Vertigo named 'Greatest Film of all Time'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19078948

By BFI in its decannual survey.

Looking at the results got me thinking. On the boxing boards it's often discussed whether old-timers are viewed with overly rose-tinted spectales and that we are quick to criciticse the present whilst romanticising the past. Given the Top 10 list below, do you film buffs think the same may be said here too?

1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)

2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)

3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)

4. La Regle du Jeu (Renoir, 1939)

5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)

6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)

7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)

8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)

9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)

10. 8½ (Fellini, 1963)

Without even reading what you said I immediately thought that a lot of those films, if released today, would not get the same amount of praise. There is definitely rose-tinted glasses towards the past in terms of films. I also think that it means that modern films are never met with the same praise.

The mindset tends to be the first of anything is the best of anything and it is such an annoying mindset that plagues so many film critics. It's like a generation perception. Many film buffs of the last 20 years would probably not watch Citizen Kane largely due to not wanting to watch a black and white film and not be moved by a film without many action sequences. The older generation that grew up with films of the 50's and 60's get lost in more modern day films thinking special effects mask over story telling in films.

I have to say that I totally disagree with that list.

We did a poll a few months ago of 606v2 favourite films - don't recall any of the above featuring high on the board list of great films (which produced a very good, interesting and diverse list).

I think on occasion critics are more interested in appearing clever and informed than in giving an honest opinion.

I only recall seeing 2 of those films:
Vertigo - pretty good suspense film, but I wouldn't put it in the top 10. Top 50 maybe

2001 - Promising film that descends into pretentious nonsense. ANd I write that as a fan of Sci Fi.

Here we go, for comparison:

606v2's top 10:

1,The Shawshank Redemption - 113 points
2,Gladiator - 75
3,The Empire Strikes Back - 69
4,Goodfellas - 63
5,Pulp Fiction - 61
6,12 Angry Men- 59
6,The Godfather - 59
8,BladeRunner - 47
9,Jaws - 44
10,Its a wonderful life - 43
.

dummy_half wrote:Here we go, for comparison:

606v2's top 10:

1,The Shawshank Redemption - 113 points
2,Gladiator - 75
3,The Empire Strikes Back - 69
4,Goodfellas - 63
5,Pulp Fiction - 61
6,12 Angry Men- 59
6,The Godfather - 59
8,BladeRunner - 47
9,Jaws - 44
10,Its a wonderful life - 43
.

I agree with the sentiments of your first post personally. Esp re 2001!

That said, looking at that list, Jaws is essentially an awful film, yet on a popularity basis is squeaks into 606v2 top 10. So clearly a balance needs to be struck.

I think some people kind of want to be seen as well into their arts films as well as clever and cool. One of the reasons I think that black and white film won at the Oscars alst year. People kind of went with the flow nad wanted to be seen as niche.

TopHat

I wouldn't say Jaws is an awful film (although the sequels...), but I agree that it's rated too highly because it is populist. I also wouldn't put Gladiator anywhere near a top 10. However, we did get a couple of classic black and white films up there (12 Angry Men and It's a Wonderful Life) so clearly it's not just a list of recent blockbusters.

Personally don't think Vertigo is even the best Hitchcock movie. Much prefer Rope, or Rear Window, even North By Northwest.

dummy_half wrote:TopHat

I wouldn't say Jaws is an awful film (although the sequels...), but I agree that it's rated too highly because it is populist. I also wouldn't put Gladiator anywhere near a top 10. However, we did get a couple of classic black and white films up there (12 Angry Men and It's a Wonderful Life) so clearly it's not just a list of recent blockbusters.

Hi Dummy - agree with all your comments above.

Jaws isn't a great film but it's great entertainment and a long way off being awful.

Pleased 12 Angry Men and It's a Wonderful Life made 606 v2's top ten. Worthy classics.

Very surprised that Vertigo comes out on top in the BFI best ever list. For me, it's good but not even Hitchcock's best work - I would rate Psycho and The 39 Steps above it.

Pleased at least that Citizen Kane was knocked off the BFI's top spot. I recently gave that a shout in the ''most overrated films'' thread. Another one that belongs in that thread rather than the BFI top ten is 2001: A Space Odyssey - far too pretentious, as you say earlier.

I would be interested in your ''top ten best actors'' on that thread. Most of the posts were for contemporary ones. That doesn't mean posters are wrong but I did find it a little surprising and disappointing that actors from the past didn't seem to get much of a look in.

guildfordbat wrote:
I would be interested in your ''top ten best actors'' on that thread. Most of the posts were for contemporary ones. That doesn't mean posters are wrong but I did find it a little surprising and disappointing that actors from the past didn't seem to get much of a look in.

I did think about actors from yesteryear, and although I am a huge fan of Mr Hitchcocks output (one of my faves being The Trouble with Harry ) I actually find the acting wooden in a lot of his films.

Don't get me wrong, I love Jimmy Stewart but I don't actually think he is/ was that great an actor. Same goes for Bogart, Gable and numerous other "stars" of the black and white era. Anthony Perkins was very good in Psycho but on one performance alone, I couldnt really justifying listing him as one of my favourites.

I stand by my modernist list of actors (which is not even that modernist as it has stars from 70's cinema).

As for this list of films, I agree that there is a element of peer pressure in the voting - as in people vote for classics because they feel they have to. Having said that, our (v2) list has its ropey ones too (gladiator the 2nd best film ever?!?) - I would even go to add Blade Runner with 2001 for being over bloated scifi - give me Starship Troopers anyday!

Adam - thanks for your response.

I do agree with you about too much of the acting being wooden in Hitchcock's films. For me, two exceptions are The 39 Steps and Psycho. In the former, Robert Donat gives a splendid performance covering nearly all emotions. In the latter, as you say, Anthony Perkins was very good.

Psycho is an extremely fine film. The shock and horror of its ending is rightly celebrated. However, the film's beginning is not appreciated enough as Hitchcock deliberately and cleverly misleads his audience into thinking what the film will be about over the opening twenty minutes or so.

I understand your comments about stars of the black and white era without particularly agreeing with them. Two of my favourites from that era who are now pretty much forgotten are Anton Wallbrook and Paul Muni - do try and catch them if you ever get a chance.

One other star from yesteryear who is still remembered but much underrated (he just missed out on a place in my own top ten actors) is Jimmy Cagney. There is so much more to his acting than the ''you, dirty rat'' gangster image commonly portrayed. His performance in Angels With Dirty Faces is both moving and purposely ambiguous. He also did several song and dance films although that's not my interest at all.

Btw, only recently discovered the Films section and am enjoying it a lot even though it makes me feel very old.

Guildford - have you ever considered doing some film articles for the v2Journal?

Looks like you have a good knowledge of the classics. Derby is thinking of trying to start a film club of sorts and would very much welcome your input.

As for some of your mentions for actors - I will be honest and say that I havent heard of them (not to say that I havent seen them unknowingly).

Other notable exlusions from these lists, which could rightly be on the list due to influence, would be films like James Whales Frankenstein and Langs Metropolis. I grew up watching the old RKO/Universal horrors and continued through the Hammer films of the 60s and 70s. Some fantastic stuff behind the cardboard sets!

AS an auteur, Sean Penn is one of my personal faves - as an actor, he is never less than mesmerising but as a director he is even better - The Pledge is one of the most intense endings to a film I have ever seen.

I would even go to add Blade Runner with 2001 for being over bloated scifi - give me Starship Troopers anyday!

I have to say that without Blade Runner I doubt you would have Terminator. Rutger Hauer's performance is vastly under-rated. Portraying an object in such a way that promotes emotional responses is simply amazing. Compare it with the work of Schwarzenegger, Williams, Joel Osment who have portrayed 'cyborgs' for me makes it much more remarkable.

I don't think Blade Runner was over 'bloated' I think it is a stunning piece of cinema. The music score equipped with the 'scratchy' effects I think adds to it as film. I think the fact it also drew a more thought provoking performance from Harrison who is normally renowned for swashbuckling hero performances.

To go back to guildfords point on past films not getting the attention and praise they deserve, I think a lot of it is because how much the film industry has progressed makes it is easier for people to dismiss black and white films as void if you want and find it hard to immerse themselves in the films. I implore our younger posters to watch such greats as The Maltese Falcon, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, To Kill a Mockingbird which have stunning storylines and performances.

Adam D wrote:Guildford - have you ever considered doing some film articles for the v2Journal?

Looks like you have a good knowledge of the classics. Derby is thinking of trying to start a film club of sorts and would very much welcome your input.

As for some of your mentions for actors - I will be honest and say that I havent heard of them (not to say that I havent seen them unknowingly).

Other notable exlusions from these lists, which could rightly be on the list due to influence, would be films like James Whales Frankenstein and Langs Metropolis. I grew up watching the old RKO/Universal horrors and continued through the Hammer films of the 60s and 70s. Some fantastic stuff behind the cardboard sets!

AS an auteur, Sean Penn is one of my personal faves - as an actor, he is never less than mesmerising but as a director he is even better - The Pledge is one of the most intense endings to a film I have ever seen.

Adam - you are far too kind. I haven't up until now considered doing any film articles for the v2Journal for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I've only recently found this section. Secondly, like many, I guess, I find it much easier to post a few quick comments than put in the hard slog and detailed thought that goes with a good article.

Anyway, I wouldn't rule it out on an occasional basis if Derby is interested. About to go on a week's holiday with no systems access so that gives me some breathing space!

I too like the Hammer and older horror films. Not great works of art - generally, very formulaic - but normally entertaining nonetheless.

I also think Sean Penn is a very talented individual and deserves to be forgiven for his mistake of marrying Madonna.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

To go back to guildfords point on past films not getting the attention and praise they deserve, I think a lot of it is because how much the film industry has progressed makes it is easier for people to dismiss black and white films as void if you want and find it hard to immerse themselves in the films. I implore our younger posters to watch such greats as The Maltese Falcon, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, To Kill a Mockingbird which have stunning storylines and performances.

I would strongly second legendkillar's support for the films mentioned above. Baby Jane illustrates perfectly that you don't need blood and gore to make a frightening film.

Is the 'surprise' in Psycho not just incredibly hilarious? Particularly when he comes in wearing the wig?

I think the key is that what the BFI were looking at was the "greatest" films of all time and it wasn't a poll of their favourite films.

Whilst I'm not sure it's the greatest film by anyone, I'd have to agree that as a cinematic achievement, Vertigo is Hitchcock's finest moment. That doesn't make it my favourite Hitchcock film (probably Rear Window or maybe Strangers on a Train) but I can see where the BFI are coming from. Similarly Citizen Cain isn't a film that one would necessarily want to revisit too many times but it is a staggering work of cinema. It's also quite interesting to see that whilst critics and film goers have voted for Vertigo, film makers have voted for Tokyo Story. Vertigo is very melodramatic and almost ostentatious and "show-offy" when compared with Tokyo Story which is very "real" and understated. I woudl have thought the film makers would have gone for Hitchcock's technical achievements.

I think these lists serve two purposes: (i) they encourage discussion; and (ii) they bring certain films to the attention of those who may not otherwise have heard about them. For that reason, I don't have a problem with them.

Agree with Guildford Bat that the acting in Hitchcock's films is often secondary (Hitchcock was supposedly very disparaging about actors and saw them as anecessray evil) but as well as Donat and Perkins there are a few other notable performances in his films - Robert Walker in Strangers on a Train, Ray Milland in Dial M for Murder, Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in Notorious, Gregory Perk and Ingrid Bergman (again) in Spellbound and Eve Marie Saint in North by Northwest.

P.S. If anyone is interested, the Guardian online is doing a feature where it's writers choose their favourite Hitchcock films. It's a good introduction to his work.

P.P.S Tophat - Jaws is a work of genius and you should hang your head in shame.

superflyweight wrote:I think the key is that what the BFI were looking at was the "greatest" films of all time and it wasn't a poll of their favourite films.

Whilst I'm not sure it's the greatest film by anyone, I'd have to agree that as a cinematic achievement, Vertigo is Hitchcock's finest moment. That doesn't make it my favourite Hitchcock film (probably Rear Window or maybe Strangers on a Train) but I can see where the BFI are coming from. Similarly Citizen Cain isn't a film that one would necessarily want to revisit too many times but it is a staggering work of cinema. It's also quite interesting to see that whilst critics and film goers have voted for Vertigo, film makers have voted for Tokyo Story. Vertigo is very melodramatic and almost ostentatious and "show-offy" when compared with Tokyo Story which is very "real" and understated. I woudl have thought the film makers would have gone for Hitchcock's technical achievements.

I think these lists serve two purposes: (i) they encourage discussion; and (ii) they bring certain films to the attention of those who may not otherwise have heard about them. For that reason, I don't have a problem with them.

Agree with Guildford Bat that the acting in Hitchcock's films is often secondary (Hitchcock was supposedly very disparaging about actors and saw them as anecessray evil) but as well as Donat and Perkins there are a few other notable performances in his films - Robert Walker in Strangers on a Train, Ray Milland in Dial M for Murder, Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in Notorious, Gregory Perk and Ingrid Bergman (again) in Spellbound and Eve Marie Saint in North by Northwest.

P.S. If anyone is interested, the Guardian online is doing a feature where it's writers choose their favourite Hitchcock films. It's a good introduction to his work.

P.P.S Tophat - Jaws is a work of genius and you should hang your head in shame.

Couldnt disagree with anything said there.

forgot all about Strangers on a Train when talking Hitch earlier. Walker is brilliantly creepy in it although his counterpart in Farley Granger is weak in comparison. The fairground scene is very good indeed.

As you said, Hitch never got the greatest performances from his leads (and apparently was vile towards his leading ladies) but he could build a great film through camera tricks and great stories. Its amazing that even today, the falling scenes in Vertigo stand up well to some films made 30+years later.

Hitch is responsible for many of todays great themes in cinema, from the Macguffin to twists to camera tricks.

Big fan of Hitch - I bought the 15 DVD box set a few years back and havent seen one film that Iwas compelled to turn off yet (still working my way through them - kids and all that!)

I'm not a huge fan of Grainger's, Adam. I think he was similarly weak in Rope. I think he was principally a stage actor and I think it shows in his mannerisms.

I do have a very good biography of Hitchcock at home but for the life of me can't remember its name or the author. I'll have a look and see if I can find it and will report.

P.S. Adam depending on the age of your kids, it could be time to get them into Hitchcock. Planning on getting my daughter started on North By Northwest, The Man Who Knew Too Much (the remake) and To Catch a Thief when she's old enough. Not necessarily his best works (in the case of the latter two) but fairly accessible to kids.

the last one I watched was the Man who knew too Much. James Stewart played James Stewart in it like he always does but I thought that Doris Day was stunning in it.

Funnily enough, in the Toruble with Harry , Shirley Maclean also looked never better. One thing you can say about Hitch, was that he picked some stunning leading ladies in their prime.

The next film I am getting my kids to watch is the Princess Bride! Inconceivable that they havent watched it yet!

"Inconceivable" indeed! An excellent choice. Sat down to watch it with my 6 year old nephew not long ago and he loved it (although he found some of it quite scary - needs to toughen up).

where is snakes on a plane,
that is an awsome film

Thanks for some excellent responses guys, exactly why I posted - best thing about these forums (as well as the banter) is the informal education from more knowledgeable posters.

PS: Superfly, sorry to offend you re Jaws, I've watch it plenty of times and, whilst awful may have been harsh, I still think it is much more a guilty pleasure film than genuinely great cinematography.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Thanks for some excellent responses guys, exactly why I posted - best thing about these forums (as well as the banter) is the informal education from more knowledgeable posters.

PS: Superfly, sorry to offend you re Jaws, I've watch it plenty of times and, whilst awful may have been harsh, I still think it is much more a guilty pleasure film than genuinely great cinematography.

I disagree there.

The reverse boomshot is an iconic cinematography moment! (the one where Roy Schneider is on the beach and the background appears to go into the distance)

Maybe going to Universal Studios spoilt the magic too much for me as a kid Adam......

If that reverse boomshot is so iconic, shouldn't we hold Matrix/CTHD in higher regard for their cinematographic style? (which, I think, was new at the time)

Crimey wrote:Is the 'surprise' in Psycho not just incredibly hilarious? Particularly when he comes in wearing the wig?

Bit of a letdown, I thought. Such a cliche.

What really made me laugh was Simon Oakland poking holes in the air, just so we don't miss the "Exposition!"

WhiteCamry wrote:

Crimey wrote:Is the 'surprise' in Psycho not just incredibly hilarious? Particularly when he comes in wearing the wig?

Bit of a letdown, I thought. Such a cliche.

I think that's harsh. The final scene in Psycho only comes to be seen now as a cliche because it has been copied so much. At the time of the film's release, it was chillingly innovative.

As I've mentioned before, the film contains another 'surprise' which is much underrated and too often overlooked. I'm referring to how Hitchcock deceives his audience into thinking what the film will be about in the opening twenty minutes or so and then menacingly changes direction.

Spot on, GB. Psycho was never a cliche - it's the films that came after that used the same tricks as Hitch used in Pscho that developed the cliches. I've spoken with people that saw Psycho when it first came out and they genuinely had no idea SPOILER ALERT.... that Norman was "mother". The ending blew them away.

Hitchcock also employed a marketing trick which ramped up the tension for those watching it for the first time. Cinema-goers were told that if they didn't turn up on time they wouldn't be admitted. Given the lack of advanced press coverage and the fact that trailers then tended not to be summary of all the best bits of the film (I've seen the original Psycho trailer and it involves Hitchcock wondering around Bates motel and the old house teasin the audience about what the film might contain), anyone going to see it at the time of first release woudl have been on edge from the oepning credits.

The other great deception in Psycho is that it repeatedly makes us root for different characters. We start off rooting for Marion Crane to get away with the cash. After she's murdered we root for Norman (particularly the bit where Marion's car nearly rises again from the water and also when the detective shows up). As the film reaches it's climax, we then start to root for Marion's sister.