Hitchcock

What more can be said about Alfred Hitchcock that hasn’t been said already? There’s enough previously produced books, articles, documentaries etc to last anyone a lifetime if they needed to start again from scratch, but can there really be any new revelations now? However, what with a recent retrospective of all his films, Sight & Sound shifting Vertigo up to the summit of its list of the greatest films of all time and a terrible hatchet job by the BBC, it seems Hitch is in the cultural zeitgeist at the moment, so perhaps it’s the perfect time for Sacha Gervasi’s film. Based on a book by Stephen Rebello, Gervasi’s production isn’t a biopic of the Hitch’s life. Instead we focus on the making of Psycho and, even then, the film mainly concentrates on Hitchcock’s (Anthony Hopkins) relationship with his beloved Alma Reville (Helen Mirren) and, of course, his roving eye. In that respect, if you’re coming to the film expecting to see a warts and all behind the scenes take on the process of making Hitchcock’s famous shocker you’re going to be disappointed. There are a few tidbits in there, but if you’re already a fan of the man there’s nothing here that you won’t already know. The focus is actually on the strain put on Hitchcock and Reville’s marriage by the pressure of making the film (despite his wealth they were put under serious financial strain) and Reville’s flirtatious encounters with smarmy screenplay writer Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston). In spite of all this, it’s a surprise then to discover that the film is quite a light concoction. The script is witty (Hitch’s battles with the board of censors are great fun), no-one does slime like Huston and Gervasi moves the whole thing along at pace. Hopkins is fine in the main role, but much as someone playing Winston Churchill, it still feels like someone playing an impression of someone as opposed to a full portrayal of the character. You could argue that Gervasi’s film goes quite easy on the big man and I wouldn’t argue with you there. The problem is the back story of Hitchcock and his personal life has been a case of speculation and accusation for so many years now it’s almost impossible to get to the truth. For example, the one real scene that Gervasi throws in that shows Hitch at his most leering is so out of place it completely jars with the rest of the movie. In addition, some of the scenes showing Reville making crucial decisions in respect of Psycho are similarly hard to swallow. Though leaving the audience suspicious of what they’re seeing is something the great man himself would have loved. Gervasi hasn’t directed anything since the impressive Anvil from a few years ago, but he proves that was no fluke here as this is solid (if unspectacular) fare. Though I’m not a fan of re-making already impressive foreign films, his next project is updating Morten Tyldum’s Headhunters so it’ll be interesting to see how Gervasi gets on with that one.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Not Hitchcock 101 (well, how could any film be?), but, even with its overriding air of ambiguity, this is entertaining enough and hopefully an invitation for the Hitch uninitiated to dig deeper on their own. Rating: 7/10.