About the ear/trumpet case--it's hard to tell. The shape is unusual: a prominent but rather flat bell with an curved tail. (The clip is on YouTube of course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35goZXhEUrk)
The shape does not quite fit any images of ear trumpets that I could find. On the other hand, it's certainly not a musical trumpet. One surprising answer did turn up on a web search with an answer to a query from Frank Tomasulo: a fog horn! See http://mubi.com/topics/4242.
A fog horn would be appropriate for the general locale, San Francisco; for Scottie's condition; and, perhaps, as a clue to the real "mystery" of the film. Hitchcock is walking in front of Gavin Elster's office, which sets up the scene where Scottie himself is set up, by Elster. And Elster, the film would imply, gets away with his plot in the end.
Don Larsson
___________________________________________________
"I mean, everybody deserves the benefit of the doubt."
--Harvey Pekar
Donald F. Larsson, Professor
English Department, Minnesota State University, Mankato
Email: [log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Film and TV Studies Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ken Mogg [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SCREEN-L] Negative criticism on Alfred Hitchcock as an auteur
Thoughts. First, yes, sorry, George Robinson, I assumed that you were
referencing Durgnat's PSYCHO book mainly because I imagine it has been
talked about, or cited, a lot in this 50th-anniversary year of PSYCHO.
'The Strange Case of Alfred Hitchcock' (based on a series of articles
originally published in 'Films and Filming') I suspect is much less
known (but maybe not?).
I mis-quoted Wood myself in my post. Wasn't what he said actually,
'Hitchcock is too sophisticated for the sophisticates'? He meant that
Hitchcock's vision was not the one-fold vision of many of his
fashionable and supposedly knowing critics. To be honest, I place
someone like Pauline Kael in that category - apropos her understanding
of Hitchcock, anyway. Her favourite Hitchcock film was NOTORIOUS -
which is fine - because she responded to the sensuality. 'Will
suspicious, passive Grant succeed in making Bergman seduce him, or will
he take over? ... Bergman is literally ravishing ... Great trash, great
fun.' But a little film like VERTIGO went over Kael's head, I'm afraid.
I deliberately didn't refer Peter to negative first-release reviews of
Hitchcock films because what do they prove? I have seldom found any
first-release reviews of films - positive or negative - to have lasting
value as criticism. Grahame Greene or James Agee may offer rare
exceptions, but even their reviews continue to be read more for
stylistic and belle-lettre qualities than critical penetration, I
think. (Hitchcock himself was bemused by how, so often in his career,
his films would be reviewed badly on their initial release and then be
hailed within a year or two as established masterworks!) Mind, I do
think that film reviewing has improved out of sight in recent decades
(for some obvious reasons).
I notice that Peter himself seems happy to go to moralistic or other
disapproving articles that put down Hitchcock. But as I said last time,
Peter, you are treading dangerous ground. Don't sell yourself - or
reality, or Hitchcock's take on it - short. I think Truffaut was right
to say that the true morality of REAR WINDOW is its lucidity.
Btw, just apropos FRENZY, I have always felt that anyone who was
following trends in popular but reasonably classy /fiction /at the time
- the 1970s - would have noticed increasing emphasis on explicit matters
of sex, torture, etc., that Hitchcock just naturally felt he had to show
himself able to match (as best a commercial filmmaker could, at any
rate). The master-outflanker in danger of being outflanked, is how I
think of it.
Finally, a related matter. For all of Mike Frank's sensible points, I
still cavil when he seems to imply that (an alleged) misanthropy in
Hitchcock's filmmaking is, ipso facto, grounds for negative criticism.
I believe that artists are free, pretty well, to give us any take on the
world they care (or feel the need) to. What matters is how well they do it.
But, hey, we're talking about Hitchcock. A master entertainer. One
given to 'Romantic irony' and 'dualistic vision', as I said last time.
And, Peter, one very hard to pin down (cf Keats's 'poetic character').
- KM
P.S. Any chance of clearing this up? Norm Holland thinks that
Hitchcock's cameo in VERTIGO has him carrying a trumpet case. William
Lingle contests this - he thinks it's an ear trumpet case. But Jane
Sloan's 'Alfred Hitchcock: A Guide to References and Resources' (1995)
says it's a horn case. (I used to think it's a coal scuttle!)
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.ScreenSite.org
|
