Necrophilia And Vertigo
Michael Gottuso
Thanks for your refreshing insight. Very interesting. I keep hearing
so much about the "necrophilia" theme presented in VERTIGO - it always
puzzles me. I couldn't agree more with you about Scottie's grieving
process. About the murder plot - its still a mystery. Only Elster
knows. In Judy's letter to Scottie, she says that Elster's wife lived
in the country and his murder plot was accomplished with no mistakes. I
think the heart of VERTIGO is the love between two very lonely people
who live in the world of fear and obsession. Elster's murder plot is a
very small part - just to give the story a twist.
FilmGene
<<I keep hearing
so much about the "necrophilia" theme presented in VERTIGO - it always
puzzles me.>
The name of the original French story is "D'Entre les Mortes" (From Among the
Dead). While literal necrophilia is not in the film, there is certainly an
unhealthy obsession with death throughout the story.
And the previous poster's take on the murder is really threadbare. The film
makes it clear that Scotty is in a close to catatonic state after the death.
His police instincts were clearly overcome by his mental state. And posing
scenarios involving the dead woman's funeral and family are just as fanciful as
the explanations in the script.
Why do we insist on literal-mindedness in the presence of such a potent tale as
"Vertigo". Are we rebelling against the power of an artist like Hitchcock by
trying to appear smarter than he was?
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Tom Davidson
FilmGene wrote in message <19971206202...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
I don't have my references at hand, but I do recall that Hitchcock many
times
referred to the importance of the emotional reactions of the audience (and
the emotional lives of the characters on the screen) being at times of far
greater
importance than the logical details, say, of crime. He knew that there were
some
very large logical holes in many of his films, and part of his task was to
propel
the audience beyond consideration of them. Let the preposterous details
become
part fo the "refrigerator talk" (his term, I think) after you get home. You
get home
after the show and are talking about it over a snack. And you say: "Wait a
minute!
Wouldn't there have been a picture of the >real< Madeliene in the newspapers
after the death??? Wouldn't there have been photographs, news paper
coverage,
etc., at the inquest???"
But Hitchcock has already done his job by the time >that< happens. That is
his
art, and that is the power of cinema.
No film is likely to be entirely free of mistakes, of course. But it appears
Hitchcock was generally aware of the major improbabilities in his plots and
I don't think these can be considered "errors".
Tom Davidson
Phil Gray
At last, a sane reply to all the mindless analysis of this classic film.
horro...@hotmail.com
In article <66ebd5$1vp$1...@news.bconnex.net>,
"Tom Davidson" <td...@bconnex.net> wrote:
>
> FilmGene wrote in message <19971206202...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
I don't agree. And I don't think the other poster's arguments were in
the least threadbare. It is true that Hitchcock was "the master
entertainer"--but I think it detracts from a film like "Vertigo" if
thinking about the plot propels you into the realm of the preposterous.
I've always viewed this movie as two films--one is the story of a man who
falls in love and eventually loses the woman of his dreams and later
attempts to--futily--recreate her. And the other is the ridiculous
murder plot. Think of how well "Vertigo" would work if there were no
murder. Simply a suicide. And if the other woman really WERE a
diffierent person. I think it would be much more powerful and effective
because we could relate to it without all the gobbledy gook about "the
perfect murder".
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
alla...@yahoo.com
In article <348AB0...@matineetoday.com>,
philgra...@matineetoday.com wrote:
>
> At last, a sane reply to all the mindless analysis of this classic film.
>
> FilmGene wrote:
> >
> > so much about the "necrophilia" theme presented in VERTIGO - it always
> > puzzles me.>
> >
> > The name of the original French story is "D'Entre les Mortes" (From Among the
> > Dead). While literal necrophilia is not in the film, there is certainly an
> > unhealthy obsession with death throughout the story.
> >
> > And the previous poster's take on the murder is really threadbare. The film
> > makes it clear that Scotty is in a close to catatonic state after the death.
> > His police instincts were clearly overcome by his mental state. And posing
> > scenarios involving the dead woman's funeral and family are just as fanciful as
> > the explanations in the script.
> >
> > Why do we insist on literal-mindedness in the presence of such a potent tale as
> > "Vertigo". Are we rebelling against the power of an artist like Hitchcock by
> > trying to appear smarter than he was?
> >
> > Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Why do we insist on literal-mindedness in the presence of such a potent
tale as "Vertigo"? To my mind it's because a really great movie does
hold together. To each his own, but I'm of the opinion that the more
contrived a movie the less its potency. So many great movies are ruined
by an excessive "entertainment factor"--but of course there's a reason
for this--in a word--business. The critic Pauline Kael, like her or hate
her, whom I had the good fortune to know when I lived in Massachusetts,
talked about the secret to Hitchcock's great success as a director: He
knew how to please the masses and make movies with a little bit of depth.
I'd agree with the previous poster though--that "Vertigo" would be an
ever better film without the murder. And I don't really care whether
anybody thinks I'm smarter than Alfred Hithcock. But I'm sure that Mr.
Gray, in his superior wisdom, would dismiss all this as mindless
analysis.
Michael Gottuso
I don't think Hitchcock made VERTIGO to please the masses at all. It
was a total flop when it first came out in 1958. To me, VERTIGO is
surely the most personal one of all Hitchock films. PSYCHO and THE
BIRDS, for instance, are way more commercial than VERTIGO. In VERTIGO,
Hitchock explored and revealed his own private desires, fears, and
obsessions and I think thats why most critics claim VERTIGO as
Hitchcock's masterpiece. It reveals emotions and depth more than any
other work of his. Hitchcock originlly wanted Vera Miles to play Judy
but she was pregnant - a devastating disappointment for Hitchcock. So
with no choice, he "borrowed" Kim Novak from a different studio and he
admitted in many references that he was not crazy about Kim Novak. But
strangely, he had to "make over" Kim Novak to the way he oringally
wanted for the role of Judy - the same way as the two men Scottie and
Elster did in VERTIGO. That ultimately reflects Hitchcock's own
personal obsessions - in other words, I think he focused on himself
morethan what the masses wanted while filiming VERTIGO and thats what
makes it distant from his other works.
Tom Davidson
horro...@hotmail.com wrote in message <8815275...@dejanews.com>...
>In article <66ebd5$1vp$1...@news.bconnex.net>,
> "Tom Davidson" <td...@bconnex.net> wrote:
>>
>> FilmGene wrote in message
<19971206202...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Greetings, horrortense
Thanks for responding to my post.
I'll let FilmGene respond to your criticism about the "threadbare"
quality of the arguments in the original posting. He is well able to,
I know, from reading his opinions on a couple of newgroups he
frequents. It was his term, not mine, though I'm sympathetic to
his opinion.
I don't disagree about the "preposterous" details of the plot, once
you introduce reason and logic into it. I think it is the very nature
of this film, though, to short-circuit these considerations. In terms
of the film, Scottie certainly doesn't let reason and logic enter
much into his situation. It is precisely his failing. The film
conspires with him in not allowing logical details to intrude either.
You argue that one part of this story concerns the futile efforts
of a man to recreate the woman he believes he has lost. I think
this is the centre of the film. The "ridiculous murder" aspect--what
you call the "second film"--is, I think, merely the occasion that
sets in motion the situation that the film examines. Drawing in
Scottie through the tragic story of sad Carlotta--her story mirrors
Judy's relation to Elster--to the resurrection of Madeleine
emerging from the green glow of the exterior neon ("ever
living, ever green"), this film is a dream-like wandering
where logical details have little bearing or use.
Keep in mind that I don't disagree with your position, once
you grant logic and reason "official standing" in the
proceedings. The film deliberately operates against this,
however, and Hitchcock has attempted to make this
effort concrete in the characterization of Scottie. As I
said in my previous post, this is the art and power of
cinema.
For me, Hitchcock was successful in this goal. I was only
puzzled after the fact. If, while viewing it, you were not
similarly propelled beyond the logical inconsistencies of
the plot, then I suppose, the film worked, at best, as a
diverting entertainment. If your concerns about the logical
inconsistencies of the plot ocurred to you only later, but
still detracted from your ultimate appreciation of the film--
well, I hope you watch something other than Hitchcock.
I'm hard pressed to think of a film he made that isn't
preposterous according to strictly logical criteria.
Tom D.
semtex
In article <66frvr$j29$1...@newsd-113.bryant.webtv.net>, mik...@webtv.net
(Michael Gottuso) wrote:
> strangely, he had to "make over" Kim Novak to the way he oringally
> wanted for the role of Judy - the same way as the two men Scottie and
> Elster did in VERTIGO. That ultimately reflects Hitchcock's own
> personal obsessions - in other words, I think he focused on himself
> morethan what the masses wanted while filiming VERTIGO and thats what
> makes it distant from his other works.
This is not exactly a quip, and Vertigo is my favorite film of all time,
but I don't see how a Hitchcock or any other filmmaker's "obsession" has
any meaning at all to anyone with a firm footing in reality. So, he was
obsessed with some female he could never have... big fucking deal, last
time that happened to me, I was a zit-strickened teenager. I got over it.
Humbugger.
Vertigo is a very moving, beautiful, and flawlessly made film brimming with
technical and artistic perks. Besides being drawn to it on an emotionally
level (in a way similar to why some girls read romance novels), I also
think the film has the ability to stimulate a person's creative juices.
Everything else is bogus and insignificant.
Dave
sem...@ix.netcom.com
take out the "nospam." to reply
FeistyLamb
> Why do we insist on literal-mindedness in the presence of such a potent
> tale as "Vertigo"? To my mind it's because a really great movie does
> hold together. To each his own, but I'm of the opinion that the more
> contrived a movie the less its potency. So many great movies are ruined
> by an excessive "entertainment factor"--but of course there's a reason
> for this--in a word--business.<<
Vertigo is a fascinating film, not only for style and content but because
it IS contrived. But a personal contrivance by Mr Hitchcock, who I
believe could write a fascinating laundry list is pressed. He was a great
artist, a master of the film medium and a marvelous storyteller. Vertigo
was a film FAR in advance of any film released in that period, from the
use of color and atmosphere, to the animation in Scotties dream, to the
blatant psychosexuality. Perhaps that is why it failed initially, because
it was so advanced it was too different from what filmgoers were
expecting.
Regardless it is now recognized as one of the master's greatest, and for
this I am grateful because it has been beautifully restored to close to
it's original beauty and that is a gift. :)
>>The critic Pauline Kael, like her or hate
> her, whom I had the good fortune to know when I lived in Massachusetts,
> talked about the secret to Hitchcock's great success as a director: He
> knew how to please the masses and make movies with a little bit of depth.
> I'd agree with the previous poster though--that "Vertigo" would be an
> ever better film without the murder. And I don't really care whether
> anybody thinks I'm smarter than Alfred Hithcock. But I'm sure that Mr.
> Gray, in his superior wisdom, would dismiss all this as mindless<<
I like Ms Kael but I don't know that I agree with her analysis. That
seems to be a simplistic explanation for Hitchcocks success. Pleasing the
masses, well.. moviemakers must please their audience but what that has to
do with depth, so much as finding a common denominator that pleases and
tantalizes all levels of moviegoer might in his case be more to the
point. Hitchcock pleases ALL audience levels of viewer, from children,
who find his films colorful and simple good mysteries, to adults who enjoy
the subtleties and sexual tease, to scholars who enjoy analyzing the
mastery of technique and storytelling. I don't like it when critics
offhandedly dismiss or explain something so complex, as Ms Kael seems to
do with her "explanation". It's a tad too glib for my taste.
--
____________________________
"where's the coffee?"
FilmGene
"Vertigo" may have expressed Hitchcock's private fears and obsessions, but to
say that he did not care if he pleased the masses cannot be true. If that were
true, why cast the hottest male and female stars in the business? And, while
Hitchcock did have extraordinary control over his productions, I doubt whether
he could have raised the millions necessary to produce the film if it had been
simply a personal film. Hitchcock had always been in the business of commercial
films. In fact, it took so long to have his work taken seriously precisely
because it was so commercial.
As for the murder plot being "contrived" and "not holding together", I would
say that if the murder plan were not bizarre, it would hardly have had the same
mystery and frisson it has in the film. Of course, I am not saying that a
contrary reaction is wrong, but it does seem to be decidedly in the minority
and, in my opinion, a prime example of overanalysis.
FeistyLamb
In article <19971208195...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
film...@aol.com (FilmGene) wrote:
> As for the murder plot being "contrived" and "not holding together", I would
> say that if the murder plan were not bizarre, it would hardly have had
the same
> mystery and frisson it has in the film.
None of Hitchcocks films make a hell of alot of sense, plot wise. They
all have holes in their linear plots a mile wide. If you want to
scrutinize his films for logic, then he will fail because they weren't
realistic, they were always stylizied. Each film was the world according
to Hitchcock. He was a great storyteller and storytellers take great
liberties with their story in order to make you FEEL what you might feel
if you were in the story. Also they love manipulating their audience.
Izzo111
>Hitchcock originlly wanted Vera Miles to play Judy
>but she was pregnant - a
>devastating disappointment for Hitchcock. So
>with no choice, he "borrowed"
>Kim Novak from a different studio and he
>admitted in many references that he
>was not crazy about Kim Novak.
Although (it's my understanding) by the time production got rolling on Vertigo,
Vera Miles had already delivered the baby and could have played the role, but
Hitchcock decided to go with Novak anyway.
CaseyAbell
In his famous 1965 essay on Vertigo, Robin Wood dismisses the quite cogent
complaints about plot implausibilities with a lordly, "a moments' thought will
make it clear that the whole plot is quite fantastic - no one would ever set
about murdering his wife in THAT way. Most of Shakespeare's plays can be
demolished in the same way, and with just as much validity."
This was Robin Wood in his lawgiving days, before he became more politically
correct. But arrogant as his statement sounds, I find myself in total agreement
with it.
Hitchcock treated the original plot from D'Entre les Morts with near-contempt,
giving the "surprise" ending away long before the finish. This is a broad hint
to the audience that the murder plot should be seen as almost an embarrassment,
a necessary device to launch the good stuff - the tangled tale of sexual
obsession, fear and death that is the real substance of this film. Do I hear
the term "MacGuffin"?
My wife, a brunette who never wears grey suits, bought me a tape of the
restored Vertigo for my birthday, and I've been (obsessively?) watching it over
and over. One point I want to make about the second-half makeover of Judy seems
to have escaped a lot of recent feminist-angled criticism.
The newly conventional view seems to be that Scottie's efforts are outrageous
attempts at male dominance, ultimately ineffectual and destructive. There's a
little problem that's overlooked, though. Judy Barton is a murderer. Morally,
and for that matter legally, she's as guilty of Madeleine Elster's murder as
the smoothie husband. And she did it for the basest of rewards, "some money."
Of course, Scottie doesn't know this, which sets up an inescapable dilemma for
the viewer - who knows more than the detective thanks to Hitchcock's carefully
calculated giveaway of the original book's surprise ending. On the one hand,
watching Scottie work his will on Judy IS unsettling. On the other, there's a
sense that justice is being done by the left hand of God, so to speak - that
the murderer is being punished by being forced to relive the process of the
original killing.
You'd think that more critics would tie this to Hitchcock's ancient Catholic
upbringing, with its emphasis on personal responsibility and moral retribution.
But too many seem anxious to score feminist debating points to notice this
deepest and most disturbing aspect of the film's harsh but perhaps justified
moral structure. And the fact that the other murderer escapes to "power and
freedom" makes the film all the more problematical and disconcerting.
Oh well, chortled on longer than I anticipated. Anyway, after the second
viewing or so, the plot seems like an afterthought and its implausibilities
almost absurdly unimportant.
Casey Abell
George Shelps
Casey Abell:
>You think more critics would tie this to
>his ancient Catholic upbringing.
Not politically correct. However, this was a key hypothesis for a
pioneering book by Rohmer and Chabrol. Andrew Sarris once pointed out,
too, that Hitchcock always insists on a moral accounting for his
characters. The last line of "Vertigo" is spoken by the nun who rings
the steeple bell: "God have mercy." To me, that's actually the most
moving line in the picture.
==============
The original analysis by scot...@hotmail.com. was very worthwhile.
Actually, no plot is "plausible." All narratives contain elisions and
ellipses that leave "holes" retrospectively. Hitchcock does push the
edge of the envelope in this regard, but it frees him to achieve his
characteristic style and meanings. If the film holds together
emotionally and in terms of imagery, plot really doesn't matter. (An
extreme example in a related genre is
Carl Dreyer's "Vampyr." )
When critics complain about "holes" in the plot, it often means that
the film's imagery doesn't hold up, but since they are writers, they
have to write about the literary elements in the film to express their
concerns.
I agree that Scottie's post-Madeleine "catatonia" would not have been
enough (in my view of reality) to prevent him
from eventually learning the truth by virtue of his lifelong
investigative skills, which by his age would be second nature. But
Hitchcock wants him to "learn the truth" a different way, and he makes
us accept that and that's the reality of art.
George Shelps
mack twamley
FilmGene <film...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971206202...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>
> The name of the original French story is "D'Entre les Mortes" (From Among
the
> Dead). While literal necrophilia is not in the film, there is certainly
an
> unhealthy obsession with death throughout the story.
I should defer to Gene, if he's sure about this, but dredging up my college
French, and I'm NO scholar, I always thought the title translated as
"Between Deaths", which seems to make more sense in context of the story.
Could we get a native French speaker to give the final word on this ??
George Shelps
PrincessLamb:
>She wanted Scottie to "love her for
>herself." She didn't realize "herself"
>was also Madeleine.
Yes, and as "Madeleine" Judy achieved
a compelling and rhapsodic persona
most likely more complex than the "corporate wife" the real Madeleine
probably was. (This is Hitchcock's comment on acting as well....the
stage and role-playing a constantly recurring theme. To some degree,
like an actress, Judy was possessed by the role in the same way an
actress may be possessed by a fictional character in a script.)
Judy becomes the part she was playing, controlled by "someone dead," as
Elster puts it. But she also has to die because
Hitchcock's traditional values require it; she was an accessory to
murder. Which is why the last line is spoken by a nun,
"God have mercy." A great deal of mercy will have to exercised for
this set of tragic figures.
=========================
Excellently written, PrincessLamb. We need to see more writing like
this in the Hitchcock group.
George Shelps