Hitchcock and Bogus Information (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

Character assassination is still character assassination no matter how funny it is. Muckracking and malicious gossip is still muckracking and malicious gossip no matter entertainingly presented. There is no justification for lying and misrepresenting someone's life, for distorting their intentions and motivations. Just because you enjoy the film doesn't make it true, doesn't make it right.

 

[Patrick H.]

Between this and HBO's The Girl, last year was not a good year for "dramatic representations" of Hitchcock...

 

[Doug Otte]

Between this and HBO's The Girl, last year was not a good year for "dramatic representations" of Hitchcock...

Agreed. I was disappointed in both films.

I saw 'Hitchcock' on a plane flight, and it helped pass the time.

I'll agree w/ others here about the wild inaccuracies, but I'll disagree about the performances. Although I thought Mirren did a good job, as usual, I was surprised that Hopkins' performance was weak. Now, the poor makeup was the first thing I had to get past (didn't get close to the shape of his face, head, or body), but he didn't seem to "inhabit" the personality of Hitchcock like I thought he might. I can't explain further, but I just wasn't convinced I was watching Hitch for a moment. Even his voice and accent were sloppy. For a few moments, I thought I heard Hitch, but mostly I heard Hopkins.

The one aspect of the film was how important Alma was to Hitch, creatively. Although this was probably inaccurate or at least exaggerated, I was glad they pointed out that Hitch wasn't the sole creative force.

 

[Yorkshire]

We've had similar discussions in the past about films as diverse as In the Name of the Father, Gandhi, The Buddy Holly Story and Braveheart.

A good film is a good film, accurate or inaccurate.

There's no such thing as a film that's a true story - only 'based on' a true story. Even a documentary running in real time needs to be edited and comes from only one point of view.

Steve W