Why not Hitchcock's best?

Rating: 10/10 (13 August 2005)

To summarise, let's just say this is over two hours long and yet seems to last only minutes. You just wish it were longer.
And all the clichés in it were there for the first time: we've just seen them so many times since. I think it was in his conversations with Truffaut that Hitchcock said that, when a character is on the run in a film, he is always shown as walking down rain-washed cobbled streets, hiding in the night, but Hitchcock wanted to change all that and make it as light as possible, hence the crop-duster scene ... as every director has done ever since.
Back-projection has never been that good in Hitchcock's films, I'm sorry to say. I think that film-goers were just expected to accept it at the time. But I think the special effects in the finale (now where was it set?) are superb, and I really feel that the actors and stand-ins are really there (I was surprised it wasn't actually filmed there) ... apart from the studio inserts, that is.
But the plot is entirely original (or so I believe, but you always find something in the archives ...); Lehman's lines are very witty (and sexy!); the casting is superb (Grant never turned in a bad performance, and Landau, Mason and, especially, Carroll, setting himself up for his long-term role in his later acting career, are outstanding); and, like all Hitchcock's films, it's a fine comedy (and Psycho is the biggest joke of all). So why do all the critics always favour Vertigo, Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, The Trouble with Harry or Psycho?
Well, North by Northwest is my favourite Hitchcock anyway.
And I'm sure I don't have to mention Herrmann's massive contribution.
In fact, my only objection is James Mason's cardigan. I find that so irritating!