muddle or masterpiece?

Rating: Null/10 (27 September 1998)

Sandwiched between "The Wrong Man" and "North By Northwest" in the 1950s, this film seems condimented with both of those films' faults without their redeeming qualities. "The Wrong Man" is extremely tedious. I know film lovers who've never seen the incredible final act. And "North By Northwest" is, well, melodramatic, genre-oriented fluff. But it never pretends to be anything else. Now, "Vertigo". . . A ghost story? A tale of obsession? A love story? Detective? As Scotty stalks Maddy, I found myself wondering if the film makers were the only people in San Francisco. No cars on Golden Gate, no crowds at the Palace of Fine Arts. The Batista mission unlocked at night for midnight strolls. Wow, what a wonderful fantasy. But, was this conspicuous absence of anyone else a subtle hint that it's all self-illusion? (Enter "Romeo Is Bleeding" into the long list of Hitchcockian scene stealing). Then, would the dated, dreamscape graphics (multi-colored vortex, falling, falling, woo!) be a fantasy within a dream? The dream theory is certainly the most forgiving and romantic interpretation. It acquits the film's blatant plot implausibilities and abrupt, unsatisfactory ending. How did that nun get up in the tower? But if it's all a dream, who's is it? Judy has a point of view, complete with her own flashback that is essential to the main plot spring. Who's dreaming who here? Is this Scotty's even-deeper obsession with transvestitism (he sure enjoys making over Judy, and, earlier, Midge chides him about wearing a girdle) and falling into the vaginal whirlpool of a big G-spot? The alternatives bury this film even further. As a mystery, it has no crackle in the deception/revelation tension. It's too laden with subconscious obsession and implosion. Maybe a boy gets-loses-gets-loses girl love story. But based on what emotion, exactly? These people are not in love with the same person at the same time. There is no ignited love, and therefore no forlorned loss. When Judy takes a header, Scotty seems more befuddled than bemoaned. Maybe it's a ghost story of possession with a gender reversal precluding "Dead Again", with Scotty as the past Spanish female cuckold. But that doesn't quite work either, does it? It seems that whatever intrepretation is reached for, the ground gives way, and suddenly everything's falling, falling. . . Maybe this film's just a muddled mess. Technical support doesn't help much. Unfortunately, Hitch's lead actresses during this era were mostly pretty window dressing. His cinematic ideas were beyond the skill level of a Kim Novak, Tippi Hedrin, and, yes, even the legendary Grace Kelly. The multiple role of Madeleine/Carlotta/Judy is flatlined by Novak's signature, mystery-woman performance. Even the helpful, photographic posturing--soft focus for eerie cemetery ambiance, overexposure for ghostliness, etc--cannot raise the characterization further than Judy's grossly-thick eyebrows. Stewart fares better, but lacks the furtive quirks of a man obsessed with his own twisted desires and/or disabilities in the third act. Or maybe you just can't put Hitch in a niche, period.