Sometimes the best Hollywood stories are the ones off screen.
Take, for example, the uneasy partnership between director Alfred Hitchcock and producer David O. Selznick that – in spite of their very different approaches to filmmaking – produced some exquisite films: Rebecca (1940), Spellbound (1945), Notorious (1946), and The Paradine Case (1947).
Hollywood historian Leonard J. Leff explores this unlikely collaboration in Hitchcock & Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood.
It’s a story of creativity and business, told by someone who knows how to read movies. Leff revels in this account, and his exhaustive research makes this unique chapter of Hollywood history extraordinarily vivid.
The business arrangement that began in 1938 was Over by 1948. It was a Marriage of Convenience between Selznick the restless micromanager and Hitchcock the stubborn passive-aggressive. “Selznick and Hitchcock never fought like cats and dogs,” says Leff, “they preferred the subtler game of cat and mouse.”¹
But the movies were good. “Hitchcock added bite to Selznick’s style,” writes Leff. “Selznick added American gloss to Hitchcock’s.”²
Hitchcock & Selznick is a biography of a Hollywood partnership and reversal of fortune. Over their 10-year association, Hitchcock would gain Hollywood prestige, while Selznick, unable to duplicate the massive success of Gone With the Wind (1939), would recede.
Early days. Image: El Cinema de Hollywood
In the 1930s, before Selznick brought him to Hollywood, Hitchcock was considered a director of “British thrillers”, and he languished in a Career Rut.
“The [British] companies’ inefficient management as well as the instability of personnel, financing, and budgets severely limited growth,” writes Leff. “Furthermore, throughout the 1930s, accounting methods penalized successful filmmakers like Hitchcock, whose box office receipts were used to offset the commercial failures of his more prodigal associates.”³
Meanwhile, Selznick, the captain of Selznick International Pictures and producer of Gone With the Wind, realized he needed director-producers because he insisted on becoming too involved in each production. He couldn’t help himself, even though his health and home life were starting to deteriorate.
He wanted Hitchcock, even though he hadn’t seen his films, but he liked how the media wrote about the director. Selznick also had the impression – deliberately cultivated by the Brit – that Hitchcock was both a director and a producer.
An agreement was signed, Hitchcock moved his family to Hollywood, and sleeves were rolled with anticipation.
The filmmaking style of both men, along with the resulting friction, are detailed with colourful contrast. Selznick focused on character motivations and the beauty of language; Hitchcock saw plot as something of a technical challenge.
For example, during the pre-production of Rebecca, Leff writes, “Selznick never forced the issue of absolute control, for alienating Hitchcock made no sense. The critically-acclaimed director was already the media’s darling and potentially a major corporate asset.”4
Selznick viewed Hitchcock as both a creative filmmaking partner and a commodity, while Hitchcock chafed against his employer. He wanted to be – and eventually became – an independent producer, but it would be Tough Slogging in the interim, especially for one who disliked authority figures.
He sometimes revealed his contempt on screen. For example, look below at actor Raymond Burr, the villain in Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1954), and how he bears a resemblance to Selznick.
To be fair, though, Selznick wasn’t the only Hollywood exec to wear Hitchcock’s target on his back.
Hitchcock & Selznick is a well-written book with insight and humour. Leff has many brilliant throwaway observations, such as Hitchcock preferring “wars of attrition not aggression.”
He also discusses Selznick’s fondness for verbose memos, and Hitchcock’s perceived boredom while on set. Leff doesn’t delve deeply into the personal lives of these men – he gives us just enough for perspective – yet he leaves us feeling like we actually know this unusual pair.
Leff, as biographer, is as objective as possible. He notes Selznick’s contributions often made films better, unlike other studio moguls at the time. He also notes Hitchcock’s ability to visualize the End Result, the meticulous planning he assigned to his shots, and how, over time, his filming schedules became more efficient.
“History subsequently proved that Selznick needed Hitchcock more than Hitchcock needed Selznick,” says Leff, “yet Hitchcock did not succeed despite Selznick any more than Selznick succeeded because of Hitchcock.”5
They would not end their days in acrimony. Shortly before his death in 1965, Selznick appeared at a Screen Producers event honouring Hitchcock. Leff says Selznick “affectionately recalled his early association with ‘Hitch, cool and imperturbable – undisturbed even by my memos – of which he received many.'”6
Years later, Hitchcock fondly remembered Selznick in an interview. Leff quotes Hitchcock as saying, “Are we missing some other stimulus that went with those earlier days – the great movie mogul, for example?”7
If you’re an Alfred Hitchcock fan, or have an interest in Hollywood history, you’ll love this book. It’s amusing and informative, and is as much a study of the mechanics of cinema as it is about the personalities involved.
Leff, Leonard J. (1987) Hitchcock & Selznik: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood. New York, NY. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ¹Ibid., p. 117 ²Ibid., p. xii ³Ibid., p. 15 4Ibid., pp. 54-55 5Ibid., p. xii 6Ibid., p. 280 7Ibid., p. 280
I’m reading right now a great book on Alfred Hitchcock I had never heard before and here it comes another one! It’s impressive how much there is still to learn about Hitch, but also it’s never enough! Thank you 🙂
I’m reading The 12 lives of Alfred Hitchcock by Edward White, a wonderful gift from my brother. I cannot wait to review it, but my reading is going outrageously slowly (I’ve moved to a new house this week, I reckon you know what that means…)
Hitchcock and Selznick is one of the most curious and strange partnerships to ever come out of Hollywood. I’ve seen Rebecca and Notorious, and both are good in their respective ways, but I do prefer Notorious to be honest. I remember Selznick’s son was interviewed for a documentary on The Third Man and he said he heard stories of his father chewing Benzedrine like candy so he’d stay awake during film productions and then take a whole bottle of sleeping pills afterwards, a ticking timebomb waiting to go off. How Hitchcock managed to co-exist with Selznick at all is a mystery wrapped in an enigma housed in a puzzle box.
Fascinating! I’ve got to have this book in my collection, thank you. I am not an expert in this, but to be fair to Selznick I guess there is nothing he could do about “receding” while Hitchcock “climbed” in time. I mean, were not the times becoming favourable to Hitchcock when the “auteur theory” has also came about and gained force and then momentum? It was all about the rise of independent-thinking directors (and the expense of producers) from then on and Hitchcock was the main one in that category. Godard, with his championing of directors, lavished so much praise on Hitchcock in his journal, the whole Europe and then world took a second look. Very rightly, of course, but still. Gone with the Wind was Selznick’s overall, maybe, but a very strong argument can be made for a collaborative effort.
What a unique topic — this sounds like a good one! How interesting that Selznick wanted Hitchcock just based on what the media wrote about him — and that resemblance between Selznick and Raymond Burr’s character in Rear Window is wild (not to mention, kinda funny)! Really enjoyed this review!
I think you’d really enjoy this book, Karen. It’s hard to put down once you start it, and it’s full of filmmaking goodness. It’s been on my shelf for several years, and now I can’t believe it took me so long to read it!
This sounds terrific and you’ve made me so eager to read this book, Ruth. It sounds like it was tough for them both, but out of all of that a mutual respect and degree of warmth developed regardless.
I’ve long thought how difficult it must have been for Hitchcock to not have the full level of control on his projects as he was used to.
Hitch making Raymond Burr look like Selznick in Rear Window never fails to make me laugh.
Thanks, Maddie! This is a really good book, and I hope you cross paths with it someday. Lots of great history and technical info – but not dry. It was difficult to set aside while reading.
Ha! I never noticed that Rear Window’s Thorvald looks so much like Selznick! That adds a whole new level of appreciation for my favorite Hitchcock villain.
I used to be a little dismissive of the Selznick-Hitchcock collaborations because I saw the Selznick gloss as getting in the way. However, I’ve come around over time– Notorious is one of Hitchcock’s best films in general and I have a soft spot for Rebecca, which is a favorite of my mother and grandmother.
Silver Screenings 
Sounds like very interesting reading 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a terrific book. I had a hard time putting it down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m reading right now a great book on Alfred Hitchcock I had never heard before and here it comes another one! It’s impressive how much there is still to learn about Hitch, but also it’s never enough! Thank you 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
You said it! There’s a lot to discover in his films & technique. May I ask: What’s the name of the book you’re reading?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m reading The 12 lives of Alfred Hitchcock by Edward White, a wonderful gift from my brother. I cannot wait to review it, but my reading is going outrageously slowly (I’ve moved to a new house this week, I reckon you know what that means…)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Best wishes for your new home! And thanks for the reading recommendation.
LikeLike
Hitchcock and Selznick is one of the most curious and strange partnerships to ever come out of Hollywood. I’ve seen Rebecca and Notorious, and both are good in their respective ways, but I do prefer Notorious to be honest. I remember Selznick’s son was interviewed for a documentary on The Third Man and he said he heard stories of his father chewing Benzedrine like candy so he’d stay awake during film productions and then take a whole bottle of sleeping pills afterwards, a ticking timebomb waiting to go off. How Hitchcock managed to co-exist with Selznick at all is a mystery wrapped in an enigma housed in a puzzle box.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Beautifully said. Leff goes into Selznick’s, uh, prescriptions. It’s anazing he lived as long as he did!
As for this unusual partnership, it is puzzling how they made it work, as you said, and admirable that they did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating! I’ve got to have this book in my collection, thank you. I am not an expert in this, but to be fair to Selznick I guess there is nothing he could do about “receding” while Hitchcock “climbed” in time. I mean, were not the times becoming favourable to Hitchcock when the “auteur theory” has also came about and gained force and then momentum? It was all about the rise of independent-thinking directors (and the expense of producers) from then on and Hitchcock was the main one in that category. Godard, with his championing of directors, lavished so much praise on Hitchcock in his journal, the whole Europe and then world took a second look. Very rightly, of course, but still. Gone with the Wind was Selznick’s overall, maybe, but a very strong argument can be made for a collaborative effort.
LikeLike
Yup, you said it. Hitchcock’s star could only ascend, while Selznick – having already peaked & not knowing it – had to wane.
And yes, you do need this book in you collection. It’s a fascinating read. Highly recommended!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a unique topic — this sounds like a good one! How interesting that Selznick wanted Hitchcock just based on what the media wrote about him — and that resemblance between Selznick and Raymond Burr’s character in Rear Window is wild (not to mention, kinda funny)! Really enjoyed this review!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think you’d really enjoy this book, Karen. It’s hard to put down once you start it, and it’s full of filmmaking goodness. It’s been on my shelf for several years, and now I can’t believe it took me so long to read it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This sounds terrific and you’ve made me so eager to read this book, Ruth. It sounds like it was tough for them both, but out of all of that a mutual respect and degree of warmth developed regardless.
I’ve long thought how difficult it must have been for Hitchcock to not have the full level of control on his projects as he was used to.
Hitch making Raymond Burr look like Selznick in Rear Window never fails to make me laugh.
Thanks so much for joining.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Maddie! This is a really good book, and I hope you cross paths with it someday. Lots of great history and technical info – but not dry. It was difficult to set aside while reading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha! I never noticed that Rear Window’s Thorvald looks so much like Selznick! That adds a whole new level of appreciation for my favorite Hitchcock villain.
I used to be a little dismissive of the Selznick-Hitchcock collaborations because I saw the Selznick gloss as getting in the way. However, I’ve come around over time– Notorious is one of Hitchcock’s best films in general and I have a soft spot for Rebecca, which is a favorite of my mother and grandmother.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hear you. Selznick & Hitchcock were an odd pairing, but I think they influenced each other in positive ways.
I’ve come to better appreciate Rebecca over the years. As for Notorious, it was love at first sight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is fascinating. Yet another great post!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! It’s such a good book. I think you might get a kick out of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, I never got the connection between Raymond Burr’s character and Selznik, but now I see the resemblance. This was fascinating. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was pretty cheeky of Hitchcock to make Raymond Burr look like David Selznick, wasn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was. You really can’t unsee it.
LikeLiked by 1 person