Alfred Hitchcock, never won a competitive Academy Award for directing, despite being nominated five times. It wasn't until 1968 that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awarded Hitch the Irving G. Thalberg award honoring him for his work as a producer. The last of those five nominations for best director, was for the 1960 film, "Psycho" which is arguably the director's most famous and best work.
The making of that classic horror film is also the subject of a new movie, "Hitchcock", starring Anthony Hopkins in the title role. It's an enjoyable if not always true retelling of how "Psycho" got made and the toll it took on the director's health and his relationship with wife and collaborator, Alma Reville.
Written by John J. McLaughlin, the film is based on the 1990 book, "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho," by Stephen Rebello who also worked as a consultant on "Hitchcock." Although Rebello's book focused more on the artistic production of "Psycho," this film uses Robello's work as a backdrop to the complex relationship between the aging film genius and his loving but longsuffering wife.
Directed by writer-turned-director Sacha Gervasi, "Hitchcock" opens in Plainfield, Wisconsin in 1944, with real-life murderer, Ed Gein (played by Michael Wincott) killing his older brother Henry in a fit of rage. The camera then suddenly pans to the right where we see Hopkins as Hitchock commenting on the crime in an obvious nod to the 1950's TV series, "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." It's a device that works at first, but as the film progresses, the balance of comic commentary versus dramatic exposition proves uneven at best.
Yet, "Hitchcock" still packs a favorable punch thanks primarily to the performances of it's entire cast, starting with Hopkins. His Hitchcock is part impression, part curious take on the reserved film genius. His best moment comes near the film's end, in a riotously funny scene depicting Hitch's reaction to the audience's first exposure to the famed "Psycho" shower-scene. It’s moments like this that comment on the making of the film at hand that are by far the most interesting to watch.
As for the actors playing the stars of “Psycho”, they are all reminiscent of the iconic movie’s cast. Scarlett Johansson doubles for Janet Leigh along with Jessica Biel as Vera Miles. But it's James D’Arcy as Anthony Perkins who is downright uncanny as the famed Norman Bates. It's disappointing however, that such little attention was given to Perkins in the script. D’Arcy embodies Perkins so well, that a biopic of his own seems in order.
But by far the most compelling performance belongs to Helen Mirren as Alma Reville. As Hitch’s wife and collaborator, Reville worked on many of the master-of-suspense’s films as both an editor and script doctor, not always receiving on-screen credit. In “Hitchcock,” Mirren’s Alma is trapped in what seems to be a loveless marriage to a man who is often more interested in his blond-bombshell stars than his devoted wife.
As Alma pursues creative outlets on her own with former script collaborator Whitfield Cook (played by Danny Huston), Hitch becomes suspicious and confronts her. Alma’s response is an impassioned one and by far the dramatic high-point of the film. Mirren’s work is solid here and worthy of Oscar consideration.
The only drawback to this focus on Alma and Hitch's troubled relationship, is that if often overshadows the behind-the-scenes look at the making of the master-of-suspense's most famous film. It was hard to know what aspects about the Hitchcock's relationship covered in the film were true or just artistic license on part of screenwriter, McLaughlin. For that reason, I often felt I was watching a made-for-TV biopic, and not a feature film.
What I found the most hard to reconcile in “Hitchcock” was the filmmaker’s choice to have Ed Gein, the real-life serial killer who inspired the “Psycho” story, interacting with Hitch in several scenes. The two never really met and having the creepy Gein comment on what’s happening in Hitch’s personal life seems far fetched and unnecessary.
Despite the brief ‘making-of’ portions devoted to “Psycho,” this film spends most of it’s time peering into the personal life of it’s subject. Most of it is light and fun, but the uneven patchwork of drama, comedy and commentary keep it from ever achieving the classic status of the film “Psycho” itself.
