Hitchcock and Bogus Information (1 Viewer)

[TonyD]

Meh, stuff happens.

 

[mikeyhitchfan]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce /t/326081/hitchcock-and-bogus-information#post_4016615
By the time Hitchcock made Psycho, he was a major stock holder in MCA. At one time Hitchcock was the 3rd largest share holder in MCA/Universal. He wouldn't have needed to mortgage anything in order to make an $800,000 movie.
Doug

For the record, in 1962 Hitchcock traded the rights to Psycho and Alfred Hitchcock Presents to Universal/MCA in exchange for something like 150,000 shares of stock. He was then the 3rd largest shareholder, two years after Psycho once he signed with Universal for 5 pictures.

I saw the Hitchcock film yesterday, after reading many reviews. It was what I expected, light on facts and trying hard to dramatize events. No wonder the family didn't give their blessing. Alma is made out to be the one with the ideas (and an imaginary and unnecessary flirtation) and Alfred is reduced to a caricature of a repressed pervert film maker with murderous feelings. If only they had just concentrated on the making of Psycho it might have been pretty enjoyable.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by mikeyhitchfan /t/326081/hitchcock-and-bogus-information#post_4017019
For the record, in 1962 Hitchcock traded the rights to Psycho and Alfred Hitchcock Presents to Universal/MCA in exchange for something like 150,000 shares of stock. He was then the 3rd largest shareholder, two years after Psycho once he signed with Universal for 5 pictures.

I saw the Hitchcock film yesterday, after reading many reviews. It was what I expected, light on facts and trying hard to dramatize events. No wonder the family didn't give their blessing. Alma is made out to be the one with the ideas (and an imaginary and unnecessary flirtation) and Alfred is reduced to a caricature of a repressed pervert film maker with murderous feelings. If only they had just concentrated on the making of Psycho it might have been pretty enjoyable.

EXACTLY how I felt about the movie!

 

[Persianimmortal]

I'm just skipping the movie altogether. I suppose the producers thought the only way a movie about Hitchcock would sell would be to portray him as some sort of overweight pervert, tack on a few big name actors and inject false drama. Not my cup of tea, so I'm not rewarding them with my money.

 

[Douglas Monce]

For the record, in 1962 Hitchcock traded the rights to Psycho and Alfred Hitchcock Presents to Universal/MCA in exchange for something like 150,000 shares of stock. He was then the 3rd largest shareholder, two years after Psycho once he signed with Universal for 5 pictures.
I saw the Hitchcock film yesterday, after reading many reviews. It was what I expected, light on facts and trying hard to dramatize events. No wonder the family didn't give their blessing. Alma is made out to be the one with the ideas (and an imaginary and unnecessary flirtation) and Alfred is reduced to a caricature of a repressed pervert film maker with murderous feelings. If only they had just concentrated on the making of Psycho it might have been pretty enjoyable. 

I was under the impression that he was a major stock holder (thought not the third largest) because of his original deal to make Hitchcock Presents in the first place, and the Psycho deal only added to that, but I could be wrong.
Doug

 

[mikeyhitchfan]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce /t/326081/hitchcock-and-bogus-information#post_4017116
I was under the impression that he was a major stock holder (thought not the third largest) because of his original deal to make Hitchcock Presents in the first place, and the Psycho deal only added to that, but I could be wrong.
Doug

I did a bit of research into this for the facts. His agent and future boss Lew Wasserman worked for MCA and brokered the deal with CBS. CBS paid Hitchcock $125,000 per episode that he directed plus all rights to the shows after the first airing. MCA was a talent agency and had not yet bought Universal Pictures, so they assisted the show with writers and actors and such. This was 1955. In 1958 MCA bought the back lot of Universal then a few years later bought the studio. After Marnie In 1964, when the show was over, the deal was made to sell the rights of the show (and some Paramount film titles) and future marketing of his name to Universal in exchange for the stock.

 

[Robert Harris]

I did a bit of research into this for the facts. His agent and future boss Lew Wasserman worked for MCA and brokered the deal with CBS. CBS paid Hitchcock $125,000 per episode that he directed plus all rights to the shows after the first airing. MCA was a talent agency and had not yet bought Universal Pictures, so they assisted the show with writers and actors and such. This was 1955. In 1958 MCA bought the back lot of Universal then a few years later bought the studio. After Marnie In 1964, when the show was over, the deal was made to sell the rights of the show (and some Paramount film titles) and future marketing of his name to Universal in exchange for the stock. 

Paramount film titles?

 

[mikeyhitchfan]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/326081/hitchcock-and-bogus-information#post_4017173
Paramount film titles?

Sorry, conflicting written accounts. Any inside knowledge would be welcome here. In Patrick McGilligan's biography, the above deal mentions "the reverted Paramount titles" as part of the deal. I think it was only "Psycho" because it was a Shamley production, like the TV series and that's also what's mentioned in Rebello's "Making of Psycho book (which gives the year of the deal as 1962, not 1964).

http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/The_Times_(15/Nov/1983)_-_Return_of_the_missing_Hitchcocks

Here is an excerpt from and a link to an interesting article about the new Hitchcock film...and again it mentions the reverted films. Likely an error, too.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/24/alfred_hitchcock_is_rolling_in_his_grave/singleton/

[SIZE= 12px]The real life happy ending to Psycho occurred in 1964, when Hitchcock compounded his patrimony by exchanging his rights to Shamley Productions, including [/SIZE]Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, [SIZE= 12px]and all the reverted Paramount films [/SIZE][SIZE= 12px]for enough stock in Universal to make him and Alma the third largest stockholders in the company, thereby securing a corporate, if not quite a family connection with Wasserman, the new head of the studio and the uncredited and unindicted co-producer of Psycho. The stock, which would skyrocket in value when Universal was acquired by Matushita in 1991, was legally declared and signed over as legacy to be bestowed on Hitch’s “sweet girl,” Patricia Hitchcock O’Connell.[/SIZE]

 

[Panavision70]

Another error of fact occurs near the beginning with the Peggy Robertson character reading a list messages for Hitchcock, saying 20th Century Fox called for the third time to ask him to direct "The Diary of Anne Frank." I have no idea if Fox wanted Hitchcock to direct "Anne Frank," but not in the summer of 1959. She also says MGM wants him to direct Cary Grant in a series of James Bond films.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Cary Grant was the first choice for Bond, and Hitch was discussed to direct so the second bit of info is within the realm of reality.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Moe Dickstein /t/326081/hitchcock-and-bogus-information#post_4017263
Cary Grant was the first choice for Bond, and Hitch was discussed to direct so the second bit of info is within the realm of reality.

Somehow, a sixty year old Bond doesn't seem to fit. Nor does the budget, which would have been tiny. It was a major point that they were able to shoot in color.

RAH

 

[Douglas Monce]

I did a bit of research into this for the facts. His agent and future boss Lew Wasserman worked for MCA and brokered the deal with CBS. CBS paid Hitchcock $125,000 per episode that he directed plus all rights to the shows after the first airing. MCA was a talent agency and had not yet bought Universal Pictures, so they assisted the show with writers and actors and such. This was 1955. In 1958 MCA bought the back lot of Universal then a few years later bought the studio. After Marnie In 1964, when the show was over, the deal was made to sell the rights of the show (and some Paramount film titles) and future marketing of his name to Universal in exchange for the stock. 

Was 58 when it became known as Review Pictures?
Doug

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Somehow, a sixty year old Bond doesn't seem to fit.  Nor does the budget, which would have been tiny.  It was a major point that they were able to shoot in color.
RAH

If the EON legend is to be believed, the sticking point with Grant was that he would only do one Bond film. David Niven was also apparently in the mix as well.

 

[Douglas Monce]

If the EON legend is to be believed, the sticking point with Grant was that he would only do one Bond film. David Niven was also apparently in the mix as well.

I always understood that Niven was actually the first choice, and Flemming's preferred actor.
Doug

 

[Richard--W]

Alfred Hitchcock: My contract guarantees me final cut on all of my pictures.Barney Balaban: It also states that Paramount doesn't have to release anything that might cause the studio embarrassment!Alfred Hitchcock: As opposed to those last five Martin and Lewis pictures you released?

A conversation that never took place in a film loaded with dialogue that was never spoken in life.

I don't like this film. On the surface it has a lot of chutzpah [spelling] but it trivializes and misrepresents Alfred Hitchcock in some pretty vicious ways. It makes pronouncements and value judgments that have no basis in fact. It's not just bad biography, it's irresponsible biography, filled with unfounded gossip, wild speculation, inaccurate information, circumstances and events that are taken out of context or put into a wrong context, and false conclusions masquerading as fact. It's a hatchet job, delivered with fine style and superb performances. I find this film impossible to respect. Anyone who undertakes biography assumes the burden of doing the research and conveying the facts, but these filmmakers wouldn't recognize a fact if it shouted in their ear.

I think poorly of Hopkins and MIrren for not taking a moral position and for not insisting on a more discerning script.

There is so much that could be done with the making of Psycho. HITCHCOCK doesn't even try.

Don't waste you hard-earned money on this blu-ray.

 

[Steve...O]

I agree with the gist of Richard W's post above. I saw the film in the theater and while a fine film from a technical standpoint it had zero re-watchability value for me. No wonder the Hitchcock family wanted nothing to do with this. It insults both Mr. and Mrs. Hitch.

I have nothing against the cast - the leads turn in a great performance and as lightweight entertainment, it is fine. I'd just hate that anyone would watch this and think it is an accurate representation of the way things were. (To be fair, this can be said about many movie bios.)

In some respects, this is similar to another film I saw at the same time - Hyde Park on the Hudson. Excellent acting job by Bill Murray and the supporting cast, but I can't see myself revisiting this anytime soon. If there had been a "Lincoln" style movie about FDR, I'd be all over it. There's a fascinating story to tell there and it is recent enough in history that getting first hand accounts of the historical record shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Patrick McCart]

This was quite entertaining, even if light on facts. It makes for a good movie, but it's going to confuse those who are unfamilar with Hitchcock's work. Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren were fantastic, though.

 

[John Hermes]

This was quite entertaining, even if light on facts. It makes for a good movie, but it's going to confuse those who are unfamilar with Hitchcock's work. Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren were fantastic, though.

I liked it as well and those two actors were excellent. Whether factual or not, it still makes good entertainment. I thought Scarlett Johansson did a good job as Janet Leigh and looked the part, but Jessica Biel is a million miles different from Vera Miles in looks.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I liked it as well and those two actors were excellent. Whether factual or not, it still makes good entertainment. I thought Scarlett Johansson did a good job as Janet Leigh and looked the part, but Jessica Biel is a million miles different from Vera Miles in looks.

One detail I enjoyed was not showing a frame of Psycho either from the film itself or a re-creation. The scene with Hitchcock waiting outside the theater door listening to the audience during the shower scene is incredible. Even if it's a fabrication, it's the essence of his way of manipulating the audience through his films.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

It's also a result of them not having any rights to show scenes from Psycho...