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