Film Critique # 4
University of Maryland University College
August 11, 2013
I do not whether I like this film or not. I say this because, the film had a dark yet dry feeling to me. I am not saying that the story was not good. Somehow the film’s sound and effects and plot did not really capture my attention. That being said, I thought that the film had many good qualities to make it a great film for this time.
The acting was pretty dry, by that I mean that movements and dialogue were slow at times. My guess is that the director intended to create a feeling of confusion or build a sense of feeling of that of someone with vertigo. The script was good, and it really follows the story it intends to tell, in its dark dramatic ways. It was a drastic way of telling a romantic story, but very much inline with Hitchcock’s
The ...view middle of the document...
The scenes in which the director wanted to have a special reaction; such as the dreams and the vertigo effect, seemed simple but for the time it must have been thought as a great creation. The editing of the film showed a lot of improvements from those before it, and it has influenced possibly, many productions since then. Compared to other films of this type I wonder, what did people thought of this kind of dark type of film?
Vertigo illustrated an out of body experience on how a person’s inner body or minds works. Why did they decide to make such film? There are a lot of films of this type today. I wonder if this was the basis for such productions? I think this film was somehow ahead of its time. But also that it has a specific audience to target. Was it a total director controlled film?
The actors in the film did a great job; I believed their performances to match what the director and the character called for. The costumes were matched with the location of the scenes, the cameras and filters were able to portray the mood and feelings of the emotions of the film and added to the acting. In some scenes, the director and layout-helped shape a scenery or photo illusions, it even made actions blend in with the background and in other parts, made the character stand out as well.
This type of film expanded on understanding how the director’s imagination works into the overall outcome of the film. For what I have seen in previous films, that either the director or actors were some how a reflection of the films they made, (i.e. comedy, thriller, musicals) how much of this film reflects the inner workings or creativity of Hitchcock?
To me this film in essence showed that, in the film industry a name and fame had a very string value, it certainly gave the director that power to make the film, it also allowed him to use his expressions as loosely as possible, to selecting the right team, cameramen, writers, actors, producers and locations with possibly minimal objection or opposition. I end this essay by asking one question, do you think that Hitchcock was able to make this film exactly as how he intended?