This essay is a return to the scene of a crime. In my recent book on Hitchcock I made an outrageously general argument for the affinity between Hitch’s narrativesand David Hume’s reasoning about human nature. For something so speculative, youexpect cracks to appear pretty soon. But my impulse since the book’s appearance has notbeen to feel I exaggerated – which I’m sure I did – but to sense that I did not go far enough.There was more to be said about (...) this oblique, long distance liaison down the centuries andI now feel it best said through a film which I had not discussed at all, partly because I sharedthe general feeling that this was not one of Hitch’s most auspicious films. The acting wasuneven, the tone whimsical, the plot often cluttered and it suffered, or so I thought, fromthat general uncertainty of touch that sometimes characterised Hitchcock’s return toEngland. But then again his short wartime film Bon Voyage has beenunderestimated, as were in different ways Under Capricorn , the remade The ManWho Knew Too Much and later Frenzy . As Michael Walker has pointed out, Stage Fright has a structural complexity, a narrative coherence anda textual density missing from his 1930s films like Young And Innocent . In otherwords, it brings back to London in 1950 the innovating aspects of Hitchcock’s Hollywoodaesthetic of the 1940s. (shrink)

Slavoj Zizek _The Fright of Real Tears: Krzysztof Kieslowski Between Theory and Post-Theory_ London: British Film Institute, 2001 ISBN 0-85170-754-8 240 pp.