Vertigo (1958)

[drinkanddestroy]

I remember reading about this last year, when Novak returned to Hollywood to leave her handprints and footprints at Grauman's Chinese; the Daily Mail said she looked almost unrecognisable from plastic surgery http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2131046/Vertigo-actress-Kim-Novak-looks-unrecognisable-hand-footprint-ceremony.html

some people just can't age with dignity

[dave jenkins]

Think I'll take a run at this guy's McKittrick Hotel explanation:

There are a number of clues that are dropped during this scene.
1.The room is rented by a "Carlotta Valdes"
2.She's had the room for 2 weeks, comes 2-3 times a week, and doesn't stay overnight.
3.The clerk hasn't seen "Carlotta Valdes" come in.
4."Carlotta Valdes" room key is on the rack.

These clues are given by the clerk, so let's assume she's an innocent bystander.

We see Madeleine in the room, so she must have access; this implies that a copy of the room key exists. The clerk hasn't seen "Carlotta Valdes", this means that Judy has never before donned the Madeleine disguise when visiting. Judy only visits during daytime, and never stays long. The disappearance of Madeleine and her Jaguar suggests that there must be another entrance/exit in the hotel. What does it all mean?

I believe that the McKittrick Hotel is the meeting place for Gavin Elster and Judy's secret daytime affairs. Seen in this light, the clues seem to fall into place. Elster knows about the hotel, and needs an inconspicuous entry and a copy of the room key to avoid the clerk's suspicion. Judy registers under a false name, given to her by Elster, and only visits when their schedules allow. She probably has a job of her own and this is why she can never stay overnight. She brings Scottie to the McKittrick Hotel, after taking him to Carlotta's grave and portrait, because she knows, or has been advised, that it is the one place where she can shake off Scottie's tail.

The McKittrick Hotel is part of Elster's plan to sell the idea that his wife is possessed by the spirit of Carlotta Valdes. The hotel was once Carlotta's house, and Elster knows Scottie will find that out through research (in fact, he gets the info from Pop at the Argosy Bookstore). It is essential that Madeleine lead Scottie there--it's on the tour along with Mission Delores and the art museum. She doesn't want the give Scottie the slip necessarily: by doing so she adds to her mysterious allure, but the main thing is to get him to the hotel so he can interview the clerk. The clerk's info is also intended to sell Scottie on Elster's scheme, and anyone else who might check subsequent to the death of Elster's wife. It is important that the clerk know all the particulars of Madeleine's strange behavior, so it doesn't make sense that Judy would ever go there as herself. She would always go as Madeleine to further establish her false identity. It certainly would not make any sense for Judy and Elster to go there for their trysts; they would want to keep that part of their relationship separate. Anyway, once he'd installed her at the Brocklebank as Mrs. Elster, Elster wouldn't have to meet Judy anywhere, they were by that point effectively living together (the real Mrs. Elster, we are later told, rarely came to town).

Also, even if the clerk had never seen Judy in her Madeleine disguise, she wouldn't just let some strange woman come into her hotel and go upstairs. The only way someone would get past the clerk unchallenged is if they were able to sneak in, which, apparently is exactly what Judy was able to do. Apparently, she also had a second key to her room. She also knew the back way out so she could go out and reclaim her car while Scottie was in the building. The scene is stage-managed (by Hitchcock through Elster) to appear mysterious, but it really isn't. Nothing more is required by way of explanation.

[dave jenkins]

In writing about the film, AstonMartin_007 (linked above, http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/1e21bf/vertigo_1958/) makes a valuable point about Judy's use of Carlotta's necklace: "Judy never wore the necklace as Madeleine, [Scottie] never saw it in real life." Although she was being careless, Judy couldn't really have imagined that Scottie would recognize it from the portrait, so she wasn't being that careless. It's an understandable slip.

More can be said about the necklace; more has been. Here are some further thoughts regarding its use in Vertigo. I lean heavily on Hitchcock's Motifs by Michael Walker. He draws some interesting parallel's among the ways necklaces are used in this and other Hitchcock films.

In Notorious and Under Capricorn there are parallel scenes which begin with two men waiting for Ingrid Bergman as heroine to appear, dressed to go to an important social function: dinner at Sebastian’s and a ball respectively. One of the men has an expensive necklace in his hands, which he wants her to wear to the function. In Notorious, the CIA official Prescott simply tells Alicia that he wants her to wear the (specially hired) diamond necklace, and she asks him to fasten it for her. Devlin stands impotently by during this; it is Prescott who is in control and who is orchestrating Alicia’s performance for her evening of espionage on Sebastian and his associates. In Under Capricorn, Sam has secretly bought a ruby necklace to give to Hattie to wear to the ball, but when he tentatively suggests this as Hattie descends the stairs, Charles is scathing: ‘Do you want your wife to look like a Christmas tree?’ Here, the issue is one of taste, and Sam’s lower-class sensibilities are mocked by the aristocratic Charles—Sam hides the necklace. It is Charles who is in charge of Hattie’s evening, taking her to the ball, and here it is Sam who stands by impotently. The status of the dominant male in each case is symbolized by his control over the heroine’s jewelry. When Prescott fastens the necklace, he not only shows his power over Alicia, but also over Devlin, whom she has conspicuously not asked to do this for her. Similarly, when Charles obliges Sam to conceal the fact that he has bought the rubies, he reduces him to the role of onlooker [italics mine]—he barely gives Hattie time to say goodbye to him.

264-265 Hitchcock’s Motifs (Michael Walker)

We come then to the matter at hand, the necklace scene in Vertigo.  Scottie, having transformed Judy--albeit unknowingly, for the second time--into Madeleine, is at last able to have sex with her. Afterwards, dressing to go out, Judy asks Scottie to fasten her necklace. As he does so, he recognizes it from the portrait of Carlotta. Walker (267): “The necklace was originally given to Carlotta by the rich man who drove her to suicide; it then passed down through Carlotta’s descendants to the real Madeleine Elster, which enabled Elster to give it to Judy after he had murdered his wife. The necklace is thus, once more, associated with male power”—and impotence (recall that it is yet another ruby necklace). The necklace does more than identify Judy and reveal the murder plot: it shows Scottie just how he’s been manipulated by Elster. Scottie also realizes that his makeover of Judy has been a repetition of the one originally performed on Judy by Elster (the new “Madeleine” is Elster’s sloppy seconds). Scottie, when performing the necklace-fastening ritual, was still not fully in control of Judy--in fact, a good deal of irony attaches to that moment in retrospect. Perhaps Elster had even similarly fastened the necklace for Judy once—she seems to have worn it before. Elster, though absent, maintains a controlling presence in the scene (the mirror, with its associations of doubling, also suggests this). Scottie cannot seem to help following Elster's lead in everything. And when not being led by the nose, Scottie has been, and remains, an onlooker—we see him look at the necklace in the mirror, then at the one in the portrait in his mind’s eye. Eyesight gives way to insight. Recognizing his position, Scottie resolves to finally take control--with tragic results (more irony).

A final thought: although little attention is paid to the necklace until the recognition scene, the film does prepare for it in a rather bizarre way. It is highlighted in the much earlier Nightmare Scene, wherein the portrait of Carlotta appears. In fact, the camera pushes in to draw particular attention to the necklace. The nightmare is of course from Scottie's P.o.v., but at this point in the story he cannot have any reason to be particularly interested in the necklace. Why, then, is his subconscious mind drawing his attention to it? Is Scottie psychic? Or is there something supernatural involved, with the ghost of the real Carlotta attempting to warn him?

[dave jenkins]

Fun nonsense: http://www.openculture.com/2012/09/philosopher_slavoj_zizek_interprets_hitchcocks_ivertigoi_in_ithe_perverts_guide_to_cinemai_2006.html

[dave jenkins]

Samuel Taylor: "That letter scene startled me. How bad it is!"

Today, watching the film for the first time on the big screen, it occurred to me how this scene could be saved. The only real problem with the scene is the voice-over--mawkish, overwritten--so . . . why not just drop the v-o out? The scene would work perfectly well in silence (not excluding music, of course). The way it is now, we begin with a CU on Judy, and then go to the flashback--which is shown with music and effects only, no dialog. From the flashback we get the fact that Judy was complicit in Gavin Elster's plot to murder his wife. Then we come back to Judy: she goes to her closet--we see the incriminating gray suit which she hides in the back--and she starts putting other clothes into a suitcase--aha, she's about to make a break for it! Then she pauses, goes over to the desk. She sits down and starts writing a letter--oh, right, she's going to leave Scotty a note, explaining things. After a while she thinks better of it, tears the note up. OK, she's changed her mind. She goes back to the suitcase, now with new purpose. CUT TO: Ernie's Interior: Scotty and Judy are enjoying their dinner; Judy is wearing the dress she has chosen for the evening, one that couldn't possibly remind Scotty of Madeleine. We realize that Judy has decided to go on with the charade, to stay with Scotty, but not to tell him who she is. We wonder why, but as events unfold subsequently we start to understand, and that understanding deepens our appreciation for the character--Judy really loves Scotty. The fact that we discover this for ourselves works so much better than our having to be told it in voice-over. The letter writing scene doesn't require the info the voice-over provides--a lot of it is made redundant by Judy's actions, and the few points that aren't get covered by Scotty at the end of the picture anyway.

Anyway, when I come into my imperium, I'll release the Emperor Jenkins cut of the film that will feature a voice-over-free letter writing scene.

[drinkanddestroy]

I just saw this movie again, played on TCM a few days ago.

what if the entire letter scene/flashback had been deleted; but they had kept in the part where Judy is going to closet and hides the grey suit? That's all the clue we need to tell us that indeed, Judy is Madeleine; and then, we'd find out all the details when Scotty finally confronts her going up the steps of the Mission. (Perhaps, they could have shown the brief flashback at that point, as Scotty is forcing Judy up the stairs). But the point is that as long as they showed the grey suit in Judy's closet, we immediately know that Judy is Madeleine; so, besides being a bad scene, perhaps the letter-writing scene is also unnecessary.


As for your question about why would Scotty focus on the necklace in his dream, if he didn't yet know it was important..... that's obviously Hitch cluing us in on something that will play an important role later on. I wouldn't think too deeply into that, wondering is Scotty is a prophet or something, It's just Hitch giving us a clue about what will later be an important object in the movie.
As to the question of whether or not she ever wore the necklace as Madeleine, we don't really know. When she is sitting on the bench in the art gallery, her back is to Scotty; we never see if he is wearing it or not. Personally, I'd assume she IS wearing it; because it's another addition to the Madeleine-as-Carlotta charade; why wouldn't she wear it? There's no reason why she wouldn't wear it. (How should she know that Scotty wouldn't see her from the front [at least what as we, the viewers, see it]. So, I don't see any reason to assume that Madeleine was not wearing the necklace when she was sitting in front of the Carlotta portrait.

Finally, I know Novak's performance is subject of much debate. IMO, she delivers a terrific performance (especially as Madeleine, when she has "the manner"). The one thing I don't like about her is that when she has to act flustered or scared nervous, she tends to overact, it's not very believable. Like the way she talks when Scotty first tells her to get out of the car and walk up the stairs of the Mission. I also recently saw a movie Novak did with Fredric March called Middle of the Night; in an early scene, Novak is playing a character that is very nervous and stressed, and the way she talks, real quickly, is just not very believable, it's more annoying than anything. But other than the moments when she has to act flustered or nervous, I think generally, I enjoy watching Novak as an actress very much.

[drinkanddestroy]

on top of this page we've discussed how awful Kim Novak looks with that vomit-inducing plastic surgery. Well now she is whining that peopel are making unfair remarks https://movies.yahoo.com/news/kim-novak-speaks-against-oscar-night-bullies-000542620.html

I had to laugh when I read that she says people have a right to look as good as they can, she feels better when she looks better, etc. DOES SHE REALLY THINK SHE LOOKS BETTER NOW THAN SHE WOULD LOOK NATURALLY? Anytime you see a natural-looking 80-year old woman, even with wrinkles and however 80-year-old look, do you think, "My, how ugly she looks"? I sure don't. But with this phony plastic surgery shit, they look like clowns. Uglier than they would ever look naturally. If someone chooses to walk down the street with clown shows and a red nose, there's nothing wrong with people commenting on it. And if Kim Novak chooses to look like a friggin' idiot with plastic surgery, then yeah, she deserves to be ridiculed. Go crawl back from that hole which you came from; you never had much talent anyway. A few good performances, a few bad ones, Hollywood woulda been just the same without you.

(In Vertigo, I liked her as Madeleine, she annoyed me as Judy; I'm sure Vera Miles or a dozen other actresses would have done at least as good a job.)

[dave jenkins]

(In Vertigo, I liked her as Madeleine, she annoyed me as Judy; I'm sure Vera Miles or a dozen other actresses would have done at least as good a job.)

She's supposed to annoy you as Judy, the better to provide contrast with Madeleine and thereby cause you (with Scotty) to miss the ghost-woman. It's a terrific performance. The Madeleine routine is close to the standard persona Novak constructed for herself (she used it again in Bell, Book, and Candle, The Legend of Lylah Clare, etc. ), the Judy one she seems to have worked up especially for the occasion (closer to her real self, perhaps?). She doesn't seem to have played such a vulgar character ever again. The fact that she was able to give two such widely diverging performances in Vertigo attests to her abilities of an actress. Would that all actresses could annoy D&D so.

[drinkanddestroy]

Judy can be trashy without annoying the viewer.
Novak definitely had some other good performances - I would never say she is a BAD actress - but she had some where she was annoying, too. A few hits, a few misses (and I never liked the way she spoke, her dialogue/diction/cadence always annoyed me - and her Judy in VERTIGO is close to how she normally spoke.)

Anyway, I know that her performance in VERTIGO is the subject of wide debate, but overall as an actress, IMO she had some good some bad. I never saw BELL BOOK CANDLE but I did see quite a few others.

I am sorry to hear about her bipolar disorder and her personal struggles, but when an 80-year-old woman shows up to a film festival or the Oscars with a face full of plastic looking like a grotesque female Mickey Rourke and then thinks it's unfair for people to make jokes like Donald Trump saying she should sue her plastic surgeon, I have no sympathy for her. (She could have had an easy comeback telling Trump to sue his hairdresser....)
BTW, Trump's comment about Novak's plastic surgery is just about the only thing he ever said that I agreed with! (I thought Trump might say she  looks like such an alien, she should be forced to produce her birth certificate )

[dave jenkins]

Judy can be trashy without annoying the viewer.

Again, it's not merely a question of being trashy. The film is designed to make us empathize--for much if not all of its runtime--with Scotty. We are manipulated into wanting him to transform Judy into Madeleine. Part of that manipulation entails presenting Judy as unappealing. Trashy is not necessarily unappealing. Plenty of men will pay extra for trashy (like the nice Jewish boy who goes for the shiksa with hair on her face).

[dave jenkins]

Ho. Lee. Sheet: http://www.bam.org/film/2015/vertigo

I just may have to go to that 7pm showing with the IB print.

[drinkanddestroy]

Ho. Lee. Sheet: http://www.bam.org/film/2015/vertigo

I just may have to go to that 7pm showing with the IB print.

REAR WINDOW will be shown in theaters March 22 and March 25
http://www.fathomevents.com/event/rear-window

[noodles_leone]

Again, it's not merely a question of being trashy. The film is designed to make us empathize--for much if not all of its runtime--with Scotty. We are manipulated into wanting him to transform Judy into Madeleine. Part of that manipulation entails presenting Judy as unappealing. Trashy is not necessarily unappealing. Plenty of men will pay extra for trashy (like the nice Jewish boy who goes for the shiksa with hair on her face).

I think she was supposed to be as different as possible from the Hitchcockly perfect Madeleine. Making her annoyingly trashy was a great, great way to do so. It was actually either that or go FULL trashy, which would have destroyed the whole movie but what can I say, some people prefer poor porn over genius sexual ambiguity.
 
Also, D&D is wrong by nature so there is that.

See my signature for an in-depth development.

[drinkanddestroy]

I am greatly relieved to learn that I am wrong by nature. The fact that the way I see the world is wrong means there is some hope, that the world at large really ain't too bad

In other news, I was at the Met Museum today. (In addition to seeing their magnificent collection of American paintings), they were showing a shitload of French Impressionist stuff. A ton of Degas, some of his most famous ballerina pics, plus his nudes getting outta the bath which don't interest me; a shitload of Manets and Monets (including some Water Lilies, and his sunflowers), and all the other usual suspects - Van Gogh, Cezanne, Renoir, Serrat (I am sure I am mispelling his name), et al.
I am not sure how much (if at all?) is borrowed from other museums and how much is from the Met's personal collection.... I generally don't care much for Impressionism (except Degas) but I had fun with my beloved American paintings ... Anyway, if you can't get over to the Met, you'll have the next best thing - I'll try to post some pics I took in the art thread once my friend DropBoxes me the file of pics I took and I take the incredible amont of time to post it them one at a time through ImageShack or PhotoBucket ....
Btw, I saw the Hopper oils TABLES FOR LADIES and THE LIGHTHOUSE AT TWO LIGHTS (1929) and de Chirico's THE JEWISH ANGEL and ARIADNE (the latter being from his Italian town square series; you may remember that I mentioned previously how Frayling had said that Leone once owned that painting, and that I showed that the Met's own provenance page on its website never mentions Leone's name as having been an owner of that painting.)

Anyway, you'll see 'em once I get a chance to post 'em. Don't hold your breath

[noodles_leone]

I am greatly relieved to learn that I am wrong by nature. The fact that the way I see the world is wrong means there is some hope, that the world at large really ain't too bad

The World is going better than ever. Don't listen to Fox News, just check out the figures. The  most telling one (actually, the only one that matters): Human Development Index.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_de_l%27IDH_depuis_1975

What does it mean?
That people are less poor, die less and are getting more educated. What else could we possibly be asking for? Apart from less Marvel movies, not much.

Another figure? Extreme poverty has been reduced by half almost two years (2013) ahead of the objectives.
Another figure? People suffering from hunger have been decreasing in proportion for decades. They were growing in absolutes numbers but that was actually a good thing (it meant that they stopped DYING from hunger. The demographic transition is a problem caused by people getting BETTER so whatever side effect comes with it won't make me cry, it's a great sign). They're now even decreasing in absolute.
Another figure? While ISIS and terrorism are everywhere on the news, the number of violent deaths in the world (and I'm talking in absolute figures, not proportion so that's not even taking into consideration the increase of the global population) is decreasing dramatically. The 1990's were the less deadly decade since 1900. So were the 2000's.

Apart from (LITERALLY) a couple countries, everyone on Earth is doing much, much better everyday. Even Somalia and Columbia. Nobody will tell you that because that's not how you sell stuff or get elected. Still, the World is constantly improving. And that's a scientific fact, not an obscure feeling caused by not being able to afford the $18,000 iWatch (that I'm checking out on my iPhone, my iPad and my McBook, damn, how come I cannot reach the same standard of life my parents could? Oh let's plan my next trip to the other side of the world for $500.) while my neighbor already has 2 of those.

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.
2) inequalities: for once, there is a debate about what "inequalities" really means and how you calculate this thing. More importantly, that's really something I don't give a damn about: who cares if Bill Gates has 1 or 10 private planes as long as poor people are less poor and just stop dying? Because that's what is happening.

I know I know nobody asked for a serious answer but I had to. You just witnessed the D&D in me.

In other news, I was at the Met Museum today. (In addition to seeing their magnificent collection of American paintings), they were showing a shitload of French Impressionist stuff. A ton of Degas, some of his most famous ballerina pics, plus his nudes getting outta the bath which don't interest me; a shitload of Manets and Monets (including some Water Lilies, and his sunflowers), and all the other usual suspects - Van Gogh, Cezanne, Renoir, Serrat (I am sure I am mispelling his name), et al.
I am not sure how much (if at all?) is borrowed from other museums and how much is from the Met's personal collection.... I generally don't care much for Impressionism (except Degas) but I had fun with my beloved American paintings ... Anyway, if you can't get over to the Met, you'll have the next best thing - I'll try to post some pics I took in the art thread once my friend DropBoxes me the file of pics I took and I take the incredible amont of time to post it them one at a time through ImageShack or PhotoBucket ....
Btw, I saw the Hopper oils TABLES FOR LADIES and THE LIGHTHOUSE AT TWO LIGHTS (1927) and de Chirico's THE JEWISH ANGEL and ARIADNE (the latter being from his Italian town square series; you may remember that I mentioned previously how Frayling had said that Leone once owned that painting, and that I showed that the Met's own provenance page on its website never mentions Leone's name as having been an owner of that painting.)

Anyway, you'll see 'em once I get a chance to post 'em. Don't hold your breath

Nothing is more breathtaking (to me) in painting than good impressionism. It can be almost as cinematographic as Dutch painting or even Caravaggio. Of course Renoir is usually the most cinematographic. Don't waste too much time on minor ones such as Pissaro though but keep an eye on early works by Monet: the power that comes from some of his simplest compositions is incredible but you may be more interested in the way he painted light (that's kind of the go to guy when it comes to representing light). The main value of his late works (such as his Water Lilies) comes from what they started (abstract painting) rather than their own qualities (he was almost blind at the time anyway).
Van Gogh and Cezanne are borderline impressionists. VG, though one of the greatest thing that happened to art, had more to do with the Fauvist movement if you ak me. They're also the closest Europeans you'll find from the greatest american paintings.

About museums: who's ever been to "Legion of Honor", the fine arts museum where Madeleine goes to see Carlotta's painting? I've seen it everytime I went to Frisco but never saw what was inside.