Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
If you haven't seen Vertigo, this is your official spoiler warning.

I've seen 'Vertigo' several times, most recently last night and, for some reason, this was the first time it ever hit me just how absurdly complicated Gavin Elster's plan to murder his wife was.

To succeed, his plan requires the following: A detective, afraid of heights, who can follow a woman who is not Elster's wife, but looks just like her. The detective must become convinced that Elster's wife is not really Elster's wife at all, but that she is posessed by the ghost of her great-great grandmother, Carlotta Valdes. Once the look-alike has convinced the detective of those things, she must lead him to an old Spanish mission and make him follow her into the bell tower. Of course the detective's fear of heights will mean that he won't be able to follow her past the third floor and he will become incapacitated directly in front of a window, just in time to see the body of Elster's REAL wife, whose neck has been broken, fall from several floors above. Finally, since the detective has witnessed all of these things, he must testify that Mrs. Elster was mentally incapacitated and that her death was a suicide. With the plan completed, Elster is free to collect his inheritance and leave the country. All too easy.

Even James Bond villains don't go to this much trouble. Seriously, can anyone name a movie that has featured a more complicated plan to off somebody?
post #2 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

Well, I don't know about 'more' complicated, but there are certainly a number of films that would give it a run for the money, including Gaslight, Murder on the Orient Express, Diabolique, Body Double, Body Heat, Another Thin Man, etc. But the main point, is Gavin Elster didn't just set out to concoct that plan. It was a reading about various events (like Scottie's condition) and meeting certain people (like the woman who looks similar, but not exactly like his wife), that gave him the idea. But all kinds of movies, not just mysteries, rely heavily on coincidence and extremely unlikely events, to propel their stories forward. Just the nature of the beast.
post #3 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

You want to talk about complicated murders in a film, how about "The Big Sleep" in which the writers and director had problems with identifying which person murdered whom.
post #4 of 44
Thread Starter 

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

What I find most bizarre about Vertigo's murder scheme is that Ellster went through all that trouble, doing a lot of research and seemingly leaving little to chance, but left the entire success of his plan hinging on Jimmy Stewart not being able to make it up that flight of stairs. What was his back-up plan if Stewart, consumed with his need to protect the girl, suddenly overcame his condition and made it the rest of the way up?
post #5 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

Yes, it was a pretty convoluted scheme that rested awfully heavily on that one psychological detail. But as you said, you'd seen the movie several times before ever thinking about those precise details...so Hitch sure knew what he was doing, didn't he? It's amusing for us to speculate about it, but of course the movie didn't need Elster to have a back-up plan (not that you were trying in any way to argue that point when you started this thread).
post #6 of 44
Thread Starter 

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

It all reminds me of that scene on The Simpsons (a long time ago) when the nuclear power plant went on strike and Mr. Burns decided to take vengeance on the city by shutting off all of their power. Burns and Smithers go through several Batman-esque security measures to get to the special room where "the button" is. They slide down fire poles, go through secret panels, submit to facial scans and then, when they finally get to the super-secret room, it's revealed to have a rusty screen door, falling off its hinges that leads outside, and stray dogs are able to wander in and out.
Quote:
It's amusing for us to speculate about it, but of course the movie didn't need Elster to have a back-up plan (not that you were trying in any way to argue that point when you started this thread).
I'm definitely not trying to disparage Vertigo, though it is far from being my favorite Hitchcock movie. I personally find the first half to be sort of dull (and far-fetched) but the second half is absolutely brilliant. It is interesting that most critical discussions I've read seem to solely focus on Vertigo's second half, while only vaguely (if at all) discussing the movie's first half and the murder plot therein.
post #7 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

I also think you overstate the case somewhat.
he will become incapacitated directly in front of a window, just in time to see the body of Elster's REAL wife, whose neck has been broken, fall from several floors above.
I do not believe this was part of "the plan". Elster wasn't counting on him seeing the fall, only not being able to follow up. The fact that he saw the fall was just a convenient contrivance of Hitch's, not part of the scheme.

As far as 'far-fetched' goes, the dust cropper murder attempt from North by Northwest, while great cinema, is far more unbelievable and bizarrely elaborate as a means of killing a guy who could have just been offed easily while sleeping on the train (they knew exactly where he was and were right there).
post #8 of 44
Thread Starter 

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

Quote:
Originally Posted by george kaplan
I also think you overstate the case somewhat.
I was deliberately doing so in a quest to inject some humor into the summary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by george kaplan
As far as 'far-fetched' goes, the dust cropper murder attempt from North by Northwest, while great cinema, is far more unbelievable and bizarrely elaborate as a means of killing a guy who could have just been offed easily while sleeping on the train (they knew exactly where he was and were right there).
I suppose the bottom line in all of this is that we should be grateful to people like Hitchcock for at least putting some thought and effort into coming up with inventive methods of attempting to kill people. If all movie-killings were mere stabbings and shootings, the world would be a much duller place.
post #9 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

Quote:
Originally Posted by george kaplan
As far as 'far-fetched' goes, the dust cropper murder attempt from North by Northwest, while great cinema, is far more unbelievable and bizarrely elaborate as a means of killing a guy who could have just been offed easily while sleeping on the train (they knew exactly where he was and were right there).


You should talk since you don't really exist!
post #10 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

Quote:
If all movie-killings were mere stabbings and shootings, the world would be a much duller place.

I remember an interview with Hitchcock where he talked about how to build up suspense. He said that if you just show a bomb going off, people will get a momentary thrill, but he preferred to show the bomb before it goes off, while the people in the room talk about other things, unaware of the bomb’s presence. That produces a much lengthier, more satisfying buildup of emotions from the audience. The same reasoning applies to an elaborate murder scheme as opposed to just offing someone.
post #11 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
I remember an interview with Hitchcock where he talked about how to build up suspense. He said that if you just show a bomb going off, people will get a momentary thrill, but he preferred to show the bomb before it goes off, while the people in the room talk about other things, unaware of the bomb’s presence. That produces a much lengthier, more satisfying buildup of emotions from the audience. The same reasoning applies to an elaborate murder scheme as opposed to just offing someone.

Then how do you explain Janet Leigh in the shower, smart guy?

Hitchcock, creating shock by breaking his own rules.
post #12 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

Quote:
Then how do you explain Janet Leigh in the shower, smart guy?
Yeah, but that was preceded by a shot of Norman looking through a peephole to check her out naked, so the audience knew something might happen later. And the murder itself set up the feeling of dread about what would happen next.
post #13 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
Yeah, but that was preceded by a shot of Norman looking through a peephole to check her out naked, so the audience knew something might happen later. And the murder itself set up the feeling of dread about what would happen next.

And wasn't he thinking about goats and getting friendly with himself? Wait, that wasn't Hitchcock.
post #14 of 44
Thread Starter 

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_S_H
Then how do you explain Janet Leigh in the shower, smart guy?
The real shock of the shower scene is that Anne Heche, whose character and story we've been following for the past hour, is suddenly killed off and Norman Bates (and his mother) take center stage for the rest of the movie.

Wait a second... Anne Heche? That wasn't Hitchcock either!
post #15 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

What's interesting about Psycho is that Hitchcock seems to have it both ways because we can see somebody enter the bathroom and slowly walk towards the curtain, yet when he rips down the curtain, the music starts shrieking and she gets repeatedly stabbed, it's very shocking.

Same with Arbogast's murder. He slowly walks up the stairs, we see a bedroom door open, and a shadow of someone waiting, then he lunges towards him, the music shrieks and he get stabbed in the forehead and tumbles backwards down the stairs.

So it's very shocking despite the fact that we've been 100% let in on the fact that it was most definitely going to happen, but both scenes end up being quite suspenseful because of this.
post #16 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

I would just suggest that even the thread title is a massive spoiler for Vertigo. The first half of the film are presented as a mystery - what exactly is going on here? It's not until the death scene, and then the flashback, that we discover it was a murder plot.
I would strongly recommend the thread title be changed - certainly if I had first seen the film knowing it was a murder plot, I would have viewed it in a completely different manner.

And, as other people have said, the plot really is absurd. But so are many other Hitchcock films. And so are many other films, some of which are cited. The great thing about Vertigo, and many of the other great films cited above, is that they are so good that you don't think about it while you're watching the film. In fact, that's a test of a good film - if you're thinking about the improbability of the events you're watching, then the film hasn't managed to cause you to suspend disbelief, and is probably not that good.
post #17 of 44
Thread Starter 

Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewLouwrens
I would just suggest that even the thread title is a massive spoiler for Vertigo.
Point well taken. My bad.

I'm glad I didn't go with my original thread title, "I CAN'T BELIEVE DARTH VADER IS LUKE'S FATHER!"*

If a mod could change the thread title to something without a spoiler, it would be much appreciated. Perhaps, "Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous?"

*sorry if I spoiled that one for anybody but, since Episodes I-III have come out, I think that's one spoiler that's well past its statute of limitations.
post #18 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

OK, I changed your title.
Man do I hate, HATE, HATE spoilers!

Do you realize (I'm building something up now) that I also had to change 15 sub-titles of posts? (still building) And that editing the subtitles when it needs to be done isn't a simple function?

In fact (there it is): this is one ridiculously complicated operation, or should I say complicatedly ridiculous?


Cees
post #19 of 44
Thread Starter 

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cees Alons
In fact (there it is): this is one ridiculously complicated operation, or should I say complicatedly ridiculous?
I'm sorry
Perhaps one day we will live in a utopic society where every man, woman and child has seen Vertigo and we will no longer have to worry about spoiling things...
Thank you for your efforts!
post #20 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

You're welcome!
I actually liked doing it.


Cees
post #21 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

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.
post #22 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

Quote:
You want to talk about complicated murders in a film, how about "The Big Sleep" in which the writers and director had problems with identifying which person murdered whom.
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.
post #23 of 44
Thread Starter 

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

In his Great Movies review of Vertigo, Roger Ebert had this to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Ebert
Then there is another level, beneath all of the others. Alfred Hitchcock was known as the most controlling of directors, particularly when it came to women. The female characters in his films reflected the same qualities over and over again: They were blond. They were icy and remote. They were imprisoned in costumes that subtly combined fashion with fetishism. They mesmerized the men, who often had physical or psychological handicaps. Sooner or later, every Hitchcock woman was humiliated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Ebert
Over and over in his films, Hitchcock took delight in literally and figuratively dragging his women through the mud--humiliating them, spoiling their hair and clothes as if lashing at his own fetishes.
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?"
post #24 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

Quote:
Perhaps one day we will live in a utopic society where every man, woman and child has seen Vertigo
That would be nice.

Quote:
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.
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.
post #25 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?"
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.
post #26 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Angell
I agree and wonder which of Hitchcock's women were being humiliated on screen?
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.
post #27 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

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.
post #28 of 44
Thread Starter 

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
post #29 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

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
post #30 of 44

Re: Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*

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?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Vertigo: Ridiculously complicated or complicatedly ridiculous? *SPOILERS*