In Memoriam

Chris Marker, 1921-2012

By July 30, 2012No Comments

Power and free­dom.’ Coupled togeth­er, these two words are repeated three times in Vertigo. First, at the twelfth minute by Gavin Elster (‘free­dom’ under­lined by a move to close-up) who, look­ing at a pic­ture of Old San Francisco, expressed his nos­tal­gia to Scottie (‘San Francisco, has changed. The things that spelled San Francisco to me are dis­ap­pear­ing fast’), a nos­tal­gia for a time when men—some men at least—had ‘power and free­dom.’ Second, at the thirty-fifth minute, in the book­store, where ‘Pop’ Liebel explains how Carlotta Valdes’s rich lov­er threw her out yet kept her child: ‘Men could do that in those days. They had the power and the free­dom…’ And finally at the hun­dred and twenty-fifth minute—and fifty-first second to be precise—but in reverse order (which is logic­al, giv­en we are now in the second part, on the oth­er side of the mir­ror) by Scottie him­self when, real­iz­ing the work­ings of the trap laid by the now free and power­ful Elster, he says, a few seconds before Judy’s fall—which, for him, will be Madeleine’s seconds death—‘with all his wife’s money and all that free­dom and power…’. Just try telling me these are coincidences.

Such pre­cise signs must have a mean­ing. Could it be psy­cho­lo­gic­al, an explan­a­tion of the crim­in­al’s motives? If so, the effort seems a little wasted on what is, after all, asec­ond­ary char­ac­ter. The stra­tegic tri­ad gave me the first ink­ling of a pos­sible read­ing of Vertigo. The ver­tigo the film deals with isn’t to do with space or fall­ing; it is a clear, under­stand­able and spec­tac­u­lar meta­phor for yet anoth­er kind of ver­tigo, much more dif­fi­cult to represent—the ver­tigo of time. Elster’s ‘per­fect’ crime almost achieves the impossible: rein­vent­ing a time when men and women and San fran­cisco were dif­fer­ent to what they are now. And its per­fec­tion, as with all per­fec­tion in Hitchcock, exists in dual­ity. Scottie will absorb the folly of time with which Elster infuses him through Madeleine/Judy. but where Elster reduces the fantasy to mediocre mani­fest­a­tions (wealth, power, etc.), Scottie trans­mutes it into its most uto­pi­an form: he over­comes the most irre­par­able dam­age caused by time and resur­rects a love that is dead. The entire second part of the film, on the oth­er side of the mir­ror, is noth­ing but a mad, mani­ac­al attempt to deny time, to recre­ate through trivi­al yet neces­sary signs (like the signs of a liturgy: clothes, make-up, hair) the woman whose laoss he has nev­er been able to accept. His own feel­ings of respons­ib­il­ity and guilt for this loss are mere Christian Band-Aids dress­ing a meta­phys­ic­al wound of much great­er depth. Were one to quote the Scriptures, Corinthians I (an epistle one of Bergman’s char­ac­ters uses to define love) would apply: “Death, where is your victory?”

—Chris Marker, “A Free Replay: Notes on Vertigo,” from The Positif Collection, reprin­ted in Projections 4 1/2, Faber and Faber, 1995

 

V 1

V2

V3

James Stewart and Kim Novak in Vertigo, Alfred Hitchcock, 1957

No Comments

  • Peter Labuza says:

    That is a great dig up, Glenn. Having rewatched Vertigo at MoMI this week­end (the pre-resotration print was sadly out of focus and and framed incor­rectly – unless the film was “Irected by Alfred Hitchcoc”), I am again struck at why I tell people this and “Raging Bull” are my favor­ite movies.
    Some notes I made that I had some­how missed in pre­vi­ous re-watches.
    ‑Scottie is not Scottie’s name. It’s Johnny, which he uses for dif­fer­ent con­texts and people, just as we have Madeline/Judy. (Also noted is that Midge calls him “Johnny‑O,” which reminds me of David Sterritt’s the­ory of circles sig­ni­fy­ing noth­ing in Hitchcock (or some­thing like that), not­ably Roger O. Thornhill in NWW, “The O stands for nothing.”
    ‑The way the film is built around the three falls, and in each one, Scottie actu­ally comes closer to implic­at­ing him­self in the crime he thinks he’s guilty of com­mit­ting. In the first, it’s total acci­dent. In the second, he’s a cog in the crime. And in the third, he’s the impetus.
    ‑Boy this movie is full of plot holes eh? How did Scottie get down from the ledge? How did Madeline escape the hotel? How did Gavin and Madeline escape the tower? Why would Judy stay in San Francisco? How does a woman just put on her clothes that quickly? Hopefully Dark Knight fan­boys don’t get their hands on this one and “nit­pick” this one. (My point here is I kind of love the unset­tling “un-perfect” plot of Vertigo as opposed to oth­er Hitchcocks, which puts us in Scottie’s sub­jectiv­ity so much more).
    ‑And on the oth­er hand, the plot is per­fect. During the first museum scene, I thought to myself, hey I won­der where that neck­lace is, com­pletely for­get­ting that is the sig­ni­fi­er in the end that tips of Scottie. So that reveal was a big whoa moment for me.

  • Tony Dayoub says:

    Simply per­fect. RIP Chris Marker.

  • Sean says:

    I would buy those three screen grabs as an art piece. Lovely.

  • -Boy this movie is full of plot holes eh? How did Scottie get down from the ledge? How did Madeline escape the hotel? How did Gavin and Madeline escape the tower? Why would Judy stay in San Francisco? How does a woman just put on her clothes that quickly? Hopefully Dark Knight fan­boys don’t get their hands on this one and “nit­pick” this one. (My point here is I kind of love the unset­tling “un-perfect” plot of Vertigo as opposed to oth­er Hitchcocks, which puts us in Scottie’s sub­jectiv­ity so much more).