The Criterion Collection

[atlantajoseph]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

ok. no prob.

why not? what would a person do in the real world? isn't there a scene

[Show spoiler]where the husband tells Jimmy Stewart that he shouldn't feel guilt and that he did all he could? what could he do outside of just continuing his life normally?

[Show spoiler]I would think he would at least rush over to the victim. I mean, wouldn't most people in the real world?

[llj]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

well, I welcome you to give examples of what scenes or plot points fall apart under analysis as Vertigo is my all-time favorite film.

[Show spoiler]Madeleine's death. The REAL one. It's explained that she was killed earlier (no explanation how) and then they dropped her afterwards, but coroners in the 1950s weren't the idiots modern day armchair commentators portray them as. SOMEONE investigating the death ought to have suggested that she may have died before the fall after examining her injuries. In real life, it's a sloppy method to fake a kill because there's no way of knowing a how a person would fall. If she originally got plonked on the head and she landed in a place not consistent with the injury, that's game over for the plan right there. In fact, it may have been better, logic wise, to explain that the real Madeleine was ALIVE and simply asleep or unconscious before the fall. At least then she really would have died because of the fall. You could say, maybe she was poisoned, but in the 50s, poisoning someone often required such high doses that the poison would be evident to even the coroners back in those days.

Another weird one that is never explained is when Judy (as Madeleine) walks into that hotel early in the film while Scottie is trailing her and then he goes in and searches practically the whole place and can't find her. There are various possible explanations I can see for this but it would require secret rooms and the person at the desk being "in" on the conspiracy and that just seems way too out there.

I could probably find a lot more odd stuff about the movie, but I'd need a refresher. Maybe I'll watch it again tonight!

[atlantajoseph]

Originally Posted by llj

I could probably find a lot more odd stuff about the movie, but I'd need a refresher.

You and me both! I have seen this film umpteen times but I always have to struggle to reconstruct the crazily intricate plot.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by llj

[Show spoiler]Madeleine's death. The REAL one. It's explained that she was killed earlier (no explanation how) and then they dropped her afterwards, but coroners in the 1950s weren't the idiots modern day armchair commentators portray them as. SOMEONE investigating the death ought to have suggested that she may have died before the fall after examining her injuries. In real life, it's a sloppy method to fake a kill because there's no way of knowing a how a person would fall. If she originally got plonked on the head and she landed in a place not consistent with the injury, that's game over for the plan right there. In fact, it may have been better, logic wise, to explain that the real Madeleine was ALIVE and simply asleep or unconscious before the fall. At least then she really would have died because of the fall. You could say, maybe she was poisoned, but in the 50s, poisoning someone often required such high doses that the poison would be evident to even the coroners back in those days.

Another weird one that is never explained is when Judy (as Madeleine) walks into that hotel early in the film while Scottie is trailing her and then he goes in and searches practically the whole place and can't find her. There are various possible explanations I can see for this but it would require secret rooms and the person at the desk being "in" on the conspiracy and that just seems way too out there.

I could probably find a lot more odd stuff about the movie, but I'd need a refresher. Maybe I'll watch it again tonight!

You're going to watch it again just to prove how much you didn't like it? Oh, boy.

[llj]

Originally Posted by belcherman

You're going to watch it again just to prove how much you didn't like it? Oh, boy.

Did you even read my previous post? I said it was a great movie. I personally LOVE Vertigo. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but I don't mind because it's not supposed to.

I've been trying to argue here that "logic" in film is actually a really pointless thing to look for in a lot of cases. And if we are judging films by that sole standard, many great films would not hold up well at all. Vertigo is a masterpiece, but not for reasons of plot logic, is what I'm saying.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by llj

Did you even read my previous post? I said it was a great movie. I personally LOVE Vertigo. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but I don't mind because it's not supposed to.

I've been trying to argue here that "logic" in film is actually a really pointless thing to look for in a lot of cases. And if we are judging films by that sole standard, many great films would not hold up well at all. Vertigo is a masterpiece, but not for reasons of plot logic, is what I'm saying.

I apologize. I did read your earlier post but lost the thread and responded to your later post out of context. I think logic is important, especially in a thriller/mystery, but sometimes other elements can over-come those logical pot-holes, especially if we don't examine them too closely. After all, an essential prerequisite for enjoying any fictional narrative is the willingness to suspend disbelief.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by llj

Did you even read my previous post? I said it was a great movie. I personally LOVE Vertigo. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but I don't mind because it's not supposed to.

I've been trying to argue here that "logic" in film is actually a really pointless thing to look for in a lot of cases. And if we are judging films by that sole standard, many great films would not hold up well at all. Vertigo is a masterpiece, but not for reasons of plot logic, is what I'm saying.

It's rather like The Big Sleep. A brilliant film, but as I wrote earlier in this thread when it came up...

There's a death that seems significant to the plot, but it's never revealed who killed that person and why. There's even a famous anecdote that screenwriters William Faulkner and Leigh Brackett, in adapting the novel, realized they couldn't figure out who killed this particular character, and called Raymond Chandler. Chandler realized that he didn't know, either. There's a speculation about that death that seems reasonable, so it's not really that big a deal.

[llj]

Originally Posted by belcherman

I apologize. I did read your earlier post but lost the thread and responded to your later post out of context. I think logic is important, especially in a thriller/mystery, but sometimes other elements can over-come those logical pot-holes, especially if we don't examine them too closely. After all, an essential prerequisite for enjoying any fictional narrative is the willingness to suspend disbelief.

I think the most important thing is that the film is effective in drawing you into its world and making you believe the unbelievable. That is of course subjective. I have no problems with people criticizing Gone Girl because they couldn't get into the fiction it was trying to make the viewer believe. When drawing you in doesn't work, then you ask if it works as satire. If it doesn't work for you even on that level, then I guess it doesn't for you. I liked Gone Girl, but I suspended my disbelief and just "went with it" a lot more (maybe too much so) easily than most did. So it worked for me, but I can see how it failed for others.

What makes Vertigo work so well is that it creates an extremely vivid world for the viewer to get lost in even as the actual plot careens out of control. But you're always in Scottie's headspace, and the focus of the film never wavers from that. This is more about Scottie's obsessions and psyche rather than a cut and dried mystery film. I believe that's what people respond to most, emotionally. Sure, the mystery is still fun, it keeps the movie going somewhere, but making sense probably isn't the real point.

[Feiereisel]

Let's also remember the

[Show spoiler]fake-diary framing device, which retroactively renders a lot of information the viewers may assume is true suspect, as well as the reveal regarding Nick's odd behavior.

I find that lately I've really appreciated dashes of insanity in the movies. Criterion's Suzuki films are great examples of films that are immensely enjoyable precisely because of their unreality.

Same could be said of the Coen Brothers, who are as formally precise as Fincher.

[Bates_Motel]

Awesome news that Kurosawa's DREAMS is coming to Criterion.

Thanks Akijama for the find:

https://www.criterion.com/current/po...olor-of-dreams

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by llj

Did you even read my previous post? I said it was a great movie. I personally LOVE Vertigo. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but I don't mind because it's not supposed to.

I've been trying to argue here that "logic" in film is actually a really pointless thing to look for in a lot of cases. And if we are judging films by that sole standard, many great films would not hold up well at all. Vertigo is a masterpiece, but not for reasons of plot logic, is what I'm saying.

Agreed, I guess this is part of why movie tastes are so vastly different and subjective thing, it depends a lot on one's own ideas, experiences and mood at the time of watching, also I would add at times depends on the amount or type of movies you have seen before and sometimes even the expectations we have of what we are going to see.

To that we add that we can decide on a movie basis whether to take everything seriously or not based on certain scenes of it, and the possibilities are endless, even if a lot of can agree that several films are great, expand that to 10 movies between the same group of people and we will end up with a lot of discrepancies.

One movie I remember being in total disagreement with friends for that last reason (and maybe part expectations, I don't remember if I saw the trailer) is Drag me to Hell, I don't see how can someone take that movie seriously and look for plot holes, and having seen Sam Raimi older stuff I wasn't expecting to do that from the start, and thought it was hilariously fun and well made, while many people thing it's the worst thing ever and hate that it has comedic parts.

[WonderWeasel]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Awesome news that Kurosawa's DREAMS is coming to Criterion.

Thanks Akijama for the find:

https://www.criterion.com/current/po...olor-of-dreams

You just made my year. When it comes to cinematography, this is my favorite Kurosawa film.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Agreed, I guess this is part of why movie tastes are so vastly different and subjective thing, it depends a lot on one's own ideas, experiences and mood at the time of watching, also I would add at times depends on the amount or type of movies you have seen before and sometimes even the expectations we have of what we are going to see.

I touched on this in an earlier post but there was a time where I wanted my thrillers to be pretty tightly plotted. Obviously one always has to suspend disbelief to some degree but in a lot of cases it seemed like Hitchcock would take that a bit (and sometimes more than a bit) too far for my liking.

And that's fine. People like what they like.

It was also fine for Hitchcock to dismiss the 'moronic logic' of me and the rest of what he called 'the plausibles' (ie people who asked pesky questions like 'well, why doesn't he just go to the cops').

It's funny, as committed as he was to putting asses in seats he was also pretty committed to basically telling audiences 'stfu, I know what I'm doing, watch it or don't watch it'.

You gotta respect that.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Awesome news that Kurosawa's DREAMS is coming to Criterion.

Thanks Akijama for the find:

https://www.criterion.com/current/po...olor-of-dreams

If anyone wants a better look at the illustrations mentioned in the article I recommend this

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by atlantajoseph

[Show spoiler]I would think he would at least rush over to the victim. I mean, wouldn't most people in the real world?

[Show spoiler]
Yes. It seems that they didn't expect him to attend the funeral either. I'll give you that one - a plot hole, although, IMO, not a major one.

Originally Posted by llj

[Show spoiler]Madeleine's death. The REAL one. It's explained that she was killed earlier (no explanation how) and then they dropped her afterwards, but coroners in the 1950s weren't the idiots modern day armchair commentators portray them as. SOMEONE investigating the death ought to have suggested that she may have died before the fall after examining her injuries. In real life, it's a sloppy method to fake a kill because there's no way of knowing a how a person would fall. If she originally got plonked on the head and she landed in a place not consistent with the injury, that's game over for the plan right there. In fact, it may have been better, logic wise, to explain that the real Madeleine was ALIVE and simply asleep or unconscious before the fall. At least then she really would have died because of the fall. You could say, maybe she was poisoned, but in the 50s, poisoning someone often required such high doses that the poison would be evident to even the coroners back in those days.

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]I don't know. A lifeless body that w/o question sustained injuries from a fall from a great height... would they do blood work? remember, too, that Scottie, a retired police officer (is he retired or on extended break? whatever) is a witness to her jumping. why investigate further? there is logic behind what you are saying, but I don't think Hitch and his screenwriters are asking for much by asking the viewer to accept the explanation that is given.

Originally Posted by llj

Another weird one that is never explained is when Judy (as Madeleine) walks into that hotel early in the film while Scottie is trailing her and then he goes in and searches practically the whole place and can't find her. There are various possible explanations I can see for this but it would require secret rooms and the person at the desk being "in" on the conspiracy and that just seems way too out there.

Originally Posted by llj

that one is 'weird.' I agree.

[Show spoiler]But, I don't think it is a plot hole. Madeline having left the hotel w/o a trace is presented in a straight forward hide nothing kind of manner. maybe Hitch was trying to suggest something about her identity as a spirit or something like that. ?

the one that Joseph cited and the 'no cause of death investigation' one you cited above... even if both are accepted as holes, they are very insignificant in relative comparison to the holes in Gone Girl. Vertigo's story, as you acknowledged, does not hinge around whether or not the perpetrators are caught. in fact, Gavin Elster, the perp, is in two scenes in the entire movie.
the perp is almost entirely inconsequential. ..and he is caught. I should say that he is "figured out." he isn't caught, per se, because seeing him get his just due is of relatively no consequence. I think that there is one deleted scene on the Blu where you see Scottie sitting in Midge's apartment listening to a radio announcer say that Gavin Elster was arrested. it was cut cause it wasn't needed.

in Gone Girl, not only do we have to accept how the perp tried to get away with it, we have to accept the fact that she does get away with it! the whole movie centers around her.

I think it's an apples and oranges comparison.

I'll lay off Gone Girl for now. my opinion seems to be in the minority - I don't want people to get upset w/ me. I know you guys aren't.. and thanks for indulging me w/ the Vertigo examples. I've probably said enough about GG, though.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I also feel that way about Tran Anh Hung's The Scent of Green Papaya.

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Man, I've had that blu-ray forEVer and have never gotten around to watching it. Thanks for the reminder!

I had never heard about this film until the two of you mentioning it just now. I did some light research and I need this in my collection like... yesterday.

that's why this is a good place to be. thanks guys!

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Awesome news that Kurosawa's DREAMS is coming to Criterion.

Thanks Akijama for the find:

https://www.criterion.com/current/po...olor-of-dreams

That seriously rocks my world.

(I'm assuming this is one of the titles that's part of Criterion new...ah...understanding with Warner.)

[jw007]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

My wife and I watched Phoenix last night on Netflix. I thought it was good – a worthwhile watch, but I didn’t think it was great. I felt that it worked best

[Show spoiler] from Nelly’s point of view, i.e. her coming to terms w/ both her new physical identity and the possibility that her husband was a piece of crap. Whatever suspense the film tries to sustain didn’t work that well for me as I found the premise a little far-fetched. The ‘big reveal,’ so to say, worked on somewhat of a superficial level, but it kinda keels over under some analysis. Did it really take all of that for him to realize that she was his wife? It made me think of the end of The Usual Suspects

[Show spoiler]when Kevin Spacey stops limping.

Almost silly, actually.

Can someone explain the extended family and friends who meet Nelly at the train? Are they his family? Do they believe that she is the real Nelly? If no, then why do they play along with the whole “Welcome back, Nelly!” angle at their private party? If they aren’t wise to the whole thing, then why do they have the same dumbfounded ‘holy s**t!’ look on their face as Johnny does?

I agree with you as well on everything. It's far fetched and a bit silly with how it all played out. There's a lack of depth and intelligence in this story I hate to admit. It's a "one trick pony" and does it well, but that's about it.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

oh, I could. I could fill up this entire page w/ why its a great movie.

As could I. Kubrick will always be my favorite director and I don't care if people think he was a mutant machine that was behind 2001: A Space Odyssey. In another universe, I bet he would have lived longer and directed a few more films, because every movie he made was gold. Eyes Wide Shut was a classic, and Kubrick was never too obvious about revealing all the secrets in this film.

Subtlety goes a hell of a long way.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by jw007

As could I. Kubrick will always be my favorite director and I don't care if people think he was a mutant machine that was behind 2001: A Space Odyssey. In another universe, I bet he would have lived longer and directed a few more films, because every movie he made was gold. Eyes Wide Shut was a classic, and Kubrick was never too obvious about revealing all the secrets in this film.

Subtlety goes a hell of a long way.

Just wish they didn't re edit EWS... but I still adore the film!