Pierre Bayard corrects Alfred Hitchcock

Interpretation mania

Pierre Bayard, the professor of literary studies at the University of Paris 8 and the psychoanalyst, offers in his book Hitchcock was mistaken ("Hitchcock was wrong") a comprehensive reinterpretation of the film Window facing the courtyard (Original title: Rear Window) by Alfred Hitchcock. Bayard's central thesis is that Hitchcock was mistaken in his masterpiece and that the generally accepted solution to the crime—that the neighbor Lars Thorwald murdered and dismembered his wife—is not true at all. Instead, the film diverts attention from an actual crime that occurred.

The quote formulates the central thesis of Bayard's reinterpretation of Hitchcock's Window facing the courtyardHe fundamentally challenges the film's premise—that Lars Thorwald murdered his wife. According to Bayard, it is implausible that such a crime could have occurred so openly and unnoticed in front of so many witnesses. He diagnoses the protagonists, Jeff and Lisa, with a "délire d'interprétation" (delusional interpretation), in which they force fragmentary evidence into a preconceived narrative while ignoring real, obvious events. The crux of his "police critique" is the assertion that the actual crime in the film is the murder of the dog, which occurs in plain sight (including the viewer's), but is overlooked in the fixation on the human murder. Here, Bayard's method of exposing the obvious as a distraction and uncovering what is truly hidden becomes apparent. Bayard's interpretation of the film can be broken down into several key points:

Bayard argues that the evidence against Thorwald is extremely flimsy and unreliable. Thorwald's actions, such as cleaning his bathroom or his nightly excursions with a suitcase, are immediately interpreted by Jeff (James Stewart) and Lisa (Grace Kelly) as evidence of murder. However, Bayard suggests that these actions could be interpreted in a much more innocuous way, such as preparation for a move. Even Thorwald's supposed confession at the end of the film is not convincing to Bayard, but rather a misunderstanding arising from Jeff's accusation.

Bayard shifts the film's focus from voyeurism, to which he attributes only minor pathological relevance for Jeff, to an analysis of paranoia and interpretive mania (délire d'interprétationJeff is initially bored and begins to construct a fictional story to make reality more exciting. His approach is an example of totalizing interpretation: once the idea of ​​a murderer takes hold in his mind, even the most insignificant events (such as a dog digging or a suitcase closing) are integrated into his system, while contradictory information is completely ignored. Bayard also sees a mechanism of projection in Jeff's actions, whereby Jeff projects his own unconscious fears and conflicts (particularly his fear of marriage) onto Thorwald.

Jeff's girlfriend Lisa and his nurse Stella are drawn into this delusion over the course of the film. Bayard refers to this as a "folie à deux" (collective delusion), in which one person adopts and shapes another's delusional system. He claims that the film subtly draws the viewer into this "double paranoia" through its structure, so that millions of viewers accept the absurd premise without resistance.

For Bayard, the real crime in the film is not the imagined murder of Thorwald's wife, but the real murder of the dog. This murder, which actually takes place in the film and is perceived by the protagonists with dismay but without deeper investigation, fades into the background because the attention of the characters and the audience is fixated on the fictional human murder.

Bayard considers it remarkable that a director like Hitchcock, who obsessively explored the theme of the "unjustly accused" in his work, in Window facing the courtyard He accuses an innocent person and overlooks a real murder. He suggests that later Hitchcock films, such as Above the rooftops of Nice (To Catch a Thief) or the short film Mr. Blanchard's Secret These films can be understood as "Œuvre-repentir" (works of atonement or repentance). In these films, Hitchcock addresses similar themes of misinterpretation or wrongful accusation, which could indicate that he harbored unconscious doubts about the resolution of Window facing the courtyard had. This is also supported by the concept of "character autonomy," which states that characters can develop beyond the author's original intention and commit unforeseen actions, as in the case of the dog owners.

Here Bayard introduces the concept of "œuvre-repentir" (works of repentance or atonement). He suggests that later works by Hitchcock, such as the short film Le Secret de M. Blanchard (a parody of Window facing the courtyard), could reflect the director's unconscious doubts about the correctness of his own film's resolution. At the heart of this idea is Bayard's recurring thesis of character autonomy. He argues that fictional characters can develop a life of their own that extends beyond the author's original intention. In the case of Window facing the courtyard Does this mean that the dog owners (who murdered the dog) behave so autonomously that they commit an actual murder, which the director (and the audience) overlook because they are fixated on the false murder (Thorvald's imaginary crime)? This method demonstrates Bayard's ability to analyze the psychological dynamics between author and character and to assert that authors can be "deceived" by their own creations.

Bayard's critique

Pierre Bayard's reinterpretation of Window facing the courtyard This is part of a longer series of works in which he dedicates himself to "critique policière" or "critique interventionniste" (police or interventionist criticism). This method is a concept of literary criticism developed by Pierre Bayard, which re-examines canonical literary or cinematic works in order to "correct" or question their established conclusions.

Characteristic features of his working method, which can be found in Hitchcock was mistaken and his other books are:

Questioning established “truths”In other works of his, be it Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd?, Inquiry on Hamlet, L'Affaire du chien des Baskervilles or Oedipe n'est pas coupableBayard questions the generally accepted solution to a central mystery. He argues that the original interpretation, often that of the "detective" or "author" within the work, is flawed or even "delusional".

Searching for the “hidden” or “overlooked”Bayard focuses on details that have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the traditional reading or the characters of the work. Window facing the courtyard Is this the dog murder, in Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd? the narrator's "Mensonge par omission" (lie by omission), in L'Affaire du chien des Baskervilles the real perpetrator Béryl Stapleton, who staged her husband, and in Oedipe n'est pas coupable the innocence of Oedipus himself, Sophocles' King Oedipus This forms the basis for Freud's Oedipus complex. Bayard observes that, although Freud's thesis has often been criticized, hardly anyone has questioned the fundamental issue of Oedipus's actual guilt. He argues that a careful reading of Sophocles' text, taking into account modern scientific and critical insights, casts doubt on Oedipus's guilt.

His method demands a rigorous "re-examination" of the case to uncover inconsistencies and hidden truths that have been overlooked for millennia. This quote illustrates Bayard's approach of questioning even the most fundamental myths and interpretations of culture and acting as a literary detective seeking justice for the innocently accused.

Diagnosis of interpretive maniaA recurring key concept is the "délire d'interprétation" (delusion of interpretation). Bayard observes that characters (such as Jeff or Hercule Poirot), but also critics and the audience itself, tend to force evidence into a preconceived framework and ignore dissenting information. He argues that Freud himself succumbed to such a delusion in his interpretation of Oedipus. In the context of Agatha Christie's The murder of Roger Ackroyd Bayard questions the generally accepted guilt of the narrator, Dr. Sheppard. He points out that both admirers and critics of the novel uncritically accept the central premise of Sheppard's guilt.

Bayard positions himself here as a detective who re-examines Hercule Poirot's original investigation, which he describes as "delusional" ("délirante"), and tests it for "improbability" ("invraisemblances"). His method is to accept no claim that has not been previously proven, thereby undermining the apparent logic of the detective novel. This is a prime example of his approach to deconstructing established "truths" and encouraging the reader to adopt a more critical, independent reading.

Questioning the reliability of the narrator and the textual coherenceBayard emphasizes that narrators are often unreliable and consciously or unconsciously omit or misrepresent important information. He argues that texts are not "closed" units but are "completed" through the reader's subjective interpretation. This leads to the concept of "livres-écrans" (screen books) or "livres-fantômes" (ghost books), which are projections of our expectations and fantasies rather than the "real" texts.

The autonomy of the charactersFor Bayard, fictional characters are not mere "paper beings," but independent entities that act independently of their creator's will and can even commit crimes that escape the author's notice. This is discussed in L'Affaire du chien des Baskervilles It is particularly clear where the real murderer, Béryl Stapleton, deceives Sherlock Holmes and stages her revenge, without Conan Doyle having intended it.

Use of psychoanalytic conceptsBayard frequently integrates concepts from Freud (e.g., projection, memory images, ambivalence, unconscious guilt such as the "need to confess") or Lacan to illuminate the psychological mechanisms of misinterpretation. At the same time, he criticizes Freud for his own tendency toward "overinterpretation" or "confusion of truth."

The “Double” or Ambiguity of Reality/TextsHis analyses demonstrate how events or sentences can have multiple, sometimes contradictory, meanings. This is known as "discours à double entente" (ambiguous speech). Qui a tué Roger Ackroyd? is a prime example of this.

Playful and provocative toneBayard undermines conventional critical approaches with an often ironic and paradoxical style. He explicitly challenges the reader to question their own perceptions and not to be blinded by supposed "evidence".

The following quote is from L'Affaire du chien des Baskervilles Bayard develops his most radical thesis: Literary characters are not mere "paper beings," but living creatures with their own autonomy. He claims that they can even commit crimes of which the author himself is unaware or which he did not intend.

In case of The Baskerville Dog Bayard argues that Conan Doyle, trapped in his own psychological conflicts (particularly his hatred of Sherlock Holmes, the "complexe de Holmes"), failed to recognize that a character like Béryl Stapleton orchestrated the crime and misled Sherlock Holmes. This is a "murder by literature" ("meurtre par littérature"), where reality is distorted by the narrative art of the true murderer. Bayard therefore calls for the case to be reopened, to bring Holmes's unfinished investigation to a just conclusion, and to finally lay to rest the "young dead woman of Dartmoor," who has wandered for centuries in one of literature's liminal spaces.

Overall, Bayard's work aims to uncover the subjective, constructive, and often unconscious nature of reading and interpretation. He shows that our "readings" of the world—be it a film, a novel, or reality itself—are deeply rooted in our own "inner books" and "paradigms," which often lead to "errors" but can also unleash new meanings.

Epilogue

Pierre Bayard's book Hitchcock was mistaken In the epilogue, Bayard points out that the film not only tells the story of the alleged murder of Thorwald's wife, but also commits a "double miscarriage of justice." The main points with which Bayard concludes the book are:

Contrary to popular belief and the conclusion reached by the film characters Jeff and Lisa, Bayard argues that Thorwald did not murder his wife. Jeff and Lisa's conclusion is described as a "delusional construction" ("construction délirante").

Bayard reveals that the real crime, which goes unnoticed in the film, is the murder of the dog. This crime, which takes place in the courtyard's courtroom and whose body was visible to all, was not investigated by either the characters or the film's critics.

Bayard interprets Hitchcock's later short film Le Secret de M. Blanchard (Mr. Blanchard's Secret) as a “œuvre-repentir” (a work of repentance). This short film, itself a parody of The window to the courtyard This suggests that Hitchcock himself may have harbored “deep doubts about the solution the film seems to favor.” This implies that Hitchcock unconsciously expressed his own doubts about the film's presented solution by accusing an innocent man (Thorwald) of an improbable murder while completely overlooking the actual killing of an animal.