Thursday, July 10, 2008

BEHIND THE MOVIE: Hitchcock & "Vertigo"

I took a film class a few years ago, and we analyzed several movies over the course of the semester. I hope to post some of my (edited, so I won't spoil the story too much) thoughts in this space, via a series of BEHIND THE MOVIE posts that are more than a review; it will discuss the hidden meanings and message 'behind' the movies, and why the director may have done the things he did. First up? I felt "Vertigo" was appropriate because I have mentioned the movie several times on this blog already.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You shouldn't keep souvenirs of a killing. You shouldn't have been that sentimental.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alfred Hitchcock films often present themes dealing with the relationship among the villain, hero, and audience. In his 1958 psychological crime thriller, "Vertigo," these issues not only arise, but dominate the script. Former detective John “Scottie” Ferguson (James Stewart) becomes recruited by Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore) to investigate his wife Madeleine (Kim Novak), whom he thinks may be possessed by a spirit seeking revenge from the dead. The plot focuses on Scottie’s growing relationship with Madeleine, as he secretly follows her around San Francisco and discovers her mimicking the identity and actions of her great-grandmother, Carlotta Valdes. Madeleine soon learns to love the man who follows her, and Scottie reciprocates the feelings.

Although the psychological crime thriller is a common Hitchcock genre, "Vertigo" stands apart from his previous works with the construction of the hero versus the villain. Similar to what the name insinuates, "Vertigo" creates a dizzying, disoriented state of mind that blurs the role of the villain and hero until the final scene. Hitchcock persuades the audience to think they can classify hero from villain, when early on he devises a central character whose appearance, position within the composition, and actions are simply a framework to point the audience in the wrong direction. One of the first images the audience encounters is Scottie’s character helping an old friend, Gavin Elster, despite his pledge of retirement following a horrifying experience which left him suffering from acrophobia.

Quickly, this establishes Scottie as the primary hero of the film. He sets out to help Elster, and distinguishes himself as the protagonist attempting to aid in Madeleine’s mental recovery. Similarly, the ostensible villain is suggested through Hitchcock’s early intrinsic use of Madeleine’s figure as the dominant image within each composition. The audience comes to know Madeleine’s character simply through other people’s words, primarily Gavin, and her own actions, assumed to be seized by Carlotta.

Madeleine is being developed in such a way that the audience feels her humanity, yet is uncertain about the forces that control her. This Hitchcock guise for developing such a villain is not uncommon. What is unusual, however, is how he devises Madeleine into something which she is not: the villain. In many of Hitchcock’s other films, the villain has a clear role from beginning to end. The continuous reversal of hero and villain only serves to propagate the sense of confusion in this thriller, and ultimately shock the audience with its ending.

As the aforementioned stated, in many of his works Hitchcock constructs the villain so they possess qualities the audience may relate to, which evokes a sense of sympathy toward the very character who the viewer is traditionally taught to despise. He uses this construction to turn the initial distaste for the character into compassion, yet in "Vertigo," Hitchcock employs this technique to fool the audience into believing in the wrong villain.

In "Psycho," the audience has a certain compassion first for Marion Crane’s (Janet Leigh) criminal behavior, and then for villain Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), a known murderer. As Francois Truffaut said during an interview with Hitchcock, “the villains are human and even vulnerable. They’re frightening and yet we sense that they, too, are afraid.” It is rare to hear Norman’s opinion, and his isolation in the deserted Bates Motel sustains the belief his dreams are withheld by a domineering mother -- although he does not admit it directly.

Likewise, in Hitchcock’s 1946 "Notorious," Alex Sebastian (Claude Rains) serves as the villain whose marriage with Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman) ultimately hinders his own ambition as a Nazi. Alicia, a woman working for an American intelligence agency, helps to undermine Alex’s covert operations by obtaining valuable information. It could be considered that his emotions are also limited because he cannot receive full emotional reciprocation from Alicia, as she truly loves T.R. Devlin (Cary Grant).

"Vertigo’s" Madeleine is established as the villain, though not as directly as some other Hitchcock films. She does not steal money, nor is guilty of murder. With her fixation on, and apparent physical embodiment of Carlotta Valdes, Madeleine exudes an evil flair best demonstrated through stylistic clothing techniques and lighting changes. For example, her ugly, hallmark gray suit becomes a symbol of negativity when worn by a normally pretty blonde woman. Hitchcock’s lighting techniques work in a related manner. At the bookstore, when Scottie listens to the story of Madeleine’s great-grandmother, the scene diminishes into a darkness emphasized by high-contrast lighting. Such dark lighting immediately recedes once Scottie leaves the store. This technique could be taken as a foreboding clue to the evil nature of this great-grandmother. Once again, the villain is construed as a helpless victim whose own life excites a benevolent audience attitude. Madeleine apparently cannot function as a normal human would because an outside force prevents her from doing so.

The extreme long shot of Madeleine visiting the museum and cemetery allow the audience, and Scottie, to be kept at a safe distance from her. The sense of seeing Madeleine only from a distance gives her an air of mystery, intrigue, and a certain helplessness. She seems like a rather normal person visiting such places, but the cinematography and arrangement of her figure’s stiff, trance-like pose suggests otherwise. The audience knows they must focus on her as the object of attention among the mise-en-scène. Hence, when Madeleine earns the long, medium, or extreme closeup shot further into the film, this is significant.

The director does, however, still place the audience in the situation of possibly emphasizing with Scottie’s fear of heights through the cinematic technique of forward zoom and reverse tracking shot, a very innovative skill for the 1950s. As Scottie climbs the stairs of the bell tower during the last minutes of the film, his acrophobia hits an ultimate high. His point-of-view shot allows viewers to once again identify with his emotions and views of the situation at hand. In truth, this point-of-view reconnects the idea of Scottie as the hero simply through reestablishing his “innocence” in such a way. The spiral, dizzying affect of the stairs manipulates viewer perception that all facts are known. As the culminating act of the scene, Hitchcock finally reveals the flawed logic of the audience: that the villain is not always who they appear.

He insinuates that viewers should ponder the villain’s role along a narrative that focuses on the hero and the MacGuffin of Madeleine’s mental instability. As Truffaut explains, Hitchcock films often “center on an interchangeable killing, with one character who has committed the crime and another who might just as well have been guilty of it.” The fluctuating status of the villain simply puts the “psychological crime” in this thriller, leaving audience expectations radically hoodwinked.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Sorta Based on a True Story

I was looking at Cracked.com today for the first time, and discovered some of their posts interesting. One I found particularly appropriate to post here: "7 Movies Based on a True Story (That are Complete Bullshit)" by Jeff Kelly. The top picks?

#7 - The Pursuit of Happyness
#6 - 21
#5 - Lean on Me
#4 - Rudy
#3 - Victory (AKA Escape to Victory)
#2 - Good Morning, Vietnam
#1 - The Hurricane

These movies really were based on true stories, but Hollywood gave them a certain fictional twist to ensure their appeal to the masses. As if they are saying moviegoers aren't smart, strong enough, or even willing to watch a 'real-life' story from beginning to end, Hollywood has to implement changes that almost sensationalize any film today that comes remotely close to 'the harsh truth.'

Of course the common person is only looking to have a good time with a film, but who is to say that real-life events taken strictly from facts can't be enjoyed by the American public? I'm probably a bit biased with my journalism education, and I suppose strict fact in movies would fall into the 'documentary' genre in any case. Nonetheless, I do find it a bit misleading if movies claim to be 'Based on a True Story,' when, in truth, they mean 'Sorta Based on a True story.'

Movie Review in Brief:
The only movies I have actually seen on this list are "21" and "Rudy." I actually watched "21" at my first ever drive-in movie, and it did not live up to my expectations. Perhaps the fact that it was raining at the time didn't help either. Before I saw the film, I found the story compelling since I knew it was 'based on true story' of a young man who cashed in on a card-counting stint in Vegas. Ultimately, I thought they could have done so much more with the film. It was mediocre at best, and maybe best summarized with Kevin Spacey's disappointing performance. At least two people who were with me at the time, actually fell asleep.

Monday, July 7, 2008

"Keira Knightley is no Audrey Hepburn and this is a terrible idea"

Keira Knightley is no Audrey Hepburn and this is a terrible idea. I couldn't agree more. Apparently Knightley will star as Eliza Doolittle in the upcoming remake of the 1912 "My Fair Lady."

First, "My Fair Lady" does not need to be remade. Why ruin an already good thing? Don't get me started on the current Hollywood trend of remaking classic movies. Second, the only movie in which I did not find Keira overly annoying was as Elizabeth Bennett in "Pride & Prejudice." Maybe it's because I loved the classic story and was trying to ignore her lackluster acting abilities.

Has there ever been a remake better than an original film? I say that's hard to come by. I can't seem to think of anything offhand, although I did hear that the recent "The Hulk" is better than Ang Lee's version a few years ago.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

"The Birds" Barbie

I saw this on a Twitter feed this weekend: The Birds Barbie.

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. As part of the description:

"Real fake birds." Are they kidding? Sounds like a bit of an oxymoron to me.

"High-quality head looks scared and has awesome hair!" How do you make a head look scared? Maybe they meant to say she has a terrified expression on her face? No. No, that would still be untrue. She looks like she's only slightly disturbed.

Alfred Hitchcock is one of my favorite directors, and there is only one movie of his I've seen to date, that I haven't thoroughly enjoyed: The Skin Game. His The Birds is certainly a classic, and making a Barbie doll that I consider to be a mocking image of his film, is just ridiculous. What's next, Mattel? Fashioning a bloody figurine of Psycho's Marion Crane with "awesome real fake stab wounds?"

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Maybe not a Definite Flop

So, here goes. My first "movie review." I rented the movie, "Definitely, Maybe" starring Ryan Reynolds and Abigail Breslin. Although I think romantic comedies generally offer a predictable template of a plot, characters, and final dramatic ending (albeit amusing and fun to watch sometimes), I found this one to be slightly different.

Abigail Breslin stars as Maya Hayes, a little girl who wants her soon-to-be-divorced dad to tell her about the women of his past. So, we follow Will on a journey through his love life, a task he reluctantly undertakes to please his overly curious daughter. The catch, however, is that he changes the names of the women so Maya must try to guess which one is her mom. Kind of a cute game I guess.

I will say that the movie is a bit slow, but is carried along by the humorous naivety in contrast to some shockingly insightful remarks by Maya. She is one gifted child actress, first truly "discovered" in her claim to fame, "Little Miss Sunshine."

I know I'm not going into great detail here, so that must be proof in itself to how the movie didn't really inspire me. It was a cute story. It didn't have an ending quite as I predicted, so I give it that much. Despite this, I found the end to be fairly unconventional and would not closely resemble the feelings of a true young girl going through the traumatic experience of her parents' divorce. That being said, I didn't think this movie was bad, didn't think it was great. Maybe I'll stand in the middle ground and go with a "definitely decent."

Friday, July 4, 2008

Books Making it to the Silver Screen

I finally finished my monster of a book, The Memoirs of Cleopatra by Margaret George. It was amazing. Written from the perspective of Queen Cleopatra herself, I really started to believe I was living and ruling in Egypt along with her. Although it was long and had a bit of a slow start, I feel like this would make a really good movie. It got me thinking, how many books have truly successfully made it to the silver screen?

Another book I read awhile ago, Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt, was likewise memorable as one man's experiences growing up in Ireland. It was later turned into a movie, which was decent considering the screenwriter and director had to interpret McCourt's own memoirs. I liked the book better.

Memoirs of a Geisha served as a book that led the reader into the world of concubines and geishas of Japan. I read the novel, and saw the movie. The film actually went on to win three Oscars. I wouldn't say it was bad, but the book was better in comparison.

Gone With the Wind is one of my all-time favorite books. The 3+ hour movie that won Best Picture in 1939 was not disappointing, but I liked the book better. So how can directors live up to the legacy of books such as these? Is it possible to make a movie that is better than the original novel version? From my perspective, that has never been done, but there are a few movies that come close.

In high school, we got out of my English class to see the first Lord of the Rings in the theatre simply because my teacher was a die-hard fan of the story. I was one of three in my class of around 25 students who had actually read the books as well, so we were appointed the head of small discussion groups. We had a conversation regarding the differences between the book and the movie. I ultimately feel Lord of the Rings is one of the best film adaptations of a book I have ever viewed. The length of the film, the special effects, and acting all serve as a testament to making the characters and world come alive on screen, just as it does in a reader's mind.

To Kill a Mockingbird, AFI's winner of "Top courtroom drama" that stars Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch, is likewise one of those movies I feel closely mimics the sentiments and character development experienced by someone who reads the novel.

When it comes down to it, books provide more insight into characters that is hard to accurately replicate in a two-hour movie. I heard rumors that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt will star in the upcoming Atlas Shrugged, the famed objectivism novel by Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged may just be one of my favorite books, so I have high expectations. The somewhat cliche use of Brangelina as the respective lead actress and lead actor is already a bit off-putting though.

By the Numbers

I recently watched the American Film Institute's (AFI) "10 Top 10," as they revealed their top movie picks from across 10 genres: animation, romantic comedy, western, sports, mystery, fantasy, sci-fi, gangster, courtroom drama and epic.

I found two categories to be obviously absent from this list: comedy and horror. I think these two genres rarely produce good movies, however, so I can't blame AFI. I don't even know what I myself would choose as my top picks for comedy and horror. I did find Big Daddy, There's Something About Mary, Meet the Parents, and Tommy Boy to all be humorous, but far from what I would call a "favorite." The Exorcist, Poltergeist, The Omen, The Sixth Sense, Halloween, and The Orphanage are creepy movies that definitely make my top list for horrors (which I find myself loving although I tend to dislike most of them - i.e. The Ring, The Ring 2, The Grudge, Scream, See No Evil etc.)

AFI's top picks, however, were: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, City Lights, The Searchers, Raging Bull, Vertigo, The Wizard of Oz, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Lawrence of Arabia, respectively. I've seen six of them. Only two received Academy Awards for Best Picture. I've never heard of two. One has my distant relative playing Atticus Finch. Guess I'll have to add four of them to my movie list of "to see" films!