HITCHCOCK (Sasha Gervasi 2012)

[Chris Knipp]

Sasha Gervasi: HITCHCOCK (2012)

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7711/96755167.jpg
ANTHONY HOPKINS, SCARLETT JOHANSSON, AND JAMES D'ARCY IN HITCHCOCK

Facsimiles

Anthony Hopkins is a fine actor, but Sasha Gervasi's new movie once again proves that nobody could play Hitchcock like Hitchcock. We have many examples of the latter's droll and buoyant self-portrayal in his film trailers and bookends of his TV series, "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." Moreover Gervasi has betrayed the legacy of the great director by producing a motion picture about him that is without suspense, pacing, or editing skill. Taking a book about the making of Psycho as its basis, Hitchcock finds it necessary to turn it into a soap about marital issues (with Helen Mirren hamstrung in the blah role of the director's wife Alma) and a tired replay of that old theme about how geniuses are dysfunctional and nuts. Glitzy visuals and period cars, costumes and interiors and a sprightly turn by Scarlett Johannson as Janet Leigh aren't enough to save this turkey from the dust heap. Nothing much is revealed here of the real genius or the real work that went into Psycho and the rest of Hitchcock's oeuvre or the intelligence, consistent vision, and mastery of craft of the man -- or about the content and concepts of Psycho.

Feminists may like the depiction of Hitchcock's wife as a full partner whose writing and editing skills and input were essential to the director's movies, but it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that Psycho was dead in the water on completion and required Alma's re-editing to save it. James D'Arcy is adequate as Anthony Perkins, though he is depicted as exaggeratedly shy and humble and his homosexuality is crudely alluded to. Scarlett Johansson shines as Leigh, shown here to be one of Hitch's female stars he didn't browbeat, who parted with him on very friendly terms. Many other figures come and go, including Psycho costar Vera Miles (a buttoned-up Jessica Biel), a nerdy version of Hitch personal assistant Peggy Robertson by Toni Collette, and various not very distinctive versions of studio honchos like Lew Wasserman (Michael Stuhlbarg) and Barney Balaban (Richard Portnow).

The Psycho story as seen here is one of those trite, upbeat-finale "they said it couldn't be done" scenarios. Despite the success of the director's previous film North by Northwest and his being at the height of his fame, the studio bucks him every step of the way. The eponymous novel by Robert Bloch that Hitch wants to film verges on the horror genre, which the studio objects to, and there is a big struggle over nudity in the shower scene with censorship boss Geoffrey Shurlock ("That 70's Show's" Kurtwood Smith). Hitchcock must mortgage his house to fund the picture himself. After it's made the studio refuses to market it and opens it in only two theaters. The story then turns to Hitchcock's promotional skill, which comes through more clearly than his ability as a cinematic genius. Despite the studio's stonewalling and poor initial reviews (not mentioned) he makes Psycho a huge hit through publicity that makes the ending sound extremely thrilling.

The highlight and only real flourish comes with Hitch at Psycho's unofficial premiere, dancing around in the lobby ecstatically "conducting" the screams and audience roars of the shower scene, with its wonderful (and never equaled) screechy musical accompaniment. Hitchcock juggles various themes -- Hitchcock's compulsive gourmandising; Alma's chaste flirtation with another writer; the challenge of simply getting Psycho made and the director's imaginary middle-of-the-night self-doubts. There is even a wholly irrelevant, arguably tasteless running theme of Hitch's imaginary conversations with Ed Gein (Michael Wincott), the serial killer whose life had partly inspired the Robert Bloch novel. There is too much here, and not enough. Everything is lightweight, but only with occasional wit. The pace is leaden, marred by the lack of one consistent driving theme. We are left with nice images of late Fifties Hollywood, the studio lot, the Hitchcock mansion, the toothy, made-up actresses, and nothing very much of significance about the movie director whose life and work have been more thoroughly recorded and discussed than any other's.

In Gervasi's movie, from John J. McLaughlin's screenplay adapted from Stephen Rebello's book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, the director is seen as a crude, ill-controlled mass of animal urges, gorging, boozing, leering through peepholes. Hopkins is done up as Hitchcock in a fat suit and elaborate facial prostheses, providing one of those facsimiles whose very accuracy only prompts one to see how far off it is from the real thing. He gets the voice more or less right, but his performance is a series of stares, coy pouts, and stubborn postures, and the shrewdness and nimble intelligence -- and the authority -- don't come through. Gervasi's previous film was the interesting documentary of a failed rock band, The Story of Anvil, but that was no preparation for a sophomore effort as complex and different as this. Here is the sad irony of a film about one of the world's acknowledged greatest directors whose direction is flabby and uninteresting.

You may say that Alfred Hitchcock is a popular and commercial artist, but cinema is a popular and commercial medium. His approach to editing, to pacing, to suspense, was essentially simple, but also profound and sure. Truffaut claimed that the American critics disparaged Hitchcock and that the French Cahiers writers and he particularly in his book of interviews were responsible for the director's recognition as a master. Whether or not that is true, Hitchcock is now so recognized, and listening to Truffaut's recorded interviews (http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/Interview:_Alfred_Hitchcock_and_Francois_Tuffaut_( Aug/1962)#French_Radio_Broadcast) with Hitch you will see how the American director's every word on his films is a master class in filmmaking as well as a revelation of his mind and personality more revealing than all of Gervasi's movie. Listen to those, watch Hitchcock's Psycho and his other movies, and avoid Gervasi's effort. You and the maker of Psycho deserve better.

Hitchcock began limited US release 23 Nov. 2012. It comes to the UK 8 Feb. 2012 and France 13 Feb.

[oscar jubis]

Hitchcock is the best-known and the most misunderstood director in the history of cinema. Hitch was partly to blame for the "master of suspense" moniker and his own publicity that gave the impression he had nothing in mind but delivering cheap thrills (with great craftsmanship of course) to the widest possible audience. I have managed to avoid both "Hitchcock films" but I will eventually have to watch them because I am bound to have students in my film history courses who base their knowledge of him on these biographical films. I have no hope that there will ever be a film that does him justice. That is too much to expect. I should not be surprised at films that exploit the worse rumours and innuendo about his life for exploitation purposes, as this film appears to do, at least in parts. I will do my best to avoid it, as you suggest.

[Chris Knipp]

HITCHCOCK doesn'st do the man or his work justice, that's for sure. I don't know about exploiting "the worst rumors and innuendo." That would be an exaggeration.

That might fit more with the other new Hitchcock film, Julian Jarrold's THE GIRL (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2132485/), about Hitch's relationship with Tippi Hedron starring Toby Jones as Hitchcock. I haven't seen that one.

But it is said to depict his behavior toward Tippi as abusive. She has, it's said, confirmed this as true in recent interviews. You can tell in the Truffaut interviews at one point particularly that Hitchcock had a very condescendng attitude toward some of the "girls" he directed.

[cinemabon]

Donald Spoto was the first to point that out years ago in "The Dark side of Genius" (1983) published not long after his death. Spoto explores Hitch's obsession with blondes and other quirks about Hitchcock. But in the end, it is his admiration for his work that comes out in this book and the previous work that I have "The Art of Alfred Hitchcock" (1976) published the same year I graduated from film school, moved to Los Angeles, met Spoto and "saw" Hitch before he passed. The film premiered just as I arrived in town. Hitch shortly thereafter abandon the digs he had over at Universal Studio and went into retreat. He died almost four years to the day I arrived in LA (and his last film).

I can't imagine anyone trying to encompass the width and breadth of his intellect and the scope of his vision in a two hour film. From the very beginning of his career, he was an innovator of technique used to emphasize plot points. His films were often successes at the box office and fell flat with critics because they were lumped into catagories equivilant to horror films. As much a study of humanity as an Ingmar Bergman or William Wyler, the idea of shooting the film actually bored the man - as I am certain he and Alma must have played out the movie in their living room months before production began, knowing how every shot would look in his head long before he set up the camera or spliced the film. He was the Mozart of my generation and I miss his twisted little head... very much.

My favorite films:

The 39 Steps
Sabotage
The Man who knew too much (1934)
Notorious
Foreign Correspondent
Suspicion
Spellbound
Stage Fright
Rear Window
To Catch a Thief
Vertigo
North by Northwest
Psycho
The Birds
Frenzy

[oscar jubis]

For me, the essential book on Hitch is William Rothman's The Murderous Gaze, originally published in 1981: Camera-conscious close-readings of The Lodger, Murder! (my fave British Hitch), The 39 Steps, Shadow of a Doubt and Psycho. The 2nd edition (just out) adds a close-reading of Marnie, a film that has been gaining prestige since its mixed opening reception and is now considered by many as Hitch's last masterpiece (its recent screening at the NYFF along with a reading by "the dean of Hitchcock scholars" is a step towards a new appreciation of the film outside academia).

I am glad you like The 39 Steps so much. It is one of his films I know best because I have spent a week each of the past 2 years "teaching it" as part of my Film History I course. It is quite revealing to realize to what extent it provides a consistent commentary on love and marriage, beginning with Hannay's conversation with a milkman ("yes, I'm married...but don't rub it in!") and in his meetings with 3 married couples and 3 potential sweethearts. My favorite shot is that signature of Hitch of shooting characters behind vertical bars, when he puts the camera behind the slats of the back of a chair to frame Hannay, the crofter and his wife as if they are in jail. That whole crofter's cottage sequence is an amazing display of genius and craftsmanship, and quite lyrical in its mournful depiction of the crofter's suffering, young wife who longs hopelessly for "the cinema palaces and fine shops" of her native Glasgow.

[tabuno]

I went into this almost completely, darkened art movie house theater with great anticipation and I was not disappointed at all. I was blown away and completely immersed in the period storyline. I can't even begin to express how great this movie was for me. I will need to take it all in and if I'm still alive, I perhaps will have more to comment on about this wonderful movie experience.

[tabuno]

This movie provokes intense visceral human emotions of sorrow, fear, passion, and redemption packaged in a movie premised around a horror film. The subtle acting, the tight editing, the storyline incorporates horror images and the humanity behind the faces on the screen, a richness, a feeling of a real human being behind the actor acting the actor. This movie contends a rich vibrant period piece that still delivers an emotive message of universality about aging, about relationships, about the feelings behind the façade of people. Hitchcock is easily among such dramatic, insightful, and involving movies as Anthony Hopkin's own Slip Stream (2007), or Helen's Mirren's own The Queen (2006), Changeling (2008), The Aviator (2004) as well as the surprise silent stand out The Artist (2011). Hitchcock offers much in the way of revealing more about others and ours selves, bringing out thoughts and emotions of value as George Clooney in Up In The Air (2009) or the surprising performance of Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love (2002) or the intimate revealing relationship in The Cooler (2003) all with the finesse of Lost in Translation (2003) and the emotive impact of Black Swan (2010). [Reviewed 12/16/12]. 10/10.

[cinemabon]

Hitchcock

At the time I went through Universal Studios (not the tour) in 1976, Hitchcock had been a figurehead there for over a decade. His offices were a prominent fixture. His legendary prowess carried great weight, not just on studio grounds, but within the Hollywood community. One prominent fixture was the house from “Psycho,” a facade created as background for the hotel shot (and also part of the famous tour). At the time I saw the massive prop, Universal had acquired the rights to “Psycho” along with all of the Hitchcock brand. I assumed at the time that “Psycho” was a product of Universal. The moment I started watching “Hitchcock” last night, I realized my mistake and pulled my review of “The Girl.” While much of what I said about “The Girl” was true, the background stuff about Hitch was faulty. I realized I had made a terrible mistake and pulled my review. Fortunately, our site has that capacity.

When it comes to my thoughts on “Hitchcock,” they are very different but along similar lines as “The Girl.” When the film opens, we see Tony Hopkins addressing the camera (as Hitch did on TV) with the same portly manner and exude his British dry humor as he guided the television viewer through his stories (something that is so intermittent with this film as to be incongruous). However, almost immediately, I noticed that the plot seemed to be running all over the place. Was this a movie about Alfred Hitchcock, the famous film auteur, the man who practically invented the term? Was this a film about the making of “Psycho?” Was it a film about the relationship between Alma Reville, his wife, and Hitch?

Trying to follow this meandering mess we have the ever changing face of Hitch being given us by Anthony Hopkins, ladled out in heaping portions. He had the voice and manners, but not the boyish charm or subtle humor. Nor did Hopkins display much of Hitchcock’s famed rapier wit. Instead, we had the picture of a bloated man, too eager find solace in drink and too insecure that any moment of weakness sent him into an eating frenzy. I find such displays of shallow weaknesses a major character flaw in someone with the genius and level of determination that Hitchcock had shown throughout his life. He never gave up on the world of cinema, although it often gave up on him. Today we can look back at a life of artistry and study the man whose films were so filled with symbolism that only a removed generation of those educated in film study can appreciate. But I find it almost impossible to believe that the man portrayed in the film was anything like the real Alfred Hitchcock; and the erroneous impression the film makes gave me nausea and nothing close to entertainment. Like the plot, it left me wondering why someone would treat this man so unfairly, as if they had a grudge against them.

Also, I cannot imagine this artist, Alfred Hitchcock, so obsessed with the philandering of his wife that he would ignore a project like “Psycho” that he personally had vested so much time, money and interest. From what I understand in doing research for this review, the filmmakers made numerous mistakes about Hitchcock – from his relationship with Janet Leigh, to the qualities of his wife, to his relationship with John Russell (whom Hitch brought over from his TV show at less cost than Robert Burks would have been, his DP before and after), Bernard Herrmann (whom he called Bennie, not Bernie, and in whose faith he relied when Bennie convinced Hitch he could fix the shower scene with new music), and finally in regards to his long time editor George Tomasini, to whom much of the shower scene cutting deserves credit (not that Alma may have offered suggestions, it just isn’t part of the guild way to let director’s wives into the cutting room). Tomasini cut all of Hitch’s work between 1954 and 1962 – the golden years for the director and his mark is as much on that work as Hitch’s.

So in answer to my own question, I’m not certain about the plot of “Hitchcock” and was supremely disappointed with the ending as well in not using Gounod’s “Funeral March” music since they were mimicking Hitch’s form of self-promotion (the use of the raven that Hitch had on his shoulder was part of the promotion for “The Birds” and his “good evening...” send off each night). I let out a proverbial sigh at the way the romantic violin music on the soundtrack almost defied the picture rather than supported it – making the ending a bore. Did Helen Mirren have a great performance in the one speech of righteous indignation that lent to her talent? The short answer is yes. But even she could not carry her part forever when working with poor direction. Her scene of discovery at the beach house was entirely muffed. I lost count of so many scenes that could have been shot better that I gave up after a while.

As a light entertainment, “Hitchcock” is an amusing hypothesis that makes too many assumptions, too many wrong conclusions, and leaves us with a warped impression of an artist who deserves better. Not recommended.

[cinemabon]

According to Stephen Rebello's book, "Alfred Hitchcock and the making of Psycho" the film was shot at Universal Studios with Hitch's television unit, which was why he did not use Robert Burks since the television crew was cheaper. He even asked Benny Herrmann to cut his usual fee in half (although Hitch later doubled it in repayment, claiming "30% of Psycho's success is from the score"). Paramount, not wanting to cooperate with Hitch's "experiment," claimed they had no studio space, forcing Hitch to utilize Universal's lot. When he finished his contract with Paramount, he moved his entire production to Universal. The Psycho set was already on the lot. Saul Bass claimed he directed the shower scene because he claimed his storyboards spelled out which camera angles to use and where to make the cuts. Everyone connected with the film denies this. As to Alma's affair... evidently it began long before Psycho but ended right around the time the movie came out. She did help Hitch, staying by his side throughout, which is why both Universal and the Hitchcock family did not cooperate in the making of this movie. Rivelle did suggest some cuts in the shower scene when she noticed the continuity errors during an early screening.

Still, as to his personality traits given to exaggeration in "Hitchcock" I still find them overbearing and not a reflection on the man or his talent.

[cinemabon]

I tried listening to the Truffaut interviews, but they are difficult because just when Hitch begins to get a thought out, he is interrupted by the interpreter. So he is forced to speak in short sentences, which doesn't lend itself much to an interview. Had Truffaut allowed Hitchcock time to formulate his thoughts and words, the interview would have been more informative.

[Chris Knipp]

I can sympathize with your annoyance and impatience. But if you adjust to the necessary "interrupted" rhythm of question, translation, and answer, translation, question, you'll enjoy a series of enlightening and quite remarkable interviews that form the basis for a landmark book. I've listened to every minute of all the radio transcriptions and would listen again.

"One is ravished by the density of insights into cinematic questions...Truffaut performed a tour de force of tact in getting this ordinarily guarded man to open up as he had never done before (and never would again)...If the 1967 Hitchcock/Truffaut can now be seen as something of a classic, this revised version is even better." -- Phillip Lopate The New York Times Book Review about Hitchcock (http://www.amazon.com/Hitchcock-Revised-Francois-Truffaut/dp/0671604295)(Revised Edition) [Paperback], Francois Truffaut (on Amazon). Helen G. Scott, the collaborator/interpreter, does a remarkable and fascinating job and became an essential part of the subtle process.

I should add that in my case French is one of my hobbies (or quiet passions) and so I particularly enjoy picking up on the Francophone versions of cinematic terminology and also appreciate Ms. Scott at work, how she finds equivalents and sometimes corrects herself when the ones she hits on quickly seem too literal, or misleading.

[oscar jubis]

The interruptions by the interpreter are most annoying and, as interviewer and student of film history, Truffaut is no Bogdanovich. Not even close.

[Chris Knipp]

No, Truffaut is not as good as Bognonovich, but it's still an invaluable record, and the translator who "annoys" you was how they communicated!

[tabuno]

Like The Matrix (1999) one is faced with the choice between documentary authenticity or dramatic art, reality or fantasy from which to experience life on the big screen. With Hitchcock I find it more compelling and meaningful as an expressive and emotionally satisfying experience and unlike cinemabon I found that the tight time frame around the making of Psycho a full, comprehensive movie experience that captured well the totality of making a movie and the relational humanity of living. Instead of being all over the place, it is Lincoln (2012) that I found was too short and therefore too much all over the place trying to be everything to everybody that only ended up cutting up and under-developing what cinemabon found difficult to sort out.

The judgment this film so tied to one's anchor of reality of the actual experience loses the perspective of the figurative directorial license of film-making in the context of a film such as this such as the controversy surrounding the actual facts in the depiction of Zero Dark Thirty (2012).

[cinemabon]

Bogdanovich's interview (read) with Hitch in 1963

On labeling a picture, made in "Hollywood"...

"That's why it's such nonsense to talk about locale. "Hollywood." That doesn't mean anything to me. If you say, "Why do you like working in Hollywood?" I would say, because I can get home at six o'clock for dinner." Alfred Hitchcock

http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/Interview:_Alfred_Hitchcock_and_Peter_Bogdanovich_ (1963)