Vertigo Vertigo Vertigo

This movie is a complete mind-bender. By watching it, I feel I’m almost induced into some type of vertigo, or at least nausea. It’s even worse the second time, because you know what is going to happen. I’m going to look into detail at one scene of Vertigo, the scene where Julie completes the transformation into Madeleine.
Ebert says that Vertigo is a manifestation of Hitchcock’s desires, or one of Hitchcok’s most confessional movies ever. He is represented by Scottie. In the first scene I’m going to analyze how Scottie recreated what believes is a woman he fell in love with, however, Scottie did not fall in love with a woman but this idea of a perfect woman in his mind. Not only is this the perfect woman in his mind, but can be argued the perfect woman in many men’s minds, particularly Hitchock. Ebert even writes that Madeleine is “the quintessential Hitchcock woman.”
The scene begins with Scottie in Judy’s hotel room, waiting for her return from her “transformation.” Throughout Scottie looks increasingly anxious as each moment passes. He is pacing the room, standing while “reading” the paper, and looking out the window, clear signs that he is waiting for something. Also of note, is how “childish” Judy’s hotel room looks. There is a set of three framed ballerinas on the wall, a flowery armour and bedspread. It makes Scottie appear even more controlling and perverted in a sense.
He finally notices her walking up the street and their is an immediate look of disgust in his eyes. He already knows there is something not quite right, with the way she looks. When she finally arrives, there is still a bit of discontent present in Scottie, while Judy looks nervous knowing this her final attempt for him to get him to love her for who she is, and not who Scottie wants her to be.
This same sequence taken from Judy’s perspective offers a completely different picture. She is nervously waiting for “approval” from Scottie, trying to get him to see the person inside, the person he fell in love with to begin with, not this idea he has in his head. Judy knows by not pinning her hair back that this her last-ditch effort into getting Scottie to love her and not Madeleine. However, she knows this form the beginning that she won’t be able to convince Scottie to love her.
It is interesting to note that some criticized Kim Novak’s acting in this film, but I believe she does an amazing job. Especially when she is walking down the hallway and sees Scottie in the doorway. She walks like a woman who is incredibly nervous and anxious about how they are about to be received. Her knees even begin to wobble a little bit while she is walking. The cinematogrpahy is also especially noteworthy, the way she is framed in the hallway with all the red wallpaper and carpet around (again a symbol of who is in control the situation.)
I think it’s interesting that neither of them speak a word to each other as she walks into the hotel room, however their body language screams at us. As Judy walks by Scottie, she gives him a “Madeleine look” (I think this can be best described as mouth closed, chin down, eyes looking up…whereas Judy is often seen with her mouth open, chin up, looking straight out), however even this cannot satisfy Scottie because Judy’s hair isn’t exactly right. Judy realizes this immediately, and “turns back” into Judy from Madeleine. And only after all of this, does she ask, “So what do you think?”
I think it is important to note, that in both characters, they seem to be constantly silently questioning themselves about whether or not what they are doing is right. Scottie is continually asking himself whether it is right to be transform Judy into Madeleine. While Judy is continuing to ask herself whether its right to continue to have Scottie believe he’s in love with Madeleine, when she really doesn’t exist.
Or does she?
Or does it even matter?
Not only does Vertigo bring into issues of love, but it is also brings in basic metaphysical questions. Such as, what is existence? What does it mean for something/someone to exist. Madeleine existed to Scottie, does that mean she never existed? What’s more important the actual existence or just the idea of existence? To Scottie it is clear that the idea is more important; he was obsessed with idea insomuch as to completely transform a different person into the one he desired.
But he didn’t. She wasn’t a different person, she was the same person. Or was she? The title of the movie not only describes Scottie’s physical disability, but also the feeling one gets when the begin to think about this movie too much.
And not only does this movie bring in questions of love, and existence but also gender constructions. Who is really in control and when? Why is control even important? I don’t think either of them are in control at any point. Love is not something someone can control, it just happens. It cannot be re-created as both Scottie and Judy try to do. Scottie by trying to turn Judy into Madeleine, and Judy by trying to pry Scottie away from Madeleine and fall in love with her (Judy).
Robin Wood provides definitions for the ideal male and ideal female, and their respective “shadows”. These definitions emerge from a list Wood creates to the American capitalist ideology, or “more specifically, the values and assumptions so insistently embodied in and reinforced in Hollywood cinema.” The two ideal figures are

The ideal male: the virile adventurer, the potent, untrammeled man of action.
The ideal female: wife and mother, perfect companion, the endlessly dependable mainstay of hearth and home.

Since these combine into an ideal couple of quite staggering incompatibility, each has his or her own shadow:

The settled husband/father, dependable but dull.
The erotic woman (adventuress, gambling lady, saloon “entertainer”), fascinating but dangerous, liable to betray the hero or turn into the black panther.

The construction of masculinity is a bit difficult, using these parameters however, I would conclude Gavin is the ideal male, simply since he seems like a man of action, pulling out all stops to fake his wife’s suicide. Scottie is such an immensely complex character, that I think it’s difficult to categorize him as either. However, he seems to fall more in the shadow male category.
It’s easier to identify some of the simpler characters in the movie, specifically Midge who appears to fall under the ideal female category. She is seems to be the perfect companion for Scottie, and most of the time you see her in the home “in this case her apartment.” She is also a symbol dependability as this is the place Scottie continues to return to in the beginning of the movie.
Madeleine/Judy is difficult to categorize because first you must either separate them or see both as the same person. Regardless both can be categorized as the shadow female, they are the erotic woman, fascinating Scottie throughout, and ultimately leading to his downfall. Madeleine/Judy would also fall under Haskell’s definition of the “superfemale” —”a woman who while exceedingly ‘feminine’ and flirtatious, is too ambitious and intelligent for the docile role society has decreed she play.”
While these categorizations are somewhat of an oversimplification I think its an important start to begin to analyze gender in Vertigo. First I’ll concentrate on Scottie, at first glance, he appears to be a simple man who has the same desires as most other men. He wants a young, attractive blonde. However, I think that there is something deeper in Scottie’s character, he seems that he is aware of the desire, and the lack of uniqueness it holds. In other words, Scottie knows that he just wants what every other man wants, and he seems to be at conflict with this idea throughout the movie, particularly in the scene where Madeleine emerges from the bathroom. He asks to fix her hair, and then seems to sit down on the couch with his hand his hand asking himself “What am I doing?” However, this is quickly forgotten once Madeleine emerges and they embrace. But then he seems to again question his motives when the flashback to the horse stalls occur. This theory seems to be validated by the last scene when he asks Judy if Gavin transformed her like he did, but only better. At this point, it seems that Scottie is truly disgusted with himself. This complex thought process is not present in Hollywood cinema, especially for the main male character.
Judy/Madeleine is an incredibly complex character, evidenced by the fact that I don’t even know what to call her. I’ll analyze her as Judy, playing the character of Madeleine. Judy seems to be the prototypical femme fatale character, eventually leading to the downfall of the main male character. However, this is not completely accurate. Judy is not like a typical femme fatale because she lets Scottie find her again. She uses Scottie in the first part of the film to get what she wants, but then ends up wanting Scottie.
Vertigo shared some similarities with Portrait of Jennie as well. One of the most obvious was the “Portrait of Carlotta”, and the ghostly appearance of Madeleine as she enters the bedroom.

Now for other’s blog posts:
CaptColdgrip’s blog comments on the recurring symbolism that occurs in Vertigo, specifically, the appearance of a circle that is found in almost every system. I think that is an extremely important observation because it shows how meticulous Hitchcock was in preparing his sets. There is symbolism everywhere, and none more important then the idea of dizziness or vertigo found in the circle with spokes coming up. There are several other examples I found in the scene I discussed earlier. One of the most obvious is the way Judy/Madeleine walks, she often seems somewhat off-balance like she is walking across a balance beam and could fall off at any moment. Another example off of this could be the picture of the ballerinas on the wall, which are crooked, and also the gift boxes which are disheveled on the little stand. The frame of the picture of flowers is also a bit crooked. This is a symbol of the dizziness and the disorientation associated with vertigo. Even more important could be the scene where they are kissing, and the camera begins to “spin around” them. Again another example of dizziness, which is perfectly placed since this is a moment of “love” and shows how unsettling it can be.

Ben makes a great point
about the characterization of Scottie and Midge, which emphasizes the point I made earlier about Scottie being the shadow male, and Midge being the ideal female. He describes “pre-obessesion” Scottie as dull, and Midge as “more or less identical as Scottie.” This, I think, clearly supports the similarities between the ideal female and the shadow male, which Wood writes about. It also shows how both are incompatible for each other, because the relationship would be “monotones” and dull.

Mary-Carolyn’s blog raises a thought-provoking analysis of Midge. Earlier, I stated that Midge was easy to categorize because she is a simple character. After reading Mary-Carolyn’s post I’m not so sure. There can be a lot made up about Midge, because we are not given much about her. I feel like maybe during the original screenplay there may have been more of Midge, but her story was cut out due to various constraints (time, Hollywood, etc.) It just seems to me that is it very unnatural for her character to just somewhat disappear with no explanation. However, Mary-Carolyn offers a theory that she sacrifices herself for Scottie. She has an excellent explanation in her blog, which I will let you read instead of paraphrase it myself.

Another interesting thought on Midge, is the portrait she does of herself in the same way the portrait of Carlotta is done. While first viewing the film, I found this extremely disturbing for some reason. It just looked wrong. I believe she did this out of humor, however I think there is some underlying desire for her to be an object of desire herself. The reaction she has after Scottie says it is not funny, is heart-wrenching. I actually felt sorry for her, she seems like an “ideal” woman but is trying to be something which she is not. This is ironic because Scottie eventually falls for someone of whom they are not. And yet again, Vertigo comes full circle and leaves me feeling a bit overwhelmed.

The last blog post I would like to comment on is Robyn’s post here. She says that “Midge is not the ideal girl, because she isn’t what Johnny (Scottie wants).” Reason being, because Scottie wants to fall in love with Judy/Madeleine. I like to point out that Robyn didn’t say Judy is the ideal girl for Scottie either. I think this is extremely important, because to obsess about an idea of the perfect girl is incredibly unhealthy, and will never lead to one’s soul-mate. I do agree with Robyn’s statement that is preferable to have an “unhealthy and dangerous obsession, then a Midge.” I think it is far, far more important to care about someone then to just settle for someone. I would argue that it would be even more unhealthy for Scottie to settle for Midge, then for him to have an obsession with Judy/Madeleine. By settling for Midge, Scottie would never be fulfilled and he knows this. I think in the terms that we are using, being in love is not really healthy. I’d also like to take a second and differentiate between “loving” and “being in love.” I completely agree with Dr. Campbell’s definition of love given at the beginning of the year that “love is complete understanding.” However, being in love is something different. Being in love is an unhealthy and dangerous obsession, it is what leads to love. I think that one cannot love another until they are obsessed with them. I don’t think the word obsession should have the negative connotation that it often does have with love. It is completely necessary. If you are not obsessed with someone, at least for an extent of time, then would you ever care enough to completely understand them? It’s a chance everyone has to take, and it often leads to completely undesirable consequences, heartbreak, etc. But most everyone keeps falling in love, they keep trying to find something worth being obsessed, with of understanding completely.

I hope this works…

anyways, I know your throughout your blog, you emphasize that we should focus on her poems, rather then the Sylvia Plath “myth”, but while this song by ryan adams and the movie may do this…it also piques the interest in Sylvia Plath for that not so well-read (i.e. myself), that may have otherwise have never heard of her.

so basically sylvia plath is a gateway drug to poetry.

have fun with this totally uninformed post which you can totally rip apart, or you could back it up and somehow make me seem smarter than I really am.

uhhh this is supposed to be a comment for amanda’s sylvia plath blog, but it won’t let me leave it, and I dont wanna lose it. so here it is.

but, im going to try to tie this in with our discussion. This song more or less leads to more questions then anything. But what if we can be in love with an idea in our head? Or that our soul mate is an idea we have created of someone in our minds. Undoubtedly we all do this when searching for our soul mates, but at what point do we impose (i’m looking for a better word here) these characterstics of a person that we desire when they are actually not there. Here it can be interpeted that Ryan Adams is singing about this idealized soul-mate. Where can you draw the line? Anyways I don’t think it is possible for one to know, or create an idealized soul-mate in your head…because when you actually meet that person they teach you or make you realize things that you may have wanted that you would have never have thought of. If you had your “ideal” soul-mate, it wouldn’t be your soul-mate….because there needs to be some conflict in love, that’s how you grow as a person.

Also, this song is a perfect example of the entire love-art-time causation/conflict.

Anyways enough rambling….I’ve somehow managed to include Sylvia Plath, Ryan Adams, our class discussion, love, gateway drugs, and poetry in one blog post……

I seem to only blog in the early morning when I can’t sleep and after taking two benadryl, so pardon any grammatical/spelling errors and/or fragmented thoughts.

I came away from Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control with mixed feelings (I had a fever while watching so this may have something to do with it), but I wasn’t overly impressed. I definitely feel like I need to watch it at least three more times to fully understand it. I think that is why I didn’t like it as much as Gates of Heaven or Vernon, Florida. (notice I didn’t say it was not as good…that we may be able to explore tommorow/today in class).

Errol Morris seemed to be doing too much in FCOC, I was very much of fan of the simplicity in Vernon, Fl….and here in FCOC the film seems to me to be bit cluttered with the four interviews, the circus and movie theme running through, and the music all intertwining together. This may be the very same reason people feel like this Errol Morris’ best film because it manages to do all those things. However, in doing so I feel it is a little less accesible then his earlier films.

I, also, feel like I’m having one of those “it’s not as good as the older stuff” moments, where one is very slow to accepting something new.

Hopefully my mind will be changed tommorow…

I was thinking about how Dr. Campbell noted that Vernon, Florida is Morris’ purest epistemological movie and I support this completely because Vernon, Florida doesn’t pretend to be about anything, unlike Gates of Heaven which at least as the premise on the very surface of being a film about pet cemeteries. This lack of any semblance of plot I think makes Vernon, Florida either the best Morris movie or the worse Morris movie depending on your perspective. Those who are enthralled by the metaphysical questions that Morris’ films pose love Vernon, Florida…and those who think that Vernon, Florida is a just a lot of old people rambling with no purpose whatsoever will hate it.

Vernon, Florida gives us a window to the basic human desire for the meaning of life. The people in the film are ordinary, blue-collar people who are searching for answers in an incomprehensible world. There are a few answers which are given. The turkey-hunter as found meaning in his life through turkey hunting. Much like Danny in Gates of Heaven, he as turned turkey hunting into an art form, and become obsessed with it. This obsession gives him meaning (even if it is an illusion, but this still doesn’t matter as long as its not an illusion to him.) Another answer is through God with the man in boat where he states that nothing happens by coincidence. The last is through experience where the farmer says the his knowledge of “wigglers” doesn’t come from a book, but from experience.

However, at some point during the movie Morris provides a counterexample for all of these answers. Religion (as well as scholasticism) is mocked during the sermon scene, particularly when all of the church-goers are shown in the foreground looking highly disinterested. The man turkey hunting is constantly being fooled by the sound all the buzzards make. And the “wiggler” farmer even admits his mistake when talking about the night-crawlers, saying that he left them there over night and they all crawled away.

I think it’s important that Vernon, Florida raises these questions and then offers answers, and then questions those answers. It would be interesting to know how much of Morris’ mentality (being beat up after trying to film Nub City) affected the nihilism present in this film?

Although I have seen the film only once I’m going to give my idea of the structure in Gates of Heaven. Based on the discussion we had in class, we identify the speech by Florence Rasmussen as the middle or hinge of the movie. Dr. Campbell pointed out the first word of the movie is inspiration and the last is hope.

I see the structure of the film almost as a “V” in one sense. It begins with the obsession of one man in building a pet cemetary. This is the purpose of his life. It ends with the obsession of music in Danny (the younger brother). Playing music out of his 100-watt amplifier to hundreds of dead pets is the meaning in his life. Music is his dream, his obsession, what he latches on to. Much how the man in the wheelchair was obsessed with creating a pet cemetary, and he made that the purpose of his life.

Those two instances would be the tops of the “V”, then throughout the first half of the film the dream deteriotes until the point the cemetary must close. This leads us to the speech by Florence Rasmussen which chronologically and thematically connects the two parts. The second half of the film begins with Calvin explaining the business of the pet cemetary, how he thought it was necessary to take on these 400 misplaced pets out of the benefit of the business. As the film progresses, we move from a description of a business to the dreams of a young man and how that fits into the business he is working in. The movie then comes full circle and shows how the meaning of life can be described by ones hope, inspirations, and dreams.

I wanted to talk about something I noticed during the “hinge” portion of Gates of Heaven. The “hinge” portion (for those unsure) is the part where Florence Rasmussen (I believe that was her name, she was wearing the ridiculous pink apron…I know that can’t be forgotten) is giving a speech on the pet cemetary and then her son. I noticed that during the speech I could see the reflection of the camera crew in her eyeglasses. I didn’t notice it until she looked to her left while she was talking. Once that happened, it kind of took me out of the movie a little but and realized there was a production taking place. It was almost a disturbing dichotomy, because I could clearly see a man wearing green polo shirt. I would like to watch the scene much more closely to see if I’m completely accurate.

Regardless, it made me think about how much of the movie was staged (set, dialogue, otherwise), how much conversation had to be initiated to get these people to talk for such a long time without interruption. I think I found the image of the man in her eyeglasses a little jarring because you’re not supposed to see him, your not supposed to see anything outside these “characters” any provocation whatsoever. And there it was.

Here are some initial thoughts on Gates of Heaven:

-Brilliant
This movie seems on the outside to be a boring documentary with a lot of senior citizens talking about their dead pets. However, I believe this is one of the densest film I’ve ever viewed. I think I need to watch it again just to begin to understand the mulitude of issues it brings up: brother-brother relationships, love relationships (pets, people, family), how we treat the senior citizens in our culture, how we treat our pets, the ethicality of business, what we obsess about (1. pets, 2. music, 3. love, 4. pet cemetary, etc. etc.)

-Shots
Some of the backgrounds in this movie were amazing. The cactus one in particular comes to mind. I thought the opening shot was great too, the old man in a wheel-chair framed by the huge, vibrant green tree. I thought it somewhat interesting that the men speaking about business practices were shot at different angles then most others. There was one man in yellow shirt where the camera was almost looking up at him, and the rendering businessman, and the man in the red shirt were both filmed slightly form the side. They were never straight on, which led me to believe the filmmakers did not believe business to be “straight-on” or honest.

-Origin of the film
Aftering doing some research I learned that the film was created as the resuly of bet between the director, Erol Morris, and filmmaker Werner Herzog (of Grizzly Man fame), that if he made a movie about pet cemetaries then Herzog would eat his shoe. This lead to the documentary “Werner Herzog Eat His Shoe.” I couldn’t find a clip of this anywhere, so if anyone knows where I can find it let me know.

I think it would be naive to say that this was the sole, or even a main reason to make this movie. I’m sure Morris had the idea far before he made the bet with Herzog. I would be very interested to learn the true intentions Morris had for created such a film.

Many philosophers have grappled with the question of whether or not art can be judged objectively. If you take the view that beauty is solely in the eye of the beholder, then a film critique by a 4-year old is just as valid as that of Ebert. However, this is not a view held by many. People give much more merit to the a review done by Ebert then one done by a child.

So how does one become an authoritative figure in regards to evaluating art?

In Hume’s Taste and the Arts he offers five things that must come together: “Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice.” He ultimately concludes that very few people will ever attain these five factors, so there will be very few qualifed judges of art. However, Hume’s statement does give us a start on how we can begin to evaluate art.

A problem does exist whenever critiquing art, it almost always becomes circular. Do great critics define great art? Or does great art define great critics?

It seem so obvious one cannot exist without the other, and I think it would be pointless to try to figure out which comes first. It seems more apparent that one will come first which will build on another, and over time both art and the critic will be revered as great mainly due to the test of time and/or passing over cross/cultural boundaries. It is similar to how we discussed in class that over time films that initially received little acclaim begin to be revisted once certain critics begin to point out brilliant shots or subtle acting that was once glossed over. The film slowly begins to be regarded as good or great film, and the critics who pointed out these attributes gain more and more merit (for lack of a better phrase.)

In the 1933 it starts with a harpischord, and then into a full ensemble. However, in the 1949 it starts with an ensemble and ends with a harpischord.
Maybe the 1933’s version’s crescendo was to uplift people’s spirits at the beginning of the movie since it was shown during the Great Depression. Whereas the decrescendo in the 1949 was to bring people down a little form the post-was prosperity, so they could be in a better frame of mind to the view the economic state of the family.

After some thorough unscientific research, I’ve come to the assumption/conclusion that death in the 1860s happened suddenly or even “very suddenly”, as opposed to the long dying process that Beth seemed to endure in Little Women. My “sample” came form list obituraries of small rural newspapers in Virginia which can be found here.

Also, in my research (googling), I found a website that further supports the hypothesis that sudden death was common in the 1860s. It seems that often when people died suddenly the families would hire a photographer to take a picture of the deceased often because there would be no photogrpahic record of the person otherwise. A link to this website is here. WARNING: there are dead babies, but they look very peaceful.

So obviously Beth’s slow death in the story was purposeful. I believe Alcott chose not to “kill off” Beth so abrubtly because she wanted it to be more impactful. It had to be long to represent how long women were trapped in the mold of Beth. With Beth’s death a more “old-fashioned heroine” was dying, which gave rise to the “new heroine” — Jo.