Talk:Vertigo (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Automobiles

I really liked the classic cars in the film, and wondered if anyone thought their inclusion would be seen as trivial? Scottie's car is a white 1956 DeSoto Firedome Sportsman Hardtop Coupe. Madeleine's is a green 1957 Jaguar Mark VIII. Midge's is a gray 1956 Volkswagen Karmann Ghia Coupe. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

Some of those "references" seem speculative at best. The opening scene of the Matrix doesn't really bear enough resemblance to necessarily be called a reference. Just because a movie has a rooftop chase or people in a tower doesn't make it an automatic reference. WesUGAdawg (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Vertigo's re-evaluation

The article states: "even François Truffaut's important 1962 interviews with Hitchcock (not published in English until 1967) mentions Vertigo only in passing."

The term "in passing" is misleading. Hitchcock and Truffaut spend three to four pages discussing Vertigo i.e. it gets more recognition than "in passing" implies. At the same time, I'm not saying that Robin Wood didn't champion the film more than other critics.

Escadero (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie

• Vertigo at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Lev, Peter (2007). "Vertigo, Novel and Film". In Welsh, James M; Lev, Peter (eds.). The Literature/Film Reader: Issues of Adaptation. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810859491.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Berman, Emanuel (2001). "Hitchcock's Vertigo: The Collapse of a Rescue Fantasy". In Gabbard, Glen O (ed.). Psychoanalysis and Film. International Journal of Psychoanalysis Key Paper Series. Karnac Books. ISBN 1855752751.
• Gilmore, Richard Allen (2005). "A The Usual Suspects Moment in Vertigo: The Epistemology of Identity". Doing Philosophy At The Movies. State University of New York Press. pp. 33–56. ISBN 0791463915.
• Lev, Peter (2007). "Vertigo, Novel and Film". In Welsh, James M; Lev, Peter (eds.). The Literature/Film Reader: Issues of Adaptation. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810859491.

Box-office edits

In this edit and editor has removed the sourced box-office amount despite Box Office Mojo being a regular source of box-office data on the film articles.

Secondly, he has re-written the evaluation of Vertigo's box-office performance to his own preferred interprettion. The source that was in use stated the film's performance was average, while this book by Peter Lev (a professor in film) states the film broke even. I think the previous wording better reflected the different analyses of Vertigo's financial success. Betty Logan (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Three major newspaper articles spanning over 20 years all state that the film was a box-office failure. Box Office Mojo, by self-proclamation, does not have accurate numbers for pre-1980 releases, and as I mentioned earlier, it includes the gross from the 1996 re-release. Hence, The-Numbers is the more accurate source for the film's box office gross. Shipofcool (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers are qualified to report, not to perform financial analysis. The fact remains expert opinion does not universally regard it a box-office failure, so the article should not present it that way as per WP:NPOV. And as I pointed out in the edit summary, the infoxbox records the total gross, not just the original release; see the articles about the Disney films etc. Betty Logan (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left the infobox alone. But there are now four sources spanning 25 years from newspapers and analytical articles stating that it was firmly a box office failure. To counteract that claim you are citing one page of a book that isn't even verified. Shipofcool (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Now there are 5 sources, all by major publications, backing up the same statement. Shipofcool (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many you have, because I am not disputing that it is considered a failure by some analysts. The key point is there are others—a professional writer on Hitchcock and a professor in film no less—who don't. As per WP:WEIGHT all significant points of view should be represented, and I have provided you with TWO high quality sources that don't consider the film a box-office failure. Betty Logan (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

7 sources now. All are from different publications, all are from major publications, and all were published in different years over the course of three decades. Both POVs do not have to be listed when one side strongly outweighs the other and is found to be more reliable. Shipofcool (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Betty's wording sounds reasonable to me (here with unlinked refs):

There are different interpretations of the film's box-office success, with some considering it an average[21] or a break-even[22] performance, while others regard the film a failure[23]; it grossed between $3.2 million [24] (compared to a budget of $2.5 million) and significantly less than other Hitchcock productions.[25] Reviews were mixed.

Might change latter part to while more have regarded the film as a failure. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've worded it as follows: While Vertigo is generally considered a box office failure,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27] it did actually break even upon its original release,[28][29] grossing $3.2 million[30] against its $2.5 million cost, earning significantly less than other Hitchcock productions. I think that adequately conveys what "box-office failure" means in this context. Betty Logan (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Per a precedent at Jaws (film) (a relatively recent FA), I've amalgamated these as one footnote to make it easier on the reader's eye. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Shortening plot summary

Today I worked on the plot summary. First off I added to it, but that made it too long, so then I worked on shortening it quite a bit. It is now 622 words. Invertzoo (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this! DonIago (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

One way of shortening the plot summary is to remove the actors names. I have done that on other film articles and generally the consensus is to support the idea. After all, the cast list covers it more clearly in the following section. To duplicate them in "Plot" actually makes "Cast" redundant. What do you think?
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't remove them on principle, but if I'm doing a Plot trim already and the actors' names are there even though there's a Cast section, I take them out. DonIago (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea under the circumstances. I went through it again as a clean up, found a duplicated paragraph, and also trimmed the whole thing a tiny bit more. It is now down to 574 words. Invertzoo (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 Cool! Thanks again for your work on the article! DonIago (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome, it's my pleasure. I am a huge fan of Hitchcock's work. Invertzoo (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivertzoo, have left a message on your Talk page. Thank you for all your efforts to make a better article for a great film. Regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well done!
I have left you something on your Talk page as a thank you.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 10:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Parentheses

@ Invertzoo
We don't like parentheses on our articles here on WP. As the examples within the Lead section follow hyperlinked nouns, the careful descriptions you have added are not required because the reader who does not understand may click on either word and read it for themselves. I will leave it to you rather than undo your editing. With kindest regards,
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 08:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Gareth, and thanks for not just reverting that edit. Having edited on WP since 2007, with over 76,000 non-automated edits, I do understand that having a hyperlink means that a gloss on a word is not always necessary, but I can't find anything in the MoS that says WP does not approve of glosses after difficult words. In fact I find the exact opposite suggestion in the MoS section about links, where it says,

"Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper".

I have worked on getting one article up to Featured Article status and several up to GA status, and during that process we were asked to insert glosses on some difficult words, as you can see on the FA article Lobatus gigas where it says, under soft parts, "Inside the mouth of the animal is a radula (a tough ribbon covered in rows of microscopic teeth)". So for the time being I am leaving those glosses in place.

From my perspective I think the glosses are helpful in letting the reader understand the main theme of the movie, and how that theme is directly expressed in Scottie's illnesses. Spiraling and circling are physically present in the movie in the characters' "wandering" (physical circling), and are also psychologically present in Scottie's obsession with Madeleine (circling thoughts), and in the false notion that Madeleine is repeating Carlotta's movements (circles in time). High places and the descent from them are expressed in the frequent downward movement of the cars, in Scottie's fainting, and Madeleine's and Judy's falling from the bell tower, as well as of course, the fall of "falling in love". What a great movie it is! Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well said! Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Scottie's "nightmare"

In the plot summary it previously said that while in the sanatorium, Scottie is "haunted by nightmares". I will watch it again, but I believe that the extraordinary and scary "dream sequence" takes place before the exterior of the sanatorium is even shown, and therefore it is not quite clear what this sequence signifies. I think it may be intended to suggest a psychotic break on Scottie's part. Perhaps we can't say for sure that it represents a nightmare (let alone nightmares) that Scottie has while in the sanatorium? I took that out until I have had a chance to examine the context one more time. Invertzoo (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well... I see that the sequence starts with him at home in his own bed, in his apartment, tossing and turning. I assume it is a nightmare because he seems to wake up at the end, sitting up in great fear, still in his bed at home. I believe the next shot is of the exterior of the sanatorium, but I will check that. Invertzoo (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Scotty has the nightmare, wakes up in what I've assumed is his own bed, and then is moved to the sanatorium. That said, I haven't seen the movie in a couple of months, so it's possible that I'm misremembering. DonIago (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are quite correct. It is definitely Scottie's own bed at home, and is even the same side of the bed that "Madeleine" slept on after she "fell" into the Bay. This evening I will check to see if the very next shot after the end of nightmare sequence is indeed the exterior shot of the sanatorium. Invertzoo (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I checked it, and yes, after Scottie "comes to" from his horrifying vision, and sits up appalled and terrified, the very next shot we see is the exterior of the sanatorium. So even though you can say it was a simple nightmare, I personally would guess that it shows him "cracking up", the start of his rather serious nervous breakdown. Invertzoo (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)