In the mid-20th century, Alfred Hitchcock crafted films that explored the darker sides of humanity, commonly focusing on violence, paranoia, and social dysfunction. While Hitchcock’s works do not include direct commentaries on gun violence, his absurdist approach to human behavior sheds light on the irrationality of violence, which can be extended to today’s social epidemic of gun violence. Let’s examine how Hitchcock’s unique combination of absurdism and suspense reflects his critique and fascination with gun violence. Through analyzing key themes in his films, Hitchcock can be seen as foreshadowing the psychological and social tensions that underpin his criticism on the excessive gun violence epidemic that plagues our society.

Hitchcock's approach reflects a view of violence not merely as physical harm but as a manifestation of deeper psychological turmoil and moral ambiguity within society. In the films Psycho (1960) and Rear Window (1954), Hitchcock reveals society’s unsettling relationship with violence, frequently illustrating how human lives can be unpredictably altered or destroyed by irrational actions. He also illustrates how the relationship with violence can cause shock and trauma to individuals or even societies (see Fig 1.1 and 1.2).  According to Robin Wood, Hitchcock “presents violence as an inherent paradox of modern society—a force both feared and fetishized” (Wood, 2002). This lens critiques the glamorization and casual acceptance of violence, foreshadowing real-world gun violence, which often emerges without clear reason or warning.

Hitchcock’s narratives often feature characters who become unwitting perpetrators or victims of violence, amplifying the trauma of their situations. In The Birds (1963), violence manifests through avian attacks on humans, a seeming punishment with no clear cause or motive:

        There must be at least twenty people all looking toward the windows. It is as though they are hiding from a storm. The camera is high enough to see                 Melanie and Mitch come in, very hurriedly close the door. We see the gulls wheeling outside. There is a kind of stunned silence among the people. We              can hear the sound of the screaming gulls outside. Suddenly a woman’s voice SCREAMS out:

        Woman: Why are they doing it?! Why are the doing it…?! (Birds, the (1963) Movie Script - Screenplays for You, 1962)

This thematic link suggests that Hitchcock would view the phenomenon of gun violence as an outgrowth of the same absurd human impulses portrayed in his work. The chaos that ensues depicts how easily order devolves into violence, conveying a sense of irrationality similar to real-world gun violence, frequently striking unexpectedly. In addition, film critic Donald Spoto notes that “the senselessness of the attacks in The Birds underscores a broader commentary on humanity’s lack of control over violence in their environment” (Spoto, 1994). Hitchcock’s use of absurd narratives critiques the human tendency to rationalize or ignore the unpredictable potential for violence that lies within everyday life. His characters’ lack of control over their own fates due to random violent events mirrors the way gun violence affects communities today, where innocent people lack any agency when caught in the more horrific encounters with brute violence.

Hitchcock’s absurdist approach prompts viewers to confront unsettling truths about human nature, violence, and morality. In Rear Window, protagonist Jeff’s voyeurism leads him to witness a murder, implicating him in a complex moral quandary about his own passive role in violence: “Do you suppose it’s ethical to watch a man with binoculars, and a long-focus lens – until you can see the freckles on the back of his neck, and almost read his mail – do you suppose it’s ethical even if you prove he didn’t commit a crime (Hayes & Cornell Woolrich, 1953)?” This is clearly a serious moral conundrum. Does it allow you the right to violate someone's privacy and conduct this kind of surveillance if you believe they have committed murder? Hitchcock certainly examines the complexities of this subject, even while the movie doesn't provide a definitive response Jeff is also skeptical about what he is witnessing. This narrative setup invites audiences to reflect on their desensitization to violence, a theme that has become even more relevant in today’s society, where news media and entertainment constantly expose viewers to real and fictionalized violence.

Hitchcock’s deliberate choice to place viewers in ethically ambiguous positions invites reflection on society’s normalization of violence, holding up a mirror to the audience’s passive consumption of—and potential numbness to—acts of gun violence in contemporary society. The absorption of violence into culture, with audiences desensitized, provides a lens through which to understand gun violence today.

Hitchcock employs symbolic violence and suspense to reveal the paradox of modern fear and fascination with violence. The suspense he creates not only keeps viewers on edge but also illustrates the pervasive tension underlying modern life, where violence feels both near and random, as seen in The Birds:

CATHY

Mom, please, I know all the democracy jazz. They’re still hoods. (to Melanie) He’s got a client now who shot his wife in the head six times. Six times, can you imagine it? (she starts for for living room) I mean, even twice would be overdoing it, don’t you think?

MELANIE

(to Mitch as he carries load of dishes out) Why did he shoot her?

MITCH

He was watching a ball game on television

MELANIE

What?

MITCH

His wife changed the channel (Birds, the (1963) Movie Script - Screenplays for You, 1962).

His absurdist methods allow audiences to experience a fictionalized version of the absurd reality they inhabit, one in which violence feels like an omnipresent threat but also strangely ordinary. Tania Modleski explains that “Hitchcock’s technique immerses the viewer in a world where violence is imminent and omnipresent, reflecting the unacknowledged fears and moral ambiguities of modern society” (Modleski, 2005). This perspective suggests that the ongoing crisis of gun violence is simply another facet of the absurd and pervasive threat of violence in contemporary society.

On a final note, through his unique blend of suspense and absurdism, Hitchcock’s films implicitly critique society’s normalization of violence, a perspective that is chillingly relevant to the epidemic of gun violence today. Hitchcock’s works hold a mirror to the irrational nature of gun violence and the complacency with which society views it. By analyzing these themes, this rhetorical analysis highlights how Hitchcock’s absurdist view of violence underscores the irrationality and moral ambiguity of gun violence today, inviting reflection on society’s complex relationship with its own destructive impulses. Ultimately, Hitchcock believes us to confront the unsettling ways in which this tolerance seeps into our real-world attitudes and behaviors.