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.
mike reviews movies suggested by friends 