To be positive first : It’s a pleasure to watch Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson and most other good actors dedicate their efforts in recreating the production – and the difficulties involved – of one of his masterpieces. Difficult for me to say how people without a special interest in Hitchcock see this film. But if you’ve read Truffaut’s long dialogue with him (« Hitchcock/Truffaut »), and the very good book this film is based on (Steven Rebello’s « Making of Psycho »), if you also know Patrick McGiligan’s extended biography (« A life in darkness and light »), and if you’ve seen many videoclips and interviews on youtube with himself, actors, writers, crewmembers on working with him…. then you notice that the pleasure in seeing « Hitchcock » comes from approving (or not) scene by scene, if this and that is correct, true, only probable, well caught, etc etc. But this pleasure – and this is the negative part – does not come from « Hitchcock » being a good movie.
The biggest downer is the script. Hitchcock was intrigued by Ed Gain, but having him phantasize dialogues with the serial killer – in order to make him more accessible – are lame, unnecessary and slow down the movie. The « post-mortem » appreciation of his wife’s influence is understandable and deserved, but is – to this extent – simply not very interesting and appears very much put on to create a jealousy-drama. Both these strings are also filmed with much « on the nose » psychology, as he himself might have put it. It’s a shame, because those parts waste about half the movietime.
As for the performances : Hopkins is good, but – apparently – prepared much for the role by watching Hitchcock’s TV show introduction bit parts. To me, it made him succumb to the persona Hitchcock created of himself over the years, which is entertaining and funny, but only a mask to trademark himself – and certainly not the human being behind I was hoping to see. In fact, the gap – or in his term: the suspense ! – between this persona and the true human being would have made an excellent approach. But the film doesn’t take that route. Worse even, it adds some scenes that are simply wrong, based on rumour only or seem very unlikely (Hitchcock acting out mother’s part in the shower scene, facing Janet Leigh naked ? Hitchcock spying through office peakholes at Very Miles ? Hitchcock shouting at the set ?) The other actors are partly very believable : James D’Arcy has only a few moments, but very much brings up Anthony Perkins’ aura, Scarlett Johansson looks and acts as proper as I belive and read Janet Leigh might have been, Jessica Biel is just as angry and attitudy as, according to sources, she was about being put behind in a minor role after having disappointed the director.
Summing up, it’s too bad « Hitchcock » doesn’t focus on what is exiting enough – the production of Psycho, the art of and the difficulty to get a vision on screen, even if you’re already an established filmmaker. It’s the subversive quality of his character and his movies that make him and his work so intriguing. This movie could have been more daring, more raw, more sophisticated, more subtle. But hey, « it’s only a bloody movie ».
———–
As for the movie’s « accuracy » , I might add a list later on.
Film by film 