Comments on: Vertigo assignment

By: ssaeed

ssaeed — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:05:56 +0000

Wow Abigail, that is a very valid argument. The audience can be persuaded in any direction and be directed into believing whatever the director wants them so. Pointing it out with the movie Sixth Sense does make it more obvious that the audience can be oblivious to certain clues handed to us. I also agree with the point that even if the audiences knew that Judy and Madeleine were played the same actress….resemble each other. The audiences can be persuaded anyway that Hitchcock wanted to and he chose to reveal it to the audience in the middle, which gave the audience the upper hand.

By: Abigail Hoffman

Abigail Hoffman — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:40:48 +0000

In response to Jesse and Audrey’s conversation about insulting the viewer’s intelligence, I have to bring up one of my favorite movies: the Sixth Sense.

*SPOILER ALERT*
If you do not want to learn the ending of the Sixth Sense, read no further.

In the Sixth Sense, the viwer finds out in the last scene that Bruce Willis is actually dead. He died in the first scene. The filmmaker’s watched the movie and thought, “We have so many clues. How will we ever fool the audiences into believing he is alive?”
Yes, there are certain people who claim they knew he was dead when he was Haley Joel Osment told him in the hospital room, “Some ghosts don’t even know they’re dead. They walk around like normal people.”
But most people bought it, and most people were completely shocked to find out that he had been dead.

So, bringing this back to Vertigo, I think that (had he wanted to) Hitchcock could have fooled audiences into thinking that Judy and Madeleine were different people. Sure there would be a few that would watch it and say, “It’s the same actress. She’s the same person.” But if the film did not emphasize this, then audiences could have been tricked until the last moment. (Personally, I thought they did a great job dressing down Kim Novak for the role of Judy. Her hair and make-up were so different I questioned whether it was the same actress or not.) And even if audiences knew that Judy and Madeleine were played by the same actress, they could have assumed that Hitchcock did this on purpose because he wanted the characters to resemble each other.

By: mkashizadeh

mkashizadeh — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:42:18 +0000

It is interesting to read the different opinions; however, I still believe that Hitchcock was successful in his attempt to use dramatic irony (thanks for the word kim..i couldnt remever it). Dramatic irony has been used for my years by directors in order to captivate the audience’s attention, and if Hitchcock had not chosen his unique ending, he would not have had the opportunity to captivate the audience’s attention as he did.
I was sitting next to a man who was definitely a HUGE Hitchcock fan considering that he had some of the lines of the movie memorized, and this man, who had obviously seen the movie before, was even kept at the edge of his chair when Hitchcock used dramatic irony.

-Melissa Kashizadeh

By: Maha

Maha — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:39:43 +0000

After reading everyone’s really valid arguments for both sides, I have become very confused myself as to whether Hitchcock made the right choice or not. But I do have an inclination toward one view while I understanding the other.

Although it makes sense to say that the twist is best to see at the end,
It was definitely fascinating to watch Scottie trying to figure out why Judy and Madeleine looked so similar and it emphasized the complexity and confusion audiences could have been feeling of the murder situation as a whole. Plus, Hitchcock’s way of letting the viewer in on the secret was entirely unique and gave the audience so much more to work with such as the suspense of waiting for Scottie to go about discovering the secret plot and the mystery of how “Judy” would react to Scottie’s psychological trauma for losing Madeleine. This took the plot to an entirely new and elevated level, which to me, was not boring in the least bit.

Thus, I say that Hitchcock’s plot in Vertigo should be left untouched the way it is.

By: athomas

athomas — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:07:20 +0000

Sonam, I only just read your comment now - it seems we agree! The early revelation disconnected us from both Scottie and Judy. It only became about Judy’s attempt to hide everything. I think your also right in that it took away from Scottie’s character. At the beginning he seemed like a really intelligent detective, but when we found out the truth before he did, we were waiting for so long for him to figure it out. He did not seem so smart anymore, because we were waiting for his detective skills to come into effect and his knowledge to catch up to ours. If we had both found out the secret at the same time, we as an audience would have felt the full effect of Judy/ Madeleine’s betrayal, and total sympathy for Scottie.

By: athomas

athomas — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:53:55 +0000

I agree with Jesse. Judy’s overall hesitation in being transformed into Madeleine would have made so much more sense had we not known that she was in fact Madeleine. With the way it was, I was also wondering why she was so against it, knowing that Scottie was in love only with the image she had created. The fault was entirely her own, and her resistance seemed to symbolize her reluctance to accept the blame for the trauma she had caused Scottie. I found I could not sympathize with her.

If Hitchcock had changed some of the scenes to hint that there was more to Judy (through her facial expressions - he seems to be very good at filming that) and not given away the secret so soon, I don’t think the film would have been boring. Reuven said it may have been confusing, but I think it would have really added to the mystery and eeriness of the movie, and have had resulted in an even more dramatic ending.

By: Sonam Sani

Sonam Sani — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:19:10 +0000

I also have to disagree with Sara’s earlier comment about how Judy’s reluctance to dress like Madeleine wouldn’t have made sense if the audience didn’t know her secret. Like Alyssa, I feel this would have made even more sense! It would pry into Scottie’s disturbed psychological and emotional state and the audience would truly feel for him..he would come off as a total maniac trying to revive his dead lover, and the audience would be able to sympathize with him as well as Judy.

By revealing the secret to the audience earlier, I think Hitchcock took away from the audience’s ability to relate to and sympathize with Scottie’s character. Judy’s reluctance to be dressed as Madeleine didn’t seem sympathetic anymore, I wasn’t even concerned for Scottie’s terrible loss and his disturbed emotional state after losing Madeleine…for me, it was all about Judy trying to cover up her murder plot, and it took away from Scottie’s character.

By: jleon

jleon — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:16:55 +0000

I have to disagree with you’re point that the audience would have been confused at the last tower scene if they didn’t know Judy’s identity. It seems to me that if a man has been trying to change you into his dead lover, and then takes you to a place and tells you thats where she died, you’d be a little more than freaked out, and probably resistant to putting yourself into the same situation she was in.
If i didn’t know Judy was Madeline, I would not have at all wondered why she was extra hesitant to go up the tower with Scottie, just as it would have been natural for her to be resistant to dressing up like Madeline for him. And since we did know who Judy was, it left me wondering why she was resistant at all, she knew about Scottie’s Vertigo and should have safely assumed (just as Elster did) that he couldn’t have made it up the tower anyway.

By: rmoshkovski

rmoshkovski — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:25:44 +0000

I felt that Hitchcock made the correct decision in revealing Judy’s real identity at that point in the movie. Truthfully, I thought that the whole first hour and a half was a little on the boring side. I mean the movie was a thriller so I accepted the fact that the beginning would be a little dull and sacrificed for a solid ending. But as soon as Judy’s real identity was revealed, that was the turning point for me and I was totally enveloped in the plot. I definetly agree with Melissa all the way back in the first comment that once you knew Judy’s real story, we were now very antsy to find out how Scottie would react in the end. In addition, some of the scenes in the movie just would not have worked if we did not know Judy’s identity. For example: the scene with the grey suit, the scene with the dieing of the hair blonde and finally in the last scene when Judy was hesitant to climb up the stairs. If Judy’s identity was not revealed these scenes would have just been too confusing to the audience and they might have lost interest. Still, had Hitchcock not revealed her identity, he could have changed some of the scenes to either hint to her identity or just spook us out and make it even more confusing.

As for the the pending issue of Midge, it did not really bother me so much. I mean once Scottie made it clear he had no interest in her the plot really moved and led up to the eventual confrontation between Scottie and Judy. At that point I think Midge’s character might have interrupted the flow of the movie, although I do concede that she was her character was a significant one in the overall story.

By: jbroome

jbroome — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:39:10 +0000

When Hitchcook is a genius! The movie was directed in a great manner. I liked the fact that I knew what was going on before the main character did. I wanted to see how James Stuart’s character would figure out the twist. I wanted to see if I figured out the twist correctly. Watching this movie was very exciting and I am glad Hitchcock did it that way.