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.

Hitchcock

I can think of very few filmmakers that I treasure more so than Alfred Hitchcock.  It was his film that left likely the most indelible images in more brain.  Like I'm sure so film fans, he was my first true introduction into film.  He was the first filmmaker that I could spot and think of, "that's a Hitchcock movie, that's a Hitchcock thing," before I knew of such things like auteurs.  From tone, from style, from mood...you can pick out a Hitchcock movie above anything else.  That his identity (and celebrity) informed his films made that easier to pick up upon as a child, but is was his artistry and sheer graceful gravitas was there throughout his entire career.  That his films were perceived as mere populist trifles back in their time seems ludicrous, but understandable, since it takes time for genius to get its proper due.

On that note, there isn't a film coming out in the near future that makes me more queasily anxious than 2013's Hitchcock, which tells the tale of the famed director as he was shooting his most infamous film, Psycho.  Directed by Sacha Gervasi, who made a slight impression a few years back with his critically acclaimed documentary Anvil! The Story of Anvil.  It will open, courtesy of Fox Searchlight, sometime next year...till then I worry!  The cast list includes:

Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock.  The first still of the barely begun production movie surfaced today and it appears that at the very least, the make-up department is doing a fine job.  It's and interesting side note that Psycho is based on the tale of the real-life Ed Gein (somehow put into the film itself, being portrayed by stage actor Michael Wincott), the same figure that was the source for other films and mythologies including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Silence of the Lambs (which won Hopkins an Oscar for his iconic performance as Hannibal Lector; small world.)  Helen Mirren portrays his wife Alma.

Scarlett Johansson will play Janet Leigh

 

James D'Arcy (W.E.) will play Anthony Perkins

Jessica Biel will play Vera Miles

And the rest of the cast will be rounded out by Toni Collette, Danny Huston, Wallace Langham, Michael Stuhlbarg and Kurtwood Smith.  The film was written by Stephen Rebello (author of the novel on which the film is based on) and John J. McLaughlin (Black Swan.)  What do you think of the casting?  Is anyone else geeking out of their minds?

I have to calm down about this for a whole year.......

Psycho Turns 50

for proper ambiance press play.

On June 16, 1960, Alfred Hitchcock's immortal classic Psycho opened and scared audiences for the first time. I so truly wish I was alive back then to experience the elemental fright (of course while wishing, I'd hope to continue to be the same age I am today.) For that experience has become a thing of legend, and the crappy thing about modern horror films, aside from the fact they're rarely any good, or scary-- is the fact that the vast majority of it's audience is desenstized from any scares. But aside from that, Psycho, even at 50, hasn't aged at all really-- sure the black and white won't pass for certain modern audiences (shame on them), and Freudian analysis isn't that big today, but aside from that, the film perfectly lives on, scene by scene-- really is there a shot in this movie that isn't iconic, or boundary breaking on some front?

Just an example of Hitchcock's brilliance at creating mood in such a subtle way- Psycho was the first film to feature a toilet. That sounds tame and not revelatory, but when thinking about garnering suspence from unexpected places, it might be odd for audiences from 1960, who have never seen a toilet in a film before, to actually see a toilet. Therefore it generates a mood of something askew, but not in a way that anyone would practically notice. And then of course the leading lady is violently murdered in the first act of the film in one of the most bravura sequences in film history. Really, has any other sequence in any other film been so heavily dissected, examined, studied, duplicated, or fetishly re-shot (courtesy of Gus Van Sant), than the tour-de-force shower scene, ever the history of filmmaking?

Psycho is famous for a number of reasons: first in a change for Hitchcock, known for making big (albeit amazing) movies, felt this one needed a grindhouse look, and therefore insisted this one be a considerably smaller budget than his usual (he employed the artisans of his TV show Alfred Hitchcock Presents), felt it needed to be in black and white (even though 1960 was mostly in color), and it presents the first film to focus on serial killer Ed Gein (made even more famous as the subjects of both The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Silence of the Lambs.) But there was more as Hitchcock was definitely a major self promoter, and this film showcases that to the tilt-- he insisted that no one was allowed into Psycho after the film started (really try and imagine a contemporary filmmaker with the authority to do that), all this promotion made Psycho even more a zeitgeist film for it's time.

Of course there's more to the story-- Psycho has lived on for half a century not just because of it's groundbreaking nature, but because it's a great film, made with the precision of a master working at the height of his talents. As well as a great performance piece for both Anthony Perkins (who sadly never did overcome playing Norman Bates) and Janet Leigh. It's still talked about and revered because it's one of the few films ever that totally connected into the American pop culture lexicon and never left, like Star Wars and Citizen Kane, I feel it's one of the most essential of American moviegoing experiences, not just because of quality, but because missing out on something like Psycho, is missing out on a part of the essential fabric of Americana. It's a scary movie, but also a frankly sexual one, and a psychological one, all of which were ahead of it's head, and in some cases, I truly believe, we're still catching up with Alfred Hitchcock.

Psycho was a success in 1960, but not necessarily from the critical perspective as it is today. It was viewed as violent and scuzzy. It did however recieve four Oscar nominations-- for director, supporting actress (Janet Leigh), art direction, and cinematography. Nothing for Anthony Perkins, or shamefully for Bernard Herrmann's beyond classic score.

So do yourself a favor and celebrate the anniversary of one the best movies of all time and stay out of the shower!