Ryan McNeil
With the passing of time, certain successful films get elevated into iconic status. Performances become mythic, and dialogue is quoted with reverence. When movies take on this mantle in pop culture, we can sometimes forget how close the projects came to being complete misfires. Sometimes it’s only a brilliant edit or a producer with true passion that saves a film from caving under the weight of itself.
Other times, it’s the people closest to the artists themselves.
HITCHCOCK begins in the afterglow of NORTH BY NORTHWEST. With Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) enjoying one of his greatest commercial successes, many in Hollywood are wondering what the Master of Suspense will do for an encore. Intrigued by a novel detailing some grisly murders in the American heartland, Hitchcock announces that PSYCHO is to be his next project. This leaves those who cover such things off-kilter, as they believe the subject matter to be distasteful…but can’t bring themselves to turn away.
In Hitchcock’s corner is a woman who stokes his creative fire – his wife, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren). Behind closed doors she prods Hitch to look after his health, and is a strong-willed though dutiful wife. On the studio lot, she is a full partner in the Hitchcock creative team, as important to the process as anyone you will find. Thing is, Alma’s attention is distracted. For starters, she is growing unimpressed with her husband’s fascination with young, blond starlets. Furthermore, she is increasingly tempted by an author appealing to her skills as a literary editor (Danny Huston).
It’s under these cloudy conditions that PSYCHO unfurls. A blonde ingenue is in the spotlight (Scarlett Johansson)…an enigmatic leading man (James D’Arcy) is stepping into the role of a lifetime…a master is under personal and financial pressure to provide results…and his wife and most trusted co-conspirator is undecided on where her loyalties lay.
HITCHCOCK is a flawed film about a man whose films were often flawless. The plot sometimes feels uneven, not knowing how much time to spend on the set of PSYCHO and how much time to spend on the Hitchcock marital dynamic. The tale skims the surface of the many obsessions and ideas held by the master of suspense, paying many of them little more than lip service. None of them are short-sold enough to sink the whole picture, but one is left to wonder if perhaps these details might have been better left on the cutting room floor if they couldn’t be fully fleshed-out. The deepest flaw is the look and sound of Hitchcock himself. Considering how iconic the director is in look and voice, one can’t help but see Hopkins’ portrayal of him as “Close-but-no-cigar”.
So with all of these flaws in hand, should we consider the film a miss? I suggest not.
For all that it gets wrong, the film gets several things right. For starters, one has to commend the film’s sense of focus. When telling the story of a man whose career was so long and storied, it’s difficult to know how much to spend on what. By centring the plot on one sliver of the man’s life, we get more focus and depth. A film that only paid lip-service to a fifty year career would have felt rushed and short-sold. How does one even begin to decide what personal and professional details should come to light? Instead, HITCHCOCK sharpens its sights to an eight month span. In doing so, the film is not only able to attack the events from all sides, but also leaves plenty of story to be told by someone else (like HBO’s recent film THE GIRL).
Likewise, one has to admire how much attention is paid to Alma Reville and her relationship with Hitch. The film spends so much time with her, and her influence on both the man and the film, that the project almost could have been named REVILLE. This is key, because as iffy we are on the look and sound of Hopkins, there is no hesitation on what Mirren is bringing to the table. In the same performance, she is both deeply supportive and fiercely defiant. She embodies a woman who supports the genius she married, but not in a way that will blindly follow him towards his every indulgence. She is positioned in the plot to be the key to his success (and likewise the success of PSYCHO) – and Mirren seals the deal with her strength and conviction.
On top of the focus of the film, one really has to admire its aesthetic. The movie has a splendour to it akin to the best moments of Mad Men. It isn’t just trying to nail the look of PSYCHO, like a previous project so valiantly tried, it’s interested in the whole package. The cars, the restaurants, the suits, the dresses. The film as a whole feels like some of the very best moments of Mad Men, making 1959 look truly splendid. When things move to the set of PSYCHO, the film seems to know how to portray the events without going for full-blown mimic (no easy trick). If you are a fan of “movies about the movies”, this is a worthy entry into the canon…it might even contain the best edited “editing montage” yet captured on film!
One has to admire the way Hitchcock has to wrestle for the spotlight in his own bio-pic. Between the strength of Mirren, and the luminance of Johansson, the film shows that no great artists works in a vacuum. Instead they are pushed, prodded and propelled by the people around them. HITCHCOCK knows as well as any film you’ll find, that great art is inspired by the new and vibrant…but it is only realized by the grace of the familiar and the trusted.
I think it’s fine for it is. I think there is only one sequence that kind of offends me a little (Hitch, a peeping tom? Really?), most of is fine. I think Hopkins plays the Hitchcock we saw on the TV show, while Mirren is really good as Alma. I kind of like ScarJo in this, not a big role but she did well as Janet Leigh.
Did you read the book that the movie is based on? It’s by Stephen Rebello, I read it back in the 90s. It’s a pretty good read.
I never did read the book, but think I probably should. I thought the peeping tom bit was played fast enough that it didn’t affect the overall narrative all that much, and considering his “I’m just the guy standing in the corner with my camera” comment, it sorta fits in with n underlying theme of voyeurism.