Sacha Gervasi refutes 'Hitchcock' criticism at Fox Searchlight holiday soirée
And Benh Zeitlin aims to be Herzog to Quvenzhané Wallis's Kinski
Sacha Gervasi at the New York premiere of "Hitchcock"
Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
NEW YORK -- Fox Searchlight Pictures held its annual east coast holiday party this evening at Andaz 5th Avenue with a nice second-floor spread with principals from the studio's awards season hopefuls -- "Beasts of the Southern Wild," "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel," "Hitchcock" and "The Sessions" -- on hand. Spirits were particularly high after "Beasts" and "Sessions" combined for six Independent Spirit Award nominations (with one each for "Ruby Sparks" and "Sound of my Voice").
I was glad to finally meet "Hitchcock" director Sacha Gervasi, a charismatic guy who spoke with me about film critics baring their teeth and declaring that he "made up" the events of his film. I would posit that hero-worship may have gotten the better of many -- like, say, Manohla Dargis, whose review basically refuted reporting done by her New York Times colleague John Anderson a week earlier. "It...takes extravagant liberties with the dead," Dargis wrote. "Stephen Rebello, author of 'Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho,' the book on which 'Hitchcock' is partly based, interviewed many of Hitchcock’s collaborators on 'Psycho' and confirmed the film’s version of events," Anderson wrote.
He was also particularly riled at the notion that his film is in some way spiteful of the masterful director. HitFix's own Drew McWeeny proclaimed in his review, "Only someone who hates the filmmaker would endorse this mess," for instance. "I have the utmost respect for Hitchcock," Gervasi said. "This was made with love."
Related
-
Bringing 'Beasts of the Southern Wild' back into the Oscar fray
Fox Searchlight kicks it into gear for a little film that could
Indeed, perhaps those who would have preferred hagiography will be a bit silenced when they hear it from people like "Psycho" script supervisor Marshall Schlom, who told Gervasi that his film "captured the warmth and the heart of the man I worked with." Gervasi's number one goal, though, was to tell the story of a woman -- Hitchcock's wife and collaborator Alma Reville -- who has gone unsung for far too long.
But still, amid all this, the director won't deny the usual dramatization. He noted (what should go without saying), "By the way, it's a MOVIE."
The last couple of days I keep bumping into "Beasts" director Benh Zeitlin at these things, and there's only so many ways you can ask, "How are you handling all this?" It's a haze for the guy, but he's loosening up a bit. He marveled at how accustomed to the rhythms of the season his young star Quvenzhané Wallis has become, having observed her not only adapting to all of this since the film's big Sundance bow in January, but also basically growing up amid the fray.
"She picks things up so quickly," he said. "She just decided, 'This is my job now. And I'm going to be good at my job.'" He expects Wallis will continue to work in the business, even though it's a precarious position, to be a child actor. But he's happy that her family doesn't have plans to move to Hollywood and dive right in. And he has ideas for projects on which he'd like to collaborate with her in the future. "I'd like us to have a Kinski/Herzog thing," he joked. We then pondered what on earth might one day be her "Woyzeck."
Zeitlin also said he unfortunately hasn't seen most of the other films in play this season, but the first one on his (and "Beasts" producer Dan Janvey's) list of must-sees is "Zero Dark Thirty." Indeed, Kathryn Bigelow's film was the most-discussed of the week's events amongst film journalists. It seems it's brought up in every new conversation.
"The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" screenwriter Ol Parker apparently sussed out who I was by hearing my voice as I passed (I assume he's a listener of the podcast) and stopped me for a quick chat. There's another lovely guy totally flummoxed by the intrigue of the season. "Wow, there's my movie," he said as one of the many television screens throughout the venue played a featurette on the film.
We chatted a bit about India and I expressed regret that a planned trip there next year might be put on hold. But he was extremely encouraging. "Just go," he said, with nothing but wonderful things to recall about the Rajasthan film shoot. (Parker, by the way, is married to actress Thandie Newton. I had no idea.)
I didn't get a chance to speak with "The Sessions" director Ben Lewin, who put a lot of heart into the film given that he is a polio survivor. Stars John Hawkes and Helen Hunt couldn't make the trip but he's as vital a face for such a personal work as anyone else.
Tomorrow many of these folks will be doing the same thing all over again as Searchlight has its annual WEST coast holiday party. More events like yesterday's luncheon and face time with Academy members will surely be in the cards as phase one marches on. "Beasts" seems to be the big shot in the stable, and there's hope that it can resonate and swing back around, particularly in the wake of things like the Indie Spirit nods and Gotham Awards.
One third-party publicist working on the film confided in me yesterday that he's hopeful the screener will be a priority over the holiday. Me too.
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup And Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Production Design
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
Who will get the gold from Steven Spielberg and his fellow jurors?Sunday, May 26, 2013
-
Cambodian film 'The Missing Picture' wins Un Certain Regard sectionSaturday, May 25, 2013
-
A series of talking points and a full annotated transcript hit the netSaturday, May 25, 2013
-
Jim Jarmusch is on typically deadpan form in mildly amusing vampire filmSaturday, May 25, 2013







Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signupdrew
November 28, 2012 at 12:19AM EST Reply to CommentTo be fair, that's not a line from the review. It is a sub-headline on the piece, and it's remarkable to me how many people have seized on that instead of anything from the actual piece itself.
Kristopher Tapley Yes, it's a sub-head. But it IS rather sensational, so I can understand why it would be seized upon.
November 28, 2012 at 12:37AM ESTMichelle Sub-headline or not, it remains a statement about the film.
November 28, 2012 at 2:49AM ESTdrew Yes, but if all anyone's going to discuss is the headline, perhaps I should just skip writing the full reviews in the future.
November 28, 2012 at 2:52AM ESTMarquan I saw the comments on your review about this topic and I generally agree with you, Drew. But the point of a headline is to draw attention and be provocative, and you clearly were trying to make a statement with that headline. Just the fact that has become an issue somewhat proves that there was something about it that stood out. If it bothers you that people are zeroing in on it, why not just skip it altogether? Your review certainly made all your points effectively and thoroughly without that headline.
November 28, 2012 at 3:43AM ESTdrew You're right. I should bow out of further conversation about the film. I do mean what I said in the headline, but am disappointed that it became the entire conversation. There are so many individual points to dislike about the movie, but at this point, I'd just be repeating myself. I'm glad Gervasi is getting his moment, and we'll see if he picks up a head of steam heading into awards season. I ultimately don't care about awards, though, so it would be poor form for me to continue to harp about this one picture. It'll rise or fall based on the way the Academy absorbs it, and if I am serious about staying out of it, then I should stay out of it.
November 28, 2012 at 4:03AM EST
Having read Drew's review, and now reading this (but not having seen the film yet, and with little desire to do so, yet I'm sure I eventually will at some point on Bluray)... perhaps part of the problems is that the film is titled "Hitchcock." From this article it sounds like it would have been more on point if Gervasi had titled it "Alma" and not tried to sell a film about Alma as a film about Hitchcock. Perhaps a decent/mediocre film about Alma, having its narrative focus twisted for the purpose of marketing and increased ticket sales (let's face it, a movie called "Alma" about Alma isn't going to sell as well as a movie called "Hitchcock" that people believe is about Hitchcock), may not be able to hold up as a pretty crappy film about Hitchcock.
November 28, 2012 at 3:34PM ESTI'm actually shocked I have so little interest in seeing a movie starring Mirren and Hopkins, two of our best actors still working today, about one of my favorite film directors. But I have very little interest. And the awful makeup hasn't helped any-- if they couldn't make Hopkins look like Hitch, rather than burying him in that awful makeup, I'd rather they have gone the less is more route and simply allowed his acting to carry the performance.
And Drew-- you're one of my favorite reviewers because our points-of-view line up about 95% of the time, so you're a great barometer for me. But like a lot of people, like myself, I've seen you at times get incredibly tunnel-visioned and combative with your opinion, and this is one of those times. It doesn't really bother me here, because the whole argument about the sub-headline seems pretty pointless to me. I think that guy in the comments section of your review was actually right in pointing out that the headline contradicts your usual attitude of "people have different opinions, and they are all valid." Technically. And it seemed that a lot of his respect for you hinged on that live-and-let-live sentiment. In a world of internet trolls, cyber-bullying, and restrictive opinions, I guess I can understand why. But I don't think you meant to contradict it by that sub-headline, I think you were simply saying "I think this is a horrible mess of a film, and I can't see how anyone who likes Hitchcock could enjoy it." It's not that you were invalidating anyone's opinion, simply that you were making a point that this film wasn't able to capture the spirit of Hitchcock's work or what made him great as a filmmaker, and that it boggled your mind how anyone looking for those things in this film, or even who respected and appreciated Hitch's work, could enjoy a film that missed the mark on him. It sounds to me as though this film has humanized and creatively-castrated Hitchcock, bypassing any part of his genius to focus on the mundane. I suppose that's a valid approach for humanizing someone, but it's not very interesting to me, and the film doesn't look very compelling. However, I suppose it's possible Gervasi could still like Hitchcock and want to make a movie like that, though I don't really understand why he'd want to.
November 28, 2012 at 4:04PM ESTAll that said, I think it's silly how that guy latched onto that sub-headline and made a big deal about it, but I also think it was pretty knee-jerk of you to rally so hard against him-- though I've seen you do that before on occasion, and after all critics are paid to have opinions and to express them. But it all seemed to me like something that wasn't really a big deal either way getting heatedly argued into a talking point-- obviously it struck a chord for both of you. My advice would simply be to let it go and move on and not worry about it, because it's not that big a deal, and hopefully that commenter will relax after he gets away from his computer screen for five minutes and realize that for him to take it the way he did or try to invalidate your body of work because of it is just ridiculously silly. If he does go away and, given some time, maintains his position to himself, then he's not someone you should worry about anyway; there's no way to appeal to that kind of extremism.
And finally, I wish there was a way to edit comments on Hitfix. Obviously what I mean to post in my previous post up there was "may ONLY be able to hold up as a pretty crappy Hitchcock," but it was a pretty unwieldy sentence I reworded a couple of times and missed correcting completely.
RichardZ
November 28, 2012 at 12:56AM EST Reply to CommentSo cinema is doing well with all of the new names of directors and writers this season. So many.
Billy
November 28, 2012 at 12:58AM EST Reply to CommentAfter attending a screening of Hitchcock and staying for the Q&A I have very little respect for Gervasi and the movie he "directed."
CinemaPsycho I haven't seen Hitchcock myself yet, admittedly. And yes, of course "it's a movie". Granted. But if you're going to do a behind-the-scenes film about a legendary movie like Psycho, why not TRY to get the facts and details as accurate as possible? That's the part I don't understand. When the facts are so well documented, taking so many liberties just doesn't make sense. But of course I will reserve final judgment until I see the film for myself. Of course.
November 28, 2012 at 2:26AM ESTColin Biggs
November 28, 2012 at 5:34AM EST Reply to CommentJust have to go and see it for myself. I never thought the reception for "Hitchcock" would be so divisive.
Evan
November 28, 2012 at 1:50PM EST Reply to CommentBy your last paragraph, Kris, do you mean that Beasts screeners haven't yet been sent or that they have been and the publicist just hopes that voters will watch them?
Al The publicist is saying he's hopeful the film will become a must-see. A film that voters feel they have to see before they vote on their ballots. It was sent back in October.
November 28, 2012 at 2:12PM ESTGuesto
November 28, 2012 at 7:52PM EST Reply to CommentHitchcock currently stands at 63% on Rotten Tomatoes. Not a huge critical hit but hardly a critically panned film overall, either. As always, disproportionate attention is being paid to those critics who are the loudest.
Kristopher Tapley Yes but it's what they are SAYING that is driving the conversation, not merely that they are detractors.
November 29, 2012 at 12:20AM EST