How come Vertigo replaced this as #1 on the Sight & Sound poll?
-
Beau_Buffet — 9 years ago(December 18, 2016 12:56 PM)
It's more complicated than that.
Here's something I wrote on the Vertigo board.
SPOILERS FOR VERTIGO****************
(English is not my native language, so I'll keep it simple.)
The nun did not "spook" Madeleine.
My understanding is: when Madeleine saw the nun she experienced two things.
First, the guilt of being accessory to a murder.
Second (and that not so much on the nun, but on the scene that just preceded it, and all her affair with Scottie), she realized that whatever she would do, she would never be loved for who she really was. And she couldn't live with that thought.
So she jumped to her death. -
frantruff — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 01:11 PM)
I can't believe that Jimmy Stewart said supposedly this was his favorite film.
I thought he said "It's a Wonderful Life" was his favourite film where he acted.
BTW, AFI has only put out two such lists, so I don't think it's accurate to say they put them out every ten years. -
thomas-begen-194-976045 — 10 years ago(May 05, 2015 02:31 PM)
It's encouraging you actually criticize "Vertigo" but I really hope you're not dumping on "It's a Wonderful Life." It's the first classic film I watched as an adult and it's easily among Stewart's best films.
I don't know how people can dismiss it as simply a "feel-good film" when it deals with the very serious existential issue of nihilism in some fasion, and suicidality.
It's too bad there are not more American films like it; though, European filmmakers probably do existentialism better.
I guess America never really caught on given we didn't experience WWII and the Holocaust in the way Europe did? -
thefly50 — 10 years ago(May 29, 2015 04:09 AM)
I'm certainly not criticising Frank Capra's masterpiece. The message is ultimately feel-good, but there are also some rather dark undertones to it. There's obviously a place for this kind of movie when done right (and It's a Wonderful Life is about as right as they come).
-
thomas-begen-194-976045 — 10 years ago(May 05, 2015 02:37 PM)
I agree "Vertigo" isn't "as important and innovative" as "Citizen Kane." Then again, just how important and influential has "Citizen Kane" been? As least I can say there are a few people who, regrettably, tried to pawn off Hitchcock's style as their own. But Welles? Well, Welles' style is far less distinct and less desirable than Hitch's.
In any case, I don't care for either film. There are easily several films which are more influential and important than both of these examples and which Welles or Hitchcock had no part of. If I named Hitch's more important film I would have to reluctantly say "Psycho." I believe it's also his most overrated film, but it's the film that Hitch and the entire cast is chiefly remembered by.
Hitch easily has five films better than "Psycho." But as far as film is concerned, there is before "Psycho" and after "Psycho," in the same way as the movie "Halloween" revolutionized horror films. -
Citizen41 — 10 years ago(July 12, 2015 04:27 PM)
I have only watched the first hour of Vertigo and I had decided to stop watching it right when Kim novak is seemingly possessed by some spirit - it seemed like a cheap entertainment trick- .
Something which I find much more disturbing is the fact that Vertigo ranks as number one and Welles's "The Trial" is nowhere to be found. Apart from Hitchcock's alternating use of shallow/deep focus and the beautiful take of Stewart's car following Novak's car before she jumps into the sea there is barely anything worth remembering in the first hour.
On the other hand "The Trial" starts rather quickly with low-angle, slight canted framing -shot of the door- and then proceeds with some wonderful lighting and an indelible long take. The trial does not have the memorable shots that citizen kane has but its storytelling is much more multi-layered than that of citizen kane.
Which movie do you prefer, "The Trial" or "vertigo" and why? -
thefly50 — 10 years ago(July 12, 2015 11:42 PM)
I like both films quite a bit. My complaints about Vertigo have to do with an overall lack of polish, the odd way characters move in and out of the plot, and the ending. Overall though, I think its successes far outweigh its failures, and I could easily see it as top 100, top 50 material even (not even close to No. 1 though). It really grew on me since, and while I'm still convinced it's flawed, I might even agree that it's Hitchcock's best.
As for The Trial, that film is great. I'm not sure what else I can say. Greatness in spades. I don't know why it didn't crack the top 100 (there are films in it that I cannot stand - see Blade Runner), but it isn't exactly the most well-known film out there. I do not feel comfortable comparing Vertigo and The Trial, the latter shows more polish obviously, but I don't think they have enough common ground to compare them on. -
thefly50 — 10 years ago(July 13, 2015 10:18 AM)
Well, you don't need me to explain to you why Vertigo is great - a whopping 98% of RT critics can do that
But if my opinion interests you so much, then fine. James Stewart's performance is essentially career-best. The way the film utilises subjectivity (it's never exactly in the head of any of the characters, but you can definitely see their way of perceiving the world) is nearly unmatched. The cinematography is stunning, and some of the best use of colour in the history of film. And overall, I think it strikes a nearly-perfect balance between Hitchcock's earlier, simple thrillers and his later, formally aware films (Psycho never stroke a chord with me precisely because its formal tricks are obvious and distracting). The pacing is great, and even the driving scenes don't bore me.
Yes, it ain't flawless, and it sure as hell ain't Citizen Kane, but I'm convinced of its greatness nonetheless. -
Citizen41 — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 02:00 PM)
I doubt that any movie can match Citizen Kane. Mainly because of the contract Welles got and his exceptional directing skills. I watched "Touch of evil" recently and a little bit of "The lady from Shanghai" and I was rather disappointed. Touch of evil doesn't even come close to CK but then again I might watch it again since I might have missed some 'spectacular' shots or subtext within the movie.
I generally use movies like "Psycho" when I feel like taking a break from analysing editing, photography and subtext.
Seeing that you probably know much more than I do about movies; which Tarkovsky do you suggest? I tried watching "Solaris" but at times it felt like unnecessary material was added. (If you want specific examples, you could view my post on the Solaris board) -
thefly50 — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 10:49 PM)
Well, if you want to expand your horizons on cinema with my help, I'd be happy, but know that I have the reputation of a professional contrarian among people who know me
But in case of Tarkovsky, I am not. I absolutely adore the man and his films. Though I disagree that "pointless things were added" to Solaris (did you approach it with the book in mind?), I do think it's one of his weaker efforts. Tarkovsky's most accessible is Ivan's Childhood, though I'd also argue it's his worst (poorly integrated subplots, uneven pacing, etc.), and that it barely feels like a Tarkovsky film (thus not a good entry point). My favourite is Mirror, but if anything it's the most difficult of the bunch. Well, to ease yourself in, why not watch Andrei Rublev? It's one of the undisputed great achievements in cinema, and it actually has some semblance of a plot. Do not do my mistake and start with Stalker; I was bored out of my mind (nowadays it's one of my absolute favourites, so whaddaya know?). At worst, Tarkovsky may simply not be for you, but I hope it won't be the case. I could give many practical tips to watching the films, but I'll limit myself to one - don't resist the pacing; let it draw you in. -
Citizen41 — 10 years ago(July 15, 2015 11:58 AM)
Yes, I would gladly accept your help.
No, I didn't read the book. The opening shots of Solaris seem unnecessary, such as : Kris washing his hands, Kris walking along the woods, horse galloping. Even though these were only a few seconds long, when they are added together in one viewing it becomes cumbersome to watch. I am sure that there are other shots which seem out of place but then again I might have not understood Tarkovsky's intentions. (The famous driving scene could have easily been reduced)
As regards to what I am looking for; I am searching for another CK. By another CK I mean the same intensity that, that movie has. Every scene is either filled with wonderful photography or character study or social commentary or emphasis of particular character traits or relationship between characters.
When it comes to pacing; I do not mind a slow paced plot as long as the viewer is provided with other material to analyse - Photography, themes, character study, social commentary-.
I'll watch "Andrei Rublev" sometime and I'll ask you what you think about certain shots or scenes. -
thefly50 — 10 years ago(July 15, 2015 12:57 PM)
You again commit the high critical fallacy of thinking that form should be in the service of content (i.e. narrative, characters or themes). This is an incredibly close-minded critical approach that essentially dictates how a work should be made, without much rhyme or reason for it to exist. Why can't it be the other way around, why can't content be in service of form (like Last Year at Marienbad, and Jeanne Dielman)? Why can't there be films that seamlessly integrate both, to the point where they're indistinguishable (as in Suspiria)? I've elaborated upon this on my response to your Solaris post, so I don't want to repeat myself too much, so forgive me if I come off as condescending here.
Not every film has as tight a narrative or as deep characterisation as Citizen Kane. Not every film needs to be Citizen Kane, or even be influenced by it in any way. It can work in an entirely different manner, and be just as effective (I am not shortchanging CK; hell, if I need to single out my favourite film, I typically do so for Kane).
Finally, I'd highly recommend you to read the following essay, by Susan Sontag. It almost singlehandedly shaped my entire current understanding of film. It is long, and some of it is quite blunt, but it is one of the greatest and most satisfying essays on art I've ever had the pleasure of reading.
http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/sontag-againstinterpretation.html -
thefly50 — 10 years ago(August 03, 2015 09:34 PM)
I suppose this is blasphemy, but I don't like Psycho at all. For one, I find its formal tricks (the perspective shift, for example) to be very obvious and visible, so I don't really feel any suspense. The ending is just awful (I've seen people defending it as emulating the style of trashy exploitation pics, but the difference being that trashy exploitation pics aren't typically considered to be some of the best films of all time), the acting isn't very good even for the time (remember, we already had Marlon Brando by then, not to mention some more traditional actors like, among others, James Stewart), and it all reeks of being just so damn self-consciously clever. Cluzot's Les Diaboliques is much better and more suspenseful, as is Powell's Peeping Tom from the same year. Psycho is influential, sure, but it hasn't aged well in the slightest.
Vertigo is Hitch's best. Rear Window is a close second.