any thoughts on this?

here is the cast:

Anthony Hopkins - Alfred Hitchcock
Helen Mirren- Alma Hitchcock
Scarlett Johansson- Janet Leigh
James D'Arcy- Anthony Perkins
Jessica Biel- Vera Miles

directed by Sacha Gervasi(director of Anvil, writer of The Terminal & Henry's Crime)

I haven't heard of this, but it sounds interesting. If what I gather is true, they're fictionalizing the behind-the-scenes story?

Hopkins should be good. But I always envisioned Ray Winstone as Hitch.

If they'd made this 20 years down the road, yeah...

I've always questioned Biel's acting abilities, so I'm on the fence about her casting. I've also always wondered about Hitchcock casting Miles in this since it's been widely documented how he 'never forgave her' for getting knocked up just before beginning to shoot "Vertigo" and thus had to be replaced with Kim Novak. Presumably that's an exaggerated claim if he was willing to cast her in "Psycho."

Well I think regarding appearance, voice and general demeanor, Timothy Spall would be my choice for Hitch. I am lost with the remaining cast. People looked very different in 1959/1960 than they do now. Contemporary actors in general seem more refined as opposed to the rather rugged faces back in the day.
I would go as far as saying that Janet Leigh wouldn't be considered even remotely attractive today. In fact, I think she only was moderately attractive back then, but had a certain depth to her. Perhaps Kirsten Dunst would have been a better choice to play her (not saying Dunst is only moderately attractive, but I think she has way more depth and a more "timeless" face as opposed to the hopelessly contemporary looking face of Scarlett Johansson (huge lips and all).

I've noticed a similar phenomenon. It's like they say in Watchmen: certain faces seem to go in and out of style.

I'm sure part of it is our pre-existing assumptions about certain eras. Actors prior to the sexual revolution just seem so much more "adult". There's also the fact that the movie industry has only skewed more and more toward youth as time has gone by. Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh, for example. Leigh was certainly not old by any means when she was in Psycho, but she was a full six years older than Johansson is now.

And while this isn't so much of an issue with Johansson in particular, actors these days tend to be more physically slight than actors of yesteryear. A few meat-headed action stars aside, the male actor body type seems to skew smaller and more compact, whereas female actors seem to skew more slender, if not downright skinny. It gives them a distinct visual difference from the Psycho generation, where men and women were both a bit sturdier.

looks like the title is now just 'Hitchcock'

Sorry I was unable to trace back the pic. So is this Anthony Hopkins with heavy makeup art to make him look like Hitch? If it is: very convincing indeed. Now regarding the voice and body language (Hitch had huge hands like frying pans)......

Fortunately, there is plenty of archival footage of Hitch to go around... a treasure trove of source material for an impressionist to use.

And if the performance is authentic enough, minor lapses like the voice being different can be forgiven. Think Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line.

more casting news:

Michael Stuhlbarg as Lew Wasserman, Toni Collette as Hitchcock's secretary Peggy, Michael Wincott as Ed Gein, Kurtwood Smith as Geoffrey Shurlock, Richard Portnow as Barney Balaban and Danny Huston as Whitfield Cook.

Wow, that's a great still. Even knowing that it's Anthony Hopkins I still can't tell it's actually him.

So... who's ready to have nightmares?

Well that movie strangely worked. I went into some kind of "overlay mode": I watched and listened Joaquin Phoenix and couldn't help but "overlay" the real Johnny Cash since he is so familiar - and very different from Phoenix. For some reason it worked, even though I always saw two different persons at the same time. Perhaps because I like Phoenix and even though I am not an expert on Cash's brand of country-rock 'n' roll, I think the guys responsible for the music pretty much nailed the sound - that helps a lot to set the mood.

I think if you don't have a soundtrack as the "voice" of a person, you need to go a little deeper on the make up und impression. There's a chance Anthony Hopkins can get it right and nails Hitchs appearance and demeanor - very chubby, slooooow, rather unrefined, but commanding and somehow graceful with more than a hint of twisted humor (as you all know of course).

Everything he says here might sound obvious and like simple truths, but I still agree 100% (except that puns are the highest form of literature which of course is not to be taken literally) and even though Hitch takes forever to form a sentence (pacing in general definitely changed since his times...) - he is very clear and easy to follow - and since I know quite a lot about Hitch - definitely very intelligent and insightful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14dOICbw ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu5g86nhWK4

I somehow don't believe Johansson will even remotely resemble Leigh. But a convincing Hitch will make the movie for me.

I really hope not. I would love to see some sort of accuracy of Hitch's style of work on his films. You know, writing, pre-production, production, how he deals with the actors...all that shit. Specifically with Psycho. But that's my movie loving self wondering how it's done...which the majority of the public could care less about. Gotta sell the film, right?

Holy shit...look at that.

Well on a much smaller scale (= television) I have seen a lot how things are behind the scenes in two different European countries. I worked both as a cable assistant from age 16 through 21 and later played piano/keyboards live for quite a few tv shows over the years. Most people who call the shots (famous hosts, directors) are very different when they know (or think) noone is filming/videotaping. They become huge egos, impatient, arrogant, control-freakish and sometimes furious. Some are pompous and throw in bad humor daring anyone who doesn't laugh (or shut up) on cue, others are more passive aggresive - but noone ever was meek, gentle or kind. They wouldn't be what they are if they had these characteristics. This is "showbiz darwinism" at work - no more, no less.
I only can faintly imagine how it was (and contunues to be) in Hollywood. I guess it's the same - to the 10th power.... so no: even I don't care how it really was. An "idealized" version based upon something resembling the truth would do it for me.

I wouldn't want to see something like this, even if it was how it went (swearing in german at its finest - Mr. Kinski was probably either under influence or suffered withdrawal effects - this only ever came out offisially because Kinski was already known for his über-pompous "rage-attacks" ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ADI9p2wHY

"Fictionalizing" doesn't necessarily mean portraying it inaccurately.

Right.

Threeperf got me thinking I should have reworded my thoughts with this line, right here...



Well put.

One of the great comic artists, Eddie Campbell, has done quite a bit of work in historical fiction. I really like his approach. He suggests that fiction and fact aren't mutually exclusive. You can build your narrative around nothing but the basic facts, but as soon as you take those events and turn them into a story--even if you're not making any of it up--that's what makes it fiction. It's the conscious effort to retell something, as a storyteller.

By that classification, works that ride the line--like In Cold Blood--are fiction, even though they're fact. And this movie.*

(*Assuming it is fact. For all I know, they're going to make lots of shit up and turn it into some damn meta-thing.)