Ted Haimes put together this tribute to a fine film maker. It's narrated by Kevin Spacey, and there are interpolated comments from Alfred Hitchcock's stars, co-workers, relatives and friends like Janet Leigh, Norman Lloyd, Joseph Stefano, John Michael Hayes, and Peter Bogdanovich.The comments are brief and informative. Most of the screen time is given over to Hitchcock's home movies, still photos, and clips from his better-known movies.Among the subjects given more extensive treatment are "Rear Window," "The Birds," "Shadow of a Doubt," and examples of Hitchcock's skill as an entertainer and self promoter, especially his appearances on "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." Appearing on television, in the 1950s, was considered something of a demotion for a movie director. The guy must be in decline if he's desperate enough to appear on the small screen, right? Can you imagine something along the lines of "John Ford Presents"? And yet, for all the show biz elements of his television show, it worked. It was successful even though he only directed a dozen or so episodes, and even though the material for his irreverent framing announcements were written by someone else. By this time he was as much a public figure as his movies. He was recognizable and, probably more important to him, merchandisable. By selling himself he made Alfred Hitchcock the instrument for the sale of his products.What a complicated man he was. The movie soft pedals his human weaknesses and, since it's a paean to Hitch, he is presented as a genius in touch with our innermost fears. A genius, no doubt, and an artist. Also, in the end, an abject alcoholic, a stingy man ("mean" in Britain), uncomfortable with either expressing or accepting affection or dissent, and obsessed with lurid fantasies. I doubt that the documentary would have been a lesser piece if it had mentioned some of these devalued habits.But, perhaps, that's a different kind of documentary. This one is splendidly written. It doesn't talk down to the audience, doesn't treat them as children. Not once is Hitchcock referred to as "the master of suspense." Thank Bog. I don't know if we would want to change places with Hitchcock. He earned world-wide acclaim, but his tormented soul inhabited a most unprepossessing body with compulsive traits. At the same time, I'm sure he would happily have traded places with Cary Grant.

Dial H for Hitchcock (1999) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Well made documentary covering the entire career of Alfred Hitchcock features interviews with Janet Leigh, Jonathan Demme, Brian De Palma, Curtis Hanson, Wes Craven, Peter Bogdanovich and various others including Hitchcock himself. We really don't learn anything new here but it's always interesting hearing directors speak of their favorite films and there are some nice stories told here. Psycho gets the majority of the talk but I always find these stories the most entertaining since this film does contain the greatest number of shocks. A lot of detail is also given to Hitchcock's relationship with his wife, which was pretty touching. AKA Hitchcock: Shadow of a Genius.

This might be a fine documentary to watch if you've never seen anything at all on Hitchcock before; it gives you the basic facts and a chronology of his career and all that. But for anyone with any actual familiarity with Hitchcock, this will all have been seen before.This documentary is basically a pedestrian retelling of Hitchcock's film life. It rarely dips beneath the surface. Surprisingly, the most interesting comments on Hitchcock's approach to film are made not by the directors and academicians but by actresses who have worked with him. But the documentary fails to shed any light on what makes Hitchcock important, or give any insights into his artistry. It just tells you he is important and artistic.I wouldn't say this was without any merit at all. There is an occasional interesting comment, or brief snippet of film, that is worthwhile. But it is very weak.

Some magnificent background on early Hitchcock and marvelous seldom-seen footage gets this well-meaning documentary off on the right track for the first 40 min. The rest is a waste of time with the same old clips being shown as the same old talking heads concur one-at-a-time to what has become accepted wisdom among today's entertainment artist intelligencia. It's a shame that Billy Wilder, Stanley Kramer and other quasi-contemporaries of Hitchcock were not interviewed to provide balance -- Truffaut's adoration of Hitchcock has proven to be both a blessing and a curse because there is now a protected unified front over what Hitchcock "loved" and didn't love. For example, despite Selznicks' "interference", Rebecca is still a picture for the ages, and Suspicion was quite successful at the box office despite revisionist history. The Wrong Man was also ignored totally since it didn't fit into the thesis.