Although I’ve seen it many times over the years, it was only today I finally got around to writing something about Alfred Hitchcock’s 1958 wonder, Vertigo. I posted my “review” (if you can call it that) here: Vertigo (1958). As I say in the piece, Vertigo, “… stands up as an enthralling movie, a magnificent confluence of directing, story, theme and performance.”
I understand that some people find watching older movies difficult (this one is over 50 years old). The quality of them isn’t always the best and often the style and look are hard to adjust to because current films are technically so much better, as far as image goes, and the style is often so different, usually so much more fast paced.
It helps, I suppose, to have grown up with some of these older movies. I think that makes them more accessible — because they are familiar, at least stylistically. But I feel a bit sorry for anyone who finds them hard to engage with.
In the case of Vertigo, as I watched it through it’s second half, as Scotty tries to remake Judy into his fantasy of Madeleine, his obsession, I was actually angry with him. I wanted to slap him on the head and say, “You moron! Don’t you see what you’re doing?”
You can only feel that way if you are fully, meaning emotionally, engaged with a movie. There is no greater litmus test for how effective and successful a movie is than an unthinking emotional response to it. Made in 1958, Vertigo stills snags me.
That is what a good movie should do. Everytime.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
balbulican 07.01.09 at 3:35 pm
I’m embarassed to admit the Vertigo is one of those masterpieces I just don’t get, like The Golden Bowl or Guernica. I’m not a cultural illiterate, I like most Hitchcock (love strangers on a train, rear window, north by northwest): but Vertigo just eludes me. It seems silly and contrived. That’s fine when there’s a strong comic undertone to the film, as in north by northwest – but Vertigo takes itself SO seriously…
Bill 07.01.09 at 4:39 pm
I’ve never actually seen either The Golden Bowl or Guernica, so I can’t comment on those. As for Vertigo, I always kind of liked it, but wasn’t a huge fan. But this time when I watched it things seemed to click. I think part of its attraction, for critics at least, is what is perceived to be insight into Hitchcock and some of his obsessions/fetishes. Myself, part of the reason I watched it is because I’m reading a biography of Jimmy Stewart and he, in his own way, is an interesting guy, though not in an obvious way. Of course, I also have always liked the fact it had Kim Novak. I think I thought she was “hot” when I was much younger.