'kay...
Nocti, I think it's time to stop this thing.
First of all, I'm really sorry you took my initial Peeping Tom comment personally. I don't understand why, but I know you did. I can be like that, putting down films, books, music, anything I dislike, with a lot of sometimes mean commentary. Unnecessary, I know, but a part of my endearing character. And it's never personal; it's just an opinion. A strong one, but nevertheless just an opinion, and as such worth exactly as much or as little as the next man's.
Anyway, the rest went downhill fast but that has more to do with my personal dislike of "authorities", especially film critics (and the world they inhabit), rather than your comments. You only triggered those. See, one of my pet peeves is the kind of blind trust to certain directors, films, "waves" (new or otherwise), and the like that the patrons of the art house I've been showing films at have been displaying. The film festival people here in town are just the same. Often they will like a film because it's politically correct to do so. It's the party line of sorts.
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.
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.
But that's me. The patrons loved it, still do. They come in hordes. Tells me my tastes are different from theirs. And yours.
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.
But that's OK. The other films you mentioned I agree about. The Touch of Evil is sheer genius, as is Citizen Kane, which to me is still as modern a film as they come. It's always been on my top ten.
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.
Let's stop this, shall we? We both love Goldsmith, and that means a lot in my book.
