Yeah, Felicia Taylor sucked.
Rod Taylor was an asshole in real life. But he was a very good actor. And he was one of the first Aussies to do an excellent American accent. I always found him believeable. I loved "The Time Machine."
And Rod wasn't gay. He was one of those creepy, misogynistic men of the 50s and 60s who was always fiddling around with young starlets.
Some people think Hitchcock was a misogynist. I think he was a very conflicted man who, ultimately, did not take himself and his peccadilloes all that seriously. But he took his films very seriously.
He liked to play around with gender roles. You'll find all kinds of effeminate men and masculine women in his films. The amateur ornithologist in "The Birds" is a very masculine woman. In "Suspicion, there is an obviously lesbian mystery author at a dinner party. The killer in "Murder!" is a transvestite. Norman Bates also dresses as a woman. In both "Murder!" and "Psycho!" the transvestites murder because of love for/attraction to women. Bruno in "Strangers on a Train," seems fey. Max's sister in "Rebecca" is masculine, but Rebecca's supposed cousin/lover, seems archly gay.
Remember, movie codes were very strict in those days. It was kind of surprising that he could put those characters in his films and get away with it. He was ecstatic when he was able to get a toilet past the censor in "Psycho." It had never been done before. Of course, he put Janet Leigh in a black bra to distract the censor while he showed a toilet in the background of the scene where Janet Leigh and her bf had just fucked in a hotel room on her lunch hour.
Mothers are a problem in Hitchcock films. Mrs Bates. Mitch's mother in "The Birds." Claude Raines's mother in "Notorious" is a cold-blooded killer. In "Shadow of a Doubt," Charlie's mother willfully ignores danger signs about her brother for years and completely ignores the danger her daughter is in. She knows Uncle Charley "changed" after his accident. She should be more aware of his behavior in relation to her children.
I really don't think there is anyone in cinema as rich in complexity and story-telling as Hitchcock. But I do believe he needs to be explained to a younger generation who don't have experience in the times during which he filmed his movies. It was a long time ago, when sensibilities were different. Some of us can directly relate to that. The homes I see in his films look like my grandparents' home. Lace, wallpaper, tschotschkes. A young person without an understanding of a world before cellphones and 24 hour cable television might not understand "Rear Window." Why is that guy watching his neighbors when he could be looking at porn? Downloading Netflix? Texting his friends? Surfing the net?
I remember the first Hitchcock film I ever saw. It was "Sabotage" and it was on tv on a rainy Saturday morning. I watched as a little boy attended a parade while a clock ticked away. His sister's husband had told him not to waste time, but to deliver the package by one o'clock. He got on a bus. The clocked ticked and blam -- one o'clock -- the bus exploded. I was shocked! NOBODY killed children in movies! My mother told me that people literally fainted in movie theaters when that was shown in the 1930s. (Later, the movie The Untouchables filmed a sort of salute to Hitchcock when they showed a little girl delivering the same kind of "package" and suffering the same fate as the boy in "Sabotage")
I was hooked.