Review: "Hitchcock"

Just saw DVD of "Hitchcock." OK. Great movie, dealing with Hitchcock and wife Alma's struggle to get "Psycho" on film. Brilliant performances by Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. But. Screenwriter Stephen Rebello narrowly focused on creative/sexual tension between Hitch and Alma; Hitch's obsession with blondes, yattayatta. I understand desire to cut it all down to a simple narrative line. Sure. But, based on this movie, the "Psycho" screenwriter (Joseph Stefano -- of "The Outer Limits" fame) was a wet-behind-the-ears newbie -- and, if it wasn't for script doctor Alma, his script would've been DOA. Robert Bloch -- the bloody genius who wrote the original novel -- never appears and is barely mentioned. We're led to believe that Hitchcock was obsessed with Ed Gein's original murders -- which Bloch fictionalized as "Psycho." Which interpretation is bull!@#. "Psycho" was a work of imagination, not a documentary. Bloch's Norman Bates is a vastly different (and vastly more interesting) character than Ed Gein. His novel -- and Hitch's movie -- was vastly more interesting as a result. So, to put it another way, screw the auteur theory. Hitchcock can't hog the credit for "Psycho" -- he has to share it with two genius writers, namely Bloch and Stefano. Rebello says Alma should also get some credit. Fine. Share away! But Bloch and Stefano shouldn't be cut out. A lot of you may not even remember who they are. But that's all the more reason not to airbrush them out of film history.