Tuesday 12 February 2013

Film: 'HITCHCOCK'

My closest cinema multiplex has eight screens of various sizes. It's not a good sign when a newly-released film is, within a few days, demoted to the smallest screen - euphemistically called "our mini-cinema" -  though there's no reduction in admission charge. So had to catch this quickly before it disappeared entirely; unless it gets a much-needed second wind from its BAFTA-nominated turn from Helen Mirren doing Mrs H., though I doubt if it will.

Anthony Hopkins looks totally unrecognisable under all that bulk. More's the pity then, that despite all the effort, he doesn't look much like Hitch either - a face that was so familiar to those of my generation watching his weekly TV appearance in the late 1950s, when he introduced 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents', half-hourly playlets, usually with slightly bizarre scenarios or twists.  There was actually nothing too outrageously shocking - they were, after all, screened on Tuesday evenings at 7 o'clock at a moment in history when there was a choice of just two channels, BBC and ITV. 

But, accepting that Hopkins is portraying an approximation rather than an imitation, back to the success or otherwise of the actual film.
It deals with his trials and struggles, both with the film companies and censors, to make the famed 'Psycho', a film I was too young to see on its initial release in 1960, though I do clearly recall all the associated hullabaloo, such as how that no one would be admitted into the cinema after the film had started (which turned out to be an added, though unnecessary, gimmick to draw in even greater numbers). I caught it on its re-release in 1966 (in a double-bill with the 1953 'War of the Worlds') and by then it had acquired the enticing allure of 'forbidden fruit'. Since that viewing I have never heard such screams for another film from a cinema audience, or anything even approaching it. Of course 'Psycho' is pretty old hat now, and I know complete stretches of the script off by heart. All subsequent viewings have long since become exercises in filmic analysis rather than the impossible task of recapturing any of the initial thrills and shocks. (I think it was only first shown on our TVs here in the late 1990s).

In this film Helen Mirren was at her usual high standard but I didn't feel it was so outstanding as to have merited her BAFTA nomination, but I'm not complaining about that.
Could have done without the occasional 'ghost' appearances of the character who carried out the murders on which the Robert Bloch book was based. It just muddied the waters and felt as though it was put in to give the film added meaning when none was actually needed.
Scarlett Johannson as Janet Leigh and James D'arcy as Anthony Perkins were both very good.

During the course of the film I was wondering if it would appeal to those who know little or nothing of 'Psycho' or have even heard of Hitchcock - and might therefore miss a lot of the allusions. I dare say that perhaps the majority of today's audience might plead ignorance on both accounts, but I may be mistaken.
The film ends pleasingly enough, allowing one to exit with a little bounce in one's step.

A bit more entertaining than I was expecting, I award it a...................6.5/10



20 comments:

  1. I've been looking forward to it - although i'm one of those who hasn't seen Psycho - and know less than I should of the Hitchcock canon...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Strongly recommended, Andrew - but do try to watch it without distractions and no interruptions. I'd be interested to know what you think, even though you probably know by now what happens and the reasons why..

      Delete
  2. I did mis-type - there should have been a capital "I" in "I'm"...

    ...No, honestly, Psycho is one a (very) long list of films I've not seen. Most of which are ones which it is generally assumed everyone has seen!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you can see, Andrew, I've deleted my cavalier dismissal of your reply. Felt guilty about not taking it seriously. Shame that you saw it.

      Delete
    2. It was fine! And understandable! :-)

      Delete
  3. I was born in '64 so I missed the first run of Hitchcock's films. Mom told me how she went to see Psycho with her sister and was afraid to take a shower afterwards! A local TV station would sometimes show his movies on Saturday afternoons--The Birds was the one that spooked me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite a number of people say how they were afraid to take showers afterwards. It didn't apply to me - we only had a bath in our house at that time!

      Yes, 'The Birds' is another masterful film. Although it was said at the time that no birds were actually harmed during its making we now know that not as much care was taken over them as we were led to believe and that a number were indeed injured, something which wouldn't happen nowadays because it would all be CGI'd.
      For me the biggest 'shock' of that film - and for the audience audibly complaining on its way out - was the unexpected (and 'unsatisfactory?') ending, leaving it all hanging in the air. But that is how the Daphne du Maurier short story also ends, on which the film is based. But it really is a darned good film and, like Psycho, worthwhile seeing over and over again.

      Delete
  4. Sounds you were ever slightly disappointed .... Which is a shame.........I see your point re Hopkins....I felt the same when I saw Toby jones in his role too

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You detect correctly, J.G. I did feel that it ought to have been a bit better, but it's by no means a write-off. I'd still say that if you get the chance, give it a go. If you can remember (I hope I'm not presuming too much) any of the fuss surrounding it it will certainly mean more to you.

      I only watched the first half hour of the Toby Jones. Once again it was his impersonation which distracted me, though not, like Hopkins, for his dissimilarity of features to H, but in Jones' case more his diminutive size, when we all know that Hitch had 'largeness' written all over him.

      Delete
  5. Hello Ray, long time away from Blog Land. Catching up on your news and reviews.
    While I don't fancy the film, I do think that visually, Hopkins looks remarkable.
    I've linked to your blog by the way.
    Hope that all is well with you.
    Craig

    ReplyDelete
  6. I really should have said, looks remarkable in frame if not face!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Craig - and welcome return! I've just responded to your comment re Mark Kermode (on my 'I Give It a Year' post) without checking and reminding myself who you are. But now that I know, it's really splendid to have you back. I do hope you are keeping well - and I'll be keeping my eye on you, again.

      Yes, Mr Hopkins does look 'remarkable' - but only in the fact that you wouldn't know who it was without being told. To me he looks more like a mafia boss - or a James Gandolfini with more weight and unkind edges.

      Delete
  7. Mr. Hitchcock hosted a children's ghost story record which still gives me the willies whenever I hear it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that's something I'd LOVE to hear. I can just see his mischievous, knowing, half-smile as he introduces(?) them. Must investigate.

      Delete
    2. the stories were very upsetting for a child my age, and having Mr. Hitchcock host them as if he was giving out lollipops made them even more creepy.
      "Alfred Hitchcock's Ghost Stories for Young People"
      alas it was on youtube but it was taken down :-{

      Delete
    3. What a shame. Sounds like these days there'd be an even bigger market for them. Maybe such creepiness these days tends to freak out adults more than it does kids, the latter now with their know-all, seen-it-before attitude - which itself gives me the shudders!

      Delete
    4. http://youtu.be/z-hlwwVDknM

      Delete
    5. Thanks so much, Dr Spo. That was quite an experience. I hadn't heard A.H.'s voice for several decades but this vividly brought back to me the mischievous 'twinkle-in'the-eye' voice. I'll investigate the other similar offerings on YouTube later. 'Ta' again.

      Delete