A new movie about the greatest movie ever

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

The theatrical biopic HITCHCOCK, which specifically revolves around the making of PSYCHO, is being released several months earlier than expected. Now it's scheduled for late November. It's based on a non-fiction book written by Stephen Rebello, who I spoke with on Tom Snyder's radio show during the 1990s.

HITCHCOCK stars Anthony Hopkins in the title role. The first pics of him have the body-size down right, but facially he doesn't resemble Hitchcock----or even himself. Spooky.

Lesser known actors will portray Martin Balsam and John Gavin, who co-starred in the 1960 film. Jessica Biel, who was her usual boring self in the garbage-dump TOTAL RECALL remake, will play the somewhat less boring Vera Miles, who played the film's surviving sister. Even Hitchcock was unenthusiastic when casting Gavin and Miles, but Miles is far less listless than Biel. Oh, well.

Here are the kickers: Helen Mirren will play Mrs. Hitchcock.....Michael Wincott, who usually a psycho in movies anyway, will play Ed Gein, the real-life murderer whom Norman Bates is lifted from, and Scarlett Johannsen herself will star as Janet Leigh.

I met Leigh at a 2000 Virginia convention. Also there was her PSYCHO co-star Patricia Hitchcock. I never talked to her. In retrospect that was one of the dumbest decisions I ever made celebrity-wise. (Neither Patricia nor Simon Oakland are expected to be portrayed in the new film either.) Still, opening the movie in November should increase its Oscar chances. Many recent Oscar winners got the trophy for playing real people, including other actors.

All I can say is.....

''Oh, YEAH.''

 

[Greg Cox]

So who is playing Robert Bloch? Or is he just going to get ignored as usual?

 

[sojourner]

what's with the "but-but"s?

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

I just removed the but-buts. The only good explanation is the truth. The above post was also pasted word-for-word from my second TREK forum, in which I act eccentrically. But-but I refuse to let that happen here again.

It's my understanding that there's no Bloch in this film. BUT.....
ah, that's better....you (Greg Cox) sound like Bloch is often passes over from attention. Are you saying Hitchcock has stolen Bloch's portion of the credit, or am I misreading your point?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

But-but I refuse to let that happen here again.

what does the "but-but" mean? I'm curious

 

[Harvey]

So who is playing Robert Bloch? Or is he just going to get ignored as usual?

If it's a film about the production process, I imagine Bloch won't figure into it that much, since he was out of the picture once Hitchcock bought the rights to the novel. Joe Stefano will be in the movie, though, played by Ralph Macchio, according to IMDB.

 

[Mike Farley]

Bloch's not in the film but Ed Gein who has nothing to do with it other than being the loose inspiration for the novel is?

 

[the G-man]

Bloch's not in the film but Ed Gein who has nothing to do with it other than being the loose inspiration for the novel is?

This.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

''what does the "but-but" mean? I'm curious''

It means very little, Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can't believe what I'm saying. But-but since you asked, it was meant to suggest nervousness of my specific ''persona'' on the second TREK forum, which very few read anyhow. This forum has millions less members.....well, okay, we have four currently including myself, and the but-buts were the only way to get their attention since they're nowhere near as organized as the BBS is. I would never intentionally but-but on the BBS. Just the other forum, because it's intentionally borderline certifiable. I don't suspect it's a good idea to advertise other TREK sites here, but those who want to check out the site can send me a PM and I'll explain how to access it.

 

[Greg Cox]

I just removed the but-buts. The only good explanation is the truth. The above post was also pasted word-for-word from my second TREK forum, in which I act eccentrically. But-but I refuse to let that happen here again.

It's my understanding that there's no Bloch in this film. BUT.....
ah, that's better....you (Greg Cox) sound like Bloch is often passes over from attention. Are you saying Hitchcock has stolen Bloch's portion of the credit, or am I misreading your point?

This is a pet peeve of mine. With all due respect to Hitchcock, who is one of my favorite directors, Robert Bloch tends to get swept under the rug when it comes to critical commentary on the movie. Indeed, articles about and appreciations of the film often gloss over the very existence of the novel in order to make it sound like the entire story--the shower scene, Norman Bates, etcetera--burst fully-formed from Hitchcock's imagination.

"Only Hitchcock would have the nerve to kill off Marion Crane one-third of the way into the story," etc. Even though that was straight from the book.

And just try to find Bloch's credit in the ill-fated remake. It's buried in the closing credits along with key grip and hair stylists. I've never seen that done to an author before.

In my experience, most people don't even know there is a novel . . . .

 

[Starbreaker]

Bloch ended up with $6,750 after his cuts to his publisher and agent.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

"Only Hitchcock would have the nerve to kill off Marion Crane one-third of the way into the story," etc. Even though that was straight from the book.

And just try to find Bloch's credit in the ill-fated remake. It's buried in the closing credits along with key grip and hair stylists. I've never seen that done to an author before.''-----Greg Cox.

That is bizarre. Though the original PSYCHO's credits were all in the front, they had Bloch in very small print. You'd think with the remake being shot-by-shot and line-for-line, they'd've placed Bloch in the front as well.

The original film has also lifted dialogue almost verbatim, but the two key differences Hitchcock enacted were NOT having Norman overweight and bald, and making Miss Crane the only main character for the first half. Getting rid of her in the middle instead of the end probably is the biggest reason PSYCHO is groundbreaking. If Hitchcock had offed her right at the beginning, he'd've needed her decapitated as in the novel. But you couldn't really show that for a few more years....

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

It's not just the Hopkins version now.
Hitchcock will also be played by Toby Jones in an HBO film.

Jones is short but more Hitchian in appearance....

Doubling our pleasure.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Greatest movie ever???
There may be some Hitchcock films that justifiably vie for that title. Psycho is not one of them.

 

[beamMe]

In my experience, most people don't even know there is a novel . . . .

I know now.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Greatest movie ever???
There may be some Hitchcock films that justifiably vie for that title. Psycho is not one of them.

Come with me.

 

[the G-man]

Greatest movie ever???
There may be some Hitchcock films that justifiably vie for that title.....

Didn't some film critics group just name "Vertigo" the greatest film of all time?

 

[Harvey]

Not sure if you're being coy, but the BFI Sight & Sound poll named it the number one film of all time, yes.

Psycho, the other Hitchcock film in the top fifty, was ranked at 35. Not bad for a quickie made with mostly a television crew.

Here's the link: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

 

[A beaker full of death]

I think some of his early stuff was way better. The films he made in the 30s and 40s were inspired. I'd say he got rote and gimicky later. Much of it fun, yes, but on a different level from the early stuff.
I haven't seen much of his work from the '20s.

 

[Harvey]

Do you have some films in mind? I've seen very few of his films from that period.