The title quote is from the Hitchcock/Truffaut documentary I watched a while back. It’s one of several quotes and discussions that stuck with me now that I’ve finished the relevant book, HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT. 
Francois Truffaut established himself as a serious filmmaker with his first movie, The 400 Blows. He was also a serious thinker about film, one of several future directors who started by writing for the magazine Cahiers du Cinema which made the radical claim for the time that some American directors were serious artists too. He saw that Hitch, whom America’s Serious Critics dismissed as a gifted but commercial director, was also a serious artist, which led to the book, a biography of sorts starting from Hitchcock’s childhood and working through his career, film by film. It’s fascinating reading even if I don’t agree with either man at times (Truffaut considers Under Capricorn a neglected classic, for instance).
The opening quote strikes me as good advice for writers. Going and looking for implausibility might not be productive but if it’s useful, why avoid it? The Fast and Furious series is a good example: the movies are engaging when we have our heroes, say, driving off towing a money vault in Fast Five but a lot less successful when they’re taking on a Russian submarine base in The Fate of the Furious. Diminishing returns and all that (though obviously it didn’t kill the series).
While I’ve heard Hitchcock discuss the difference between suspense and shock before — a bomb going off suddenly is a shock, knowing it’s there and counting down is suspense — his discussion of Vertigo added weight to it. The studio thought the ending lacked drama so they wanted a big reveal that Kim Novak was not merely a lookalike for Stewart’s lost love but the same woman. That’s shock; revealing it to the viewers much earlier, as Hitchcock did, is suspense: can she keep up the impersonation or will Scotty (Jimmy Stewart) catch on?
The two men inevitably discussed Hitchcock’s view of MacGuffins — that it doesn’t matter what the bad guys are out to steal or the good guys trying to protect, except that it puts the plot in motion (as I pointed out recently, that’s how I think about the anti-mind control drugs in Black Widow). This raises the risk that when the reveal comes, the audience will be disappointed; Truffaut observes one way Hitchcock deals with this is make the reveal a couple of reels ahead of the climax so it’s not too important to the finish.
But of course the real focus of the book is Hitch’s movies; I rather wish that I’d had this book handy all the way through so I could read the discussion while the film is fresh. Truffaut has the eye of both a critic and a movie maker so we get very interesting discussion of key moments, strengths and weaknesses and film quality. I do think some of Hitchcock’s analysis is skewed by his notorious control issues: he thinks the actors’ role is “to do nothing in an interesting way” rather than act — leave it to Hitchcock’s camera work and set design to tell the story. Unsurprisingly Truffaut, one of the originators of auteur theory (the director’s control makes him the true author of the movie, not the actors or the screenwriter) seems to agree. In Rear Window, he argues, Jimmy Stewart doesn’t have to act: Hitchcock simply shows him watching the neighborhood, then cuts to the scene and we imagine the reaction because Hitch has primed us to see what he wants on Stewart’s face.
I strongly disagree Stewart isn’t acting in that film. But the idea it’s all in the hands of the director and his storyboards must be appealing when you are the director; Truffaut quotes Hitch saying that “I dream of an IBM machine in which I’d insert the screenplay at one end and the film would emerge on the other.” Possibly that also influences Hitch’s view that silents are better than talkies — dialog is theatrical, getting in the way of pure film.
But even where I disagree it’s a fascinating book.
#SFWApro. All rights to images remain with current holders.
FRENZY (1972) owes a lot to 
The eighth season of FLASH started very poorly as everything seems to be going wrong for Barry with the various other Arrowverse superheroes stepping in to stop him. Then it turns out it’s an elaborate plot by Reverse Flash to change history, take over Barry’s life and cast him as the villain of the series. It doesn’t work but it was great watching him try.
I saw ads for STAND UP AND BE COUNTED (1972) as a teen but knew nothing about the film until I decided to catch it online early this month. Jacqueline Bissette plays a reporter assigned to cover the women’s liberation movement and the effect on her American hometown (her British accent is explained as something she picked up working in the UK). Initially skeptical, she begins to appreciate the movement’s principles, but can boyfriend Gary Lockwood embrace ideas such as doing half the housework and not putting his career first?
first caught it — for a Hitchcock film, let alone one about the Cuban Missile Crisis, there’s a real lack of tension and suspense. The film focuses too much on the nuts and bolts of espionage, feeling as if Hitch or Leon Uris (who wrote the source book) were telling an anti-Bond this-is-real-espionage story, bu I rather doubt it. It doesn’t hep that thel ast third of the film, in which Stafford hunts down a Soviet mole, feels tacked on rather than tied to the main plot.
Paul Newman plays a nuclear-weapons physicist who horrifies his fiancee (Julie Andrews) when he apparently defects to East Germany. She tags along over his protests, unaware he has a hidden agenda: if Newman can trick a German scientist into divulging some key technical intel, he’ll be able to perfect an anti-missile missile that will make nuclear attack obsolete (this dream was around long before Reagan’s Star Wars project).
TEEN TITANS GO VS TEEN TITANS (2019) has the cast of the 2003-6 Teen Titans meet their counterparts from Teen Titans Go when both series’ Trigons merge (“I am Hexagon — no, not the shape!”), bringing the teams into a bemused encounter as they try to figure each other out (“They must be heroes, they’re so — tall!”). More fun than either of the Hitchcock films this week, with alt.versions including Funny Animal Titans, Baby Titans, an animated version of the live-action show and a brief cameo by the Wolfman/Perez team (though I didn’t spot the Silver Age team anywhere). Great fun, though I’m puzzled why the 2003 Robin is written to be as big a doofus as the Go! version. Weird Al Yankovic plays the Gentleman Ghost.“I like to think of you as a cool uncle … who’s not that cool.”
As a fan of Keanu Reaves and Alex Winter as 
You can find my reviews of all of these and more 
Fraser Sherman's Blog 