Topic: Woo-hoo!!!!

[Antares]

Just got Vertigo in. Time to exorcise this film demon.

[Antares]

Vertigo 3.5/5 - OK film from Hitchcock that could have used a bit more and better editing. I'll probably write a more in-depth review in the future, but for now this will have to suffice.

[Najemikon]

"Ok"?  Good grief... and my goodness, Sir, if you're about to accuse Alfred Hitchcock of needing better editing, that has to be one hell of a review!  Emma said much the same and I argued then she was trying to project what she wanted the film to be, rather than accept it for what it is and learning why.

[Antares]

What I meant by more editing was the fact that I felt I was on tour of San Francisco at times. She takes a left turn...then a right turn...then another right turn...now a left turn...etc., etc.

What I meant by better editing was that I counted at least a half a dozen times where the editor should have sliced off an additional frame or two of film. It was like I could imagine Hitchcock saying Action and that split second just before the actor started his line or made some movement.

And I felt it was just OK because of a few things. It's pacing is a little too laborious in the first hour, Stewart was miscast as I feel was Novak. I think I would have liked it better had James Mason or Montgomery Clift and the original choice for Madeleine been used, Vera Miles. Novak was just too flat in her performance. Miles would have been better. I also didn't buy the sudden romance between the two characters.

I will say this, the cinematography was amazing and the restoration was unbelievable. It's a beautifully shot film.

I'm not saying it's a bad film, for me, it's not as good as other films by Hitchcock. I'll take North by Northwest, Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers on a Train and Psycho ahead of it.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So what you actually seem to mean (if I got this correctly): Compared to other Hitchcock movies this one is only OK, compared to movies of other directors this is a great movie.
Correct me if I got this wrong.

[Antares]

Compared to other Hitchcock movies this one is only OK, compared to movies of other directors this is a great movie.

I think overall it is an OK film both ways. I wouldn't consider this a great movie. It's good, but I don't see the magnificence, it has many flaws in my eyes. But if you've read some of my discussions about Hitchcock in other threads, you'd see that I run hot and cold on him. Jon absolutely adores him, I have problems with a good portion of his canon.

[Najemikon]

I think overall it is an OK film both ways. I wouldn't consider this a great movie. It's good, but I don't see the magnificence, it has many flaws in my eyes. But if you've read some of my discussions about Hitchcock in other threads, you'd see that I run hot and cold on him. Jon absolutely adores him, I have problems with a good portion of his canon.

Adore is a strong word.  He is definitely one of my favourites and if only for the mega-marathon, I probably have as strong a grasp of his work now as I have ever done or will do, but he was not without flaws. However, Vertigo is generally accepted as a masterpiece even outside of his canon. Only, I should say, after re-evaluation over the years up to the 80s at least, because it received a luke-warm response on release, but then so did Citizen Kane! Hitchcock himself moved on very quickly from each film, regardless of reception, so it's hard to know because he never commented (except to say it was one of his personal favourites) and was very gracious to other people's opinions, however I believe it was misunderstood.

As you're doing now. 

I've heard some reviews call Vertigo "the most important American film ever made" and while I don't entertain hyperbole ("greatest anything" is absurd), it's an interesting notion for what I am about to say. Hitch was British, worked in German Expressionism, showed some evidence of being influenced by Citizen Kane (in I Confess at least) and always pushed what was acceptable. For the most part he stuck with playing with audience friendly techniques and rarely stepped from the basic 'cause and effect' narrative American and British cinema was built on, even when having the most fun with it in, as you quoted, North By Northwest, Psycho, etc.

Vertigo was very different to those films and actually, your reaction has surprised me. Not because you weren't blown away by it. After all reaction to any film must be an honest and frankly, who gives a shit if you don't like something when everyone else says you should? No, what surprises me is your breakdown of why.

What I meant by more editing was the fact that I felt I was on tour of San Francisco at times. She takes a left turn...then a right turn...then another right turn...now a left turn...etc., etc.

What I meant by better editing was that I counted at least a half a dozen times where the editor should have sliced off an additional frame or two of film. It was like I could imagine Hitchcock saying Action and that split second just before the actor started his line or made some movement.

And I felt it was just OK because of a few things. It's pacing is a little too laborious in the first hour...

So it's too slow, feels a bit plodding, kind of monotonous... yeah, I agree with that! Hasn't it crossed your mind that this is absolutely the reaction you're supposed to have?  This is what I was trying to explain to Emma when she admittedly came to the same conclusion as you.

That's what I meant above, setting up Hitchcock's history. German Expressionism, such a huge influence on Noir, is all about this sort of manipulation and it's the not the normal thing for American narrative. Editing and pacing in any form is designed to provoke a reaction and Hitchcock was possibly the director with the most assured grasp of the methods, you might say too much so in some cases when his finely engineered visuals could suffocate an actor.

So if you were to accept that all evidence up to and beyond Vertigo suggested he was at his peak, does it really make sense he dropped the ball and forgot how to do it here? His editor, George Tomasini, worked with him throughout this period and Hitchcock was fairly ruthless; so if George had got drunk in the midst of the Vertigo rushes and screwed up with his scissors, he wouldn't have lasted. No, those extra frames are in exactly the place as intended and it takes exceptional skill to do it... wrong... on purpose.

The logical answer is, it's supposed to be like that. "Bad" editing provokes a certain reaction in the viewer, just as good does. Look at The Third Man; Carol Reed filmed some scenes with the camera feeling like it had lost a leg from it's tripod. Accident? No, it was done to create unease and leave the viewer distrustful of what's unfolding...

...Stewart was miscast as I feel was Novak. I think I would have liked it better had James Mason or Montgomery Clift and the original choice for Madeleine been used, Vera Miles. Novak was just too flat in her performance. Miles would have been better... 

Hitchcock himself dismissed the films poor initial reaction on Stewart being too old. Actually I think he was perfect in what is one of his most challenging roles. This is Jimmy Stewart! Wholesome, James "everyone loves Jimmy" Stewart! Playing a... pervert!!??!! I think the Director was half-right; the audience couldn't connect with Stewart in a role like this, but being too old was I suspect on purpose, despite what Hitchcock might have said to the contrary (double-speak and dismissively moving on is typical of him). Stalking a girl young enough to be his daughter is exactly the griminess the story needs.

I also didn't buy the sudden romance between the two characters.

"Sudden romance"? Did we see the same film? There was no such thing.

(click to show/hide)

Scottie is stalking her and becoming dangerously obsessed, not in love. She, meanwhile, is allowing it to happen, because she's pretending, succeeding to fool him so her "suicide" convinces. The scene on the rocks is supposed to be a clue. It was filmed in the ridiculous, overly-melodramatic clichéd way movies were known to do. Hitchcock was playing with convention and you were supposed to feel it was a bit odd. Because it was fake.

In the second half of the film, Scottie is basically nuts. Now Judy thinks she falls for him, but she doesn't, she just feels mortified with guilt as she sees the husk of a man Scottie has become in the months(?) that intervened.

That's classic Noir. Two eternally doomed characters, trapped in a circle of hell by their own making.

In any case, I really couldn't imagine Mason or Clift in this role. Especially Clift! His Method had infuriated Hitchcock on I Confess.



I'm not trying to make you like the film, but as I did with Emma, I just want to be sure you're disliking it for the right reasons! It's definitely one of the films I found hardest to like. On first viewing, I was a bit thrown. Second was much better. Third and fourth within days of each other was the moment I realised it was perfect. Sometimes art is supposed to be truly challenging.

[Antares]

I'm not trying to make you like the film, but as I did with Emma, I just want to be sure you're disliking it for the right reasons! It's definitely one of the films I found hardest to like. On first viewing, I was a bit thrown. Second was much better. Third and fourth within days of each other was the moment I realised it was perfect. Sometimes art is supposed to be truly challenging.

As I was reading your response I started to make a list of arguments as to why I disagreed with your assessments. But then, I read this paragraph. In your fervor for defending your favorite director, you've slipped on the blinders and have failed to notice how condescending the highlighted portions come across. Now I know that you would never intentionally do that with an argument, but I've come to realize that when it comes to Hitchcock, I'm better off not making comments, because of your devotion to him.

I would have let it pass if it weren't for this line earlier in the thread...

Emma said much the same and I argued then she was trying to project what she wanted the film to be, rather than accept it for what it is and learning why.

You are probably right that Vertigo may need another viewing. I've found a few films in my time that needed another go round before I appreciated them. But I'll do it on my terms, not because I need to learn where I'm making my mistake because others say it's a masterpiece, and I'm just not getting it. That's what I call the Altman principle. You know what I mean, if you don't like Altman, you just don't get it.

[Najemikon]

Fine. Don't worry about it. I'm not in a fervour and you should know by now I would never seek to be condescending. But, though you chose to note I wouldn't do so intentionally, you have abandoned the argument therefore proving I've pissed you off. I am sorry, but you've missed my point by some considerable margin. I do realise how the sentence you highlighted could come across and I thought I'd side-stepped it. Clearly not.

One of the worst films I have seen, for me, is My Beautiful Laundrette. Hated it, still do. When I did a Film Studies course years ago, the bloody tutor used it as a case study of narrative and I ended up having to see parts of it 2/3 times on the trot.

I still regret my stubborn attitude when I told him, "but it's so badly made. It looks like shit and the editing is terrible". He tried to explain why it was on purpose and I just dismissed him. I still don't like the film because of its themes, but I wish I'd listened because I am interested now why he thought it was on purpose and not made by a hack. Not to mention that I hit a brick wall in that section because I couldn't take the blinkers off.

Maybe he was wrong then. Maybe I'm wrong now. I was very concerned that I was coming over like I was telling you to like the film and that, I repeat, was not my intention.

I simply wanted to know if you had considered that maybe it was on purpose and if you had, and disagreed, then why. 

...I've come to realize that when it comes to Hitchcock, I'm better off not making comments, because of your devotion to him.

Thanks. Despite repeated protests during topics on Hitchcock, Spielberg and Tarantino, you are still dismissing me as a fanboy and inferring I can't argue objectively. You pull this card continually and it's old now. I just deal with what's in front of me and I'm an eternal optimist when it comes to film.

You are probably right that Vertigo may need another viewing. I've found a few films in my time that needed another go round before I appreciated them. But I'll do it on my terms, not because I need to learn where I'm making my mistake because others say it's a masterpiece, and I'm just not getting it. That's what I call the Altman principle. You know what I mean, if you don't like Altman, you just don't get it.

I wasn't trying to infer you didn't "get it". If I had said something that made you consider watching it again, then I'd be happy. All I wondered is if you had decided or considered a difference of opinion. But consider this...

What I meant by better editing was that I counted at least a half a dozen times where the editor should have sliced off an additional frame or two of film.

Say what you like about considering another viewing: "...should have...". If my tone offended you, remember you gave me the bloody target. Pretty absolute and infers you had made your mind up. And that's the simple difference. You watched Vertigo and had the confidence to assess you knew how to make it better. On a film with such a reputation, I find I enjoy listening when others offer a potential way to unlock it. If I still disagree, at least I'm sure I've considered the possibility I was initially wrong.

[Antares]

Jon, I apologize if I've caused you any distress over this, it was not my intention. I've been a bit on edge since the new year began, dealing with some personal issues, and I've had a short fuse because of it.

And the "should have" that you quoted was suppose to be preceded by the word "probably". When I typed it, I did it incorrectly and Spell checker highlighted it. When I right clicked it, I must have hit Cut instead of selecting the correct spelling and didn't notice my mistake.

[Najemikon]

Jon, I apologize if I've caused you any distress over this, it was not my intention. I've been a bit on edge since the new year began, dealing with some personal issues, and I've had a short fuse because of it.

The new year is proving a test already here too. Hope you're OK. No worries on this score though. I've moderated several forums in the past and can worry too much about perception. After all...

And the "should have" that you quoted was suppose to be preceded by the word "probably". When I typed it, I did it incorrectly and Spell checker highlighted it. When I right clicked it, I must have hit Cut instead of selecting the correct spelling and didn't notice my mistake.

... One word can make a considerable difference. A "probably" would have changed my response, certainly.

[Antares]

I think it also stems from the fact that I think I'm watching TOO many films lately, and they are all starting to meld together. Ever since I joined the Filmspotting forum, my amount of films watched has increased by 400%. I think I need a break, but they mention so many films I've always wanted to see, that I can't stop.

Hi...my name is Antares and I'm a film addict...  

[Najemikon]

I did that last year. I burnt out doing the horror marathon and Oscar one. A film per day proved too much. I had to retreat and then purposefully watched a bunch of old favourites to recharge! How Pete can watch so many? No idea either! But he never loses his focus.

[goodguy]

When I did my own Hitchcock marathon last year, I liked a couple of his films, including Vertigo, but I never had a wow-moment, which, with an alleged master of his caliber, should happen at least once even to someone as insusceptible to his work as I appear to be. I'm mentioning that because I'm currently getting into the work of Powell/Pressburger and just on the first try with The Red Shoes was completely blown away. It's beautiful and a little weird, shows some of the same influences Jon cited for Hitchcock, yet still feels very modern.

[Najemikon]

When I did my own Hitchcock marathon last year, I liked a couple of his films, including Vertigo, but I never had a wow-moment, which, with an alleged master of his caliber, should happen at least once even to someone as insusceptible to his work as I appear to be.

Not necessarily. As I said before, Hitchcock was such a master of technique that for some, he is too manipulative and occasionally smothers an actor. We've talked before about how I think you lean away from genre movies and this is what I mean. Genre in classic film-making implies a strict adherence to repeated themes and techniques. Hitchcock thrived in America, because Hollywood was all about genre. His more European sensibilities informed his work, but he still skewed towards classic Hollywood, even while re-inventing it. You might enjoy I Confess more if you haven't tried it yet, but I think you have a natural defence against the "wow" moments!

So I can see why you'd respond better to Powell and Pressburger. I found them a bit inconsistent, with Colonel Blimp a bit of a chore for me. But Black Narcissus is wonderful and, while it couldn't be more different, A Matter of Life and Death is an old favourite. And then there's Powell's notorious Peeping Tom. Antares and I have also supported Carol Reed's Fallen Idol in the past, which has much I think you'd appreciate. I think of it as Hitchcockian, but the truth is I don't think he could have done it as well as Carol Reed. It has eccentric warmth...

Oh and while I'm badgering you with inspiration, despite your aversion to Asian cinema,  you really should try some Kurosawa. I can't put my finger on it -Antares is more likely able to- but there's something about his non-Samurai stuff I have this odd feeling you would respond really well to. Ikuru especially. I started thinking about that from considering Powell and Pressburger, but it doesn't make sense!