« TT: Never before, probably again | Main | TT: Almanac »
August 23, 2004
TT: Master Hitchcock's Avery
I've seen most of Alfred Hitchcock's major films, but for some reason Rope had eluded me until last week, when it popped up on Turner Classic Movies as part of a Jimmy Stewart marathon. Like most cinephiles, I didn't find it very impressive, though I was fascinated to see John Dall camping it up as one of the two gotta-be-gay murderers, having only recently watched his straight-down-the-center performance as the hapless bank robber-victim of Gun Crazy.That said, one thing about Rope struck me quite forcibly. In fact, it astonished me. About ten minutes or so into the first reel, Hitchcock's wandering camera came to rest in front of a painting hanging in the dining room of the elaborate breakaway set on which Rope was filmed. As Dall and Farley Granger chatted away, I said to myself, "By God, that's a Milton Avery." To be exact, it appears to be a portrait of March Avery, the artist's daughter, painted some time in the mid-to-late Forties. (This isn't the painting I saw, but it's of roughly the same vintage and style.) What's more, it looks like the real thing, not a reproduction. Rope dates from 1948, the same year that Avery made March at a Table, a copy of which hangs in the Teachout Museum. Hence it's well within the realm of possibility that I saw exactly what I thought I saw.
Why was I surprised? Because one rarely if ever runs across important modern American paintings in Hollywood movies. When a painting is seen in some millionaire's living room, it's almost always a fairly obvious copy of a French Impressionist or post-impressionist canvas. To be sure, I've spotted mock-Rothkos once or twice, nor is it uncommon to encounter Andy Warhol-type eye candy, but the only bonafide example of high American modernism that I can recall off the top of my head is the Morris Louis that hangs in Walter Matthau's apartment in Elaine May's A New Leaf. (It's definitely the real thing--André Emmerich, Louis' gallery at the time, is mentioned in the credits.)
So how on earth did a Milton Avery find its way into the decor of Rope, along with a half-dozen other paintings that looked equally plausible? I've read a lot about Hitchcock, but I can't remember any mention of the paintings seen in Rope, nor did a quick check of the various books about Hitchcock on my shelves tell me anything useful. Puzzled, I turned to Google, and within seconds turned up this paragraph from an on-line biographical sketch of Hitchcock:
The Hitchcocks were interested in art, mainly by modern painters such as the Mexican David Alfaro Siqueiros and the Cuban Fidelio Ponce León. In later years, they purchased works by Raoul Dufy, Maurice de Vlaminck, Maurice Utrillo, Georges Rouault, Chaïm Soutine, Albert Gleizes, Milton Avery, Pierre Soulages, Auguste Rodin, Georges Braque's "birds series" and Paul Klee, who he called once his favorite painter.
Could it be that Alfred Hitchcock used his own art collection in Rope? While this list of artists is certainly suggestive, I've never seen an actual catalogue raisonné of the Hitchcock collection. Was it broken up after his death? If so, who bought his Avery? (It's not reproduced in any of my Avery catalogues.) And was it the same one in front of which John Dall and Farley Granger spoke lightly of murder as a fine art?
Any light that connoisseurs can shed on this admittedly arcane puzzle will be more than welcome. (Tyler Green, call your office!) In addition, I'd also love to hear about other verifiable on-screen sightings of modern American art, which I will gladly pass on. I have a sneaking feeling, though, that I might just be the first person ever to notice--or at least to report--what must have been Milton Avery's lone appearance on the silver screen.
Posted August 23, 2004 2:14 AM
