MovieChat Forums > Hitchcock (2012) Discussion > The sanitized version of Hitchcock, but ...

The sanitized version of Hitchcock, but I like it

posted 10 years ago by OliviaF
6 replies | jump to latest

This film felt like a cerebal, santitized version of Hitchcock but I didn't mind that at all. I tend to be very squeamish and was reluctant to watch this given his reputation for his horror movies. I was pleasantly surprised. Yes this movie makes him look like a bit of teddy bear rather than formidable director and as others have said it sways into domestic territory, which seems to be the trend these days with many movies (The Iron Lady comes to mind). HOWEVER! One: having just watched Rear Window, I've realised Hitchcock himself was an explorer of violent urges in the life of the "ordinary", and who can say that his violent fantasies in this movie weren't just a tad disturbing? Two: Helen Mirren gives such an OUTSTANDING performance and her "support" speech could apply to many situations where women are accessorised in the relationship. I don't think anyone was trying to take Hitchcock's glory away from him or say "it's all because of his wife" but to do a biopic properly means to examine his genius and his flaws. His creative energy and refusal to be bullied by censorship of the day was inspiring. His difficult relationships were intriguing. Oh, and I LOVED seeing the Karate Kid in this movie!!!

[–] heyuactor 10 years ago

Good post.

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

[–] phillipsdan83 10 years ago

Hitchcock actually made few true horror films, and HITCHCOCK the film exaggerates Alma's influence on Hitchcock's career for dramatic license...but she was an influence nonetheless.

[–] ascaav 10 years ago

I disagree with "the film exaggerates Alma's influence on Hitchcock's career for dramatic license". Alma seems to have played a large role in the films he made- from writing, finance, and choosing the actors. She tended to be part of the film from start to finish and received little credit for her role in the process.

[–] moosefeathers 9 years ago

Hitchcock never made one horror movie. What are ou talking about?

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

[–] Beau_Buffet 8 years ago

Psycho (listed on IMDB as "Horror, Mystery, Thriller"), although not a real horror movie, is kind of the father of modern horror movies (before it it was mostly monster movies, after it it became mostly slasher movies).

But you are right, Hitchcock did not make horror movies. He made thrillers.

[–] bastasch8647 7 years ago

The Birds was horror with a pinch of sci-fi. Yes, there were subplots and subtexts, but none of them would be there without the dysfunctional/aggressive birds. Being trapped in a dark room with eye-pecking birds steps beyond terror into horror, as does the triple-zoom shot of the bird-killed farmer.