Alfred Hitchcock’s Blunt Verdict on Two Hollywood Epics

Alfred Hitchcock’s reputation as a master of suspense and innovation in cinema is so firmly established that few were surprised when he openly criticised a pair of celebrated Hollywood epics. His influence is such that the term “Hitchcockian” has become shorthand for a particular brand of cinematic brilliance. Many directors have cited him as the inspiration behind their own careers, and his legacy as a mentor to generations of film enthusiasts is well documented. Hitchcock was always eager to discuss the methods he employed to direct viewers’ attention and build tension in his work.

He took particular satisfaction in the challenges presented by The Birds, a film that demanded painstaking preparation to orchestrate its unnerving avian attack sequences. While The Birds may not be universally regarded as his crowning achievement, it certainly demonstrated Hitchcock’s refusal to be constrained by convention. Few filmmakers would willingly take on the unpredictability of working with animals, yet Hitchcock managed to create scenes in which flocks of gulls terrorise unsuspecting characters with remarkable realism.

Hitchcock’s Creative Approach Versus Hollywood Spectacle

One of the most striking aspects of The Birds is that it was not a lavish production, despite earning an Academy Award nomination for ‘Best Special Effects’. Hitchcock believed that the ingenuity and effort required to devise such complex scenes far outweighed the achievement of constructing enormous sets filled with extras. In his view, historical epics like Cleopatra and Ben-Hur amounted to little more than

“just quantities of people and scenery,”

and were trivial compared to the obstacles he overcame with The Birds.

For Hitchcock, the recreation of ancient monuments and the deployment of crowds in Roman armour were impressive from a design perspective, but did not, in his estimation, demand genuine directorial skill. While some might see his remarks as the grumblings of a curmudgeon, his emphasis on creativity over sheer expenditure was not without merit. The industry’s obsession with grand, costly productions in the 1960s led to a string of high-profile failures, paving the way for the emergence of the so-called “New Hollywood”.

Cleopatra and Ben-Hur: Box Office and Awards

Cleopatra, in particular, became infamous for its troubled production, nearly driving its studio to financial ruin. Although it performed reasonably well at the box office and secured a ‘Best Picture’ nomination, its enormous budget meant it failed to turn a profit. Ben-Hur, on the other hand, remains celebrated for its scale and technical prowess. While it certainly required the vast resources Hitchcock referenced, its dynamic set pieces—most notably the iconic chariot race—are still admired today.

Hitchcock’s dismissive attitude towards Ben-Hur may have been coloured by professional envy rather than genuine disdain. William Wyler’s epic not only broke new ground in terms of spectacle but also set a record with eleven Academy Awards, a feat matched only by Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Cleopatra, though less successful in terms of accolades, did manage to win the ‘Best Special Effects’ Oscar, beating The Birds—a result that may have fuelled Hitchcock’s pointed remarks.

Recognition and Rivalry in Hollywood

It is worth noting that Hitchcock himself never received the Oscar for ‘Best Director’, despite his film Rebecca winning ‘Best Picture’. This lack of recognition may have contributed to his critical stance towards the grand productions that dominated the awards circuit. His comments on Cleopatra and Ben-Hur reflect not only his personal philosophy on filmmaking but also the competitive spirit that pervaded Hollywood during his era.