It’s been a long time between blogs for me! This Moofie club was hosted at Renny’s and my place up near Winterfell. Just a small group of six this time to review the new ‘fleck-flick Gone Girl and also the Hitchcock master work, Vertigo. First up is Vertigo…
Even after more than 50 years, Vertigo is remarkably densely layered, rich in texture, character and intensity.
John ‘Scottie’ Ferguson (James Stewart) is a San Francisco police detective, recently forced into retirement after suffering from acrophobia (aka ‘vertigo’ on the job). He is recruited by an old college friend, Gavin to ‘watch his wife’ who he suspects is being possessed by the spirit of Carlotta Valdes, a tormented figure long dead many years ago.
He reluctantly accepts and spends days following the elegant but distant Madeleine (Kim Novak) who seems to wonder, seemingly in a possessed daze around the landmarks of San Francisco. Her ‘possession’ disturbs and intrigues him. When Madeleine throws herself one day into San Francisco bay seemingly under the possession of Carlotta, Scottie pulls her from the water and brings her to his home. This direct contact stokes his growing infatuation for Madeleine. Since they are both aimless and spend their days without occupation, they start to wonder around the city together visiting ancient forests, rapidly falling for each other. She fears her haunted spirit will drive her to insanity or suicide. Scottie wants to save her from her fate. The atmosphere is eerie and their romance is steeped in desperation and fatalism.
One of Madeleine’s visions is of a spanish church. When Scottie realises that her vision is in fact a real place, Scottie decides to take her there to prove to her that she is not delusional. When they arrive however, Madeleine, again seemingly possessed climbs the church tower and falls from the top killing herself. Scottie suffering from vertigo cannot climb the tower to save her. Scottie is devastated.
One day, he sees a woman on the city streets, Judy, who looks uncannily like Madeleine. He follows her home, invites himself in and convinces her to go to dinner with him. At this point the story changes. We discover that things are not what they seem. Madeleine, and her ‘possession’ by Carlotta was all a ruse by Gavin so that he may be rid of his real wife. The plan was meticulously constructed by Gavin to induce Scottie to ‘witness’ the fall from the church tower and testify to the world of Madeleine’s ‘suicide’. Judy was used to act the part of Madeleine and seduce Scottie. Scottie was selected by Gavin because of his vertigo, knowing that Scottie would never make it up the church tower to discover the truth.
Unplanned was Judy also falling for Scottie. By this stage however Scottie is haunted by the vision of Madeleine. He tries to rebuild Judy in Madeleine’s image, forcing Judy to wear Madeleine’s clothes and turn her hair blonde, wearing it like Madeleine’s. It is inevitable that Judy cannot keep her role in the ruse secret forever and when Scottie finally realises the truth, his wounds reopen and becomes deeply vengeful. He drags Judy back to the church tower for a confrontation with the truth, but Judy slips and falls to her death. Scottie is left to once again relive the loss of his love in the same circumstances.
While the story line seems convoluted and far-fetched, the film unfurled itself in such a mesmerising way that most of us were willing to suspend our critical eye for realism and logic flaws (I am certain Club Moofie members have panned films in the past for lesser flaws than in Vertigo!). For most Club Moofie members, we were spellbound by the supernatural atmosphere and the mastery of the storytelling. The depth of the characters were as rich and layered as can be seen in film, even now. The slow inevitability of their fates are like something from classic greek tragedy.
The cinematography was expertly done. Some of the onsite shots of San Franscisco make for unforgettable imagery. eg. the scene with Madeleine throwing herself into the water at the foot of the Golden Gate bridge is iconic. The use of bold colours and extreme closeups is distinctly ‘Hitchcock-ian’ – a deliberate psychological manipulation of the audience’s subconscience (eg. the luxurious red of Madeleine’s opening profile shot at Ernie’s restaurant screams eroticism; the neon-green of Judy’s profile as she transforms into Madeleine has a somewhat sickly feel). You know that Hitchcock is manipulating you, and yet you allow it to happen. The first ever use of the dolly-zoom effect is another example of imagery which has transcended into wider culture (once it makes it onto the Simpsons, you know its made the leap!).
The first phase of the film – the story of Scottie, Madeleine and her possession by Carlotta was a captivating tour-de-force in storytelling, even with our more critical members. Some of our members did feel however that the second half of the film (where Judy appears) lost some of the intensity of the first. The abruptness of the ending was also questioned. The score was distinctive and mostly liked, although some of our members again felt it was intrusive – distracting rather than suportive to the emotions of the film. These however are mostly minor complaints in an otherwise expertly constructed film.
In past Club Moofie quotes, the comment ‘seems a bit dated’ or ‘does not age well’ is fairly regularly applied to older films – Vertigo is an example of the opposite. It is a film that could be released for the first time today and it would still be brilliant, challenging, and considered innovative. In my opinion, Vertigo is one of the shining examples of film at its very best. Mesmerising and so unique. It is Hitchcock at his shining best.
Scores:
- Jodi 4
- Paul 4
- Wendy: 5
- Sylvia: 5
- Andy: 4.5
- Renny: 3
- CJ: 4.5
- Anthony: 5
Memorable Quotes:
Pauls comments:
The oldest movie I’ve ever seen in a cinema, and my first cinema Hitchcock too! They certainly don’t make them like they used to, and I wish they did. I loved the score throughout.
Sylvia: Andy and I saw it last year and realised, “Oh, this is quite weird. We didn’t realise how weird it actually was“
Sylvia: Clever writing, acting, setting was fantastic, has that ‘oddness’ or creepiness
Sylvia: The full close ups of faces is so effective..
Anthony: the colours too
Sylvia: I really enjoyed it. so complicated, each character had their own issues. They weren’t simplistic characters
Wendy: Beautiful costumes
On the ending:
Anthony: the very theatrical ending. It just ends, curtains down, the end
Andy on the abrupt ending: it goes.. de.. de.. de.. AHH!!!.. ugh… <i.e: arrive – up the stairs – top of church tower – big fall – dead!>
Andy on Scottie at the end: he’ll be back listening to Mozart in the blue room
Wendy: I thought it was a masterpiece. I don’t know how he put it all together
Wendy: the creepy Carlotta story was like ‘wow’… it really kept me in.
Wendy: I’m glad I watched it a second time, as an adult
Renny: I was really into that first part and then the twist came, but it was almost like a whole other movie started, and I wasn’t into that story as much.
Renny: I’m not sure I came out of that thinking I loved it
Renny disapproving: the way that Hitchcock portrays his women…
Sylvia: the dream sequence was quite dated
Andy: but I still loved it
Sylvia to Wendy: how did you feel about the depiction of psychlogists?
Wendy: not happy
Renny: How is she ok with sitting in a strangers bed with no clothes on?
CJ: Oh she is a bit weird about it, but what else is she supposed to do?
Renny: you wouldn’t want to stick around in the same city, scene of the crime
Sylvia and Andy together: yeah but then you wouldn’t have a movie
Andy: I don’t believe she loved him, this crotchety old stick insect <Jimmy Stewart>. Just because he followed her around and fell into the bay. I don’t buy that she really fell in love with this guy
—-
A socially privileged woman, Amy, in the American midwest goes missing and the repercussions and suspicions of the husband, Nick (by the community) which come after it are portrayed. As the story widens, the twisted relationship between husband and wife is slowly revealed through voice overs and flash backs, as well as by following the husband, the police, and eventually ‘the girl’ herself.
The film starts well as the issues in their complex relationship are uncovered. It also touches on the distortion the news media puts on peoples perceptions, particularly the American style right-wing current affairs show format. The film quite skillfully sucks you into the dark and twisted world of the couple and the people and community around them. The viewer is tense and uncertain and naturally starts by sympathising with Amy, while being suspicious of Nick. However as we reach the first-quarter point we sense that all is not what it seems (we know it’s coming but it is done quite well).
An intricate web has been weaved by Amy to frame Nick for her murder. The lengths she would go for her deception are extreme to say the least, and a bit of a stretch. Amy’s motivations also seem extreme – we can understand Amy being resentful for how her life has turned out with the lazy and unfaithful Nick, but her response seems overly complicated, even for sociopaths. The film already starts to lose some of the audience at this point and as the twists continue to unfurl, more and more are lost.
Amy’s return to Nick was too hard for me to accept as plausible. I haven’t read the book and I presume the inner workings of why this should work are better explained there. As the story is told in this film I just cannot accept why this would be the best direction for Amy to take in her life at this point!
Complex characters are created and with them, it had the potential to explore some really interesting gender issues in modern marriage. But from halfway onwards I felt that potential ebbing away. By the time we get to Doogie Howser’s ..ahem.. ‘red wedding’, all hope for a good recovery is gone. I was stunned walking out of the cinema but not for the right reasons.
The film is adroitly done technically. Visually stylish and beautiful, and the score is good, creating mood and otherwise not distracting. The storyline is based on a probably very interesting book, but its transition to film may be flawed. It needed to be done better than this in order to make the second half work properly.
Scores:
- Anthony 4
- Wendy 2
- Sylvia 0
- Andy 3
- CJ 3.5
- Renny: 2.5
- Paul 4
Memorable Quotes:
Anthony summarises: Very engaging. Initially I thought it was just another mysogynistic thriller but it became very confusing and compelling. Almost believeable. Definitely a nasty movie.
Paul: I’m a huge Fincher fan. I had several people ask me ‘have you seen gone girl yet?? I won’t tell you anything about it’, and it had me expecting something hugely surprising/shocking. On a Fincher scale I expected that surprise to be really jaw dropping, but it wasn’t. It didn’t effect my overall thoughts on the movie though. I though it was well paced for a drama -thriller. I like the score from those dudes Fincher uses all the time now. I thought Pike was amazing, and Affleck solid. Neil Patrick Harris was perfect for mine as the creepy guy from Pike’s past. I also appreciated what I felt was a thread linking this and Vertigo, where the ‘reveal’ comes a little earlier in the piece.
Andy on why he chose it: because it was a thriller and it had Rosamund Pike in it, the bunny boiler
Wendy: It was sort of ‘borderline trashy’ for me. It was directed for the mainstream audience. The main message was ‘Marriage is Hell‘
Renny: It went way too far. She was too much of a psycho
Sylvia: The one scheme I though was remotely real was when the lawyer was throwing gummy bears at him
On the TV message and what it means, and Amy judging Nick’s ability to present a false persona on TV:
Wendy: <Amy was thinking upon seeing it> “Oh my god, he is up to my level now. I want him back“
Sylvia: It is a really really weird love, but that’s what crazy people do
Renny: If that’s what changed her mood, she must be really changeable
Sylvia: she’s loopy
Renny: There were slight similarities to Vertigo. When Desi says you need to dye your hair blonde too
Sylvia on the lengths Amy went to frame Nick: I think she has a lot of time on her hands
Sylvia on Ben Affleck: I thought he did it ‘alright’ but … I just didn’t like the whole film
On Rosamund Pike’s looks (we can be so catty sometimes!…):
CJ: She has dead eyes. Dead . shark . eyes
Wendy: she has an asymmetry in her eyes. Unusually large eyes. And not the same shape
Sylvia: she has a constant slightly surprised look on her face
Renny on a ‘missing’ poster of Rosamund Pike that she saw on the street not knowing it was film advertising: I thought, “Oh she actually looks really pretty“. I’m not saying missing people don’t usually look pretty but she looks really pretty
On the Cat:
Andy: I thought the cat was going to be important. The cat looks important. I wanted the cat to upload its thoughts into a message translator
Sylvia: the cat was the best part of the movie. The cat and the gummy bears
Sylvia: I didn’t feel like there was actually any chemistry between them at all.
CJ: It started off well and when I walked out of the cinema I was the most enthusiastic. But now that I think about it more, it’s dropping
Sylvia: There were holes in what she said. Even when she came back …there were holes!
CJ: This film got me to about 2/3rd of the way. but when she came back to Nick, and then she gets pregnant?,.. oh come on!
Andy: the sperm bank would be calling Sally Jessie Raphael
Andy: Sylvia couldn’t look at the Punch & Judy box
Sylvia to Andy: excuse me!, I saw “Seven“
—-
Well that’s it for now.
Another year has almost come to an end. The last Moofie club for 2014 is up next. In that session we will review Michael Apted’s lifelong documentary 56 Up and Anthony’s replacement selection, Zabrieskie Point.
Next session is also the annual Moofie Moscars for 2014 where we will review the year in moofies, award each other prizes and medals, and indulge in sweeties and nice food. The proceeds of which will be documented in full next time. So until then keep well and in the words of David Stratton – so long folks!
cj