Vertigo

What Tristan said:

Ok, we watched Vertigo last night. It’s from 1958 and first thing I noticed was the amount of dialogue! It really doesn’t rely on special effects like modern movies do. That said, I kinda feel that the movie really handholds the audience through key story elements with the camera work. It has a great twist at the end, and it’s really cringe-y in places in modern #metoo context. Unsatisfying ending.

Mike’s verdict:

I went into Vertigo telling myself that I needed to watch the film bearing in mind the perspective of someone living in 1958.  There have been drastic changes in movie technology, script writing and even visual story-telling since Alfred Hitchcock imagined the film and I didn’t think it would be fair to judge it from the perspective of 61 years (!) in the future.  But by the time I reached the end I had realized that I can’t compensate for time passing – 2019 is the perspective that I have so that is how it will be judged.

Thankfully, I think that the basis of the film has stood up to the march of time fairly well. Or, perhaps more fairly, I don’t think modern society has actually moved on as much as we’d like to believe.  There are indeed some awkward aspects of the film that don’t necessarily fit well with contemporary ideas, but I’m not convinced they would actually be absent if the film had been made more recently. I also noticed some of the hand-holding camera work, but I was able to forgive it. I think if the whole thing was re-shot today many of the clues would be just as direct, albeit perhaps a little more subtle.

I found the story itself compelling. I was afraid it was going to move slowly compared to modern movies but the pace was actually fine.  The introduction of key characters was succinct and the introduction of the mystery happened quickly. I really dislike mysteries that don’t give you all of the relevant details (it’s too easy to trick the audience when they don’t have all the information) but in this case when it was all over I felt as if my failure to guess what was happening was in fact my own failure – there is just enough detail to predict what’s going on if you pay attention and make some thoughtful speculations.

That said, I almost called out the twist very early on – a few key bits of dialogue seemed suspiciously specific and it got me thinking on the right track.  But ultimately I didn’t get it quite right so the film does get points for fooling me. Even so, it turned out that I imagined a far more interesting resolution than what actually developed, so I agree with Tristan’s assessment that the final outcome is unsatisfying. Maybe it is my 2019 perspective, but I expect movie character motivations to be more complex.

I also found the characters compelling.  They all fit well with the atmosphere of the film and at one point I found myself envious of the dapper late-50s social scene.

My only substantive complaint of this film is that there is an abrupt shift about midway through that feels like a whole section has gone missing. The reasoning for the shift itself is clear and ultimately justified, as it lines up with story elements surrounding psychological changes in James Stewart‘s character. But the speed and intensity of the shift doesn’t work. There needs to be more connective tissue to show the development of the character from one phase to the next.  Having gotten to know ‘Scottie’, I found myself in disbelief that he could change so drastically.  Moreover, at the same time that this shift happens Barbara Bel Geddes‘ character outright disappears. In the first half of the film she is built up as a significant and core character, only to be thrown away without even mention later on. Again, her absence can be explained reasonably within the story arch, but there’s no effort at all to do so. Perhaps there are bridging scenes that didn’t make the final edit.

Over all, I was entertained. The mystery left me a surprise and I enjoyed Hitchcock’s honest attempt to use special effects at a time when film technology was fairly primitive. I just wish that more effort had been made to link the two parts of the story.

7.5/10

The History Boys

What Sarah said:

History boys is the film adaptation of the play of the same name, set in the early 80s following a group of boys attempting to get into Oxbridge. I think it’s got plenty of wit, dry humour and a pretty good soundtrack. There are a few stand out performances in the cast and with the exception of a few moments that definitely feel like they have come straight from the theater, the adaptation to film has been done fairly well.

Mike’s verdict:

At its core, this story is a commentary on education – specifically, the methods used to teach the classic arts: history, literature, and philosophy.  It presents a sort of trichotomy that juxtaposes classical general studies against traditional history as narrative and modern speculative history; giving the viewer a literal representation for each in the form of three very different teachers. But it’s an unusual setup. While most stories of this sort start with a base of students who are reluctant at best (if not totally obstinate), the titular history boys are engaged, intelligent and outright excited about their studies.  This is not the school movie trope about teachers struggling to get through to students. Moreover, the traditional teaching methods embodied by Mrs. Lintott and Hector appear to have been quite effective – they have elevated eight boys to the top of the class after all.  Yet, despite this, the school’s headmaster parachutes in the younger Irwin to work with the boys when he recognizes (or imagines) a disconnect between how his school teaches and the expectations of Oxbridge entrance examiners.  This makes the main conflict of story more about how the teachers interact with each other than how they interact with the students.

It’s an interesting shift on the classic school boy story.  Unfortunately, there are some aspects of the film that just don’t work well.

First, in order to bolster drama beyond just teachers disagreeing, an out-of-place sub-narrative is introduced that involves too many of the characters given how small the cast is.  It may be that some of the connective tissue holding this sub-narrative together was lost due to editing, or maybe it wasn’t meant to be a sub-narrative at all. But either way, it doesn’t fit well with the rest of the film.

I also found Rudge‘s character confounding. At the beginning of the film there is no indication that he is any less intelligent than his classmates; nor is he portrayed as any less hopeful of being accepted to one of the elite schools. Yet as the boys prepare for entrance interviews, his lack of knowledge, obvious contempt for the Oxbridge elite, and assumption that he could get by on sports alone, are revealed so suddenly that it is hard to reconcile his inclusion in the group at all.  The boy who hopes to play golf rather than answer interview questions somehow managed to earn one of the highest grades in his school’s history?  Perhaps there is something lost in translation from play to film, but even the final outcome of his own story is very disappointing.

Finally, the soundtrack is interesting, but wasn’t used as well as it could have been. There is a disconnect between the music used for scenes inside the school, which admittedly seems appropriate for a boy’s grammar school, and the music used for scenes outside the school, which includes New Order, The Smiths, The Clash, Echo & The Bunnymen, and The Cure. I enjoyed all of the music, but there wasn’t enough of a bridge between the two scene types.

This film comes across as very obviously adapted from the stage. Everything from the dialog delivery, scene structure and story progression feel like theatre. And it doesn’t quite work.  Stage productions are disjointed between scenes, but that is a necessary consequence of how theatre stages work – it’s not a feature.  Films have the opportunity to smooth stories out, to make them flow. The History Boys just doesn’t flow well.

Nevertheless, the film is intellectually interesting and entertaining.  The teaching scenes are such a flurry of quotes and dry, wit interpretations that they stand out above the film’s limitations, and the out of school music was fun even if it did seem under-utilized.

7/10