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

Agreed, I like Jerry Lewis movies because they are basically horror movies.

I wonder whether Criterion reissues of his later films have made L'Avventura less an obvious choice for inclusion. These days I'd rank L'Eclisse over it.

^^^ me, on all days

In any case I see Antonioni et al as heir to a certain strand of 19th century novel. Like the whole "novel of ideas" thing. Melville, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky. And fwiw I find the "visionary" approach far freer than the evasion of "significance."

Kael cited Woolf, Mann, Joyce, and James in her review ("In any case I see Antonioni et al as heir to a certain strand of 19th century novel. Like the whole "novel of ideas" thing. Melville, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky. And fwiw I find the "visionary" approach far freer than the evasion of "'significance.'")

Wacky comedy reveals people trying to make people laugh

almost never, if you're talking about the people on the screen.

I'm always surprised when I remember Kael actually liked L'avventura.

Wacky comedy reveals people trying to make people laugh, which is fine, but usually it's better when my friends do it to me.

You're too short for that gesture.

I'm also too pale for Miami, but I still look forward to having a face-to-face with you in which we trade nothing but AAE lines. Some snowy night, in front of the fire.

Killer to killer!

Very effective. But why take it out on me?

this whole "which genre is more profound" is a pretty stupid exercise.

Everybody has pretty stupid exercises, except some people.

pretty stupid exercise vs reverse massage

remove bookmark

One good bookmark removal and you'll be rid of that Miss Caswell forever.

Back to the Copacabana.

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

if jerry lewis counts as horror, surely 'bringing up baby' does.

It's not like the Tom Helmore villain in Vertigo is supposed to evoke (or display) passionate feelings, he's just an enigma / agent of chaos.

Yeah, the spectacle of Cary Grant leaping gay is sort of a horrorshow.

it's 'night of the living dead' with hepburn starring as the zombies

Kael cited Woolf, Mann, Joyce, and James in her review ("In any case I see Antonioni et al as heir to a certain strand of 19th century novel. Like the whole "novel of ideas" thing. Melville, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky. And fwiw I find the "visionary" approach far freer than the evasion of "'significance.'")

The films are visually incredibly exciting but the narratives are often so lacking (not in a bad way -- always feel they are giving way to more important things), and what they have to say about anything so thin that I can't quite see this comparison coming off.

Well, she meant that the film approaches on visual terms the "heft" of what the modernists attempted.

Yes and for my part i think the comparison holds in the sense of that those novels were kind of an arena for entertaining philosophical ideas.

Why not compare it w/modernist painting, sculpture and architecture then which also perhaps entertain ideas that might be of a philosophical bent?

OK, guess she was a writer but still..

Those prob are better forms of comparison!

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