Comments on: dizzy spell

By: Poetics by Praxis » dizzy spell

Poetics by Praxis » dizzy spell — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:37:46 +0000

[...] Original post by tyler [...]

By: I’m Always Home. I’m Uncool. » Blog Archive » Scotty, Eben, and an Obsession With Women…no, Wait…the Past… no, Wait…

Wed, 09 May 2007 18:10:52 +0000

[...] In his blog, Tyler makes an excellent point, and one that I’ve touched on here: is Judy actually real? I think this confusion is exactly what Hitchcock was going for in the film. Tyler goes back and fourth between believing that Judy is a figment of Scotty’s imagination and her as a real-life, flesh and blood person. I think that this is the exact same confusion that Scotty feels, especially in the scene where Judy finally reprises her role as “Madeline.” Suddenly we are all caught up in the middle of Scotty’s vertigo, and are being spun around, being shown many different forms of the same woman, leaving us wondering just who or what it is Scotty is obsessed with anyway. Beth also comments on certain “realities” simply being inside of Scotty’s mind, only this time in regards to the two scenes where Scotty sees “Madeline” and Judy from their perspective hotel windows. I have thought about it over and over, and have continued to draw a blank as to how to explain the scene where Scotty follows “Madeline” into her hotel, and she is not there. Maybe Beth is right on track with her idea of it all being in Scotty’s head… [...]

By: breijo’s rear window ethics

breijo’s rear window ethics — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:49:34 +0000

[...] I found Tyler’s initial reaction to “Vertigo” really interesting in this post. Here, he says, “I’m not sure I have a lot to say about it yet. It was certainly very beautiful, certainly very interesting. Very strange. Parts made me shiver a little- but parts of the film are so strange that I can’t quite wrap my mind around them after one viewing. Heck, I’m still not sure what exactly happened. It seems to me that there is a chance that Judy wasn’t real at all.” As soon as I read this, I remembered the class discussion we had when we first launched into “Portrait of Jennie”. Many people in the class weren’t sure how they felt about Jennie-whether or not she was real, a figment of Eben’s imagination, a symbol for the potential to overcome obstacles, a representation of the general soulmate, etc. Even the film was slightly ambiguous. All that Eben had in the end was her scarf, but no more physical evidence aside from that. This is precisely “Vertigo”. Though it is implied that she is a real person; Judy, at least…she rents the hotel. So, physically, the Judy character (though how much of “Judy” is there in “Madeline” and vice versa, we do not know) must exist. But what does Madline/Judy represent? Does she, too, represent the unattainable as Jennie did? Both (Madeline/Judy and Jennie) were had by men who obsessed over them and gave nearly anything to be with them again-they were all happy for a short while, but in the end, all girls disappear. In this post Tyler also says, “Besides, Scottie even sees her as a ghost when he finally gets her hair in that bun.” I’m assuming he means the sequence involving the smoke/mist, the green lighting, and the moment of anticipation, and, as Hitchcock called it, climax. Interestingly enough, Dieterle uses mist which surrounds Jennie when Eben looks at her after finishing her/his portrait (also interestingly enough, Dr. C already told the class that this scene is his view of where the climax of the “Jennie” movie is…hmmm… ). It seems to me that initial reactions to Vertigo were extremely similar to those of “Jennie,” also in terms of plot. Both men are obsessed by something they can only attain for a short time, both women are mysterious about their pasts, both seem to overcome time barriers-Madeline in terms of Carlotta and Jennie in terms of actual time…however she does it. Also, it can be said that both women return from the dead in one way or another. While Jennie is known to have died physically years before Eben and Jennie met, she manages to return as though she had never left. Conversely, Madeline “dies” but returns through Judy, and in that ghostly scene in the hotel room, appears as though she, too, had never left. I found Tyler’s post to be so incredibly similar to my (as well as other classmates’) reactions to “Jennie,” both the text and the film, that just reading the reaction made me notice connections I hadn’t made between the women before. Thanks, Tyler! [...]

By: Robyn’s Blog » Blog Archive » You are what you eat…or rather, what you represent.

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:23:45 +0000

[...] Okay, anyway, back to what I’m trying to say. Johnny falls in love with Mr. Elster’s wife, Madeline. Except—and this is the kicker—Johnny never actually meets Elster’s wife Madeline. He falls in love with Judy Barton’s representation of Madeline! He never loves Madeline—he has always loved Judy! But that’s inaccurate, because he’s never met Judy either (until later in the movie). Johnny falls in love with a non-existent person. Tyler suggests in his blog the possibility that Judy doesn’t exist at all, and is a complete construct in Johnny’s head. I think Tyler meant that Judy might literally not exist, but I want to argue that even though Judy is alive as a human being—she ceases to exist when she gives up her identity, because we are all only concept. Madeline-as-represented-by-Judy isn’t real, she’s an idea that Judy and Mr. Elster created to fool Johnny. Johnny loves a complete construct. And not only a construct of Madeline—Johnny falls in love with Judy while she is pretending to be Madeline while pretending that Madeline is possessed by Carlotta. [...]

By: I’m Always Home. I’m Uncool. » Blog Archive

I’m Always Home. I’m Uncool. » Blog Archive — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:14:21 +0000

By: Nathan Strobel’s Blog » Blog Archive » Vertigo - Final Thoughts

Nathan Strobel’s Blog » Blog Archive » Vertigo - Final Thoughts — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:30:49 +0000

[...] Lastly I’d like to comment on Tyler’s Dizzy Spell, because he brings up an interesting point which I’ve seen discussed in different places. He questions whether Judy is actually real. This is an interesting proposition which I’ve seen discussed in some different places, particularly on the IMDB boards. I don’t think it’s true, but it is interesting to think about. I’ve actually heard a theory floated that says John is still in the mental hospital for the entire second half of the film and he is just dreaming everything after Madeline’s death. Like I said, probably not true, but interesting nonetheless. I just don’t think Hitchcock would be that cheap with his story. It wouldn’t take away from the film THAT much, because lengthy dream sequences can be incredibly effective, as evidenced by Mulholland Drive, but I don’t know, there just isn’t a dream “feel” to the second half. I can’t really put my finger on it, but it is definitely soundly grounded in reality. So I’ve come to the conclusion that Judy is definitely real and the second half of the movie actually did happen. The nun thing certainly is interesting, but I have to believe that it is sort of an “icebox” moment like Dr. Campbell talked about in class today. The bell tolling is obviously symbolic of death, the changing of time, etc and Hitchcock probably just wanted something like that to end the film. I doubt he took the nun’s reaction into account. But wow, that is a troubling theory, it is really sticking with me and I will have to give it some more thought. [...]