The story is (to put it mildly) ridiculous; Jimmy Stewart looks drugged out the entire film; Kim Novak was beautiful but not much of an actress; it's VERY slow-moving and had a pointless ending. This was blasted by critics and (I believe) a box office dud when it came out. Now it's considered a classic. I can't see why.
share
´¨*¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨*¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:-(ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง
I can understand your opinion, although I like the atmosphere and time capsule quality of the film, the plot (I have to admit) is totally ridiculous. The only explanation I can think of for this is that this film was Hitchcock's personal private fantasy trip, with his homage to San Francisco and other northern California locations he liked, and he did not care,he simply did it his way. The story does follow the director's interests: an odd, lonely bachelor who suddenly finds a love interest in the opposite sex, quite by chance, only to find out that he was duped and he was the idiot that fell for it ! Along the way we find out what a hidden pervert he really is. Hung up on things like clothes, hair color, style, and nothing about the real person underneath, but he seemed to be so "normal" at first. (Exactly what Hitchcock liked to show, how perversion lurked just below the surface). Similar in some ways to Hitchcock's earlier "Rope" (1948) and the same star, and the same "rant" at the end. Also hints of secret mind control games between men and hints of latent homosexuality (something the director liked showing too). Might have more....
RSGRE
Excellent analysis of the film. My main issues with it are the plot, the slow pace and Novak's blank performance. I agree it LOOKS great but that's about it for me. I'm glad you enjoy it though :)
To the OP. Have you seen Marnie or The Trouble with Harry? Wirst ever Hitchcock IMHO.
shareI've seen both. "Marnie" I like but it took a couple of viewings for me to appreciate it. However you're right about "The Trouble With Harry"--it was dreadful. It will only be remembered as Shirley MacLaine's first film.
I think Vertigo was the most interesting and artsy of the bunch when comparing it to Marnie and or Trouble with Harry.
Can this really be the end..to be stuck inside of mobile
with the Memphis blues again.
Agreed. Vertigo is my least favorite of Alfred's movies.
There's something wrong with Esther.
Psycho is rated 8.5, this is 8.4. I'd say Psycho should be a rare 10, Vertigo should be a 7. Kim Novak did not have the range for a movie like this. The story loses momentum about 3\4 of the way through. Critics and Hollywood brass pounded into people's head that this is Hitchcock's masterpiece but it is not. That should be reserved for psycho. They are not even in the same ballpark.
Obviously you haven't seen Torn Curtain or Topaz.
shareYes I have. "Torn Curtain" and "Topaz" are also terrible but this is just BAD! Those other two movies had some pretty good acting. "Vertigo" didn't. Novak was bad beyond belief. Also "Vertigo's" plot was just plain stupid and could never happen in real life. "Torn" and "Topaz" were at least somewhat plausible.
shareThose other two movies had some pretty good acting.
"Vertigo" didn't. Novak was bad beyond belief. Also "Vertigo's" plot was just plain stupid and could never happen in real life.
[deleted]