Vertigo (1958)

[dave jenkins]

And please tell me one renewable-energy venture that could survive five minutes without massive gov't subsidies, mandates, tax breaks, and other gifts forcibly taken from the pockets of the taxpayer.

Forestry.

[dave jenkins]

The only figures that keep getting worst are:

1) pollution: I'm not too worried about that, it's a crisis that is being fought more and more efficiently. So efficiently, actually, that DJ had stand up and go give poor pollution a helpful hand.

I'm not sure how I figure in N_L's comment, but there is pollution and then there's pollution. CO2, for example, is not pollution when you are trying for maximize plant growth. Dr. Patrick Moore has the story here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtcNjoDe5Pg

I agree that things are getting better and better for societies around the world. (Anecdotal f'rinstance ahead) I'm constantly astonished at how well I can live on my meager salary. Everything is so cheap. They're practically giving away those blu-rays--and we used to pay hundreds of (90's) dollars for the much, much inferior technology known as Laser Disc.

Of course, this is all going to change once Iran gets nukes . . .

Which is why Portrait of Carlotta remains one of the most fascinating paintings never to have hung in an actual museum. Also, Benny Herrmann's score is off-the-charts impressive.

[drinkanddestroy]

Forestry.

Touche!

[noodles_leone]

About Carlotta's portrait, with some insights about who did it, who modeled for it and the way it helped bringing drinkable water in Africa:

http://theartofilm.blogspot.fr/2012/11/the-carlotta-portrait.html

[dave jenkins]

About Carlotta's portrait, with some insights about who did it, who modeled for it and the way it helped bringing drinkable water in Africa:

http://theartofilm.blogspot.fr/2012/11/the-carlotta-portrait.html

Thanks, I didn't find that link all that useful; however, the guy's post about the Portrait of Midge (parodying the Carlotta one) has a lot of good info: http://theartofilm.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-midge-portrait-in-parody-of-carlotta.html

I always liked that scene: true comedy relief in a film that needs all it can get. Also, it works very well as an index of Scottie's inner state ("Dude, if you can't laugh at this gag you are so up your own ass you need an intervention"). I guess it's also a meta-cinematic comment on the layers upon layers on which the film is built. That is, AH is winking at the audience (before putting them back under his spell).

I like the fact that, like a magician, AH could show how a trick was performed, and then proceed to use the very same type of illusion to wow his audience once again. For example, AH uses the fireworks scene to great comic effect in To Catch a Thief (the fireworks of course being an objective correlative of the characters emotions, but also a visual play on the expression "to see fireworks" ). Most everyone chuckles their way through that scene. But then, 2 years later, AH uses the surf-crashing scene at Cypress Point in Vertigo non-ironically--and gets away with it.

AH had the freedom and the power (and the know-how) to put such things over.

[drinkanddestroy]

How did the colors compare with the colors in the Harris/Katz restoration? Do you know if Harris/Katz in fact used this print as a reference in making their restoration? And what about the sound – how does that compare to the Harris/Katz restored version?

Considering that you've seen the movie 50-60 times, I'd assume you'd remember the colors from every frame, as well as every sound 

[dave jenkins]

I actually don't notice sound as such, unless there's something egregious (like modern Foley added to the soundtrack). I notice the score, which I'm almost to the point of being able to anticipate from scene to scene. I notice colors, clarity, skin tones. One thing you can say about Harris/Katz (and the subsequent digital versions that follow from their work) is how well they did on the colors. The current home video versions of the film are much sharper than the print I saw, leading me to conclude (not for the first time) that what we are seeing now is not what 1958 audiences saw in theaters. In this case, though, I think I prefer the enhanced sharpening, even if it isn't "authentic." A bigger problem has to do with skin tones: I just checked the Blu-ray again and everybody's flesh registers too hot. This is distracting at best,  but also interferes with our understanding of certain visual cues. For example, whenever Madeleine is dressed up in her suit she wears a lot of powder on her face. This gives her complexion a very pale look, almost as if it had a porcelain-doll quality. This suggests a certain artificiality, perhaps even provides a foreshadowing of her early demise. Anyway, under current home video conditions, the pale complexion aspect is completely obliterated--she just looks like she has normal skin color (in contrast to all the others who look flushed). Needless to say, this affects the way we perceive the character, and may actually be contrary to what AH intended.

I'll say one thing about the purple suit controversy (in the inquest scene): Stewart's suit is clearly blue (but not navy) and at no time verges on turning purple. When I look at the scene in 1080p it doesn't look to me like his suit is purple there either, but occasionally it gets close to that color. To the extent that people read that color as purple, the transfer is doing a disservice to Hitchcock's original scheme.

[dave jenkins]

I don't mean to suggest that Scotty has a drinking problem; I think Hitchcock was just demonstrating how prevalent alcohol was in 1957. Still, cigarette use was as prevalent at the time, but you don't get a lot of smoking in AH's films--I can't think of any that occurs in Vertigo at all. Even if there is some, it's so trivial as to be easily forgotten. This is true of many a Hitchcock movie--Tippi Hedren does a little smoking in The Birds, so little it's almost unnoticeable. Probably there's some smoking in the 40s pictures, but again, nothing noteworthy.

In further support of this I just re-watched parts of Strangers on a Train. It may be remembered that a certain lighter plays a prominent role in the proceedings. But for that lighter to be put in play, it has to pass from the hero to the villain, and so both men have to be smokers. But Farley Granger never smokes throughout the whole movie. In the opening scene where he accidentally leaves the lighter behind he remarks that he "isn't much of a smoker" which I guess accounts for the fact that he doesn't miss the lighter until Robert Walker reminds him of it in a later scene. Still, why was he given the lighter as a gift if he never smokes? Obviously, the plot required the condition to effect the transfer of the lighter, but, that having been accomplished, AH lost all interest in Granger being a smoker (he is a drinker, though). Robert Walker smokes a bit, but it's pretty trivial. And there are all those so-called films noirs where smoking is often so prominent . . . .

Btw, I went back and looked at the source novel for Vertigo (in ancient English translation), and the character that is the basis for the one played by Stewart is pretty much a lush throughout. So, all the alcohol use in Vertigo may be a hangover (heh!) from the novel--but Scottie's use looks pretty tame given the way the culture around him is constantly boozing it up. Have things changed?

[cigar joe]

In further support of this I just re-watched parts of Strangers on a Train. It may be remembered that a certain lighter plays a prominent role in the proceedings. But for that lighter to be put in play, it has to pass from the hero to the villain, and so both men have to be smokers. But Farley Granger never smokes throughout the whole movie. In the opening scene where he accidentally leaves the lighter behind he remarks that he "isn't much of a smoker" which I guess accounts for the fact that he doesn't miss the lighter until Robert Walker reminds him of it in a later scene. Still, why was he given the lighter as a gift if he never smokes? Obviously, the plot required the condition to effect the transfer of the lighter, but, that having been accomplished, AH lost all interest in Granger being a smoker (he is a drinker, though). Robert Walker smokes a bit, but it's pretty trivial. And there are all those so-called films noirs where smoking is often so prominent . . . .

Btw, I went back and looked at the source novel for Vertigo (in ancient English translation), and the character that is the basis for the one played by Stewart is pretty much a lush throughout. So, all the alcohol use in Vertigo may be a hangover (heh!) from the novel--but Scottie's use looks pretty tame given the way the culture around him is constantly boozing it up. Have things changed?

As a pro tennis player it makes sense that he isn't much of a smoker, no?

[dave jenkins]

He's actually not a pro; there's a discussion about him turning pro and he says he's not going to do that, he's going into politics instead. Still, you're right, he's an athlete; but I'm not sure how well people understood the health problems associated with smoking in 1951. You often see doctors in films of the period smoking.

Today it would be ridiculous to show an athlete smoking. There's a funny bit in Body Heat where William Hurt finishes jogging and immediately lights up: it always gets a laugh.

Still, getting back to Strangers, why would Farley Granger's girlfriend give him a lighter as a gift if he wasn't a smoker? Just to light other people's cigarettes?

And my larger point remains: even when circumstances permitted, Hitchcock never did much with smoking (as we see in, say, films noirs). It just didn't interest him. By contrast, he often included scenes of eating and drinking, and used those scenes to further his plots and/or develop thematic motifs.

[drinkanddestroy]

Maybe back then, all men had lighters - at least the same types of men who wore nice watches, etc. A lighter was perhaps considered a nice piece of jewelry or accessory, since so many people smoked; therefore, I can see it being given as a gift even to a non-smoker.
Plenty of athletes smoked in the 50's. Behind the dugout at Yankee Stadium was a little runway area where players used to "cop a smoke," in the words of one 50's player I read recently. I am in middle of reading Don Larsen's book about his perfect game in the 1956 World Series - he mentions having a cigarette between innings.

[cigar joe]

He's actually not a pro; there's a discussion about him turning pro and he says he's not going to do that, he's going into politics instead. Still, you're right, he's an athlete; but I'm not sure how well people understood the health problems associated with smoking in 1951. You often see doctors in films of the period smoking.

Today it would be ridiculous to show an athlete smoking. There's a funny bit in Body Heat where William Hurt finishes jogging and immediately lights up: it always gets a laugh.

Still, getting back to Strangers, why would Farley Granger's girlfriend give him a lighter as a gift if he wasn't a smoker? Just to light other people's cigarettes?

And my larger point remains: even when circumstances permitted, Hitchcock never did much with smoking (as we see in, say, films noirs). It just didn't interest him. By contrast, he often included scenes of eating and drinking, and used those scenes to further his plots and/or develop thematic motifs.

I'd go with the "Just to light other people's cigarettes" answer, it was an ice breaker, also a lot of folks used to have table lighters in their living rooms for company and ashtrays even though they didn't smoke themselves.

[Moorman]

I watched this early this year on TCM.  Its a very good movie. In fact, one of my favorite movies of Hitchcock.  I loved everything about this movie. Kim Novack blew me away in this one. The plot was VERY GOOD and unpredictable.  James Stewart reminded me why he is my favorite Hitchcock actor.  The cinematography and plot are what really stood out in this for me. I rate this one a 8 out of 10...

[drinkanddestroy]

I watched this early this year on TCM.  Its a very good movie. In fact, one of my favorite movies of Hitchcock.  I loved everything about this movie. Kim Novack blew me away in this one. The plot was VERY GOOD and unpredictable.  James Stewart reminded me why he is my favorite Hitchcock actor.  The cinematography and plot are what really stood out in this for me. I rate this one a 8 out of 10...

It just played on TCM this week. It’s James Stewart Month on TCM.

I’m just curious: what does it take for you to rate a movie higher than 8/10?   

[Moorman]

It just played on TCM this week. It’s James Stewart Month on TCM.

I’m just curious: what does it take for you to rate a movie higher than 8/10?  

To me, a rating of 8 IS a great rating. Its been a while since i've seen Vertigo.  There is nothing wrong with this film. I'm going off memory. I could see it as a 9 right now.  I think  The Night of the Hunter is the only film i've given a perfect 10.  Once Upon a Time in the West and High Noon are near perfect to me. I forgot what i gave them as scores.  I just posted earlier how My Darling Clemintine just went from a initial rating of 5 with me all the way up to i believe a rating of 8.  As i look at a movie, if it gets better, i rate it higher.