HITCHCOCK (2012)
Directed by Sacha
Gervasi
Fox Searchlight
Pictures,
98 minutes, PG-13
* * *
The first thing you should know about Hitchcock is that the film is not
a biopic. It takes place entirely during the shooting of Hitchcock’s
shocking masterpiece, Psycho. And
it’s not really about that either; it’s really about how the distracted auteur
comes to appreciate and cherish his long-suffering wife, writer/director/film
editor Alma Reville. It is, in essence, a domestic drama that just happens to
involve very famous people. Call it the latest installment of Tolstoy’s famous
dictum: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its
own way.”
The story is set in 1959, shortly after Hitchcock’s North By Northwest had done well at the
box office. A handful of critics, though, gave the film respectful-but-tepid
reviews, and several openly questioned whether the then 60-year-old Hitchcock
was past his prime and had recycled ideas. (Those reviews are now dismissed as
absurd, and North By Northwest is universally
regarded as a great film.) That criticism–and the outsized ego it bruised–forms
the central existential crisis of Hitchcock.
Credit Anthony Hopkins for an astonishing portrayal of
Hitchcock. Thanks to prosthetics, makeup, and a “fat suit,” Hopkins inhabits
the role of Hitchcock physically as well as emotionally and intellectually. You
can gift-wrap the makeup Oscars now, and in a normal year–read: one in which
Daniel Day-Lewis hasn’t played Lincoln–Hopkins would be a strong candidate to win
the Best Actor Academy Award. He plays Hitchcock as a tempestuous mix of
egoism, jealousy, voyeurism, genius, stubbornness, insecurity, bombast, and
tenderness; in other words, a walking contradiction. He has a thing for
blondes, crosses the line between observer and Peeping Tom, manipulates his
intellectual inferiors, drives himself relentlessly, over-fuels his various
appetites, and only considers consequences when they slap him in the face. Psycho is now considered such a classic
that we forget that the film only got made because Hitchcock mortgaged his
mansion and funded it himself–his studio, Paramount, wanted no part of a movie
based on the deeds of the Oedipal serial killer Ed Gein and only allowed Hitchcock
to make it because they couldn’t figure out how to break his contract.
The second thing you need to know about Hitchcock is that even though it’s based on Stephen Rebello’s book The Making of Psycho, it’s really about
Hitchcock’s relationship with his wife, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren). As Hitch
grows more obsessed with his film, he also further neglects Alma, whom he comes
to suspect is having an affair with half-talented writer Whitfield Cook. Do you
need me to tell you that Mirren is good in the role? Of course she is, even
though her part is a tad underwritten. Mirren plays Alma as the woman behind
the throne–the foundation that shores up her husband’s self-doubt and the
stitcher who makes random great ideas appear as seamless genius. The film plays
a bit like how pundits described Bill and Hillary Clinton: you get two for one.
Mirren isn’t afraid to appear mousy, and few do fierceness as well as she on
the screen.
The third thing to know is that Hitchcock only works because the performances are so good. You
could fly a flock of birds (get it?) through the holes in John McLaughlin’s
script and, though there are snippets of witty dialogue, the film also resorts
to some very cheap tricks–including insider Hitchcock jokes and contrived Ed
Gein visitations– Luckily the
cast transforms the thin (just 98 minutes) script. Hopkins and Mirren are
fabulous, but most of the secondary performances are equally solid–Danny Huston
as the obsequious Whitfield Cook; Scarlett Johansson as a star-struck Janet
Leigh; Toni Collette as Peggy Robertson, Hitchcock’s secretary, gopher,
sounding board, and sometime scapegoat; and Jessica Biel in a surprisingly
controlled performance as Vera Miles. I found James D’Arcy’s portrayal of Tony
Perkins a bit cartoonish, but he certainly had Perkins’ neurotic energy down.
to
advance the story.
Make no mistake; this film is no Psycho. In the hands of lesser actors, it’s probably not a very
good film at all. Luckily Sacha Gervasi struck casting gold for his directorial
feature debut. And it’s lucky for us as well; much like the 2008 film Me and Orson Welles, we see how powerful
performances magically transform middling material into small gems.
--Rob Weir
No comments:
Post a Comment