Classic Film : "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

"VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

So...did Elster literally get away with murdering his wife Madeline?
It seems so, especially when Judy died and couldn't testify against him.
Back in 1958, forensic science was not that far advanced, and neither was surveillance and tracking equipment.
If Elster fled the country, it would have been next to impossible to find him.

This is in direct opposition to the Production Code's mandate that "the sinner must pay".
Granted, the Code wasn't as strong as it was when it was first incorporated, but still, this couldn't have passed its notice.

Of course, I want to think that the killer was eventually brought to justice, but I wish I could have seen that in this movie.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Well, the film leaves open whether Elster pays or not. When the film was about to be released, the studio got concerns from Europe, of all places. European distributors were worried about no justice for Gavin Elster.

So, Paramount told Hitchcock to fix it. He got Jimmy Stewart and Barbara Bel Geddes back together and shot an 80 sec epilog. Neither Stewart or Bel Geddes speak...but see it for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJBSSkn0Ldw

Hitch showed the clip around, got approval, then shipped all the prints without it. As far as I know, it was not seen again until the DVD era.

At least, that is the story that I read somewhere. I own a shelf of Hitchcock books and tried to find the anecdote where I thought I might find it: either McGilligan's biography or Dan Auiler's "Vertigo" The Making of a Hitchcock Classic." Right at the moment, though, I can't cite a source for the epilog story. However, we do know that it does exist and was never attached to the film.

mf

Trust me. I'm The Doctor.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Wow, that was really something. I often wondered if Elster would pay the price. That was enough said without one word of dialogue. Vertigo is my favorite Hitchcock film. Very dark, and almost trance like in its ability for us to see how Scotty, tiptoes on the verge of total insanity.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

This little epilogue which was never in the final print reminds me of one of Hitchcock's droll commentaries at the end of each of his TV episodes of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents".

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

I know, this bothered me too -- one of innumerable plot holes in this overrated movie.

I never understood why Judy had to die. She didn't murder the wife and her death seems contrived and unduly harsh. But it's exactly the issue you pointed out -- her inability to testify against Eisner -- that is such a bad plot development.

Scotty's testimony alone wouldn't be conclusive. What evidence had he? None. In fact, all he had was Judy's word, and once she was dead, there was no proof of the plot. The fact that he had been in a mental hospital for a year and that after that had been obsessively re-making Judy into Madeleine -- all of which would be established in any investigation -- would have made his credibility zero, even discounting the lack of any proof of Eisner's plot. They'd think he was just reliving the first incident and was now responsible for another death.

They could certainly have located Eisner even if he were in Europe. Forensic science isn't required to find a living person -- all you need is Interpol, local police agencies or a good detective. Besides, Eisner had a lot of money and lived the good life -- he wouldn't exactly disappear without a trace. Far from being next to impossible, finding him should be relatively straightforward and not too difficult. Even so, without a direct witness or any proof, he'd have little to worry about legally.

But before worrying about nabbing Eisner, go back to some of the fallacies in his plan. The most glaring are his two key assumptions: first, that Scotty wouldn't be able to make it all the way up the stairs in the tower, and therefore wouldn't find him about to toss his wife's body out the opening; and second, that Scotty would conveniently not only go into shock but leave the scene without seeing or identifying the body. How could he possibly be sure Scotty would take both those actions, so absolutely critical to his plan working? Of course, he couldn't, especially the second. Conceivably he might take the risk of Scotty not making it to the top of the tower -- though remember, this would not only have to be the case before the body falls, but afterward, in case Scotty for some reason was able to make it to the top, even if too late. But the notion that he'd drive away without looking at the body, in which case he would have instantly realized he'd been set up, is crazy and unforeseeable -- at best a wildly optimistic, highly unlikely, extraordinarily dangerous gamble.

And forget about Scotty -- Eisner had to gamble that no one in the entire mission, and none of the police called to the scene, would bother to go up to the top of the tower, where he and Judy were hiding out. To get away with the murder the pair would have to wait for hours until all the investigators left and all the mission staff had departed or were asleep before they could go down, all the time hoping no one would come up to look at what was the scene of a supposed suicide. (Madeleine told Scotty this is what they did.) This is as preposterous as expecting Scotty to behave in the only way that could make the scheme work.

And of course he'd have to assume that Scotty would become obsessed with "Madeleine" and thereby become even more helpless in a crisis. The whole scheme was utterly ridiculous, needlessly and dangerously elaborate, and dependent on Scotty and others beyond his control acting exactly as they had to in order for him to get away with it. And why not force Judy to leave San Francisco after the murder? It's not that big a city and the chances were very high that sooner or later she and Scotty would run into one another. That seems a pretty elementary precaution.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Vertigo at heart isn't a murder mystery, it is a romance (extraordinary love affair). It is a cautionary tale but what it cautions against is obsession - Scotty's unhealthy obsession has no reward, he is left double the lost he was before trying to rekindle the flame. Judy dying in the end exactly the way she does is the perfect ending. Absolutely perfect. With any other ending I might not have to be as fond of the film.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

I mentioned forensic science because, today, it would have pinpointed exactly how Madeline died, and eventually ascertain that she was murdered.
And then, the investigation would have continued, eventually cornering and apprehending Elster, even without any aid from Scottie.

But in 1958, forensics were not as advanced as they are today, pretty much allowing Elster to get away with murder.
And that's what bothers me about this movie.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Yes, in that sense, you may be right, although you may be underestimating the capabilities even of 1958 forensics.

I formed the opinion from the film that Eisner had killed his wife only after getting her up in the tower. This isn't stated explicitly but in confessing to Scotty what happened it seemed to me Judy was implying that the actual murder occurred in the tower just a short time before. This would make sense, as it would have been exceedingly awkward (if nothing else) for Eisner to have lugged a dead body out of his car, across the grounds, into the chapel and up the tower stairs. This would also tie in with the fact that Eisner couldn't logically have risked being up there for hours on end with either a body or a wife whom he presumably had to subdue in some fashion to prevent her from escaping before he killed her. Here too, for this ridiculous scheme to work he could not have been up there long (but how he managed such good timing is another plot issue).

Anyway, if Madeleine hadn't been dead very long before Eisner tossed her body out the window (say, maybe half an hour), then an autopsy would probably not have picked up on such a slight time discrepancy. You're right that an M.E. might also not have noticed any difference between how Madeleine's neck was actually broken vs. how it was supposed to have been broken (i.e., by the fall). But this may be due less to the state of forensic science than having a moderately-qualified medical examiner (after all, this was a rural county, where such officials wouldn't likely be the best in their trade) making an examination knowing that the woman had plunged from a great height. In such cases he might be subconsciously predisposed to see what he expects to see and not look closely for any nuances in her death.

Even so, had Madeleine's death been called a homicide, there might not be any evidence to tie Eisner to it. Obviously he'd be a suspect, but Scotty might as easily be accused too. Judy was the key to revealing Eisner's plot, and once she was gone, without physical evidence Eisner would likely go uncharged, even if the police suspected him. But John Ferguson wouldn't necessarily have gotten off "Scot" free either.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Discussions such as this are always fascinating, as much for what gets overlooked as for what's being dissected. They hinge at a basic level upon assumptions and expectations about cinematic narratives to which we've long become conditioned, but which are arbitrary at their core.

Just as elements of film language - fade-out/in or dissolve to denote the passage of time; cuts to focus attention or alter points of view, for instance - have been absorbed through exposure thereto, we've been "educated" to expect plausibility and logic from drama that isn't necessarily demanded from comedy. We don't downgrade an evaluation of a Laurel & Hardy film because Ollie's neck couldn't actually be stretched to three feet, Stan's body couldn't balloon to twice its size from drinking the contents of a rain barrel and blood transfusions couldn't bring about their exchange of personalities. We accept absurdity in a comedy if it's funny, but not from a drama if it isn't. Just the same, we'll suspend disbelief and accept supernatural creatures and events not only in out-and-out fantasy, but in contexts otherwise recognizable as "real world" in any number of horror or sci-fi films.

But why should that be the case?

Even as Dali, Bunuel and Antonioni broke such arbitrary rules in their experiments with narrative form, Hitchcock took his own tack in the goal of generating emotional responses, much as the designers of amusement park thrill rides will. We know we're not in any danger when we board the roller coaster (or most of us would never do so), but we scream in delighted terror nevertheless. We don't question it afterward; we just go on to the next thrill ride.

Hitchcock employed only what was deemed necessary to draw the viewer into the narrative at an emotional, rather than intellectual, level, and cared not a whit for what he called "driving home questions." He was interested only in making viewers gasp, cringe or scream for the duration of the "ride." And the sort of post-viewing analysis that he so enjoyed and encouraged was concerned only with the cinematic mechanics of achieving those reactions during the 90, 120 or however many minutes it lasted.

That's not to say his dramatic constructions never made sense; they did when it was convenient to his purposes, but he was always willing to sacrifice the plausible when the merely possible, no matter how unlikely, could serve. Who's to say that approach is any less artistically valid than any other, any more than Vermeer's or Sargent's realism were more so than Seurat's pointillism or Picasso's cubism? Somewhere therein may lie the unique and enduring appeal of Hitchcock's films. He followed "the rules" when when they worked for him, and ignored them when they didn't.

And in the end, are Elster's (not "Eisner's") gambles any less long-shot than the schemes of Nicole and Michel in Diabolique or Paul/Anton in Gaslight(s), which remain compelling and enduring dramas in spite of the "unforeseeable" circumstances on which they depend?

Understand, this is all intended more in the nature of exploration or thought experiment than sales pitch, and represents questions rather than answers. And, perhaps, an observation or two about what funny and inconsistent creatures we humans are when it comes to what, in the words of many a drawing room comedy, just isn't done, old boy.



Poe! You are...avenged!

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Yes, Dog: (Michael) Eisner was a CEO of Walt Disney Productions when it turned out such great movies as THE LITTLE MERMAID, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and THE LION KING.

I don't remember for sure--wasn't he ousted due to some financial laundering, or something like that?

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

There's another possibility, hob.

Elster might have murdered Madeline the day before, and then schlepped her body to the mission in the middle of the night, waiting for Judy to arrive at the bell tower.
The movie never said if the mission gate was locked at night.

I don't know how long rigor mortis lasts, but eventually, a body would "thaw out", making it easier to make her death appear to be suicide.
However, modern forensics would have pinpointed the time of death accurately, leading to an extensive investigation.
Who knows, maybe that investigation could have led to Elster as his wife's killer.

The movie also doesn't say how long Elster and Scottie knew each other, so Elster might have been confident in knowing that Scottie's vertigo would prevent him from going all the way up.
It was a gamble, but one that Elster was quite willing to take.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Yes....because Scottie wouldn't testify against him anyway, since he would see himself as guilty of murder as Elster was. They both ended up killing a woman, and
although Elster's motives were more cold-blooded and his murder more premeditated,
while Judy's death, on the surface, was more accidental, Scottie would never be able to rationalize what happened, and he would see himself as morally guilty of murder, if not legally so. Since his actions also effectively wiped out the possibility of bringing Elster to justice, he might even consider himself culpaple in both womens' deaths. The last shot of him standing just outside the tower window with his arms out in a kind of supplication almost suggest that he might
have ended up throwing himself out of the tower himself in grief and guilt.

I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

Hewwo.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Back in the early '70s, before Leonard Maltin just about cornered the market on movie guides, one of the first I owned gave "Vertigo" its highest five-star rating but began its review with "'Vertigo' makes no sense at all..." but goes on to call it a dazzling display of the film director's art.

Most "plot hole" discussions of this masterpiece are totally beside the point. The "plot" is not what the movie is about.

I was thrilled over (and totally agree with) the most recent Sight and Sound/BFI survey that named "Vertigo" as the Greatest Film Ever.

And, no, "Vertigo" is NOT "overrated."

mf

Trust me. I'm The Doctor.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT


Most "plot hole" discussions of this masterpiece are totally beside the point. The "plot" is not what the movie is about.


I agree, "plot" as such isn't what the movie is about. In fact, most movies aren't "about" their plots -- the plot is merely the means of expressing or conveying what the film is about. That observation hardly applies solely to Vertigo.

But no plot is "beside the point". That's absurd. Without the plot to drive the narrative there is no film, and no point to be made. Any aspect of any film is integral to that film and as such is subject to comment. One can get carried away praising Vertigo as a masterpiece or anything one wishes but that doesn't somehow remove it, or any aspect of it, from the realm of criticism, or make such criticism irrelevant.


I was thrilled over (and totally agree with) the most recent Sight and Sound/BFI survey that named "Vertigo" as the Greatest Film Ever.

And, no, "Vertigo" is NOT "overrated."


I'm glad you were "thrilled" when Sight & Sound named Vertigo the greatest film ever made. I don't know how one can possibly make such an assessment about any film, or for that matter even determine what "greatest" even means in this context (according to what criteria?); and since such assessments continually change they have little intrinsic worth anyway. The S&S poll is just one of scores of film surveys and opinion samples, and like all such surveys is simply a mix of several hundred personal opinions from a limited selection of self-anointed experts, not some grand cosmic certitude. There is nothing inherently more "valid" about its survey than anyone else's except what certain people care to invest it with, which in turn reflects their own biases.

Still, everyone has a right to their opinion, and it's your right to echo the S&S majority opinion and deem this "the greatest" film in the history of mankind. Similarly, anyone else has the right to a contrary view. We may not agree with a different opinion but it should command respect. The S&S poll, and the like beliefs of those who agree with it, were not brought down from Mount Sinai.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Does the AFI still consider CITIZEN KANE the greatest film ever made?

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT


We may not agree with a different opinion but it should command respect.


Not if you tell me I've made a mistake by "overrating" it. How can you talk about respecting others' opinions when you are telling them, at the same time, that they got it wrong?

mf

Trust me. I'm The Doctor.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

An alternate spoiler (my own, just an opinion):

Agreeing with tmaj48. Scotty will never get the chance to testify, because the last shot is of him on the ledge, arms outstretched. Eight more seconds and -- he jumps to his death.
Jimmy as 'George Bailey' didn't get the chance. But Hitchcock did not give Scotty any 'Clarence' to save him.


Take 'em to Missouri

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Check out the link on an earlier post.
There WAS additional footage at the end, but it wasn't included in the final print.
I hope there eventually be a revised version of this film, including those last few minutes.

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT


So...did Elster literally get away with murdering his wife Madeline?


If the movie did not answer that question then the question does not matter.

Could we please keep in mind the title of the film?

jj

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Your "logic" is deeply flawed.
Why wouldn't the question matter??

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

Because it's a question that you're imposing on the film.

jj

guess so—but the TIMING in this show is impossible

How long did Elster have to hold that darned dead woman's body up in the Church tower that day?
How did he and Kim Novak coordinate the times without cell phones?

This is what infuriates me with this movie.

Anyway, Elster hints earlier in the film that he's going to take off for Europe with the money he will inherit, and I guess he gets on the first plane out, while poor Jimmy Stewart (playing the stupiest cop-detective of all time), languishes in a mental hospital.

"We will bury you"-NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV

Re: "VERTIGO"-SPOILER ALERT

I always think of this film as more of a romance movie with Stewart getting totally spooked and upset when he finds out that the first death never actually happened at all.
As far a the greatest film in Hitcocks history, that is tough as PSYCHO, REAR WINDOW, DIAL M FOR MURDER, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, and THE BIRDS could all be considered Hitchcocks top film.

The special thing about Vertigo is Stewart, and even Jimmy has a lot of great films that are at least on a level that this one is on. The romance is what is brillant here, with Bel Geddes as the one he always comes back to and Novak as the woman he desires but can never quite get too.

As for the greatest romance movie ever made, I'd vote for Casablanca. While the film is about spies and Nazi threats, this one is perhaps the most cerebral romance film ever made. The ending is nothing short of brillant, and it was only an assembly line film at Warner Brothers, it was not upposed to be special. Hitchcock was on a major winning streak when Vertigo was made, and had anything he wanted at Universal. I vote Psycho as Hitchcocks best because it is the lowest budget movie he ever made, brillant, and was done as a summer vacation project by his television show crew. Like Casablanca, it was not a major big budget film.

A Smile is priceless and Can Be Addicting
Top