MovieChat Forums > Vertigo (1958) Discussion > Vertigo would have been better if this o...

Vertigo would have been better if this one thing were changed

posted 11 years ago by rdp32
46 replies | jump to latest

WARNING: SPOILERS, FOR BOTH VERTIGO AND PSYCHO

I just saw the movie last night and liked it a lot. However, I think it would have been better if it completely left out the flashback from Judy, as well as showing her write and then tear up the letter. This way, the tension would continue to build up through the movie, as the viewer wonders whether Scottie in his obsession is imagining it all or if his murder theory is correct. If it had been done this way, then you would also want to leave out any actual acknowledgement from her at the ending---perhaps just show her flustered and emotional when accused, and then have it end the same with her sudden death.

I think this would have been a powerful approach because the middle part of the movie showed that Scottie was hit hard psychologically and that he started seeing Madeline in many random strangers. There would be just enough evidence (Judy looking just like Madeline, her getting emotionally involved, a similar necklace) to think that Scottie was correct, yet also enough evidence to think that he was maybe out of his mind. If this alternative approach were done, the necklace would maybe need to be somewhat simpler, so that the random coincidence would be a viable alternative.

Consider this comparison: If the plot twist in Psycho had been earlier, and we knew by the half-way point that Norman's mom was long-since dead, then Psycho would have been much worse. Similarly, I feel that an opportunity was missed with Vertigo. In fact, because it was from Scottie's point of view, the resulting plot twist and open-ended conclusion would have been even better than the ending of Psycho. I actually don't usually like open-ended movies or books, but if ever there was a movie that such an ending would be perfect for, it is Vertigo. I'm sure such an approach occurred to Hitchcock (and it has probably been discussed here or elsewhere), and I understand that if the focus is on the characters and the love story, then my version would maybe not be as strong. But I still think it would be better. Discuss.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rdp32 11 years ago

I thought Jimmy Stewart, even at 50 years old, was great. But in any case, let's please stay on topic (I know, the title of the thread sounds like I'm inviting general suggestions... maybe I need to change the title)

[–] Stupidity_Buster 11 years ago

She's an OCD age freak and posts this about twice a day on various boards.

[–] Earl-Janoth 11 years ago

Judging by that username she has, maybe it's actually Madonna. Madonna does have thing for old movies...

[–] dannieboy20906 11 years ago

Jimmy Stewart thought that he was too old to play the love interest when he entered his fifties. I can see his point, but Cary Grant played the love interest until he was nearly sixty, and Sean Connery was considered one of the sexiest men alive into his seventies.

At the risk of revealing a certain lack of humility, I will admit that I am fifty-eight. My wife is fifty-nine. While most of our intimate friends are near to our own age, we have a couple who just turned twenty-four, significantly less than half our age. I certainly won't share their photos with you, but I assure you that both of them are gorgeous.

[–] vincentlynch-moonoi 11 years ago

I pretty much agree with your viewpoint here.

If someone wants to nitpick about older leading men with younger leading women...well, they probably shouldn't watch half the classic films made in Hollywood. Gable was 12 years older than Vivien Leigh. Bogart 16 years older than Ingrid Bergman. And, in this film, Kim Novak may have been mid-20s, but she was playing a woman that I would have guessed to be in her mid to late 30s. Note the actor playing her husband was 54 years old.

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

I agree, too. Jimmy Stewart was Jimmy Stewart to those of us raised with the Stewarts, the Gables, the Bogarts, etc. We watched a film as a product of the "dream factory". Today, sadly, the younger generation sees films as graphic depictions of events -- no imagination necessary. They are "literalists". Jimmy Stewart's age (or Gable's, or Bogart's) in any of his films never struck me as a benchmark in evaluating the success of the story. It seems to me, rather, such literalism is a self-defeating tendency in an audience which, presumably, is looking to be entertained, or moved in some way, by the film as a whole.

[–] udippel 9 years ago

Listen carefully: her husband says she's 26. In connection with suicide, in case you look for it.

[–] ElenaP-3 11 years ago

Yes! I found it rather creepy that Novak's dual characters are romanced by a man who looks old enough to be her father, and really isn't that physically appealing. Good actor, yes, but I never considered Stewart attractive. The scene where 'Judy' is completely remade to resemble 'Madelyn' makes me cringe when he is simultaneously directed to nuzzle her like a puppy, and kiss her passionately - eew. Still, they had some decent chemistry in the films they did together.

[–] gearhart 11 years ago

I just watched for the first time in many years (I'm 68). I think Stewart looks great and wouldn't have guessed he was in his 50's. Maybe because I'm so much older than he was at the time. :-)

That out of the way -- I have no problem with being shown that Judy was playing a role. What I did have a problem with was Judy not giving a hint of recognition when Scotty showed up at her door. She didn't even blink. Unless she knew he'd been watching her, her non-reaction was unbelievable.

My other problem was the difference between Madeline and Judy -- not just physical -- cool sophisticate and trashy redhead ("I've been picked up") -- but voice and speech and mannerisms and style. Judy was wasted at that department store -- she should have been an actress. Judy was too natural as Madeline, and a bit phony as herself.

The animated hallucination was a bit odd too, but then filmmakers have never been very good at that.

[–] ysflight 11 years ago

Your problem is you've only seen Vertigo once. You still think the entire movie is from Scottie's perspective. In actuality, with the flashback, Hitchcock changes the focus from Scottie to Judy. This is apparent by the way he frames the 2nd half, many times the camera stays on Judy's face while Scottie is talking. Judy is the emotional center of Vertigo, because Scottie just becomes too bizarre for the audience to relate to in the 2nd half.

The version without the flashback was screened for critics before the premiere. They hated it, to the point of calling it Hitchcock's worst picture. It probably was partly responsible for the critical dismissal in 1958. Without the flashback, Judy's character is gutted, and she's the one who grows more fascinating and heartbreaking on subsequent viewings.

You're not the first to compare Vertigo and Psycho, but I don't think it works. They're very different movies. Norman's Mother is not a fully fledged character, she's impossible for the audience to relate to. She's a ghostly distraction, not the star of the show.

Vertigo is not a "Who dun it". It's a "What happens to the people who dun it" movie. See it a few more times, and I think you'll get my point. This is not a typical movie that fully satisfies on 1st watch. There's a reason it was neglected almost ~30 years. It really does grow stronger every time you see it.

There are also little details in the flashback that are very important. I wrote a piece explaining the intricacies of Vertigo, but you should give the movie more chances to reach your own conclusions, that's a large part of the magic. If, after you're seen it 4-5 times, you still have questions, let me know and I'll send you the link.

Pierce Brosnan's 5th Bond movie: "Die Two Days After Another Tomorrow"

[–] rdp32 11 years ago

Well, I can't dispute anything you said as I have indeed only seen it once. And you made some good points. I admit I like the who-dun-it stories, and on first viewing I kept noting how much better of a who-dun-it story it would have been if the audience were kept a little more in the dark. But I guess I can acknowledge that it is a deeper and more meaningful work as is, if deep and artistic is what you're after (and I respect that). At some point I may watch it again and will be interested to see how much I enjoy it; right now I don't have much desire to re-watch it right away even though I liked it.

[–] jon5000_66 11 years ago

It plays semi-regularly in movie theatres. I'd wait to see it on the big screen - it's incredible.

"It's as if God created the Devil...and gave him...JAWS"

[–] Quarantino_II 11 years ago

Well put. I think the flashback and the following scene where she writes the letter serve multiple purposes.

One, as you say, to switch perspective from Scottie to Judy, and to change the nagging question to "when will he find out?" That's as good a suspense element as any. Like in Breaking Bad where Walt's brother-in-law who is a DEA officer has no clue that Walt is the meth king in town.

Two, to relate that Judy was in fact in love with Scottie, and that she wanted to be loved the way she was, not transformed back to Madeleine. If we wouldn't know her motivation the rest of the movie would make little sense. Why did she stay and why did she let him back into her life in the first place? Why is she freaking out over the gray suit? If you, like Scottie, don't realize it was the same woman you'd be wondering what on earth she's thinking going along with this weird stranger's requests. And if you do realize it's the same woman, you'd be going "watch out Scottie, that snake is conning you again". We need to have sympathy for Judy from that point on.

Three, to screw with the minds of the audience in case they're starting to second guess. Just like the shower scene in Psycho. Things were headed somewhere and then kaboom, it plunges into unknown territory with plenty of the movie left and flushes everyone's expectations If they put the reveal long before the end of the film, the audience knows that the rest has to be about something else and that there are more twists and turns to come.

Of course the full retard award goes to the Italian distributor who translated Vertigo's title to "The Woman Who Lived Twice", giving away a major hint about Judy/Madeleine. The only worse title would've been "The Woman Who Died Twice", thus spoiling the entire movie.

[–] ysflight 11 years ago

Well, that Italian title is stupid, but to be fair, Hitchcock didn't exactly keep the dual roles a secret. Madeleine/Judy is shown in the trailer, and Hitchcock talked about the dual roles all the way back in 1956. If the movie were released nowadays, that fact would be absolute top-secret. That's probably one benefit of seeing Vertigo now vs in 1958...I know when I saw it, it completely threw me for a loop.

Pierce Brosnan's 5th Bond movie: "Die Two Days After Another Tomorrow"

[–] Quarantino_II 11 years ago

Right, and there were lobby cards and publicity photos where Stewart was torn between two Novaks so it was hardly a well guarded secret. I'm getting mixed messages about the level of secrecy back then... Sometimes trailers and publicity photos give it all away, but then threr's the story about Hitch buying every copy of Psycho... and the (fictitious?) "oath of secrecy" in the loose biopic... I'm leaning towards the notion that they weren't all that uptight back then, I think the trade secret/NDA/need-to-know-basis script craze really kicked into high gear somewhere around Empire Strikes Back...

[–] ysflight 11 years ago

The simple answer is, Hitchcock wasn't in charge of the advertising. He specifically mentioned it with Truffaut. That's why beginning with North by Northwest, he started appearing in all his trailers. He took the lessons he learned from Vertigo and applied them to his other films. The "No one will be admitted after the beginning" trick he pulled with Psycho is a variation on an idea he tried for Vertigo. I don't know about him buying all copies of Psycho, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. He absolutely swore the cast and crew to total secrecy before the premiere though.

Pierce Brosnan's 5th Bond movie: "Die Two Days After Another Tomorrow"

[–] hogwouth 11 years ago

The ending for Vertigo wasn't very apparent for me.
I've always been more disappointed with the original Planet of the Apes.

I don't know how much people knew about the ending when the movie was released, but it was too obvious watching it in modern times. Still a fantastic movie though.

Well what are the use of my brains if I'm tied up with a dumb cluck like you?

[–] Beau_Buffet 8 years ago

Of course the full retard award goes to the Italian distributor who translated Vertigo's title to "The Woman Who Lived Twice", giving away a major hint about Judy/Madeleine.

I think it's not so bad becauses until the twist, viewers would probably think the title refers to the Carlotta/Madeleine duality.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

ys,

Excellent insight into how this film should not merely be understood as being from Scottie's perspective. I think the tendency some have here is to see this film, or more accurately WANT to see this film, as a conventional narrative, which in turn would require that there be a central protagonist. It is neither a conventional narrative nor does it tell the story from the pov of a single, central protagonist.

Perhaps I need to clarify that - one can have an understanding of the term protagonist to mean a central character. But that does not necessarily require that the story be told from that character's perspective. It gets a bit fuzzy when the way the character's story is told uses the perspective of others to tell that story, to tell us maybe something about the character. Maybe another character fills in the protagonist's backstory, for example. Or as some kind of Greek chorus tells us what to think about the character.

Of course I have not said yet in this post whether it is "better" to understand Scottie as the protagonist of Vertigo. Many would say of course he is. He essentially drives the plot. Or does so by reacting to plot developments created by others.

But that sort of focus emphasizes Vertigo's narrative, I think at the cost of understanding it's thematic nature.

Essential to understanding Vertigo, I think, is how Scottie's experience of lost love compares with Judy's. Let me put it this way - if you don't understand what Judy is about, you don't understand the film.

The flashback in that case, however jarring it might seem to some as a plot development, works becuase it serves the thematic purpose of the film. The point is not how better the audience could have experienced a frisson of surprise or wonderment if a different approach was used. The point was at least to some extent to understand why Judy felt so ambivalent about, while still going with, Scottie's gradual effort to remake her into Madeline.

Judy was on one hand fully aware of why he was doing so. She knew that she had "played a part" in appearing as Madeline, and that persona was not the Judy persona she had "played" in her Judy life before the film started. But she also felt that the love they had was real. How much was the Madeline Scottie loved really Judy? In fact what is the meaning of the word "really" in the preceding sentence?

On the other hand, Judy WAS Judy before the film. As the process begins to unfold, how much of Judy can she retain and still rekindle Scottie's love? And of course underlying all this is the existential dilemma for Scottie and Judy's fear that he will confront it, that being how to address the question of meaning and authenticity if, or when if you prefer, Scottie finds out?

Judy is certainly the focus of this part of the film. How does she get back a lost love in such a situation? The irony of course is that both she and Scottie are both there as living human flesh, despite his "knowledge" that Madeline, the woman he thought he was in love with, and in fact WAS in love with, is dead.

Well it is clear enough to me that the flashback is appropriate and serves to underscore the thematic purpose and nature of the film.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Quarantino_II 11 years ago

Actually it's already been done. Associate producer Herbert Coleman relayed the story on the commentary track. To make a long story short, there was a battle between on one side Hitchcock and Joan Harrison who wanted the flashback taken out, and on the other side the producer, the Paramount execs and Jimmy Stewart who all wanted the flashback in. Hitch surrendered, but only after having wreaked havoc by calling back all prints of the movie to have them edited, only to have them changed back again.

- Can you discuss a little bit about the flashback sequence being in, out, in and out? I know that from the notes we got - the printing continuities - that when the negative was cut initially, it was not in the film, it was actually printed as a separate unit and release-cut in. What was going on there with the whole... the flashback, the secret of the story being given away?

Coleman: - I can't believe that's true, that it was printed as a separate unit, because if that was true we wouldn't have had to bring the prints back from all over the United States of that reel and re-cut it...

- Well this was for the first few prints, maybe the first half-dozen prints.

Coleman: - Oh, well I never saw it that way, first time I ever saw it was with the sequence in, and we never had any other idea until Joan Harrison turned out to be the one who came up with the idea that the scene should be out.

- Well apparently it was cut into the print, but it was physically cut in, not part of the original negative. It was a separate unit at that time. Did Joan Harrison have his ear...?

Coleman: - Well, Joan and Alma and Hitch had been friends way back in Hitch's early days in London, and when Hitch came to America she came along with Alma and Hitch and worked with Alma all the time on the screenplays of the pictures Hitch did. One day I walked into the office in the morning, Hitch was there already, and he said "you know, I'm a little worried about having that scene showing when Judy goes into the tower and they throw the body out". I said "Hitch, what are you talking about?" He said "Well I think I'd like to see it with that scene out". I said "Hitch, that's impossible. You'd ruin the picture taking that out!" He said "Well I'd really like to see it with it out". I said "Hitch, the prints are already all over the United States ready to go into exhibition." He said "Well still I'd like to see it", so I told George to take the scene out and we'd take a look at it, and we invited Jimmy and Gloria and Sam Taylor and Suzanne and almost everybody who had been on the picture, and arranged the room for one particular night. We ran the picture with that scene out, and when the lights came on there wasn't a sound in the theater. Not one mumble except Joan Harrison who jumped to her feet and yelled "Hitchie, how could anybody want the picture in any way but this?", knowing my feeling about the picture. And I walked over to the side away from everybody and stood there and Hitch came over and joined me, and I said "Hitch, you can't believe that." And he said "Well I think she's right". And I said "But look at these people, not a sound from anybody. That should tell you what they think about it." And we started arguing, and finally he'd had enough of my arguing and he said "release the picture this way".

- Then it went to Paramount, right? The brass in New York...

Coleman: - If we go a little bit further back, before we cut that out and had that showing, Barney Balaban had come out to the studio and seen the picture with that sequence in, and then gone back to New York raving about this being Hitchcock's very best picture. And then we took that scene out, and we had to bring that reel back from everywhere in the country, they had to make changes in the music, it cost a lot of money and took a lot of time... and we finally got the reel in shape and sent it back out, and Barney Balaban had it running for the top critics in New York. And the next day, these critics called Barney Balaban and said "This is not a great Hitchcock picture, it's the worst picture he ever made!". And Barney Balaban got on the phone and called us at the studio, demanding to talk to Hitch, and Hitch was up at the ranch, and Balaban said "I want Hitchcock in Jack Karp's office tomorrow at nine o'clock." So I got on the telephone, sent a car up to the ranch, had to get tickets for Hitch and Alma at the airport in San Francisco, then I called Hitch and told him he had to be in Jack Karp's office the next morning. He said "what about?", I said "something to do with the scene we took out". He said "Have you talked to Lew Wasserman?" I said "No I haven't, and I don't think you should either, Hitch." So Hitch had to be at Jack's office at 9 o'clock the next morning. At 9:18 - I looked at my watch - I heard his secretary say "Good morning Mr. Hitchcock" and he didn't answer. I looked up, he was in the outer office and I could see him past my secretary's office, and he said "put the picture back the way you had it" and walked into his office. And we didn't speak for about a week. And the picture had to be put back the way it was with the scene in.

- You think he really believed it was better that way, without that flashback scene in?

Coleman: - No, I don't think so. As a matter of fact, after Hitch and I stood there arguing I walked out past everybody, I started for my office and I heard running footsteps and I stopped and Jimmy Stewart came running after me, and said "Herbie, you shouldn't get so angry at Hitch, it's not worth it." And I said "Was I right? Or was Hitch right?" He said "You were right." I said "Why didn't you speak up, Jimmy? You know how much respect he has for your opinion". And Jimmy said "It's not worth it, Herbie. Come on, let's go change for dinner". I said "Not with me".

[–] rsgre 11 years ago

Thanks for your comments everyone, and yes, the flashback is very controversial.
I noticed several things about it when I saw this film again in 1983, in a theater after many years of not seeing the film.
1) It killed the suspense completely and made the plot very implausable.
2) It reduced Judy to a complete, pre-women's lib, female moron at the mercy of whatever male she bumped into and fell for.
3) It did start to make us realize, slowly from that point on, what a sexual pervert Scotty was in reality, behind that quiet exterior.
4) That and the ending turned a "who dun it ?" into a "who cares ?".
.
My personal opinion is that the flashback could have been inserted at the end, while they were climbing up the tower, as a visual explanation, keeping us in suspense until then. That and inserting the optional ending would have made this a much more conventional film. As it is, Midge Wood & Galvin Elster are simply dropped, and never seen or heard from again...very strange. But...artists are very strange people. That whole petty intrigue and indecision over which version was better just goes to show how strange they are ! But...they are the film makers..for better or worse..!

RSGRE

[–] clivey6 11 years ago

Interesting stuff... it wouldn't really be plausible without the flashback to have such a young girl taken on Jimmy Stewart, who looks quite crazed and old in relation to this new incarnation of Kim Novak, who could have wandered off Beat Girl. Only cos we know who she is do we see why she may be going along with it, cos she feels guilty about Scottie and/or loves him.

Jimmy Stewart wasn't always a bloke to stick his neck out on your behalf btw, according to one autobio from, hmmm can't recall the name now, actress who had run ins with John Ford a lot, was Spitfire opposite Errol Flynn.

[–] momurr43 9 years ago

I think you mean Maureen O'Hara. (She was 95 on 17 August.) Worked with James Stewart and Errol Flynn and John Ford. And with Hitchcock, on "Jamaica Inn"(1939). An early Hitchcock flop, it must be due any day now for reassessment as The Greatest Film Ever Made.

(Maureen's luck improved when her mentor Charles Laughton, who was also in "Jamaica Inn", took her to the US in 1939 to work with him on "The Hunchback of Notre Dame".)

[–] da355 11 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFsuc_M_3E

This is why we see her write the letter.

[–] vbshane 11 years ago

By revealing the secret both Scotty and judy's conundrum come to the front. Your sugestion would lead to a lack of development on Judy's character.

and watch it again. There's a famous saying on Vertigo.
"you haven't seen Vertigo until you've seen it again"

This just might be my masterpiece....

[–] Earl-Janoth 11 years ago

I didn't really feel there was a conundrum. Besides which, they really didn't develop the character of Judy at all, I didn't feel. They just subjected her to being turned into Madeleine by Scotty - which would have been far more twisted if we didn't know her secret.

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 10 years ago

I think the fact that Judy hangs around even when Scottie finds her is development. She clearly loves him and/or she's a but wacko to think she'd be happy. That's a bit more relatable, as it's presented in the film, than finding out near the end, as if it would't be fairly obvious to the audience anyway. But if that was the climactic twist you'd be thinking, it wouldn't make as much sense but perhaps seem gratuitous.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority -Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.

[–] Earl-Janoth 11 years ago

I watched this again for the first time in years and I adore it.

Although, I'm going to have to agree with you about the letter and flashback. The thing is -- it just isn't necessary. He figures it out by the end anyway and describes it. Maybe Judy's flashback could have been cut in there, in splices, but ultimately where it is in the film, it just isn't needed.

[–] jon5000_66 11 years ago

I don't exactly disagree. Of course, I felt this way too after seeing it for the first time. It was very daring of Hitchcock to give the "mystery" away in the middle, and he was very disappointed at the lukewarm reception of the movie, which is probably at least partly due to this unconventional mid-point unraveling. But, as has been stated in many other places, the giveaway changes the focus of the movie, and I think this is one of the things which has led to VERTIGO's reappraisal and veneration over the years. And now I love it just as it is - but I think it would have been just as good if the mystery weren't given away, though not as mysterious.

"It's as if God created the Devil...and gave him...JAWS"

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

To understand why Hitchcock wanted to do it the way he did, you have to understand the difference between mystery (withholding information from the audience) and suspense (audience knows something, character doesn't know it, character's actions have meaning that is deeper and more significant for the audience than for the character at the time the character acts). Take a look at Truffaut's book-length interview with Hitchcock sometime.

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

Exactly right, imo. Hitch was the master of suspense not mystery like, say, Agatha Christie.

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

Intentionally so, too, according to himself. (I know you know that -- I'm just saying, for the thread.)