Falling...

...falling, falling.

Here we go, next up on the ramblings of this author about the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition).

This is another film in the top 10.  This is the third of those 10 I've watched so far this year.

Film 23

23. "Vertigo" (AFI Rank #9)
This film is the fifth film I've watched in a row by directors that have more than one film on the list. I've been running through a hell of a streak, of late, with directors who just knew what they were doing.

I can't really get into the plot on this one, because if you haven't seen the film...there's just too much of the story that can be given away by even subtle discussions about what happens.  No, "Vertigo" relies on its ability to twist us around and dump us in a place we weren't expecting.  Kinda like we just fell off a roof or something.

Set in San Francisco, the film uses its location to its great advantage often.  Whether the unique architecture of the city, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the hills that it is built upon, you can feel 'Frisco in the exterior shots.  We even get to see some of the coastline of Northern California.  The region is amongst my favorite places I've ever visited, and getting a brief tour through it was great.  There is also a scene shot in (what I believe is) Muir Woods.  Hmmph.  I'm wrong.  Loves me the internet.  Anyway, the setting of the film is an important piece of the action.  Know what's great about San Francisco?  You can't capture on film the grade of the hills.  You can't in this film, either, but it remains a beautiful place to shoot a film.

Alfred Hitchcock takes us on a devious trip into a run of the mill, if a little nutty, bit of sleuthing by "Scottie" Ferguson (Jimmy Stewart).  His pace in the film is almost painfully slow at times, especially in the myriad scenes shot with Stewart behind the wheel of his automobile, tailing Madeleine Ester (Kim Novak).  I watched this film 30 years ago, when I was a far-too-serious teenager, trying to watch the classics, despite not having enough experience to deal with a great deal of what was presented.  As such, I felt as if I was watching it for the first time, and I was...getting bored...with the pace.  Then, I got into it after a bit.  I realized that I wasn't being led by someone who didn't know what else to do, but by someone who had planned to make me sit uncomfortably, ready to yell, "GET ON WITH IT, ALREADY" at the screen.  That, my friends, is genius.  Make no mistake about it.  Sir Alfred was a genius.  This is considered his greatest film.  I have a soft spot in my heart for "Psycho," but I can understand the praise on this one.  The twist is so eloquently executed, so...unexpected...that we are truly shocked when it comes.  Suddenly, everything comes into focus.  Everything that had evaded our vision is crystal clear.  It takes a lot to convince me that I missed the twist before it came.  Even the second time through, I could not remember that this twist was what it is.  It's great.

Scenes of great value, from a technical and aesthetic aspect, include the shots where Stewart shows the symptoms of his illness (vertigo, but really acrophobia).  Shot with a quick zoom, the effect, in 2015, may seem a little rudimentary.  I'm thinking of it as a viewer in 1958.  I'd be thrilled.  It's shocking, effective, and bloody well gorgeous.  Also to be noted should be the animated sequence that appears toward the beginning of Act II of this film.  Psychedelic in nature, it, again, seems awfully cheesy compared to the wonders we can now experience.  I'll give it a pass, because it is wildly experimental for the time.  Disney did a similar thing with the "Pink Elephants" sequence in "Dumbo."  That was an animated film.  This is a thriller, and smack in the middle of it, we get an animated nightmare.  It's bold.  Balls, gentlemen, that's what it takes.

Since I can't tell much about the story, I'm probably going to cut this somewhat short.  Let's talk acting.  Jimmy Stewart is very good, if not great, as usual.  I just talked about his skill in my piece on "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."  His "Scottie" is spot on, if befuddled, most of the time.  Also of note, perhaps for the wrong reasons, is Kim Novak.  She's a stiff, mostly, through the film, and while Stewart does his best to connect, I never feel as if she does.  She seems concerned with looking pretty more than she does with being a human being.  Maybe that's the choice the role demanded.  I don't know.  I know she didn't heat up the screen in the romance.

No, the actor to watch in this is the delightful Barbara Bel Geddes as Midge.  Wonderfully natural, Midge is free to roam and find her intelligence and voice in her scenes because she's not tied down with carrying a love story.  She's a terrific character, a real broad, in the most positive sense.  Bel Geddes is so great, I wish she had been featured in the film more.  I get why she wasn't, but I found myself wishing Midge could snare Scottie.

Beyond that, "Vertigo" is a terrific film.  I can't say too much more than that.  If you haven't seen it, do so.  If you have...why don't you watch it again?  I think I've given this film short shrift.  I think you need to watch it, then maybe we can discuss it sometime.  I don't feel like I can here.  Sorry.

OK.  Ebert gives away A LOT in his essay.  I'm not as smart as he is.  Here's his take.