The Girl

Overall a decent film but lots of mistakes. All of the major scenes from The Birds only show one camera being used in one take. The phone booth scene, the attic scene for instance. One scene shows Hedren entering the upstairs bedroom already bloodied before she is attacked. The scene where she arrives at Mitch's with the Lovebirds is highly exaggerated. In the film, the ladder is maybe two or three rungs. In The Girl it is like climbing the Empire State Building. The first scene in Marnie at the railroad station was filmed in San Jose not on a soundstage. No biggie. Overall an okay film but could have been better. Now, in regards to Tippi Hedren's allegations. So many people are angry with her for daring to accuse the mighty Hitchcock of sexual harassment. For stabbing him in the back after all that he did for her. For being the only actress who had problems with him. For waiting so long to "come out" with her accusations. Back in 1985 I had a phone conversation with Diane Baker (Hedren's co-star in Marnie) on radio station KGO in San Francisco. Curious about her experience's working with Hitchcock I asked her what it was like. She immediately spent about ten minutes talking about Hitchcock's mistreatment of Tippi Hedren during the filming. She pulled no punches. I had no reason not to believe her. She was there. She saw it. In recent interviews she goes so far as to say she did not like Hitchcock at all. Those who accuse Hedren of being a liar need to add Diane Baker to their list. I believe them both.

As Total Film magazine said of this one-off drama, "it amounts to nothing less than a wholesale character assassination". They were right – it makes Albert Goldman's biography of John Lennon appear hagiographic.

While it looks great and Sienna Miller is fine as Hedren and Jones captures Hitch's voice well, The Girl is a narrow and nasty portrayal of the world's greatest film director. In its attempt to construct a drama it forgets some important points: people often have to suffer for their art; Alfred Hitchcock was a film director who knew his audience better than anyone, his understanding of the human condition was deep, and he realised that the thing that mattered most was the experience that the audience would derive from his work. If it meant discomfort and long hours on the set, that was a price worth paying – there's no room for fluffy dressing gowns and tea and biscuit breaks when you're trying to create a masterpiece, something that might last for centuries.

To suggest that Hitch unexpectedly sent a model bird crashing through a telephone box window just to terrify and "punish" Hedren, as opposed to being a desire to frighten the wits out of the audience, is absurd. The shoot of The Birds had been meticulously planned for – literally – years, and in any case, why would Hitch risk harming his leading lady's features? The greatest of people are endowed with light and shade, and possess the ability to view human existence from deep and differing positions. Hitchcock was one of these people. This greatness is something to be lauded – not bemoaned and belittled, as was the case with The Girl.

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.

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.

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.