Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS* (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Well -- I only saw VERTIGO once, I'll say around 10 years ago when the DVD first came out and I borrowed it from a friend. I thought it was complicated all right. And boring. I have been meaning to give it another chance, as I've come to appreciate Hitchcock a lot more since then and I have enjoyed many of his other films. I wouldn't quite put the seal of "Most Overrated Film" on it without a fresh evaluation, though.

 

[andrew markworthy]

And furthermore, the murder case that started it all (the dead chauffeur) remains unsolved [I don't think a spoiler is needed for this as there's more than enough plot remaining to get confused by - in fact, I'd say that The Big Sleep is more enjoyable to watch if you already know the plot - it's the atmosphere and dialogue that are the biggest fun].

Getting back on topic, I think the contrived and frankly unbelievable plot is the whole point. It shows the level of the James Stewart character's obsession - he has a perfectly good life, he's rational, and he has a woman (a lingerie designer, for goodness sake! - taking an active interest in your partner's work suddenly doesn't seem quite so bad, does it?) who is clearly besotted with him. But this obsession leads him to swallow a farcical plot hook line and sinker and ignore any rational signs (which are scattered throughout the film). Vertigo really should be seen as a study of obsession - the detective story in it is nothing more than an excuse to present a masterly psychological study.

 

[SD_Brian]

In his Great Movies review of Vertigo, Roger Ebert had this to say:
Now, maybe I'm just not watching the right Hitchcock films, but I've yet to see one where I've felt he was taking "delight" in humiliating his female characters. But then again, maybe I'm just thinking of a more extreme definition of the word "humiliating," such as Isabella Rosselini's treatment in David Lynch's Blue Velvet. Which Hitchcock women in which movies were "humiliated?"

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I would definitely recommend you revisit Vertigo. Personally, the first time I saw the film, I thought it was okay, but I honestly thought it was nothing special. In fact, a bit boring - very slow in parts, aimless, I couldn't quite see why people raved about it. Then, some time later, I had a chance to revisit it, and it blew me away. I found that knowing where the film is actually heading makes the film a lot better. On the second viewing, the film leapt from "okay" to "favourite film", and it remains my favourite film ten years later.
The thing I found interesting is the way the style of film making actually reflects the core themes and motifs. Notice in particular the frequent recurring references to "wandering", a sort of aimless movement that not only reflects Scotty's new life but is also reflected in the way the film seems to be wandering from place to place with no clear direction. It's only once you know the direction that you can see the film constantly heading towards its destination - and going there really quite quickly for a film with such a slow feel. There's also a recurring idea of "dreams" in the film, reflected in the soft dream-like atmosphere Hitchcock gives to the film.

So I strongly recommend that you watch it again, and hopefully like me you'll appreciate the film more once you know where it is going.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I agree and wonder which of Hitchcock's women were being humiliated on screen?

As to the shock of Psycho, much comes from the fact that it was (more spoilers to follow) the first (I think) film in which the leading actor is killed early in the movie. The shock is increased by the fact that, while she had stolen money, we were starting to like her because she had decided to return the money. She was likeable.

 

[TravisR]

I think more than anything that's due to Hitchcock's penchant for putting his actresses through the emotional wringer when working with them.

'Humiliation' is not the right word and probably not the word that is used by critics but there appears to be a streak of misogyny that runs in his work. Alot of women in Hitchcock movies are duplicitous or victims of violence (although if they weren't, nothing would happen and it'd be a boring movie). And there's Hitchcock movies where men are duplicitous or victims of violence too. Personally, I'm not 100% convinced but I can see someone saying it.

 

[george kaplan]

Well I'm not sure what "humiliating" means in this context exactly, but some in which the women are not exactly treated well:

The 39 Steps (handcuffing her and kidnapping her)
Frenzy
Marnie (the honeymoon)
Rebecca
Vertigo (Scotty's forcing her to change, etc.)
etc.

 

[SD_Brian]

Ebert could have said the same thing about Ingmar Bergman, only when Bergman does it, it's called "emotionally raw" and when Hitchcock does it, it's "humiliation." Is this just because of the genres they were working in and Bergman's "landscapes of the human soul" being seen as more noble ventures than Hitchcock's thrillers? It seems like a double standard, much like the one used for nudity (nudity in a comedy/horror = exploitation, nudity in a drama = brave).

I've submitted a question to Ebert's "Movie Answer Man" column requesting clarification on his point, so we shall see if he answers.

 

[Holadem]

It's been a while but I seem to recall Ingird Bergman's character going through some though times in Notorious. IIRC, she was a woman of ill repute to begin with.

I enjoy the first half (and first two thirds depending on how you want to slice it) of the Vertigo more than the rest.

--
H

 

[Jeff Swearingen]

Would the film have been better if Hitch had left out Judy/Madeleine's flashback, and left the viewer to wonder until the climax to figure out what was going on?

I'm not sure, but I thought Paramount asked Hitch to clarify the film because it was too confusing, which would have merited the addition of this flashback. Can someone confirm/deny that?

 

[SD_Brian]

IIRC, they address this in the DVD commentary. After previewing the film with the scene, they tried removing the scene and re-tested it, then the scene went back in.

The first time I saw Vertigo, I thought it would have been better without that scene but now I think the movie wouldn't work without it. Knowing the truth about Judy is what makes the second half of the movie interesting: The audience knows that she really fell in love with Scotty when she was Madeleine and it makes her agreeing to change her appearance to Scotty's specifications make sense. Without the flashback, the audience wouldn't understand why Judy was willing to go through what she goes through for a man she just met. It also adds suspense because we are wondering how long it will be before she's found out.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

That is what happens in the book. The revelation is made literally three pages from the end. And the effect is pretty much as Brian suggested - it makes no sense why Judy changes for Scotty, and there's not a lot of suspense because we only focused on whether or not Judy will put her hair up. It's a lot more suspenseful with the knowledge.

Hitchcock often talked about the idea of showing two people having a five minute conversation about nothing important when suddenly a bomb under the table explodes. And all you get is a couple of seconds shock. But if you show the audience the bomb being placed, then that five minute conversation about the local sports team becomes infused with suspense, as the audience is yelling "Look out for the bomb!"
And that is what happens in Vertigo. Without the flashback, it's just 30 minutes of a guy talking a girl into changing how she looks. With the flashbacks, every moment aches with suspense around when the inevitable discovery will occur and what will happen when he finds out.

Plus, without the flashback, the film would feel to the viewer like two stories - one a suspenseful story of a man falling in love with a (kind-of) suicidal woman, and one a strange makeover story. By putting the scene in at the earliest possible point, Hitchcock basically ensures the audience knows that the stories are actually connected.

But there's more to it than that. Hitchchcock loved to manipulate the audience, and I tend to feel Vertigo is one of his best exercises in manipulation. With one exception (Midge visiting with Scotty's doctor), Scotty is a participant in every scene up until the flashback, and the entire film is focused around his POV. And the audience gets sucked in to it - they see Madelaine through Scotty's eyes, they are intrigued by her, they fall in love with her, they are shocked when she dies. And having gained the audience's sympathies and ensured the audience relates toScotty, are almost in the same mindset as Scotty, then he gives us the flashback.
And that creates a break in the audience. For the first time, the audience knows something that Scotty doesn't. Suddenly we can't associate with Scotty, and so for the first time we watch from the sidelines, and see just how destructive and terrible Scotty's (and our) obsession was.

In conclusion, I suspect it was Hitchcock that put the flashback where it was, since it seems to conform with how he made movies. But even if it was required by the studio, it was the right decision and the film works better as a result.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Ah, but it's not about the murder is it?

It's about a man's driven obsession with an impossibly perfect, usually blonde, woman. A common theme in many Hitchcock films. I think he had mommy issues.

 

[Lord Dalek]

The way I see it is Elster's plan to cash in on Madeline's insurance policy is basically the film's McGuffin. Its a dramatic impetus that really has no major effect on the plot other than to place some sort of shame on you attitude on Judy.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

While this is absolutely true, as Joel said, the murder is essentially the film's McGuffin that drives the whole plot forward. The flashback is therefore necessary to let the audience know that that plot element has not been dropped and is still driving the story.

Plus, as I suggested before, the flashback plays an important part in distancing the audience from Scotty's POV so that we can actually observe Scotty's obsession, rather than being participants in it.

 

[rich_d]

Your points valid but it does depend on how you interpret Vertigo. If you view it as as straight drama, that's one thing. Another approach is that it is a dream. Another still is that it is someone's delusional fantasy.

That's the robust nature of Vertigo. So many options to consider.

I DO dislike straight dramas where the audience has to swallow big stupid pills to get through it. Like the recent film called Flightplan. Yep, that's the brilliant mastermind of a plan .... plan a kidnapping that takes place on a plane.

 

[SD_Brian]

Except there's nothing in the movie itself to justify saying it's all a dream or someone's delusional fantasy. Sure someone could interpret it either way but I'd be surprised if that was the intent.

People's insistance that it all means something else is actually my other problem with Vertigo. Dramatically speaking, the story is pretty straight forward--it's not a movie like Mulholland Drive where interpretation is necessary in order to make something of it. If you just watch it for what it is, without concocting some elaborate interpretation or using it as a tool for performing Freudian psychoanalysis on Alfred Hitchcock, it's an interesting movie to be sure but it's still kind of dull for at least the first hour and, IMO, hardly a masterpiece.

Once you start reading Hitchcock's biographical facts into the film and study Vertigo as the director's form of self-flagellation over his negative portrayals of icy, blond women in past films, then pontificate on every other detail, infusing them with a significance they may never have been intended to have, sure the movie looks brilliant. Such analysis can make any movie look brilliant. If I were so inclined, I could write a dissertation on how the Police Academy movies are masterpieces because of their celebration of non-conformity and scathing indictment of fascist police states but that wouldn't make it so.

In an interview with Hitchcock's granddaughter (available on one or more of the Hitchcock DVD's--I think it was on To Catch A Thief), she relays a story about her experience taking a Hitchcock course in college. Her class would endlessly analyze and interpret his movies so one day she told her grandfather about the classroom discussions and asked him if that's what he meant. He said, "That's not what I had in mind at all." Later, she asked him to help her write a paper on Shadow of a Doubt and she only scored a C.
Apparently even Hitchcock didn't know what he meant.

 

[rich_d]

SD_Brian:

What you wrote is well thought out and I agree with many of your points.

Just a couple things to consider. I would think that we would both agree that just because a film is venerable doesn't make it any better or worse than how the individual viewer sees it. So, we move past that.

However, consider how other filmmakers do see or are influenced by Vertigo. Obviously, Terry Gilliam likes the idea of time travel as it relates to Vertigo. In his film Twelve Monkeys, he has the brunette turning to the blonde who was already the blonde prior to that ... time travel wise. Matter of fact, if you watch the documentaries on the DVD, he indicates that the movie theatre scene playing Vertigo was even planned to be more of an hommage than it became.

You mention, Mulholland Dr. ... clearly Betty's gray suit is influenced by Madeleine's as well as the idea of two identical looking woman with different first names. Not to mention, the scene where a dark haired woman (Rita) is turned into a platinum blonde with the help of her lover.

So my open ended question is ... were both these directors (and others) influenced by what they perceive as a straight drama ... or not?

My viewpoint is that David Lynch's film Mulholland Dr. is his attempt to make a film like Vertigo and Fellini's 8 1/2, one that has no clear solution but becomes one to think about and enjoy.

When seeing Vertigo for the first couple times, I would agree with you as to its complications and problems. Also, keep in mind that Vertigo was made at a time when the guilty needs to be (seemingly) punished, matter of fact, in Finland they even demanded a more definitive end to handle the resolution of the on-the-loose Galvin Elster. One can only guess how Hitchcock would have shaped Vertigo without these restrictions.

My only suggestion is to perhaps give the film another go at some point.

I am not a big Hitchcock theory guy. Seems to me that for most theories about Hitchcock, an equally good counter-argument could also be made. For example, the supposed icy blonde ... certainly that wasn't Grace Kelly in Rear Window nor was it Tippi Hedren who smiles at the boy who gives her a wolf's whistle on the streets of San Francisco ... nor Ingrid Bergman in Notorious. Yet, is quite valid for Madeleine (Kim Novak) in Vertigo and Hedren's portrayal of Marnie ... so where does that leave us other than Hitchcock enjoyed blondes, the duality of things (such as making the crook interesting and the cop blah) and French food and a good wine?

 

[Johnny Angell]

I believe the DVD has a deleted scene that was required by the European censors which handles this, but was not included in the American theatrical release. In it, Scotty and Midge listen to a radio report indicating Gavin was captured or something like that. This takes place after the final scene showing Scotty looking down from the tower in utter desolation.

 

[SD_Brian]

I suppose you'd have to ask the directors about that one but good luck getting an answer out of Lynch

Actually, if you look at Lynch's films from Eraserhead straight on through to Inland Empire, Hitchcock's influence is all over them, as is Fellini's, Bergman's, Kubrick's, Bunuel's, etc. etc. Artists don't create in a vacuum and audiences don't view art in a vacuum. Some audiences may vacuum while they view art but that's a whole other story.

I agree with your points completely and I don't begrudge you or anyone else their right to interpret Vertigo any way they see fit. Analytical and interpretive viewing is one of the great joys of movie watching. Another is coming up with elaborate readings of movies that may be completely contrary to what the makers intended. I personally have an elaborate theory about Die Hard being a metaphor for men overcoming their sexual impotence (with a title like Die Hard, how could it NOT be?) but I kind of doubt that was a topic of discussion during that film's production meetings.

After 10+ viewings over the years, Vertigo's still never really engaged me to the point where I was motivated to come up with an elaborate reading. Part of my problem could be Vertigo's reputation and the fact that so many people have already interpreted it for me and I find myself disagreeing with their interpretations rather than coming up with one of my own.

To invoke David Lynch again, his stated reason for not doing DVD commentary tracks is because he feels that, when a film maker talks over the movie and explains exactly what they were going for, they take away the audience's chance to experience and interpret a movie for themselves. He may be on to something there...