Hitchcock (2012) ☆ ☆

As with the case of Lincoln, a one-word surname title for Hitchcock does a disservice to both its material and its audience, as neither movie is a full-fledged biography that one would expect of titles which bring to mind images of great men and lives fully lived.  Instead, these two films are based on relatively brief time periods involving very specific undertakings; therefore, in my opinion, the wide-ranging scope of the “name” titles is misused in both cases.

I was astonished to see that Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly cited this movie as one of the worst of the year, saying it “turns Hitchcock into a cartoon.” Wow.  I found it to be an affectionate, light-hearted, although rather flimsy glimpse into how the famous director, after the triumph of North by Northwest, was so desperate for creative fancy that he turned to, gasp, a horror movie.  Audiences today have no idea how daring it was for Hitchcock to do such a thing, and this movie explains those circumstances pretty well.  More detail regarding the studio’s reticence to the project, or the demographics of the viewers they were afraid that Psycho  would appeal to, would have made this examination even more interesting.

Sadly, however, the creation of what may be Hitchcock’s greatest film is not really the crux of the story.  At the center is the collaboration between Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins), considered by many to be the greatest film director in Hollywood (and Britain before that), and his wife Alma Reville (Helen Mirren), who played a crucial role in every Hitchcock film, though completely unknown by the moviegoing public.  Sacha Gervasi’s film seems like an apologist screed determined to set the record straight that Alfred would not have been Alfred without Alma pushing and coaxing him along every step of the way.  And while that is probably true, its presentation is sometimes heavy-handed and unsubtle.

Anthony Hopkins is a caricature of Alfred Hitchcock, but an enjoyable one.  Mimicry is an important part of acting, and Hopkins has Hitchcock down cold.  Helen Mirren looks nothing like Alma Reville but brings her usual professionalism and drive to the role, and is quite effective.  I was surprised to see just how good Scarlett Johansson is as Janet Leigh; I found her portrayal sensitive and perfectly toned.  Jessica Biel as Vera Miles?  She’s okay, but seemed miscast.  And James D’Arcy is ultra-sensitive as Anthony Perkins; one wishes that his part were larger, considering how important Perkins is to the creation of Psycho.

This movie is based, ultimately, on a non-fiction book about the creation of Psycho, but that shouldn’t explain why there is a lack of drama.  Gervasi seems content to be cute and clever about Hitchcock, the famous shower scene, and the absurdity of the world’s most famous director being forced to finance the film himself.  Gervasi uses Ed Gein, the crazy Wisconsin farmer whose exploits “inspired” the book Psycho as a sort of Greek chorus character in the film, leading the director through the back alleys of his imagination, prodding Hitchcock to see the world through his demented eyes.  That is a bold take, yet Gervasi presents Gein (Michael Wincott) as more of a mild-mannered, simple-minded fool than a murderer who regularly robbed cemeteries of human remains.

Ultimately, this is one of those movies that should have been much deeper and much better than it turned out to be.  Far too much time is wasted with Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston) and a red herring involving a possible affair for Alma, and not enough time is spent on how those people making Psycho felt about it or were affected by it.  No mention is made of Pat Hitchcock, their daughter, and she was actively involved in the production, even appearing in the final feature!  No mention is made of the Oscar nomination that Janet Leigh earned for the part, the only one of her long career.  For all the options that were open to him, Gervasi has some odd choices, and really neglects the making of a landmark movie.  I enjoyed Hitchcock  even while I recognize that it wasn’t particularly good.  ☆ ☆.  26 December 2012.

Leave a Reply