The Girl

The title should warn you, and if it doesn't then the poster should warn you with the proud foreground stance of the female lead. This isn't a movie for Hitchcock fans. It's a wish-fulfillment movie for women-- in particular, for those who would like to daydream of effortlessly becoming a movie star, beloved by all (as well as being a successful mother who needs no husband to depend on), while maintaining integrity and never buckling under the harassment of piggish men. It even ends by reassuring the daydreamer that given the choice, the wise woman chooses not to pay the price of enduring stardom. Unfortunately, this beauty-and-the-beast tale takes the guise of a true story, and it renders Alfred Hitchcock as not just fat but deformed-- and devoid of understandable motivation. Moreover, there is nothing gradual, subtle, or devious to make his harassment of Tippi Hedren interesting. In a better movie-- a Hitchcockian, gaslight movie-- we would wonder at the beginning whether Hedren were imagining things, and we might even wonder after the end. In this one, though, the story is given no overlay of ambiguity; on the contrary, it is given extra bluntness beyond the known factual version.

The Girl is an interesting movie about Hitchcock's obsession with Tippi Hedren as they made two movies together. It's stylishly made, with good performances. It is focused very much on Hitchcock's cruelty to Hedren.

My main objection to this movie is that its focus makes it rather unbalanced. Hedren herself says this. She says working with Hitchcock was great at first, and while the movie portrays her as dealing with one indignity after another, she says this was only really a problem toward the end of Marnie. It might have been interesting to see more of Hitchock's process - I liked the scene where he helps her work on her lines - but it's a short movie and they had a story to tell.

What is more interesting than the movie is its detractors here. While some people just don't find The Girl interesting, the vast majority seem to dislike it because they don't believe it. Some reviews will even say they're not invested in Hitchcock's reputation, but then follow it up by saying they don't believe this happened.

First off, the movie is based on information from a book by a respected biography writer, based on what he was told by both Hedren and those who worked with her. And Hitchcock was certainly a dark, obsessive, and sometimes cruel (witness his vicious "practical jokes") person. His movies are about obsessions and cruelty, so it would hardly be surprising if he acted poorly with his actress.

Yet, many of the movie's critics express outrage that Hitchcock's name is being besmirched. They say Hedren lied; that she is just trying to scapegoat Hitchcock for her lack of major successes after the Hitchcock films. They say she couldn't act. They say she should have been grateful that Hitchcock gave her a career.

There is a phrase I don't like, because it sounds extremist and harsh and overly politically correct, but that I increasingly realize accurately describes something, and that is "rape culture," the idea that sexual harassment and attacks on women are so ingrained in our society that they aren't even seen as abnormal. The reactions to this movie seem to me examples of this. What is the difference between saying Hedren lied about Hitchcock and the claims that a woman lies about being raped? What does her acting ability have to do with anything? (And what are people basing their assessment on? I suspect most of us have only seen her in two movies, made by a director who got exactly the performances he wanted from his actors).

Many people are saying,essentially, "he didn't do it, and if he did do it, she deserved it."

Look, I understand that people feel a need to defend great artists, but many great artists are not especially great people. That's inevitable; art often comes from a strange place. Don't attack the victim because you think the aggressor was a cool dude.

I stumbled across this one day while scanning through the channels. I saw "Hitchcock" in the description, so I decided to have a look. Now I'll admit, I don't know all that much about Hitchcock. I know he's a great director, but I know next to nothing about his personal life or any controversy that may have lead to this movie. Instead I focused on the movie itself. After watching, I decided to look it up, where I came across the rather large controversy that this film has created. So here's my humble take on the film.

"The Girl" is a brilliant film from a mechanical standpoint. The acting is brilliant. Toby Jones sounds almost IDENTICAL to Hitchcock. It was really quite eerie to listen to the two. He seemed to capture the mannerisms from the director quite well. Sienna Miller was okay, but was a bit dry in some parts. Otherwise it was a fine group of actors. Likewise, directing, cinematography and editing were all exceptional, so why does this film fail?

A question I have instead of all the "is this a true story?" is, if you have all of the makings of a great film-a great cast, a great director, great camera-work-why base the story on such a controversial and doubtful series of events? Why not use the tools you have to make a biopic of sorts? This is what baffles me. If this film had followed a different story, it would probably have a much better rating. Everything points to a successful film EXCEPT the story, so why do it?

I suppose this is the problem with film these days. People are more concerned about the shock factor than an actual quality film. It's a shame too, because this could have been much, much better and free from controversy.

It's been suggested that Tippi Hedren lied about Hitchcock since no one else came out against him. BS. During the 30s to early 60s,actors and actresses didn't rock the boat. They stayed frieny with men who abused them or angered them. Studio execs were a powerful boys club, and if you attacked one, you.attacked them all. The only actor I ever heard attacking a studio big shot was Errol Flynn physically attacking director Michael. Curtiz for using trip wire during the Charge of the Light Brigade. Dozens of horses were injured and about 30 had to be put down. Appalled, Flynn.went straight for Curtiz and attacked him. He had to be pulled away from killing Curtis, he was so angry. No one punished him. They knew he had a hot temper and didn't care if he was blacklisted - he'd go back to Australia in a.heartbeat.

Tippi couldn't physically fight Hitchcock or go to any other country to work. As for Bergman, Kelly, and Novak, what would be the upside in attacking/accusing Hitchcock? He was a very powerful director and could get anyone blacklisted for even.telling it friends. Better to stay on good terms with him. Look at Harvey Weinstein and who stayed friends with him for years even.after being assaulted..Besides, the casting couch wasn't a fairy tale. These girls knew the score: keep.your mouth shut and you might get rich.

Tippi waited a long time before telling of her being assaulted. The small.details of her story make the whole thing have the ring of truth. I believe her. And I believe she wasn't the only one.

As most film buffs are aware, Alfred Hitchcock was a known voyeur and that kink was evident in most of his films and the Director was able to channel that obsession for creative and successful movies. The art form itself is genuinely, by nature, produced to satisfy the voyeuristic tendencies of the audience. No one knew that better than Hitch.

It is also known that he liked blonds with a cool demeanor. But to just what extent he used his leverage over these actresses was not very clear. According to Tippi Hedren, if we are to believe her accounts, this made for HBO Movie is truth told to power (posthumously).

This is an old Hollywood story that used to be referred to as "the casting couch". Here we have an impotent Hitch groping and demanding obedience "available to me in all i desire", a determined, sad old man, that uses his on set Direction to "torture" her with repeated, dangerous and humiliating takes of a scene in The Birds (1963).

But she is a strong and resilient woman who would make another movie, Marnie (1964) with Alfie and then fade to black. The movie makes its points in a straightforward, blemishes and all, account that is well acted by all and, surprisingly, without any flourishes that made Hitchcock a legendary film maker.

It is a sympathetic portrayal of a beautiful woman and a flawed, fat and ugly, powerful man. A Beauty and the Beast story. Not a pleasant situation about an unpleasant, but talented man.