A Few Words About A few words about...™ Vertigo -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

That's what I suspect happened as well. It's not really unheard of, just sad to see in a venerated print. I remember a 1997 screening of Titanic where the Captain's line that the ship was going to sink was played twice...rather funny, and I suspect another case of improper cutting across reels.


I don't think the keystoning would account for the whole film being rotated. It was not as noticeable during the film, but during the credits for instance, it was very apparent the words were slightly rotated clockwise, which was strange because as I showed above, the right edge of the image was slanted counter-clockwise. The screen was perfect 1.85; all 3 edges were projected on except the right edge, and that edge never changed shape. During the 2nd half of the film, light from the projection room would show up at times above the top-right corner of the film, very noticeable given the dimness of the image. What they were doing up there, and why that didn't show up during the 1st hour, I have no idea. The whole thing gave a feeling of "What the hell is going on?!"


You're thinking this now, I was thinking this DURING the film. I truly thought there was something wrong with me; why didn't the image look better, why was everything happening faster than all the other times I'd seen Vertigo. There was some slight flickering at times during the first half hour. It was only until the forest scene, where I saw the best cinematic depiction of "50 shades of grey" yet, that I stopped wondering if I'd had a rotten dinner.

I don't think it's possible for Vertigo to become un-synced, isn't the soundtrack printed on the film? Otherwise it'd be easy to play the newer DTS mix instead. The only sync problems I noticed were when the Foley effects didn't match the screen actions.

I deliberately noted the end time because I was sure I was wrong. 24p is an ancient standard by now, there should be 0 discrepancies. For the 128 min film to end at 9:53PM, it had to have started at 7:44-45PM. If you're incredulous at all this, you should be...I'm the last person in the world to want to say these things, I'd love to be totally wrong. I used "seems" because if there was a discrepancy, it would still be >2%, roughly the equivalent of a 59sec minute. That's not a difference one would usually notice.

I compared the image to an cheap LCD screen because the high black levels and low brightness severely hurt the dynamic range of the image. Shots that really should've stood out, like Madeleine at Fort Point, looked sadly muted, the Golden Gate did not look anything like the Bluray, or real life...even the brightest, highest contrast shot of the whole film, the falling man against the white background, looked uninspiring. The one color that seemed to stand out was whiteish-yellow, so that during closeup shots of Kim Novak's face or Madeleine's apartment building, the picture seemed to approach something close to proper illumination.

At this point, I think we're going around in circles...I had a lot of problems with the film that none of you can be expected to understand without seeing it in person. If you don't believe me, fine. I was so ready to come back and exclaim my enthusiasm. Instead it was the most disappointing cinema experience ever.


It has to be done, absolutely ASAP. Even if the picture were absolutely perfect, there is no excuse for the soundtrack anymore.

The track is on a CD.

 

[AstonMartin007]

That's what I initially thought, because someone at the IFI Dublin posted this picture of the CD. That's why I asked you if the newer DTS mix would be played.

If this means I'm dead wrong about the pacing, so be it, I couldn't be happier. That was something I didn't want to believe either. But I stand by my other assertions...the image quality was very subpar.

EDIT: Forgot to include this: So what's the reason for not using the new DTS mix then?

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Because i doubt they made new DTS theatrical discs for a 17 year old print.

 

[SteveJ86]

I was also there, Aston posted an invite on the LA subreddit. I just watched the movie again, wanted to reply and saw a link here.

It was only my 2nd time watching the movie, so I don't know it that well but I can confirm there were some places where it was very greyish. I couldn't really make out the trees either they were very desaturated. I just watched the BR and colors were brighter most of the time. The ending was probably the hardest to watch, couldn't really see the actors that well. Yeah it was kinda dim.

I don't know about the timing but the audience kinda spoiled the mood with all the laughing so maybe that threw him off. This fat guy behind me was chuckling every 5 mins, it's not a comedy dude! Ditto on the sound, I was on the right side and some of the doors were painful, Scottie making the drink in Midge's home sounded like construction sounds, I prefer the BR sound.

Still enjoyed it though, Kim Novak is gorgeous. Calm down aston, its only a movie! Thanks for the post!

 

[Robert Harris]

I was also there, Aston posted an invite on the LA subreddit. I just watched the movie again, wanted to reply and saw a link here.

It was only my 2nd time watching the movie, so I don't know it that well but I can confirm there were some places where it was very greyish. I couldn't really make out the trees either they were very desaturated. I just watched the BR and colors were brighter most of the time. The ending was probably the hardest to watch, couldn't really see the actors that well. Yeah it was kinda dim.

I don't know about the timing but the audience kinda spoiled the mood with all the laughing so maybe that threw him off. This fat guy behind me was chuckling every 5 mins, it's not a comedy dude! Ditto on the sound, I was on the right side and some of the doors were painful, Scottie making the drink in Midge's home sounded like construction sounds, I prefer the BR sound.

Still enjoyed it though, Kim Novak is gorgeous. Calm down aston, its only a movie! Thanks for the post!

Once again, don't know what kinds of light this print has seen over the years. Muir Woods should have been fine. Ending, inclusive of drive to tower, are extremely thin on the OCN, and hence extremely faded, with no true blacks, and weak color. This could have been easily corrected for the Blu-ray and Universal's intended digital work, but they didn't wish to do the work. Hence, the sequence fails on the Blu-ray.
RAH

 

[JoshZ]

EDIT: Forgot to include this: So what's the reason for not using the new DTS mix then?

The DTS theatrical format is a different codec than the DTS home formats. You can't just pop in the Blu-ray and sync it up with a film print.

 

[Magnús Þorsteinn Magnússon]

Mr.Harris
I've been thinking for a while about this transfer and what has gone wrong.
In that featurette on the orignal DVD an also on the Blu ray you Mr. Harris and your partner Mr. Katz speak of that now finally there is a restored version of Vertigo that will last "the next 200 years".
Yet there is something to be wanted.
What went wrong in this whole process?
Is your restoration not used on this Blu ray?
If not, what is on the Blu ray?
If i understand your statement in this featurette correct, then we would have the best version right there!

 

[Cineman]

A bit off topic, but I also wrote a piece on Vertigo, after the Sight&Sound poll declared it #1, the whole internet was ablaze with dismissal and contempt, and I couldn't take everyone declaring it overrated and full of holes. The plot is actually far more watertight than even I originally thought; if you have any questions or interest about the plot and history behind the film and Kim Novak's casting, take a look:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/1e21bf/vertigo_1958/

And thanks to RAH for his work and honesty regarding the restoration process.

Love your assessments here. If I might add...

· How does Madeleine disappear at the McKittrick Hotel?

This is the granddaddy of Vertigo's supposed "plot holes", and has seemingly defied explanation by everyone since 1958. Hitchcock himself never explained the mystery, leaving it as an 'icebox' scene.
…

[*]The clerk hasn't seen "Carlotta Valdes" come in.
[/list]

I’ve always felt the whole “mystery” of why the clerk denies having seen Madeleine enter the hotel despite the fact that she just came through the lobby and how Madeleine slips away before Scottie gets to her room is largely cleared up the moment Scottie reaches for his wallet. The clerk suddenly changes her tone about strict rules for not giving out information about the hotel guests into one of, “Of course, I don’t think it would matter…” because she thinks Scottie is about to lay a $20 on her for the information. She does not yet know he is actually going to flash a detective badge, not a $20, $50, or anything else of the kind. She even looks at his wallet and registers disappointment that he doesn't peel out a $20 but instead flashes her a detective's badge. I believe the clerk’s sudden change of tone on seeing him reach for his wallet is a dead giveaway that she can be bought and probably has been bought with Elster’s money to deny the comings and goings of both Elster and Judy/Madeleine to anyone who asks. The clerk goes upstairs first to make sure her guest has slipped away via whatever secondary route is surely available in that big old structure and all is well.

Why doesn't Judy recognize Scottie at her door?
If we accept this sequence of events, then this entire scene mirrors the McKittrick Hotel episode. Furthermore, Judy's demeanor in the hotel before Scottie's arrival changes from complete unawareness to anxious waiting and preparation. While Scottie is talking at the door, Judy slowly backs away and places her hands on the telephone behind her back. She has weighed her options and decided seeing Scottie is worth the risk; as she will later tell him, "I was safe when you found me, there was nothing you could prove!"
…We must back up slightly to the first time Scottie sees Judy. Judy is walking up the sidewalk with her friends, and has the most subtle reaction in all of Vertigo. Her reaction is cut short, probably purposefully, by Hitchcock. In the ensuing shot she scratches her arm, which can be taken as a nervous reaction. While Scottie follows her, Judy appears to be smoking from a distance. This is the only time Madeleine/Judy exhibits this behavior, and Kim Novak didn't smoke in real life. As she lowers her hand, a white sedan drives up the road and starts blocking our view of Judy. Hitchcock waits until the sedan is in the middle of the frame before cutting to Scottie. When Judy goes into the Empire Hotel and opens her window, we think she's just glancing at the view, but it's actually a repeat of Madeleine opening the curtain at the McKittrick Hotel: She's checking if Scottie is still there.

I’ve had an ongoing debate with a movie buddy about whether or not it was a wild coincidence that Scottie runs into Judy in a city like San Francisco within a year or so of her “demise”. I don’t believe it was such a wild coincidence at all. He encounters her at one of the three or four locations in the city that meant something to Scottie and Madeleine and to which we see Scottie return, presumably time after time over the past year. Among them are Ernies, the museum where Carlotta Valdez’ portrait is located, the Nob Hill apartment building where Madeleine first leads Scottie on his slow pursuit of her, and Balducci’s Florist Shop, where Madeleine led Scottie in order to “pose” for him, turn and model for him, and make sure he got a good look at her in lovely surroundings so he might further “fall in love” with her as planned.

I believe Judy/Madeleine is also drawn to these same three or four locations in the hope (mixed with worry and dread as she indicates in her letter) that she might run into Scottie again and possibly rekindle a love affair, as herself this time, that had begun to take shape during the course of her and Elster’s scheme, the love affair that “wasn’t supposed to happen like this, shouldn’t have happened.” Judy isn’t walking to her apartment with her co-workers (I prefer this description of them to “friends”. Neither she nor Scottie appear to have many “friends”, other than Scottie’s Midge, who has probably hung onto a relationship with Scottie over the years for reasons other than ordinary “friendship”). She lives in the opposite direction. Does she walk this route with her co-workers every day in hopes that one day she will see Scottie, himself drawn back to this particular sentimental location? I think so. Therefore, it isn't a huge coincidence that two people repeatedly drawn to the same three or four locations in any big city would soon meet again.

Judy sees Scottie standing at Balducci’s at virtually the same instant that Scottie sees her. In fact, my observations of that brief shot of Judy as she steps onto the curb is that she registers a stronger recognition of him than he of her. That makes sense considering she does not look exactly as she did as Madeleine but he hasn’t changed his look at all, of course. But, having clearly and easily recognized him but with a reasonable expectation that he would not so clearly and easily recognize her and would instead dismiss her as someone who only vaguely resembles Madeleine (as in prior examples during this same wandering sequence), Judy chooses to stop in front of him…to make sure he sees her. She stops in her tracks right in front of him, stalls and draws more attention to herself with the arm scratch, causing her co-workers to gather in front of her and in front of Scotte in order to give Scottie more time to soak it all in and give her a good look. Her move appears to have worked because, however reluctantly, Scottie does indeed decide to follow her. If she has stopped at some point during the time that Scottie was following her to light up a cigarette instead of high tailing it directly to her apartment or ducking down any one of various side streets, that only confirms that she wanted Scottie to follow her and not lose the trail, imo.

I believe Judy has manipulated Scottie into following her as surely as “Madeleine” did a year earlier. Only this time it is motivated by a hope (mixed with worry and dread as mentioned before) that Scottie might fall in love with her for herself, as herself. I don’t believe for one moment that “Madeleine” or Judy opened the window of their respective hotel rooms after manipulating him into following her in order to merely check to see if Scottie was still there. I believe she did it in order to make sure he knew which room she was in so he could go to it and either lose her as a vanishing “ghost”, as in Madeleine’s case, or to meet her in her real flesh and blood persona, as in Judy’s case.

As far as her recognition or not of him at the door goes, she hasn't yet determined whether her manipulation of him to follow her succeeded because, as a troubled and lost man, he is still attracted to the real Judy inside of "Madeleine" or, as a seasoned detective, he has followed her in order to question her about a certain deadly incident about a year earlier. She needs to find out why he has followed her first, to behave as though some strange man has followed a single woman right up to her apartment door. So she plays up the annoyed hard scrabble working stiff side of her personality instead of allowing a hint at the more genteel persona she played out as "Madeleine". She is "acting", playing up the tough girl "Who the hell are you!" routine and in that way we see Kim Novak "acting" as Judy would "act" in such a situation. I believe Novak's performance here is spot on.

 

[Cineman]

On the issue of Vertigo as a box office "failure", I see that, according to The Numbers site, Vertigo was ranked #12 biggest box office draw of 1958:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/1958

Yes, it was not the runaway top ten box office hit that other Hitchcocks of the era achieved like Rear Window, North by Northwest and Psycho. But on a budget of about $2.5 million it turned a profit at about $3.2 million. For Hitchcock and the two other powerhouse star names attached to it you could say it was a disappointment, but not really a "failure" IMO.

Interestingly, without putting a calculator to it exactly, 1957 and 1958 both appear on The Numbers site to have logged in rather skimpy box office takes for the top ten hits of those years. Only a handful of the biggest hits took in double digit million$ whereas several more in each of the 4 or 5 years prior (and, certainly, in the years afterwards) took in double digit million$. Those were also the two years of Hitchcock's biggest box office disappointments of the decade, The Wrong Man and Vertigo, which I don't think was a coincidence. It seems something else was going on or rather not going on at the box office in those years other than a rejection of those two Hitchcock movies exactly. Maybe audiences were looking for the next Around The World in 80 Days and The Ten Commandments blockbuster epics in the two years that followed release of those mega-hits..?

 

[SteveJ86]

Once again, don't know what kinds of light this print has seen over the years. Muir Woods should have been fine. Ending, inclusive of drive to tower, are extremely thin on the OCN, and hence extremely faded, with no true blacks, and weak color. This could have been easily corrected for the Blu-ray and Universal's intended digital work, but they didn't wish to do the work. Hence, the sequence fails on the Blu-ray.RAH

Yeah I just wanted to confirm some of what Aston said, hes way too nitpickey but hes not wrong. I think he made the credits darker than they really were but everything else is pretty close to what I saw, he definitely got the crooked border right I think everyone could see that. I don't know what it should look like but I do prefer the colors on the BR, the colors in the theater usually looked faded.

Definitely not the worst movie experience ever though, not even close. I had to be evacuated once during a movie because someone said there was smoke in the projection room, later we heard it was high school seniors getting high up there.

 

[Charles Smith]

My only theater evacuation was due to the deployment of a stink bomb during a showing of Cocksucker Blues at the Fox Venice.

Glad to be able to contribute something to the conversation here.

 

[Reed Grele]

My only theater evacuation was due to the deployment of a stink bomb during a showing of Cocksucker Blues at the Fox Venice.

Had to look that one up!

Anyway, back to Vertigo. I've always wondered how dark the final scene in the bell tower should be. Specifically, where the nun appears. When I saw Vertigo at the Ziegfeld back in 1996, Just before Judy falls, I seem to recall that there was just a hint of white visible, and just a faint outline of a persons shape. After we see Judy fall backwards, only then is it revealed that it was a nun, and not some ghostly apparition.

In spite of its other failings, does the blu-ray replicate this scene correctly on a properly calibrated monitor?

 

[Kenneth_C]

I was also at the Egyptian screening last week. At least, I thought I was. Since almost nothing in Ashton's rant resembles what I experienced, I wonder if I didn't just dream the whole thing.

Aside from some (to-be-expected) minor print damage, I didn't find the film too dark, too loud, too fast, or anything else. The photoshopped screen "comparisons" above don't in any way, shape or form resemble what I saw.

In fact, far from wanting to scream in horror at the desecration of this masterpiece, I left the theater in a state of near-euphoria. Out of the half dozen times I've seen Vertigo theatrically, this one really resonated with me for some reason. I "got" the film in a way I never have before, feeling totally & blissfully in sync with the visuals, the performances, the rhythms -- the sheer poetry -- of the Master's work.

If it was a dream, then it was a glorious one. And, from the applause that greeted the end of the film, I guess I shared it with quite a few others in attendance.

 

[AstonMartin007]

Well, I don't really know what to say to that. I can assure you I did not go in with the intention of not enjoying myself, it takes me roughly 1-1/2 hours one way to get to Hollywood Blvd. I will say that I was very probably misguided about the film's speed, I think the others have a point about the audience and other factors throwing me off and affecting my ability to 'get in mood'. On that point, I was overzealous, and looking back at what I wrote after the fact, slightly unhinged. For that, I apologize.

But I really truly couldn't make out many important scenes. That is not to say the whole film was unbearable, not at all, but any time a scene wasn't fully illuminated, the lower dynamic range and grey blacks would become very evident. The opening scene surprised me because of this, but I excused it; again, I had no idea how complete the 1997 Restoration was, but I knew it wasn't perfect, and was willing to look past any faults. But the color in many scenes seemed faded; Elster's office, so lavishly designed that Hitchcock had it copied for his own home, looked quite shabby, the walls in particular. All through the first half of the film I was trying to rationalize what I was seeing...perhaps all the home release formats had the colors exaggerated and this was what Hitchcock really intended. But then we got to the Forest scene, and I couldn't pretend anymore. Nothing short of nuclear winter could make a redwood forest (supposedly Muir Woods, but actually Big Basin Redwoods State Park) look as lifeless and murky as what I saw.

I guess my only response to you would be: Since you're been lucky enough to see Vertigo theatrically (I'm assuming in 70mm) multiple times, what was it this time that affected you differently than all the other times?

I would not be totally opposed to attending another 70mm screening of Vertigo, there are so many good reviews of the experience that I have to believe mine was the outlier, but I would definitely go in with tempered expectations. And yes, I still hate that Foley mix.

The DTS theatrical format is a different codec than the DTS home formats. You can't just pop in the Blu-ray and sync it up with a film print.

That wasn't what I was implying. I can understand that a perfect picture would take money and time to obtain, but Universal has fixed the soundtrack already, and other than a missing couch squeak, I haven't heard anything but praise for it. I don't have $100K lying around, but I can't imagine it would take anywhere near that amount for a couple of interdepartmental phone calls, a blank CD-R, and an envelope to mail it to a theater. At this point, I'm tired of thinking up excuses for Universal...I appreciate the Bluray, but the simple fact is Warner painstakingly restored North by Northwest for a stunning result...4 years ago.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

To make theatrical DTS discs requires quite a bit more than some blank CDs.The encoding work and burning isnt going to be done to service a handful of 17 year old prints.

 

[Peter Hayes]

To make theatrical DTS discs requires quite a bit more than some blank CDs.The encoding work and burning isnt going to be done to service a handful of 17 year old prints.

I hope to see the 1996 70mm restoration myself some day in a cinema - I'll be taking my stopwatch in, by the way - and I don't see why Universal can't occasionally strike a new print of it, especially given the fact (noted already above) that it was intended to last 200 years.

 

[AstonMartin007]

Love your assessments here. If I might add...

Thank you very much for reading them. I've been thinking about expanding that essay and perhaps posting it elsewhere, I didn't get much feedback on Reddit. But it's a practical take on the film, not psychoanalytical, feministic, mythical or any of the 'sexier' ways of viewing Vertigo, so I doubt many would care.

I’ve always felt the whole “mystery” of why the clerk denies having seen Madeleine enter the hotel despite the fact that she just came through the lobby and how Madeleine slips away before Scottie gets to her room is largely cleared up the moment Scottie reaches for his wallet. The clerk suddenly changes her tone about strict rules for not giving out information about the hotel guests into one of, “Of course, I don’t think it would matter…” because she thinks Scottie is about to lay a $20 on her for the information. She does not yet know he is actually going to flash a detective badge, not a $20, $50, or anything else of the kind. She even looks at his wallet and registers disappointment that he doesn't peel out a $20 but instead flashes her a detective's badge. I believe the clerk’s sudden change of tone on seeing him reach for his wallet is a dead giveaway that she can be bought and probably has been bought with Elster’s money to deny the comings and goings of both Elster and Judy/Madeleine to anyone who asks. The clerk goes upstairs first to make sure her guest has slipped away via whatever secondary route is surely available in that big old structure and all is well.

I do not agree with "The clerk's in on it!" theory because, as I wrote in the essay, all the clues we need to decipher this scene come straight from her mouth. There's no reason for her to make up these clues, and more to the point, there's absolutely no reason for Elster to tell her to say these things. If she were truly bought by Elster, she would've been in a very good position to falsely testify on Madeleine's insanity..."She comes in once in a while and starts barking at the walls and ordering 100 year old champagne"...but she doesn't do any of that. Instead, she merely reports the facts as she sees them, facts that can be assembled together into a narrative. Before the necklace reveal, this is the closest Scottie ever comes to detecting genuinely suspicious behavior on Madeleine's part. This is also the only scene which hints at Elster and Judy's prior relationship together.

All hotels have strict rules about guest privacy. There's a whole scene in the Bourne Identity where a convoluted plan is presented merely to obtain some phone records from a hotel. The clerk changes her tone because she's been flashed with a detective's badge. She is now obligated to comply. If some stranger came in and slipped a $20, he'd be a stalker or a busybody, not a person of authority.

Finally, her last line..."Her car is gone!" "What car?" Remember, Judy doesn't have a car.

I’ve had an ongoing debate with a movie buddy about whether or not it was a wild coincidence that Scottie runs into Judy in a city like San Francisco within a year or so of her “demise”. I don’t believe it was such a wild coincidence at all. He encounters her at one of the three or four locations in the city that meant something to Scottie and Madeleine and to which we see Scottie return, presumably time after time over the past year....

The problem people have with this is they always consider the whole city, and therefore think the meeting is implausible. In reality, the shopping area around Union Square is not large, and was probably smaller in 1958. If Scottie's hanging around there, and Judy's working at Magnin's which was at the southeast corner of Union Square, the odds of them meeting are increased considerably. It's like the difference between bumping into someone on the island of Manhattan vs in Rockefeller Center.

I believe Judy/Madeleine is also drawn to these same three or four locations in the hope (mixed with worry and dread as she indicates in her letter) that she might run into Scottie again and possibly rekindle a love affair...She lives in the opposite direction. Does she walk this route with her co-workers every day in hopes that one day she will see Scottie, himself drawn back to this particular sentimental location? I think so. Therefore, it isn't a huge coincidence that two people repeatedly drawn to the same three or four locations in any big city would soon meet again.

It's certainly possible, but you're on shakier ground implying anything from the direction she's walking. Forgetting the logistical concerns of filming, Podesta Baldocchi was at 224 Grant Ave.; Judy's hotel is ~5 blocks west at 920 Sutter St. The route that she takes from Magnin's to her home isn't out of the way at all.

Also, I see her co-workers as acquaintances if not friends. While Judy's in profile, you can clearly see her mouth "I guess, 8'o clock?"

Judy sees Scottie standing at Balducci’s at virtually the same instant that Scottie sees her. In fact, my observations of that brief shot of Judy as she steps onto the curb is that she registers a stronger recognition of him than he of her. That makes sense considering she does not look exactly as she did as Madeleine but he hasn’t changed his look at all, of course. But, having clearly and easily recognized him but with a reasonable expectation that he would not so clearly and easily recognize her and would instead dismiss her as someone who only vaguely resembles Madeleine (as in prior examples during this same wandering sequence), Judy chooses to stop in front of him…to make sure he sees her. She stops in her tracks right in front of him, stalls and draws more attention to herself with the arm scratch, causing her co-workers to gather in front of her and in front of Scotte in order to give Scottie more time to soak it all in and give her a good look. Her move appears to have worked because, however reluctantly, Scottie does indeed decide to follow her. If she has stopped at some point during the time that Scottie was following her to light up a cigarette instead of high tailing it directly to her apartment or ducking down any one of various side streets, that only confirms that she wanted Scottie to follow her and not lose the trail, imo.

I believe Judy has manipulated Scottie into following her as surely as “Madeleine” did a year earlier. Only this time it is motivated by a hope (mixed with worry and dread as mentioned before) that Scottie might fall in love with her for herself, as herself. I don’t believe for one moment that “Madeleine” or Judy opened the window of their respective hotel rooms after manipulating him into following her in order to merely check to see if Scottie was still there. I believe she did it in order to make sure he knew which room she was in so he could go to it and either lose her as a vanishing “ghost”, as in Madeleine’s case, or to meet her in her real flesh and blood persona, as in Judy’s case.

As far as her recognition or not of him at the door goes, she hasn't yet determined whether her manipulation of him to follow her succeeded because, as a troubled and lost man, he is still attracted to the real Judy inside of "Madeleine" or, as a seasoned detective, he has followed her in order to question her about a certain deadly incident about a year earlier. She needs to find out why he has followed her first, to behave as though some strange man has followed a single woman right up to her apartment door. So she plays up the annoyed hard scrabble working stiff side of her personality instead of allowing a hint at the more genteel persona she played out as "Madeleine". She is "acting", playing up the tough girl "Who the hell are you!" routine and in that way we see Kim Novak "acting" as Judy would "act" in such a situation. I believe Novak's performance here is spot on.

Not much for me to say here, these are all valid ways of looking at the situation, it's just a matter of perspective. I chose to believe that Madeleine/Judy check their windows for Scottie because while Scottie was following Madeleine, she was keeping tabs on him just as much as he was keeping tabs on her. Watch closely at 2 shots in the Art Gallery; after Scottie gets the art catalog and leaves the hall, Madeleine's head bows. The next day, same camera setup, Scottie hurriedly leaves when Madeleine stands up and her head noticeably turns to follow his exit.

In any case, I certainly approve of Novak's acting.

On the issue of Vertigo as a box office "failure", I see that, according to The Numbers site, Vertigo was ranked #12 biggest box office draw of 1958:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/1958

Yes, it was not the runaway top ten box office hit that other Hitchcocks of the era achieved like Rear Window, North by Northwest and Psycho. But on a budget of about $2.5 million it turned a profit at about $3.2 million. For Hitchcock and the two other powerhouse star names attached to it you could say it was a disappointment, but not really a "failure" IMO.

I'd caution against taking those numbers seriously, I've never seen an accurate breakdown of Vertigo's 1958 gross, and all the sites seem to have different numbers. Hitchcock speaking to Truffaut in 1962 said "it's made money by now", but on the audio tape he says it's merely broken even. I suppose only old Paramount documents could give us the real figures.

To make theatrical DTS discs requires quite a bit more than some blank CDs.

You remind me of one of George W. Bush's debates with Kerry..."It's hard...it's hard work...here's why it's hard..." Is Universal in the movie business or what? Quite frankly, I'd feel far more comfortable with Vertigo in Warner's hands right now.

I hope to see the 1996 70mm restoration myself some day in a cinema - I'll be taking my stopwatch in, by the way - and I don't see why Universal can't occasionally strike a new print of it, especially given the fact (noted already above) that it was intended to last 200 years.

That 200 years figure only applies to the archival copy, locked away in vaults. Also, if you're in Australia, your chance may have past already, unfortunately...

http://cinemaverge.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/vertigo-70mm-print-has-arrived/

 

[Cineman]

I do not agree with "The clerk's in on it!" theory because, as I wrote in the essay, all the clues we need to decipher this scene come straight from her mouth. There's no reason for her to make up these clues, and more to the point, there's absolutely no reason for Elster to tell her to say these things. If she were truly bought by Elster, she would've been in a very good position to falsely testify on Madeleine's insanity..."She comes in once in a while and starts barking at the walls and ordering 100 year old champagne"...but she doesn't do any of that. Instead, she merely reports the facts as she sees them, facts that can be assembled together into a narrative. Before the necklace reveal, this is the closest Scottie ever comes to detecting genuinely suspicious behavior on Madeleine's part. This is also the only scene which hints at Elster and Judy's prior relationship together.


All hotels have strict rules about guest privacy. There's a whole scene in the Bourne Identity where a convoluted plan is presented merely to obtain some phone records from a hotel. The clerk changes her tone because she's been flashed with a detective's badge. She is now obligated to comply. If some stranger came in and slipped a $20, he'd be a stalker or a busybody, not a person of authority.

Finally, her last line..."Her car is gone!" "What car?" Remember, Judy doesn't have a car.

I didn't mean to imply that the clerk was "in on it". She wouldn't have to be in order to say the things she says to Scottie at the hotel. All that was needed was for some man named "John Smith" (Gavin Elster), who occasionally stops by for a tryst with a woman named "Carlotta" (Lovely name, isn't it? Foreign, but lovely...) and who also happens to have a long term stay agreement with the hotel, to slip the lady a few bucks every now and then to make sure she doesn't give out any information about their comings and goings to anyone who asks...like a detective trying to bust them on behalf of the true spouse of either of them. Or maybe it's Judy who does the slipping.

The clerk didn't say anything that would have had to be "scripted" by Elser in that scene other than something like, "Nope, haven't seen the lady who stays in that room all day" to whoever asks. And that would have been the only thing the two illicit lovers, Gavin and Judy, would have needed her to say. I suppose they could have relied on her adhering to those privacy house rules to the letter all the way down the line and not bothered to slip her anything just to help seal the deal but then how would you explain her denying that "Carlotta" had been there all day or just come in when, clearly, Madeleine/Judy HAD to have walked through that lobby and clunked up those stairs in high heels a moment before Scottie entered the lobby himself? I don't think Elster and Judy could have banked on the hotel clerk being quite that out of it at just the right moment, even if she routinely tended to a whole green house full of hydrangea plants from dawn to dusk. I mean, we all know Madeleine/Judy isn't really a ghost and invisible to mere mortals not in love with her, right?

When the clerk asks, "What car?", there isn't anything surprising about that or that had to have been scripted. She's working in the lobby, not standing at the door watching for who parks a car where and when.

On when the clerk changes her tone from sticking to those strict rules about guest privacy no matter what to loosening her grip on those rules, I think if you watch the scene again you will see that she loosens her grip on them the instant she sees him reaching for his wallet, not after he opens the wallet and flashes the badge in it..."Of course, I don't think..." If anything, it is the sight of the badge that stops her from going further with an apparent willingness to bend the rules a bit this time. After all, a detective is precisely the nosy third party Gavin and Judy would have wanted to be kept in the dark and for which they would have slipped the clerk a few bucks every now and then to keep their comings and goings on the down low.

 

[JoshZ]

To make theatrical DTS discs requires quite a bit more than some blank CDs.The encoding work and burning isnt going to be done to service a handful of 17 year old prints.

Not to mention that DTS exited the theatrical market in 2008. The theatrical division was broken off and sold to another company. It's currently known as Datasat Digital Entertainment. Some theaters may still have the old DTS equipment in order to screen prints like this, but I don't know if Datasat still uses or supports the original codec.

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr.Harris
I've been thinking for a while about this transfer and what has gone wrong.
In that featurette on the orignal DVD an also on the Blu ray you Mr. Harris and your partner Mr. Katz speak of that now finally there is a restored version of Vertigo that will last "the next 200 years".
Yet there is something to be wanted.
What went wrong in this whole process?
Is your restoration not used on this Blu ray?
If not, what is on the Blu ray?
If i understand your statement in this featurette correct, then we would have the best version right there!

Good question.

When we performed the restorative efforts in 1996, we did so at the finest level of photographic abilities, using every trick in the book to create something that while not perfect, left current film elements in the dust. The work was performed at Pacific Title, and what they created for us was superb.

Today, we can create a perfect restoration via digital means.

If the desire is there to do so. I fear that the Hitchcock family will lose the films before anyone decides to get around to it
and support their survival.

To my eye, some of the Blu-ray looks very nice. Not fully correct, but very nice. Other sequences look like garbage. And for the record, resolution and sharpness are not a part of the equation. They simply are.

RAH