In the new book A Century of Hitchcock: The Man, the Myths, the Legacy, critics and journalists have started debating a much larger question: How should we judge historical figures when memories evolve, evidence conflicts and biographies become accepted truth?
This week, veteran film critic Mick LaSalle devoted a major feature in the San Francisco Chronicle to the book’s central argument. Instead of asking whether readers should like Alfred Hitchcock, LaSalle asks whether some of the assumptions surrounding Hitchcock’s reputation deserve to be re-examined in light of archival evidence and newly available testimony. He describes the book as “well-researched” and highlights the 1980 UCLA transcript of Donald Spoto with Tippi Hedren as one of the most significant pieces of evidence in the debate.
Importantly, LaSalle does not present the discussion as one of heroes and villains. Nor does he suggest that every question has been answered. Instead, he asks readers to consider how historical narratives are formed, how memories can change over decades, and how biographies themselves can influence public understanding. That mirrors the response the book has received internationally in newspapers such as The Australian and the Netherlands based Volkrants.
Some reviewers have welcomed the reassessment of Donald Spoto’s work and the wider examination of memory, testimony and historical reconstruction. Others have argued that the book devotes too much attention to challenging established narratives or remain persuaded by Tippi Hedren’s later account. That difference of opinion is entirely legitimate. History advances through debate, not unanimity.
Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the response so far is that the discussion has largely centred on evidence, sources and interpretation, rather than simple repetition of long-established stories. Whether readers ultimately agree or disagree with the book’s conclusions, they are engaging with the archival record and asking important questions about how cultural history is written.
Save Hitchcock was established in 2012 to encourage precisely this kind of evidence-based discussion. It was never intended to canonise Alfred Hitchcock or dismiss criticism, but to ensure that competing accounts, contemporary documents and first-hand testimony were given proper consideration alongside later recollections. The conversation is clearly not over. Nor should it be.
You can read Mick La Salle’s review here:
save hitchcock 