Vertigo (1958)

[drinkanddestroy]

 

[drinkanddestroy]

You have to remember that Ebert has no ideas of his own. He steals them all, every one. In this case he is channeling Donald Spoto, whose biography of AH (now widely discredited) was called The Dark Side of Genius.

Spoto's problems are two-fold. First, he assumes he knows what Hitchcock's fantasies were, and he makes that assumption based on the films H made. But did H make the films for himself, or for what he thought his audience wanted? Is there any evidence that H had any interest in the subjects he filmed apart from work? What did he do when he went home? (In fact we know, he liked to read biographies of statesmen and military heroes). What did his family have to say about him? Did his daughter and his grandchildren tell stories about his ghoulish private life? (In fact, they all said how normal he was, how unlike his public persona). Spoto's basic premise was so much B.S.

Then there are the films: yeah, H had films where women characters were victims or potential victims (Rebecca, Suspicion, Under Capricorn, Notorious, Dial M), but that was par for the course in the 40s and 50s when women were the bulk of the cinema-going audience (and H was hardly unique with this kind of approach). But H also made films where the women take charge and either solve the problem themselves or are at least on equal footing with the male hero. Who does most of the chance-taking in Rear Window? Who joins the hero on his adventures in Young and Innocent?Who is ready to take up a life of crime with Cary Grant in To Catch a Thief? Who rushes to the Albert Hall to foil an assassination attempt in The Man Who Knew Too Much? (1956). And in the earlier version of that film, when the police sharpshooter has a failure of nerve and in unable to kill the goon on the rooftop menacing the little girl, who is it that raises a rifle and cooly dispatches the threat? Answer in all cases: Hitchcock's action women.

Hitchcock could torture his female characters (as he could torture his male characters), but he also put up plenty of examples of tough broads as well. He could swing either way. It all depended on the properties being developed. It all depended on the writing.

after having seen the recent movie Hitchcock, it seems to me that that movie, which I know you hated, heavily uses some of these ideas about Hitch and his women. Any thoughts about that? Think they borrowed from this book you mention?

[dave jenkins]

They sure didn't get it from Rebello's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, the putative source for the film.

[Senza]

I have to admit I really enjoyed the first half of the film with all the mystery surrounding Novak's character but felt the movie started to lose its momentum in the second half only to bounce back at the end. I like Jimmy Stewart's ability to create likeable characters [Rear Window, It's A Wonderful Life - I watch this every year around christmas, Anatomy Of A Murder and Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, which are the only films I've seen of his]. 3.5/5 stars.

[dave jenkins]

Well, in Vertigo he ends up being not-so-likeable. I think "demented" is the word I'd use.

[drinkanddestroy]

yes he is definitely demented by the end of the film

[Senza]

I think that's why I started to lose interest in the second half, mainly because he became a really obsessive person.

[moviesceleton]

I think that's why I started to lose interest in the second half, mainly because he became a really obsessive person.

Isn't that where it really gets interesting?

[Senza]

I guess, but it wasn't as interesting as the first half.

[Groggy]

I think that's why I started to lose interest in the second half, mainly because he became a really obsessive person.

Funny, I have the exact opposite reaction.

[Senza]

I'll give it another go maybe these next few days, it's rare that my opinions on a movie change on a second viewing.

[dave jenkins]

I think one's reaction to Stewart in the second half of Vertigo depends on a lot of things: how you view Stewart's usual film persona and how willing you are to see that played with; your film-viewing history; your life experiences. What you don't go for at one point in your life you may better appreciate later.

[dave jenkins]

I wouldn't buy everything this guy is selling (and the stuff about the McKittrick Hotel I would heavily discount) but he's put a lot of thought into the film and has some good observations to make: http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/1e21bf/vertigo_1958/

[drinkanddestroy]

I wouldn't buy everything this guy is selling (and the stuff about the McKittrick Hotel I would heavily discount) but he's put a lot of thought into the film and has some good observations to make: http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/1e21bf/vertigo_1958/

Thanks dj, that was an interesting read.

I've never delved that deeply into the depths of Vertigo, but this will give me something to think about next time I watch it. And after reading this, the next time I watch it will be soon 

[noodles_leone]

Kim Novak was on stage yesterday in Cannes to give one of the awards. They showed a clip from Vertigo. That was cool. But Kim is now 80 and looks like this:



That was less cool.