Misses Me..

Rating: 3/10 (31 December 2015)

I do not understand why James Stewart spent basically the entirety of his early career allowing himself to be typecast as nice, respectable, clean-cut (albeit a bit goofy) young guys, only to later be cast by Hitchcock to play touchy, ornery, grouchy older guys who, despite their actual younger age, act like 80 year old men whose neighbors are playing the music too loudly. That's a huge, number one issue with Vertigo, and maybe the only issue (for me) with Rear Window.
In Vertigo, Stewart plays a detective newly suffering from Acrophobia (fear of heights) and of course, Vertigo. He's asked by a friend to investigate his (the friend's) wife, odd behavior, and see what she gets up to during the day. Meanwhile, in a basically unnecessary subplot, Stewart's old flame (played by Barbara Bel Geddes) is yet another obviously far younger blonde who just can't seem to get enough of the guy, vying for his attention, although she never can quite seem to get it right, either infuriating him with a painting, or simply by not being as interesting as Kim Novak.
There are several problems I had with this movie, one being the gigantic lack of chemistry between the characters. In order to make the insane obsession thing that ends up overpowering Stewart work, he needs to actually seem into Kim Novak when she's Madeleine, but what he does doesn't really come off that way, he seems angry a lot of the time, even when he's just tailing her, seeing what she's up to. The only time I saw his "love" for her was when she came by his apartment to drop off the thank-you note. He seemed genuinely enamored of her, although not nearly enough so to justify the ludicrous obsession that drives him to transform Judy into Madeleine later on. Barbara Bel Geddes' has an obsession of her own with Stewart. This makes sense in the way that most of the pairings do in these movies: they're Hitchcock's fantasies. Although the scene where Stewart sees Bel Geddes' painting and totally overreacts really didn't make any sense to me, at least it was good for a laugh.
Another issue is the timeline. Not so much that things aren't in the right order, but more that the first "half" of the story, takes more than half the movie. "Madeleine" doesn't fall off the roof until past half, yet there's still the whole "Judy" storyline to get through. Both story lines are upsetting and creepy, but I'd say the scene in the department store with Judy takes the cake.
One thing this movie really has going for it, however, is the setting. There's a remarkable amount of on-location shooting (in San Francisco). Considering the lengths Hitchcock went to avoid having to leave the comforts and control of the studio, it's pretty impressive to view this movie. The Palace of the Legion of Honor Museum is showcased a few times, a nice treat for those who have been there (you can even see statues out front that remain there today) the interior seems to have changed since, but it's still interesting to see. There's real footage of streets, storefronts, graveyards, buildings, forests, ocean/seaside areas, missions, etc. and it's all extremely beautiful. The scene in the forest is effectively creepy and eerie, and the scene by the sea was effectively dramatic. Ludicrously fake as they were, I liked both Stewart's and Bel Gedde's apartments.
For me, a movie can be somewhat redeemed if the setting feels good, and in Vertigo's case, the setting was the only reason to watch.