One last evening to myself before the wife and kids come back from my wife's parents. So I found some Alfred Hitchcock Presents on Youtube.
I just clicked on the first episodes that came up. I knew nothing about them. But then, the whole pleasure of watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents is knowing nothing about the story, and seeing which turns it will take.
Like many episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, the first 15 minutes, when you're trying to figure out what the plot of the story is, and where it's going to go, are the most interesting.
Once the story is established, the second half drags a bit. But I loved the twist at the end!
Also, fun seeing some famous people when they were really young. Burt Reynolds. Harry Dean Stanton. The Mayor from Jaws.
...again, it's fun to see famous actors in this. Everyone loves Steve McQueen. And I went on a Peter Lorre kick a few years ago. Once the episode started, I realized that this was the episode that had inspired the infamous scene in Four Rooms. (I had seen Four Rooms way back in college, but I had never, until now, seen the episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents that inspired it. Well, better late then never.)
It was mostly entertaining, but I was irritated that none of the things the characters did made any sense. (Really, why are any of the characters doing any of the things that they do? It doesn't make any sense at all. Steve McQueen wants the car-- that part is fair enough, I guess. But what does Peter Lorre get out of keeping the finger? Why is the referee tagging along? Why does the girl get so involved all of a sudden?)
But then, that ending was perfect. I was watching the episode, and I was thinking "How are they going to do a suitable ending to this?" I mean, you couldn't have Steve McQueen win the bet--then his character wouldn't learn any lessons. But you couldn't have Peter Lorre win the bet. That would be too gruesome. So how to end it?
But they pulled the ending off perfectly. So I guess I'm willing to forgive the fact that none of the character motivations made sense. A quick search on Wikipedia reveals that this episode was actually based on a short story by none other than Roald Dahl.
As audiences get more and more
desensitized, these old films lose their power to shock modern audiences. And
yet… it’s still possible to admire this film artistically. In the concert hall scene, for example, the
way Hitchcock keeps the tension building is a masterpiece of cinematography.
Like most
older suspense films, this one’s a slow burner, but it’s still highly
watchable.
Just try
not to think about all the plot holes—for example, if the assassins are willing
to kill the first person who finds out their secret, then why do they then
resort to blackmailing for the second person?
As you know, this movie was in the
news a lot this past year when it was voted the best movie of all time by the sight and sound critic's poll, finally replacing Citizen
Kane after Citizen Kane’s 50 year run as the best movie of all time.
I was
discussing this news at work a few months back with my friend the - Cinephile and I made the mistake of mentioning I had never seen Vertigo before.
I consider
myself an Alfred Hitchcock fan.(In my
youth, long before I started this movie review project I have seen
and enjoyed Rear Window, Psycho, The Birds, Topaz, Dial M for Murder, Shadow of a Doubt, Suspicion, and
most of Lifeboat (I tuned into it on
TV after it was already halfway through) and countless hours of The Alfred Hitchcock Presents TV show
(when it was re-run on Nickelodeon in the 90s.)
But somehow
Vertigo had managed to escape my
attention.And now it is officially the
greatest movie of all time.
After I
made the mistake of admitting I had not seen this movie to my Cinephile friend,
he insisted for weeks I come over and watch it with him.Eventually we did manage to find a night when
we were both free, and both in the mood, and I came over and watched the movie.
The Review
Despite my Cinephile friend’s
enthusiastic descriptions of the art of Vertigo,
I went into the movie knowing nothing about the plot.And, as with all suspense movies that have a
few twists and turns along the way, that is the best way to view this
film.
So if you
haven’t seen the film yet, stop reading this review here.I’m going to spoil stuff.
******WARNING
SPOILERS*****
I suppose to fully appreciate a
movie like this, I would have to re-watch a few more times and let some of the various
elements sink in a bit more.But
nevertheless, for what they’re worth, here are my initial thoughts after the
first viewing:
I’ve got to admit, the 3 different
punches in this movie caught me unaware and shocked me pretty good.
1). I did
not expect Madeleine to actually go through with killing herself
halfway through the movie.Even when she
was running up the tower, I just assumed Jimmy Stewart would get to her in
time.The shock of seeing her body
actually falling off the tower—that got me pretty good.
2). The
subsequent revelation that her death had been completely faked—again, was not
expecting that.The movie caught me
unaware again.
3). The
final scene were Jimmy Stewart is dragging Madeline up onto the tower really
had me all in goosebumps.I wasn’t sure
whose side I was supposed to be on for one thing.Jimmy Stewart was the hero of the movie, but
it was clear that by this point he’d completely lost his mind, and he might do
something crazy.And even though
Madeline had done a bad thing, you can’t help but feel sympathy for her as she’s
being dragged, pleading up that tower.And because it’s a Hitchcock movie, you know there’s no guarantee of a
happy ending, and anything could happen up there.I was really on pins and needles watching
that scene.
Also, the
opening of the movie was very good (and I thought a surprisingly modern beginning
for a movie so old).
But those
big scenes aside, the middle of the movie just seemed to drag on.I got bored.I squirmed in my seat and repeatedly checked my watch.
Obviously
older movies run at a slower pace, and you have to accept that whenever you
watch an old movie.And Hitchcock in
particular likes to slowly add layer on layer of suspense, so especially with a
Hitchock movie you have to be ready for a slow pace.
And
generally I am.We (the cinephile and I)
re-watched Rear Window recently, and
even though the pace of that movie was really slow, I was able to get
completely absorbed in that movie.
But Rear Window has a straightforward murder
mystery that’s easy to get into.By contrast, I
had trouble getting interested in the whole spirit possession story-line in Vertigo. I’m not interested in spirit
possession stories much to begin with, but even if I was, the movie drags it out
far too long.Long after you already
know she’s possessed, the movie just
keeps giving more and more hints about possession, and there’s about 30 or 40
minutes where the plot doesn’t seem to go anywhere.It was like, okay, I get it already.She’s
possessed.Let’s move on with the story.
“But see,”
my Cinephile friend told me, “that’s the whole beauty of the movie.Once you finish watching the movie, you
realize that the whole possession storyline was just a very elaborate
ruse.One of my film professors said
once it has to be the most elaborate murder plan in cinema history.”
“Yes,” I
agreed.“And I can appreciate that now
once the movie is finished.But when it
was going on, it just seemed like a very weird and strange plot.”
I’d be
interested in other people’s viewing experiences, but it could well be this is a
film that’s more appreciated the second time viewing than the first.Now that I know the whole first act is just
an elaborate hoax, maybe now I can appreciate the intricacy with which it is
pulled off?
The film’s
history would seem to support this as well.Although it’s now considered to be the greatest film of all time, apparently
audiences didn’t really appreciate it when it was first released, and it is
only in retrospect that the film has grown to be so loved by critics.
The Ending
As I wrote above, the ending scene
of the movie is really gripping.
The
actually ending ending (the last 10 seconds of the movie) I found to be very
disappointing.
I wanted to
see what would happen between Jimmy Stewart and Madeleine/Judy.Had he grown crazy enough to throw her off
the tower, or did he appreciate that, despite all her faults, this was still
the girl he had fallen in love with?I
could really have seen it going either way at that point.
I was very
disappointed, therefore by the entrance of the nun.First of all, who was this nun and where did
she come from?The whole thing was very deus ex machina.
Secondly bringing in an outside
element really spoiled the tension between the two main characters.I wanted to see how things would have
resolved themselves with just the two of them.
Thirdly, I
didn’t find it believable that Madeline would run off the bell tower just
because she got startled.
In short, I
found the whole last 10 seconds very unsatisfying.
It may well
have been, however, that this was the only ending Hitchcock had open to
him.The movie code at the time (W) dictated that no movie could ever show someone getting away with
a crime.Under that code, it would have
been impossible for Jimmy Stewart to have forgiven Madeline and tried to move
on with their lives.It would have been
equally impossible for him to have thrown her off.(He probably wasn’t that far gone to begin
with, but even if he had been, this ending wouldn’t have solved the problem,
because then the film would have ended with him committing a crime and not
being punished.)
Still, I
can’t help but wonder if Hitchcock himself was entirely happy with this
ending.Had the movie code not existed,
do you think he would have ended the movie the same way?
Other Notes:
As we
watched the film, my cinephile friend pointed out all sorts of things to me
that I would probably never have realized on my own:
* the artistry behind some of the shots,
* the long sequences that would go on without any dialogue
at all (apparently Hitchcock believed film, if done right, could tell its story
with just visuals alone),
* The various color schemes and motifs,
* The symbolism,
* The various homages to Frankenstein
Some people
(cinephiles) really appreciate this kind of stuff.I’m not one of them, however.I don’t mind it, but neither does it
make-or-break a film for me.The story,
not the artistry, is what I’m more focused on.
But
obviously for people who love the artistry of film, there’s a lot for them to
enjoy in Vertigo.
Wikipedia
After I
finished writing the above sections, I just checked the Wikipedia entry for
this film and found some interesting additional information.
*According to
Wikipedia (W):
Reviews were mixed. Variety
said the film showed Hitchcock's "mastery", but was too long and slow
for "what is basically only a psychological murder mystery".[26] Similarly, the Los Angeles Times
admired the scenery, but found the plot "too long" and felt it "bogs
down" in "a maze of detail"; scholar Dan Aulier says that this review
"sounded the tone that most popular critics would take with the film".[27]
Now, dig,
those are the reviews of the film that came out at the time.That was the
reaction of people in the 1950s, when all movies were much slower paced to
begin with.
If people
conditioned to enjoy slower paced movies got bored with Vertigo, then it’s no wonder I did as well.
*According to
Wikipedia (W), Hitchcock went back and forth on whether to include
the letter writing scene, but finally in the end wanted to take it out.However the studio over-ruled him, and the
letter writing scene stayed in.
That means,
if this movie had been released the way Hitchcock wanted it to be, you wouldn’t
have found out Madeline and Judy were the same person until the very end.
It’s a pity
Hitchcock didn’t get his way, because I think that would have made the last 3rd
of the film much more interesting.If I
had been confused about who Judy really was (just like Jimmy Stewart’s
character was) I think that would have made me much more interested in the last
3rd of the film.
On the
other hand, I can understand the dilemma about needing to reveal Judy’s motivation
(which was why Hitchcock filmed the letter writing scene to begin with, before
he took it out.)
I mentioned in the previous post I was on a bit of a Peter Lorre kick recently (the great Austrian-Hungarian character actor--see previous post) watching "The Maltese Falcon" and re-watching "Casablanca" and "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea".
And so, to round out my Lorre-athon, I found this in my local video store. This was Lorre's first big break in English speaking movies. As a European Jew, he had just escaped to England from Nazi Germany the year before, and barely spoke any English. According to wikipedia, he learned most of his lines phonetically for this movie.
If true, that represents quite an achievement because even working under that handicap Lorre still manages to steal every scene he's in. He plays the villain in the best tradition of spy movie villains. He is charming, polite, pleasant, and would cut your heart out in a minute.
This film is the only Hitchcock film to be later remade by Hitchcock himself, so it is not to be confused with the more famous 1956 Jimmy Stewart version. This is the 1934 version when Hitchcock was still making British films.
After recently watching several old classic films that don't feel like old classic films, this by contrast is a film that's showing its age a bit. The footage is grainy, the sound is staticky, and the cuts between shots are very abrupt. It might be tempting to explain all this away simply because of the movie's age, but then why do films like "Casablanca" "The Big Sleep" "The Maltese Falcon" or "Citizen Kane" retain such a smooth modern feel? With another film we could blame it on the director, but this film was made by Alfred Hitchcock himself.
Someone more versed in film history is going to have to explain this to me. Part of it is probably no doubt due to the fact that all of the British films Hitchcock made have now slipped into the Public Domain and so there is little profit motive for any would-be restorer of the work. That would explain at least the graininess and the static, but not so much the rough cuts. (Or I don't know, would it? How much stuff happens when you restore a film?) Maybe some of this is because Hitchcock didn't have as much money to play with when he was working for the British film industry. Or it could be because Hitchcock himself later considered his early work that of a talented amateur.
(Or, could it be that this movie was 1934, and all the other examples I cited above are from the 40s. Does that much change in 5 years? I'm going to have to re-watch a few1930s films for comparison).
...Anywho, despite all the production flaws on this film, one can see the Hitchcock genius popping up in a lot of the scenes. There's a few scenes were the tension is masterfully drawn out. And a big bang shoot 'em up finale at the end. Frankly I was surprised that a film this old would have such an intense shooting scene at the end. (Based apparently on the real life Siege of Sidney street, again according to wikipedia.)
Finally, whilst were wasting time on youtube, a couple different Peter Lorre tribute videos here and here.
Link of the Day
More news on Swagman Family blogging. It looks like my brother and his wife are going to be having another baby. Although this news is found on neither of their respective blogs (I guess new parents are busy people) but documented on my little sister's blog instead.
