When Anthony Hopkins opts to play Alfred Hitchcock do think he is consciously thinking about Oscar? He must be. You don’t make films about notable-but-niche historic figures (Pollock, Milk, etc.) without the understanding that you’re gonna put a ton of work in for a payoff from critics instead of audiences. You do Hitchcock and critics will stand at attention waiting for you to slip up while the general public just dozes. You know what’s strange about all that? As much as Hopkins makes a wonderful Master of Suspense, the impersonation I found most telling was James D’Arcy’s take on Anthony Perkins.
Our Hitchcock time-line opens with the premiere of the immensely successful North by Northwest. Playa is at the world unveiling; then we cut to a post-game interview in which “Hitch” – as he’s known to friends like me—is questioned if he’s going to retire. I hate it when films piss me off in the first five minutes. This is clearly a plot point: Hitch is insecure about his ability to bring it at his age. Hence, his actions for the rest of the film describe one fighting complacency and the trappings of laurel resting. I have no doubt the real-life man actually felt the keen sting of critical viewpoint, BUT THE VENUE IS SO WRONG. We’ve seen North by Northwest. So have critics. So have contemporaries. There’s absolutely no way North by Northwest could be seen as anything less than a triumph and taking seriously a request to retire after opening night would have been viewed as a joke. “Joe Montana, you just won the Super Bowl … isn’t it time you gave it up?” Or better yet, “Joe Montana, you just won the NFC Championship … shouldn’t you retire now before the Super Bowl?” Do 
you see how silly that sounds? And he’s an athlete – athletes all have shelf-lives. Directors don’t. That’s just absurd.
Inspired by this ageist insecurity, the greatest director in movie history sets about to do something special … the result (and major plot of this film) is Psycho. Hitchcock is hardly the first biopic to embellish controversy. Exacerbating the idea is a conflict with producer wife Alma (Helen Mirren). She hits the right notes between scorned and supportive. It’s fairly clear Alfie is smitten with Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson); who wouldn’t be? And his personal need to film her naked in a shower isn’t helping their separate-bed marriage.
Did you know Alfred and Alma produced Psycho themselves? That took serious balls. Yeah, true, Hitch’s one-year salary of Macabrepiece Theater could probably cover the cost by itself. But still, $800K out of your own pocket on an intentionally risqué film? Stones the size of Mt. Rushmore.
Alma and Janet and Psycho are all a smokescreen. Hitchcock lives and dies with us deciding whether or not Anthony Hopkins actually brings his subject to life. Is he Hitchcock? Yes, I think so. Once, just once, I caught his devilish Hannibal sneaking through; both characters thrive on the manipulation of shock-value. Still, while I found the impression an excellent one, it lacked. And it’s the same thing Denzel‘s Flight character lacked and the one Hannibal didn’t — I didn’t find the audience connection. The impression was fine and sucked me into the belief that this was Alfred Hitchcock; yet at the same time, I found the man cold as if Anthony Hopkins were working so hard to convince us that Alfred was on screen that he forgot to push him off screen and into our lives. Maybe that was the real Alfred Hitchcock’s way — if so, then I’ll give my way: a lackluster rating.
Old Alfred had studio woes
“Pick a new plan,” the story goes
Psycho was fingered
Resentment still lingered
Who won? Well, history knows
Rated PG-13, 98 Minutes
D: Sacha Gervasi
W: John J. McLaughlin
Genre: Oscar-bating
Type of person most likely to enjoy this film: Film historians
Type of person least likely to enjoy this film: Detractors of Psycho
