The Girl (2012) - TV

* * *

After hearing a lot of Hitchcock’s unconventional style of directing this film intrigued me and therefore this film is very interesting. It is a very one-sided portrayal of the story, and it is doubtable that it is wholly factual. This does seem to thrive off of the entertainment factor than an analysis of exploitation in the artistic workplace, but it has a Christmas-time release and therefore little else could be expected. 

This cannot be viewed as a factual documentary as it says at the beginning at this is based on Tippi and onlookers perspectives, not Hitchcock’s. This seems incredibly unfair as Hitchcock is presented as the villain in this and surely he should be allowed a voice. Historical documentaries, films or otherwise, should not be for entertainment and therefore should not present a villain and an innocent.

The look of this film is very stylised. It’s pretty but minimalistic so that you focus of the characters as they are the stars. There are some scenes that clearly are meant to emulate some of Hitchcock’s style, however they seem quite alien just thrown into this film. Hitchcock’s style, obviously, is used throughout the entirety of his films and this makes his films masterful; randomly incorporated into a different style they look odd and over dramatic.

Murder!  (1930)

* * ½

A fairly poorly constructed ‘who-done-it’ as the suspects were not presented in a ‘was it Reverend Green, Mrs. Peacock and Professor Plum’ style; instead Hitchcock focused on building the suspense of whether the woman would be exonerated. Unfortunately the audience does not really care for this woman and nearing the end of the film has become completely bored. It is probably falsely considered as a ‘who-done-it’ because Hitchcock’s famous suspense is definitely lacking during this film.

This is an early demonstration of one of Hitchcock’s sound films and while there are some interesting points, such as his use of voiceovers and moments where there is a soundtrack, there are also flaws within this experimental phase of film development. There are a couple of occasions when a character is talking with an abhorrent accent which is indecipherable and this is intensified through the use of having babies cry over the top of them. This sound issue makes some scenes annoying and, inevitably, pointless as the audience cannot fully follow what is going on.

The story itself is sloppy as it follows a series of fortunate sequences which allow an actor to become a detective. There are many serendipitous pieces of evidence discovered that highlight the fact that this film is just fiction. A film that has a narrative, based in reality, but that is clearly fictitious is not entertaining as the wonder of film is either that it can transport you to an alternate, yet familiar, reality or take you to another world all together. A simplified depiction of the world we already live in is not entertaining but patronising. 

Rebecca (1940)

* * *

Believable performances and a wonderfully shot film, however a tedious story. Although it is a strong film the novel it is based on is not interesting (to me) and therefore the prowess of the film is inconsequential.

I am struggling to write a review as the whole narrative pointless; it moves from a (quite juvenile) tale of unrequited love after a whirl-wind marriage to a murder enquiry. I hate a mixing of genres and this seems to go further by placing two separate stories into one. Although Hitchcock manages to develop this story into a 3 star film he still cannot create this mismatch of a narrative into something that appeals to me.

When it had finally ended I was glad because it meant I have watched another of the IMDb top 250 but there is little other motivation for me to have finished it. It was a good film based on a bad book, just because both are classics does not mean everyone will enjoy them.

Psycho (1960)

* * *

An aptly titled film about a veritable psychopath that has a few twists and turns; it ends up somewhere near where you expect, however still slightly askew. It has the style that epitomises some of the older movies and possibly due to this does not stand up with modern thrillers, there is not enough gore and you never truly fear for the characters too deeply.  

With such a famous scene (the shower murder) the film becomes a victim of its own success, a portion of the film is spent waiting for the scene to happen and it seems to make the beginning inconsequential. It divides the film into two chunks, and actually Hitchcock seems to pre-empt this by switching the character focus from before to after the murder. A permanent fixture is Anthony Perkins who impressively carries his role (or roles) and creates a complex character. 

Unfortunately some of this film is dated and the fact it was made over 50 years ago has to be kept in mind; the shower scene is actually very awkwardly filmed and obviously hiding the fact that no violence is actually occurring. This cannot really be helped, however from a modern perspective it detracts from the thriller elements of the film.  The ending also feels slightly rushed, after the big mystery reveal the writer decides to just fill in all the gaps with a speech by the doctor. His is poor writing as it should be able to be weaved into the narrative rather than have to be fed to the audience. 

Rear Window (1954)

* * * * 1/2

A stunning classic from Hitchcock which is enthralling and has all the elegance you would expect of films from the 50’s.

Considering how slow paced a lot of the film was it is surprising how captivated and, even with such a simple idea, a considerably interesting story emerges to intrigue the audience; this shows a talent of writing to creating such a dynamic film out of little action. A nice surprise in this plot was that the main male protagonist is confined to a wheelchair allowing the females in this film to become heroes and investigators.

The style of this film is wonderful, especially watching it in the 21st century when films are less perfect and actors and actresses less magisterial. From the outfits to the view from the rear window everything is clearly carefully thought through and looks stunning. Hitchcock has a grasp on every element of this film and every movement that takes place in it; this is why he is so masterful and how he can create such a masterpiece.