[innerSpaceman]

Two biopics. Both slice of professional life, one famous project each. One was surprisingly meh to me, the other nearly as surprisingly delightful.



I hate to say it, but Lincoln is a bit dry. It's an important film about an important piece of history. It's got fantastic performances throughout, most especially and obviously that of Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln. Any time he was on screen, I was captivated and the film soared. But when he wasn't, it started to fall decidedly flat and get a bit tedious.

The problem, of course, is that the film concerns lobbying and political machinations behind attempts to pass the 13th Constitutional Amendment - banning slavery - through the raucous House of Representatives. If passing a bill through Congress sounds like it might be a challenge to make cinematically interesting, you'd be right. It's a bit of a chore, and it left me feeling that every movie about passing a bill through Congress should be a musical (*cough*1776*cough).

Later in the film, when passage of the Amendment looks in doubt, A. Lincoln gets more personally involved with the project and the film picks up tremendously. But it's a little too little too late, and Lincoln, the film, left me a little disappointed. (Mindful, though, that Lincoln, the character channeled by Daniel Day Lewis, left me enthralled.)


* * * * *


Hitchcock, on the other hand, is breezy, charming, funny, and a pure delight. Reportedly, the biopic takes liberties with history and with the personal lives of its protagonists, Alfred and his wife & collaborator, Alma - wonderfully portrayed by Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren, during the making of Psycho. But it hardly matters. It's a really enjoyable romp through an interesting bit of film history, with some really interesting characters.

Sure, it's a lazy shortcut that Hitchcock's personal psychology is typically assumed to be starkly reflected in his own work. But Hitch himself worked hard to make "Alfred Hitchcock" a pop-culture character, and few directors have an ouvre that paints such a clear picture of obviously consistent personal obsessions.

The supporting cast is great, and the actors playing the actors from Psycho deliver a fine combination of imitation and inspiration. Hopkins appropriately leads the way with a performance that by definition requires such a strong reliance on impersonation.


I should also mention I enjoyed Hitchcock far more than I did The Girl - an HBO television production about Hitch's relationship with Tippi Hedron during the filming of The Birds and Marnie, that also debuted recently. Toby Jones doesn't fair nearly as well in tackling Hitchcock as does Hopkins, and The Girl is kind of creepy in portraying a slightly older Hitch as far more threatening and harassing.

Hitchcock is a bit more subtle with Hitch's dark side, often using the concepit of imagined scenes of the director communing with the spirit of Ed Gein, the serial killer who inspired Psycho, to hint at his own inner creepiness.


In both the cinema and cable TV movies about Hitchcock, a highlight is the director's personal and sadistic involvement with getting the most horrified reactions from his leading ladies when it counts. Fun, fun.

But there are too few delights in the TV movie, and a multitude of them in the movie movie, about the making of a movie ... and one of the best is seeing Hitch in the theater lobby while the shower scene plays for the opening night crowd. Priceless.


If you like slice-of-life biopics, both Lincoln and Hitchcock are worthy of your time. But if you've stomach only for one, I recommend it be Hitchcock.



Tellingly, Lincoln will take two-and-a-half hours of your time, Hitchcock barely more than 90 minutes.