MAKING HISTORY AIN'T EASY! "HITCHCOCK"

I honestly wish this film had been nominated for more awards. And definitely bigger things than hair and makeup. But I mean, I do get it. Anthony Hopkins. Helen Mirren. It would be a surprise if the film didn’t turn out as well as it did. Plus, I don’t know, maybe audiences in general are getting a tad bit jaded about films about filmmaking. But you know, I think these films are important. It’s important for films to talk about their own history. And as far as history goes, it doesn’t get bigger than Alfred Hitchcock.

History in the making he may have been, but that did not mean life with Hitchcock was easy. And his beloved wife Alma Reville could testify to that fact. Temperamental and obsessive while he was working on a project, depressed and dejected when he wasn’t working on one, it falls to Alma to ensure the household (and often the studio) runs to order. It is 1959, and Hitchcock – Hitch as he is more commonly known – may just have struck gold while looking for his new project. An innocuous little horror story called Psycho, based largely on the murders committed by the notorious serial killer Ed Gein.  The thing is, Hitch seems to be the only person who can see it. Even his beloved wife Alma has her doubts as to whether this story of blood and gore can be turned into anything tasteful. Or successful. That the studios would actually agree to distribute.  But Hitch is adamant and filming goes full steam ahead amidst grave economic gambles. However there is more serious trouble afoot. While Alma’s love and dedication to Hitch seems to continue unabated, there is no denying that she is more and more distant these days. And that she is spending more and more time with her friend Mr Whytfield Cook whom she is helping with his latest project. Hitch is worried, distracted even.  Not a good thing when you have mortgaged your home to make a film that the studio still hasn’t given their final word on distributing. Is this Hitch’s finest hour? Or will he loose his marriage and his career in one fell swoop?

Now, I like films like this. I like films about marriages. Hollywood is funny in the sense that actually getting into a relationship is often portrayed as the only really difficult part. Once you get the person of your dreams, we are told, it’s all roses and light until death does you part… Err, no. It takes a lot to make a relationship work and a marriage. And even if, like Alfred Hitchcock and Alma Reville, you have been together for 30 years, well guess what; there can still be hitches (pun intended). There can still be pitfalls. And, strangely, it is these pitfalls one must be afraid of. At the beginning there is the rush. You know that rush of emotion, of “something new”. 30 years later, routine is setting in alongside love. You really, really begin to know what it is like to live with this person. It’s when stuff happens to shake the marriage at this point that you should be concerned. And this is what gives the film its brilliant edge. Because yes it’s absolutely fascinating to watch Psycho come together. Especially if, like me, you’re a film-buff AND Hitchcock fan.  But at the end of the day, we know what happened there. It’s Psycho for God’s sake. It’s one of the most famous films in history. What we may or may not know, however, is how and whether this film ended Mr Hitchcock’s marriage.  And that, gentle viewer, you are going to have to watch and find out for yourself.

Told with great affection and a lot of (albeit rather British) humour, Hitchcock will warm you down to the cockles of your heart. And give you a history lesson in cinematic history to boot. I men come on. It is one of the greatest films in history…

RETURN OF THE CLASSICS IN "THE DEBT"

Well, I guess the news was going to hit the airwaves at some point, there is a boyfriend in my life as of quite recently (haha that got you didn’t it baby?). And the reason I mention him in this particular post is that this film is mainly his discovery. (I mean, of course he’s into movies, could you imagine it being otherwise? J ) Anyhow, we watched this together the other night, and it was so absolutely riveting that I had to share it with you. I mean, put your hands on your hearts, everyone likes a good thriller. Especially a spy thriller.

The story is that of three Mossad agents that went to East Berlin in 1965. Their mission is a dangerous one, to capture and bring to justice one of the most notorious Nazi villains in history. The mission is carried out and goes down in history with its success, the three agents taking their places amongst the most famous Israelis in history. However, the glamour and success they live with conceals secrets. The secrets are both personal and professional and have given a bitter edge to their fame and fortune, unbeknown to all but the three of them. And as we all know by now, the past has this annoying habit of not staying buried. 30 year later, someone needs to go back undercover to salvage not only their reputations, but their very lives...

I know, we are all somewhat divided about spy films in the first place. And at first glance, the film seems to pack a few too many clichés into one film. Spies during the Cold War with Second World War overtones thrown in, combined with the “Jews vs the Nazis” paradigm AND a love triangle (this is not really a spoiler, it is pretty self-evident from the moment we see the main protagonists, one woman and two men). Not to mention the “secret from the past that doesn’t remain buried” thing. I mean wow. I would really understand if you took one look at the synopsis and ran for lack of original content alone. But hear me out, because despite all this, the film has a lot, and I do mean a lot, going for it.

Think about it, clichés are actually clichés for a reason, it was  because they have been “done” way too often. And the reason they were done often is, presumably, because at one point, before we decided that it was cheesy and “uncool”, it (whatever it may be) was considered cool. And popular.  This means that there is something we would potentially enjoy a lot in any of “it”, provided it is done well. The same goes for anything with multiple “cheesy” factors in it – as long as they are all done well, there is nothing really wrong with it. And this film does do a sterling job of everything. First of all, and perhaps most importantly the acting is absolutely superb. The cast numbers names such as Helen Mirren, Sam Worthington, Tom Wilkinson and Sam Worthington. The director, John Madden, uses every classic spy-film trick in the book to keep us on the edges of our seats from the word go. The main action is psychological, which is also good, it doesn’t really rely that much on flashy fights and special effects like some films of the genre do (James Bond is a spy as well technically, don’t forget). So I mean, yeah, the film can be considered a tad old fashioned in some ways. But just because a way you do something is old, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is wrong. Take a good, old fashioned Martini for example... But maybe that’s the topic of another post all together...