Pretend you have a ballot for the 2012 edition of Sight & Sound's top 10 movies of all time list

Theater too

I think she mentions painting in her review.

no way are there any wooden performances in 'vertigo'!

If you agree that it's as great as its reputation, I'm sure that's true.

so weird that Kim Novak was a star

I'm sure her tentativeness was part of her charm

Have you read Truffaut's Hitchcock book? I think he was mostly charmed by her sweaters.

that doesn't excuse Hitchcock though

no way are there any wooden performances in 'vertigo'!

If you agree that it's as great as its reputation, I'm sure that's true.

i kinda think that the whole distinction between 'wooden' and 'non-wooden' performances is flawed when you're talking about a director like hitch, who manipulated his actors to such an extent that they almost have a purely functional role in most of his films. it's a bit like the weird kids' performances in 'night of the hunter' -- they're not miscalculations on the director's part, they're part of the texture of the film. given what kim novak is asked to do in 'vertigo' i honestly cannot imagine any other actress doing a better job. whereas i don't think even ppl who think 'the searchers' is top 10-worthy think that jeffrey hunter and vera miles and, hell, half of the cast give particularly good performances.

but what the performance of Natalie Wood's makeup?

I know this is a minority (and then some) opinion, but I find everybody in Vertigo bland to one degree or another. I like its weirdness, like the music and the direction, and love the dream sequence. Because of the performances--whether they're functional or not--there's a limit to how much I like the film overall. (It's abstract speculation, but I can imagine a number of better actresses filling that role.) I realize no one who loves the film is going to agree.

ward bond gives a perfect performance in the searchers. i find the 'texture of the film' argument unconvincing

Vertigo is not one of my top five Hitch films.

i find anti-'vertigo' sentiment much more bewildering than any other kind of great fillum challops so there's prob no place for me in this argument

I don't dislike it but it's not one I rewatch it and when I do my attention wanders, notably during Madeleine's zombie moments.

chris marker's long essay on vertigo ends...

"Obviously, this text is addressed to those who know Vertigo by heart. But do those who don’t deserve anything at all?"

which makes me smile.

ps, i have not seen Vertigo.

One obvious thing that links Vertigo with The Searchers is the way Stewart and Wayne discombobulate their personas with such creepily obsessive characters--you can see blueprints earlier on (It's a Wonderful Life, Red River), but I can't remember them ever being so unpleasant. Between the two of them, I actually think Wayne gives the better performance...or at least the one I'd rather watch.

I hate the word challops. Vertigo's unassailable reputation is a relatively (as in the last 30 years) recent phenomenon--because of its longtime unavailability, it was hardly a revered film from the outset. I saw it for the first time around '82 or '83, a bootleg print, and I had mixed feelings then.

i saw it once, when i was a teenager, and i was bored by it. maybe i'd get more out of it now

Vertigo is the best.

Vertigo is astonishing, challops be damned. If nothing else it charted my own descent into cinephilia.

clemenza apparently finds James Stewart, Necrophile "bland."

Well, I think I acknowledged directly above that Stewart playing against type makes an impression. It's just not one I ever feel compelled to go back to. Maybe bland is the wrong word. I just don't enjoy the performance very much. And it's not because the character's creepy; I could name dozens of creepy characters who've never stopped fascinating me. (Necrophiliacs are inherently interesting? Also, and sorry for being so literal, but does an obsession with someone who reminds you of someone who died make you a necrophiliac?)

If you put her in the corpse's clothes, could be. (But that's reductive anyhoo)

Cinema is death 24 fps et al

add me to the list of hitch lovers who is not esp keen on vertigo, beautiful to look at, i get all the fetishism and play w identity, but as an actual watching experience, i find it a bit on the dull side

did we ever get a ruling on whether tv movies count before i submit my fake ballot?

You can put a YouTube video on your ballot for all it counts.

if i really did get a ballot the temptation to be silly would be too great

i think if queen of the dammed places we'll know which ilxor to blame

Annie Hall
Fanny and Alexander
Night of the Hunter
Aguirre: The Wrath of God
Jackie Brown
Blade Runner
Touch of Evil
Wings of Desire
North By Northwest
Jules and Jim

if i really did get a ballot the temptation to be silly would be too great

Mostly I'd have to make the choice whether to have one token pick or go full-tilt gay. A ballot with one Pink Narcissus is fine. A ballot filled with Boom, Mommie Dearest, Un Chant d'amour, Showgirls and All About Eve is also fine. A ballot with 2 or 3 slots mixed in along with, say, Gertrud, Taste of Cherry and/or Rear Window looks a little weird.

A very big vote will take place in my grade 6 class sometime in the next few weeks. As I always do in conjunction with Welles' birthday (May 6), I showed them the first three minutes of Kane. They were definitely interested--a lot more than they were in MCA's death. I told them about the S&S poll, dramatically announcing that it was voted #1 in 1962, in 1972, etc. So I'll give them a choice soon as to whether they want to watch Kane, Bridge to Terabithia (we read the novel), or Where the Wild Things Are. Bridge will win, but I'm predicting three or four votes for Kane.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/video-essay-the-sight-and-sound-film-poll-a-tribute-to-roger-ebert-and-his-favorite-films

A friend sent me a link this afternoon where a local critic writes about his first-ever invitation and shares his list. This critic used to write about pop music in the '90s; he's at a newspaper where music writers generally go on to something deemed more important, like film or politics or reality television. He was not a good music writer.

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. The Tree of Life
3. In the Mood for Love
4. Vertigo
5. Metropolis
6. Tokyo Story
7. Playtime
8. La dolce vita
9. Apocalypse Now
10. Sunrise

Each pick is accompanied by a brief one-sentence comment.

I know I shouldn't do this, but the truth is--largely based on my memories of him as a music writer--I don't trust this list at all. In the accompanying piece he writes, "'Cue panic,' tweeted British critic Guy Lodge, when he received his own invite. As a fellow Sight & Sound poll virgin, I know exactly how he feels: What if I screw this up?" I guess I should appreciate the self-deprecation, but that's exactly how the list strikes me: "I think this is what you want--do I get a gold star now?" I mean, what does "What if I screw this up?" even mean? How do you screw up what is supposed to be, as I understand it, a list of your favourite films? (It's probably telling that his list is titled "________________'s 10 Greatest Films." You can go around and around forever on the distinction, or whether there is one--and I have.)

as long as The Shawshank Redemption isn't on there, it gets a pass from me.

Well, that's one more ballot in #teamvertigo's favor.

also, 2 votes for newest Malick, too. o_0

(with Ebert's)

i think as a list by and more importantly FOR film critics/academics/passionate laymen/etc yeah it's pretty boring, but that's a decent list for someone newly interested in older or classic films, and at least a few of those would hit home with most people. films like that are good landmarks for finding your way around to a more personal or even idiosyncratic relationship to movies.

Still can't shake my hunch that S&S's big innovation for 2012 is a third list comprised totally of new media votes.

feel like the list after 20 or so is gonna be pretty interesting this time.

I'm doing something I try not to do anymore (i.e., I used to do it), which is to start analyzing someone's motivations for liking/disliking something, rather than just accept what they say at face value. It's also the Kael part of me that I'll probably never shake--she once had a line to the effect that she didn't trust people whose tastes were too exquisite.

she was the proto-internet in many ways

Picking 10 films wouldn't say much about my taste in films, just my taste in symbolism.

ie, it's almost as much a fraud as the presidential election.

was wondering how you were gonna work that in there. nice.

How many of you would shy away from voting for a film just because it's new(ish)? Do you feel that a film needs to gather a little dust and gain a little paunch before you would feel comfortable calling it one of the ten best films ever, or would you be comfortable declaring the all-time greatness of a film that just came out the previous year? I'm just asking in general, not specifically about the film whose title I'm obviously tiptoeing around (Green Lantern).

that is yr most shameless troll evah

i think it was a joke

yeah, i'd be reluctant to throw a brand-newish film on there. i think that's true of most folks. in the 2002 poll there were very few films from the mid-late 1990s on there.

i might vote for a 90s film. maybe even early 00s. last five years just seems iffy for reasons i cant even fully explain/defend.

i'm waiting to see the raven at the local 2nd run theater before i finalize anything.