The pull of Hitchcock against the tide of time

Rating: Null/10 (6 December 2004)

Alfred Hitchcock was such a consummate director that approving his work is like investing in a blue chip stock: our taste is unlikely to be berated or otherwise devalued. In Vertigo, we find the usual Hitchcock hallmarks: slow, deliberate development, Hitchcock at the wheel - we must submit to his pace as the Master spins his tale -, backdropped by clean and balanced sets that are pleasing to the eye. Most of you must have encountered the kind of storyteller who can take sparse material and keep us spellbound with it over a period of time that far exceeds what we might have thought possible. This is the essence of Hitchcock's mastery of suspense, and he has deservedly become a benchmark in it.
The contrast between the long buildups of tension in Hitchcock's movies and the instant gratification in many of today's offerings is striking. Most conspicuous today is an over-reliance on loud blasts from the score and over-reactions from the actors to compensate shortcomings in building suspense. At the same time, however, the audience has mutated in reaction to this, and Hitchcock will seem, at times, too slow and timid for our present-day sensibilities. This seems preposterous to those who have embraced him.
There is, however, a pitfall in becoming a benchmark: it validates itself 100%, even if the teeming masses drift away from it somewhat. Having myself experienced that drift, I have a few problems with Vertigo.
SPOILERS
The implausibility - of the premise, of the characters and their reactions, of the master plan that had too many ways to go wrong and too many loose ends as to why it worked as far as it did - is the biggest problem that I suspect is forgiven as being acceptable for its time. The schoolboy crush is simply not credible. A cop being duped by the double who isn't a double is a real stretch. The woman being led up the bell tower by an obviously unstable man is hard to take and what provokes her falling from it (in the end) is just not credible. Those are quite a few allowances that we are asked to make on behalf of a master, sort of like giving charity to the rich.
The acting is competent by today's standards, but no better. I didn't like Novak's performance, but others at IMDb did, and I'll concede it as a matter of personal taste.
Consequently, Vertigo is, for me, an average movie, albeit a superbly crafted one.
END OF SPOILERS
Does this mean that I resent this "benchmark" status I attribute to Hitchcock? No, not in the least. As I said, I drifted from it somewhat, but am closer to it than I am to the excesses of today. And if Hitchcock's oeuvre as a benchmark somehow exerts a pull against these excesses, it is for the better.