And these people are really scary because some of them are film critics, others film festival directors, and yet others simply professional moviegoers, paid to go to Cannes or Venice or Berlin to pick new titles, and all they do is to create boundaries between anything that happens to be commercially viable and critically acceptable. Sometimes it's about putting down anything shown at the local multiplex because it's being shown there rather than at a local art house, sometimes it is about the director being a moneymaker or a film that just happens to be commercially successful. They do this all the time, and me, being an insider of sorts since I've been involved in this for two decades, have watched it all with increasing disgust and disbelief.
I completely agree with you. Until the French turned up, Hitchcock was mocked because he was successful by these sorts of idiots. I completely agree with you, 100% on this. The amount of times great films (including those later recognised as great) are crushed by these people.
Thing is, the first time I saw Peeping Tom was probably twenty years ago and I can freely admit I didn't really understand it. I thought it to be rather slow and dull, in spite of the shocking theme. The drama to me now is much like Internet drama, as such rather tedious at best. 
Since, I've had the opportunity to watch it again, several times, since it used to be a frequent rerun at my cinema. Apart from the colours disappearing, I found it to be pretty much what I remembered it to be. I still thought it to be disappointing, far from the horror it was advertised as, and never as shocking as advertised. Could be that I'm an aspie, could be that it's not my thing, but I never bought it.
I have never found
'Peeping Tom' to be either shocking or a Horror movie. Historically, together with
'Psycho' they are the roots of the 'Slasher' sub genre... though hugely better than many that followed them - undenyably significant in film history... and that alone merits that they be seen at least once by those interested in film.
If
'Peeping Tom' is advertised as a Horror movie, then in my opinion it is mis-advertised and being wronged... just as the excellent
'Willard' remake was crippled by a misjudged advertising campaing and the original
'The Omen' almost suffered the same fate but was rescued. I have never thought of
'Peeping Tom' as a horror movie, but rather as a psychological drama which involves horrific elements. Perhaps this is the problem. Whilst you have every right not to like the film, perhaps your initial viewing was marred by the expectation of it being a Horror movie. Kind of like approaching
'A Matter of Life and Death' expecting a Fantasy Epic... bound to disappointment due to not meeting expectations.
Yes it is slow compared the the fast editing of modern movies... but then
'Alien' was considered slow in its time. Studio Execs complained that nothing happened in
'Alien' for the first 20 minutes or so.
'The Vampyr' might also be considered slow... but I'd recommend that as a must see, along with both versions of
'Nosferatu'. I do not mind slow... Sergio Leone westerns might also be considered slow by today's fast paced breathless standards - yet their slowness permits them to breath and provides texture between the moments of sudden violence.
Vertigo is a good film. Terrific, if you ask me. But I always found Harry more enjoyable. I laughed like a drain, the first time I saw it. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It made me feel good, and the film was so cleverly executed that it made me think *why* it made me feel so good. Which is why I analysed it, and picked it apart, because I was heavily involved in making films in those days.
Vertigo, on the other hand, is an excellent thriller but the ending pretty much destroyed it for me, with James Stewart cured at a cost. The symbolism was sickening to me. Don't get me wrong--the film's excellent craftsmanship. It's just that I didn't buy it, in spite of the build-up. It's typical Hitchcock but the conclusion wasn't satisfying to me. Which is why I would never list it as one of my favourites, in spite of the mastery of his craft.
I love down beat endings - lol. I love the ending of
'The Great Silence' (
'Il Grande silenzio') greatly - lol. Can't get more downbeat than that. Watched David Lean's magnificent
'Doctor Zhivago' again tonight and that has a lovely down beat ending too. I love the fact that
'Vertigo' bucks the Hollywood trend of the happy ending. Its about destructive obsessive impossible forbidden love... and so, methinks, could not really end any other way. The final act is virtually one long drawn out soul-rape by way of agonising obsession.
I think
'The Trouble with Harry' is Hitchcock's most beautiful-looking film. And that opening sequence with the little boy playing in the woods, is absolutely fantastic... possibly my favourite Hitchcock opening. However, regardless as to how delicious a delight it is... I find it hinges on just one major joke... the very trouble with Harry. Sophisticated, but largelly singular and played out for the duration of the movie. In the hands of a lesser Director, it would probably have run out of steam. It is, in the hands of Hitchcock, a magnificent dessert one can enjoy time and time again without it getting old - it was one of Hitchcock's personal favourites, and woefully underrated. It is just that, for me,
'Vertigo' is more of a main course and textured. I wouldn't say any of Hitchcock's films were typical Hitchcock, because he was ever so experimental in what he did. Even quota fillers like
'Dial M for Murder' have a touch of his genius about them... and are not typical. I do not think I could recognise a typical Hitchcock and I have 38 of his movies in my collection.
Because of our argument, I re-watched
'Vertigo' again last night... trying to be with a more critical eye. The only real criticism I could find with it, is it tends to be a little bit on the talky side - quite a number of talking head sequences... which is causing me to re-evaluate where In put it in the Master's canon. It may stay in number one spot in my opinion, but I'm giving it some more thought. Its certainly got my second favourite Hitchcock opening with that magnificent rooftop chase - but an opening is just an opening - important but not the be all and end all
Incidentally, most of what I ever will say on this board or elsewhere are just opinions. My opinions. As I said to Lucifer in an email just now, I'm an opinionated twunt.
No. You are more than entitled to your opinions. I'm very opinionated myself. I'd just sooner have had this excellent post of yours nearer the outset. This is a post I can really respect. Attacks on my motivations because my choice happens to go hand in hand with the PCs of some stuffed shirts, does not go down at all well. Remember what the critics say about
'Citizen Kane' and I'm not about to suggest we both rate that film highly because of some misplaced political correctness rather than our honest and informed opinions
Let's stop this, shall we? We both love Goldsmith, and that means a lot in my book.
I quite agree. I'd far sooner have fun discussing movies than the sort of thing we were doing earlier.
Thank you for your excellent explaination of your position and reasons, Odeon.
