Talk:Vertigo (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Generally considered" or by "many critics"

"generally considered" denotes a percentage. IMO only when Vertigo is taken to be Hitchcock's best film by over 50% of the film critics should it be considered "generally considered".

Yes, Vertigo is generally considered to be a masterpiece. There is no question about that. But not everybody thinks it is Hitchcock's best film. Psycho is sometimes cited, North by Northwest by others, even Shadow of a Doubt or Rear Window. So it's far more accurate to say by many critics (suggesting a quantitative equivalent) than using a percentage equivalent. How, for instance, do you prove that most critics consider Vertigo his best film? Mandel 23:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Judy's "accidental" death? Kim Novak says it was suicide.

The wikipedia article currently says "Judy, frightened, accidentally backs off the tower ledge and falls to her death." In an interview with the MacGuffin website, Kim Novak explicitly stated that Judy throws herself from the bell tower, and does not accidentally fall to her death:

Kim Novak: [...] oh, god, she had nothing left but to kill herself in the bell tower.

Stephen Rebello: So you definitely understood Judy as hurling herself from the tower.

Kim Novak: Absolutely. She was trapped.

I think the movie can be interpreted both ways. I thought she backed off the ledge in fear of the umbral nun at first. However, I can also see how being discovered at the scene of the crime by a shadowy figure, and her precarious situation, could have caused her to commit suicide in fear and despair. (From memory, I don't think we actually see Judy fall, but only hear her scream.) Her suicide also ties in well with the story of Carlotta.

Any opinions on this information? I feel it should at least be included in the article, as the manner of Judy's death can really change how someone interprets the film. Guermantes 04:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Like the ending of The Red Shoes, the ambiguity is the thing. It elevates the finale (no pun intended) and keeps it from being trite and code-oriented--as does Gavin's getaway to Europe. Without the ambiguity, it becomes a hackneyed morality play.--Buckboard 09:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay to just be a little more obvious (the ending is not hackneyed at all when we consider the many questions left, in fact it's the master stroke of the whole thing. not ALL morality is cheesy you know...). It would be FAR better if critical angles were introduced as quotations from respected sources, otherwise everyone is going to just type-in their personal take on the ending and that's a no-no. I must say I was quite surprised that all the spins on the ending seemed to miss the obvious, which I have put in for all to see

Coit Tower

• Coit Tower (appears in many background shots but is not featured).

It is mentioned:

Madeleine explains that she couldn't mail the note because she didn't know his address. That's why she delivered it in person -she recognized his location by the tall Coit Tower landmark. This causes Scottie to muse: "That's the first time I've been grateful for Coit Tower."

http://www.filmsite.org/vert2.html

I think by "featured" the author meant that it was not a filming location, unlike the Palace of the Legion of Honor, Mission Dolores, and other sites. Any Vertigo fan would be remiss in forgetting the conversation you cited. =) Guermantes 19:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Vertigo and sexuality move

Someone, bless them, tried to contribute by translating (via an online translator, no doubt) a large portion of text from the French Vertigo page. Because it's a complete mess, I'm moving it here.

According to the novel that the film was based on by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac , Sueurs froides: d'entre les morts (Cold Sweat: From Among the Dead), the principal characters in the film are ultimately powerless, or more directly, impotent. The authors write that, in the first chapter, Scottie never had any experience with a woman (sexual or otherwise) until he was 30. In Hitchcock's film adaptation he includes a few more ironic winks about Scotties' sexuality than in the original novel. In the second scene that takes place in Midge's apartment, Scottie seems to play with his cane in an uncomfortalbe way when Midge begins talking about their brief engagement. He also uses his cane to point to the bra Midge is working on. This cane is thus a jeuvenille substitute of Scotties' sexual organ as his real one may not be all that functional (implied by his failure to maintian control and catch the badguy in the opening scene). Midge also jokingly speaks to him as if he were a child, saying "You're a big boy now" when he begins to make gradual climbs up the stool in an attempt to fight his vertigo. This gradual incline, and immediate failure, can be seen as an allegory for a failed erection, suggesting Scottie's impotence. The scene ends with Scottie collapsing into Midge's arms where both Scottie and Midge are sexually dissatisfied. This sexual irony heaches its height, literally and figurativly, during the scenes with the Coit tower, a well-known landmark to all inhabitants of the San Francisco area. Hitchcock himself commented on the phallic nature of the tower, whose construction was incidently financed by Lillie Hitckcock Coit (no relation). Apparently Coit had a love for firefighters, which inspired her to finance the tower (Draw your own conclusions). This tower appears in the window of Scottie apartment, making fun of his lack of sexual strength. When Madeleine, after her suicide attempt, comes to thank Scottie for having saved her, she says that she found his apartment because of its location relative to the tower. Scottie answers that it is the first time that the tower has ever been of any use to him. Later, after and implied sex scene, the tower is again in the backgroud. Scottie is eventually persuaded to believe Madeline is not really Madeline, but in fact the reincarnation of the long dead Carlotta Valdez. In his interview with François Truffaut Hitchcock speaks about the necrophillic implications of their relations, pointing to Scotties awareness that Carlotta is in fact dead. This is made explicit in the scene where Scottie is convinced that Madeline is the reincarnation of Carlotta. After the splendid sequence in the sequoias forest, Madeline\Carlotta points to a line in the cross section of a tree saying that that is when she died. They then embrace at the foot of a tortuous tree (symbol of Scotties' renewed sexuality compared with overpowering strength of the thousand-year-old trees) and the swell in the music does not leave any doubt about the fact that they have carnal knowledge of each other in the biblical sense of the word.

My French is poor but I tried to do a chunk of it by reading both the original French and the above shabby translation. It doesn't make much sense yet, and its far from complete (I only did the first few sentences) but I'll keep refining it. --thaddius 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I gather this person is basing most of the analysis on the book cause I don't remember the Coit tower being a big thing in the plot, but it's mostly about Scotties sexuality and a common psychoanalysis of his 'condition' and actions. --thaddius 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm done. I moved it back to the main page. Someone can clean the language up a little if they like, but I essentially made it decipherable to an anglophone. I added my interpretation of the language here and there, adding some things. French relies heavily on referring to people and objects in other sentences so I had to assume that Scottie was the subject and that the Coit tower was the object in some places. Hope it makes sense. It's intereting insight none the less. --thaddius 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"The authors write that, in the first chapter, Scottie never had any experience with a woman (sexual or otherwise) until he was 30." This is a rather bizarre claim. Is that literally what the authors wrote? Was it the book's intent to imply that he was never born; or perhaps that he was raised in a colony/compound inhabited only by men?

Also, I suspect that "carnal knowledge in the biblical sense of the word" is redundant. [- Andrew Nagy] 68.44.13.236 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

French is a rather verbose language, so the carnal knowldge bit it a little extreme and wordy, but it is hardly redundant. I left it in there cause I liked how it sounded, and it seemed a lot fancier than saying Stewart and Novak had sex. Someone removed its wordiness from the main page anyway so don't worry about it. As for the Scottie and women thing, I did my best but my French is not perfect. I may have misinetrpreted that sentence cause French often uses subjects and objects in odd ways compared to English. I'll change it to 'no sexual experience with women', but I think it is implied that Scottie has maybe had minimal experience with women. Acctually, I'll change it to minimal experience. --Thaddius 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of looking at the French page again and I pulled the sentence in question:

"Les auteurs écrivent explicitement, dès le premier chapitre, qu'il n'a jamais connu de femme alors qu'il a plus de 30 ans."

Now, a literal approach, in English, reads, "The authors write explicitly in the first chapter [of Soeurs Froides] that he [Scottie], did not 'know' a woman until he was more than 30 years of age." The offending word is 'connu' which means 'know'. I suppose it could be interpreted as a 'sexual' know as in, he gained knowledge of the female form at the age of 30. I think it's safe to say it means sexual experience acctually. I added the 'sexual or otherwise' too rashly it seems. Anyone who has acctually read the book, or someone with a better knowledge of French, feel free to correct me on this. In the meantime I'll just make it clear that it is sexual knowledge. Please remember that when you're translating it's easy to get things mixed up. I essentially had to think in French to do it. --Thaddius 01:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and references of this section

I find this section very problematic. No sources are cited, and the whole section reads like it's one viewer's interpretation of the film. Whoever knows more about this, please cite the sources and clean this up. Thanks.
-- Ido50 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems based on Truffault's interview(s) with Hitchcock. --Thaddius 14:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture query

The picture in the awards section is tagged as a screenshot. Since the picture is in black and white, but the film is in colour, I find this hard to believe. Is it perhaps a publicity shot? Henry^Flower 20:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Either that, or scanned from a book that has a section on the film. If it is a screenshot, it should be replaced with a color image from the DVD. (Ibaranoff24 07:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

In the press kits during the 30s-60s it was not uncommon to either send or offer for purchase sets of photographs from the film to be displayed in theatre lobbys in the lobby card holders. They were also used outside the larger theaters who could accommodate the eight count standard lobby card set for films. These can be considered screen shots in the sense they are scenes from the actual film although they were shot separately during the filming of a scene. It's kind of a toss as to whether they should be considered screen shots. For myself I would consider them valid use as a screenshot. The quality on the photographs is much better than a computer screencapture from the film. Philbertgray 14:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Research Tag

Dear 'The Singing Badger', Removing your tag may have been a tad extreme, but I wanted to get your opinion on the matter. As stated above in the Vertigo and Sexuality section here on the talk page, somone ran a passage from the French page through an internet translator and put it on the English page. I translated it for reals and fixed up the grammar, but did not look for sources to back it up and I don't remember if there were sources on the French page. If you will notice though, the passage does cite the original book and Truffault's interviews with Hitchcock as sources, they just need to be properly cited I suppose. I'd just like to know what people think on the matter. I will have another look at the French page when I'm done typing this so maybe I can translate some sources\links from there. --Thaddius 01:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the French page. There are no other sources, but there's no 'original research' tag there either. --Thaddius 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

This really needs to be sourced....

Hitchcock's film adaptation includes a few more ironic winks about Scottie's sexual failings. In the second scene in Midge's apartment, Scottie plays with his cane when Midge begins talking about their brief engagement and uses his cane to point to the bra Midge is working on. This cane may be a symbolic substitute for Scottie's masculinity, which "failed" him when he could not catch the criminal in the opening scene.

Midge jokingly speaks to Scottie as if he were a child, saying "You're a big boy now" when he attempts to fight his vertigo. This can be seen as an allegory that suggests Scottie's impotence. Coit Tower, a landmark of the San Francisco area, is visible outside the window of Scottie's apartment. When Madeleine, after her suicide attempt, comes to thank Scottie she says that she found his apartment because of its location relative to the tower. Scottie answers that it is the first time that the tower has ever been of any use to him. Later, after an implied sex scene, the tower is again in the background, possibly as as a sign of sexual virility.

Scottie is eventually persuaded to believe Madeleine is not in fact the reincarnation of the long dead Carlotta Valdes. In an interview with François Truffaut, Hitchcock speaks about the necrophilic implications of their relations, pointing to Scottie's awareness that Carlotta is in fact dead. After the sequence in the sequoias forest, Madeleine/Carlotta points to a line in the cross section of a tree saying that that is when she died. They then embrace at the foot of a gigantic tree, which may be a symbol of Scottie's renewed sexuality.

Roadrunner 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This section was translated by me, at the request of another editor, from the French page of the same article and is from Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac's book, D'entre les morts (I forget the English title, it was in a previous revision of the article and was removed for what seems to be no apparent reason) as well as Trouffault's interviews with Hitchcock. If anyone wants to source it (I don't really care enough too) that's where you should look. --Thaddius (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Eurotrip

Was this movie referenced in the beginning of Eurotrip? (The main character, Scotty, realises his girlfriend has actually been someone else's the whole time, and has been playing a role for him... the basis of the song "Scotty Doesn't Know.") Brutannica 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen both films several times and I don't think there's much of a connection. It's just a coincidence that both films involve guys named Scotty who love women they can't have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin324la (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Coroner's inquest

The "trial" erroneous referenced as occuring in the film is not really such. It is a coroner's inquest; Scottie was not charged with anything and the purpose was to determine whether or not Madeline's death was a suicide. It was ruled to be such. This is determinable by the fact that there were only six members on the jury, among other things. Coroners of the era were often not medical examiners and many were laypeople who could be assisted in their inquiries by jurors, a practice now obsolecsent. 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The coroner depicted was an elected official. California law required the inquest--Madeline's death was violent--coroners did not make legal rulings on cause of death in the absence of an inquest.--Buckboard 09:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This didn't strike me as a legal trial/inquest at all, but a Catholic church inquest run for the purpose of figuring out if her death were a suicide and if the deceased could receive Catholic rites. A coroner would not have made comments like that and the audience was full of nuns and clergy. 22:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbobjoe (talk • contribs)

Catholic inquests would probably receive a benefit of the doubt. I've heard that even Hemingway's death was considered a gun accident. The clergy would have been there as witnesses. MMetro (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The uncited claim

"An addition to the ending was made for some European countries due to certain laws prohibiting a film from letting a "bad guy" get away at the end of a movie."

The law sounds so ridiculous that I'm pretty sure it's vandalism, unless someone can get a cite for it, I'll remove it for now. Fephisto 05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

From the mid thirties until the late sixties Britian had a film review board similar to The Breen Office in the United States. Both boards were set up to review films and verify there were no unacceptable or indecent behaviour depicted in films. Per both review boards it was unacceptable for anyone in a film to go unpunished after committing a crime. Failure to comply would result in the denial of a certificate of approval from the boards. Major theatres would not show a film without the certificate of approval. The studios and major theatre chains willingly complied with their decisions rather than risk having the Government step in and regulate film morality through laws. This was all done on a voluntary basis. There were no actual laws in place to ban films although there were some local censorship boards in areas of the United States that did have the authority to ban films outright. Boston was among the most stringent of these local boards. Hence the popular "Banned in Boston" tag.

In the case of Vertigo The British film board felt the ending on Vertigo did not clarify that Kim Novak's murderer was going to be punished. A short scene was added that included a radio broadcast saying that Gavin Elster was being tracked down by the police. This was just to appease the film review board and had nothing to do with any law in place. Philbertgray 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you any citations for saying it was used in Britain? As far as I am aware, the footage was shot as a possible coda to the film but discarded in editing. However, I believe it was used in a few Latin American countries where films were required to show that criminals were always punished. I've never come across anything that indicates that the coda was used in Britain and the film board you mention (British Board of Film Classification) is still in existence. Davepattern 09:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/board/flat/78801859) and a source listed. 87.194.16.60 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who haven't seen it before, I've uploaded the ending to YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thuJFJ2Lyyw). Davepattern 12:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was the British film board, shouldn't the article say 'British censorship requirements' instead of 'European'?(213.10.46.8 (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Corrected use of was in sentence addition

"In 1989 Vertigo was recognized as a culturally, historically and aesthetically significant film by the National Film Registry and was subsequently restored in 1996." Was is used as an action verb to the proper noun Vertigo. To add was again, even though the long separation in the sentence makes it appear acceptable, turns the sentence into "Vertigo was was restored" since the noun Vertigo that was is addressing hasn't changed. My English teacher had a ruler when I was in school. She was a stickler and didn't mind whacking my hand, when I made a grammatical error. :-) Philbertgray 11:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with adding was here (or leaving it out). The argument you provide is the pseudo-logic quite typical of sadistic schoolmarms.

Restoration Paragraphs

I've tried to clean and clarify this bit (like introducing Foley). Sources are needed for the controversy, which I was personally unaware of. I bought the video when it came out and the San Francisco press was good at the time the restoration debuted at the Castro theatre (with Kim Novak introducing the film). The fact that the incredible work of the restorers could be slapped in the face is amazing to me. Someone please cite this for us. Also, one source for restoration details is the original VHS package from 1996 (which I no longer have). Some of the details are given in the documentary portion (from a PBS documentary? - I can't remember) If someone has that deluxe VHS, please cite it for us. THanks.

Did the Second Half of Vertigo Happen Inside Scotty's Mind?

No, for "Madeline" is wearing gloves in the stable and up the tower, but the real Madeline, when thrown from the tower, is not wearing gloves. Thus there had to be two Madelines, and thus a crime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.233.131 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

The "Foreign Censorship" ending sequence, which was apparently considered as a coda for the general release of the film, would also imply that the second half of the film was real... unless that sequence also takes place in Scottie's head ;-) Davepattern 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation

I'm not sure how to add a citation but here is an interview where Park Chan-wook says Vertigo made him want to become a director. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000511737 Wingedbeaver 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

I have a problem with the description of the prologue, where it states "John 'Scottie'/'Johnny-O' Ferguson (James Stewart) develops acrophobia after a fellow police officer falls to his death (while trying to save Scottie) during a rooftop chase." My understanding (particularly due to later dialogue) is that he has always had acrophobia, but only realizes it when he suffers vertigo (hence the film's title) while on the rooftops of S.F. I think the way it is written is not only misleading, but wrong: he doesn't "develop" acrophobia, rather "develops" vertigo, if you will, upon this incident. Opinions? Eganio 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't we all develop an acute "fear of heights" if we were hanging from our finger tips above a 100 feet drop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

References! Please!

I edited this article, about a quite important American film, rated by the Wiki film project as top importance, and to my surprise, my two webrefs—about material that arguably shouldn't even be in the article—are the first references. C'mon people. dfg 21:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

an incomplete discussion of a significant film

Vertigo is a film one could spend dozens, if not hundreds, of pages analyzing. This wouldn't be appropriate for a wiki article, but this entry is disappointingly short. For example, why is no mention made that the cookie Proust dunks in "Remembrance of Things Past" is a madeleine, or that an elster is a mimicking bird? There is no "spoilers" warning.

There are minor errors. Scotty meets Judy on the street, not at one of his and Madeleine's "old haunts". And VistaVision is not of comparable size to 70mm. A VistaVision frame is the same size as full-frame 35mm camera frame -- 24x36mm.

One of the worst omissions is any discussion of Bernard Herrmann's music. This score is --ahem-- "generally considered" one of greatest film scores ever written. Vertigo would not be the film it is without Herrmann's music, and this needs to be acknowledged.

WilliamSommerwerck 11:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And Madeleine = Mary Magdalene, the harlot whom Jesus made a saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about the size of the VistaVision frame, at least as regards the shooting stock and negative (a lab reduction process to standard 35mm was generally used for release prints). Go to widescreenmuseum.com or even the VV article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.32.85 (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Driving?

Just a little stupid question but does anyone know why the cars are driving on the left side of the road? I thought right side driving was already introduced in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.101.9 (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vertigo bell tower.jpg

The image Image:Vertigo bell tower.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a FUR to the image to cover this article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Vertigo Effect

I think we need to mention that this film saw the first use of the Dolly Zoom aka "The Vertigo Effect," seeing as it was an important cinematic innovation137.165.242.144 (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot section

I was wondering if any thought had been given to shortening this section. It now seems excessively detailed, to the point of containing comments on the musical score. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's too long and I think it also carries bits of mistaken detail along with interpretive original research which doesn't belong there. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll stick a "plot" tag on it and maybe then it can be trimmed a bit. --Stetsonharry (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hitchcock's appearance

The biggest omission from the article. I believe it occured outside the bookstore, just after talking about Carlotta. MMetro (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

His appearances are notable and fun but not that big of a deal, they were more of a trademark, a pop culture hook. Anyway he doesn't show up outside the bookstore, it's much earlier, he walks by the entry gate to the shipyard when Scotty goes to meet Gavin. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We thought that was him, too. Carrying a musical instrument in a case, walking quickly? He's thinner than one remembers and has more hair but that's how he appears in contemporary shots directing the cast. If verified, add to article. Or is this Original Research and prohibited? Profhum (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)