I don't like "Vertigo."
This was my third attempt at the film.
And, though I could appreciate it a bit more, this go 'round...
I still don't like it.
Now, I'm sure this makes me a cinematic idiot. Like the yokel who stands in front of a Mondrian and goes, "Looks like a Parcheesi board. Next."
It's hard because "Vertigo" is almost unanimously praised. Roger Ebert has inducted it into his "Great Movies" hall of fame. The most current AFI list of the greatest films in cinema history ranks it at #9. The BFI critics' list places it at #2.
And here I am, the wannabe Hitchcock devotee, and I can't hardly sit through the whole thing.
Let me say that, on paper, this film is brilliant. It is a marvelous story of obsession and possession and a looping tale of people creating other people in the image of still other people. It seeks to play out the "Year of Living Dangerously" quote: "All is clouded by desire." The story even takes on deeper significance when you understand that Hitchcock, himself, became obsessed by some of his go-to blondes (Grace Kelly, Tippi Hedren and Ingrid Bergman) and frequently sought to do to them what Scottie (James Stewart) does to Judy (Kim Novak).
So, yes, I relent: this is a great idea for a movie. It's rife with suspense (the themes are draped across a tale that is simple mystery) and it's backed by a very strong "shadow film."
But why doesn't it work for me?
1) I don't like Kim Novak. More than a few reviewers notice that Novak's performance is, at first blush, stilted and unreal. But, they follow these comments up with the note that their minds have changed, over time. Robin Wood in his analyses goes so far as to add a footnote to his page on the shortcomings of Novak's performance in later editions which says that, after rethinking, her work actually works. I don't buy it. I don't like looking at her (forgive me, but she's no Grace Kelly... does that make *me* Scottie-like?). Her eyebrows are, truly, comical when she's Judy. She just seems charmless and perfunctory and I can't buy Scottie falling in love with her -- let alone obsessing over her.
2) It's pretty slow and boring. Even a talker like "Rope" clips along for me. This one, though, isn't all that talky... it just kind of sits on shots and really drills the "dream-like" quality... almost too much. Maybe it feels (again, forgive me) *too* cinematic. Lots of watching, watching, watching (Scottie following Madeleine, a walk through the sequoias, Scottie watching Judy transform into Madeleine). Maybe that's vague, but Hitchcock was generally quite good at (especially for that day and age) keeping a brisk pace. Not so, here.
3) Some terrible foley. Okay, this is minor, but it kept bothering me. Who put in the sound effects for this thing? Were they done for the restoration? There was one near laugh-out-loud moment where Judy is ripping a piece of paper and it sounds like they stuck a microphone inside the paper. Heck, maybe this is the mixer's fault. Either way, do we really need to hear loud footsteps -- footsteps louder than the traffic driving by?
4) Some missteps by Herrmann. I actually love Bernard Herrmann's scores, in general. His "North by Northwest" theme hums itself inside my brain more often than I care to recount. "Psycho" is also memorable, and for more than just the strings for the shower scene. (The slower moments in that score are wonderfully aped by Michael Giaccino for many episodes of "Lost.") As well, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1956) prominently features his conducting as part of the film. But, here, aside from the theme (which I do, actually, like), he seems to dip into soap operatic-mode. The scene where Scottie kisses Madeleine in front of the ocean is undercut by a twee "romantic musical interlude." Unfortunate.
5) Outdated and kooky special effects. Scottie has a dream which is almost laughable. It includes a few seconds of Disney-esque animation and his neck-less head floating against a swirling background. Even the opening credit sequence (which shows close-ups of Kim Novak's face and hands) feels like it's trying to outreach its grasp. Now, I do appreciate the warp-zoom (frequently referred to, nowadays, as the "Vertigo zoom") but I felt like, every time it was used, it could have staying on the screen just a second longer. It is quite effective, but I felt like Hitchcock trimmed it too much to make it truly powerful.
The story, simply put, is about a policeman (Scottie, played by James Stewart) who retires upon discovering (in a most unfortunate way) that he has acrophobia whose primary symptom is vertigo. After retiring, he is called upon by an old school friend to follow the man's wife as she has been acting quite "possessed." Scottie does, and as he watches Madeleine (Kim Novak), he falls for her. Madeleine, though, seems unaware of Scottie's following her and, in
"madness," jumps into the San Francisco bay. Scottie, watching, rescues her, and takes her to his home. There, a spark ignites and Scottie's affection seems to be appreciated and returned by Madeleine. Madeleine's insanity, though, comes back and she eventually flings herself from a mission tower, while Scottie stands by helpless -- impotent to climb the stairs because of his acrophobia.
The second half of the film (easily more interesting than the first) centers on Scottie's obsession over his lost love and how, when he finds a woman who bears a striking resemblance to Madeleine, attempts to maker her over in her image. (I'll leave the rest vague for those wanting to give it a try.)
Even as I write out that synopsis, I see how it seems tantalizing. The ideas are sharp and, to some degree, largely unseen in cinema. Stewart's obsession drives him to a difficult emotional cliff, and it feels novel to watch "America's Nice Guy" take a fairly dark turn. The scenes where he's forcing Judy to become more and more Madeleine-esque are discomforting and purposeful.
I'd like to watch this one again (my fourth time) later this year. Something tells me I may appreciate it more. But, as it is, this one still doesn't set well with me. Am I the boy who says the emperor has no clothes... or am I, indeed, the idiot in the museum?
Starring: James Stewart and Kim Novak
Written by: Alec Coppel and Samuel A. Taylor
Music by: Bernard Herrmann
3 comments:
as I recall, the emperor was, at least, a little threadbare. I trust your take.
But you didn't hype the awesome, jazzy poster art and sweet fonts!!
This movie is worth it, if only to give us that last photo of yours, from the dream, of Stewart's floating head.
I watched it from beginning to end for the first and only time about three years ago. It was a relief when it was over. It's safe to say that Stewart does more scowling in this one than in most of his others combined. I'd like to do a video mashup of Stewart looking obsessive and needy, with closeup reverse shots of Clarance the angel.
I'm with you. I don't get its "greatness."
Seriously, how great would it be to have your profile photo be your face, floating neck-less, like Jimmy Stewart's?
I must work on that.
Post a Comment