Thoughts on this? Just about to start watching it. I was put off initially by the terrible make-up used on Toby Jones.
Saw it. Boring.
Mean spirited hatchet job that bangs the same drum for nearly two hours. Very poorly written and dull.
What R2 said. I stopped watching after an hour.
There's ultimately no story there.
Hitchcock (and even Hedren) deserves better.
It was a piece of shit. And that blurb at the end that said "Marnie" was Hitchcock's "final masterpiece"...oh, please! That movie was far from his best efforts.
"The Girl (the girl in question is in her thirties)" is based on a hatchet-job book by the Hitchcock-hating queen Donald Spoto and the suspect reminiscences of the talentless Tippi Hedren.
I think that Hitchcock's behavior was greatly exaggerated to achieve dramatic effect. It makes him out to be a monster, and he was not.
I thought HBO movies were better quality than this. This looked cheap and poorly done.
I dunno, I found it hard to watch but believable.
I also hadn't realized the part Hitchcock's
editor wife had in his movies...and if she
stopped working on his stuff after the Tippi
Hedren obsession, it explains the change in tone
from his earlier movies like "North by Northwest".
His last movies were more psycho-sexual.
It was a little bit more Lifetime than usual HBO fare but I watched it. I was interested in the Birds stuff, haven't even seen Marnie.
I liked the actor who played the assistant director. I'm assuming he was from the South African casting pool.
He had a very period look, kind of like a slimmer Rod Taylor. I wonder if he was originally cast as Rod Taylor and then the role was cut?
I wondered the same thing, R10.
I wanted more from the movie: Did Hitch act like this with every leading lady? Or was it just Tippi that drove him wild? If so, why?
The actor playing the asst director is hot.
To those calling hatchet job.. Can you speak more to the veracity of the story? Surely you're not objecting out of some bullshit about a woman's believability up against an unassailable genius auteur, right?
"To those calling hatchet job.. Can you speak more to the veracity of the story? Surely you're not objecting out of some bullshit about a woman's believability up against an unassailable genius auteur, right?"
Hitchcock worked with many women, women far more beautiful and talented than Tippi Hedren. And NONE of them have said anything about Hitchcock treating them badly and/or making grotesque sexual overtures to them. I get the feeling that Hitchcock wanted to make this rather ordinary blonde model into a unique actress and developed a crush on her. But I have a hard time believing he made clumsy sexual passes at her and told her she was not to have sex with anyone but him.
In an interview Hedren (her interviews reveal her to be quite full of herself and brainless) called Hitchcock, and I quote, "evil." I doubt that anyone he worked with would agree with that. He was an eccentric man, but "evil?" I don't think so. I think Hedren is full of shit.
[quote]I thought HBO movies were better quality than this. This looked cheap and poorly done.
It was a BBC production, perhaps HBO just bought it cheap, because it would never had gotten a theatrical release. It was sloppy sloppy film making and never believable they were in Hollywood.
I think if Hitchcock was obsessed with Hedren, unlike his other leading ladies, it was likely because she was not an established star, was unmarried and unattached and was therefore, perhaps, more vulnerable and "available" in his mind. I wish The Girl established that more. I wonder why Hedren didn't even have a boy friend hanging around to protect her...there might have been something interesting and complex there.
Sienna Miller was miscast. She looked too lush and voluptuous. Tippi was more anemic and just pretty in an ordinary way like Kristen Bell.
OMG, that movie was so bizarre. It looked NOTHING like Southern California. The studio was like no studio in the US and certainly NOTHING like Universal where it was filmed.
I feel almost sorry for Toby Jones. He's doomed to be the also-ran in competing bio-pics.
Was it filmed in the UK?
It was filmed in South Africa.
I liked it. Obviously if one thinks it has to be a hatchet job because Hitchcock wasn't like that, one wasn't going to enjoy any adaptation of this story which posits the opposite.
It was not a great movie, but it was a lot better than HBO's big celeb bio of last season, the pathetic "Hemingway and Gellhorn".
We really don't know for a fact that none of Hitchcock's "cool blondes" put out for him previous to Tippi, or that he never did anything abusive to women before she came along (maybe he used call girls to act out his sexual scenarios, which were probably pretty outre and may not have involved conventional sex at all.) Being a Catholic and very uptight he might have just been incredibly discreet about what he did, or maybe Tippi was the only one that told on him.
Here is another opinion from a New Yorker blogger.
It was fine, but very dry. It was originally made for the BBC, I think. I thought the performances were fine but to what end? It was basically the same scene over and over. Very slight story.
I really don't get the recent fascination with telling the story of Hitchcock. I can't imagine that the big screen bio is going to be any more interesting.
The promos put me off the thing, as did the very idea, which is weak and unnecessary.
Watching Hitchcock play to the camera was fucking amazing; he was an interesting individual with more than his fair share of talents and faults and oddities; but the story of Hitchcock and Hedren can be told and understood in 5 minutes. She's not interesting, their relationship is about 5 minutes interesting, and that's about it - no need for a cheesy film.
I would have thought that HBO Films was above blowing the dust off the "racier" bits from psycho-sexual celebrity bios. But then I tend to hate biopics where actors are painted up and prostheticized and armed with odd accents and phrasing to mimic famous dead people - never mind how many awards these things usually win.
Tippi Hedren was a mediocrity. Hitchcock was a pig who was a genius. The hagiography for Hedren was absurd. She was lucky to work in any of his films, much less two.
It was amazing to see that she was tortured on the set and still provided such lifeless performances.
[quote]Tippi Hedren was a mediocrity.
I have read that Hitchcock was gay and his fixation on beautiful blonds was queer admiration for beauty. Perhaps there was some strange cruelty or sadism in his obsession, but I have read the last thing he wanted to do was fuck them.
It seemed he was about to drunkenly kiss that assistant director at one point.
The posts on this thread make for far more interesting time spent than watching that dreadful film.
I thought that too, R28 and then had flashbacks to INFAMOUS.
I especially appreciated the kooky wardrobe girl with the penchant for berets.
Jones was actually wonderful in Infamous.
Spoto's biography has really haunted how Hitchcock is portrayed and still dogs analyses of his films, with the oft-repeated analysis of the edits in the shower scene in Psycho being misogynistic cuts into the female psyche. It's become such a cliche now.
They should make a movie of the AFI salute to Hitchcock, where his expression didnt change the whole evening yet the camera still cut to him for a reaction anyway. That would be a wonderful comedy.
It was ok, but the locations were dreadful. Bodega Bay with heavy surf? puh-leeze! I also don't understand why they kept referring to her going up to the "attic" when she was clearly entering a bedroom when attacked by birds.
If the Datalounge is right and Hitchcock was really deeply closeted, what really happened between them?
Was all the on-set abuse just an attempt to get some emotion out of a stick? And if Hitch didn't demand that she put out, why did he turn on her when she did?
r33, it was "clearly" a set, meant to represent the attic at Mitch's home.
It was a lazy choice to use that Linda Scott song under the credits. MULHOLLAND DRIVE used it so effectively and this was just an obvious cue to the audience: ''Its the Sixties!". Overall not horribly executed just boring and pointless nonetheless.
Just watched it, and the negative comments on here are right on the money.
It is so hard to get past the WRONG look of the film. Nothing is right, and the story is not compelling enough (as presented) to overcome that.
Why is everybody in the early 60's driving those old mid 50's cars? Tippi's house is nice, but obviously NOT California.
I think the script was the big problem - next to Toby's makeup - and the direction was not so hot either - although the homages to Hitchcock movie images was interesting.
And of course next to Tippi - Sierra looks fat - not that she is....but next to Tippi. And her screen test scene was ridiculously costumed and acted.
I don't think Hitchcock was gay. I think he was quite repressed sexually, but was able to express passion through his movie-making. He was always obese; having sex was probably difficult for him, even physically.
I think his so-called obsession with Hedren is greatly exaggerated.
I don't trust anything Donald Spoto says about Hitchcock. Spoto is a weird queen who hates Hitchcock for some reason and rakes him over the coals in not one, but TWO books. On the other hand, he simply adores Marilyn Monroe and insists that she was NOT a drug addict and NOT promiscuous and NOT unprofessional and did NOT have any mental problems. He's a big fan of hers, so he portrays her portrays her in the best possible light, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
It aired here in the UK on 26 December - I love Hitchcock films and particularly The Birds, but this was a dull, lifeless hatchet job, even if Tippi co-operated with it. On The Birds it just seemed to focus mainly on the bird attack on Tippi in the attic - we dont even see her dialling the telephone with her pencil in the pet shop. Sienna has none of the poise or glamour of Tippi. Marnie is glossed over quickly too with just that rape sequence as though Hitch is getting his rocks off watching the scene .... and is sadistically tormenting her with those real birds.
There was none of Hitch's humour as evident from his many interviews or stills of him on set with his regular stars like Grant, Stewart, Bergman, Kelly.
Of course the real Hitch could not opress or abuse independent actresses like Eva Marie Saint or Janet Leigh or Doris Day but perhaps he saw Hedren has his property whom he had under personal contract and felt he could do what he liked with while developing her into a movie star. When she would not play along he lost interest but meanly kept her under contract so she could not work for anyone else unless he agreed and he wouldn't.
I just watched the movie last night for the first time and I really enjoyed it. I thought it was head and shoulders above the real hatchet job of Hitchcock the movie. That movie was DOA.
What I took from The Girl is that Hitchcock hated himself and had a strong desire to posses beauty or if that beauty proved to be unresponsive, destroy it.
It seemed as if he made movies to create and control beautiful images, and create worlds he felt removed from.
At one point he says to his assistant director that he would give up everything, the movies, money, fame - just to be as handsome as he. Tippi in the movie even says it feels like he is trying to get inside me and push me out of my own body just to see the world through her eyes.
He wanted to be desired if not merely liked. And usually he was able to force this with his other leading ladies by being the director. It is pointed out that Tipi is unwilling to do this, and that is why Hitchcock was obsessed with torturing her, breaking her.
"Why is everybody in the early 60's driving those old mid 50's cars?"
Cuz maybe... everyone didn't have a brand spanking new car in 1962?
If you look out at the traffic next time Driver takes you to Starbucks, you'll see cars 10 or even 20 years old.
It would be difficult finding an actor (let alone a name actor) who looked like Hitch, unless it was complete unknown found after a talent search. He's the polar opposite of a movie actor.
Wow, who knew that a negative portrayal of Hitchcock would get such indignant reactions on DL?
This thread reads like something from a Hitchcock fan forum.