I've mixed feeling with this film, it has some elements/ moments that I liked better than the other Hitchcock movies or even all the movies I've watched, but I don´t really liked how the female characters are shown in this one, and yes, I don't think Hitchcock is very good when portraying female characters in most of his movies (and when he does it right, it's probably by "accident"), but I think in this one it's done the worst (or maybe I just noticed it more in this one).
[SPOILERS]
The actions of the female characters have mostly the only propose of being accepted by Scottie.
Madeleine wants Scottie to protect her, and lets him make the decisions for a while, I think it maybe justifiable for her, since (in theory) she is worried about her possible madness and her previous attempt of suicide, event that she doesn´t remember.
Midge is clearly in love, but he uses her, he goes to her house whenever he wants for her to listen to what he´s thinking at the time, if she invites him for dinner he accepts and then denies, he uses her to help him find that old librarian, but when she ask him about what he’s doing he says nothing, she makes a painting for him, and yes the painting maybe somewhat inappropriate (since he’s worried about Madeleine), but he is very rude and leaves her, then she blames herself, this behavior is believable in some aspects, but there’s no intention by the director to say that it is wrong, I would like to see how she left Scottie, but probably since in the end he lost Madeleine and Judy, he would go back to Midge and she probably would accept it, since the film put no effort on showing that her life not depends on Scottie.
The worst for me is Judy, she lets him do everything he wants with her, and after all he forces her to go where Madeleine died, and the way he does this is rude, yes I know that the character feels betrayed, but you can see later that he still loves her, so I don´t think there´s any justification for how he treats Judy.
Also, I didn’t like the ending, not for what happens, but for how it happens, I think he “deserves” that, but here she is also treated like an item, a dramatic element (to make Scottie suffer) but not as a character/ person. I think it would be better if he died, I mean he has acrophobia, so I think he would be more likely to feel dizzy and fall. I think this would develop further Judy's character. But it doesn’t matter, the movie is what it is.
I think its worth watching, but I’m sorry to say that it isn’t on my favorites.
Criminally inept and mentally unstable detective stalks a woman to her death twice! all over a beautifully photographed and wonderfully scored San Francisco.
One of those strange thrillers filled with "errors" made on purpose for artistic effect. What a trip. It hinges on a twist that I'm not sure I like, but the exploration of themes and leitmotifs goes a long way with me, and Vertigo has that in spades and it may very well be Hitchcock's artistic peak. If you don't know it, the movie is initially about a former cop who is asked to trail a man's wife whom he believes is possessed by the ghost of a long-dead woman. There's a bold fantastical element in this, and time travel becomes a theme even through the twists and the turns. Jimmy Stewart's character is a man who tries to travel back in time himself, by the end, and is doomed to relive his traumas. Spirals and concentric shapes act as a recurring motif that pile up on rewatching, and these are connected, perhaps, to the sense of falling back through time (prefiguring the time vortex of Doctor Who). Kim Novak is also fascinating as two triple women (so six), an effect also present in Stewart's gal pal Midge (who sadly disappears from the film, though that's another "error" that has artistic coherence). It's a bizarre notion that ties into Hitchcock's interest in the complexities of relationships. The women in the film are at once themselves, what they present as their identities, and what a man would make of them. Vertigo is definitely one of those films that will deepen every time you watch it.
This was my first Hitchcock movie. So, although I thought this movie was good, I was honestly a bit disappointed. First of all, the movie to me seemed divided between two parts. The first part
before the "death" of "Madeleine"
is a pretty standard though entertaining mystery with a twist at the end and the second part, the rest of the movie, is the real "meat" of the movie. Although the first part is basically just your standard mystery film, the second part deals with a lot more complex themes and issues
such as how Scottie copes with the death of "Madeleine" by molding Judy into her perfect image and how Judy accepts this because of her fierce love for Scottie
. I like how the movie explores these themes but the issue is that by that point, the audience is in on all of the mystery and I did not feel nearly as compelled to continue watching the movie. I think that this greatly decreased the film's effect on me. Another issue that I have with this movie is that a character, and even an entire subplot of the movie seems to be abandoned after the first part.
Midge, Scottie's friend is never seen again after Scottie and Judy meet up and her characther is abandoned even though it is heavily implied earlier that Midge loves Scottie. I think that the film missed a golden opportunity by not exploring how Midge would have reacted to Scottie's obsession with Judy
. Lastly, there is the ending. I actually liked the ending.
After Scottie realizes who Judy is, Judy might as well have been dead to him because he never loved Judy at all, only "Madeleine". By killing off Judy, Hitchcock shows the audience how Scottie felt inside even before she fell
Saw this a second time (on the big screen) and it dropped almost fifty spots on my "favorites" list -- granted, there are no established unified criteria for determining the rankings of said list. Initially, I was so caught up in the cinematography, the music, the style, the twist (and ending), and Jimmy Stewart's unsettling possessiveness, objectification, ill-treatment, etc. of Judy/Madeleine (as a self-reflexive mirror of Hitchcock's own well-documented behavior toward women/actresses) that I overlooked some of the film's deficiencies. Maybe this was only meant to be seen once?
Really nothing special, I was expecting more, so many movies better than this and with better twists, the plan was good but she wearing the necklace at the end is just stupid, Chinatown is a better movie than this
3.5/5
You've really got to dig deep into Hitchcock's way of dealing with his use of specific shots and cinematography, being a film studies student, this is an excellent film to study, because it allows you to go further and arrive to your own conclusions, even if there are many. Saw this for the first film and I have to admit it had me completely confused but when you go back and watch specific scenes again in depth you can see how clever Alfred Hitchock was with him being a director and adapting the film to his own unique style for spectators.
I don't really now how to explain, but for me this is the best movie ever made. My favorite, it's really awesome. The music, the acting, the story, the twist, everything was so great to me.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 33
Trossen
Måske bedste første og anden akt i nogen film nogensinde. Jeg vil hellere kalde slutningen for 'sutningen'Earring72
Haunting drama! What a score.Shidan
I've mixed feeling with this film, it has some elements/ moments that I liked better than the other Hitchcock movies or even all the movies I've watched, but I don´t really liked how the female characters are shown in this one, and yes, I don't think Hitchcock is very good when portraying female characters in most of his movies (and when he does it right, it's probably by "accident"), but I think in this one it's done the worst (or maybe I just noticed it more in this one).[SPOILERS]
The actions of the female characters have mostly the only propose of being accepted by Scottie.
Madeleine wants Scottie to protect her, and lets him make the decisions for a while, I think it maybe justifiable for her, since (in theory) she is worried about her possible madness and her previous attempt of suicide, event that she doesn´t remember.
Midge is clearly in love, but he uses her, he goes to her house whenever he wants for her to listen to what he´s thinking at the time, if she invites him for dinner he accepts and then denies, he uses her to help him find that old librarian, but when she ask him about what he’s doing he says nothing, she makes a painting for him, and yes the painting maybe somewhat inappropriate (since he’s worried about Madeleine), but he is very rude and leaves her, then she blames herself, this behavior is believable in some aspects, but there’s no intention by the director to say that it is wrong, I would like to see how she left Scottie, but probably since in the end he lost Madeleine and Judy, he would go back to Midge and she probably would accept it, since the film put no effort on showing that her life not depends on Scottie.
The worst for me is Judy, she lets him do everything he wants with her, and after all he forces her to go where Madeleine died, and the way he does this is rude, yes I know that the character feels betrayed, but you can see later that he still loves her, so I don´t think there´s any justification for how he treats Judy.
Also, I didn’t like the ending, not for what happens, but for how it happens, I think he “deserves” that, but here she is also treated like an item, a dramatic element (to make Scottie suffer) but not as a character/ person. I think it would be better if he died, I mean he has acrophobia, so I think he would be more likely to feel dizzy and fall. I think this would develop further Judy's character. But it doesn’t matter, the movie is what it is.
I think its worth watching, but I’m sorry to say that it isn’t on my favorites.
Olraid
Just a masterpiece.monty
Vertigo - A Look at Color in Film- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scmHVYYZZ3w
fonz
Criminally inept and mentally unstable detective stalks a woman to her death twice! all over a beautifully photographed and wonderfully scored San Francisco.demagogo
(removed by mod: please post in English)Siskoid
One of those strange thrillers filled with "errors" made on purpose for artistic effect. What a trip. It hinges on a twist that I'm not sure I like, but the exploration of themes and leitmotifs goes a long way with me, and Vertigo has that in spades and it may very well be Hitchcock's artistic peak. If you don't know it, the movie is initially about a former cop who is asked to trail a man's wife whom he believes is possessed by the ghost of a long-dead woman. There's a bold fantastical element in this, and time travel becomes a theme even through the twists and the turns. Jimmy Stewart's character is a man who tries to travel back in time himself, by the end, and is doomed to relive his traumas. Spirals and concentric shapes act as a recurring motif that pile up on rewatching, and these are connected, perhaps, to the sense of falling back through time (prefiguring the time vortex of Doctor Who). Kim Novak is also fascinating as two triple women (so six), an effect also present in Stewart's gal pal Midge (who sadly disappears from the film, though that's another "error" that has artistic coherence). It's a bizarre notion that ties into Hitchcock's interest in the complexities of relationships. The women in the film are at once themselves, what they present as their identities, and what a man would make of them. Vertigo is definitely one of those films that will deepen every time you watch it.ComradeVoytek
All I can really say is, "holy shit."Zangin
This was my first Hitchcock movie. So, although I thought this movie was good, I was honestly a bit disappointed. First of all, the movie to me seemed divided between two parts. The first partmemo1
Hitchcock explaining the movie > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc2s9uSXWKMIanWass
Saw this a second time (on the big screen) and it dropped almost fifty spots on my "favorites" list -- granted, there are no established unified criteria for determining the rankings of said list. Initially, I was so caught up in the cinematography, the music, the style, the twist (and ending), and Jimmy Stewart's unsettling possessiveness, objectification, ill-treatment, etc. of Judy/Madeleine (as a self-reflexive mirror of Hitchcock's own well-documented behavior toward women/actresses) that I overlooked some of the film's deficiencies. Maybe this was only meant to be seen once?Joker of Gotham
Really nothing special, I was expecting more, so many movies better than this and with better twists, the plan was good but she wearing the necklace at the end is just stupid, Chinatown is a better movie than this3.5/5
Dewsions
You've really got to dig deep into Hitchcock's way of dealing with his use of specific shots and cinematography, being a film studies student, this is an excellent film to study, because it allows you to go further and arrive to your own conclusions, even if there are many. Saw this for the first film and I have to admit it had me completely confused but when you go back and watch specific scenes again in depth you can see how clever Alfred Hitchock was with him being a director and adapting the film to his own unique style for spectators.Rigters
I don't really now how to explain, but for me this is the best movie ever made. My favorite, it's really awesome. The music, the acting, the story, the twist, everything was so great to me.Showing items 1 – 15 of 33