Alfred Hitchcock Presents

 

 

If you want a break from hurricanes and the election, try any of these films by Alfred Hitchcock.

Famed British film director Alfred Hitchcock’s long career spanned almost 50 years. Known as the Master of Suspense, he came to America in 1940 and his first film, Rebecca, won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Today, he is best known for Technicolor classics like Rear Window, Vertigo, and North by Northwest. Older readers might remember his long running TV series, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, that featured short suspenseful dramas all introduced by Hitchcock himself. Who could ever forget the episode where a woman after killing her husband by hitting him over the head with a frozen leg of lamb, cooked the lamb and then served the evidence to the policemen investigating the homicide?

Nevertheless, I prefer some of his earlier black and white films that demonstrate that he was not only a master storyteller, but also a master of film noir and its techniques. Below find short descriptions of some of my favorites. It never ceases to surprise me that even senior citizens have never heard of or seen these classics. 

Rebecca. As mentioned above, Rebecca was Hitchcock’s first American film. Joan Fontaine, Lawrence Olivier, and Judith Anderson starred in this 1940 suspense drama based on a novel by Daphne du Maurier. Olivier plays a British aristocrat, a widower after the mysterious death of his beautiful and accomplished wife, who brings his new wife home to his estate that seems under the spell of the deceased Rebecca.   This film won the Academy Awards that year for Best Picture and Best Cinematography, and Fontaine, Olivier, and Anderson received Academy Award nominations for their performances. Hitchcock was at his best in Rebecca. 130 minutes. 

Shadow of a Doubt. Joseph Cotton and Teresa Wright starred in this 1943 thriller.  A long-lost relative returns to a sleepy small town for a stay with relatives who welcome him with open arms. He charms the whole town, but his niece begins to have doubts about Uncle Charley. Filmed on location in Santa Rosa, California, Shadow of a Doubt was Alfred Hitchcock’s personal favorite. 108 minutes.

Spellbound. Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman starred in this 1945 film about murder and repressed memory. Psychotherapy and psychoanalysis were starting to make their way into Hollywood and Hitchcock went all out in this film full of dreams and analysis. Surrealist painter Salvador Dali was even brought in to help with the dream sequences although most of his work never made it to the final cut. The film received nominations for Best Picture and Best Director, and famed musical director Miklos Rozsa won for Best Score. 111 minutes.

Stage Fright. Marlene Dietrich, Jane Wyman, and Richard Todd starred in this little known 1950 film shot in England. Dietrich plays a theatrical entertainer whose husband has been murdered. Police suspect her lover who claims his innocence and hides out with Wyman’s family.  The plot thickens until the typical Hitchcockian ending. Dietrich gets a chance to sing in her own inimitable fashion. The film also features famed British actors, Alastair Sim, Sybil Thorndike, and Joyce Grenfell. 110 minutes. 

Strangers on a Train. Farley Granger and Robert Walker starred in this 1951 Hitchcock thriller where a chance meeting on a train results in murder. This is my favorite Hitchcock film, from the opening sequence as we follow the footsteps of two men boarding a train, to the climactic finale which takes place on a carousel in an amusement park, a finale that is one of the most memorable in film history.  Robert Walker, who normally played boy next door roles, gave his greatest performance as a charming psychopath planning the perfect murder. Ruth Roman, and Patricia Hitchcock, the director’s daughter, are featured.101 minutes. 

I Confess. Montgomery Clift starred in this 1953 film as a priest who hears a killer’s confession but then is accused of the murder himself.  Unable to speak out because of the seal of the confessional, police and public opinion turn against him especially when it turns out there was a woman (Anne Baxter) in his past. The film was beautifully photographed on location in Quebec. 95 minutes.

I prefer to watch these films on DVD as opposed to streaming. Most of the DVDs for the films listed above come with special features that discuss the actual making of the films. In addition, there are no ads, and most include close captioning for the hearing impaired. 

### 

Vance Walz Debate

 Since I fell and fractured the humerus in my left arm five weeks ago, it has been difficult to use the keyboard on my computer for anything more than a sentence or two. But I would like to make a brief comment on last night's debate.

Before the debate, I thought that Republican Senator Vance would have to show that he was Presidential. He did not have to win but just show that he could be up to the job. Trump is nearly 80 and even his most ardent supporters must be concerned about the succession issue. So, it was not a question of win or lose the debate but would Vance show that he belonged in the arena.

I believe he passed with flying colors. He was intelligent, articulate, knowlegible, poised and young. His youth was a breath of fresh air. 

In fairness, I have to say that Governor Walz did better than I thought he would, and showed much more knowledge and experience than his running mate. This debate was the most substantive I have ever seen in all my years of following politics.

### 

Review, God and Man at Yale

 

                                           

William F. Buckley, Jr.

 Below find a brief review of William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale, a book which some believe launched the conservative movement in America. The main issue raised by Buckley is still with us today, and explains the major difference between our two parties that should be evident in tonight's debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. 

*********

 William F. Buckley Jr., the famed Conservative commentator, first came to the nation’s attention with the publication of God and Man at Yale back in 1951. The book, a review of Buckley's years at Yale was subtitled, “The Superstitions of ‘Academic Freedom’”. 

Buckley must have had an outstanding college career before graduating in 1950. For example, one year he held the prestigious position of editor of the Yale Daily News.  He  loved his Alma Mater but found some disturbing trends. 

Here I would just like to concentrate on his lengthy chapter devoted to the teaching of economics at Yale, a chapter primarily analyzing the textbooks chosen for the basic introductory course that was taken by a large number of students. All four of the textbooks believed that the biggest problem facing America in 1950 was “income inequality”. That’s right! Income Inequality or, as he titled it, THE UNFAIR DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME. Why was income inequality such a big issue back in 1950?

I believe the answer can be found in the background of the economists who had written the textbooks. If Buckley was about 25 in 1950, then I would guess the authors of the textbooks were born before the First World War and grew up in the era marked by the subsequent Communist Revolution in Russia and the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s. Paul Samuelson, for example, was born in 1915 and his textbook, Economics, an Introductory Analysis, was first published in 1948 and soon became one of the best-selling textbooks of all time. Samuelson’s book was one of the four reviewed by Buckley.

Samuelson and the others all believed that the experiment begun in Russia in 1917 was the wave of the future, and that the Great Depression in American had shown the inadequacies of the traditional system of free or private enterprise in dealing with modern economic issues. In the chapter on economics Buckley cited a comparison between the Soviet and American systems from one of these textbooks. The italics are Buckley’s.

compare “ the situation in our economy with that in a socialist economy, such as the Russian or Czechoslovakian. In the Russian economy the decision to produce, let us say 20 million tons of pig iron, is made by the Central Planning board, which presumably takes into account the needs and resources of the Russian economy before it comes to a decision. The same board determines how many automobiles to produce, how many pairs of socks to manufacture, and how many acres to put into wheat. In our economy, no such institution exists. No one group or person determines how much steel to produce, how many tractors to make, or how much land to plant in cotton…. In a socialist economy, important questions of output, price, employment, and so on are planned collectively. In a capitalistic economy, these decisions are made separately by individual firms…. How does the business firm determine how much it will produce? The answer to this question is to be found in the fact that the business firm in this country is privately owned…. The determination of how much to produce, or of the price to be charged for the product, is made with one interest in mind—that of the owner. The owner’s interest is to secure as large a profit as possible. [Pp. 65-66]

Just as today, it was believed that the profit motive that was the root of all evil. In the words of one text, “the state, being free from the profit motive and having the power of compulsion, is able to make its revenue fit its expenditures (within limits) rather than the reverse.” [p. 67] Of course, profit motive brings up the image of the greedy businessman as often portrayed in popular movies of the 1930s or in the figure of Mr. Monopoly from the very popular board game.

Samuelson’s text disclaimed the image but still used it.

In this connection, it is important to understand just what a monopolist is. He is not indeed,“…a fat, greedy man with a big moustache and cigar who goes around violating the law. If he were, we could put him in jail. He is anyone important enough to affect the prices of the things that he sells and buys. To some degree that means almost every businessman”… [75]

In 1950 all four textbook authors were convinced that the experiment going on in Russia was the wave of the future and that the private enterprises system was a thing of the past that had been forever discredited by the Great Depression. The textbooks, and the professors who chose them, were all advocates of central planning, a large central government, extremely high progressive income tax rates, and confiscatory inheritance tax rates. 

Writing in 1950 I don’t suppose that the young Buckley or the textbook authors could have foreseen the great economic boom that would take place in the USA in the next few decades, a boom that not only raised millions out of poverty, but also created the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Neither could they imagine that during the same period the Soviet economy would finally be exposed as a rotten failure. At the same time as we were beginning to learn about Stalin’s brutal oppression, we were learning of people lining up at Russian markets for hours to buy inferior or even non-existent necessities. 

The Soviet Union had eliminated income inequality by making everyone poor. Years later, we would learn that they had actually created a new aristocracy of Communist party members and their friends who lorded it over their subjects. As in most socialist countries members of the ruling party made up only about 10% of the population. So much for central planning and the elimination of the profit motive.

In one of history’s ironies Paul Samuelson made a fortune with his economics textbook, In true capitalist fashion he contrived to bring out a new edition every couple of years so that students could not buy older used texts. No central board or agency prevented him or his publisher from printing and selling as many copies as the market would bear. He lived a long life and received practically every award a scholar could get. In 1996, he was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Bill Clinton, another Yale graduate who now makes millions by giving speeches to fat cats all over the world while he, his wife, and "democratic socialists" or so-called progressives complain of income inequality.

### 

Two Resumes

  

                  

This week at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), the Democrats nominated Vice President Kamela Harris to be their standard bearer in the November election. She will face off against the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump. Now would be a good time to compare the two candidates. 

Theoretically, we are their potential employer, and let’s imagine that we are looking at their resumes and considering their qualifications for the job. Of course, like any good employer, we should not consider their age, gender, race, creed, or color. Let’s concentrate on their recent work experience.

First, we find that Donald Trump has actually served four years as President of the USA. He has four years of on-the-job experience. We see that his administration had some major successes in foreign affairs. He met with many foreign leaders, both friend and foe, and the World was at relative peace, especially after ISIS was defeated in Iraq.  Toward the end of his term, his administration brokered the Abraham Accords, an historic first step in normalizing relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. There was no war in Ukraine.

Domestically, his most important achievement was tax reform that made the tax system not only fairer and simpler, but also more growth oriented. It is important to understand that the Trump reform was not really a cut in taxes but a cut in tax rates both personal and corporate. In 2016, before tax reform, the Federal government collected $3.27 trillion in taxes. By 2019, before the pandemic hit, total tax revenues rose to $3.46 trillion. Moreover, during the Trump administration employment and real wages reached all-time highs.

But more than anything else, he was always up front, a leader in both foreign and domestic affairs. We remember his many press conferences where, unscripted and without a teleprompter, he took on all questions from largely hostile media.  Even during the Covid crisis, he was on stage practically every day during that national emergency. Whatever you think of vaccines, there is no doubt that he acted with firmness and alacrity in their development. 

In summary, his resume shows four years or relative peace and prosperity despite a pandemic, and despite incredible and unprecedented opposition from his political opponents.

 

Now, let’s look at the resume of Vice-President Harris. There is a lengthy goal statement, but one wonders why she has not achieved any of these goals in the past three and a half years of the Biden/Harris administration. She plans to do many things on Day 1 of her administration, but since she is in office right now, why hasn’t she done them already? 

I would ask any reader to help me list three significant things that she has achieved as Vice-President. I can offer a couple of hints. She obviously participated in the coup that put an end to President Biden’s re-election campaign. After years of lying about how sharp and capable he was, she helped to throw him under the bus. If she is truly running the show now, she added insult to injury by putting Biden on the DNC stage at 11:30 on Monday night.  

She also appointed Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota as her running mate. His only qualification seems to be that he will not outshine her. Otherwise, her resume is blank for the past three and a half years. What has she been doing during that time? She was supposed to be Border Czar, but her handlers have deleted that item.

Finally, her resume shows no evidence of any real leadership. Did she play an important role in the inner circles of the Biden administration? Or is her call for a new era of hope and joy, a critique of that administration? Who knows? She is being hidden from view in the same manner as Biden four years ago, she gives no interviews or press conferences. Her speeches are all ghost written and delivered via teleprompter. It is true that she does a good job of reading from a teleprompter.

I watched her acceptance speech to see if she added more information on her role in the Biden administration. She briefly mentioned three things. First, she warned President Zelensky of Ukraine that the Russians were about to invade.  Three years later, the war goes on. Second, after three years of an open border policy she worked this year to create a border bill but that was somehow derailed by former President Trump. Finally, she is currently working with President Biden to end the Gaza war, but so far with no success. That was all she could say about her record as Vice President. She spent much more time talking about her mother.

 

Who would you hire?

 

###