Auxiliary Memory

Vertigo (1958)

James Wallace Harris

Read the Wikipedia entry for a concise overview and evaluation of Hitchcock’s Vertigo — especially the sections “Reception.” When Vertigo was first released it got very mixed reviews, but over the years its reputation has risen. Some polls have even placed it as the best film ever made. Quoting this one paragraph should give you an idea of what I mean:

Over time the film has been re-evaluated by film critics and has moved higher in esteem in most critics' opinions. Every ten years since 1952, the British Film Institute's film magazine, Sight & Sound, has asked the world's leading film critics to compile a list of the 10 greatest films of all time.[83] In the 1962 and 1972 polls, Vertigo was not among the top 10 films in voting. Only in 1982 did Vertigo enter the list, and then in 7th place.[84] By 1992 it had advanced to 4th place,[85] by 2002 to 2nd, and in 2012 to 1st place in both the crime genre, and overall, ahead of Citizen Kane in 2nd place; in 2022, the Sight & Sound poll ranked Vertigo 2nd place.[86] In the 2012 Sight & Sound director's poll of the greatest films ever made Vertigo was ranked 7th.[87] In the earlier 2002 version of the list the film ranked 6th among directors.[88][89] In 2022 edition of the list the film ranked 6th in the director's poll.[90] In 1998 Time Out conducted a poll and Vertigo was voted the 5th greatest film of all time.[91] The Village Voice ranked Vertigo at No. 3 in its Top 250 "Best Films of the Century" list in 1999, based on a poll of critics.[92] Entertainment Weekly voted it the 19th Greatest film of all time in 1999.[93] In January 2002, the film was voted at No. 96 on the list of the "Top 100 Essential Films of All Time" by the National Society of Film Critics.[94][95] In 2009, the film was ranked at No. 10 on Japanese film magazine Kinema Junpo's Top 10 Non-Japanese Films of All Time list.[96] In 2022, Time Out magazine ranked the film at No.15 on their list of "The 100 best thriller films of all time".

If you haven’t seen Vertigo, you should go watch it before reading my reaction.

I’ve seen Vertigo twice in the past year, and it is a mesmerizing film. But what makes it great, or even the greatest? I love dozens of films, but I have no idea which one is best, even for me. How can critics think in terms of ranking films? By what criteria do they judge them? If you search on YouTube, you can find several documentaries and short films about Vertigo. Some people are quite passionate about this movie and what they see in it.

I know there is one thing missing from Vertigo, and maybe all Hitchcock films – and that’s an uplifting experience. His films are pure movie storytelling. There are no messages, no moralizing, no philosophy, no expressions about Art, and they aren’t studies in sociology. Some critics analyze them psychologically, but I’m not even sure they express anything consistent about psychology.

This summer, Time Magazine picked one hundred movies the editors considered the best to celebrate its one hundred years of publication. Three of Hitchcock’s films made the list, The 39 Steps, Vertigo, and Psycho. What qualities did the editors of Time and other list makers use to rank films?

I can’t answer that without months or years of study. What I can do is give my reaction to Vertigo. Is there something in my reaction or yours that points to the quality that makes films great?

On a simple level, Vertigo is a murder mystery, but the audience doesn’t know that until two-thirds way into the show. And then it doesn’t matter. The film starts with San Francisco detective John “Scottie” Ferguson (James Stewart) chasing a fugitive across rooftops. He jumps a gap, misses, and hangs by a gutter several floors above an alley. A uniform officer comes to help Scottie and falls to his death.

Next, we meet Scottie in the apartment of Marjorie “Midge” Wood (Barbara Bel Geddes). It’s a beautiful room overlooking San Francisco and the bay. Midge an artist who makes her living illustrating women’s underwear. Midge and Scottie were once briefly engaged. Stewart was 49 at the time, and Bel Geddes was 35. I found that age difference surprising. This scene is used to show how Scottie has become afraid of heights and the resultant vertigo. This is important to the plot, but I don’t think it’s important at all to the story.

Soon after that Scottie meets with his old college friend, Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore). Helmore is four years older than Stewart. He asks Scottie to tail his wife who is acting weird. Madeleine Elster is played by Kim Novak who is only 24. I also found this age difference hard to accept. I’ve even read that Hitchcock thought the age differences were a problem, but since many people consider this film about sexual obsession, and in recent years we’ve been learning about how obsessed Hitchcock felt over his female stars, it makes the age difference mean something. However, I doubt Hitchcock planned that.

Novak plays two characters, Madeleine Elster and Judy Barton, but moviegoers don’t know that until two-thirds way into the film. The first two-thirds of the movie is Scottie following Madeleine around and falling in love with her. It’s all rather mysterious.

There are two McGuffins in Vertigo. One is a murder mystery. Some critics have even called Vertigo a film noir. I think that’s bullshit. From my experience of watching the film three times, it’s all about lusting after Kim Novak’s characters. The second McGuffin is Madeleine’s obsession where she thinks she’s a reincarnated woman from the 19th century who committed suicide. The 1950s were full of weird psychological studies and stories like Bridey Murphy, The Three Faces of Eve, and Edgar Cayce. Starting in the late 1940s and through the 1950s, mental illness was a big theme in the movies. Madeleine’s obsession is colorful, but it’s another McGuffin.

That’s because Judy Barton is playing the role to help Gavin kill the real Madeleine. They are using Scottie’s fear of heights. Gavin and Judy make up this obsession to trick Scottie. It’s not real or valid.

The audience doesn’t know about this subterfuge, and that’s why I don’t think it matters. What we really enjoyed while watching the film is Jimmy Stewart chasing after Kim Novak. And we’re just as shocked as Scottie when we think we see her die. This is Hitchcock’s obsession – to surprise and shock his audience. He loves building suspense. Suspense and surprise are his core values.

Scottie goes through a year in a mental hospital helped by Midge. Of course, we wonder, why isn’t Scottie chasing after Midge? Then Scottie sees a woman who looks vaguely like Madeleine, but who claims to be a poor shopgirl named Judy Barton. Novak as Madeleine looked classy, Judy looked trashy. For the rest of the film, Scottie slowly convinces Judy to change her appearance to look like Madeleine while he woos her. Judy finds this creepy.

The audience and then Scottie learns that Judy is really the same girl who impersonated Madeleine. However, Scottie doesn’t turn her in. He’s obsessed with recreating Madeleine and recreating his experience of the murder scene. He tells Judy he wants to confront his fear of heights. Scottie becomes increasingly creepy, pushing Judy into doing things she doesn’t want to do. Personally, I felt sorry for Judy. Even though she committed a murder for money, she seems less amoral than Scottie. Yet, I’ve never seen any critic call Scottie amoral.

In the final scene, Scottie frees himself of his fear, but a nun scares Judy, and she falls from the same tower as Madeleine. Damn, in this movie, anyone that goes up several floors with Scottie falls to their death. And that’s three for three.

I love watching this film, but I don’t care about the story. I don’t care about the plot. I don’t care about who the characters are. All I love is the visuals, the cinematography, the sets, the costumes, the interiors, the street scenes, the cars. It’s all gorgeous. And I love looking at Kim Novak.

Is beautiful to look at a reason to make Vertigo one of the greatest films of all time? If I made a list of my favorite 100 films, I would include it.

But damn, I wish I could rewrite this story!

The story follows the point of view of Scottie. It should have followed the point of view of Judy. Then it would have been a true film noir murder mystery. Kim Novak would have had a deep character to play. Imagine how Judy would have gotten involved with the scheme and what it would have taken to pull it off. Think about all those details. Imagine, how afterwards Judy realized she had fallen in love with Scottie and let herself be found. Imagine how hard she would have wanted to be Judy and loved by Scottie, and how upsetting it would be to have Scottie remake her into the woman she murdered.

Hitchcock missed something big. The story was based on a novel, and the screenplay had to be rewritten several times. They should have rewritten it again.

JWH

Deciding What Will Be My 7th Habit

by James Wallace Harris, 10/26/23

About ten days ago I bought Atomic Habits by James Clear and started reading it. It’s quite convincing about how to start good habits and phase out bad ones. I then decided I should track my habits and created a spreadsheet, but then a couple of days later a video about habit tracking apps showed up on my YouTube feed. I decided on one called Streaks for iOS; it was $4.99.

Streaks can track twenty-four daily habits. I decided to track six habits I’m already half-ass doing now:

Physical therapy exercises
Wordle/Mini crossword puzzles
Invert for 15 minutes (with inversion table)
One housekeeping chore
16:8 Intermittent fasting
Clean kitchen before bed

After six days of practicing with these six habits I see how Streaks works. James Clear in Atomic Habits advises to focus on systems rather than goals. Instead of wanting to write a novel, make writing fiction daily a habit. And instead of aiming big, aim small instead. Clear says making tiny changes can lead to big results.

My starting six habits which I’ve been working on for years are mostly about mental and physical health. I haven’t always stuck with them, but I have learned, without a doubt, that if I do them every day, I feel better. Streaks has helped me stick with them better because keeping a streak going is challenging — like a little game. And I hate the idea of breaking the streak.

It’s time now to pick something I want to do but I haven’t gotten a half-ass habit going already. I don’t want to be too ambitious. Failing at New Year’s resolutions has always been demoralizing. I need another win to bolster my momentum. Yet, it needs to exercise my new habit muscle.

My life-long fantasy to write fiction is an obvious choice, but I think it might be the wrong time. I’ve always failed at fiction writing before, so I don’t want to fail at it again, and possibly ruin my efforts at forming atomic habits. I need a new habit that is both small but bigger.

However, selecting a new habit that will lead to achieving a cherished goal is an enticing thought. Isn’t that why I’m pursuing this habit system? Here are some things I wish I were doing in retirement:

learn Python and make programming a hobby
study math as a hobby
learn to draw illustrations like I see in 19th century science journals
learn Obsidian and use it with Readwise to create a second brain for remembering what I read and want to write
read one lengthy article a day and write about it
write short stories

These are all things I wish I worked on a little bit each day. I could add all six to Streaks with the self-imposed rule of doing each for a minimum of fifteen minutes a day. That would only be ninety minutes of activity, less than watching one movie. But Atomic Habits claims building one habit will strengthen other habits. So maybe, it’s better that I add one at a time.

Items 4 and 5 go well together, and would aid things when I go for item 6, but how would I structure it into a daily habit? Reading a long-form article can take an hour or two, and taking notes for Obsidian could be another hour or two. Writing about what I learn could take another three or four hours.

Streaks does track weekly habits, but I’m not ready to try one of those yet. Studying math on Khan Academy, practice drawing with You Can Draw in 30 Days by Mark Kistler, or writing 500 words on a short story is habits much better suited for finishing up in 15-30 minutes.

I don’t know if this is cheating, but it occurs to me that I should try doing each of these activities daily without adding them to Streaks and then see which one I stick to the most. Then add it to the habit tracker. (Don’t place a bet unless I think it’s a sure thing.)

This is psychological revealing. Could this be what I do all the time? I don’t try to create habits because I don’t want to fail at them. All six of the habits I’ve created already on Streaks are ones I need to do or I’ll feel bad. Feeling bad is a great incentive — I’m highly motivated to avoid pain and suffering. And those six habits were ones I was mostly doing anyway.

I’m a laid back lazy guy that dislikes obligations. Creating a habit is taking on an obligation. I guess successful people who get a lot done either don’t mind obligating themselves, or thrive on it.

Fantasizing about being a different person is one thing, but actually becoming a different person is WORK. (You should voice that like Maynard G. Krebs did in The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis television series.)

JWH

Ethical vs. Virtuous

by James Wallace Harris, 10/23/23

I try to be an ethical person but I’m not a particularly virtuous person. Some might define both terms, “ethical person” and “virtuous person,” as a good person. I’m reading The Lives of the Stoics by Ryan Holiday and Stephen Hanselman and it’s making me wonder if being ethical, or even a moral person is not the same thing as being a good, or virtuous person.

I believe morality is defined by theology, and ethics are defined by the consensus of humans. It’s how we divide right from wrong. Before I thought about it today, I assumed being moral or ethical meant you were a good person, and being unethical or amoral meant you were a bad person. But now that I’m reading the Stoics I’m wonder if they offer a different definition for being good or bad, mainly because they bring in the term virtue.

Stoicism is all about how you live life. Actions speak louder than philosophy. Being a virtuous person, a good person means acting in the positive. Doing good for yourself, your family and friends, for you community, nation, species, and planet. Being ethical or moral only means not breaking the rules, not being bad. That doesn’t make you good.

And I can imagine amoral and unethical people doing constructive things. And I can imagine ethical and moral people being destructive. I can see why the Stoics, and philosophers in general, argue so much.

Most of us fear and despise amoral, unethical, destructive people because they hurt us or people we know. But I’m not sure we are good people if we’re just ethical and moral. In my reading of the Stoics I’m getting the feeling that by virture we have to do something good to be good. But doing what is where philosophical problems arise.

We make exceptional people in our society who can do amazing things into stars and heroes. But should we equate success with virtue? Expecially success measured by money and fame? For the early Stoics like Zeno, working hard all day at a job was virtuous. To handle whatever life threw at you without complaining was virtuous. To take hardships and disease in your stride was virtuous. Of course, today we’d say that’s only being stoic.

Maybe I want to define virtue by what some people call saintly. Does someone have to bring diplomatic peace to the Mideast to be virtuous, or does just volunteering at food bank count? I haven’t read enough of ancient philosophy to know yet.

I do know the more philosophical I become the more I distrust words and concepts. I do enjoy reading about the Stoics, but ultimately, I’m not sure philosophy will be any more valid than religion was to me.

I used to say I was a Puritanical Atheist. Now I want to label myself an Existential Buddhist.

JWH

Is Ethical Capitalism Even Possible?

by James Wallace Harris, 10/20/23

This month, several of my friends have separately expressed doubt about the future. I don’t hold much hope either. Our current world civilization seems to be falling apart. Capitalism is consuming the planet, but capitalism is the only economic system that creates enough jobs to end poverty. The only alternative to free market capitalism I can imagine is if we adapt capitalism to an ethical system. So, I’ve been keeping my eye open for signs of emerging ethical capitalism.

Here’s one: “The Workers Behind AI Rarely See Its Rewards. This Indian Startup Wants to Fix That” from Time Magazine (8/14/23). The article describes how AI startups need vast amounts of sample data from other languages for their large language models. In India, many data companies are exploiting poor people for their unique language data and keeping the profit, but one company, Karya, is giving the poor people they employ a larger share of the profits. This helps lift them out of poverty.

Capitalism has two dangerous side effects. It destroys the environment and creates inequality. For capitalism to become ethical it will need to be environmentally friendly, or at least neutral, and it will need to be more equitable. If we want to have hope for the future, we need to see more signs of that happening.

Right now, profits drive capitalism. Profits are used to expand a corporation’s ability to grow profits, and to make management and investors rich. Labor and environmental controls are seen as expenses that reduce profits. For a corporation to be ethical it will have to have a neutral or positive impact on the environment, and it will need to share more of its profits with labor.

Since the pandemic hourly wages have been going up, and so has inflation. If capitalism becomes more ethical, costs for environmentalism and labor will go up, thus ethical capitalism will be inflationary. Some people have gotten extraordinarily rich by making things cheap, but it’s also shifted labor and environmental costs away from corporations onto the government and the public. The price at the store does not reflect the actual cost of making what you buy. You pay the difference in taxes.

For ethical capitalism to come about things will need to be sold for what they cost to make. That will involve getting rid of governmental and corporate corruption. It will involve political change. And it will be inflationary until the new system stabilizes.

My guess is ethical capitalism will never come about. If I were writing a science fiction novel that envisioned life in the 2060s it would be very bleak. Life in America will be like what we see in failed states today. Back in the 1960s we often heard of the domino theory regarding communism. Failed states are falling like dominoes now. Environmental catastrophes, political unrest, dwindling natural resources, and viral inequality will homogenize our current world civilization. Either we work together to make it something good, or we’ll all just tear everything apart.

Civilization is something we should all shape by conscious design and not a byproduct of capitalistic greed.

We have all the knowledge we need to fix our problems, but we lack the self-control to apply it. I have some friends who think I’m a dope for even holding out a smidgen of hope. Maybe my belief that we could theoretically solve our problems is Pollyannish.

I have two theories that support that sliver of hope. One theory says humans have always been the same psychological for two hundred thousand years. In other words, our habits and passions don’t change. The other theory says we create cultures, languages, technologies, systems that can organize us into diverse kinds of social systems that control our behavior.

We could choose better systems to manage ourselves. However, we always vote by greed and self-interest. We need to vote for preserving all.

In other words, we don’t change on the inside, but we do change how we live on the outside. My sliver of hope is we’ll make laws and invent technology that will create a society based on ethical capitalism and we’ll adapt our personalities to it.

I know that’s a long shot, but it’s the only one I have.

I’m working to develop a new habit of reading one substantial article a day and breaking my bad habit of consuming dozens of useless tidbits of data that catch my eye as clickbait. In other words, one healthy meal of wisdom versus snacking all day on junk ideas. Wisdom doesn’t come packaged like cookies or chips.

JWH

If You Love Old Movies on TCM, Try Old Movies on YouTube

by James Wallace Harris, 10/20/23

Turner Classic Movies (TCM) is the gold standard for old movie lovers. Nothing beats it if you’re addicted to watching movies from the past. However, TCM doesn’t show every old movie, and I’ve found a great secondary source for films from yesteryear. YouTube (not YouTube TV) is another giant cinematic library. It’s not as convenient to use, and the quality varies greatly, but there are plenty of old movie gems there to see.

Warning: YouTube also rents and sells movies. I’m referring to films that are part of YouTube to watch for free.

I subscribe to YouTube Premium to avoid commercials, so I don’t know if I’m getting some content that’s not available to the free version of YouTube. I’m going to present several examples, so it should be a test of that. It also helps that you sign into YouTube with your free Google account so it can remember what you like. 99.99% of YouTube content is hidden away, but YouTube will follow what you like and recommend more of the same. Once I started watching old movies it kept offering me more. It’s well seems endlessly deep.

First, you need to have the YouTube channel added to your television. You can watch on your phone or table, but these movies look great a large screen TVs. YouTube app is available for most smart TVs, or for streamers like the Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, etc.

Next, go to YouTube on your computer and find a movie you like — I’ll be linking to several. Hit the save button and create a folder called Old Movies. If you want to save movies by categories, create them now. You can’t create these folders from your TV, but you can save movies you find on your TV to these folders.

When you see a movie you might like, start playing it. Check the settings icon to see what resolution the film is using. Films loaded years ago tend to be 240 and 360. Avoid them. Lots of films are being uploaded at 1080p or 720p which is high resolution, like what’s on a Blu-ray disc. 480p is the quality of DVDs. Occasionally, you’ll see higher resolutions, but 480p, 720p, and 1080p are fine to great.

I tend to save films that look interesting as YouTube recommends them. Then I go to my Old Movie folder when I want to watch one. I’m not sure how long these films stay on YouTube, or even if they’re legal. My guess is some copyright holders or companies licensing the copyright of old movies are putting them up on YouTube to earn ad revenue, or a share of YouTube Premium revenue. Since I’m seeing more movies all the time, I’m guessing it’s becoming a feature. (By the way, you’ll also need to use your computer to delete the movies from your folders once you watch them.)

I often read about movies to find ones I want to watch. I check the JustWatch app on my iPhone to see where they are streaming. If the movie isn’t listed, I often I find them on YouTube. Evidently, movies first go to premium streaming channels, then to the ad-support streaming channels like Roku, Tubi, Pluto, etc. After that, they are in limbo. And some of those are showing up on YouTube.

I’m finding lots of movies on YouTube from American and British studios that don’t often appear on TCM. Movies I’ve wanted to see for years. Movies I used to buy on DVD.

There is one downside to movies on YouTube. Their Closed Caption is AI generated, and horrible. If you need to see the words on the screen, you’ll probably be disappointed.

Now for some examples. Links are to Wikipedia. Here’s a real gem, This Happy Breed (1944), about England between WWI and WWII, directed by David Lean.

I thought Mister 880 (1950) about Edmund Gwenn being a counterfeiter of $1 bills to be an afternoon feel good flick.

Here’s a less famous Alfred Hitchcock flick with Gregory Peck, The Paradine Case (1947). It’s quite good.

Here’s the first Mr. Belvedere film with Clifton Webb called Sitting Pretty (1948). It’s from a YouTube channel called DK Classics III — they have tons of great old movies. Clifton Webb made three of these Mr. Belvedere movies. The first two show up on TCM all the time, but I’ve never seen the third, Mr. Belvedere Rings the Bell (1951). I found it on YouTube, but sadly only in 360p. I still watched it, and liked it so much I bought the DVD. I’ve now watched several Clifton Webb movies on YouTube.

Here’s a film noir with Lucille Ball. Clifton Webb plays an evil art dealer in The Dark Corner (1946). It’s only in 480p, but nice enough. One thing that’s important is to read about these movies on Wikipedia. It got decent reviews when it came out, but over time, it’s considered a respectable film noir and has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Not all old movies are great, but some I want to see for a reason. Project Moonbase (1953) was the second film Robert A. Heinlein worked on as a screenwriter. The first being Destination Moon, which TCM shows often. I’ve never seen Project Moonbase though. And here it is at 720p.

Susan and I are getting into old English movies. Here’s a fun romantic comedy with Vivian Leigh and Rex Harrison (his first film) called Storm in a Teacup (1937) about a reporter siding with a dog’s owner in a political brouhaha. It has the feel of a Frank Capra movie.

This should be enough to give you a taste of what I mean. These aren’t famous films, but they are fun to watch. If you’ve been watching TCM for decades, you might like to give YouTube a try and unearth some unseen treasures.

JWH