Flawed masterpiece

Rating: 8/10 (6 September 2013)

Since nearly 600 people have already reviewed this film on IMDb, I was going to skip it. But, it's sucked me in, so here goes.
First I have to say that I have a far different view of Hitchcock's career than do most. First, I don't like any of Hitchcock's pre-Hollywood films, and detest some of them (e.g., "Murder!"). Then, in 1940, with "Rebecca", he seems to break out of the British fog and the films are suddenly almost all terrific...if not brilliant (with a rare exception here and there; e.g., "Lifeboat". But then, suddenly, in 1960, for me it all falls apart with "Psycho". The film has some redeeming qualities in terms of scenes, but in general I don't see it as much more than a cheap slasher movie with a little more psychology tossed in. And "The Birds" is for the birds...cheap horror inspired by Rachel Carson's "A Silent Spring". I can sit through "Torn Curtain", but more due to the star quality than the film itself.
In terms of "Vertigo", there seem to be two sticking points for many people. One is the age of Jimmy Stewart (50) and Kim Novak (25). First, this is similar in many pictures with many stars -- an older male star with a younger female star. The only place it ever really bothered me was with Gary Cooper (age 56) and Audrey Hepburn (age 28) in "Love In The Afternoon"; and then it was more about Cooper's haggard looks than the actual age difference. Here, Stewart is a rather young looking 50, and in my view, Novak plays a character more in her mid to later 30s, despite her real age. Consider the age of her husband in the film, the actor being 54 years old.
The other catching point for some is the flashback scene about 1:40 into the film. Some think that the scene gives too much away, while others think it gives the film context. I watched for it in this, my third viewing of the film. I can take it either way, because in my view, in many films it's not where you're going that's as important as how you get there.
A third thing sometimes criticized about the film is its length at 2:08. I don't see that as so long, and I rather like that Hitchcock lingered a bit with his scenes of San Francisco and some other locations.
One thing I will criticize about many Hitchcock films is the cheapness of many of the scenes which he shot in front of a projection screen. It ruined "To Catch A Thief" for me, and is pretty bad in this film as well. Is this where he often tried to save money? Another thing about this film that is interesting to me is how it changes focus after the initial death of Novak's character. Up until then, the real focus has been on Novak, even though Stewart got more screen time and far more dialog. But after that initial death, the focus is even more on Stewart and his obsessions. That sudden change in focus is quite marvelous, although Stewart's obsession with the vertigo is clear in the beginning of the film...but later we see he is quite an obsessive character in many ways.
One thing I am not clear on is the character played by Barbara Bel Geddes. I don't quite see the purpose...unless it is just a way to have Stewart bounce some ideas off of her.
There are really only 5 actors worth mentioning in this film. I personally feel this is one of Jimmy Stewart's best roles. I'm very undecided overall about Kim Novak as an actress, but she was good here. I found Barbara Bel Geddes to be very comfortable on the screen; I wish she would have done more movie work, but I guess the blacklist soured her career for a while. Tom Helmore was good as the scheming husband; a dependable character actor. Henry Jones had a small role as the coroner, but I just love his voice inflections.
The bottom line is -- is it a Hitchcock masterpiece. Although flawed, I would say yes, although not in his top 5, but somewhere in his top 10. Recommended.