Because a vote of 1 means 'awful' in IMDb terms, and because I find this movie actually 'awful', I cannot but give it a vote of 1.
Which is a shame, really, because if this movie had been purely fictional, it would have been a decent film with an interesting, albeit somewhat weird plot, and a screenplay that left something to desire. I might have given it a '5' then.
But the fact is that the makers of, and contributors to this movie knew full well, as does their audience, that the premise of this movie is decidedly NOT fictional, but envisions to portray 'real life events'. Here starts the 'awful' feeling for me.
At the end of the day, there is not a shred of proof that the events as displayed in this movie actually happened. And the makers know that. It is not just a case of 'personal opinion', like it is not a case of 'personal opinion' whether Kennedy was murdered, or that Harvey Weinstein attempted to take advantage of young actresses.
By portraying Alfred Hitchcock in this sensationalist light, and making bucks out of it, the makers deliberately hurt the memory of a man who is not around to protest anymore. The makers should have asked themselves: would we dare to make this movie, in this way, had the man been still alive? Would the evidence weigh up to the doubt and the protest? And they would have concluded that it wouldn't. The fact that they dared make this movie now Hitch is dead, shows a cowardly attitude behind it.
Why then, you ask me, is it unlikely that the events portrayed in the movie ever happened? For starters: because the many, many people who were around at the time vehemently deny any misbehavior ever happened, and just as vehemently assert that these events were *very* unlikely to happen with the Hitchcock they knew. The other actors, the other set personnel, the people close to Hitch, Mrs. Hedren's assistants, no one ever came to the fore with anything substantial that corroborates Hedren's story; instead they deny it, or at least deem it unlikely it happened without them noticing it.
Second, Hedren kept her mouth shut for many decades. That would be somewhat credible if during that time, she hadn't given such praise and devoted such warm words to her experience with Hitchcock in the mean time - which she did. It was only at the end of her career, which was not particularly successful, and only after Hitchcock was dead & gone, and only after Donald Spoto interviewed her for his Hichcock biography, that she told this narrative of an 'abusive' Hitchcock. As if she needed a reason why her career post-Hitchcock never took off - a reason outside of herself.
Thirdly, because there is ample material evidence that refute important elements in Hedren's narrative. There is a trainload of contemporary documentation (business correspondence, personal letters, media publications) that prove Hedren's memory wrong. You can get a good taste of that on the website SaveHitchcock.com, which attempts to provide objective information about the actual events. Here is a good place to start: a rebuttal to Hedren's recently published Memoirs: https://savehitchcock.com/2016/10/19/tippi-a-memoir/
In sum, this movie is a cowardly attempt to discredit and vilify a great director and a great personality, who is vulnerable because he cannot defend himself from accusations of sexual predatorism, which are based on hearsay from exactly one source.
I don't find it troubling that a single disappointed actor (Hedren) at a certain point in her life chose to follow this path; she is the only one to know her reasons for it, and whether they are honest or not. Yet I do find it disappointing that a large group of professionals in the movie industry chose to make money from trampling on someone's corpse by making this very one-sided movie. And most of all I find it troubling that the American audience seems to love it, falls for this manipulation of history, and appears to embrace this sensationalist story with a vengeance.
I am glad that Hitch is not around anymore to live through this totally undeserved character assassination.
Which is a shame, really, because if this movie had been purely fictional, it would have been a decent film with an interesting, albeit somewhat weird plot, and a screenplay that left something to desire. I might have given it a '5' then.
But the fact is that the makers of, and contributors to this movie knew full well, as does their audience, that the premise of this movie is decidedly NOT fictional, but envisions to portray 'real life events'. Here starts the 'awful' feeling for me.
At the end of the day, there is not a shred of proof that the events as displayed in this movie actually happened. And the makers know that. It is not just a case of 'personal opinion', like it is not a case of 'personal opinion' whether Kennedy was murdered, or that Harvey Weinstein attempted to take advantage of young actresses.
By portraying Alfred Hitchcock in this sensationalist light, and making bucks out of it, the makers deliberately hurt the memory of a man who is not around to protest anymore. The makers should have asked themselves: would we dare to make this movie, in this way, had the man been still alive? Would the evidence weigh up to the doubt and the protest? And they would have concluded that it wouldn't. The fact that they dared make this movie now Hitch is dead, shows a cowardly attitude behind it.
Why then, you ask me, is it unlikely that the events portrayed in the movie ever happened? For starters: because the many, many people who were around at the time vehemently deny any misbehavior ever happened, and just as vehemently assert that these events were *very* unlikely to happen with the Hitchcock they knew. The other actors, the other set personnel, the people close to Hitch, Mrs. Hedren's assistants, no one ever came to the fore with anything substantial that corroborates Hedren's story; instead they deny it, or at least deem it unlikely it happened without them noticing it.
Second, Hedren kept her mouth shut for many decades. That would be somewhat credible if during that time, she hadn't given such praise and devoted such warm words to her experience with Hitchcock in the mean time - which she did. It was only at the end of her career, which was not particularly successful, and only after Hitchcock was dead & gone, and only after Donald Spoto interviewed her for his Hichcock biography, that she told this narrative of an 'abusive' Hitchcock. As if she needed a reason why her career post-Hitchcock never took off - a reason outside of herself.
Thirdly, because there is ample material evidence that refute important elements in Hedren's narrative. There is a trainload of contemporary documentation (business correspondence, personal letters, media publications) that prove Hedren's memory wrong. You can get a good taste of that on the website SaveHitchcock.com, which attempts to provide objective information about the actual events. Here is a good place to start: a rebuttal to Hedren's recently published Memoirs: https://savehitchcock.com/2016/10/19/tippi-a-memoir/
In sum, this movie is a cowardly attempt to discredit and vilify a great director and a great personality, who is vulnerable because he cannot defend himself from accusations of sexual predatorism, which are based on hearsay from exactly one source.
I don't find it troubling that a single disappointed actor (Hedren) at a certain point in her life chose to follow this path; she is the only one to know her reasons for it, and whether they are honest or not. Yet I do find it disappointing that a large group of professionals in the movie industry chose to make money from trampling on someone's corpse by making this very one-sided movie. And most of all I find it troubling that the American audience seems to love it, falls for this manipulation of history, and appears to embrace this sensationalist story with a vengeance.
I am glad that Hitch is not around anymore to live through this totally undeserved character assassination.