DISCLAIMER: In the interest of full disclosure, pertinent in exploring a feature film revolving around Alfred Hitchcock, it should be stated on the record the Master of Suspense is one of my personal favorites. At an early age, I felt a shiver and gleeful revelry toward his filmmaking, his signatures, his style. For even at an early age, whether consciously or not, I was acutely aware of watching a Hitchcock film-- his personal authorship of his films that permeated across every frame, every scene, every little nuance and gesture. As I'm sure is the case with many other budding cinephiles, Hitchcock is an easy in for the pure rapture of filmmaking, one so that if caught at a young and impressionable age will likely remain strong for life. Even without being aware of the technician, the craft or the artistry, there's a certain hold that can come under way even in his most seemingly benign efforts. One that evaluated and soaked through the tides of time become deeper and penetrable images forever soaked into memory. With this being said, I enter a film like Hitchcock with some resolve that may make it nearly impossible to sever the profound personal effect his filmmaking took hold of me. In the nature and style that Hitchcock himself was a witty self promoter and flourished his many films with encoded personal desires, I felt it necessary to get that off my chest.
Speaking of witty self promotion, Sacha Gervasi's Hitchcock opens with a clever nod introducing his to our tale of intrigue. Based on the book, "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho," by Stephen Rebello, the film chronicles the turbulent making of the grand slasher film that in more ways than can ever be counted (or dissected by ninety-eight minutes of celluloid) changed the face of popular movie making. As the opening title cues, creating an aura that's fitfully awesome as it is expected, the tone is nearly established. This is going to a bouncy, fluffy trifle providing a broad assessment of the man, his genius, his process and his furtive, if slightly brittle, relationship with his wife and confidant, Alma Reville. Gervasi achieves a playful inventiveness and a nicely pre-packaged sense of fun in recreating Psycho, through it's rough venture as an idea to the finished product to his uncanny release pattern. There will likely be a rousing chant and firmly planted smile on the faces of the Hitchcock and Psycho devoted as Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) is pitching his latest-- a grisly, edgy and maddeningly violent take on the Ed Gein murders-- to the befuddled Paramount executives who really just want another North by Northwest, as well as the censors board (Psycho was the first film to feature a toilet, and that's a big deal), who rigidly proclaim no such film will ever see the light of day.
There's certain documented truth to the circumstances. Hitchcock was at the height of his career at the dawn of Psycho, and the film was a notoriously tough sell, enough that the financing and the making of the film were ultra-indie to his standards. The fun occurs really on the elements of which anyone jazzed about Hitchcock will likely already know by heart. The casting of Janet Leigh (played with commanding fragility by a nearly channeling Scarlett Johansson) and Anthony Perkins (James D'Arcy), the shooting of the infamous shower scene, the inventive publicity show orchestrated by Hitch as Paramount was trying to dump a potential disaster. This stuff is likely film geek porn, and lots of smiles are surely in store. Yet it's also incredibly shallow, and about as revelatory as a behind the scenes extra on a Psycho DVD. Part of the problem lies in the overly broad stylization that Gervasi, the director of the charmingly nimble documentary Anvil! The Story of Anvil making his feature debut, maintains-- it's just right of cartoon, but just left of reality. It starts with Hopkins himself, who is quite good at miming the rotund filmmaker's famous figure and charms with the droll speak, but it's a desperate crowd pleaser's Hitchcock, one with little attempt at really exploring a humanity inside the legacy. That is until it isn't.
The making of Psycho is nearly put aside to concentrate in the troubling mid section of the private life of Hitch and Alma (Helen Mirren.) Either cobbled together by conjecture, fabrication, disparate threads of reality, of whatever, it derails the fun, superficial momentum built up at the beginning. Turing the tale into a grand love story provides lots of nice moments for the esteemed and highly pedigreed actors to do good work, but has a stained glow of nearly being a side attraction. We want to see Psycho. Gervasi and screenwriter John J. McLaughlin (Black Swan) do a greater disservice in brief asides that try to force Hitchcock to explore his own inner demons, especially in hokey dream sequences where Ed Gein is his analyst. Light and peppery showbiz fun is fine, but the pot appears overcooked with Hitchcock, draining it of its high calorie art house junk food allure. Mirren, to be fair, is compelling and devours her dialogue (a mixed bag that alternates between clever and ill-advised) with an aplomb that floats somewhere between scene-stealing, bloated histrionics, and perfectly natural. And while historians can dissect the truth to their relationship-- Alma is believed to have deeply influenced and shaped the work of his films-- there's an awkwardness to the clunky execution and how it fits into the overall world of Hitchcock.
Yet this may be the prickliness of the inner Hitchcock loyalist coming out, as a fan who relishes the world inside and out of one of the best films every made, but also wants to keep a certain distance and keep the experience sacred. The breeziness of the best patches of Hitchcock, in tune with the drippy frothiness of last years My Week With Marilyn, play with an ease that may make for a great night at the movies. The inside-Hitchcock gossip (for instance, his distaste for Vera Miles, played by Jessica Biel, who became pregnant shortly before the filming of Vertigo, whom Hitchcock primed great things for, or the back and forth fight over the weather the shower sequence should be accompanied to music), and old-school Hollywood backdrop are catnip for staging engagingly nostalgic cinema. But there's a play to the rafters approach that sometimes comes closer to camp than mere homage, and the purists at heart might to taken out at these things, while the uninitiated likely won't even be a part of the joke. That's the mixed bag of Hitchcock.
What does rouse rivetingly well is the joyful, and likely untrue, moment of Psycho being screened for the first time, as a seemingly nervous Hitchcock peers onto the crowd as the famous shower scene is about to play. The buoyancy of Hopkins humming along to the famous shrieks is the most heartfelt moment in the picture. C
Showing posts with label ALFRED HITCHCOCK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ALFRED HITCHCOCK. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
Good Evening
There's been something of an Alfred Hitchcock renaissance as of late. You could see it back in August, when the once-per-decade poll by Sight and Sound cited Vertigo as the best film as all time, unseating reigning champ Citizen Kane. Further more by the HBO movie The Girl, which charted the relationship between Hitch and model-turned-actress\muse Tippi Hedren, and finally by the last minute decision by Fox Searchlight Pictures to unleash the film Hitchcock, featuring Anthony Hopkins as the rotund auteur, for 2012 awards consideration. Just taking a look at the top banner, I'm certainly in a degree of glee by the recent saturation of interest in the Master of Suspense. Personally speaking, he was the first filmmaker that piqued my cinematic spark. Not merely by accident, as his approach and mastery and innovation of the medium is easy to admire, easy to spot and hard not to get spellbound by. The figure behind the magic has long been something far more allusive, and as The Girl, and certainly Hitchcock (which earned decent reviews as the opener of AFI Fest this past week) try to create a more behind the scenes portrait of the genius, there's left some questions and a few grumblings. First off, is that particularly necessary? The films left behind paint a portrait of man with curious obsessions, a fascination with voyeurism, and an attraction to beautiful blonde women. The films themselves are a testament to that, but also enriching, master plays of a time and period where the difference between art and commerce weren't quite so divided. Remember, Hitchcock was a populist filmmaker at the time, and prime moneymaker; his artistry and mastery wasn't quite as well established until some time after. And certainly there's curious sparks of near sadism on display in certain features, but there remains a deeper perspective of whether a film like New Girl (which I've seen) and Hitchcock (which I have not) might, at the very least, tamper with kismet, or worse, leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the audience most primed to watch them
The Girl especially is an interesting case. The film which stars Toby Jones (Infamous) as Hitchcock and Sienna Miller as Tippi Hedren chronicles their turbulent relationship during the filming the two movies they made together-- The Birds and Marnie. There's an old school adage that certainly rings true that Hitch discovered Hedren, a successful model, while watching a commercial featuring her. He chose her to come in for The Birds. He primped and trained the neophyte actress, molding her to become the next Grace Kelly. That's certainly stuff that's been well documented and considering Hitch's longtime regard for the then Princess of Monaco, a certain high compliment for the newcomer Hedren. The film, based on conjecture, stories told by Hedren, and who knows what else paint a tawdry portrait of Hitchcock. One that not just feels false but particularly pathetic. Jones, who matches the cadences and posture of filmmaker quite well is posited as a grotesque, nearly gargoyle-like creature. He's filmed as nearly a demented, sadistic toad, obsessing on the women he certainly could never have-- Imelda Staunton provides her usual finesse as Hitch's long-suffering wife Alma.
After molding Hedren into a movie star, Hitchcock, as seen through the shallow, flat prism of The Girl, is seen a beast. Whether through the telling of off-color limericks to Hedren, or falsely presenting scenes of The Birds. There's an ugly re-telling of a famous attack scene where Hitchcock forced Hedren to endure five days of being bombarded by live birds, after being assured that only mechanical birds and post production special effects would be used to for the shooting. There's certainly evidence that occurred, with the exception of the behind the scenes drama. The question that The Girl fails to really respond to, is why Hedren put up with it the first place. Why she continued work with a man who seemingly punished her for not accepting his sexual passes. Why she stayed afloat, with a brave, victim-like expression on her face when she felt so unhappy and marginalized. Whatever speculation of the Hitchcock\Hedren relationship will forever remain a mystery, since only one side can truly ever be explored, but The Girl seems to disingenuously present Hitch as such a loathsome cad, that it reeks of caricature, and is completely bereft of humanity on either side. Hedren is presented rather dully, and Miller's nonchalant portrayal lacks clear definition or insight. One wonders what counterpoints past Hitchcock blondes Kelly, Eva Marie Saint, Janet Leigh or Kim Novack might provide on the subject.
The Girl even fails on the seemingly easy-get on the fun it should have in recreating some of the classic moments of The Birds and Marnie, foregoing the simple revelry of old school Hollywood glee in favor of unsightly and broadly drawn melodrama. F
I wonder about the fate of Hitchcock, Sacha Gervasi's (Anvil! The Story of Anvil) take on the filmmaker while shooting his seminal film, Psycho. Written by John J. McLaughlin (Black Swan) and starring a cast with a larger pedigree than The Girl, with Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren as his wife, Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh, and featuring roles for Toni Collette and Danny Huston. Will Hitchcock succumb to the easy deducing of mans talent to small fetish, or will it be able to grasp a deeper insight in the acclaimed filmmaker. Whatever the fate, the film has done a hell of a job in marketing itself an art house diversion, making great, good-natured fun of the man himself while acknowledging his achievement and uncanny sense of self-promotion. I wonder also, if the film itself does become apart of the deeper Oscar dialogue if the quality of the film will matter as much as the fact that the Academy was dismissive of his talent and failed to acknowledge him at the time. Surely, he received five Best Director nominations over the course of his career (Psycho, Rear Window, Spellbound, Lifeboat and Rebecca) and received the Irving G. Thalberg Award in 1968-- where he famously said, "Thank you," before promptly leaving the stage-- but could that failure to reward his talent at the time resurface if Hitchcock is a success. Again with the questions!!!
For what's it worth, for a filmmaker with such a mighty talent, and an inarguable story worthy of compelling entertainment, the fascination with the auteur, the provocateur, the Master of Suspense, in my book, always deserves a resurgence. He also deserves a superior spotlight tale than The Girl provided.
The Girl especially is an interesting case. The film which stars Toby Jones (Infamous) as Hitchcock and Sienna Miller as Tippi Hedren chronicles their turbulent relationship during the filming the two movies they made together-- The Birds and Marnie. There's an old school adage that certainly rings true that Hitch discovered Hedren, a successful model, while watching a commercial featuring her. He chose her to come in for The Birds. He primped and trained the neophyte actress, molding her to become the next Grace Kelly. That's certainly stuff that's been well documented and considering Hitch's longtime regard for the then Princess of Monaco, a certain high compliment for the newcomer Hedren. The film, based on conjecture, stories told by Hedren, and who knows what else paint a tawdry portrait of Hitchcock. One that not just feels false but particularly pathetic. Jones, who matches the cadences and posture of filmmaker quite well is posited as a grotesque, nearly gargoyle-like creature. He's filmed as nearly a demented, sadistic toad, obsessing on the women he certainly could never have-- Imelda Staunton provides her usual finesse as Hitch's long-suffering wife Alma.
After molding Hedren into a movie star, Hitchcock, as seen through the shallow, flat prism of The Girl, is seen a beast. Whether through the telling of off-color limericks to Hedren, or falsely presenting scenes of The Birds. There's an ugly re-telling of a famous attack scene where Hitchcock forced Hedren to endure five days of being bombarded by live birds, after being assured that only mechanical birds and post production special effects would be used to for the shooting. There's certainly evidence that occurred, with the exception of the behind the scenes drama. The question that The Girl fails to really respond to, is why Hedren put up with it the first place. Why she continued work with a man who seemingly punished her for not accepting his sexual passes. Why she stayed afloat, with a brave, victim-like expression on her face when she felt so unhappy and marginalized. Whatever speculation of the Hitchcock\Hedren relationship will forever remain a mystery, since only one side can truly ever be explored, but The Girl seems to disingenuously present Hitch as such a loathsome cad, that it reeks of caricature, and is completely bereft of humanity on either side. Hedren is presented rather dully, and Miller's nonchalant portrayal lacks clear definition or insight. One wonders what counterpoints past Hitchcock blondes Kelly, Eva Marie Saint, Janet Leigh or Kim Novack might provide on the subject.
The Girl even fails on the seemingly easy-get on the fun it should have in recreating some of the classic moments of The Birds and Marnie, foregoing the simple revelry of old school Hollywood glee in favor of unsightly and broadly drawn melodrama. F
I wonder about the fate of Hitchcock, Sacha Gervasi's (Anvil! The Story of Anvil) take on the filmmaker while shooting his seminal film, Psycho. Written by John J. McLaughlin (Black Swan) and starring a cast with a larger pedigree than The Girl, with Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren as his wife, Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh, and featuring roles for Toni Collette and Danny Huston. Will Hitchcock succumb to the easy deducing of mans talent to small fetish, or will it be able to grasp a deeper insight in the acclaimed filmmaker. Whatever the fate, the film has done a hell of a job in marketing itself an art house diversion, making great, good-natured fun of the man himself while acknowledging his achievement and uncanny sense of self-promotion. I wonder also, if the film itself does become apart of the deeper Oscar dialogue if the quality of the film will matter as much as the fact that the Academy was dismissive of his talent and failed to acknowledge him at the time. Surely, he received five Best Director nominations over the course of his career (Psycho, Rear Window, Spellbound, Lifeboat and Rebecca) and received the Irving G. Thalberg Award in 1968-- where he famously said, "Thank you," before promptly leaving the stage-- but could that failure to reward his talent at the time resurface if Hitchcock is a success. Again with the questions!!!
For what's it worth, for a filmmaker with such a mighty talent, and an inarguable story worthy of compelling entertainment, the fascination with the auteur, the provocateur, the Master of Suspense, in my book, always deserves a resurgence. He also deserves a superior spotlight tale than The Girl provided.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Just Say NO!!!!!
In unfortunate and altogether ridiculous new, Hollywood is toying with the idea of ruining yet another masterful work of art, in this case with a planned re-make of Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 Oscar-winning Rebecca. The original film, based on the grand Gothic novel by Daphne du Maurier, starred Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine as unexpected lovers tormented by the ghost of his first wife, and the chambermaid still in the past, played with timeless creepiness by Judith Anderson in one of the all time greatest villain showcases in movie history. Alright, first off, it Alfred freaking Hitchcock, and certainly Gus Van Sant can attest to the notion of trying to better or even putting oneself in the light of comparison is an error no one can run away from. Secondly, this is a masterclass work of Hollywood glamor and distinction, a property of which should not be touched...it's still a wonder. Thirdly, no matter the gifts of scribe Steven Knight (Dirty Pretty Things, Eastern Promises), nor the passion backed from DreamWorks and Working Title Films as the planned distributors, Rebecca is that one in a million type of classic that cannot be bettered nor filtered through the new-Hollywood reckless way of carbon copying. This is an endlessly special film, and the first Hitchcock made for Hollywood. PLEASE DON'T DO IT!!!!!! Mrs. Danvers will burn down your house.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Master of Suspense: Oscar Also Ran
Mr. Alfred Hitchcock is in all likelihood my favorite film director of all time. He was the first true auteur that I obsessed and dotted on. I remember a weekend where AMC did a marathon of his work, and I stayed up almost the entire weekend watching everything, and truth be told, it still ranks as one of the best weekends of my life. I feel such a strong connection to all of his work (I've seen nearly everything), and continue to obsess, the right word I think, since obsession was such a deeply rooted part of his filmmaking. And yet it still behooves me that Mr. Hitchcock never once won a competitive Academy Award for his efforts. And for the most part, despite a respectable showing in his career, the Academy foolishly ignored the best aspects of some of his greatest films. While I fully acknowledge that Hitchcock was in a very primal sense a popcorn film director, one must also acknowledge that his was of a gourmet variety.
Some statistics to mull over:
My three top Hitchcock films at the moment are:
The biggest acting omission occurs with Mr. James Stewart, who used his innate American goodness to support Hitchcock in four worthy films: Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and his two finest (I'd say) in Rear Window and Vertigo. I know Vertigo was critically reviled when it opened...it was too new, but the performance was golden, how could that not be noticed.
It wasn't just the acting that was taken for granted, but also the other areas of the craft. For instance, The Birds was rightfully awarded an effects nomination only to lose to Cleopatra, with it's big clunkiness. Whereas The Birds artfully and frighteningly made for one the strongest and best effects in filmmaking even by today's over the top computerized standards-- it's all seamless, and beautiful.
It says a lot that Hitchcock's legacy will never die, but the Academy is still greatly in debt to this brilliant artist, and some things will never be okay no matter how time has passed. I continue to obsess, and document my progress.
Some statistics to mull over:
- Over his career, his films received 62 nominations, out of which garnered 6 statues, or 8.7%.
- His films received 3 best picture nominations
- Rebecca (1940) WINNER
- Suspicion (1941)
- Spellbound (1945)
- He himself received 5 best director nominations
- Rebecca (1940)
- Lifeboat (1944)
- Spellbound (1945)
- Rear Window (1954)
- Psycho (1960)
- 0 wins, but the Irving Thalberg recipient in 1967 where he famously just said "Thank you," before exiting the stage
- His films received 9 acting nominations
- 3 for leading actor\actress
- Laurence Olivier (Rebecca) 1940
- Joan Fontaine (Rebecca) 1940
- Joan Fontaine (Suspicion) 1941 WINNER
- 6 for supporting actor\actress
- Judith Anderson (Rebecca) 1940
- Albert Basserman (Foreign Correspondent) 1940
- Michael Chekov (Spellbound) 1945
- Claude Rains (Notorious) 1946
- Ethel Barrymore (The Paradine Case) 1947
- Janet Leigh (Psycho) 1960
- His films received 7 writing nominations, winning none
- Rebecca (1940)-- written by Charles Bennet & Joan Harrison
- Foreign Correspondent (1941)-- written by Robert E. Sherwood & Joan Harrison
- Shadow of a Doubt (1943)-- written by Gordon McDonell
- Lifeboat (1944)-- written by John Steinbeck
- Notorious (1946)-- written by Ben Hecht
- Rear Window (1954)-- written by John Michael Hayes
- North by Northwest (1959)-- written by Ernest Lehman
My three top Hitchcock films at the moment are:
- Rear Window (1954)
- Vertigo (1958)
- Strangers on a Train (1951)
The biggest acting omission occurs with Mr. James Stewart, who used his innate American goodness to support Hitchcock in four worthy films: Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and his two finest (I'd say) in Rear Window and Vertigo. I know Vertigo was critically reviled when it opened...it was too new, but the performance was golden, how could that not be noticed.
It wasn't just the acting that was taken for granted, but also the other areas of the craft. For instance, The Birds was rightfully awarded an effects nomination only to lose to Cleopatra, with it's big clunkiness. Whereas The Birds artfully and frighteningly made for one the strongest and best effects in filmmaking even by today's over the top computerized standards-- it's all seamless, and beautiful.
It says a lot that Hitchcock's legacy will never die, but the Academy is still greatly in debt to this brilliant artist, and some things will never be okay no matter how time has passed. I continue to obsess, and document my progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







