Some passionate and long kissing are shown through the movie.
WARNING: Parents’ guides sometimes contain spoilers. VERTIGO, in particular, contains many surprises, which this guide may reveal.
There is no sex or nudity. However, the plot may be considered suggestive for viewers due to the fact it revolves around themes of voyeurism, stalking, and sensuality. (The man is unmarried; the woman is–or seems to be–his friend’s wife.)
The protagonist’s obsession with a dead woman makes his actions in the second half of the film seem necrophilic. But this perversion is never made explicit.


The main character cajoles a woman into changing her appearance in order to look more like his dead lover. There is nothing explicit in the scenes but the director described it as a “reverse strip tease” since there is a clear sexual component to his desire.

After the protagonist rescues the woman from “drowning” herself, we see him in his flat. The camera slowly pans to relatively unidentifiable underthings drying in his bathroom. The inference that he completely stripped her and held her wet body in his arms before retiring her to his bed is unavoidable. Further plot revelations reveal she was completely conscious during the process.


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


To tell you the truth, vertigo is really hard to see without feminism and Freud

I know that now everyone advocates less literary criticism and interpretation with philosophical concepts. In the words of Mr. Chen Shan in class, he directly threw away the paper when he saw the word feminism. However, Hitchcock’s film is so obvious that I have to say without conscience that Hitchcock’s film was not influenced by Freud, and I’m sorry. My feeling after watching the film is that I’m sure Hitchcock has definitely read Freud before.

In fact, I think the highlight of the film lies entirely in the tension between the heroine’s adherence to self as the subject (she hopes the hero will fall in love with “the real her”) and gradually becoming the fictional image in the hero’s imagination. The first half was really poor and almost made me sleepy.

To say suspense, there is really no suspense in this film. It is far from Hitchcock’s mentally ill. No matter how retarded I am, I won’t really believe the nonsense of the husband’s so-called ghost possession. Moreover, this is a Hitchcock film, not a ghost film. Naturally, I knew from the beginning that this was a conspiracy of the husband. At the same time, as the finale of black films in the late 1950s, blonde women are naturally snake and scorpion women who deceive male heroes, which is also obvious.

As a conspiracy, this plan is completely inexplicable. It feels that the husband is a conspiracy designed based on the hero’s fear of heights, and killing his wife has become secondary. But even if the hero is afraid of heights, if someone sits on the stairs of the tower instead of leaving, won’t he block his husband on the top of the tower?

These are Tucao, I mean, if the movie does not have the second half, but only the first half of the end, it will make complaints about the truth. It will be a detective movie with three streams. It is because the second half of the movie has made the first half of the film full of new appeal.

If the male protagonist in the first half is the absolute lens viewpoint leader, then in the second half, the female protagonist slowly replaces the male protagonist’s dominant viewpoint and becomes the narrator. Generally speaking, there is only one dominant viewpoint of Hollywood films, either full knowledge or observation of the whole event led by the protagonist of the story. But Hitchcock’s favorite is to play with this subversion and have the ability to avoid being hated by the audience. The narrator of the first dominant perspective in the mentally ill was inexplicably killed in the middle of the story, which depressed me when I watched the film when I was a child. For the first time, I knew that the protagonist tacitly accepted by the audience could also be killed in the middle of the film. The movie “vertigo” played this trick again. After the hero found the heroine again, he approached this person and wanted to know her identity, but the heroine lied to him. When the hero closed the door and left, the lens did not come outside with the hero. On the contrary, the lens stayed in the heroine’s house. This is in complete conflict with the previous film viewing experience that the lens moves completely with the hero’s viewpoint. At this time, the heroine becomes the lens leader. The lens enters her heart and uses several flashback lenses to reveal the secret in the heroine’s heart. It turns out that she colluded with her husband to kill her real wife.

Since then, the camera has been following the heroine. At this time, the heroine secretly made up her mind to let the hero fall in love with the real her, rather than the “she” as the wife image she had conspired with her husband.

Since then, when we look back to the first half of the film, we will find different meanings in the previous tedious tracking paragraphs. As a film critic I’ve seen before wrote, in these paragraphs, the hero is not only the leader of the camera point of view, but also his actions determine the movement of the camera. More importantly, the image of the heroine has always been peeped by him as his subjective point of view.

In other words, from the beginning, the heroine appeared not as a free and self-centered subject, but as an image in the eyes of the hero. This image gradually improved with the step-by-step penetration of the hero’s peeping. It was a melancholy, noble, dignified and mysterious woman who was pitifully troubled by the family curse, Longing for a hero to save himself, beautiful and helpless, really makes every man moved by it.

However, this image is fictional. It is not the heroine’s real self nature at all, but the husband’s fictional for money and murder, which is deliberately displayed to the hero, and the hero is obviously a good audience. He not only follows and peeps at the heroine all the time, but also displays the most beautiful side of the heroine into lens pictures from the closed perspective of door frame, car front glass window and picture frame, so that the audience (as the receiver of the hero’s subjective point of view) can deepen their recognition of the fictional image of the heroine.

Hitchcock did not foolishly put the answer to this mystery at the end of the film, but told the audience all the truth through the heroine’s memory when the film lasted 1 hour and 39 minutes. On the one hand, of course, this is due to Hitchcock’s own understanding of suspense (he thinks that it is only a surprise not to see the sudden explosion of the time bomb, and it is suspense to see the process of waiting for the explosion of the time bomb), but on the other hand, it is also to make the self reflection of the film more obvious.

As mentioned earlier, when the hero closes the door and the camera doesn’t leave with the hero, the heroine becomes the only master of the camera. At this time, she dominates the camera, and the camera even goes directly into her heart to reveal the truth. As an audience, we also know that the image shown by the heroine to the hero is completely fictional. This time, the woman didn’t want to leave, but hoped she could dominate the man’s point of view. She wants the man to fall in love with the real her, not the fictional image.

However, the woman’s efforts failed completely. After coming out of the room, the leading camera point of view is still the heroine. She still has the initiative relative to the male host. On the dinner table, the camera movement is still transferred with the female host’s point of view. The woman saw the man staring at a woman with the same dress and hairstyle as the image she had invented before. She also looked at the woman. At this time, the camera switched to the woman. This camera is still the woman’s subjective point of view. But the heroine has realized that the hero still clings to the fictional image and doesn’t fall in love with the real her.

So the woman began to give in to the man step by step, agreed that the man would dress her up, and slowly restored her to the previous fictional image. The man bought her the same flowers, the same clothes and the same shoes. When she finally lost her last bottom line and agreed to restore the color of her hair to the previous fictional image, she completely lost the initiative, and the camera point of view was dominated by the actor’s point of view again. When she agreed to dye her hair, in the next scene, she disappeared and was completely absent. Instead, she became the hero, waiting for her to reappear in the image he wanted outside the barber shop.

The barber told the hero that it would take some time for the hostess to dye her hair, and he went back to his hotel to wait for her. The camera came to the hotel with the hostess, and then he looked out of the window. It can be seen from the expression of the hostess that the hostess saw the hostess, but the camera still didn’t give it to the hostess until the hostess opened the door, and the camera peeped out of the house again from the hero’s subjective point of view, The heroine walked out of the elevator slowly.

It should be pointed out that at this time, the heroine reappeared as the image seen in the hero’s subjective point of view. This is not an objective point of view, but the hero’s subjective point of view, not the heroine itself, but once again became the fictional image in the hero’s imagination. Since then, the heroine has never dominated the camera point of view. She has once again reduced to the image that the male host (audience) hopes, and completely lost herself.

Sadly, the heroine doesn’t care about her alienation. She just wants to please the hero. She is not depressed that her image is increasingly developing towards the terrible fictional image that will destroy her. Instead, she just asks the hero “are you satisfied?”? The man asked the woman to clip her hair up again. Therefore, the last point of the heroine’s original characteristics also lost, completely turned into the previous fictional image, and the hero was finally satisfied, and they hugged together.

Unfortunately, this is not a comedy story. The ultimate result of the female owner’s alienation must be self destruction. The most ironic thing is that she caters to the hero step by step, but makes the hero see through the falsehood of this image. He finds that this is the situation set by the heroine and her husband. So he further asked the heroine to tend to the fictional image – not only clothes, hair style and hair color, but also to come to the same environment and perform the same events. This finally drove the heroine crazy. This time, she really lost herself completely and became the wife she played, and suffered the same fate as her wife – falling from the tower and dying. The hero was saved and cured of his fear of heights.

My interpretation of the whole story is that at the beginning, the heroine willingly played a fictional image for money and became the object of the hero’s peeping. This is the original sin of the heroine. From that moment on, she split into the original image in the eyes of her and men. When she fell in love with the man, she longed to overcome the fictional image and let the man see the real her. She once became the leader of the camera point of view, because she knew more than the man, but she could not defeat the image of her in the man’s eyes, so step by step, she became a fictional image in the man’s eyes again, and lost her self and the dominance of the camera. When she was completely reduced to that image, she herself was completely destroyed. It was the man who only succeeded.

Finally, a digression unrelated to the film. I think it is completely appropriate, even inevitable, to use Freud and feminism as an interpretation tool to analyze Hitchcock’s film, because Hitchcock is obviously taking the initiative to use this tool to make his film more complex. We say that we should not over interpret films, but we should not abandon even reasonable and legitimate interpretations. I do not agree that “films are films”, especially for Hollywood films, which are the most popular entertainment and the most sensitive film makers to public ideology.

As an analytical tool, the existence of feminism is completely reasonable. It is not methodology itself, but those old scholars who worship methodology as ontology dogmatically. Instead of using the concepts of feminism, psychoanalysis and realism as a tool, they worship these concepts as the noumenon of films and introduce all films into these concepts far fetched, which leads to the structure that people have a headache when they hear these concepts. But how innocent are these concepts?

In this film review, I also hope you can understand the instrumental value of these concepts.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here