The essay will start with briefly out lining the many different interpretations of the scene in Vertigo, from a feminist point of view to a freudian, to a technical view point detailing the construction of the shot. The purpose of which will give an over all view that Hitchcock is a complex film maker, and that the only way of deciphering Hitchcock as the artist would be to deconstruct him bit by bit, to acknowledge that he is a man of many faces but to only concentrate on a few.

The main body of the argument would be that although acknowledging other theories and interpretations of the bell tower scene, Hitchcock is essentially a visual artist/ story teller. Concentrating more on the manipulation of religious or psychological idea’s for there emotional effect.

Back this up with; background information on his formation as a filmmaker concerned with the way form conveys content. From his time in Germany and his influence of Eisenstein and Murnau. But keep it clear that Hitchcock was interested in the visual and technical theory rather than the wider artistic possibilities of exploring idea’s through film.

But this is not to say that Hitchcock was a Hollywood entertainer first and for most. His works could be read from a structuralist point of view filled with semiotics, but avoid deviating from the point that all of these idea’s although interconnected are secondary to Hitchcock’s interest in how to visually communicate them. The structure and semiotics in his film were not political in the sense that he had an agenda, more that they created a narrative flow. As although the themes that Hitchcock adopts in Vertigo do have religious interpretations, or resemblance’s to Greek mythological tales they are not exclusive to the realm of fantasy, they are also humanist themes dealing with common fears, there’s no monsters or supernatural boogie men hiding, just vulnerability and rejection.

Conclude with an open conclusion, summaries the evidence, but point out that interpretation of art from a psychoanalytical point of view is flawed as it reflects more the viewer and less of the creator, a mirror to our selves and the world… and that is the function of great art. The fears within the screen reflect those on the other side of it. Did Hitchcock intend to or is it a by product, who knows, as truffaut said “Hitchcock loves to be misunderstood, because he has based his whole life around misunderstandings.”

Francois Truffaut

(Quoted in Clarke; 2008; p.11)

This article is called a ‘summary of research’ as calling it a conclusion would be greatly misleading. As there can be no conclusion within art. Researching even just a tiny aspect of Hitchcock’s film, Vertigo, just 3 minutes 37 seconds to be precise, is to use an analogy; like digging a hole as a child, the deeper you dig the wider the hole becomes. One decisive conclusion I can assert as a fact is that Alfred Hitchcock was a true master of his craft. Hitchcock was foremost a film maker, not a psychologist or a philosopher and not even a moralist or a man preoccupied with religious fear and catholic guilt, as I first assumed possible. Hitchcock, in my opinion, was interested in imagery. As a pupil of the silent screen he believed in the absolute importance and dominance of the visual, of the objects on the screen. As discussed in previous blogs (Psychoanalysis: Existential Religion) it was with his skill, that he manipulated these universal fears and ideas into a coherent modern narrative. Scottie chases Madeline because we all fear losing the ones we love, he fails because there is nothing scarier than being helpless. The stairs are used as a visual tool to exaggerate this helplessness, the helplessness that we all feel when climbing stairs, the fear that we will never get to the top. And the ‘Vertigo shot’ of looking down that uses psychedelic connotations, “spiral images, images of instability and mesmerisation” (Wollen; 1998; p. 142) to again heighten the sense of unease. Hitchcock was not so concerned with why we are scared of certain ideas but more the question: what are we scared of? From the obvious Nazis and Communists to the more subconscious of our fears, abandonment, vulnerability and masculine inadequacy.

“He pretends to accept and express psychoanalytic idea’s in various films… But in every case it is the filmic use of these alleged realities that he cares about rather than any clarification of them or their human circumstances” (Singer; 2004; p. 24)

The mistake to make while analysing Hitchcock’s film, or any work of art for that matter would be to transfer your own psychology onto the work, all though this is interesting from a personal psychoanalytical point of view, but that is all it is, its as if the work becomes a mirror to your inner self. As pointed out in Berman’s essay on the psychoanalysis of Vertigo; “the question of Vertigo’s ‘real’ meaning becomes pointless, if we assume that the film acquires a unique meaning for each viewer” (Berman; 1997).

How do you feel about climbing to the top?

How do you feel about falling?

Through my research into Hitchcock and his working practice, I have found that his use of Psychoanalysis, Catholicism and [Greek] Mythology that can be read into his work, (and has been throughout this blog) are entwined with one and other. As they represent, to Hitchcock, when deconstructed, as having the same function. The function being, relating our place in world around us, our purpose and our direction, to give life and death perspective. As Hitchcock had little interest in the intellectual theories and analysis that surround these ideas, they were simply used as tools of manipulation. So for the purpose of research into Vertigo it would be of little relevance to argue the homogenous aspects of the three traditions. Instead I have concentrated more on the symbolic use of ideas, taken from the three traditions. The ideas that Hitchcock returns to again and again, that form the basis of the scene I have analysed. Ideas such as guilt and desire, of the need to rescue and be rescued, immorality and it’s inevitable results. Before Freud these questions were put into the context by the use of folklore; one of which was the mythological tale of Orpheus and his uncontrollable desire to look at Eurydice. Hitchcock had no interest in exploring these ideas of the human condition, rather he wanted to exploit them. In the same way that he would exploit our fears of an unopened door or as in Vertigo, our own fears that the ones we love will come to harm at the top of a tall tower. His use of these ideas is much the same as story tellers and poets that for as long as there have been stories, they have used them to manipulate ingrained emotional responses to a recognisable (even if it be on a subconscious level) parable.

“He pretends to accept and express psychoanalytic idea’s in various films… But in every case it is the filmic use of these alleged realities that he cares about rather than any clarification of them or their human circumstances. From that point of view Hitchcock can be taken as a half-hearted realist.” (Singer; 2004; p. 24)

This idea of Hitchcock’s nihilistic approach to cinema is supported by Peter Wollen in his book ‘Signs and meaning in the cinema’; “Many critics have attacked Hitchcock for his rather ham-handed attitude to Freudian psychological theory… he has adopted key Freudian idea’s which he uses quite unashamedly in whatever way he sees fit.” (Wollen; 1998; p. 143).

(Truffaut quoting Hitchcock; Barr. C: 2002; p.40)

When Hitchcock started out as a young Director, spoken narrative did not exist, the narrative of the story was told through the camera (and to a lesser extent title cards). It is from this background that Hitchcock developed. This importance of visual narrative remained with him throughout his career, “In a good movie, the sound could go off and the audience would still have a perfectly clear idea of what’s going on.” (Gregory Peck quoting Hitchcock in: Haney, L.; 2005; p.120). His visual development as an art form, and means of expression was formulated in Germany while making two films (The pleasure Garden and The Blackguard). It was “in German studio’s; the contact seems to have confirmed an interest in the potentialities of Expressionism” (Wood; 1986; p.27). Central to the scene in Vertigo that we are looking at is the staircase; not only is the staircase central to the scene but to the whole film. It is this reoccurring use of spirals that Hitchcock subconsciously connects the separate scenes in the minds of the audience. “Vertigo… is full of spiral images, images of instability and mesmerisation, images of spinning down into darkness” (Wollen; 1998; p. 142). It is this significance on the cinematography that allows us to put so much emphasis on the visual interpretation of the scene rather than the dialogue. His films were often created visually (either in Hitchcock’s mind or laid out onto storyboards) scene-by-scene before the script had been completed. “I am a visual man, but unfortunately, I also must have delineation of characters and dialogue.” (Hitchcock quoted in Leff; 1987; p.278). The scriptwriter’s job was to fill in appropriate dialogue, as Samuel Taylor the scriptwriter of Vertigo testifies to:

“When I came to him for Vertigo, the opening scene, the mission Dolores, obviously the tower scenes and the scene in Ernie’s, were already in his mind. Most of the crucial scenes.” (Taylor; 1991; 288)

This approach to cinema was part of Hitchcock’s belief in pure cinema. The use of montage acquired from his time observing Murnau in Germany, and his time spent watching Russian cinema by the likes of Eisenstein at the London film society is what molded his creative techniques in manipulating the audience through the images that he presented and not the dialogue spoken.

“One theorist from whom Hitchcock originally learnt his craft as a director was Sergei Eisenstein. From his formalistic approach Hitchcock attained a refined awareness of how cinematic effects can exercise great influence over the reactions of an audience.” (Singer; 2004; p. 9)

But it was back in the commercial realm of the British studio that he learnt an equally important lesson in cinema; that of balance between art and entertainment. A lesson that would mold his film making as much as the influential lessons learnt from Murnau and Eisenstein.

“Hitchcock quickly learned similar artistic aspirations on his part were a liability in the no-nonsense business of British film production… Woolf [head of distribution for Gainsborough studio]declared the first three films that Hitchcock directed to be un-commercial and shelved them… Michael Balcon, the head of Gainsborough, made the film’s release possible. He hired Adrian Brunel and Ivor Montagu… to work with Hitchcock in improving the film… The Lodger was released to popular acclaim” (Deutelbaum and Poague; 1986; p. 63-64)

It is this research that justifies the solitary point of view when analysing and interpreting this scene, the solitary point being Hitchcock himself. Although it is true that a film is a work of collaboration between scriptwriters and producers, cinematographers and set designers to name a few. I can assert, for this scene at least that Hitchcock is the sole visionary, with the crew as his assistants, just as the great masters of painting had their assistants to realise their vision, in this particular instance Hitchcock had his.

Further points to research:

• It is with this conclusion on the authorship of the scene, that what is left to discuss is: what does the scene mean?

By the time Hitchcock came to make Vertigo he reached a point in his career whereby he had a rare amount of freedom within Hollywood. Even his long time, and famously domineering producer David Selznick had lost his control over the now internationally successful director. The very same producer that Hitchcock had in the late 1930s described as putting a collar “that rubbed and chocked” (Leff; 1988; p. 35) around his neck.

“The producer had surrendered much of his control over the director.  Neither actors, company executives, nor Selznick himself readily denied Hitchcock anything.” (Leff; 1988; p. 230)

Not only was Hitchcock the director but also the producer, funding, although to a much lesser extent the amount Paramount put in, a significant amount to give him a degree of financial control.

Shortly after Vertigo was made Hitchcock decided to jump studios and join MGM. This was not for creative differences with the producers at Paramount but for a greater cut of the revenues from the films. He felt that he was “nothing but a salaried employer [who] never had the opportunity to make the real money his talents deserved.” (Hitchcock quoted in; Dick, Bernard. F; 2001; p. 74). It was to a MGM executive, Floyd Hendrickson that a paramount executive advised the future studio on how best to manage the working relationship with the director;

“Hitchcock has been given increasingly greater control over every facet of the making of his pictures, until now Paramount functions practically as a facility setup for him and [MGM] should be prepared to give him everything.” (Leff. L; 1988; p. 279)

Further points to research:

• What more can be researched so that it can be asserted that Hitchcock has complete authority over this scene and hence becoming the key figure in interpreting the scene?

Discovering the journal section of the library was a revelation, i get excited walking into WH Smiths and browsing the magazines they stock – the wealth of information that is stored in those magazines that in amonth will on the whole be disgarded. Its a similar feeling to that of walking around a book shop, even more so if its a second hand book shop, but with a book shop you know what you’ll find (that why a second hand book shop is perforable). With magazines its an ‘unknown’. So if you take WH Smiths put in i few more titles of interest, and the entire back catalogue spanning in some cases 80 years of reflecting and commenting on the world they were brought into month by month, you have the 5 or 6 isles of the journal section and all the excitement that can be discovered. It appears life is not only to short to discover all those tiny places in northern siberia that can be seen on a Times Atlas of the world but also to learn french and read the back issues Cashiers du Cinema or read front to back, Close Up, a small discolored bound collection of opinions and idea’s that ended a very long time ago.

“Entertainment is integral to the achievements of artistic truth while also being a vehicle that conveys this type of truth. In that event, the formal structures through which a film succeeds in entertaining becomes the expression of an outlook that has conceptual import over and beyond the profundities that may or may not belong to its referential content” (Singer; 2004; p.8)

The notion that Hollywood only makes mindless entertainment can be dismissed. “As it took American cinema, after all, to convince men like Renoir that the movies had any possibilities as an art form” (Roud; 1960; p.168). It was the French New Wave that hailed Hitchcock along with his Hollywood contemporaries as the great filmmakers of the era, long before they were recognised as true artists in England and America.

This recognition by the French New Wave does not confirm that Hitchcock was in fact a master of meaning. Richard Roud writing in Sight and Sound two years after Vertigo was released argues, “the French critics are practically indifferent to the content of film” (Roud; 1960; p.167). One reason for this sweeping statement could be the cultural development of the two countries. Roud asserts that in the two countries (England and France) cultural development originates from two separate disciplines. Whereas painting has always been the supreme art form in France, “in England the supreme art has always been Literature” (Roud; 1960 p. 167). Roud continues with his simplified assessment of the history of European art by asserting that “there is no denying… that in painting, form is, as far as the two can be separated, paramount over content” (Roud; 1960; p.167). This is not a point to be dismissed but as the history of European art is not our subject it is not a point to be debated, just countered with Adrian Piper’s opinion that “content not form has guided European art. The idea of the primacy of content over form is itself part of the European tradition” (Piper; 1999; p.195).

Film, like art is made up of movements; some evolve from others, others grow out of a rejection of previous movements. Hitchcock’s career spanned the most exciting periods of film from silent to sound and black and white to colour. He worked with German expressionist and Hollywood moguls. He worked as title designer, set designer, artistic director and assistant director; Hitchcock in his long career was not short of influential moments in his life. As Roud points out, content is hard to separate from form, but many critics of Hitchcock make that distinction. Putting an emphasis on form, members of the French New Wave such as Rohmer and Chabrol declared, “Hitchcock is one of the greatest inventors of form in the entire history of cinema” (Rohmer and Chabrol; 1980; p. 152). However critics of a more psychoanalytical school of thought would look to his constant use of similar content as proof that form is secondary to content. These partisan arguments do not give Hitchcock the sufficient acknowledgment of his intelligence and craftsmanship that he deserves. Singer brings the argument to an abrupt conclusion with the realisation that “Hitchcock’s art is worth studying because it shows the worthlessness of commonplace dichotomies between form and content which have been ordained or assumed by most traditional aestheticians” (Singer; 2004; p.8).

Further points of research:

• If form and content are entwined can this really be a creation of one man?

Andre Gide

(Quoted in Sight and Sound; Autumn 1960; p.169)