The AFI Top 100: Final Thoughts

January 9, 2014March 27, 2017 / Len Gutman / 5 Comments

Now that I have completed watching the American Film Institute’s Top 100 American films I wanted to close the book on the project by providing a few general thoughts as well as offering up some of the biggest surprises (both good and bad) about the list. I do have to say right off the bat that I am a sucker for lists. I like to read them and then debate them and/or compare them to my own experiences, which is why this was a fun project. It should also be noted that lists are all the rage right now thanks to websites like BuzzFeed and Mental Floss and the emergence of listicles. It appears we all love a good list.

So, is the AFI Top 100 American Films a good list? I’d say yes, with some caveats. The biggest issue I have with the AFI list is that it was voted on by so-called film experts who tend to err on the side of tradition and safe. The AFI list is safe. There are really no indie films or quirky films anywhere to be found. And that’s a shame because I am a huge fan of quirky independent films. Additionally, because the AFI list was voted on by film makers it does not truly reflect the pulse of the viewing public. All you have to do to see the difference is to look at a list of top films as voted on by viewers, such as the 250 Best Films on the Internet Movie Database (IMDB). In the IMDB top 10 alone there are three films that didn’t even make the AFI Top 100 (The Dark Knight, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Fight Club). Note that the AFI list came out in 2007 and the IMDB list is current so a few films on the IMDB list weren’t even out when the AFI list was published including The Dark Knight and Fight Club, though I can assure you these two would not have made the AFI list regardless.

Another criticism I have with the AFI list is that it included far too many very old films…silent film old. Some of the silent films it included in its Top 100 list were downright bad films, and in my opinion the majority of the pre-war films on the list just don’t hold up. Just because something is old does not mean it’s great (see Zsa Zsa Gabor). But generally, the AFI list did a decent job. Looking back at my reviews I enjoyed the vast majority of the films on the list even if I didn’t always agree about their place on the list.

So, I said there were some surprises. Here are five films I hadn’t seen and loved (links to my reviews included):

And of course, here are a five films that I hadn’t seen but flat-out hated or otherwise didn’t think had a place on this list or any other list:

If you missed it, last week I posted a list of my favorite 25 films of all time and of course many of them were not on the AFI list.

So, there you have it – my AFI epic quest has come to a close. As I mentioned in my last post, I need a new project so if you have any ideas for a list for me to watch send it along.

Run credits. Fade to black.

AFI #1: Citizen Kane

December 31, 2013 / Len Gutman / Leave a comment

Well, what started as a fun little project on April 17, 2011 has finally come to an end on this the last day of 2013. Ironically, this project began and ended with a disappointing film. I may be in the minority, but I didn’t like AFI #100 Ben-Hur at all, and I can’t say I enjoyed the apparent best American film ever made, Citizen Kane. I didn’t dislike Citizen Kane, I just thought it was much ado about nothing. It certainly isn’t the best American film of all time in my opinion. There were, however, so many amazing films on the AFI list and the project was well worth the experience.

I get that Citizen Kane was ahead of its time in terms of cinematography and editing, but the truth is I’m not a filmmaker so I don’t really care about that. The most innovative technical aspect of Citizen Kane is the extended use of deep focus, according to Wikipedia. Good for Orson Welles. I don’t think any of the other films on the AFI list made the list based on technical merits, yet a jury of 1,500 film artists, critics and historians determined that Citizen Kane was the greatest movie of all time. Okay, I’m not here to disparage the AFI — after all I chose to watch the films on their list. But I’ve seen a shitload of films in my time, some on this list and some not, and I can think of tons that are better than Citizen Kane. Of course, art is subjective.

I did, however, like the themes embedded in Citizen Kane. What I got out of it was that life is about more than acquiring things and wealth, and that happiness is found in the little things. For Charles Foster Kane that meant at the end of his life, a life in which he achieved great wealth and power, he was never happier than when he was a child playing in the snow with his sled. As someone who values life’s simple pleasures I can relate to that message. Critics have also suggested the film is an indictment of capitalism itself, and I can see that and I appreciate that sentiment too. To think that Welles broached these subjects on film in 1941 is pretty impressive given the heightened patriotism of the World War II generation.

So, I don’t agree with the AFI jury but that shouldn’t be a surprise. I didn’t set out to critique the list, but rather to complete a project and the AFI list was as good a list as any. I have to admit though that finishing this quest is both fulfilling and a little bittersweet. I need another list! I have thought of a few ideas, but I’m open to suggestions for the next project. I have considered watching the entire James Bond catalog in order. Or watching every Woody Allen film in order despite having already seen them all and knowing that my wife hates Woody. Anyone know a good list of the best indie films? I’ll be taking suggestions but I suspect I’ll want to launch into something new pretty quickly so send your ideas pronto.

All that said, I’m not quite finished with this project. Several people have asked me during this project about my overall impressions of the AFI list, whether there were any major surprises either way, and of course what are my favorite films. I suspect I have one or two more blog posts coming over the next day or so on these subjects so stay tuned.

Thanks to all of you who followed along with me on this crazy trip. In the 20 months since I started it I moved to California and back, changed jobs twice and had a friggin’ heart attack. I watched movies that I rented at stores, borrowed from the library, downloaded off the Internet, and streamed on NetFlix, Amazon and Google Play. I watched films by myself, with my family, and a few times with friends. It was tons of fun!

Happy New Year!

AFI #2: The Godfather

December 31, 2013 / Len Gutman / Leave a comment

The Godfather is likely the most critically acclaimed film of all time, even though it did not take the top spot in the AFI survey. Still, it’s hard to find any critic who does not place The Godfather among the greatest films ever made. When it was released in 1972 it was the highest grossing film that year and for many years held the record for the highest grossing American film. It won a handful of Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and a Best Acting Oscar for Marlon Brando. The film cemented Francis Ford Coppola’s position among the best American film makers, and it catapulted Al Pacino into legendary actor status — which he formalized two years later with his legendary performance in The Godfather Part II.

But there is something else about The Godfather that struck a chord with viewers and has made it such an enduring film. My personal view is that the film speaks to the American immigrant experience and the success of the underdog and that certainly resonates with most Americans. But more than that, The Godfather was the first film to delve into the psyche of the American criminal and give us insight into the motivations of truly bad people. That and we love a good mob hit!

There were plenty of mobster films before The Godfather, but they were caricatures of mobsters, with the likes of James Cagney sneering and shooting his Tommy gun. In The Godfather we have much more robust characters. In The Godfather Part II we learn what drove Vito Corleone to a life of crime, essentially his inability to provide for his family in any other way plus the revenge of his own father’s murder. In The Godfather we see a more measured and mature Vito trying to keep his family where it is while avoiding the pitfalls of the growing narcotics trade. His maturity is in stark contrast to Sonny’s youthful exuberance and lust for power, which ultimately gets him whacked. But the real story of The Godfather is the precursor to Part II, in which we see a young Michael return from war thinking he could stay away from his family business only to be dragged in when things get personal for him. As he sees his father shot he gets a twinge of understanding for the family business, and then when his wife his killed in Sicily and his brother is gunned down he returns to America fully engaged in the family business. It is this change in Michael that provides the climax of The Godfather when Michael kills off the heads of the other four mafia families and whacks Moe Green as well to establish the family’s dominance not just in New York but across America. We see how that turns out in Part II, but the change in Michael is fascinating to watch and he ultimately becomes a much more ruthless killer than his father.

I don’t know anyone who likes The Godfather that doesn’t root for the family, even though we know what they are doing is against the law and immoral. We cheer when Michael kills Captain McCluskey and Sollozzo in the restaurant and we love when Clemenza strangles Connie’s husband for setting up Sonny. Not only do we love it when Clemenza kills Paulie for setting up Don Corleone, but we celebrate his famous line following the kill — “leave the gun, take the cannolis.” We feel compassion for the Corleone family when Sonny gets killed and when Michael’s wife is blown up in Sicily. We root for the killers. It’s the phenomenon that later has us relating to Tony Soprano and Dexter Morgan. Before The Godfather killers didn’t have feelings.

Of course The Godfather is one of the most quoted movies of all time, especially among men but even women love the bad guys. “Don’t ask me about my business Kay.” “Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.” And the most famous line, #2 on the AFI list of best movie lines ever: “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

So, do I love The Godfather? No, but I like it a lot and understand its place in the history of American film. I also liked Part II, but as I said in that review I think you can’t separate the two films as they are really part of the same story, especially when you consider how Coppola shot the films out of chronological order. I’m not saying it should be seen chronologically, but when you understand the chronology the films are better. The films also gave us several iconic characters and has spawned hundreds of tributes and references. George Lucas, for example, said that the baptism scene in The Godfather was his inspiration for the scene in Episode III when Anakin Skywalker kills the separatist leaders and announces the beginning of the Galactic Empire. If there were no Godfather there would have been no Goodfellas or Casino or Sopranos. The Godfather is truly a great and important American film.

Next: Citizen Kane

AFI #3: Casablanca

December 29, 2013 / Len Gutman / Leave a comment

“Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine.”

These lines uttered by Rick Blaine set into action events that change the lives of several unsuspecting people who find themselves in Casablanca at the onset of World War II. When you think about it, it’s not much of a plot and it takes place over the course of just a few days…nevertheless Casablanca went on to win an Academy Award for Best Picture and become one of the most beloved films of all time. A great many films have been about more important subjects and featured far better performances, but there is something about Casablanca that resonates with so many film goers.

It’s certainly a great love story. Rick and Ilsa fall madly in love in Paris but as the Germans roll in she leaves him standing at the train station in the rain. Why? Because the heroic husband she thought long dead has turned up alive. Upon running into each other again in Casablanca, she is torn by her feelings for Rick and her allegiance and love for her husband. At the same time, Rick finds himself questioning everything he believes in, and while he is heartbroken by the loss of Ilsa he knows the choices he must make are far greater than he. Yes, it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

It’s also a war movie, and World War II to boot. You have French patriots and Vichy sympathizers and Nazis, who always account for a great war picture! There is a mysterious American and hero of the underground. There are the profiteers like the unfortunate Ugarte and bar owner Signor Ferrari. You have the dueling national anthems. You have the intrigue of the passage to Lisbon and the murder of the German couriers.

But for me what sets Casablanca apart and what lands it not just at #3 on the AFI list but also among my personal top 10 is the brilliance of the screenplay. I know what you’re thinking…of course he likes the words, he’s a writer. But I submit to you that Casablanca is so great because it consists of some of the greatest dialogue ever performed on the silver screen. The wonderful words begin at the very start and continue unabated until the final line of the film. Yes, Casablanca is one of the most quotable films ever, but the dialogue is special even beyond those nuggets. But just for sheer fun, here’s what everyone remembers:

“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” — Captain Renault

“We’ll always have Paris.” — Rick

“Here’s looking at you kid.” — Rick

“Play it, Sam. Play “As Time Goes By.” — Ilsa

“Round up the usual suspects.” — Captain Renault

“I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue.” — Rick

“Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.” — Rick

But it’s not just these iconic lines. Every bit of dialogue is brilliant. Here’s a particular favorite of mine:

Renault: I’ve often speculated on why you don’t return to America. Did you abscond with the church funds? Did you run off with a Senator’s wife? I like to think that you killed a man. It’s the romantic in me.

Rick: It’s a combination of all three.

Renault: And what in heaven’s name brought you to Casablanca?

Rick: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.

Renault: The waters? What waters? We’re in the desert.

Rick: I was misinformed.

And yes, the performances are enduring. Can you think of Humphrey Bogart and not think of Rick? No matter the great performances, Claude Rains will always be Captain Louie Renault. Ingrid Bergman won three acting Oscars…remember for what films? She was not even nominated for Casablanca. It doesn’t matter, she’ll always be Ilsa Lund.

Casablanca is 102 minutes of movie perfection.

Next: The Godfather

AFI #4: Raging Bull

December 22, 2013 / Len Gutman / Leave a comment

Listen to me carefully because I’m only going to say this once — there has never been a better acting performance in the history of motion pictures than Robert De Niro’s performance as Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull. Go ahead and think of one…I’ll wait. Are you done? Good. I’m glad we agree and it is settled.

Clearly De Niro became Jake LaMotta for two hours. He inhabited him like a soul and delivered unto film the most awe-inspiring, raw and powerful performance of all time. You truly can’t take your eyes of the screen during the film. When you look into De Niro’s eyes you feel the pain and fear and insecurities of the man and you explode with emotion just as he does whether it’s in the ring or in his personal life. LaMotta’s self-doubt turns to raw energy and it becomes the force that enables him to tear men apart in the ring, but when it’s over you feel sorry for LaMotta rather than his opponents because he is still not satisfied with what he has done. I wonder how a person can have so much yet need so much more?

Everyone knows the story of how De Niro became Jake LaMotta. The former middleweight champ was an adviser on the film and De Niro was able to become LaMotta by talking to the man and also by reading LaMotta’s own words about his tortured life. And of course De Niro trained as a boxer for the role. And he lived with Joe Pesci so the two would feel more like brothers. And De Niro put on 60 pounds of real weight to play the older version of LaMotta. Method acting became a household term after this film was released. Truly De Niro became LaMotta physically and emotionally and it all came together on the screen in the most incredible way.

Raging Bull was voted the best film of the 1980s by numerous news outlets and film critics and I’m not going to argue with that ranking. Is it the fourth best American film of all time? I don’t know, but I certainly can’t argue about its inclusion in the top 10 of the AFI list. It is definitely one of the best American films ever produced, if for nothing else than De Niro’s Oscar-winning performance. But it’s so much more than that. Any discussion of Raging Bull has to give credit to Martin Scorsese, who I’ve already said on this blog is in my opinion one of the top two or three directors in American film history and you could argue Raging Bull is his masterpiece. Scorsese did not win best director for Raging Bull — it wasn’t until 27 years later that the Academy honored him for directing with his win for The Departed. A great film that won Best Picture but in my opinion it’s great but not as good as Raging Bull. Scorsese captured the emotion of LaMotta’s life, but also created a mood that makes the viewer feel like he or she is watching a film made in the 40s and 50s. He does this primarily through the use of black and white, but he also selected a hauntingly beautiful score to add to the tone. The brutality of the boxing ring was captured wonderfully through delicate choreography and find makeup work. The team used chocolate syrup as fake blood to find the perfect consistency knowing in black and white it would work perfectly.

The film also featured tremendous supporting performances by Joe Pesci and Kathy Moriarty, both of whom were nominated for acting Oscars. It was one of Pesci’s first movie roles and it was a clear indication of things to come. Pesci lost to Timothy Hutton of Ordinary People and for my money that will go down as one of the worst Oscar snubs ever. In fact, Ordinary People beat out Raging Bull for Best Picture and Robert Redford took home the Best Director statue for the film. I have nothing against Ordinary People — it’s a nice film with good performances. But note that it isn’t to be found on the AFI Top 100 and Raging Bull came in at number 4 all time. Oscar clearly had its head up its ass in 1981!

I think Raging Bull is one of the best films ever made. It’s not one of my favorites, but artistically and performance-wise it is incredible and worthy of its place in history.

Next: Casablanca

AFI #5: Singin’ in the Rain

December 15, 2013 / Len Gutman / 1 Comment

Well, we’re into the top 5 American films of all time according to the brain trust at the American Film Institute, and I guess I expected more from Singin’ in the Rain. This film suffers from something I’ve seen a lot in this quest — the film is nowhere near as good as the world’s memory of it. I am not a musical hater, but this film doesn’t belong in the top 50 let alone the top 5. The plot is trite and the acting is silly.

It isn’t without merit though. There are several great musical numbers mixed in, not the least of which is the famous scene of Gene Kelly dancing and singing in the rain after he realizes he is in love with the talented young Kathy Seldon. It’s a classic movie moment, which is where I think the voters on surveys like this make mistakes. Is it fair to say the scene is one of the greatest song and dance numbers ever filmed? Sure, why not. It is iconic and Gene Kelly is the best song and dance man of all time. But I don’t even think Singin’ in the Rain is his best film let alone the fifth best American film ever (I like An American in Paris better frankly). The other iconic scene from the film is Donald O’Connor’s amazing “make them laugh” number which had me laughing and marveling at his joint-defying moves. Michael Jackson got his moves from Donald O’Connor! There are other nice song and dance numbers, but nothing that Fred and Ginger didn’t do. The film did have another thing going for it — an appearance by Cyd Charisse who for my money has the best gams ever to grace the silver screen (watch The Band Wagon or Brigadoon if you don’t believe me).

I enjoy watching Gene Kelly sing and dance. Really, I do. He was great in Xanadu! But like I said Singin’ in the Rain is not a great film, rather it is a nice film with a few great moments in it.

Next: Raging Bull

AFI #6: Gone With the Wind

December 8, 2013December 8, 2013 / Len Gutman / Leave a comment

Based on the Margaret Mitchell novel, 1939’s Gone With the Wind is arguably the most popular film ever made and one of the most successful as well. It is of course the story of the American south during the Civil War, but really it is simply a sweeping and epic story of love. Note that I didn’t call it a love story, because it’s not that. It’s more like a misguided or forbidden love story. Surely the main characters love people who don’t return their affection in the way they’d like. Scarlett O’Hara loves Ashley Wilkes, but while he sometimes thinks he loves Scarlett, he is really only in love with his cousin Melanie Hamilton. And for all his bravado, Rhett Butler loves Scarlett despite her inability to return his affection. All of this is set against the demise of their beloved south, although Mitchell surely romanticizes the lifestyle far too much.

It’s truly hard not to enjoy Gone With the Wind. It is a classic of American film and the story is wonderful. But for my money Gone With the Wind is one of the greatest films ever because of its tremendous performances. And that begins, undoubtedly, with Vivien Leigh’s tour de force as Scarlett. Has there ever been a more epic female character in the history of film? Leigh’s Scarlett is beautiful, charming, manipulative, strong and tragic — all at once! Leigh’s Oscar-winning performance is one for the ages and I defy you to take your eyes off of her when she’s on the screen. Leigh made plenty of films over her career, but she will always be immortalized as Scarlett O’Hara and rightfully so.

Clark Gable, who surprisingly did not win the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal as Captain Rhett Butler, was almost as epic as Leigh. Butler is the epitome of the leading man…he is smart, handsome, strong and savvy. He makes millions during the war as a profiteer, knows how to have a good time, and is the only man who sees beyond Scarlett O’Hara’s facade and truly gets her. Unfortunately for Butler he truly loves Scarlett, and that leads him only to tragedy. By the end he at least knows when it’s time to get out! Gable’s Butler is one of the best male characters ever to be captured on film, and if you disagree…frankly I don’t give a damn.

Gone With the Wind is the definition of an epic and it deserves its lofty place on the AFI list. It is indeed an American classic.

Next: We crack the Top 5 with Singin’ in the Rain

AFI #7: Lawrence of Arabia

November 27, 2013November 27, 2013 / Len Gutman / 1 Comment

“The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts.” — T.E. Lawrence

Let’s see, a four-hour movie set in the Arabian desert with no women in the cast and long, drawn out scenes of emptiness. Yeah, that’s good for seven Academy Awards including Best Picture. Lawrence of Arabia is nothing if not ambitious. The trick indeed is not minding that it hurts.

If I’m being honest I didn’t really like Lawrence of Arabia. I mean, I sort of liked the first few hours, but by the time I got to the three-hour mark I was done. I made it to the end, but I lost interest around the time the Arab army attacked Damascus. I get that Director David Lean was going for long and slow to simulate the vastness of the desert, but he could have easily told this story in 120 minutes instead of 227. And yes, the cinematography was wonderful but after a while it too got boring. It’s interesting to me that The Bridge on the River Kwai (also directed by Lean) was #36 on this list despite being a much better film in my humble opinion.

Alas, I was not an AFI voter so my opinion doesn’t count. I did enjoy quite a bit of Lawrence of Arabia. I thought Peter O’Toole was great, but I’m a big fan. He’s one of those actors who always seems to play Peter O’Toole in films (my favorite, for the record, was 1982’s My Favorite Year). O’Toole has this amazing way of looking both serious and like he’s up to no good at the same time, which was a key attribute of his Major T.E. Lawrence. I also thought Omar Sharif was fabulous as Sherif Ali and Anthony Quinn was brilliant as Auda Abu Tayi. Too bad I can’t say the same thing about Alec Guinness, who was miserably cast as the Arab Prince Feisal — really, you can’t find a middle eastern actor to play the role of a sheik so you cast an old white British guy? Was Omar Sharif the only middle eastern actor in Hollywood at the time?

The film also has some very classic lines, so kudos to the screenwriter and likely the real Lawrence may have had something to do with it as well given the film is based on his life and the book he wrote about it. Here’s a gem:

General Murray: I can’t make out whether you’re bloody bad-mannered or just half-witted.
T.E. Lawrence: I have the same problem, sir.

Ultimately I’d say Lawrence of Arabia was decent but too damn long. Certainly not one of the top 10 American films ever made. One of the most ambitious…sure.

Next, another behemoth: Gone With the Wind

AFI #8: Schindler’s List

November 26, 2013November 26, 2013 / Len Gutman / 1 Comment

I’m not going to attempt to provide a review of Schindler’s List because frankly it’d be a waste of time. It is clearly one of the greatest films ever made and to offer my semi-professional opinion on it as a film would be unfair to Mr. Spielberg. Suffice it to say Schindler’s List is brilliant. As are the performances by Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Ben Kingsley.

Instead, what I’d like to offer is my opinion on the purpose of film in general. Because let’s be honest, Schindler’s List is not entertaining and I have argued on this blog before that the main purpose of movies is to entertain. When I saw Schindler’s List I walked out of the theater looking like I’d been run over by a train. I was emotionally drained and disturbed. I swore to myself I would never see it again, despite believing that the film was so important that everyone in the world had a responsibility to see it. I didn’t want to see it again because as someone who grew up in the Jewish community I had had my fill of Holocaust education. I knew everything I needed to know about these tragic events and, well, “never again.” Of course, Schindler’s List added the previously unknown story of Oskar Schindler and the Schindler Jews, but once I knew that story I didn’t want to be reminded again about the Nazis. But I have been pretty true to watching these AFI films again, and in order, so I carved out three hours recently and watched it again.

So is the purpose of film to entertain? As I said above, I have used “lack of entertainment” as an excuse for why I haven’t enjoyed some of the films on the AFI list. But in the past couple of days I have seen several films that reminded me that film is art and art can also be educational. In some cases, art can even be revolutionary. In that context, Schindler’s List is as important a film as has ever been made. If art can cause a sea change in ideas and understanding, then that too is a worthwhile purpose. Entertainment is important, but so is providing understanding and empathy and knowledge and context of history. So for that reason I can say Schindler’s List is one of the most important films ever made and if being important is a measure of art then Schindler’s List is also a great film — even though it is not “entertaining” in the popular sense.

Ultimately I go to films to be entertained, but as a lifelong learner I also go to films to be educated. Documentary films do this, but so does drama (fiction or based on true events). For example, just because Dances With Wolves is fiction does not mean it does not effectively educate viewers on the events surrounding the extinction of Native Americans. And of course, any drama is “based on” true events. Filmmakers take literary license and that’s ok. Even documentary filmmakers take license and spin stories to their narrative.

I also watch films to be moved. I was thinking about this very thing the other day when I was coming out of a screening of Kill Your Darlings, which was based on true events. I loved the film, and I loved it because it was a tremendous story and I love a good story. I always say I like to be entertained, but what I really mean is that I love to be taken on a journey. It’s why I love to read fiction and why I love movies and even story-driven television shows. And it’s why I have spent close to two years now watching every damn film on the AFI top 100 list!

Next: Lawrence of Arabia

AFI #9: Vertigo

November 26, 2013 / Len Gutman / 1 Comment

Vertigo is the fourth and final Alfred Hitchcock film in the AFI top 100, and of the four I’d rank it as the second best behind North by Northwest, which is one of my favorite Hitchcock films and #55 on the AFI list. For the record, my favorite Hitchcock film is To Catch a Thief, which is not on the AFI list

Vertigo is a solid thriller, with an incredible twist that catches most viewers off guard. The film is almost always included by reviewers as one of the best American films ever made and some even suggest it is the best American film ever. I don’t know what film those people watched, but like a lot of films it likely gets better the more you think about it afterward. I did some reading about the film after viewing it last night to see what all the fuss was about, and much of it centers on the themes rather than the plot. In that retrospect, and in an Academic sense, the film does indeed deal with several key issues not the least of which is society’s manipulation of and abuse of women. Vertigo centers on John “Scottie” Ferguson, a retired cop who unbeknownst to him is set up by an old college buddy to play a role in a crime. Of course, the crime is perpetrated upon a woman and even after the deed is done Scottie himself takes advantage of a woman’s love to its sordid and unfortunate conclusion. Even the subplot, the suicide of a woman 100 years earlier, is misogynistic. The film is all about the manipulation and destruction of women!

Which brings us to Mr. Hitchcock himself. Some critics believe Vertigo is a self-analysis of Hitchcock himself, with the Jimmy Stewart character as Hitchcock. If so, is Hitchcock self-aware of his misogyny or is the film a critique of those who criticize him? I’m not sure, but there is certainly a lot written about it on the Internets. One thing that is clear is that in many of Hitchcock’s films his lead female characters are icy cold women to whom bad things happen. This is clearly the case in Vertigo with the demise of both Madeleine and Judy and god only knows what Hitchcock is trying to say about manipulative women with the mother in Psycho! I’ll give him this much, he sure knows how to pick gorgeous women to star in his films. Kim Novak is stunning in Vertigo (both playing Judy and Madeleine) and I gushed about Eva Marie Saint in North by Northwest. But without question his most beautiful star, and for my money one of the most beautiful actresses of all time, is Grace Kelly who not only stars in Rear Window but is also the star of To Catch a Thief and Dial M For Murder.

So, what is Hitchcock’s legacy relative to the AFI top 100? His four films on the list is the top performance by a director, so does that make him the best American director according to AFI? I’d say several directors have had better single films, but it’d be hard to argue that Hitchcock didn’t have the greatest portfolio of films ever. My personal opinion is that he’s easily one of the top 10 best directors ever, though I wouldn’t put him at number one. That place is reserved for Martin Scorsese in my book, followed by Woody Allen and Spike Lee. But that’s an argument for another blog post!

Next up: Schindler’s List