I rewatched "Vertigo" last night and was struck not so much by the story, which I found clever but ponderous, but by the importance given to the location. Rick, you mentioned that you like "Vertigo" because you like San Francisco, and that's a good reason to like it. The city is as much a character in the movie as Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak. The location was one of the things I liked best about "The Lady Vanishes," too. Alpine, scenic. Storybookish and sinister. Cosmopolitan and provincial all at once, like San Francisco. And location was a big draw in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," too. Morocco and London. And the Americana of "Psycho." The French Riviera of "To Catch a Thief." On and on. And the locations are not just scenery. They're integral to the story.
I read this when I was looking up somethng about "Vertigo": According to Herbert Coleman, Vertigo's associate producer, Hitchcock often picked a location and then developed a story to be filmed there. He liked to show a familiar location and introduce a twist of malice. When he first saw San Francisco, he said it would be a good place for a murder mystery, and he chose a French novel, "D'Entre les Morts" (From Among the Dead).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That’s a good way to look at Hitchcock. When I look through the Hitchcock titles that I know I’ve seen, the ones where I don’t know where they were set are the ones that I cannot remember much at all about.
Did studios try to pressure Hitchcock to shoot more on sets and less on location? Or do you think they recognized the importance of place in his movies?
Good questions. Maybe cl has some insight on this since she was reading that Hitchcock bio.
Can you imagine "Vertigo" shot in some generic setting? It would lose everything.
Post a Comment