Heh, that's pretty funny how the professor called the score too "mickey mouse". I don't quite understand why he would say that (what would he have done instead?). If I were Hitchcock or Bernard Hermann, I
wouldn't have it any other way. It's perfect the way it is. The main motif of the score is really only four notes repeated endlessly to suggest an endless vortex (played a lot during Judy's metamorphosis into Madeleine again, in the hotel) It's very beautiful and tragic, and long after the film ends the score will most likely haunt the mind and soul. I think that was Hermann's intention and it was well done -- it haunted you the way Scotty was haunted by his own morbid obsessions. It was even borderline nightmarish at times.
Furthermore, what makes Vertigo a classic is it's use of motifs. Slade, you mentioned the opening credits with the many symbols of circles, and the film score itself suggests an endless spiral. The bun in Carlotta's hair is also a spiral. The staircase in the Church tower is a spiral. The close-up of an eye is a circular motif that resembles a spiral. The streets of San Francisco in which Scotty follows Madeleine literally wraps around in spirals (to Scotty's frustration). And of course, the events of this film resemble a spiral -- the end is no longer discernable from the beginning. He ends up where he started, and he'll most likely be damned and tormented for who knows how long.
Slade:
Quote:
|
So, I guess what I'm wondering is: why is that? Why did the slowpacing of The Pledge work for me as it should while the slowpacing of Vertigo bored me a couple of times? Did Vertigo's pacing bore anyone else at any point?
|
That's a good question. When I saw Vertigo a few years ago for the first time, I felt some parts did drag a little. I never felt engaged enough. Like the forest scene -- Kim Novak's delusional frustrations seemed one too many for me and I wanted a quicker explanation for why she was that way. One can only take so many "emotional breakdowns" before they became redundant. In the courtroom scene you mentioned, it did feel cold and distant somehow. What bothered me was how far-fetched I felt the plot was becoming. Gavin Elster killed his wife and creates such a ridiculously-complex plot to cover his tracks that I had a hard time swallowing it. There were so many holes in his scheme (like what if Scotty DID go all the way up the tower?). As a result, I honestly did become detached from the film at certain points.
But after reading more about the film and educating myself with more terms like "motifs" and "mise-en-scene" (and watching it three or four more times), it grew on me with each viewing. I learned something new each time, and was amazed at the new little details that kept popping up. Scenes that bothered me before were not only forgiven, but I found a whole new respect for them. (The forest scene now has more depth than I gave it credit for)
I guess I didn't approach the film the way it should've been approached. I didn't arm myself intellectually and I expected a straighforward film that went from point A to point B.**Vertigo, is of course, nothing like that, and definitely demands a little more than other films. It reminds me of Eyes Wide Shut. Initially, I was convinced EWS was a disappointing failure (and Kubrick is among my favorite directors too). But like Vertigo, with time and repeated viewings, I'm now convinced it's a wonderful masterpiece to cap off a brilliant career. (It also contains a lot of motifs, colors, symbolism).
**Or as Roger Ebert would humorously say, heavy lifting with the brain
is required here.
