I MAP- THE PROCESS

I-MAP

CONCLUSION

Researching on any film provides the possibility of infinite approaches, limited only by time constraints. The Vertigo film scene that I have been researching on can be analysed in ways specific to the scene, like its characters and themes, and their recurrence in other Hitchcock films, the role the background music plays in enhancing the scene, the development of the technical methods used in the scene, the suspense building techniques employed, the symbolism and hidden connotations, etc; or in wider contexts of the film’s genre, depiction of cities in movies and enhancement of their cultural value because of movies, psychoanalysis, reflection of the director’s personal experiences and feelings in his films, Hitchcock and shock value, the industry scenario in which the film was made, the objectives and working of Paramount- the Studio that made the movie, why Vertigo was chosen for an expensive and tedious restoration process,  how was the restoration executed and whether or not the final outcome was in-keeping with Hitchcock’s original vision, etc. But the one question that I found highly intriguing was why Vertigo received more appreciation when it was re-released than when it was first released. Despite the fact that Hitchcock had given hits before Vertigo, it did not do well at the box office. But the same film, when it was re-released, was called a masterpiece, a classic. What changed- the creative sensibilities of the audiences?  Or the outlook towards the film-maker? This blog looks at how Hitchcock’s reputation was built, whether or not it was well-deserved, and whether Vertigo received the success it did because it was a Hitchcock film.

Vertigo was released in the year 1958. The Paramount case had been filed in the year 1948. By the time Vertigo was released, the Studio system was already on its way out. Hitchcock had entered Hollywood under the Studio system in the early 1940s around the time when the Studio system was running strong. The producer ruled supreme under this system. He exerted complete authority. Everyone else involved in the making of the picture had to adhere to his decisions and tastes. But from the very beginning, Hitchcock, as a director under the Studio system, was treated slighted differently than his counterparts in other studios. He was allowed great involvement in the scripting process and relatively greater autonomy on the sets. Hitchcock was also a meticulous pre-planner, which enabled him to shoot the movie exactly as he had visualized it. The profit-oriented nature of the Studio system led to the evolution of genres. Genres led to studios specialising in a particular type of cinema. That is what Hitchcock did as well. He specialised in the suspense thriller genre. At every point in his career, Hitchcock is seen to ensure he maintains his independence and individual identity. His first Hollywood picture Rebecca (1940) was publicized as distinctly reflecting Hitchcock’s personality. During the seven years for which he worked with his first Hollywood producer- David Selznick, there was a lot of friction between the two about the extent of producer’s involvement in the film-making process. Selznick was known to want to have complete control over his projects. Hitchcock, on the other hand, had always advocated directorial pre-eminence, and wanted his creative freedom. In fact, development of the Hitchcock-Selznick relationship and the ultimate outcome of the battle for freedom and control can be viewed in the larger context of the contemporary director-producer relationship development in Hollywood through the 1940s. When Hitchcock and Selznick’s seven year contract ended, Selznick went downhill and never came up again. Hitchcock went on to make movies that would be considered classics. The ‘producers’ of Hollywood lost their supreme importance with the fall of the studio system, while the ‘directors’ were given more creative freedom and credit as the ‘Auteur theory’ became widely known.

By the time Vertigo was released, Hitchcock had already made a name for himself. From the very beginning of his directorial career, he had been emphasizing the role of the ‘director’ in film-making, and promoting himself as a director. But in the 1950s, he publicised himself essentially as an entertainer who dealt with a particular “brand” of cinema- suspense. He was promoting his movies as adhering to popular culture. In fact, Hitchcock had been and always continued to be an audience oriented film-maker. With the signature cameo appearances and extensive publicity, ‘Hitchcock’ had become a well-known name, but was not looked upon as a maker of serious art. So when Vertigo was first released, by Paramount in 1958, it was viewed as another suspense thriller from the man who has made entertaining suspense thrillers. It did not appeal to the critics and did not do very well at the box office.

The 1970s saw the propagation of the idea of the ‘Auteur’, which had been propounded by the critics who write for the French Film Journal ‘Cahiers Du Cinema’. The Auteurist critics held Hitchcock in great regard. Not only did they build his reputation as an Auteur, they also fiercely defended it, criticizing any negative reviews he received. Suddenly, Hitchcock was in the top league of directors. He was an ‘Auteur’. Not only was he technically competent, he also used film as a medium for his individual creative expression. His work was now being viewed in a different light. Hitchcock’s name was rapidly evolving as a widely appreciated brand. His self-publicity strategies combined with the auteurist critics’ strong support, positioned brand Hitchcock very strongly in the movie market.

By the time Vertigo was re-released by Universal in 1983, ‘Brand Hitchcock’ was looked upon as auteurist cinema, competent and insightful. It had transformed from popular culture to high art, pieces of work that deserved contemplation and called for a deeper interpretation. When Vertigo was re-released, it received critical and popular acclaim. The film was exactly the same; all that had changed was Hitchcock’s image and the value of his brand name. The sensibilities of the audience had also changed, but they had become less susceptible to “shock value” (Booker 2007), which should have made them relatively less receptive to the film. While some may argue that the film was ahead of its time when it was first released, it is fairly obvious that it was the director’s changed reputation that brought the movie tremendous success when it was re-released.

Having analysed the industry in which Hitchcock was working in the 1950s- the studio system, the prominent debates surrounding the theories that emerged through the studio-system era- that is, the genre theory and the Auteur theory, the building of ‘Brand Hitchcock’ and the changing sensibilities of the audiences from 1960s to 1980s, and having deconstructed Vertigo into its core Hitchcockian elements it can be concluded that it was Hitchcock’s brand value that was responsible for Vertigo’s success when it was re-released. This can be interpreted in a wider context by saying that the reputation of the director conditions the audiences to view his films in a particular light.

REFLECTIVE STUDY DIARY: entry 4

Until very recently, I wasn’t very sure where I was heading with the research. I felt like my research was becoming more lateral than linear and may not lead to one conclusion. I had started researching on my topics of interesting and picked up anything else I found interesting as and when I came across them. I had to read through all my blogs and questions to realise that all of them converged at one point- ‘Brand Hitchcock’, how Hitchcock’s reputation built over the years. On contemplation I realised that this answered a very fundamental question I had raised at the beginning of the research process- Why Vertigo received more appreciation when it was re-released. The question was a simple one but required the in-depth analysis of a lot of factors and contexts, which incidentally, I had already analysed.

WRITING PLAN

INTRODUCTION

Basic introduction to Vertigo.

Basic preface- highlighting that it was released, re-released and restored.

Subject: HITCHCOCK’S NAME DEVELOPED AS A BRAND AND HIS SUBSEQUENT FILMS (RE-RELEASE OF VERTIGO IN PARTICULAR) WERE APPRECIATED BY THE AUDIENCES AND CRITICS ONLY BECAUSE OF THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH HIS BRAND.

ARGUMENT 1:

i.Vertigo was ahead of it’s time when it was first released. The audience and critic’s hadn’t developed their creative sensibilities yet to be able to fully understand and interpret the movie.

ii. Hitchcock was always an Auteur and his films reflected this.

References:

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/Screen/Auteur%20Theory.htm

http://www89.homepage.villanova.edu/elana.starr/pages/alfred_hitchcock_and_shadow_of_a.htm

Emanuel Berman, Hitchcock’s Vertigo- the collapse of a rescue fantasy, as published in Psychoanalysis & Film, edited by Glen O. Gabbard, H.Karnac (books) ltd., 2001

Thomas Schatz, The Genius of the System- Hollywood Film-making in the Studio Era, Faber and Faber, 1988

Pascal Bonitzer, ‘Hitchcockian suspense’, Everything you always wanted to know about Lacan … but were afraid to ask Hitchcock, edited by Slavoj Zizek, Verso 1992

Andrew Sarris, The American Cinema- directors and directions, The University of Chicago Press, 1985

Jean Douchet, ‘Hitch and his audience’, Cahiers du Cinema volume 2- The 1960s New Wave, New Cinema, Re-evaluating Hollywood, edited by Jim Hillier, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986. Article originally appeared as ‘Hitch et son public’ in Cahiers du Cinema 113, November 1960.

Obsessed with Vertigo, directed by Harrison Engle, 1997

ARGUMENT 2:

When it was re-released, Vertigo was widely appreciated only because by the 1980s, Hitchcock’s reputation had been established as an Auteur of the top league. Therefore, in post-studio era Hollywood, it was the director’s reputation that governed the light in which his film was viewed.

References:

Jeremy Braddock and Stephen Hock, Directed by Allen Smithee, University of Minnesota Press, 2001 : pgs- 178, 179, 182, 194

Robert Kapsis, Hitchcock: The Making of A Reputation, University of Chicago Press, 1992: pgs- 16, 19-20

Satyajit Ray, Our Films Their Films, Orient Longman Private limited, (first edition:1976) 1993: pg-194

Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995

M.Keith Booker, Postmodern Hollywood: whats new in a film and why it makes us feel so strange,2007, Praeger Publications, pg- 129, 130

CONCLUSION:

The re-release of the film makes the film itself the constant. The variable factors being Hitchcock’s reputation and the creative sensibilities of the audiences. Having analysed the above discussed arguments it can be concluded that Hitchcock’s changed reputation was indeed the prominent factor in Vertigo being appreciated much mre when it was re-released.

REFLECTIVE STUDY DIARY: entry 3

One of the first books I read for the blog was Andrew Sarris’s- The American Cinema. As I started reading more material I started coming across quotes from authors I had actually read and was familiar with. Towards the end of the research process I was familiar with most of the prominent authors and critics being quoted and knew what their approach to Hitchcock was. From Sarris, Douchet, Wexman, Schatz to Hitchcock himself, I had read them all, directly, and not through quotations in other people’s writings. It gave me a deeper understanding of the n going debates surrounding Hitchcock, the Genre Theory and the Auteur Theory.

I do regret not being able to read Truffaut first-hand as his book just did not become available in the library, despite my having requested for it. I did read some of his work on-line but it inst the same as having the book in your hand and going through it extensively.

I also realised that I tend to trust books more than online articles. I have spent nights reading Critical Texts in the Learning Resource Centre since they cannot be taken out of the library. However, I exhausted the relevant books available in the library before my research process ended. A lot of times, the same books were relevant to a number of my blog entries. Towards the end of the research process however, I ended up reading books online on google books.

REFLECTIVE STUDY DIARY- entry 2

Vertigo is a suspense thriller and the given scene is pivotal in it’s plot. Hitchcock is called the Master of Suspense, and analysing his suspense techniques was as obvious next step. Having particular interest in the field of film direction, I intended to look at Hitchcock’s direction methods. I also wanted to look at how he worked on the sets. the book Hitchcock on Hitchcock was very insightful, although I managed to get it very late as it was on loan.

It was important to understand the background in which he was working, which brought me to the studio system and to Selznick. I had chanced upon the documentary- ‘Hitchcock, Selznick and the end of Hollywood’ when I was talking to one of the librarians. The documentary was very extensive and helpful. While the information provided in the documentary was fundamental to my understanding of the personalities of the two men, development of their relationship and the way Hollywood worked, all of it could not be translated into the blog as it would seem irrelevant. It felt weird to know so much about a topic and not be able to convey everything through the post. But then we had been instructed to stick to the topic given.

REFLECTIVE STUDY DIARY- CHOOSING THE SUBJECT

Since the assignment was announced in class, I was certain I wanted to blog on one of the film excerpts, since films are the media pathway I want to engage in. The choice between Hitchcock and Tarkovsky was a difficult one. Although I had heard about Hitchcock and seen some of his films, all I knew about him was that he was a prominent Hollywood director. Besides, I personally found Vertigo more engaging compared to Solaris. Hence I decided to blog on Hitchcock.

It was difficult trying to identify one primary subject to work with within the film excerpt as there were so many. I started by deconstructing the scene in terms of activity or events and put down the questions that came to my mind. I started with my mind clear of any pre-conceived notions, so I wouldn’t be biased during the research. I picked up one thing at a time and started the research. My first entry after the initial deconstruction concentrated on the background music as I found it to have a strong presence in the scene.

REFERENCES

BOOKS (in alphabetical order):

1. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Close Your Eyes and Visualize’ (1936), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
2. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Director’s Problems’ (1938), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
3. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Directors Are Dead’ (1937), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
4. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Film Production’ (1965), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
5. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘In The Hall of Mogul Kings’ (1969), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
6. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Let ‘Em Play God’ (1948), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
7. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Master Of Suspense- Being a Self-Analysis by Alfred Hitchcock’ (1950), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
8. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Old ruts Are New Ruts’ (1939), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
9. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Production Methods Compared’ (1949), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
10. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Some Aspects Of Direction’ (1938), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
11. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Some Aspects Of Direction’ (1938), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
12. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Why I Am Afraid Of The Dark’ (1960), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
13. Alfred Hitchcock, ‘Women are a nuisance’ (1935), Hitchcock on Hitchcock, edited by Sidney Gottlieb, University of California Press, 1995
14. Andrew Sarris,THE AMERICAN CINEMA-Directors and Directions,  The University of Chicago Press, 1985
15. Barry Keith Grant, ‘Introduction’ pg-xi, Film Genre Reader, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1986
16. Emanuel Berman, Hitchcock’s Vertigo- the collapse of a rescue fantasy, as published in Psychoanalysis & Film, edited by Glen O. Gabbard, H.Karnac (books) ltd., 2001
17. Glen O. Gabbard, Introduction, Psychoanalysis & Film, edited by Glen O. Gabbard, H.Karnac (books) ltd., 2001
18. Jean Douchet, ‘Hitch and his audience’, Cahiers du Cinema volume 2- The 1960s New Wave, New Cinema, Re-evaluating Hollywood, edited by Jim Hillier, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986. Article originally appeared as ‘Hitch et son public’ in Cahiers du Cinema 113, November 1960.
19. Jeremy Braddock and Stephen Hock, Directed by Allen Smithee, University of Minnesota Press, 2001 : pgs- 178, 179, 182, 194
20. M.Keith Booker, Postmodern Hollywood: whats new in a film and why it makes us feel so strange,2007, Praeger Publications, pg- 129, 130 as accessed from- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RP1Qe_bjLrQC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=hollywood+audience+1960+to+1980&source=bl&ots=fFwSa_A4X5&sig=sE3Pc5gJhB8nuA9qejeBhW7_7I8&hl=en&ei=wbz6SvLJNZuhjAf4i6ixBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CB0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false on 10.11.2009
21. Pascal Bonitzer, ‘Hitchcockian suspense’, Everything you always wanted to know about Lacan … but were afraid to ask Hitchcock, edited by Slavoj Zizek, Verso 1992
22. Robert Kapsis, Hitchcock: The Making of A Reputation, University of Chicago Press, 1992: pgs- 16, 19-20
23. Satyajit Ray, Our Films Their Films, Orient Longman Private limited, (first edition:1976) 1993: pg-194
24. Steve Neale, Genre and Hollywood, (pg 82,83,231,232) Routledge, 2000
25. Thomas Schatz, ‘Selznick and Hitchcock: Balance of Power’, The Genius of the system- Hollywood Film-making in the Studio Era, Faber and Faber, 1988
26. Thomas Schatz, “The Whole equation of Pictures”, Film and Authorship, Rutgers University Press, 2003, pg 91
27. Thomas Schatz, The Genius of the System- Hollywood Film-making in the Studio Era, pg 482-3, Faber and Faber, 1988
28. Timothy Corrigan, The Commerce of Auteurism, Film and Authorship, Rutgers University Press, 2003, pg 97-98
29. Virginia Wright Wexman, Introduction, Film and Authorship, Rutgers University Press, 2003

ON-LINE RESOURCES (in chronological order):

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnpZN2HQ3OQ : accessed on 23.10.2009
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertigo_(film) : accessed on 23.10.2009
3. http://tviv.org/MacGuffin : accessed on 26.10.2009
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin : accessed on 26.10.2009
5. http://www.afi.com/10TOP10/ : accessed on 02.11.2009
6. http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=94742&category=Genre : accessed on 02.11.2009
7. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/intgenre/intgenre2.html : accessed on 02.11.2009
8. www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/02/07/24/StudioHollywood.ppt : accessed on 02.11.2009
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc : accessed on 02.11.2009
10. http://www.psychoanalysis.org.uk/epff3/berman.htm : accessed on 03.11.2009
11. Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin, America on film: representing race, class, gender and sexuality in the movies, pg 257, Blackwell publishing, 2004; as found on http://books.google.co.uk/books?d=Lz8VTqCy4RwC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=vertigo+masculinity&source=bl&ots=9SKplPc7Ha&sig=hKeiP2Ic9bU2ae8g1UgCYJ6dvCw&hl=en&ei=9KbxSujLJMu6jAf8942WAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=vertigo%20masculinity&f=false: accessed on 04.11.2009
12. (PDF) Clinton Adas, The representation of gender in Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo,http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Arts/Departments/english/Documents/Clinton%20Adas.pdf : accessed on 04.11.2009
13. James Gilbert, Men in the middle: searching for masculinity in the 1950s, The University of Chicago press, 2005; as read on http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zguAa_OfXJgC&pg=PP1&dq=men+in+the+middle+james+gilbert#v=onepage&q=&f=false : accessed on 04.11.2009
14. R.W. Connell, Masculinities, Polity Press, 2005; as read on http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W8h1h8wa2yQC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=vertigo+masculinity&source=bl&ots=K10n9W-J_r&sig=uJT6kfEtqSCsorTmZ5fTeyBYYic&hl=en&ei=BpXxSuS0DJeNjAeilZSWAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=gender%20vertigo&f=false : accessed on 04.11.2009
15. http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/Screen/Auteur%20Theory.htm : accessed on 05.11.2009
16. http://www.britishfilm.org.uk/lynch/eraserhead.html : accessed on 05.11.2009
17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A22928772 : accessed on 05.11.2009
18. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fr0301/dpfr12a.htm : accessed on 05.11.2009
19. http://www89.homepage.villanova.edu/elana.starr/pages/genesis_and_formulation_of_the_a.htm : accessed on 05.11.2009
20. http://www89.homepage.villanova.edu/elana.starr/pages/alfred_hitchcock_and_shadow_of_a.htm : accessed on 05.11.2009
21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom : accessed on 06.11.2009
22. Emily King, Taking credit: Film Titling Sequences 1955-1965/ 5 Spiralling Aspirations: Vertigo 1958, 1993 (essay), http://www.typotheque.com/articles/taking_credit_film_title_sequences_1955-1965_5_spiralling_aspirations_vertigo_1958 accessed on 09.11.2009
23. The “Alfred Hitchcock” guide to branding, http://freelancefolder.com/the-alfred-hitchcock-guide-to-branding/ accessed on 09.11.2009

REFERENCES FOR IMAGES:

1. http://www.soundonsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/jimmystewart.gif : accessed on 04.11.2009

2. http://generationfilm.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/vertigo21.jpg : accessed on 04.11.2009

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnpZN2HQ3OQ : accessed on 04.11.2009

4. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2008/09/26/vertigo900.jpg : accessed on 04.11.2009

5. http://www.impawards.com/1958/posters/vertigo_ver2.jpg : accessed on 09.11.2009

REFERENCES FOR VIDEOS:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnpZN2HQ3OQ

DOCUMENTARIES:

1.‘Hitchcock, Selznick and the end of Hollywood‘, Directed by Michael Epstein, Channel 4, 1 January 2000

2. ‘Obsessed with Vertigo’, directed by Harrison Engle, 1997 (USA), production company: Signal Hill Entertainment Inc., distribution company: Universal /AMC

FEATURE FILMS:

1. Vertigo, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, Paramount, 1958

2. Psycho, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, 1960

CHANGING RECEPTIVENESS OF THE AUDIENCE- 1960s v/s 1980s

Screenshot from: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RP1Qe_bjLrQC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=hollywood+audience+1960+to+1980&source=bl&ots=
fFwSa_A4X5&sig=sE3Pc5gJhB8nuA9qejeBhW7_7I8&hl=en&ei=wbz6SvLJNZuhjAf4i6ixBA&sa=X&
amp;oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CB0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The above excerpt is from the book Postmodern Hollywood: whats new in a film and why it makes us feel so strange, by M.Keith Booker,(Praeger publications, 2007).

In this excerpt, the author touches upon the fact that the sensibilities of the Hollywood audiences was different in the 1960s and in the 1980s. The audience, according to Booker, was more “susceptible to shock” in the 1960s than in the 1980s. The author cites capitalism as a contributing factor to the audience’s increasing alienation when it comes to being receptive to emotional experience. Vertigo was released in 1958 and then re-released in 1983. The film is a suspense thriller, and has considerable shock value. Therefore, considering Booker’s point of view, the film should have had a better reception in the 1960s than in the 1980s. Why then did the reverse happen?

REFERENCES:

1. M.Keith Booker, Postmodern Hollywood: whats new in a film and why it makes us feel so strange, 2007, Praeger Publications, pg- 129, 130

As accessed from- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RP1Qe_bjLrQC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=hollywood+audience+1960+to+1980&source=bl&ots=fFwSa_
A4X5&sig=sE3Pc5gJhB8nuA9qejeBhW7_7I8&hl=en&ei=wbz6SvLJNZuhjAf4i6ixBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=
result&resnum=7&ved=0CB0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

on 10.11.2009