It really astonished me what a beautiful city San Francisco used to be in ~1958, just before the hippies invaded it in the 60's. It's still a beautiful city, but back then it was so classy as well.
Does anyone have the feeling SF used to resemble Monaco, even slightly?
Thanks gronsk, as an old time San Francisco Bay Area resident, I can tell you that SF was a beautiful, reasonable, classy city years ago. Downtown was vibrant and full of life, people tried to dress up when they went out. There was a style and a grace that slowly got lost starting in the 1960's. Like many cities, SF got caught in the changing times and mores, growth of the suburbs, increasingly polarized lifestyles, and the passing on of the old traditions as the old crowd died off...sad.
RSGRE
It is sad. I thought almost the same thing watching scenes of San Francisco in the film.
Thanks, rsgre. Great to get the feedback of an old time resident.
shareI just watched a little of Vertigo today on DVD. The thought of being one of only two cars driving under the Golden Gate, getting out and looking up at the bridge and seeing absolutely nobody--no cars, no pedestrians, no bicycles--is ridiculous.
share--no cars, no pedestrians, no bicycles--is ridiculous.
---
...as was Scottie's ability to drive freely around on SF streets with few other cars and no traffic jams. Even in 1957 when Vertigo was made, Hitchcock had to film on Sunday mornings and put up roadblocks to get this POV and back projection footage.
Still, fewer people lived there back then; the American population in general was about a third of what it is today.
In any event, what Hitchcock WANTED...and got ...was the sense of a lonely, spectral, "haunted" San Francisco. This is a film about "wanderers" -- rich(Madeleine) or well-off(Scottie) people who have plenty of time and nothing to do with it. Thus, they wander aimlessly around an emptyish San Francisco and then wander to the open natural beauty of the redwoods and the sea coast. Its the creation of a fantastic mood...a very sad one, you ask me.
The movie does have a wonderful melancholic beauty, a mood that IMHO would have been ruined if it had included all the little annoyances of big-city life. What if Scotty hadn't been able to find a place to park near Mission Dolores, if tourists had been taking Madeline's picture as she jumped into the bay?
What if Scotty hadn't been able to find a place to park near Mission Dolores, it tourist had been taking Madeline's picture as she jumped into the bay?
---
Ha! Yes, Hitchcock managed to create a "false San Francisco" that allowed his plot points to flourish....
I lived in San Francisco, on the northeast corner of Sutter and Broderick, in the late seventies. It was still a beautiful city. South of Market Street was pretty seedy, but most of the hippies were gone by then. You could walk around most areas, including all the parks, in safety. Downtown was nice. You rarely saw homeless people and there were no poop piles or syringes lying around. I worked a menial job, part-time, and I was poor but I could afford to live in The City, sharing a Victorian flat over a store with a couple of other people. Unfortunately, over the past ten or fifteen years Progressive rule has destroyed this wonderful city. As long as it continues in that direction, I don't want to see it again. I'll live with my nice memories.
share> Unfortunately, over the past ten or fifteen years Progressive rule has destroyed this wonderful city.
Crap on this BS narrative. The thing that is ruining all American cities is disinvestment in the country and Americans, the importation of desperately poor people from South of the border to reduce the costs of construction workers and gardeners.
You said yourself you could afford to live there in the late 70's. Well, I was working for just above minimum wage and able to do to have my own place, have a car, and go to college at the same time. That could not be done today ... not even dreamed up.
The average American is desperate, almost poverty stricken and being kicked out of society with no place to go - and that is the result of Republican policies starting with Ronald Reagan, who by the way looked the other way as cocaine was imported to decimate the African American neighborhoods.
I hear that stupid narrative claim so often - and it is total BS.
Sure, whatever you say. It's San Francisco's legacy of Republican mayors, Republican city councils, Republican D.A.s, and Republican voters who have wrecked it. If only Democrats could wrest control of the city from the Republicans who have dominated it for so many decades! If only Democrats ran San Francisco for a change, then we'd see improvement!
shareYou said yourself you could afford to live there in the late 70's. Well, I was working for just above minimum wage and able to do to have my own place, have a car, and go to college at the same time. That could not be done today ... not even dreamed up.
> If Republican policies are so awful, why is it they don't seem to hit people in the rest of the country so hard?
That's a complicated question, but in general, they do.
For example, some states refuse to accept or distribute Medicare money to citizens who need it. They hate ObamaCare so much, and the idea of Democrats actually getting credit for helping people in need to refuse to participate in such programs.
It is like this with a lot of legislation when you look into it more deeply.
Another failed thing is the proliferation of contractors rather than regular employees all over the place. This is just another mechanism for removing the need to pay benefits, then as always the money saved literally kills people, and part of that profit is funnelled up to the executives who run the contracting companies, who have massive benefits.
I see it all over the place. In local, state and national parks the employees are now contractors, and they don't do the jobs. My local city has several very nice parks that have fallen into disrepair because they are run by people far away who give these jobs to those who are in their service. I'm in California, but these folks are not Democrats, though the Democrats get blamed for it.
I could go on an on, for real instead of your ridiculous claims. Every time we've had a Republican governor we have massive budget deficits and shortfalls. Pete Wilson, Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger - and services suffer. Privatize a thing, like the energy grid or state schools, and tuition goes up, maintenance goes down - the costs go up. That's always on Republicans.
You blame regulation, but without the regulation substandard buildings are built, and then cause problems. Republicans only care about making government not work, while they scoop up as much money as they can. What confuses the issue is the ease - because of lack of enforcement - the greedy criminals can bilk the public - and that is across the board - but allow for that and Republicans are way out ahead, then they capture the government and media and we all suffer even more.
Then they dodge blame by always blaming Democrats.
That's a complicated question, but in general, they do.
You blame regulation, but without the regulation substandard buildings are built, and then cause problems.
> Where I live, we do not have to step around used needles and piles of human feces.
When you make BS statements like that you are implying there are lots of places where people have those problems. Listening to Republicans talk the only places in the country free of needles and feces is in the Deep South.
You've repeated this BS so long you're apparently starting to believe it.
I'll use my own area as an example, in the SF Bay Area. There are tiny localized pockets of crime and depression, usually right next to amazingly wealthy areas and middle class areas that are far, far larger.
Republicans handle these situations, first by blaming Democrats, because really they don't care and don't want to spend any money - unless it is directly their problem. They don't give a shit about anyone else, or the people stuck there themselves.
Democrats, in general, the Democrats who are not corruptible - you know, the ones Republicans attack the most, want to take a systemic look at problems and attack the root cause. This usually means spending money to economically and educationally develop these bad zones. Republicans hate this.
You should get your vision checked, but I guess if you are so badly misinformed and prejudice even with the best vision you will just see what you want to see or what your Republican liars ... yes, proven Republican liars, like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson tell you ... and you will continue to believe it, or say you do because your brains don't quite work right - even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
When you make BS statements like that you are implying there are lots of places where people have those problems.
Check out D.O.A. (1949)
shareYou say that because of the Spanish architecture. Most American cities, especially as you get more westerly and there is not as much old historic architecture, are pretty drab and ugly. Our country is starting to resemble the third world because of the inequality and poor people who end up homeless with nowhere to go. Many of them turn to drugs or low life pursuits. It is sad, and I don't think I will see this turned around in my lifetime.
Just remember though, you are also seeing this movie ... it's a movie ... the scenes are designed to look beautiful. I hope we solve our problems and can rebuild our country so it is Hollywood beautiful again.
I also admired San Francisco during the film. It was beautiful.
share