| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 12/13/2012 : 02:04:16
|
So what is this supposed to be, I kept asking myself as I watched. Hoping, hoping it would find a shape, some point ... something!
First of all, the film pretends at least in part to be about process. But anyone who's worked in the film industry knows how much a gloss-over this is. There really are interesting things to be told - especially about the making of Psycho.
For instance, it's quite revolutionary how Hitchcock devised the amazing falling-down-the-stairs shot when Martin Balsam's detective is murdered. It's the angle that's intriguing, because it seems as though you're right there as he falls. I mean you're falling, too. That's because Balsam was in a lean-back chair doing falling motions with his arms, legs and body, so he never fell at all. And the stuff in the camera was then processed against the staircase.
The only thing before that which had come close was the amazing avalanche shot by French silent film innovator Abel Gance in La Roue - in which he strung a camera on a line from the top of a mountain, so when it shimmied down the line, recording on its own, the footage looks as though you're part of the avalanche.
Instead, in this film, there's some dialogue shots of Hitchcock, while off-screen you can hear someone say - get Marty in the chair. Which is stupid because Balsam isn't even a character in this film and you have no idea why it might be important to get him in the chair.
I'm going on about this because any of the stuff that appears to be process is merely a notch or two higher than Hello Magazine gossip. And that's a shame because however troubled but ultimately loving Hitch's relationship was with his wife and collaborator - it needs to be much deeper than a soap opera version.
It's not the actors' fault. This is a cast who do what's asked of them. And, btw, it's not Anthony Hopkins' fault that the glaring and distracting make-up error is an imprecise prosthetic nose. It's just wrong.
But it's the script that's even more unworkable - like the nose, it just doesn't breathe.
Some have observed that the film finally acknowledges how important his wife Alma was not only in the relationship, but as part of the film-making double act. [though actually their daughter Pat wrote a book called Alma Hitchcock: The Woman Behind the Man]
Yeah, well, fine, fine. So why isn't the film called Alma. Or at least Hitch and Alma. And, again, this is nothing against Hopkins or Helen Mirren - they fill in all the gaps wonderfully - well, she more than he, if I'm honest.
Many contemporary stories reveal that, yes, Hitch was continually under-appreciated as a directorial genius, and that he was a determined sonovabitch against a studio system that promised untold wealth with one hand, while squeezing out creativity with the other.
But here - there's far too much of a man cowed by the cruel, absurd studio system which appears to have reduced him to a combo of defeated puppy and alcohol dependent. He may never have won a best director Oscar, but in a career honed over some 60 years, he knew exactly what he wanted. Nor did everyone under-appreciate him.
The core failure of this film is the disconnect between its presentation of the man and his work process. It may or may not be important to understand how this particular man produced the work he did, but this film doesn't shed much light either way.
Americans of a certain age grew up knowing Alfred Hitchcock as the corpulent English gent who introduced a weekly series of mystery tele-plays with a mellifluent "Good evening." We were reminded every week how he could scare you and tickle you at the same time.
But hardly dealt with in this film is evidence of his legendary fierce intellect, nor the impish, almost malevolent sense of humor. The latter, at least, is shown for a brief moment as Scarlett Johansson playing Janet Leigh on the last day of shooting receives a surprise - which I won't spoil for you.
I don't think I'm alone in having taken a while as a kid to connect with Hitchcock films. In fact it wasn't until I saw the work of Fran�ois Truffaut that I began to understand.
Truffaut, himself a film critic, held Hitchcock in great esteem. He wrote: "It was impossible not to see that the love scenes were filmed like murder scenes, and the murder scenes like love scenes...It occurred to me that in Hitchcock's cinema...to make love and to die are one and the same."
In fact, if you really want to understand Hitchcock, read Truffaut's book. If you want Hitchcock the Readers Digest version - see this film.
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 02/09/2013 : 21:14:55
|
Bafta, we seem to have an equi-opposite views on two recent films, this and Hyde Park on Husdon.
Hitchcock in my view is not just a homage to the effects his working life had on his (at that stage) 33 year marriage ti collaborator Alam Reville, but also a homage to his directing stylem using alot of Hitcjcocks own angles and tricks along with a darkly and amusing script makes this an emtertaoning hour and a half.
I don't really need to say this here but if you haven't seen "Psycho" watch it before going to "Hitchcock".
My full blog review... http://wp.me/p1MbTJ-kE |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/09/2013 : 23:13:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Bafta, we seem to have an equi-opposite views on two recent films, this and Hyde Park on Husdon.
Crikey moley, Beano - if everyone agreed what a boring old woild it would be. Anyway, me old bean, check out my post on yer lovely blog! 
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 20:58:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
For instance, it's quite revolutionary how Hitchcock devised the amazing falling-down-the-stairs shot when Martin Balsam's detective is murdered. It's the angle that's intriguing, because it seems as though you're right there as he falls. I mean you're falling, too. That's because Balsam was in a lean-back chair doing falling motions with his arms, legs and body, so he never fell at all. And the stuff in the camera was then processed against the staircase.
The only thing before that which had come close was the amazing avalanche shot by French silent film innovator Abel Gance in La Roue - in which he strung a camera on a line from the top of a mountain, so when it shimmied down the line, recording on its own, the footage looks as though you're part of the avalanche.
Um, nope, not the only thing before that. You're forgetting Hitch's own famous "dolly zoom" from VERTIGO two years earlier.
Haven't seen this one yet so can't comment on the picture itself, but I must speak up for that groundbreaking shot.
OK, now I've seen it. I wasn't bothered at all about missing some of Hitch's "process," which would probably be deadly boring to most people. This is a story about his creative relationship with his wife, NOT a faithful recitation of the Stephen Rebello book, as the credits falsely suggest [and there's where you can find all the "process" you want].
The film assumes familiarity with PSYCHO, but actually doesn't spoil the movie for newbies! You do hear that Janet Leigh will die early, and you do get a fleeting peek at "Mrs. Bates" in two incarnations, but you can see this flick, then immediately roll PSYCHO, and its shocks will still be there to creep you out just as forcefully as ever. One of the film's big reveals is heard in dialogue as some studio execs watch the movie for the first time, but the crucial line is obscured. We know they have to "get Marty in the chair" because we know Marty's in the movie, but it's only gibberish to PSYCHO virgins. I think that's quite an achievement, and I'll bet most Netflickers will reach for the original next.
Neither did Sir Anthony's prosthetics bother me. He had the musical notes and the cadence. All in all, I found this a much better effort than THE GIRL, about the making of THE BIRDS.
What I didn't like was the subplot that went nowhere, Alma's relationship with a writer who wants Hitch to direct his work. It creates a little tension, but Hitch was a weird enough guy that there are plenty easier ways to bring in that conflict.
I'd say, have a look. |
Edited by - randall on 04/18/2013 02:23:10 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Hitchcock
