It had everything to be an Oscar hit... what went wrong? - Hitchcock (2012) Discussion

[–] TxMike 10 years ago

You can't make a movie "To win an Oscar", nor should you try to. Nothing went wrong, there simply are lots of good movies made each year and only one can win.

Ask the "Brokies" who still complain that "Crash" won best picture.

TxMike
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

reply

[–] heyuactor 10 years ago

IMO it lacked a certain excitement/tension which you usually find in Oscar 'hit' style movies (even The Hurt Locker had some excitement/tension). I personally would have nominated it, but the Academy members are dumb sometimes. They actually like flash over substance (hence Argo and The Artist), but occasionally a straight emotionally driven movie will make it (The King's Speech).

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

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 10 years ago

I'd like to think those biopic ploys don't always work with the academy. This is just not as good as it could have been despite strong performances. All the while I was watching this, I was wishing I was watching a Hitchcock film instead. This is a strong 7/10 in my book, but it could and should have been so much better.

reply

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

The film was not outstanding enough.

Its that man again!!

reply

[–] reaseltbim 10 years ago

the movie was good but not compelling enough. they didn't show that he had too much struggles with making the movie.

I thought that he would have a much harder time making it. Yes he had a hard time but not like really hard. It was actually not that bad (Besides for the money and the board seal)

I think if it had more conflict or something?

reply

[–] MicahFish 10 years ago

REASON: They had to have Silver Linings Playbook in the category for best picture to up the status of Jennifer Lawrence. Frankly, Les Miserables probably should not have been up for best picture either. Hitchcock and Anna Karenina just weren't popular enough for people to tune into the Oscars and say, OH I want that one to win.

reply

[–] OliviaF 10 years ago

You mean to win an Oscar or to be popular in general?

Despite his brilliant directing, Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar (except a lifetime achievement) so what went wrong there?

reply

[–] Scooby52 10 years ago

Well acted but it lacked any great drama. The film got interesting at times, but overall felt lacklustre. It's a shame because it did have so much potential, but frankly the script wasn't good enough nor was it well directed or paced. I think there were some scenes in the film which could have been rather tense and dramatic if handled by a better director, as opposed to a first timer. The ending was rather anti-climatic also, I don't think the writer really knew how to end it and at 88 minutes it was rather short too for a biopic.

I'm writing this signature in bold so people know it's a signature

reply

[–] haasing1986 10 years ago

I am trying to think of some reasons. Here are my guesses:

I think the title was a misnomer. For a film titled Hitchcock it only covered a fraction of his career.

The scenes with Ed Gein were superfluous and detracted from the film.

It was a little too cute: it played with the famous Hitch silhouette/profile a little too much, the ending where the bird lands on his shoulder, the line "that's why they call me the master of suspense" (though that one made me chuckle).

The other films about film mentioned are about movies in general, by making a film about Hitchcock comparisons to Hitch's own work might be made.

It occasionally felt like psychoanalytics 101.

---

On the plus side:

The film looked lush. They absolutely nailed the lighting, sets and costumes.

I was blown away by Mirren. There is one scene in particular when she confronts Hitchcock that was oscar-worthy.

When the film focused on the Alma/Alfred relationship it was super-strong.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Though PARTS of "Hitchcock" worked -- especially the early stuff where we saw Hitchcock and his superagent Lew Wasserman push their way past Paramount bosses to get Psycho made at all -- a lot of it just fell apart. When I first saw it, I wondered WHY the movie seemed to have to avoid showing re-staged scenes from Psycho in the main. And I wondered why, when the characters are watching the "Sheriff's house at night scene" in the screening room -- the dialogue we hear is all wrong, not from the movie at all ("Well, that detective must've been in the cups" -- never said in the movie.)

Later, I read an article and found out why:

Hitchcock was made by Fox Searchlight. Universal owned all rights to Psycho and would NOT cooperate. Fox was not allowed to use clips from Psycho, or dialogue from Psycho(hence the Sheriff lines were re-written) and not even the famous Psycho house from Psycho (a VERSION of the house is seen in the background for about 20 seconds, and that's it.) Evidently scenes were kept short "while Fox lawyers carefully watched" to make sure that not too much was used from Psycho.

I'm not sure how they managed to get a version of the filming of the shower scene into the movie(they changed it into something that never happened -- Hitchcock going berserk and swinging that Janet Leigh with the knife.) They BARELY got the filming of the detective's stair murder into the movie. One of the great "technical tricks" in movie history wasn't even referenced.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

And about that scene: they put in totally fictionalized version of how the detective murder scene was shot, with Alma Hitchcock driving down to the studio(her husband had the flu that day -- which IS true) and taking over the direction and throwing a hack replacement director off the set.

THAT scene reflected the OTHER problem with Hitchcock. As with most biopics "certain elements were changed." And they decided to create a storyline where ALMA Hitchcock made all the decisions that made Psycho great: writing, casting, music, ending. While it IS true that Alma Htichcock helped her husband on many aspects of his films, she did NOT have final decision making power on them.

Universal wouldn't cooperate on Hitchcock among other reasons because the Hitchcock heirs didn't like the script. It showed Hitchcock as a big drinker(he was) and it featured a near-affair between Alma and screenwriter Whitfield Cook(Danny Huston.)

Actually , the Cook-Alma affair IS rumored to have happened, but not during the making of Psycho. It was around the time that Cook helped write Hitchcock's "Stage Fright" ten years earlier in 1950. "Creative license": they moved the affair(if there WAS an affair) ten years. The Hitchcock heirs said "no cooperation will be given."

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

To the positive:

Fox couldn't use any copyrighted material from "Psycho the movie" EXCEPT Bernard Herrmann's score, which they were able to purchase separately. So whenever the Herrmann music pops up(especially the first time) FINALLY we feel like we are watching a movie about Psycho.

And this leads to the best scene in the movie, cleverly built around Herrmann's famous screeching violins:

A crowd fills the house to watch Psycho (at its premiere? doubtful, but OK.)

Hitchcock waits out in the lobby until the shower scene arrives.

And the camera keeps cutting from Hitchcock(in the lobby)
...to the audience in the theater as the SCREAM, SCREAM, and SCREAM again to the shower scene.

The shower scene isn't shown,but the impact of Psycho is imparted. It made waves because it made audiences SCREAM, SCREAM , and SCREAM again like they never had before. And the screamed MORE at the detective's murder, and MORE at the fruit cellar reveal.

So...one sad misfire of a movie (but Universal NEVER would have made it.) With one GREAT scene(the audience screaming while Hitchcock conducts them in the lobby.)

The rest was a failure preordained by the lack of cooperation of Universal and the Hitchocck estate...and by a typical "lying" biopic script.

PS. Also, the problem with MANY biopics. Its hard to cast actors to play iconic stars.

reply