REVIEW : "Hitchcock" (2012) - Movie by Sacha Gervasi

Psycho, the movie by Alfred Hitchcock from 1960, is, for good reasons, among the most famous and most heralded movies of all time. In many ways it was a groundbreaking movie, not least for Hitchcock himself ... and in my opinion, the start of his demise. This movie takes on to show how this movie came about and the intricacies of the persons surrounding it, not least Hitchcock himself.

I would not exactly call myself a Hitchcock scholar, that would be too nerdy, but certainly a giant fan. He is in my top three of directors, possibly at the top. So I do have my opinions and ideas of how the man was as himself and how he worked and behaved towards actors and the likes.

From this point of view this movie takes it head on and does not try to wade over slimy details of what happened behind the curtains or in his slightly filthy mind. He was a literally a big baby with huge sexual problems and felt awkward and undesirable by women. In my view, how he got access to women, that he could not otherwise get close because of his bloated looks, was by directing them in movies and preferably in scenes that would pass through the censors, but left no doubt in the mind of the viewers what was going on. Psycho is the last straw in a long line of movies with sexual undertones where it all climaxes in the destruction of the feminine as a punishment for that which he could not get for himself.

Ok, enough of the pocket psychology. But i do think this movie handles these aspects fairly well while still being able to tell a coherent story and intermingle all the famous scenes and anecdotes that would be expected to be shown.

The part of Hitch is playd very well by Anthony Hopkins and even if he sometimes tries a little too hard to emulate his mannerisms and expressions, he does infact do it all so well that most of the times I accept his Hitchcock as Hitchcock. What I like less about it is, that we need to have his wife, Alma, having a near sexual affair with a scriptwriter, as a kind of opposition to Hitchcocks lack of ssexual desires towards her.

Geez, they have been married since the early 20s, so why would that grey mouse all of a sudden become "unfulfilled" after 40 years. She seems more dominant and nagging than I think the real person warrants. This does fall in the category of "the ladies need something they can identify with otherwise they will not come to the theatre"

Another thing I have is that it doesn´t dare to go all the way sort of. Yes the knife stabbing in the shower scene and the sexual attraction to his "blondes" is all there - but fans knows this already and it is not news. And none fans wouldnt really care too much I think ... like isn´t that what is going on every day in Hollywood ?

As Hitchcock was himself a groundbreaking director, I would have liked some more bold presentations and tributes to his work, instead of a few "easter eggs" here and there. And somehow more about Hitchcock the director and how he rose to fame. I don´t know, it just seems that everything, despite its directness, lacks something to spice it up. Hitchcock was no stranger to giving you something new and exiting.

But I was certainly entertained throughout the movie and I guess probably mostly because I am a fan in the first place. One who is not a film fanatic, may not find that much to chew on here. So when it comes down the problem is mostly that it ends up sitting between two chairs and thus fails to serve either.

The casting is very good. I particularly liked Scarlett Johansen´s Janet Leigh. Without being a spitting image, she nails her natural, slightly ignorant, sexy looks very well. Scarlett is not just a pretty face, but a rather underrated actress in her own right. The guy playing Anthony Perkins is, if only very shortly in frame, also very spot on.

All in all I can recommend it as a kind of tribute to the times more than to the movie as such .. and you know, the title isn´t Psycho, but Hitchcock. So expect something that is a timecapsule more than a thorough analysis of the movie or the director.

These biopics are always hard to make and do in an interesting way. It mostly ends up being something that does not dare to take a stance for real or stick in any particular direction within its cinematography. And that is a shame.

7/10