Monday, 26 November 2012
I’d like to see the film Hitchcock, which is in theaters as of this month. I actually receieved an email inviting me to a free screening at a local theater, but I was busy that night, so I couldn’t attend.
As I’ve written about before on this site, I’m a huge Hitchcock fan, having seen all of the films and TV shows he directed (that are still extant). So, it’s probably just stating the obvious when I say this film piques my interest.
But…
It centers around the creation of the film Psycho. Now, I looove that movie (I ranked it first on my list of all-time favorite films), but it’s such an obvious choice to use as a backdrop for Hitchock’s life, that I wonder if the film really delves into his life, or is just using the fame and legacy of Psycho as a means to generate increased ticket sales. It’s kind of like doing a biopic on John Lennon, and having it center around his writing and recording of “Imagine.” That’s a great song, don’t get me wrong, but there’s so much more to Lennon and his music than that one, overplayed, song.
I’ve read Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, and it just wasn’t that great of a story. I’ve read a couple Hitchcock interviews, and his biography, too, so I know there’s a lot more to his life. While I whole-heartily agree that Psycho should rank among his best films, I’m not sure that period of his life (1958-1960) is the best choice for a film. I, for one, would rather see one from the mid-1920s, when he got his start and rose to prominence in England.
Anyway, those are my thoughts going into this film. I hope to see it at some point in the next month or so. I’ll elt you know how it goes.
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
Sight and Sound, that erstwhile British magazine best known for their every-ten-years top ten list, has come out with their latest list. Every tenth year, beginning in 1952, they have published a list of the 10 Best Films of All Time. This list is generated via the opinions of noted film-makers, film critics, and film historians. It’s a virtual smorgasborg of the cineste.
So, this year they came out with their list again. They actually published it back in August, but I’ve never had a good time to discuss it. But here, in this blog post about Hitchcock, it seems very appropriate.
Let me give you some background on the list…
In 1952, they rated The Bicycle Theif as the greatest film of all time. Only four years old at the time, that paragon of Italian neo-realism is a bit slow in places, but all-in-all a good flick. Ten years later, it had dropped to #7 on their list, and it hasn’t been on the list since then.
Meanwhile, Citizen Kane, a film that was 11 years old at the time of the first poll, didn’t appear at all on the top ten. But then, in 1962, it popped up, seemingly out of nowhere, and lodged itself at #1.
I agree, Citizen Kane is a better film than The Bicycle Theif. But the best film of all time? I don’t know. I really like it…but part of the poll is to rank films on historican significance, something that generally has no bearing on me when I rate a film myself. So I guess I can account for the discrepancy that way.
At any rate, Citizen Kane was, as I said, ranked as the best film in 1962. It retained that ranking again when the poll results were published in 1972. And 1982. And 1992. And 2002.
But not this year.
In the half-century that Citizen Kane has been ruling the roost, Alfred Hitchock’s Vertigo has been inching its way to the top. It didn’t appear on the list at all in 1962 (when it was four years old), or even in 1972. But in 1982, it made a respectable showing at #7. In 1992, at the height of my Hitchcock obsession, it slid into #4. Ten years ago, critics lodged it comfortably at #2. And, well, this year it takes the throne.
I gotta say, I’m really split on this. On the hand, part of me thinks, “Yay! Hitchcock is the best and he deserves the recognition.” But another part of me thinks, “Does anyone else notice the gaping plot holes and bizarre contrivances?” There are huge leaps of faith I need to maintain verisimilitude while watching this flick. And thought I’ll admit it’s a beautiful looking film, there are other Hitchcock pictures that just as assuredly take the cake. And historical significance? Sure…but what about Rear Window, North by Northwest, and, of course, Psycho? Surely, someone could concoct a cogent argument for those being of superior historical impact.
For myself, here’s a list of Hitchcock films I prefer over Vertigo (and this list is just off the top of my head, in no particular order): Rebecca, Lifeboat, Suspicion, Spellbound, Rope, Notorious, Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest, Dial ‘M’ for Murder, Rear Window, Frenzy, The Birds, Psycho.
Now, I’ve read entire books about Vertigo, I’ve seen it on the big screen, and I’ve studied it in college. So don’t say I haven’t given it a fair chance. It’s good – it’s very good – but it’s not great and it’s certainly not the best. I prefer Citizen Kane, for that matter, if – for no other reason – than because it’s completely coherent.
Oh well. Congratulations, Alfred Hitchcock, Jimmy Stewart, Kim Novak, and Saul Bass. You guys deserve it.
For the record: Psycho landed at #35 on the list, the only other Hitchcock film to make an appearance in the list of 50. The complete list is HERE. I’ve seen exaclty half the films on that list, an omission of culture I intend to correct by the end of 2013.