|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 29, 2021 19:18:32 GMT
There’s a blog I still read from time to time, even though blogger Jaime Weinman hasn’t updated it since 2012 (!), just because Weinman has some great insights on movies, musicals, plays, TV shows, etc. One of his posts is on Bigger Than Life, but in passing he mentions “that plot point in Vertigo that is set up and never resolved.” Anyone have any guesses on what plot point that is? I can’t seem to figure it out. Someone asked the same thing in the comments section and Weinman never responded. My only guess is “Madeleine’s” (Kim Novak’s) seemingly impossible disappearance from the hotel, which is one piece of evidence for my half-formed notion that Vertigo may be a ghost story after all. But “plot point” seems to suggest something more major… Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Nov 2, 2021 19:27:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 2, 2021 19:35:35 GMT
Hey, thanks, teleadm . I did find that article, and despite the title the writers aren’t really listing plot holes, just points Hitchcock and the screenwriters choose not to explain. For example, they ask, “What happened to Midge? Did she and Scottie end up together?” That’s not a plot hole at all. |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Nov 4, 2021 4:18:49 GMT
I always thought a major plot hole was Judy putting on Carlotta's necklace, thereby giving herself away to Scottie. Just the idea that she would even keep the thing around as a memento of her scheme with Elster makes about as much sense as the older Rose in Titanic holding onto the necklace from her hated ex-fiance and then throwing it into the sea decades later. Women just don't hold onto jewelry from unhappy pasts.
Worse, Judy decides to wear it as if she's completely forgotten where it came from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Nov 4, 2021 15:04:08 GMT
I think the psychology of those gestures, marianne48, is deeper and more perverse. While the necklace may indeed be a reminder of an unhappy past (the murder in which she was involved), I'd say the stronger association for Judy is that of her love for Scottie. Although he is being accusatory and bitterly sarcastic when he tells her, "You shouldn't have been that sentimental," there's truth behind it. Both are people in the grip of compulsion. She first falls in love with the man she's supposed to be scamming, and when he discovers her again under her real identity, she's perfectly aware that allowing herself to become involved again is the riskiest path for her to take. And yet she does it anyway. She can't help herself. Likewise, Scottie knows that pursuing the ghost of a past love is unhealthy to his psyche. When he's making Judy over into the image of that ghost and she pleads, "What good will it do," he answers, "I don't know...no good." Realizing this, he proceeds just the same, and she - equally realizing it can lead almost certainly to unhappiness - goes along with it. My interpretation is that Judy, e ither consciously or subconsciously, wishes Scottie to know the full truth, in a desperate hope that he can finally unify the desire that is with the love that was.
And I thank you for raising the issue. I've always looked at Vertigo as, at its heart, the story of a man's twisted and guilt-ridden obsessions. It never before occurred to me that it's equally that of a woman's own obsessions. And that provides a resonant thematic connection which mirrors the feigned obsessions of Madeleine - with Carlotta and death - and the real ones of Judy: she and Scottie are really in the same boat.
I love it when these discussions open new insights into films with which we're so familiar. On the other hand, maybe you think I'm full of beans.
Sorry I don't have any answer to your query, Nalkarj. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 4, 2021 15:14:07 GMT
Thanks, marianne48 and Doghouse6! Marianne, I’m not sure—whether the psychology convinces or not—that’s a plot hole, though perhaps I’m not using the right definition of “plot hole”? I’m using the term to refer not to something that seems implausible, or even out-of-character, but to something that goes against the story’s own internal logic. By that definition I don’t think even Madeleine’s/Judy’s disappearance from the hotel is a plot hole, though others may disagree. Doghouse, wonderful thoughts, as always—and I think I agree. And no worries about not having an answer; from the way Weinman refers to “that plot point in Vertigo,” it sounds like some well-known plot hole, and I was just wondering if I were missing something famous. |
|
chaster
New Member
@chaster
Posts: 15
Likes: 3
|
Post by chaster on Nov 7, 2021 11:08:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Nov 8, 2021 3:29:44 GMT
Oops, yes there is a plot hole. Both Stewart and Helmore (Gavin) are in their forties and are old fraternity brothers. And Bel Geddes (Midge) is in her twenties went to college with them. There is no explanation for the age gap, though their ages are never mentioned, it’s obvious she would have been a small child when the two men went to college at the usual college age. The old master made a mistake over having a young, pretty woman on set rather than an older actress who should of had the part. I'd call that more of a casting miscalculation than a plot hole. And oddly, the difference in the actors' ages wasn't as great as one might think. Stewart was still 49 when the film was shot, and he looks older. Bel Geddes was already 35. So if we pad Midge's age by a few years, shave a few off of Scottie's, make her an honor student/grade-skipper who entered college at, say, 16 (my mother did) and make him a late bloomer who cast about for a time before higher education, you can get them overlapping, if not in the same class year. Tom Helmore's a bit more problematic: he was four years older than Stewart. But you know how Hollywood casting was during the golden age, and it never pays to give players' ages too much attention. That's how MGM cast 43-year-old Leslie Howard and 34-year-old Norma Shearer as Romeo and Juliet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Nov 8, 2021 3:43:25 GMT
I think the psychology of those gestures, marianne48 , is deeper and more perverse. While the necklace may indeed be a reminder of an unhappy past (the murder in which she was involved), I'd say the stronger association for Judy is that of her love for Scottie. Although he is being accusatory and bitterly sarcastic when he tells her, "You shouldn't have been that sentimental," there's truth behind it. Both are people in the grip of compulsion. She first falls in love with the man she's supposed to be scamming, and when he discovers her again under her real identity, she's perfectly aware that allowing herself to become involved again is the riskiest path for her to take. And yet she does it anyway. She can't help herself. Likewise, Scottie knows that pursuing the ghost of a past love is unhealthy to his psyche. When he's making Judy over into the image of that ghost and she pleads, "What good will it do," he answers, "I don't know...no good." Realizing this, he proceeds just the same, and she - equally realizing it can lead almost certainly to unhappiness - goes along with it. My interpretation is that Judy, e ither consciously or subconsciously, wishes Scottie to know the full truth, in a desperate hope that he can finally unify the desire that is with the love that was.
And I thank you for raising the issue. I've always looked at Vertigo as, at its heart, the story of a man's twisted and guilt-ridden obsessions. It never before occurred to me that it's equally that of a woman's own obsessions. And that provides a resonant thematic connection which mirrors the feigned obsessions of Madeleine - with Carlotta and death - and the real ones of Judy: she and Scottie are really in the same boat.
I love it when these discussions open new insights into films with which we're so familiar. On the other hand, maybe you think I'm full of beans.
Sorry I don't have any answer to your query, Nalkarj . I don’t get the impression she’s that in love with him. She lets herself get caught up in the romantic impersonation, but she’s also the murderer for cash. So, I think it’s more guilt and hope of Scottie redeeming her than romantic love. That's certainly one way to look at it, and we're each allowed our own interpretations and inferences. True, she's been paid to conspire in a murder, but that was something to which she'd agreed before she ever met Scottie. Was she originally a romantic fling of Elster's? The film gives no hint that I can recall. Either way, it calls a great deal into question about Judy's character. It's interesting that you bring up the matter of her guilt feelings, which is something to which the film gives no examination, leaving those of Scottie to take center stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Nov 9, 2021 3:33:49 GMT
That's certainly one way to look at it, and we're each allowed our own interpretations and inferences. True, she's been paid to conspire in a murder, but that was something to which she'd agreed before she ever met Scottie. Was she originally a romantic fling of Elster's? The film gives no hint that I can recall. Either way, it calls a great deal into question about Judy's character. It's interesting that you bring up the matter of her guilt feelings, which is something to which the film gives no examination, leaving those of Scottie to take center stage. Right. What we see in the entire film is told from Scottie’s head. I might be wrong, but I think Stewart is in every scene. Pretty much so. Hitchcock and Taylor departed from pure first-person narrative only twice in the film - ergo providing information of which Scottie's unaware - that I can remember: Midge's brief consultation with the psychiatrist, and Judy's recollection of the murder and her aborted confessional note.
|
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Nov 9, 2021 7:58:25 GMT
BEWARE OF PLOT HOLES!  |
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Nov 17, 2021 4:33:55 GMT
Another oft repeated "plot hole" which is, as described before, just something that goes unexplained, is that Gavin Elster seemingly gets away with his crime.
Some European distributors were disturbed by this and wanted a change of the ending. Hitch shot an additional scene which was approved but then he shipped the prints with the original ending which we all know intact.
If you have never seen that alternate ending, here it is:
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 23, 2021 20:01:18 GMT
A bit off base but some hate how Scottie is left dangling on the roof without any explanation regarding how he got down. I know my dad's actually one of those who don't like that aspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 23, 2021 20:01:55 GMT
BEWARE OF PLOT HOLES! I just now realized Judy's on the poster o.o |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Nov 23, 2021 22:25:20 GMT
A bit off base but some hate how Scottie is left dangling on the roof without any explanation regarding how he got down. I know my dad's actually one of those who don't like that aspect. He pulled himself up. Or someone else came along to pull him up. Or the Fire Dept. got there with a hook and ladder, or a net. Or however else anyone wants to explain it. Doesn't matter. When envisioning how any of these would have played out, consuming screen time better spent on something else. it's easy to see why Hitchcock and Taylor omitted it. It would only slow the narrative while adding nothing, and allows viewers to use their own imaginations...if they care at all. If it were something like a James Bond movie, then it would matter, because those films are about constantly showing how clever and resourceful the protagonist is and demonstrating Q gadgetry. But Vertigo's not about things like that . The only point is: he got down safely, but was left with the disabling trauma of the experience, and putting the mechanics of his escape onscreen would distract from the necessary emphasis upon those psychological effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 23, 2021 22:36:37 GMT
A bit off base but some hate how Scottie is left dangling on the roof without any explanation regarding how he got down. I know my dad's actually one of those who don't like that aspect. He pulled himself up. Or someone else came along to pull him up. Or the Fire Dept. got there with a hook and ladder, or a net. Or however else anyone wants to explain it. Doesn't matter. When envisioning how any of these would have played out, consuming screen time better spent on something else. it's easy to see why Hitchcock and Taylor omitted it. It would only slow the narrative while adding nothing, and allows viewers to use their own imaginations...if they care at all. If it were something like a James Bond movie, then it would matter, because those films are about constantly showing how clever and resourceful the protagonist is and demonstrating Q gadgetry. But Vertigo's not about things like that . The only point is: he got down safely, but was left with the disabling trauma of the experience, and putting the mechanics of his escape onscreen would distract from the necessary emphasis upon those psychological effects. Agreed I'm just merely pointing out that alot of subsequent discussions I have had with people regarding Vertigo pertains to them being hung up on that opening and that's kind of sad quite honestly. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Nov 23, 2021 23:22:40 GMT
He pulled himself up. Or someone else came along to pull him up. Or the Fire Dept. got there with a hook and ladder, or a net. Or however else anyone wants to explain it. Doesn't matter. When envisioning how any of these would have played out, consuming screen time better spent on something else. it's easy to see why Hitchcock and Taylor omitted it. It would only slow the narrative while adding nothing, and allows viewers to use their own imaginations...if they care at all. If it were something like a James Bond movie, then it would matter, because those films are about constantly showing how clever and resourceful the protagonist is and demonstrating Q gadgetry. But Vertigo's not about things like that . The only point is: he got down safely, but was left with the disabling trauma of the experience, and putting the mechanics of his escape onscreen would distract from the necessary emphasis upon those psychological effects. Agreed I'm just merely pointing out that alot of subsequent discussions I have had with people regarding Vertigo pertains to them being hung up on that opening and that's kind of sad quite honestly. I getcha. I tend to view conversations like those as opportunities to open someone up to appreciation of what a given film offers, in place of disappointment at what it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 24, 2021 1:11:12 GMT
Agreed I'm just merely pointing out that alot of subsequent discussions I have had with people regarding Vertigo pertains to them being hung up on that opening and that's kind of sad quite honestly. I getcha. I tend to view conversations like those as opportunities to open someone up to appreciation of what a given film offers, in place of disappointment at what it doesn't. For me I've given up on that with my dad lol he's way too bullish and objective as well. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 24, 2021 13:28:05 GMT
Agreed I'm just merely pointing out that alot of subsequent discussions I have had with people regarding Vertigo pertains to them being hung up on that opening and that's kind of sad quite honestly. I getcha. I tend to view conversations like those as opportunities to open someone up to appreciation of what a given film offers, in place of disappointment at what it doesn't. It's like when I attempted to really explain No COuntry for Old men's merits to both my classmates and my dad and they were not having it, it just feels like a waste of time as well. Why waste time when I appreciate both for what they are and enjoy both?. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Nov 24, 2021 18:41:38 GMT
I getcha. I tend to view conversations like those as opportunities to open someone up to appreciation of what a given film offers, in place of disappointment at what it doesn't. It's like when I attempted to really explain No COuntry for Old men's merits to both my classmates and my dad and they were not having it, it just feels like a waste of time as well. Why waste time when I appreciate both for what they are and enjoy both?. Yeah, it's true there are times when there's just no point. My late father and I found common ground on very little, and he generally felt movies were a waste of time. The only one I remember him ever sitting down to watch with me was a Betty Grable musical. When I was a kid, local stations would always run Holiday Inn and White Christmas in December. One year, he came through the room while I was watching Holiday Inn the day after seeing White Christmas on another channel. He asked, "Didn't you just watch this yesterday?" I explained they were two different films, and he said, "They've both got Bing Crosby and he's signing White Christmas. What's the difference?" There was one of those times.
|
|
