Alfred Hitchcock’s Silence

Janet Leigh as Marion Crane in Psycho
Janet Leigh as Marion Crane in Psycho

I’m not an out-and-out Alfred Hitchcock stan — if we’re in the trust tree, I can’t say I’ve seen all his movies — but, for me, his legacy was his ability to redefine what a movie “was allowed” to do. Uncompromising, he executed the vision for his art, regardless of the convention of the day.

When Psycho was released in 1960, movies were exceptionally laissez-faire. People would come and go as they pleased, the plot not entirely central to the movie-going experience; rather, the movie was part of the evening’s broader panorama of entertainment. Whenever dinner wrapped up, you went to the theater and arrived when you arrived and if the movie had started 20 minutes ago… well, then the movie started 20 minutes ago and you just joined when you did. It was the habitual moviegoing culture of the era.

People lined up for the Psycho premiere at the DeMille Theater in New York City, June 16, 1960. No one was allowed to enter the theater after the movie had started, antithetical to moviegoing culture at the time.

But for anyone who has seen Psycho — spoiler alert but seriously go see the movie already it’s incredible — you know that the famous Shower Scene™ happens early in the movie, roughly a third of the way in. This was brand new to cinema ethos. No one removed a top-billed star that early in a movie; a lot of the time, the audience wasn’t even entirely there yet. Because of this, Hitchcock refused to allow people to enter the showings after they had begun. He knew people would be upset if they arrived too late and didn’t get to see the famous actress, the one they were there to see. (In this case, it was Janet Leigh. Psycho would go on to be her most famous role even though she had performed in 34 other films before this one.)

Alfred Hitchcock and Janet Leigh on the set of Psycho (1960)

It was a middle finger to convention. Hitchcock had killed off the movie’s famous actress before the true plot of it even began. “Furthermore, what would one imagine a picture to contain,” NY Times film critic Bosley Crowther wrote in August 1960, “when the customer is told to see it from the beginning and asked not to reveal how it ends?” The movie itself featured a pre-recorded message from Hitchcock himself pleading with the audience not to spoil what they were about to watch.

“Sensitive souls have been outraged by the candor of its stark morbidity, and agonized victims of its refrigerating process have howled for the protection of censorship. Psychiatrists have mumbled that it is liable to induce a state of shock (which is precisely what Mr. Hitchcock intended), and fearful parents have shuddered for their young.

“On the other hand, thousands of people — maybe millions by now — have come away deliciously coated with goose-pimples and happily trailing their tattered nerves, satisfied that this time they have got a good solid boot out of a film.”

Crowther

He didn’t just rest on his laurels, either; he didn’t just see a world beyond what wasn’t. He kept pushing the boundaries of conventions, compelled to not repeat himself. This was my favorite thing about him. The movie he released before Psycho was North by Northwest, famous in its own right, a romantic story filled with tons of action sequences — not quite the same genre as the follow-up. He wasn’t going to do the same movie again; instead, he made a “startling, ghouling” release that was “especially nefarious” (Crowther).

It wasn’t fun for him to do the same thing over again. That compulsion to switch things up ultimately led him to a very particular and historic silence, and it was this silence that rings the loudest for me.

The Impossible Task

You may not remember exactly how the shower scene in Psycho unfolds — Was she stabbed on screen? Do we ever see her naked? Do you ever see Mother’s face? — but you absolutely remember its soundtrack. If the scene itself is famous, that bit of music is legendary. It was composed by Hitchcock’s longtime co-conspirator and super-famous composer Bernard Herrmann whose savvy and twisted use of the romantic violin instead had it shriek in terror, heretofore unheard of, creating a violent noise germane to the scene. Herrmann, “Hitchcock’s Maestro,” had also done the music for Hitchcock’s previous film, North by Northwest, and had returned to him for Psycho; his execution of the soundtrack subsequently etched his name alongside one of the defining sounds of all time.

Bernard Herrmann: Longtime Alfred Hitchcock colleague and storied composer

But those piercing shrills are a corollary to the thesis here. They’re infinitely recognizable. They are synonymous with terror in a manner that exists outside of cinema. And, while we have the benefit of the hindsight of history, even at the time, the scene itself combined with such an aggressive encroachment of your ears made the movie an immediate hit, the music the perfect companion. Truly, the soundtrack was the movie. Everyone in 1960 knew that soundtrack just like you and I know it today.

Herrmann knew it, too, and he would be the one faced with the task of following it up. Hitchcock had (smartly) tapped him to also do his next film, The Birds, and Herrmann had to figure out a way to not just leverage his craft to creep people out alongside an esoteric and niche plot wherein violent bird attacks plague a seaside town, but he also had to one-up his work on Psycho.

An impossible task.

The Birds opened Cannes Festival in 1963, and Hitchcock released 400 pigeons outside The Carlton for the premiere. Hitchcock is pictured here alongside Tippi Hedren, the actress in The Birds’ leading role.

After long and careful consideration, he arrived at his conclusion: He wouldn’t. He convinced Hitchcock to not use a soundtrack at all. And he didn’t. Go back and watch the movie; there is no music. There is no soundtrack. Herrmann isn’t credited as a composer on the film; he’s credited as a Sound Consultant, the only credit in his history that comes from the Sound Department and not the Music Department.

Hitchcock used this limitation as a way to instill fear and neurosis. He would go on to use naturally occurring sounds and sound effects to set the tone of the film, which turned out to be the perfect use case for a movie about ornithophobia. Until there was a real-life social experiment, no one could have predicted how common it was for people to expect music underneath a movie and how it would subconsciously affect them when it was absent. And, in a movie about birds where the sounds and noises in it became part of its lore, the sound design choice ended up being the ultimate example of addition by subtraction.

I can’t make the claim to have seen every Hitchcock film, but the man certainly had a knack for pulling off brilliant ideas alongside clever marketing stunts. He pushed the limits of creativity, and, in the biggest moments of his career with the biggest decisions on the line, he continually chose to push the limits of the status quo and to do things differently than he had before. That’s the road I want to take, and I want it to make the difference.

Bernard Herrmann with Alfred Hitchcock

The Prestige

Moxie Marlinspike of Signal Foundation and the Signal app
Moxie Marlinspike of Signal Foundation and the Signal app

The Pledge

The final shot of Let The Right One In is a nonpareil revenge ending. After an entire movie of bullying, we taste saccharine joy in the grand payback we dream of executing on our foes (watch the clip or watch the movie, spoiler alert).

There is something infinitely satisfying in people getting their comeuppance, and that last act where it’s revealed to us is a hell of a dopamine hit.

Add Signal to that collection of hits.

To know Signal and their affront – and we’ll get to what Signal is in a second – you have to know Cellebrite. (Cheery name, nefarious business.) A “digital forensics company” that promises to “protect and save lives” and “bring justice to victims and convict bad actors in the most challenging cases,” you’d read their marketing materials and hand over your life to them. In order to make good on the promises of “justice,” the company makes myriad products to assist individuals and organizations in accessing and collecting digital data. Specifically, there are these two:

  • UFED, a program that allows one to “lawfully access locked devices with ease,” aka bypass security protocols like your facial recognition, phone passcode, and more
  • Physical Analyzer, a program that, once UFED has done its job and you’re in the device, reveals and analyzes “key pieces of digital evidence (and) trace events,” aka files, folders, and metadata. (Like every location you’ve ever been at when you took a photo.)

In a best-case scenario, technology like this is used for good. Terrorist phone found, it’s unlocked, unencrypted, and reveals the location and plans of future terrorist actions, plot thwarted. Good guys win.

If only there were more money in that line of work.

The Turn

In true-case scenarios, Cellebrite is one of the more iniquitous actors on the stage. Their largely secret operations provide software to law enforcement agencies to questionably profile large groups of humans and manipulate personal liberties. According to Upturn, a Washington, DC-based 501(c)(3), that deals in policing, government, and technology, “given how routine these (mobile device) searches are today, together with racist policing policies and practices, it’s more than likely that these technologies disparately affect and are used against communities of color.” As they write, “Every American is at risk of having their phone forensically searched by law enforcement.”

Cellebrite would love that.

Law enforcement in all 50 states and in DC have purchased some form of mobile device forensic tool (MDFT). “State police forces and highway patrols in the US have collectively spent millions of dollars on this sort of technology to break into and extract data from mobile phones,” VICE’s Motherboard wrote; state police departments have spent over $11.5MM on MDFTs since 2015 (Appendix C – with locales listed, too).

Signal itself has also written that Cellebrite’s “customer list has included authoritarian regimes in Belarus, Russia, Venezuela, and China; death squads in Bangladesh; military juntas in Myanmar; and those seeking to abuse and oppress in Turkey, UAE, and elsewhere.”

In its quest for a global police state that leverages its products, in early December, Cellebrite announced support for breaking into Signal, claiming they can now “help law enforcement lawfully access the Signal app. … At Cellebrite, we work tirelessly to empower investigators in the public and private sector to find new ways to accelerate justice, protect communities, and save lives.”

There’s only one catch: That’s impossible.

The Prestige

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “When you strike at the King, you must kill him.” Cellebrite came after the wrong monarch.

Moxie Marlinspike is the pen name for Matthew Rosenfeld, the man who founded the Signal Foundation. That nonprofit is dedicated to providing open-source tech (read: free for everyone) to protect “free expression and enable secure global communication.”

The jewel in that King’s crown is Signal, a true-encryption messaging application that has no ads, no trackers – nothing. Whereas other messaging (and social) apps claim to “responsibly manage” your data, Signal just flat out doesn’t store it. It has end-to-end encryption, ensuring a level of privacy the watchmen hate. They would much prefer to “responsibly” police your state rather than treat you as innocent.

The private app has been used by people to truly avoid unlawful, unwanted, and unsolicited surveillance, a lot of which comes from the government of the citizens. There is no possible way to interpret the app’s metadata. So when the company claims that “Cellebrite Physical Analyzer now allows lawful access to Signal app data,” it’s a deliberate lie.

Thus, Moxie has a counterargument to make.

This means Signal can package a file in their app that only runs when the phone is hooked up to a Cellebrite program, and, when that does happen, execute code.

Once they came after his app, he decided to do some investigating of his own, writing up his findings on Signal’s blog. Lying inside Cellebrite’s products he finds sweet, sweet revenge.

Because Cellebrite’s software makes claims in the ballpark of bypassing security, Moxie examined Cellebrite’s product security. Under the hood, he found that a number of industry-standard risk- and exploit-mitigating defenses aren’t even there. (Moxie points to a third-party plugin that their products leverage that was last updated in 2012; since then, over 100 security updates have been released, all of which can be exploited in Cellebrite’s software.)

This means Signal can package a file in their app that only runs when the phone is hooked up to a Cellebrite program, and, when that does happen, execute code. If one were so inclined, that code could, as Moxie relays, alter the results of not just the scan being performed on the current phone but also alter the results on every scan ever performed or will be performed by that Cellebrite machine. It can be done in actual stealth (technically, “with no detectable timestamp changes or checksum failures”).

And that’s only one of the many, many ways the exploits Moxie found can be exploited. Moxie also documents the company’s use of pirated libraries from companies like Apple to create their products, something Apple is no doubt interested in knowing about.

The icing on the cake: Signal will be randomly assigning these reverse-exploit files with random versions on random app installs that will never interact with the Signal app in any capacity. The only significance is to (rightfully) call into question the integrity of all past, present, and future data from Cellebrite.

It’s a thing of nerd beauty. Or, as Omar says, you come at the king, you best not miss.

Photo by Jason Henry/The Wall Street Journal