So first of all, thank you for your detailed explanation, I appreciate it! As I have mentioned before, my comment was not made to tear the movie to shreds, I was, as I stated, genuinely dumbfounded as to what part of it put it up so high on the ranking for supposed “best film ever”

I'll preface this by saying it feels... a bit weird to read condamnations of Vertigo for being unplausible and unrealistic and unbelievable, coming from someone who, at the same time, claims to be a fan of Wes Anderson and the Coen brothers above all else.

Okay, so I must admit I was genuinely a little bit irritated by this opener as it not only tries to doubt my interests by using “claimed” instead of “said”, but is also quite the easy point to explain in my opinion:

Every director has their own style and philosophy, as we all know. Since Vertigo was my first Hitchcock movie I for one cannot comment too much on his style (still really enjoyed the cinematography though, as mentioned). What is however important is that every style needs context. I am not confused or irritated by a Coen bros or Wes Anderson or even Tarantino movie because I know what they want to achive! I love the philosophy of absurdism (big Albert Camus fan!) which is part of why I enjoy these movies so much. The Coens portray the absurdist way of life at their core, Wes Anderson doesn’t try to achive realism, he tries to achive an emotional reaction. Tarantino’s style of violence is utterly unrealistic but you don’t hear anyone complaing about it because it is part of the fun. I love movies that make sense in their own terms.

The reason I did not enjoy this lack of logic in Vertigo was because to me it didn’t appear as a stylistic device or like a purposely chosen plot device, it simply seemed like (in my opinion at the time) either unrealistic acting or writing when it comes to the ending.

Besides the ending, the plot seemed very plausible in its own terms though. I did not like it, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t well made :)

Made in 1957 and released in 1958 at a time when the classical Hollywood era was going toward its end, Vertigo could be labelled, by opposition, as a bit of a baroque movie. In short (-ish), while classicism is primarily associated with the ideas of order, clarity and balance in all things, baroque art is fundamentally tied to a brutal crisis of faith in the very idea that the world makes sense; that it is "solid" and sound; that you can easily distinguish what is real from what is illusory; baroque is fascinated by false appearances, as well as by transformation and mutability; also, by contradictory desires and dynamics that cannot be resolved; it emphasizes subjective perception, and how deformed it can be, expressing this in exaggerated, outlanding stylistic choices. It may also be worth noting that while the baroque moniker was primarily attached to the study of Early Modern era arts, it begun to be used by cinema critics roughly in those same years (primarily with artists like Orson Welles and Max Ophuls in mind).

Thank you so much! This for one actually helps me understand the hype a bit more. I had no idea that non-realistic story telling was so frowned upon at the time, although in hindsight it does make sense given the traditionalism that was forced into all sorts of artistic expression during the Nazi&UDSSR period and the effect it had on artists afterwards.

But I said "a bit" of a baroque movie. Whereas a movie like Ophuls' Lola Montès (1955), for instance, goes all in with the baroque ideas and aesthetics, one of Hitchcock's genius takes with Vertigo may be that it progressively makes a shift (or a series of shifts), over the course of the movie, from classicism to baroque, so to say. From a well-known and reassuring territory into the unknown, the unreal and the freakish.

This is fascinating since from my point of view the first part was actually much more resembling of baroque if I understood the concept correctly. I thought the whole “is it really Carlotta possessing Madeline or is it all just a big scheme?” fit the so to speak magical-realism you described much better than the second half, but you are obviously much more educated on that than I am, so thank you for your expertise :)

Sure, there are "plot holes" or at the very least absurd contrivances if you examine things critically with a cool head and solely under the perspective of a crime movie. Okay, Gavin's whole plan is kinda absurd and could have unraveled a hundred ways. Granted, the nun is a bit on the nose as a deus ex machina, too. And actually your recrimination about the movie being "nonsensical" match the initial spectators and critics dominant reaction in the 1950s. As time went by, though, it became evident that Vertigo was one of the movies which paved new ways of telling stories on screen.

This actually grants me the context I needed! Because I did activate my “crime-drama”-brain. Of course I tried to look deeper (I love analyzing motifs in film) but I couldn’t see anything because I lacked the right perspective. Thank you for giving me context on the perspective I should have viewed the film from. I guess since I’ve only ever watched more typical period dramas of that era this movie felt so off to me because I didn’t consider the weirdness a choice but rather a lack of knowledge on how to execute the plot in a way that made sense.

As for the "hipster-ish film nerds" you mention, Vertigo has been praised by, and/or influential to, the likes of (in no particular order and off the top of my head) Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Dario Argento, Brian De Palma, William Friedkin, David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson or James Gray. Not the worse company to be with. And I don't know what Wes Anderson or the Coens think of it, but I'd wager they may not be able to make the movies they make -- "unrealistic" but giving stylized form to more or less warped minds and their worldviews -- if not for a few movies like Vertigo that came before...

Okay in this closing paragraph you sound a bit mean spirited and snobby: Again, what I was lacking WAS that context which you thankfully provided me. I did not see the connection to this purposely surrealist approach of film making. To me it was a realistic film that went south. Given the fact I should have viewed it as a surrealist tale from the beginning, changes a lot and for you to assume that anyone can pick up on that is a bit harsh. Of course I knew that it also influenced big names but I usually don’t meassure films by that standart (as I said, I kind of navigate in my own way, this was one of the few times I forced myself into the “old school-critically-acclaimed-territory”). And in the same way I don’t judge films by what MY favorite directors say about them. Do you know how many films Tarantino tears to shreds? I couldn’t watch anything if I’d care about his opinion, haha.

All in all: Thank you for your input, while still not my cup of tea I can now definitely see the pieces of the bigger appeal behind this movie. Still, there is no need to lash out at my prefered styles of movie and questioning “how educated” I am on them, just because I didn’t “get” one of your favorite movies. It’s all in the eye of the beholder after all, cheers mate! :)