Personal Rating: 7/10
To cut to the chase, this movie didn't live up to my expectations. Coming off the back of 'Dial M for Murder' which I adored, I was excited to watch what critics argue to be the best film of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo', and I'm left feeling disappointed.
Why? Why am I not madly in love with the thing the whole world has touted as a masterpiece? The answer lies in the movie's name and one of its many motifs. Vertigo and spirals. This movie gives the viewer a sense of vertigo, packing many many spirals into its 2hr+ runtime so that by the end... are you truly any further than you were at the beginning? Example: Scottie chases "Madeline" around town following her, he then receives a piece of information, deepening the plot, and it starts up the next day, following her around. She falls, gets rescued (one of the most talked-about scenes: sexual tension, desire, lust, giving in, disillusionment, the whole shebang) and the following happens again the next day, with yet another piece of information to deepen the plot. Scottie becomes infatuated with "Madeline" and we think little of it, just like his going to Ernies and driving down a row of trees but when all of that happens exactly again later in the film more information has been revealed, the stakes are higher. This whole film is a spiral tightening in on itself. I mean the action the movie ends on is the exact action that occurred during the "climax" (middle) of the film. Talk about running in circles.
The fun thing about circles, is they're great to talk about, just read some of the reviews for this film, essays they really are. People project themselves onto this movie, some apply 21st-century values on this 1958 film, others attempt to see things from Hitchcock's perspective, everything. I'm not saying that's wrong, everyone's entitled to share how they interpret something! But I haven't found someone that just asks, were you satisfied at the end?
Perhaps I'm daft, not a true cinema buff, but for a movie to become a personal favourite for me I have to love the story, not just question it.
To conclude though, this film in all its other ways is spectacular. The score, beautiful. There's a point where 20 minutes pass with only a few words of dialogue, all you have is the score and it's magnificent. James Stewart and Kim Novak were incredible in their performances, and the cinematography, well, almost hurts how beautiful it is. Jaws eat your heart out, Hitchcock perfected the dolly zoom. And the use of colours (Green & Red), genius.
There's no doubt in my mind I will watch this movie again. There are plenty of things done very well, it just is not an enjoyable movie as a whole for myself. Whether you agree or disagree, thanks for reading my review.
One is a wanderer; Two together are always going somewhere.
To cut to the chase, this movie didn't live up to my expectations. Coming off the back of 'Dial M for Murder' which I adored, I was excited to watch what critics argue to be the best film of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo', and I'm left feeling disappointed.
Why? Why am I not madly in love with the thing the whole world has touted as a masterpiece? The answer lies in the movie's name and one of its many motifs. Vertigo and spirals. This movie gives the viewer a sense of vertigo, packing many many spirals into its 2hr+ runtime so that by the end... are you truly any further than you were at the beginning? Example: Scottie chases "Madeline" around town following her, he then receives a piece of information, deepening the plot, and it starts up the next day, following her around. She falls, gets rescued (one of the most talked-about scenes: sexual tension, desire, lust, giving in, disillusionment, the whole shebang) and the following happens again the next day, with yet another piece of information to deepen the plot. Scottie becomes infatuated with "Madeline" and we think little of it, just like his going to Ernies and driving down a row of trees but when all of that happens exactly again later in the film more information has been revealed, the stakes are higher. This whole film is a spiral tightening in on itself. I mean the action the movie ends on is the exact action that occurred during the "climax" (middle) of the film. Talk about running in circles.
The fun thing about circles, is they're great to talk about, just read some of the reviews for this film, essays they really are. People project themselves onto this movie, some apply 21st-century values on this 1958 film, others attempt to see things from Hitchcock's perspective, everything. I'm not saying that's wrong, everyone's entitled to share how they interpret something! But I haven't found someone that just asks, were you satisfied at the end?
Perhaps I'm daft, not a true cinema buff, but for a movie to become a personal favourite for me I have to love the story, not just question it.
To conclude though, this film in all its other ways is spectacular. The score, beautiful. There's a point where 20 minutes pass with only a few words of dialogue, all you have is the score and it's magnificent. James Stewart and Kim Novak were incredible in their performances, and the cinematography, well, almost hurts how beautiful it is. Jaws eat your heart out, Hitchcock perfected the dolly zoom. And the use of colours (Green & Red), genius.
There's no doubt in my mind I will watch this movie again. There are plenty of things done very well, it just is not an enjoyable movie as a whole for myself. Whether you agree or disagree, thanks for reading my review.
One is a wanderer; Two together are always going somewhere.