"Bass’s creative watchword in terms of film was “It’s the film that counts,” and he saw his role as working for the director, stating: “I think the creation of a title, which is obviously a small appendage on the film, has to be approached very conscientiously and with some sense of responsibility within the film’s total framework—because it is, after all, the tail of the dog and the tail does not the dog wag.” "He argued, “The script is only the bones. I must know how he [the director] is going to flesh it out, what his point-of-view is and how he is going to articulate that script….My work is always preceded by very, very, thorough discussions with the director…about what he’s going to do so that I can understand it, be responsive to it, to support it.”
"One of William Castle’s most enduring, fun and popular box-office hits, House on Haunted Hill is a spooky scare-fest with a decidedly campy twist. The film features the ever-sinister Vincent Price as an eccentric millionaire who hosts a “haunted house” party, offering a $10,000 cash prize to any of his guests who can make it through one night in his spooky old mansion, where seven murders have taken place over the years". "One of the director’s most entertaining films, House on Haunted Hill, with its clever shocks and go-for-broke promotional trick, actually inspired Alfred Hitchcock to make his own low-budget horror film – a little thriller called Psycho, for which Hitch devised a suspiciously “Castle-esque” promotional gimmick that banned audience members from being seated once the film had started". (Dir. by William Castle, 1959, USA, 75 mins., Not Rated)
Alfred Hitchcock receiving the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award in recognition of his brilliant and distinctive body of work ("Psycho," "Rear Window," "Spellbound"). Introduced by Bob Hope and presented by Robert Wise - 40th Annual Academy Awards® in 1968. Hitchcock’s only Academy Awards acceptance speech was just a few words long, maybe because of Oscar Injustice?
I just realized that Alfred Hitchcock and Raoul Walsh both started in Silent films (Hitchcock did Artwork & Titles for the silent screen), and both were at home on both sides of the camera. Each became a personality in their own right, and in their own way. They both enjoyed shocking their viewers and using humor freely. And sadly, each went unrecognized by the film industry. Their movies have proven themselves to be timeless.....and now, each has worn a patch over his right eye!
I just ran across an article about the comparison yesterday, and agree with the analysis below. I can almost recognize most of Hitchcock's movies without knowing the director. Wouldn't be true with Walsh. "Some directors tell many stories. Some keep telling the same one. It’s the second kind of filmmaker who tends to get the most attention, from scholars who dub them auteurs and rush to point out their thematic threads, from fans who turn their names into adjectives. But it’s the first kind — the adaptable, straightforward storyteller, who works in whatever genre he’s handed — who often provides audiences the most simply satisfying experiences. Raoul Walsh, for example, is not a director who can be boiled down to a single theme or style. He didn’t share Alfred Hitchcock’s obsession with guilt, or John Ford’s flair for composition. He just told some terrific, and terrifically different, stories." Raoul Walsh led a life of adventure - on-screen and off - Stephen Whitty - nj.com