Cathal Dennehy is a little disappointed by Hitchcock.
You know what they say: Hitchcock biopics are like buses; you wait for one and then two come along at once. Many people will no doubt be making comparisons between Hitchcock and the BBC television movie The Girl which aired last Christmas. It is interesting to see how the cinematic release fares against the made-for-television film.Firstly, Hitchcock describes the making of Psycho, while The Girl details the production of The Birds. On the other hand, the two are very similar in that they both focus on the relationship between Hitch himself and his wife/screenwriter Alma. Here, this relationship is quite well handled for the most part and you do believe Alma’s frustrations with her husband and Hitch’s self doubts and concerns for his film.On this note, the two central performances are both quite strong. Anthony Hopkins mostly gets Hitch’s mannerisms down (the almost blank expression, the piercing, dead-eyed stare) but at times his voice doesn’t quite fit. His speech is slightly too direct and accurately delivered, unlike Hitch’s lethargic drawl, as if he were bored by what he was saying. When compared to The Girl’s Hitchcock (Toby Jones) Hopkins comes off less favourably.Jones’ Hitchcock was malicious, threatening and seemed to be genuinely disturbed at times. Hopkins’ interpretation comes off as petty and petulant and this makes him less interesting. Helen Mirren as Alma is, as suspected, excellent. She is a good anchor for the audience to rely on when Hitch becomes too intense or unpredictable. However, for a film called Hitchcock a significant chunk of it focuses soley on Alma. There’s nothing wrong with this and it’s an interesting section but I found myself wishing that the focus would return to the main subject matter.One of the main problems with Hitchcock is that is is somewhat juvenile in its discription of Hitch’s mentality and his inner psyche. Every facet of Hitch’s personality and the trademarks of his movies are all given very clear and simple explanations. Did you know Hitchcock had a thing for blondes? You know how he hated studio intrusion? Famous aspects of Pyscho (such as the shower scene) are invented in ‘eureka’ moments. It’s hard to believe that such iconic and ingenious ideas were thought up so casually.The other major problem is that director Sascha Gervasi and screenwriter John J. McLaughlin never seem to reign in all of the individual elements to form a cohesive whole. Elements such as Alma’s unhappiness, Hitch’s inner doubts and problems and the making of Psycho itself never mesh together entirely. They come, are developed and then they are finished with. For example, Hitch’s and Alma’s marriage is in trouble, they talk about it for a bit and it’s then fixed completely. This makes the film seem slightly episodic, ironically making the feature film seems more televisual than the made-for-TV movie. In the same way, however, there are individual scenes which are very well handled but it is hard to feel as if the film wraps itself up in an entirely satisfying way.Although there are some problems with the overall story and its slightly naïve ‘Hitchcock Psychology 101’ it doesn’t take away from that fact that this is very enjoyable and interesting account of the making of arguably Hitchcock’s greatest mastepiece.
