Sueurs froides

Alfred Hitchcock directed this mesmerizing film that stars Jimmy Stewart as John 'Scottie' Ferguson, a retired San Francisco policeman who is approached by old college friend Gavin Elster(played by Tom Helmore) who wants him to follow his wife Madeline(played by Kim Novak) who has been acting strangely. Scottie does follow her, and becomes obsessed by her beauty and behavior, eventually falling in love with her, with devastating consequences. Though that is only the start of the mystery... Barbara Bel Geddes costars as Scottie's friend Midge, still in love with him, despite jilting him years before. Superbly directed and acted film has an ingenious story and stunning imagery, making this an unforgettable romantic mystery, with a stunning ending...though if you have the DVD, watch the extra feature on the lost extended ending, which is fascinating, and changes the tone of the film as a result!

I get a bit tongue-tied talking about Hitchcock's greatest movies because they are just so remarkable, so astonishing, so entertaining, so multi-levelled, that it's very difficult to put into words what makes them great. Hitchcock made some of the greatest movies ever made, and 'Vertigo', though by no means his most accessible film, is quite possibly his crowning achievement. It is without any doubt a masterpiece, and I cannot fault it in any way. Every time I watch it I am knocked out, and every time I see something new, some nuance or moment that I appreciate more than I did the previous viewing. Jimmy Stewart, one of the most popular movie star in Hollywood history, gives a remarkable performance throughout, one of the best in his career. Stewart had worked with Hitchcock before, and had always been superb, especially in the much copied suspense classic 'Rear Window' a few years prior to this, but he plays against type in 'Vertigo' and is jaw-droppingly good. It's difficult to remember now that 'Vertigo' is regarded as a movie milestone, that it received many bad reviews when it was originally released, and was a relative failure for Hitchcock. A lot of this had to do with Stewart's intense performance I think, and also the difficult subject matter. 'Vertigo' is essentially a tale of sexual obsession, something most people were probably not expecting at the time! Almost as good as Stewart is Kim Novak ('The Man With The Golden Arm') in a role that she will always be remembered for. 'Vertigo' is a virtuoso piece from Hitchcock, and a movie that will no doubt continue to inspire other film makers over the years to come. However the most important thing about it is that it is still wonderful viewing, and a movie experience that you will never forget. In my mind it is one of the three of four greatest American movies. Simply astonishing.

Starting in 1958, Alfred Hitchcock directed a remarkable sequence of films in a row, each of them a classic; Vertigo (1958), North by Northwest (1959), Psycho (1960) and The Birds (1963). Never has a director made four such genuinely great movies in such a short space of time, either before or since.

The pick of this high standard bunch is undoubtedly Vertigo. From the opening titles, with their circling spiral imagery, to the dramatic final scene this is a movie that takes you to a different time and place. Specifically, to a San Francisco of the past; full of deserted parks, discrete rooming houses, oddly menacing art galleries and florists where the customers enter and exit through the back door. Through this landscape wanders Jimmy Stewart, towering in the lead roll as a former detective recently retired after a bungled arrest leaves him with chronic vertigo. Plot machinations lead him to the alluring Kim Novak (one of Hitchcock's famous "blondes"), the young wife of a friend who has started behaving rather oddly.

"To reveal more," as Leonard Maltin wrote, "would be unthinkable."

While the performances of Novak and Stewart are memorable, the movie is really set apart by the intelligent script and the stylistic touches provided by the director. Hitchcock is in his very best form creating hypnotic scenes and a general sense of unease and dread in even the most banal of situations. He is aided in this by the wonderful score of Bernard Herrman. A particular favourite of mine is the extended (largely silent) segment where Stewart follows Novak for the first time. Nothing much happens, but the atmosphere of these scenes is enough to keep you on the edge of your seat!

One of the all-time greats. They definitely don't make them like this anymore.

Personal Rating: 7/10

To cut to the chase, this movie didn't live up to my expectations. Coming off the back of 'Dial M for Murder' which I adored, I was excited to watch what critics argue to be the best film of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo', and I'm left feeling disappointed.

Why? Why am I not madly in love with the thing the whole world has touted as a masterpiece? The answer lies in the movie's name and one of its many motifs. Vertigo and spirals. This movie gives the viewer a sense of vertigo, packing many many spirals into its 2hr+ runtime so that by the end... are you truly any further than you were at the beginning? Example: Scottie chases "Madeline" around town following her, he then receives a piece of information, deepening the plot, and it starts up the next day, following her around. She falls, gets rescued (one of the most talked-about scenes: sexual tension, desire, lust, giving in, disillusionment, the whole shebang) and the following happens again the next day, with yet another piece of information to deepen the plot. Scottie becomes infatuated with "Madeline" and we think little of it, just like his going to Ernies and driving down a row of trees but when all of that happens exactly again later in the film more information has been revealed, the stakes are higher. This whole film is a spiral tightening in on itself. I mean the action the movie ends on is the exact action that occurred during the "climax" (middle) of the film. Talk about running in circles.

The fun thing about circles, is they're great to talk about, just read some of the reviews for this film, essays they really are. People project themselves onto this movie, some apply 21st-century values on this 1958 film, others attempt to see things from Hitchcock's perspective, everything. I'm not saying that's wrong, everyone's entitled to share how they interpret something! But I haven't found someone that just asks, were you satisfied at the end?

Perhaps I'm daft, not a true cinema buff, but for a movie to become a personal favourite for me I have to love the story, not just question it.

To conclude though, this film in all its other ways is spectacular. The score, beautiful. There's a point where 20 minutes pass with only a few words of dialogue, all you have is the score and it's magnificent. James Stewart and Kim Novak were incredible in their performances, and the cinematography, well, almost hurts how beautiful it is. Jaws eat your heart out, Hitchcock perfected the dolly zoom. And the use of colours (Green & Red), genius.

There's no doubt in my mind I will watch this movie again. There are plenty of things done very well, it just is not an enjoyable movie as a whole for myself. Whether you agree or disagree, thanks for reading my review.

One is a wanderer; Two together are always going somewhere.

It's rather strange that this film was a box office flop, as it's one of Alfred Hitchcock's better movies. The only problem with "Vertigo" is that in order to really enjoy it, you need to turn off your brain and just accept the movie. If you think the plot out TOO MUCH, you'll find yourself asking too many questions and not just enjoying the film...like my oldest daughter did.

The film is the story of a somewhat creepy ex-cop (James Stewart). When the film begins, he's emotionally scarred in an accident-an accident that leaves him with a HUGE case of psychologically-based vertigo. He decides to quit the job and is soon approached by an old friend--who wants to hire him to follow his emotionally disturbed wife. What happens next is very weird--and later becomes really creepy. I could say A LOT more but think it's best you just see the film--it has quite a few twists and turns that are bound to catch you by surprise.

Overall, a wonderfully original film. The only deficit, for some, is that although Stewart was a wonderful actor, he was too old for this role. Still, I could look past this and enjoyed it immensely.