CS Presents: Vertigo

I decided to undertake something only slightly less harrowing and much more enjoyable than studying for the bar exam this summer: watching as many Alfred Hitchcock movies as I could get my hands on via my Blockbuster subscription. I will review the movies after I watch them as a way of actually posting here. I grade each movie simply on how much I liked it in relation to the others. SPOILER ALERT: If you don't want to know what happens in a movie, then don't read my reviews. There will be no SPOILER ALERTs within the reviews.

Vertigo (1958)

I don't even know where to begin.

Vertigo might be the oddest and most enchanting film I have ever seen. For all of its complexity, the plot is relatively simple. The detective going out on one last case and falling in love with the woman he was hired to be watch, etc. The plot could have easily come out of a film noir or a Michael Connelly novel.

I've enjoyed some very good films that I really don't have any desire to see again. Chinatown is an incredible movie, but it's a movie that I only intend to see once a decade or so. It is a deeply uncomfortable movie despite its genius. Anyone who has seen Dylan Baker's performance in Happiness can attest that incredible acting does not necessarily equal a desire to ever see it again. And I'll probably watch North by Northwest at every opportunity, because it is so easy to watch. You can be dropped in at any point and quickly understand it.

I never felt mesmerized watching Vertigo as I did when I watched Rear Window or Lifeboat or even the first half of Rope. There are some movies that you can't get into because the plot is so Byzantine that you give up. And there are others where the actors are sleepwalking through it, so you match their level of effort. Vertigo has neither of those problems, yet it didn't completely suck me in. But that tracks with how Scottie is seeing the world. The notion of a dead woman inhabiting Madeleine is so un-Hitchcockian. One of the reasons I have enjoyed watching his films is that his suspense is borne of reality. He doesn't need the supernatural to create tension -- the real world will suffice. Scottie doesn’t really believe Madeleine, which makes it kind of surprising that he doesn’t see what is happening. We get sucked in the way Scottie gets sucked in: slowly, surely and entirely.

It was not highly critically received at the time of release and it is not hard to see why. The film's name is not only a description of Scottie's condition, but how the audience feels when they leave the theatre. It is a disorienting film that lacks an easy payoff. In the final bell tower scene, the bad guy is in Europe. We have liked Scottie from the beginning, but his obsession with Madeleine/Judy is positively creepy. Our sympathies should transfer to Judy, a woman willing to do anything to be with the man who she yearns for, but her duplicity robs her of that trust. It is one of the few climatic scenes I can remember where everyone really is in shades of gray.

The performances are incredible. Kim Novak has to play the dual role of the cool, dark and beguiling Madeleine Elster and her counterpart, the down-to-earth Judy Barton who knows the truth. In many respects, Novak's portrayal of Madeleine is representative of the film as a whole. Her exterior is a bit cold and it is clear that there is something disturbing about her. But in spite of her problems, there is something underneath that is seductive...it draws you in. I wish I could write those sentences in a way that pointed to something concrete in the film that makes me want to see it again despite the fact that I am still not sure how much I really liked it. I guess that is the magic of Hitchcock.

Grade: Anywhere from a B to an A+. Ask me in a few months or so when I rent it again.

Up Next: North by Northwest

Previous:
Rope
Rear Window
Lifeboat
The Trouble With Harry

CS Presents: The Trouble With Harry

I decided to undertake something only slightly less harrowing and much more enjoyable than studying for the bar exam this summer: watching as many Alfred Hitchcock movies as I could get my hands on via my Blockbuster subscription. I will review the movies after I watch them as a way of actually posting here. I grade each movie simply on how much I liked it in relation to the others. SPOILER ALERT: If you don't want to know what happens in a movie, then don't read my reviews. There will be no SPOILER ALERTs within the reviews.

The Trouble With Harry (1955)

It's easy to forget that Hitchcock was English and not American. His films were American, his actors were some of the biggest stars this country has ever produced and they were released by American studios. Because his films are American national treasures, it is easy to assume that Hitch is one as well. His national treasure status is an honorary one and watching The Trouble With Harry quickly reminds you of Hitch’s roots.

The Trouble With Harry couldn’t be more of a British comedy if it involved John Cleese and a dead parrot. Its subject matter is macabre as a small child (The Beav, Jerry Mathers, in his first role) discovers a dead body in an idyllic Vermont wooded area. The man is laying there with dried blood on his forehead from some kind of deep wound. The hard luck rabbit hunter believes he fired the fatal shot that killed the well-dressed stranger. The man’s estranged wife believes she killed him when she knocked him loopy by hitting him in the head with a milk bottle. A local spinster, who the victim mistakes for his wife in his delirious state, believes she killed him when she defended herself by striking him in the head with a spike at the heel of her shoe.

None of the characters are that broken up by his death. To the hunter and the spinster, he’s just a body. The estranged wife says she doesn’t care if they stuff him as long as he remains dead. And the local artist wants to use the situation to get closer to the new widow. The boy, the widow’s son, isn’t the least bit disturbed by finding the body. He’s weird enough as it is. There is no horror or revulsion at dealing with a dead body, burying and exhuming it several times within 24 hours. The only concern is in not having to explain themselves to the local deputy sheriff, a Barney Fife without the charisma and charm. There is so little crime in the town that he gets paid by the arrest.

The humor is filled with the kind of non-sequiters loved in Britain. When Jerry Mathers shows off his dead rabbit, the kindly hunter asks him, “What do you call it?” The boy looks at him, matter-of-factly, and replies, “Dead.” An American film would have the film’s final joke be one designed to get guffaws. Hitchcock goes for the rimshot instead.

A typical Hitchcock dame was mysterious and alluring. She had a tough exterior, but retained all of her feminine wiles. Think of Eva Saint Marie in North by Northwest. Shirley MacLaine’s character was none of that. In the space of one day, she went from having her first conversation with the suave artist to being engaged to him. It is difficult to see why she was such a catch. If the typical Hitchcock leading lady was the girl in high school who smoked, dated college guys and had a cold sensuous nature, MacLaine’s character was the girl with the boyish haircut who had a facial tic and was prone to blurting out non-sensical answers in class. Yes, she might be endearing, but she isn’t someone you trip over yourself to land.

This wasn’t a film Paramount was tripping over itself to make. Hitchcock wanted to make it ever since he read the original story. Had anyone but Hitchcock proposed it, Paramount would have rejected it with record speed. This was a film that only Hitchcock could make. Paramount was willing to indulge him in order to maintain good relations.

This is a film that you will either like or despise. I don’t mind dark comedy in small doses, so I chuckled a few times and would watch it again if I saw it on cable. This is the kind of film that cult followings are made of, so I imagine it has some devoted fans.

Grade: B-

Up Next: Vertigo

Previous:
Rope
Rear Window
Lifeboat

Matt F. Presents: A CS Presents Hitchcock MegaPost

Here are some songs to go along with CS' great Hitchcock series...

I can't start any post about Hitchcock without first posting this:

Alfred Hitchcock -- Music to be Murdered By [Theme from Alfred Hitchcock Presents]

For Lifeboat:Dntel -- Rock My Boat
From Dumb Luck.

David Gray -- Last Boat To America
From the A New Day at Midnight.

Kasabian -- U Boat [Live]
Live at Glastonbury 2005.

Johnny Cash -- Rowboat
From Unchained.

P. Williams -- The Theme to Love Boat
From Television's Greatest Hits 70's & 80s.

Highwaymen -- Michael [Row Your Boat Ashore]
From the Folk Hits Collection.

For Rear Window:

Grandaddy -- Rear View Mirror
From the Just Like the Fambly Cat album.

Moby Grape -- Sitting by the Window
From the Moby Grape album.

Fiona Apple -- Window
From the Extraordinary Machine album.

Les Savy Fav -- One Way Window
From the Inches album.

Joy Zipper -- Window
From the Heartlight Set album.

Roni Size & Rerazent -- Watching Windows
From the New Forms album.

The Beach Boys -- At My Window
From the Sunflower/Surf's Up album.

Billy Bragg & Wilco -- At My Window Sad and Lonely
From the Mermaid Avenue album.

For Rope:

Alice in Chains -- Man In the Box
From the Facelift album.

The Minus 5 -- Bought a Rope
From [The Gun Album].

Mclusky -- Rope!
From the Mcluskyism collection.

Ani DiFranco -- This Box Contains...
From the Revelling album.

Tokyo Police Club -- Box
From the Smith EP.

Babyshambles -- Lost Art of Murder
From the Shotter's Nation album.

CS Presents: Lifeboat

I decided to undertake something only slightly less harrowing and much more enjoyable than studying for the bar exam this summer: watching as many Alfred Hitchcock movies as I could get my hands on via my Blockbuster subscription. I will review the movies after I watch them as a way of actually posting here. I grade each movie simply on how much I liked it in relation to the others. SPOILER ALERT: If you don't want to know what happens in a movie, then don't read my reviews. There will be no SPOILER ALERTs within the reviews.

Lifeboat (1944)

What I liked best about Lifeboat is that it never veered into sensationalism. Every bit of it was realistic, especially the human nature involved.

It is a virtual guarantee that this film would never be made today, at least not the way Hitchcock made it. Barely out of the shadow of World War II, the German "prisoner" is neither a shining beacon, showing us the error of our intolerant ways, nor a monster to be defeated with a stake through the heart. Can you imagine a film today that showed a shadowy Middle Eastern Muslim as neither a saint martyred by our intolerance nor as a maniacal terrorist intent on our destruction?

The German -- Willy -- had a warm, inviting face. He was pulled from the boat and we had instant sympathy for him, right up until he muttered "danke schoen" and we felt the same apprehension as our motley crew. And his acts of betrayal, pushing Smith/Schmidt off board, hoarding the water and the energy supply, directing the boat toward a German supply ship, wasn't the act of a madman trying to starve and kill his American/British crew mates. It was selfish, but he thought he was doing the right thing for everyone involved. Willy was easily the most competent member of our crew: he instantly took charge during the storm and did everything right. Willy's dual nature is why the film has been seen both as German and Allied propaganda.

There was a small throwaway moment that anyone who has ever really liked someone should recognize. Sparks was playing with the rope in Mac's hair, pulling on the string so it would be untied, and she asked him, "Why do you like to do that?" There was a sigh of half a beat and he replied, "I don't know." The dialogue is borderline ridiculous, but it captured that feeling of intimacy when you get to touch and tease that person you like and you do it for reasons you can't even explain. It's one of the best parts of being in "deep like." (One of my co-workers has been dating a girl that he is falling for fast, but he hasn't completely gone head-over-heels. We dubbed it a state of deep like.)

No character in this film was one-dimensional. The black man was neither the minstrel nor was he all knowing and wise. He had a history of petty crime that he was trying to overcome. He could play his recorder (god, did that bring back memories of fourth grade), but it wasn't handled in demeaning way. Telluah Bankhead's character managed to be everything you would imagine a wealthy socialite on a lifeboat to be, but never ventured into territory later covered by Mrs. Thurston Howell. She was both the woman who was appalled at losing her precious footage and the woman who willingly let the young mother wear her mink coat.

As a matter of sheer filmmaking, the amputation scene should be shown to every aspiring director. We see nothing of Smith's leg. We are left to imagine the wound and we see the surgery from the prospective of Sparks, a man who couldn't see the surgery. We see his facial expressions and we see the expressions of the people who can see the surgery. And the boot falling to the ship's floor tells us everything we need to know. I guarantee that Hitchcock could have not topped what imagined and HE KNEW THAT. For a non-Hitchcock example of getting it right vs. screwing it up, compare Silence of the Lambs to Hannibal.

The film perfectly captured the despair when you believe that there is no hope to how your thinking changes when rescue is imminent. Think back to the times in college when you had no money and didn't see any money coming in for a while. You stare at your pantry and think, "well, that bag of noodles should last me for a while. I am never going to waste my money again. I can't live like this, but I don't know when it is going to end. I wonder if I'll even have enough money to go home for Christmas. Please God, I really hope so. I don't want to have to beg my parents just for gas money. I don't want them to know how broke I am." And you mope around like that until you get a check you weren't expecting or someone offers you a quick job to make some cash. Flush with the feeling of having money in your pocket, all of that thinking about changing your ways is gone as you waste it as quickly as you can. As soon as rescue is 20 minutes away, Connie begins to worry what she looks like. Ritt has the gleam of capitalism in his eyes, no longer lamenting that he has no wife and kids to go back to. And the final scenes, with our new German captive, only adds to the film's ambiguity.

Grade: A/A-

Up Next: The Trouble With Harry

Previous:

Rope

Rear Window

CS Presents: Rear Window

I decided to undertake something only slightly less harrowing and much more enjoyable than studying for the bar exam this summer: watching as many Alfred Hitchcock movies as I could get my hands on via my Blockbuster subscription. I will review the movies after I watch them as a way of actually posting here. I grade each movie simply on how much I liked it in relation to the others. SPOILER ALERT: If you don't want to know what happens in a movie, then don't read my reviews. There will be no SPOILER ALERTs within the reviews.

Rear Window (1954)

If you ever want to know why you should never consent to be interviewed by the police, watch Rear Window. It sounds like an odd statement to connect that with this movie. After all, the main law enforcement character, Doyle, is on Thorwald's side for almost the entire film.

Jeffries has his theory of what happened and everything that follows -- which has both an innocent and sinister explanation -- is formatted to fit his theory. Doyle is unconvinced and always opts for the innocent explanation. He's a detective, he's heard 1,001 crazy theories in his career and this is just another one. When you are interviewed by the police as a suspect, regardless of whether or not you actually did it, the police probably have a working theory of what happened. Whatever details you give them, they will simply try to fit into their theory and they'll discard the evidence that doesn't quite fit. This doesn't make them evil or stupid. Simply human. Unless you can show them the elephant in the room -- the incontrovertible evidence that smashes their theory to bits -- they will continue to try to make it work.

Much has been written about the ethics of voyeurism and how the film treats marriage. Both are interesting subjects and I noticed both during the film, especially how the newlyweds' relationship inversely tracked with Jeffries and Lisa's relationship. The most interesting part to me was the innocent vs. sinister aspects of Thorwald's actions. For a man whose speaking parts are minimal during the movie -- I suspect we hear his voice about as often as the newlywed husband -- Raymond Burr did a masterful job of acting. His facial expressions and actions had to be transparent enough that we could jump to the same conclusions that Jeffries did, yet inscrutable enough that they could seemingly be innocent.

I can see why Rear Window is one of the most heralded Hitchcock films. In the special features of the DVD version, someone mentions that Hitchcock would focus on a scene on his way into work and run it through his mind, thinking of all the different ways he could shoot it. The preparation and creativity are obvious. The many side stories, like Miss Lonelyhearts, The Composer, The Torso, The Newlyweds, etc., were Hitchcock's creation. Jimmy Stewart did a masterful job. So much of the film was him looking at something, us seeing that something and then Stewart's reaction and those three shots needed to advance the plot and tell us exactly what Jeffries was thinking, often times without uttering a word.

But the final scene nags at me a bit. The tension was masterfully built for Thorwald's entrance and having Jeffries keep him at bay with flashbulbs was genius, especially as we essentially saw the scene from Thorwald's point of view, complete with the after-effects of the flash. The payoff seemed so weak. Yeah. he's the murderer. He chopped her up. As I watched it, I pretty well suspected that. To me, the tension didn’t center around whether Thorwald did it as much as it revolved around whether Jeffries could prove Thorwald did. I was more curious of the how and the why than finding out if, because I assumed Torvald had murdered his wife. I wish there had been some kind of payoff and twist at that moment. The film didn't treat the question of if he did it as a real question; the film was more about how Jeffries would get around those obstacles than treating them as plausible alternative explanations. It seems dishonest to make the payoff what we assumed was happening to begin with.

Grade: A-

Up Next: Lifeboat

Previous reviews:

Rope

CS Presents: Hitchcock

I decided to undertake something only slightly less harrowing and much more enjoyable than studying for the bar exam this summer: watching as many Alfred Hitchcock movies as I could get my hands on via my Blockbuster subscription. I will review the movies after I watch them as a way of actually posting here. I grade each movie simply on how much I liked it in relation to the others. SPOILER ALERT: If you don't want to know what happens in a movie, then don't read my reviews. There will be no SPOILER ALERTs within the reviews.



Rope (1948)

Jimmy Stewart is what is wrong with this movie. I suspect that is not a sentence often typed.

And it's a shame because this movie had incredible potential. Based on the Leopold and Loeb murders, it revolves around two college-aged men who kill a former classmate to prove their superiority. To add further force to their argument, they place his body in a large wooden chest and hold a dinner party where the food is served atop the chest. Among the guests are the victim's father, aunt and girlfriend.

Up to this point, the movie is executed brilliantly. John Dall gives an Academy Award-level performance as Brandon Shaw. His Shaw is so charming, witty and happily disturbed that you are repulsed every time he is on stage, yet can't bring yourself to hate him completely. It is in the tradition of good movie villains, from the men James Bond fought with through Hannibal Lecter that Dall's performance arises from. Just as Loeb was dominant over Leopold, Philip Morgan (Farley Granger) is subservient to Shaw. Morgan is not as in love with the idea of this audacious murder as he is in love with Shaw. The homosexual aspects of their relationship are never discussed, but can virtually be assumed. Granger is pitch-perfect as the weaker, nervous co-conspirator, who is terrified of being found out.

But neither Shaw nor Morgan is the most important character in this movie. That distinction falls to Stewart's Rupert Cadell. He was their prep school housemaster and their intellectual guiding star. Their Nietzschean view of themselves -- as the Ubermensches who are superior to normal humans -- comes from Cadell. He is the one who formed them and he is the one who will turn them in.

Hitchcock loved to use Stewart as the everyman. We see the world through his eyes and instinctively like him. As a result of films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or It's A Wonderful Life or Vertigo or Rear Window, we have a Pavlovian response to Stewart. We know that even when he does the wrong thing, at heart, he is doing them for the right reasons. When is the last time you saw a film where you didn't root for Stewart's character? Much like Tom Hanks or Kevin Costner or Harrison Ford, we instinctively root for Stewart whenever he appears on the screen. So expecting Stewart to carry a role in which he has to be the champion of the Nietzschean view of superior humanity is a bit like asking Don Knotts to play the coldly efficient police sergeant on the take.

When Cadell defends those views, we twitter just like the victim's aunt. Stewart seems to be playing more of an academic shock jock than a true believer. This role is key because it shows the evolution of this murder. Just as Shaw pressed Morgan into the murder, Cadell shaped Shaw to the point that his interest became more than an intellectual belief. Stewart's Cadell is such an intellectual dabbler that it seems so incongruous for him to have influenced Shaw so strongly.

I took a history of the theater class in college and the professor once asked how someone should play royalty. Should they walk differently? Would we be able to tell simply by having them wear a crown? Should they manically treat their subjects with a tyranny befitting absolute power? All of those actions are worthless unless the other characters react in ways that one would react around a king. If a character walks on to the stage wearing a robe and crown, but the other characters feign indifference, we know that he is not as important as he seems.

The key to this movie is in how every reacts to Cadell when he is on the screen. In this respect, it is the victim's father (Cedric Hardwicke) who plays the Everyman, sputtering his indignation at the horror of the Nietzschean ideas while garnering our sympathy. In order for Cadell's turn from defender of the ideas to prosecutor of the boys for taking the ideas to the logical conclusion to have real force, we have to believe that he held those ideas firmly to begin with. Stewart's persona prevents him from filling that space given to him in the reactions of the other characters.

Cary Grant apparently turned down the Cadell role as he did not wanted to be associated with the film's homoerotic undertones (he didn't need any more public evidence that he might be a homosexual himself). Grant would have been better able to fashion a character that was an older version of Shaw and filled that space. It is a shame that we will never know.

Grade: B/B-

Up Next: Rear Window