A Whirlpool? Of Terror? And Tension? Vertigo?

Vertigo (1958), starring Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak, is one busy film. Stewart's Scottie is a San Fransisco detective who retires after his newly discovered fear of heights manifests itself at a very inopportune moment and gets a beat cop killed. A few weeks later, old friend Elster asks Scottie to shadow his (Elster's) wife, and that's where things get interesting. Madeleine (Kim Novak) appears to be either posessed by a haunted spirit, or mentally unstable, and Elster needs someone skilled and discreet to help him get to the bottom of things. This, of course, is where things go a little awry.

Vertigo is considered by many to be the penultimate Hitchcock film. People love this movie. People think this is one of the greatest thrillers ever.

I am not "people". I found Vertigo to be overstuffed and often redundant - was it really necessary to spend around fourty-five minutes on watching Scottie follow Madeleine and listening to her spout ramble about a past life? Incidentally, Vertigo is notable for containing the single worst tailing job in the history of respectable film. How this guy ever made detective remains a mystery. Of course, there's the requisite not-founded-on-anything madly falling in love, also within the first hour, a device I've never held any empathy for. Things do start to get more interesting in the second half of the film, but it remains that Vertigo is two hours and eight minutes long, and I felt every minute of it. I've seen much longer films whose passage of time went unnoticed, because they were much tighter films. A lot of the compliments directed toward Vertigo revolve around the many elements and genres contained within. They're good elements - it's a detective story, an affair story, a thriller (kind of), and its legitimately creepy second half revolves around what could be construed as necrophilia on Scottie's part. There are writers and directors who can make that work; I'm going to brave the storm here and say bluntly that Hitchcock and co. were not a part of that club. In these hands, it was just too many stories, in competition instead of compliment. "Overstuffed" is definitely the word of the day here.

Perhaps the big allure of a Hitchcock film is the acting. He exhibited great care in casting, and the result was master performances, often fuelled by some pretty great dialogue. This is one area in which I doubt I can ever level negative criticism at a Hitchcock production.

Having now seen three Hitchcock films - Psycho, North by Northwest, and Vertigo - I can only say, what's the big deal. Okay, Psycho got my attention, and has a lot to recommend itself as a thriller and character piece. As for the other two, I'm getting the impression that most people love these films not because they're great films, but because they're important films, ergo we're supposed to love them. By "important", I mean in terms of influence of future filmmakers, and technical development (that wierd shot of zooming in while pulling the camera back was invented for Vertigo). Take Citizen Kane - now, that's one heck of a boring film. Being vastly influtential and very important to the development of moviemaking doesn't make it any less boring. But people love it (or claim to); it regularly tops "Best Movies of All Time" lists. If you want film cred, you don't say that you hate Citizen Kane, just like you don't say that you hate things like Vertigo, or Star Wars, or King Kong, or Casablanca, or John Wayne (or, if you're Canadian, The Tragically Hip). Incidentally, I do not hate any of the things listed above after Vertigo. If I want that kind of cred, I'll just brag about how the vintage silver bracelet worn by Kim Novak during and after the creepy shopping scene is either identical or very, very similar to one I inherited from Grandma Elly ("Oh yeah? I may hate Vertigo, but do you have a prop from it?" Or something like that).

Let me make one thing clear: I love classic film. I was steeped in it from a very young age, and it stayed with me. If you'd like, I can spout off a list of favourites to "prove" it. I also enjoy a good thriller. I also don't find Vertigo to be good or thrilling. I cannot express how bored I was yesterday. I think Vertigo is an important film; I don't think that that makes it a good film. If we're going to compare in the same era, I can think of at least three classic Twilight Zone episodes off the top of my head that kick Vertigo from here to Brazil for both quality and, um, thrilling-ness (?). The last fifteen minutes of the film were alright, the twist ending appropriately morbid, the acting was solid, but overall it was about fourty-five minutes too long, and kind of sloppy. It didn't know how to stop acts, how to transition before one of its many acts pulled an Energizer Bunny stunt. That could be one of the reasons I found it so dull and sloppy - poor or no definition between acts, which is an essential quality for the flow of any story.

I'll say it because I can: I got more enjoyment out of watching that other vastly influential classic, Plan 9 from Outer Space. Watch Vertigo at your own peril. Now excuse me while I find a good place to hide from the Hitchcock fans.