On
 August 13, 1899, Alfred Hitchcock was born in London. True, 117 is not 
generally regarded as a milestone birthday, but if I wait around until 
one of Hitchcock's true milestone birthdays falls on a date when I'm 
slated to write a SleuthSayers post--well, I'm not clever enough to 
figure out when that might happen, but I'm pretty sure I won't still be 
around when it does. So I'd better celebrate his 117th. I welcome any 
chance to celebrate Alfred Hitchcock. I admire his movies, I have fond 
memories of his television programs, and I'm a loyal, grateful 
 author. When the topic for this post first occurred to me, I checked on
 how many of my stories have made it into the magazine. Thirty-nine. 
Thirty-nine steps, thirty-nine stories--it felt like a sign. I had to 
write a post about Hitch.
But
 although I'm a Hitchcock fan, I'm by no means a Hitchcock expert. I 
don't have any insights weighty enough to develop into a unified post. 
So I dipped into a couple of books, looking for any thoughts or scraps 
of information that might be of interest. I re-watched several favorite 
Hitchcock movies, watched a few of the less famous ones for the first 
time. And I got a little help from my friends.
Just the other night, I re-watched one of my all-time favorite Hitchcock movies, 1954's 
Dial M for Murder, and enjoyed it just as much as I always have. With these thoughts in mind, though, I noticed that
 Dial M for Murder
 has an intermission (perhaps partly because it's based on a play, and 
plays traditionally have intermissions). Lots of movies used to have 
intermissions, too, but I can't remember the last time I went to a new movie 
that does. I doubt that's because movies have gotten shorter--plenty 
still last two hours or more--or because theaters are now less eager to 
have a second chance to sell popcorn and soft drinks. Maybe it's because
 movie makers have become more and more convinced that, as Hitchcock 
puts it, "the basic film shape is continuous." Maybe they've decided an 
intermission breaks the mood, interrupts the suspense, and dilutes the 
movie's effect. But I'm just guessing. If anyone has inside information 
about why movie intermissions are less popular than they used to be, I'd
 be glad to hear it. (I should mention a relevant SleuthSayers post 
here, Leigh Lundin's 2015 "
Long Shots," which looks at Hitchcock's 
use of the continuous tracking shot in 
Rope.)
Columbo's Uncle? 
Speaking of Dial M for Murder,
 when my husband and I were watching the final scenes, he commented that
 Chief Inspector Hubbard reminded him of Columbo--the determined police 
detective who gets a strong hunch about who the murderer is and won't 
give up until he confirms it. Like Columbo, Hubbard pretends to be 
sympathetic and self-effacing while setting up a clever trap to catch an
 arrogant, socially superior villain. And he wears a raincoat (which 
makes more sense in London than it does in Los Angeles). The thing that 
really caught my husband's attention, though, was that at one point 
Hubbard says, "Just one other thing" as he questions the person he 
rightly suspects to be guilty. That made the similarities too striking 
to ignore. True, Hubbard is more elegant and fastidious than Columbo. 
It's hard to imagine Columbo whipping out a tiny comb to smooth his 
mustache. (For that matter, it's hard to imagine Columbo with a 
mustache.) But did this supporting character from a 1954 Hitchcock movie
 inspire one of America's most beloved television detectives?

 
I
 have no idea. I wasted a couple of delightful hours Googling about and 
found many intriguing hints but no definite link (an inside joke for Columbo
 fans). The information I did find wasn't completely consistent--one 
site says one thing, another says something slightly different--but 
apparently the Columbo character first showed up in a 1960 short story 
written by Richard Levinson and William Link and published in--where 
else?--Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine. The character next appeared on the television program Chevy Mystery Show, in a 1960 episode called "Enough Rope." Levinson and Link later reworked that into a stage play called Prescription: Murder, which eventually became the pilot for the Columbo series. The titles recall Hitchcock titles, and the plot and form of Prescription: Murder bear significant similarities to the plot and form of Dial M for Murder.
 A suave, nearly emotionless husband schemes to get rid of his wife and 
get his hands on her money; he underestimates the police detective 
assigned to the case; the audience knows from the outset that the 
husband is guilty. Maybe all that is coincidence. Or maybe not. Here's 
something that's almost certainly coincidence, but I find it charming: 
John Williams, who played Chief Inspector Hubbard both on stage and in 
the Hitchcock movie, is featured in the 1972 Columbo episode "Dagger of the Mind," playing murder victim Sir Roger Haversham.
Alfred and Edgar, Part 2
(or, not taking suspense too seriously)
In
 a 1960 article called "Why I Am Afraid of the Dark," Hitchcock comments
 on ways in which he and Poe are similar, and also on ways in which 
they're different. Hitchcock was sixteen, he says, when he read a 
biography of Poe "at random" and was moved by the sadness of his life: "I
 felt an immense pity for him because, in spite of his talent, he had 
always been unhappy." Later, when Hitchcock was working in an office, 
he'd hurry back to his room to read a cheap edition of Poe's stories. 
"The Murders in the Rue Morgue" got him thoroughly scared, he says, and 
he thoroughly enjoyed it.
The
 experience led him to an important discovery: "Fear, you see, is a 
feeling that people like to feel when they are certain of being in 
safety." A "gruesome story" can be terrifying, but "as one finds oneself
 in a familiar surrounding, and when one realizes that it's only 
imagination which is responsible for the fear, one is invaded by an 
extraordinary happiness." Hitchcock compares the sensation to the relief
 we feel when we're very thirsty and then take a drink. It's an 
interesting idea. When we scream through the shower scene in Psycho,
 is it the fear itself we enjoy? Or do we enjoy the relief we feel when 
we stop screaming, look around, and realize we're still in a dark but 
safe theater (or, these days, when we realize we're still in our 
well-lit family rooms, with our cats dozing in our laps)?
Hitchcock
 acknowledges a kinship with Poe. "We are both," he says, "prisoners of a
 genre: suspense." Further, "I can't help but compare what I try to put 
in my films with what Poe puts in his stories: a perfectly unbelievable 
story recounted to readers with such a hallucinatory logic that one has 
the impression that this same story can happen to you tomorrow." Even 
so, he says, 
I don't think that there exists a real resemblance between Edgar Allan Poe and myself. Poe is a poete maudit
 and I am a commercial filmmaker. He liked to make people shiver. Me 
too. But he didn't really have a sense of humor. And for me, "suspense" 
doesn't have any value if it's not balanced by humor.
You probably already know what 
poete maudit means. Despite five years of high-school and college French, I had to look it up. According to the Merriam Webster website, a 
poete maudit is an "accursed poet," a "writer dogged by misfortune and lack of recognition."
I
 find these comments fascinating. I don't know enough about either 
Hitchcock or Poe to speak with any authority--I don't know how honest 
Hitchcock is being, or how accurate his views of Poe may be--but he 
seems to present himself as a happy, successful artist who has won the 
sort of recognition that eluded Poe. He creates terrifying movies but 
stands at a distance from them, well balanced enough to realize the 
stories he tells are "perfectly unbelievable." Does Hitchcock imply that
 Poe lacked such balance, that the nightmares he created reflect his own
 experience of life? Perhaps. At any rate, Hitchcock presents himself as
 someone who makes scary movies because he enjoys making people 
"shiver," not because he shares the sorts of torments he depicts. So no 
matter how horrifying the visions on the screen become, he can see the 
humor in the situation.
Many would challenge the idea 
that Hitchcock was happy and well balanced. His sense of humor 
seems hard to deny. In a 1963 
Redbook interview, Hitchcock 
comments, "In producing the movies that I do, I find it would be 
impossible without a sense of humor." And in the 
New York Times Magazine interview
 mentioned earlier, he says comic relief can be effective even during a 
chase, as long as the humor isn't too broad and doesn't make the hero 
look foolish. We probably all have favorite examples of comic relief in 
Hitchcock movies, of moments when we laugh out loud even while cringing 
in fear. For example, there's the climax of 
Strangers on a Train.
 (If you haven't seen the movie, please skip the rest of this paragraph,
 and the next paragraph, too. Then please go see the movie.) Hitchcock 
cuts from one frightening image to another as hero and villain grapple, 
as people on the carousel scream, as an old man crawls slowly toward the
 off switch, in danger of being crushed at any moment. It's terrifying.
But
 it's funny, too. The old man looks like a comic figure, not a tragic 
one--he's chewing on something as he inches forward, and at one point he
 pauses to wipe his nose. And amid all the screaming, scrambling people 
on the carousel, one little boy sits up straight on his horse, smiling 
broadly, clearly having the time of his life. Maybe he's unaware of the 
danger. Or maybe he's enjoying it.
That brings us to "The Enjoyment of Fear," an article Hitchcock published in 
Good Housekeeping
 in 1949. (Remember when women's magazines used to include some articles
 with real substance?) It echoes some ideas I've already mentioned, but I
 can't resist the temptation to quote a passage that, I think, gives us 
an additional insight into Hitchcock's technique, and into the nature of
 literary suspense. He says again that viewers can enjoy the fear of 
watching a frightening movie because they know they're safe--they're not
 on that madly careening carousel in 
Strangers on a Train. Then he takes things one step further:
But
 the audience must also be aware that the characters in the picture, 
with whom they strongly identify themselves, are not to pay the price of
 fear. This awareness must be entirely subconscious; the spectator must know the spy ring will never succeed in pitching Madeleine Carroll off London Bridge, and the spectator must be induced to forget what he knows. If he didn't know, he would be genuinely worried; if he didn't forget, he would be bored.
Over
 the years, I've gotten addicted to several television dramas that kill 
off secondary characters at a sometimes alarming rate. Whatever dangers 
they may face, we know Tony Soprano, Jack Bauer, and Carrie Mathison 
will survive more or less intact, at least until they reach the final 
show of the final season. Even then, if there's any chance of a 
follow-up movie or a reunion show, we know the protagonist is safe. But we also know their friends, 
co-workers, and lovers are fair game at any moment. That's one way to keep
 the audience in suspense. Hitchcock describes a more delicate approach:
 Deep down, we know the protagonist is safe, but the suspense reaches 
such a height that we forget. That sounds almost impossible, but I think
 it happens. Think of a moment when a Hitchcock protagonist seems to be 
in mortal danger. Don't we forget, just for a moment, that Hitchcock 
wouldn't really kill Jimmy Stewart?
And then, of course, there's the shower scene in 
Psycho. (If you haven't seen 
Psycho--but everybody's seen 
Psycho.)
 Doesn't that violate the trust between director and audience, the trust
 that allows us to enjoy being scared? Maybe--maybe that's why many 
would say 
Psycho crosses the line between suspense and horror. 
But I think Hitchcock tries to make sure we don't "strongly identify" with Janet
 Leigh's character. After all, she's a thief. And the first time we see 
her, she's in bed with a lover--that might not alienate many viewers 
today, but I bet it alienated plenty in 1960. Also, before we have time 
to get deeply attached to her, she's gone. Her violent death shocks us, 
but I'm not sure it saddens us all that much. If Cary Grant plummeted to
 the base of Mount Rushmore, I think we'd be more upset.
Last Thoughts
As
 I said, when I started work on this post, I decided to get a little 
help from my friends. A birthday tribute should include some sort of 
biographical perspective, but I didn't feel up to doing the necessary 
research myself. So I turned to a promising young scholar, Shlomo 
Mordechai Gershone (a.k.a. my ten-year-old grandson, Moty). He 
contributed these insights:
I read Who Was Alfred Hitchcock?
 and learned a lot. Alfred Hitchcock was a very interesting person. He 
was big, loud, and funny, but also wrote things that were full of 
suspense and mystery. He told stories about being locked in a jail cell 
at the age of five. He would say that five minutes felt like five years 
to the young Hitch. That suspense was expressed in his movies, his 
television shows, and the stories in his magazine, Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine.
 (Where have I heard that before?) He spent his whole life talking and 
writing about mystery, but passed away peacefully in his sleep. 
(Anticlimax)
An
 ability to say a great deal in a short space, a sense of humor, a 
critical perspective--maybe I'm slightly biased, but I think this young 
man has a future as a writer.
Also,
 I thought it would be fun to do a quick survey of my Facebook friends 
(mostly mystery readers and writers), asking them to name their favorite
 Hitchcock movies. Obviously, there's nothing scientific about this 
survey, but perhaps it points to at least some of the Hitchcock movies 
that are standing the test of time.
Rear Window
 topped the survey with nine votes. Shawn Reilly Simmons saw it when she
 was quite young and still remembers "jumping out of my seat at the 
suspense." (Many other people put 
Rear Window second or third on their lists, but I decided to count only the first movie each person mentioned.) 
Vertigo
 came in second with five votes. Art Taylor admires it for many reasons,
 "but really what may fascinate me most is the fact that so much of it 
is told purely through images." Rob Lopresti is also enthusiastic, 
saying the movie has a "ridiculous plot that I believe completely when I
 am watching." (That reminded me of Hitchcock's statement that he tells 
"perfectly unbelievable" stories with such strong "hallucinatory logic" 
that viewers think "this same story can happen to [them] tomorrow." I 
think Hitch would love Rob's comment.) Three movies tied for third 
place, with four votes each--
Rebecca, North by Northwest, The Birds. (Diane Vallere, the next president of Sisters in Crime, made 
Rear Window her top choice but loves 
The Birds so much she once created a Halloween costume inspired by it.) Several other movies scored one or two votes--
Strangers on a Train, Dial M for Murder, The Trouble with Harry, Foreign Correspondent.
 So even in this tiny sample, there's plenty of disagreement. In my 
opinion, that points to the vitality and breadth of Hitchcock's 
achievement: He created many masterpieces that, decades after his death,
 still have passionate advocates.
Finally, I'll add a couple of personal notes. As I said, thirty-nine of my stories have been fortunate enough to appear in 
Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine.
 One of them, "A Joy Forever," is a Macavity finalist this year. If 
you'll be voting on the Macavity awards, and even if you won't, perhaps 
you'd like to read the story. You can find it on my website, at 
http://www.bkstevensmysteries.com/book/a-joy-forever/.
And two nights ago, when I took a break from working on this post and checked my e-mail, I learned that 
AHMM
 has accepted a fortieth story, "Death under Construction." I've been 
watching my e-mail for some time, hoping for this news. Thank goodness 
the suspense has ended.
(I won't be able to respond to comments on Saturday, 
but I'll respond to every comment on Sunday. I promise.)