Part of the Alfred Hitchcock Sound Era Films In Chronological Order project.

SOME MILD SPOILERS

Being named the critics' greatest film of all time in Sight And Sound magazine, and being praised to the heavens by the magazine at every opportunity, was probably one of the worst things that could have happened to Vertigo.

It put it on a pedestal to be shot at by all and sundry. Pah, this isn't the greatest film of all time! It's not even Hitchcock's greatest! Did they get bored of Citizen Kane or what?!

And these proclamations are just by me! Me being someone who thinks it IS a truly great film and well worthy of so much of the adoration and lavish praise that it has received for, well, most of the 55 years since its release. I'm also someone who can really and genuinely see why it gets such lofty praise now because almost all the elements are there that could lead me to understand why it is thought of so highly.

Here I am, though, placed in the odd position of almost criticising a film that is easily one of the better films that I've ever seen. I'm not going to do that, though, because I don't actually think there is much wrong with this film at all. This is Hitchcock arguably operating at a level of creativity and brilliance that is a step above anything he had created to this point. I just didn't personally enjoy it as much as some of his other films, although I enjoyed it thoroughly.

What I appreciated most about the film was the absolute feeling of unease and dread that the film manages to create whenever Stewart and Kim Novak are together or in fairly close proximity. It feels to me that right from the outset we are being told that these two people are not meant to be together and that it will end in disaster. It's brilliantly executed as well, through the effectively invasive Bernard Herrman music most especially but also with the misty shots that seem to cloud most of the scenes Novak and Stewart are together in.

This is what interested me most in Vertigo. I was less interested in Stewart's past relationship with Barbara Bel Geddes (I'll gladly marry her, though, if that's alright with her) and the dream sequence, perhaps due to many subsequent parodies, now looks silly and unnecessary. Ruling those two things out, however, you are still left with one hell of a film.

Stewart is quite brilliant here. He's really asked a lot of in this film, and I found it interesting to read that Hitchcock blamed his relative age to Novak on the film's initial failure. Well, Mr Hitchcock, you cast him! To be additionally fair to Stewart, Novak looks a fair bit older than the 25 years of age she was at the time of the film's release so the gap is not so obvious and did not play on my mind at all. The age gap between Stewart and Grace Kelly in Rear Window looked far wider and more unlikely. Bad form, Hitch. Jimmy's flawless here.

As is Novak. She's given a much harder time in this film in of what she has to do than Stewart has but is not only exceptionally beautiful and other-worldly, but also has to convince through several different character personality traits and a complete change of 'character' over halfway in. There was a fascinating interview with the Daily Telegraph several months ago that talks in more detail about her experiences on the film and her relationship with her co-star and director - a very insightful back-up to her performance, I feel.

All in all, a remarkable film now getting all the recognition and plaudits that, perhaps, it never actually needed or should have wanted.