Vertigo: How the revelation scene was almost lost forever (1 Viewer)

I've been lurking on this forum for some time and recently officially joined.


I thought denizens here might be interested in my latest article at Something Else Reviews about how the revelation scene in "Vertigo" came very close to being cut from the film, and probably destroyed, never to be seen.


Here is the link to my article: http://somethingelsereviews.com/2015/05/04/alfred-hitchcock-vertigo-flashback-dan-auiler/


I hope you enjoy it. More of my articles on film, music, and TV can be found here: http://somethingelsereviews.com/author/miketiano/


Thanks for reading!


Mike Tiano

I'm going to let Mr. Harris respond to the bit about 16mm - if memory serves, when it cuts back to Stewart and he leaves the camera then pans and dollies over to Novack and the flashback begins - which means everything from the cut back to Stewart is a long multi-pass optical.


But the other thing you'll want to correct is it isn't the Margaret Harris library - it's the Margaret HERRICK library.

Hey Bruce, thanks very much for the correction, I'll get that fixed right away. Any and all corrections are appreciated, and I hope people enjoyed the article.


Mike

The "flashback" was never lost, and never in jeopardy.


It was never in 16mm as an asset.


Always a dupe, as numerous shots were duped from original used in other parts of the film.


It was in and out of the cut neg, but then in, and in for good, as it's part of the masters.


All prints were originally struck at Tech Burbank -- probably 300 or so.


Nothing odd was occurring with printing as various labs.


RAH

I was hoping Mr. Harris would set all this straight and I hope Mr. Tiano will amend the article quickly before it becomes "print the legend."

haineshisway said:

I'm going to let Mr. Harris respond to the bit about 16mm - if memory serves, when it cuts back to Stewart and he leaves the camera then pans and dollies over to Novack and the flashback begins - which means everything from the cut back to Stewart is a long multi-pass optical.

But the other thing you'll want to correct is it isn't the Margaret Harris library - it's the Margaret HERRICK library.

Click to expand...

...and while we're all about correcting one another on this thread, how about we also restore Ms Novak's good name - sans 'c'.

RMajidi said:

...and while we're all about correcting one another on this thread, how about we also restore Ms Novak's good name - sans 'c'.

Click to expand...

Oh, now, slips of the finger don't count, do they? It's not like I called her Kim Harris.

haineshisway said:

Oh, now, slips of the finger don't count, do they? It's not like I called her Kim Harris.

Click to expand...

I was just having a lend of you. Glad you took it in the good humour that it was meant. Just can't bring myself to add emoticons to my posts - and that omission has got me in hot water. Thanks for not taking my post seriously.

RMajidi said:

I was just having a lend of you. Glad you took it in the good humour that it was meant. Just can't bring myself to add emoticons to my posts - and that omission has got me in hot water. Thanks for not taking my post seriously.

Click to expand...

I knew it was in fun. Most people here have senses of humor - unlike another board I could name.

Thanks very much to Bob Harris for the corrections to my article. I have made revisions to the text to where mentions of 16mm dups and of the printing process has been revised or excised. I sent those to my editor and those changes should appear within the next couple of hours.


I will argue the point WRT the title of my article, about the revelation scene almost vanishing forever. It is entirely conceivable that if the revelation scene was permanently cut from the film--where "Vertigo" was released without that scene, never to be reinserted--that it might have been destroyed. Is that an absolute? Maybe not. But history has shown time and again that scenes cut from movies have been destroyed: "The Magnificent Ambersons". The Judy Garland version of "A Star is Born". The Frankie Howerd segment from "Help!". The list goes on and on.


So while I greatly appreciate Robert Harris' corrections to my article I don't intend on changing the title, or saying anything different about the fact that under different circumstances we may never have seen the flashback.

So, the title of your article is really more of a posit, rather than something that actually happened? Seems like you've turned it into clickbait, which seriously lessens the chances I'd read an article like that.

Yes it actually almost happened.

Robert Harris said:

The "flashback" was never lost, and never in jeopardy.


It was never in 16mm as an asset.


Always a dupe, as numerous shots were duped from original used in other parts of the film.


It was in and out of the cut neg, but then in, and in for good, as it's part of the masters.


All prints were originally struck at Tech Burbank -- probably 300 or so.


Nothing odd was occurring with printing as various labs.


RAH

Click to expand...

hello, what is a dupe and what do you mean used in other parts of the film?