremont, played by, Grace Kelly, is constantly in the background.
The idea that James Stewart is going to be able to recover a sense of, potency as a man, whether sexual or otherwise, is largely predicated on, in his own mind, at least whether or not he's going to be able to solve this murder, and bring the murderer to justice. So there's a constant sexual tension that's taking place in the background.
Even as the erotic tension that's created by, say, his character watching the dancer, Miss Torso across, the courtyard is, you know, only briefly alluded to as a moment of sexual, titillation. And yet there are moments in his own apartment where the opportunities for, how should I say, sexual, satisfaction are presented to him by his, model, girlfriend.
Lisa. That would not have, you know, would not have passed the censors had they been, more explicit than they are, but they're pretty suggestive, you know, even in the form in which we see them and, you know, the implication that, Lisa is going to spend the night, you know, in his apartment without the two of them being married is, is, you know, one of these sexual tensions. The idea that somebody, the cop that comes to visit, who's a friend of a friend of L.B. Jefferies, the cop that comes to visit and hear what L.B. Jeffries has to say about the potential murderer across
the courtyard. He sees, Lisa's handbag, which doubles as a night, an overnight bag, you know, sitting out open, in the apartment and also starts to make assumptions about what's going on between the characters and so on. It becomes very clear to the audience what, you know, what the larger issues are. But it has to be handled with a real delicacy.
Given that the production code is going to, you know, have to sign off on the picture. And yet the nuances about sexuality, particularly on the apartment side, are so strong that in many cases, I think it's hard to believe that, it got past the censors. But the larger sense of impotence on the part of the L.B. Jeffrey's character, because he is, in a cast, contributes to this sense of him, sort of losing his, sense of masculinity, his sense of, of prowess.
And that in many ways can only be replaced by, you know, solving this, this murder. He has to, in many ways become obsessed with what takes place across the courtyard as a way of substituting, for, what was otherwise a very active lifestyle, being cut short through, the cast that's been put on his leg.
And it's suggested at several points in the film that this impotence, has passed on into his own sexual life, in his own apartment.
Johanna Bringhurst: The last time I saw this film, I was struck also about how Hitchcock shows the ugly side of being a voyeur, which is that we see a character fight off of potential sexual assault. We see a lonely character contemplates suicide. We see, you know, this husband murder his wife. And Hitchcock seems to be saying, as you said, the L.B. Jefferies's character is enjoying being a voyeur and and being entertained by people's lives.
But there's also real heartbreak and trauma and sorrow that you're that you see and are exposed to, too. When you are taking a close look at other people's lives.
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Yeah. And it's interesting too, that when the cop friend comes to visit, and he's looking out over the same courtyard that L.B. Jefferies is looking out over, and he, L.B. Jefferies's catches him looking at Miss Torso dancing across the courtyard. It's always really interesting to me. The level of judgment that Jeffrey's is able is able to sort of foist on to, his friend, even despite the fact that Jefferies himself has been sort of engaged in this same thing for days on end, hour after hour, you know, doing the same thing, this judgment that he, that Jeffrey's is so willing to sort of, foist onto his friend,
in some ways blinds him to his own participation in these same kinds of, voyeuristic, tendencies.
Johanna Bringhurst: Right later, Hitchcock produced the film Vertigo in 1958. At the time, it was somewhat of a flop. It wasn't as well received as other films he released that decade, but many film historians and critics now consider it to be one of the best films he made, or one of the best films of all time. Why was it not super well received at its time, but is getting that recognition now?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, in some ways, Vertigo can come across as almost two films, two separate films. And because of this, it feels perhaps to some, including myself when I first saw it as somewhat disjointed. And yet subsequent viewings I with an open mind, I would say, reveal it to be, you know, ingenious in in the way that the film sort of divides its, attentions to Jimmy Stewart's character,
Scottie Ferguson. You know, I think that many people were put off by the fact that the film deals with such dark issues. The film deals with issues that are, difficult to difficult to think about. It takes a close look, as Notorious does, at chauvinism, misogyny. It takes a close look at, sexual desire, the way in which sexual desire can drive us to, do horrific things.
And how those desires can be, the cause of our own, you know, sort of plunge into insanity. It's a film that thinks really deeply about disturbing issues. And I just think that people weren't ready for people weren't ready for that. And in addition to that, I would say they didn't have at that time the theoretical tools with which to try to understand what is so remarkable about, vertigo in the way that it it looks at so many different issues.
And when I say the theoretical tools, what I'm mainly talking about is they didn't have the kinds of, sort of frameworks for looking at a film from, a particular point of view through a particular lens that would really give them the power to understand exactly what it is that Vertigo is doing. Those kinds of tools really wouldn't be developed, at least not in their fullness for, another 15 or 20 years.
And that's why, Vertigo, when it had its revival, after being absent from the screen for almost ten years, when it was rereleased into theaters, along with several other Hitchcock films in 1983. The critical establishment, the academic establishment was ready, to address the films it had in subsequent decades developed the ideas that were necessary to understand what Hitchcock was doing.
In Vertigo, you know, further developments in film theory, further developments in psychoanalytic theory, further developments in, you know, postcolonial studies and so on. All of these things were really necessary for, Vertigo to get the kind of deep appreciation from the critical establishment, the academic establishment, and ultimately, from, you know, the audience, that it deserved.
Johanna Bringhurst: Thank you for that. Even though, Vertigo wasn't a huge success, he followed up with North by Northwest, which was a big a huge commercial success with Cary Grant to following the success of North by Northwest, which again reunited Hitchcock with Cary Grant, was a big success. He released his most shocking film that everyone you know has seen and That is Psycho, which came out in 1960.
Critics weren't really sure what to make of it, but pretty much from the get go, moviegoers were obsessed with the film, and many remain so today, and the long term effects of this film are significant. It really changed a lot of things about this film genre, and specifically how audiences react to horror and to suspense. What do you think about Psycho?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, again, a masterpiece. And you know, something that, as you say, you know, changed everything, helped to bring about the collapse of the, production code, helped to basically invent from the from the ground up, more or less the, the slasher, genre. Although I would not classify psycho as being a slasher film, it's much too, it's much too deep, for that.
But the larger fascination with sort of serial killers and psychotic killers, you know, that America, for whatever reason, seems to have, an obsession with, develops largely from, Psycho. Psycho does a lot of really brave things. It has some very grotesque murders. You know, a lot of this, takes place offscreen.
But, you know, one and one murder in particular does not take place off screen, but takes place very much on screen in a way that is so visceral and so shocking in its use of, editing techniques. That it has gone down forever, as being a, not only a masterclass in filmmaking, but in being a, you know, a warning to everyone to, you know, never take a shower again.
You know, it's,
Johanna Bringhurst: That was what I cut out of the film to.
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: But, you know, that's really not what makes Psycho great. It's a great it's a great scene, there's no doubt. But what really makes psycho great, is the intimate moments among various characters and the ways that, they, they talk to one another and reveal themselves to one another. And, you know, I think it's arguable that one of the greatest scenes in psycho actually takes place, prior to the murder.
Almost. In fact, I think it is the scene prior to the actual murder, where the protagonist, you know, who will cease to be the protagonist about 40 minutes into the film, where the protagonist comes to a realization about herself and her own sins as a result of her interaction with, the person who will ultimately take her life.
And just as she has resolved to turn her life around, the opportunity, for her to do that is violently taken away from her. It was a shock, for audiences to see the character with whom they identified most in the film, to be eliminated, you know? Well, well, before, the film was, you know, over and, the result of that, you know, particular, choice on the part of Hitchcock was one, that would carry a great deal of impact down through the decades.
Subsequently, the film also takes a big risk in, you know, after it eliminates its protagonist, by shifting most of its focus on to the, the killer and asking us to, in some ways identify with the killer, or at least, to the extent that we care about what happens, to this person. And this too, is also something that's very disturbing because Hitchcock is basically asking us to identify, you know, with a murderer and with someone whose motives we don't completely understand and who's identity may or may not be what we understand it to be.
And the moments where people are confronted with this, this identity that is very different from what, you know, we expect it to be are the ones that in the film become most horrific and most shocking. And Hitchcock uses all of his filmmaking powers through his deployment of the camera, his use of overhead shots, his use of, mobile point of view shots, and his use of editing to create some of the most horrific sequences even today, that have come out of the cinema.
The most frightening sequences to me are not the, ones where we actually see the initial murder of the protagonist, but the ones that occur later in the film where the realizations of what's really going on in the movie, I'm at it so fast and so quickly, that we don't have time to process it all. And that's what makes it even more frightening.
Johanna Bringhurst: I totally agree with you there. You were right. There was quite a controversy at that time that Hitchcock would kill off the main protagonist and then ask the audience to identify with the killer, because that's who we that's the character left that we know. And then he continues to kill, and we don't know exactly who he is or why.
And then all of a sudden, you learn all, all of the things, and it all comes to a head really quickly. It is so terrifying. Even today. It is so terrifying. But you can see how directors ever after utilized a lot of the techniques from Psycho to create horror and suspense and in their work, and that's not something that we saw before.
So it really is a pioneering film. Hitchcock received his final Academy Award nomination for Best Director for Psycho, and I can't believe he didn't win.
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, you know, it probably had a lot to do with the fact that, you know, this was considered to be or at least the genre was considered to be a kind of exploitation genre. You know, at this time it might have been very difficult, for a lot of Academy members to feel they were justified in giving a Best Director award to a genre picture.
And I think that's part of what, you know, may have driven the reluctance to, you know, award him, the best director, but you know what? You know, the Academy Awards are a big deal. There's no there's no doubt about it. You know, but how many of us remember, you know, some of the people that, you know, won best directors?
You know, 30 years ago or 20 years ago? You know, not a lot of people remember those names. But everyone recognizes the name Hitchcock. In some ways, the Academy Award is like a, It's like a false prize. You know, it's it's it's a red herring. It's it's it's a reward for effort in the moment.
That may or may not be driven by genuine merit, but might also instead be driven by, you know, hey, I've got a I've got a guy, who's nominated for an Academy Award who I'm working with. You know, on my next picture, you know, if he wins, that's better for me. So I'm going to, you know, vote for him.
I mean, you know, these kinds of things, these kinds of things happen, the true test of a director's, you know, long term viability isn't an Academy Award. But the larger legacy that they leave and, you know, the quickness with which their names come to the tongue, you know, like David Lynch, for example. You know, it's very.
Johanna Bringhurst: Possible, right.
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: That David Lynch is going to win an Academy Award even for, things that he's been nominated. You know, his best shot probably would have been for the Elephant Man. Conventional enough to appeal to everyday people. You know, but still different enough to be a genuine Lynch, or a David, a genuine David Lynch film. But, you know, it's not the Academy Award that is going to cement his legacy.
What cements his legacy is the work itself.
Johanna Bringhurst: On that note, we would be remiss if we didn't talk about one one final film, The Birds, which was released for Universal Studios in 1963 and where Hitchcock released the last six films that he made. There was a lot of media attention around The Bird, around the Birds. It was also based on a short story by Daphne du Maurier, like Rebecca and the film really is still quite frightening, as we talked about with psycho, but there's so much more meaning than just the physical birds.
Can you talk more about Yhe Birds?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, as with Psycho, I think you know, what's really interesting about the birds is, the exchanges, the intimate exchanges, among the characters, more than the birds themselves, and the attacks that, you know, they make, to me, The birds is a film about women, and their relationships with each other, how they are at odds, and how they are, cohorts and, allies in, you know, at the same time, it's Hitchcock's attempt to examine the sort of double bind that women often find themselves in, which is, on the one hand, a and this is, again, this is what I read Hitchcock as meaning, on the one hand,
being rivals and then on the other hand, also being, unlikely allies, even at the same time, even one at the same time. And as the film makes references, you know, in the great, tides diner scene where, you know, people are talking about the behavior of birds, I mean, in many ways they can just they could just as well, be talking about relationships among women.
You know, it's, it's remarkable, you know, that, you know, in that scene, one person, says, why are they all, you know, why are they all attacking together? You know, it doesn't make sense. And this bird expert says something along the lines of, I've never known birds of a different, of different species to, you know, work together.
It's it's, it's not possible, you know, it would never happen. This kind of statement in some ways is, to my mind, a statement that's largely about women who in some, you know, traditions of the 60s were often lost, particularly in England. Right? Were often referred to as birds. Right. You know, this idea that women could work together toward a common goal rather than, you know, sort of being at odds with one another, whether it was whether it be over a man or over, you know, some other kind of thing that they might be at odds over.
It's it's just really interesting to think about the larger film as being a contemplation of these things, and that the attacks of the birds are in some way a kind of manifestation of conflicts that are occurring, between the female characters, and that the only way to overcome these, conflicts is to, you know, kind of work together and, sort of form a unified whole, or a unified front, against such attacks.
And when this happens in the film at the moment where the woman in the film played by, Tippi Hedren, Melanie Daniels is the name of her character when she is perceived by other characters in the film as being less of a threat because of her, her beauty, because of her sophistication and wealth. The moment she becomes less of a threat, the, the attacks from the birds cease.
And the women are seen as being, a unified front rather than seeing is seen as being divided. And this, to me, is one of the big indicators of the fact that the birds can be read through a feminist lens in a really interesting way. On the other hand, you know, some people, may see The birds as, a film that contemplates how divisions form among women, as a result of, their jealousies, from one another, their petty differences from one another.
And in this way, you know, somebody might interpret The Birds as being a critique of that. And I think it is, but it's a critique that comes from the point of view that says, yes, those kinds of things happen, but they do not, sort of stand in the way of the ability of women to work in tandem with one another towards common goals and find sisterhood one with another.
This to me is what The Birds is really about. And in some sense, the attacks of the birds, are really, just kind of a manifestation of the tensions between the women in the film, their abilities to work together or their abilities to divide against one another, even, and at the same time as the other is happening.
It's really quite, fascinating to me. The lack of a soundtrack in terms of music is also something that's, really interesting here. Although Hitchcock's regular collaborator Bernard Herrmann, did work on a on on sound, you know, the remarkable sounds of the birds that occur throughout the film, the lack of a soundtrack that guides our emotions and manipulates us in that way, is something else that's also really remarkable and gets us thinking more actively about what's happening amongst the characters, because we don't have the music to tell us what to do.
Johanna Bringhurst: As we've been discussing these major films in Hitchcock's career, we've touched on a lot of the themes and style elements of his films, and I think it is really important for us to talk about how he represented women and portrayed women in both psycho and The Birds. There are some other issues that emerge that are kind of famous, to these films.
Why do you think it was important to Hitchcock to portray mothers and dangerous, unhealthy mothers and relationships with others in these films?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that mothers, at least societally, are regarded as being the safe space. And when they're when they're depicted as not being the safe space, that is something that automatically lends itself to horror. It could be something as simple as that, right? We see mother figures also who come across as perhaps, maybe at first prickly, but are later redeemed, through their behaviors, such as in the birds, and in, the film that comes subsequent to the birds, the, Marnie, from 1964.
The mother figures in both of these films are very prickly, antagonist, kinds of figures in some ways, who by the end of the film, reveal themselves to. Yes. Perhaps have been difficult to get to know, but at the same time are figures whose best intentions, have been misinterpreted throughout the film. With regards to psycho, which is probably the most famous of the depiction of, mothers, of a problematic mother figure in, any of these Hitchcock films.
Again, the larger, you know, influence of the mother and her assumed position of being a safe space is very much undercut by the larger legacy, that is carried down from her life, to her, her offspring. And this is something that, you know, we see in notorious as well, that the mother figure in notorious is also, very overbearing, very, evil, in her intent and that that, largely carries down to the behavior of, the son figure in that film.
To. Why does Hitchcock keep coming back to it? You know, I think, you know, rather than looking at something that's happening in his own life, I would say that it has a lot to do with the ways that such figures can be used for dramatic purposes to undercut, you know, societal expectations about what a safe space is.
And I think he's also very interested in the outsized influence that a mother figure has on, her children, you know, and rightfully so. It seems to be an arena, that he's interested in because it creates certain kinds of behaviors, and allows Hitchcock to explore some Oedipal dynamics that might not otherwise be possible if the mother figure were not present and behaving in ways, that were, shall we say, unconventional.
Johanna Bringhurst: I think it's important to note also that Alfred Hitchcock consulted his wife and partner, Alma Reville, in every one of the films that he made, he trusted her implicitly, and she's often credit or credited as being a screenwriter on his films. So he worked in close partnership with his wife on the films that he made that portrayed women in really different and interesting ways.
We also often see women who are either the savior or the destroyer of the male character in the film. So how does that
Cause tension and fear in the dynamics of the films?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, you know, I think that, I think that Hitchcock's portrayals of women, are ambiguous. But I tend to feel that he comes down on the side of their righteousness, more often than on the side of their, that wouldn't be so flattering to them, I guess it's a better way of saying it. His women, particularly his his lead women.
But sometimes the supporting characters as well are very knowledgeable are very, empowered, are very wise and in most cases and are also, you know, very, you know, loving in many cases as well. They are figures that can represent a range of different ideals and different emotions. But overall, you know, and this may be because I'm a man saying this, but and I'll acknowledge, you know, that I may have some blind spots, in that regard.
But overall, I would say that despite the violence that often, you know, occurs, with the women in the Hitchcock's films, that women in his films are presented as being, you know, very three dimensional, with, very realistic, depictions of different kinds of emotions. They're never sort of these cookie cutter, you know, kinds of figures.
And when they are enigmatic, when they are mysterious, it's largely as, used as a way to make some kind of comment on the male characters and their limited vision of what a woman is or can be or should be, or how he should see them, such as in Vertigo. So, you know, the, the women in the films play perhaps even a larger role, than any of the men in the films in terms of communicating, or being the instigator of, the larger themes, the larger ideas or the larger questions that the, films are examining.
Because the men, often are responding in these films to, the unsettling ways they feel as a result of being in proximity to the women. And the women are in many ways attempting to be themselves. And to you know, try to secure their own destiny in a way that often makes the men uncomfortable, such as in, in a rear window.
So we learn more about, the male characters, not because they are. Three dimensional in their own right, to the same degree as the women, but because their reactions to the women and the kinds of ideals that the women represent and the kinds of changes that the women represent, you know, will have to take place if the man and the woman are to unite.
These things are threatening to the men. And as a result, often the men, you know, as in Vertigo, find it easier to objectify, sexually objectified the women than to deal with the threat that they represent. And these are arguments that come straight from the famous, scholar on on voyeurism. Laura, movie. So I would say that women are actually at the heart of almost everything that Hitchcock is doing in his films, at least in his most complex films, and that in many cases, the men are just along for the ride.
Johanna Bringhurst: Thank you so much for that perspective and for talking with us today about Hitchcock films. Maybe we could conclude by hearing from you. What is your favorite Hitchcock film? Why and why should everyone see it?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: Well, it's Vertigo,
Johanna Bringhurst: Really?
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: It is, it's vertigo, and it's because Vertigo itself is like.
It's it's one of those rare works of art that is so layered and so complex that you can almost never plumb its full depths. There are other works of art like this out there. The novel Frankenstein, I think, which has some relation to Vertigo. I would argue, is very much like this as well, that you can just never really stop thinking about it, because it's so complex in all of the different ways that it examined so many different things, that the discussion about it can just go on and on and on.
And how many, you know, how many movies, do you know, like that? I mean, there there are some, you know, but there's not many. Maybe 2001 A Space Odyssey might be another example. Right? But there aren't there aren't many films like that out there. Sure. Maybe there's a couple of films that you can read out there that, you know, have a couple of different ways that they could be interpreted.
And, and so on. But Vertigo, with all of its different concerns, all of its different interpretations, all of the different issues that it addresses is like, a kind of bucket that is never, syllable. It just it, you know, it's just always capable of taking in more water. And to me, that's what marks a real work of art.
Vertigo, you know, just as an example, deals with issues, you know, ranging from film spectatorship to voyeurism to misogyny to feminism to postcolonialism, to, you know, many interpretations of the formal aspects of the film, to issues regarding mental health, to issues regarding any kind of interpretation, that might be considered to be, postmodern or structuralist.
It just never ends. The list goes on and on and on of the ways that you can look at this film from a, from different points of view. And because of that, it is like a, it's like a treasure that, has no bottom. It just keeps on giving. And I don't, you know, I'm at pains to, you know, think of many of works of art that actually do that.
Johanna Bringhurst: So that's a rare gem indeed, a piece of art that you can go back to again and again. I agree, there are many films that I want to see a second or third time, even even my favorites. I don't need to keep watching. Thank you so much for being with us today, and for sharing your expertise about this really important, aspect of the humanities, which is film and how we use film to understand ourselves and our human experience together.
Dr. Douglas Cunningham: You know, I appreciate it. I've been, I've been very impressed with your, eloquence on the subject of Hitchcock and his films as well. Thank you for inviting me to appear on this program.
Johanna Bringhurst: Thank you.