This page is referenced by:

• 1 2019-05-05T17:34:16-07:00 Methodology 9 plain 2019-05-14T19:03:17-07:00

  Why Scalar?

  Before François Truffaut set out to interview Alfred Hitchcock for Hitchcock, he arranged to have all of Hitchcock’s films screened in Paris to review and rewatch. Whenever I read Hitchcock, I often wonder, “What would have happened had Truffaut had access to streaming services or a stack of Blu Rays beside him, a big screen television, and the ability to pause and rewind?”
  
  Digital technologies have forever changed the way we study film. We are able to access practically anything our cinephile hearts might desire at a moment’s notice. There is no excuse not to meticulously study a film before embarking on a critical journey. One of the most notable changes in film studies has been the rise of videographic criticism or “video essays,” which allows scholars to use the materials that constitute our object of study — moving images and sounds — to craft scholarly arguments. Now, film scholars can make arguments about our art form in its own terms.
  When I set out to write about Rebecca for my senior work at Middlebury College, I planned to write a traditional thesis paper. However, having been a student of videographic criticism, and understanding the way it has not only changed but enhanced film studies, I realized I could not complete a project without including videographic criticism. In my view, the game has changed; videographic criticism is on its way to becoming a necessary part of film scholarship — there will be no excuse not to include it when possible.
  
  And so, I turned to Scalar, which has proved to be an invaluable home for this project, allowing me to blend together videos and the written word, as well as photographs, newspaper clippings, and data visualizations.
  
  Moreover, as a believer in the digital humanities, I wanted my project to live beyond the printed page, and be easily accessible and digestible to fans of Hitchcock, Rebecca, and beyond.

  Types of Scholarship

  This Scalar book contains many different forms of scholarship. The bulk of this book contains a written, critical analysis of Hitchcock’s Rebecca, specifically focusing on its relationship to auteur theory and an examination of the film’s disputed authorship and why Hitchcock famously declared that it was not a “Hitchcock picture” in his interview with Truffaut.
  
  Also included in this book is original archival research conducted at the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin in December 2018 and at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Library Margaret Herrick Library in February 2019.
  
  In addition to the written word, this book contains videographic essays and clips from the film, as well as press photos, newspaper clippings, and more. There are also clips from multiple Hitchcock films. I made three of the video essays included in this book as part of an independent study project completed in the fall of 2018 as preparation for my senior work. That project is called “Videographic Hitchcock” and can be found here.

  My Relationship to Rebecca

  I began this Scalar book by declaring my love for Rebecca. Robin Wood too begins his monograph on Rio Bravo (1959), published by the British Film Institute in 2003, with a personal note, reflecting on being rushed to the hospital for an emergency operation that did not guarantee survival. “But what immediately came into my mind was the work of Howard Hawks and specifically the way his heroes confront death,” he wrote. “I felt completely calm, and like to think I was smiling (though I probably wasn’t). … Writing this book is a labour of love and gratitude” (Wood, 2003). While I have had no near death experiences (nor do I wish to compare myself to Wood), I have quoted him at length to show that film scholars often have extremely personal ties to their objects of study. It cannot, and should not, be avoided.
  
  In the introduction to Flaming Classic, Alexander Doty addresses what it means to be a scholar-fan:

  The results of a couple of decades of ignoring or hiding personal and cultural investments in our (post-contemporary theory) academic writing, however, has been to squeeze much of the life out of it in many senses, often relegating our investments in, and enthusiasm for, film and popular culture to the realm of hidden pleasures. It’s as if showing too much interest in what we are writing about somehow undermines our credibility as intellectuals (Doty, 2000).

  
  Doty’s analysis observes the unnecessary lie that often accompanies academic writing: pretending not to have an emotional stake and investment in our objects of study. In doing so, not only do scholars mask their own history with the film under the guise of objectivity, but they deprive their reader and themselves of more interesting and compelling analyses. To follow Doty’s argument, our fandom and passion can give us credibility because we are so invested in our object(s) of study, not the other way around. My argument that Rebecca is essential to understanding Hitchcock is informed by my fandom ,by the aforementioned visceral reaction I had to the film. Not to acknowledge my emotional investment in the film would be to misrepresent the origins of this project, thus undermining its integrity from the get-go. I decided to embark on this project, and a life of studying and writing about film, to make the case for the movies I love. This project has been informed by my belief that Rebecca is not only an essential Hitchcock picture, but one of his best. Currently, when critics and scholars talk about the best of Hitchcock, Rebecca is left out of the conversation. I want Rebecca at the top.