Recently a friend of mine suggested a "buddy read" where we read a book that has been adapted to the screen and watch the film afterward. This is something we have done in the past (WASHINGTON SQUARE/THE HEIRESS, SISTER CARRIE/CARRIE) and I've always enjoyed it.
The novel adapted to film read/watch this round was ...
The novel adapted to film read/watch this round was ...
Going to keep this spoiler-free ... Almost.
I should begin by saying, as an Alfred Hitchcock film fan, VERTIGO (1958) has never been a favorite Hitchcock film of mine. I know, I know. All eyes in the room turn to me with shock and horror. Nothing against its beautiful sets, color, design (Art Direction by Henry Bumstead and Hal Pereira; Set Decoration by Sam Comer and Frank R. McKelvy (as Frank McKelvy), music (Music by Bernard Herrmann), wardrobe (Costume Design by Edith Head; costumes), and cinematography (Cinematography by Robert Burks; director of photography), but for me personally, it's never captured me whole as his other films (and personal favorites) SHADOW OF A DOUBT (1943), REAR WINDOW (1954), THE 39 STEPS (1935), NOTORIOUS (1946), MARNIE (1964), THE LODGER (1927), REBECCA (1940), THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY (1955), LIFEBOAT (1944) ... (you see where I'm going here), or even one of my favorites of his non-suspense films, MR. AND MRS. SMITH (1941). And still, there are other favorite Hitchcock films I could cite that I love without mentioning VERTIGO (1958).
I've often tried to find the appeal in the film that others do just as a film fan in general, and a classic film fan fanatic in particular, but outside the décor, wardrobe, and cinematography, the story as presented in itself ... never captured me, particularly James Stewart (though I adore him) who always seemed miscast in this. And, well, after reading the book, now I know why.
Oh, hey, Hitch. 👋🏾
Oh, hey, Hitch. 👋🏾
In the original 1954 French novel, D'ENTRE LES MORTS (THE LIVING AND THE DEAD), written by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac (as Boileau-Narcejac), translated into English by Geoffrey Sainsbury, published in 1956, we find our main (and essentially only) characters revolve around Madeleine (Kim Novak in the film), Gèvigne (Tom Helmore in the film as "Gavin"), and Flavières (James Stewart in the film as "Scottie") ... No, there is no "Midge" in the novel, acted in the film engagingly by Barbara Bel Geddes. Created in the film's storyline as Scottie's ex-girlfriend/fiancé alone makes the screen adaptation feel like a different film from the book. Just as much as Scottie vs. Flavières seems like two different people in comparison to book vs. film. And, as we find so much of what goes on in the book with Flavières, a lone wolf, happens in his internal thoughts to us as readers, creating Midge's character onscreen does add somewhere and/or someone for Scottie's thoughts to go. Like a part of his brain.
Barbara Bel Geddes as Midge in VERTIGO (1958) ... and FYI ... I always **love** her flat!!
From the start of the story in print, we're drawn into a much deeper, dark, rich, Noir-esque setting that only intensifies as we move through the pages into a narrative that, in itself, is gripping, but whose background, landscape, and era we're dropped into flows well with the story itself, bringing the perfect blend of visual storytelling.
Broken into two parts, PART ONE and PART TWO, we're met with life in 1940's Paris as we are introduced to two of our main characters, Gèvigne and Flavières, when Gèvigne visits his "old" friend, Parisian lawyer Roger Flavières, about a ... situation ... he's having with his wife ... Madeleine.
Gèvigne thinks his wife believes she's the spirit of her great-grandmother, Pauline Lagerlac, providing Flavières with numerous details to support his suspicion. And believe me, (POSSIBLE SPOILER IF YOU'VE NOT SEEN THE FILM), as the story builds, you begin to arrive at the same suspicion yourself, regardless of what you've seen in the film, and there comes a point you're not so sure if what's happening in the pages is what happens onscreen. And having read the book ... there are several points that don't match print-to-screen.
Broken into two parts, PART ONE and PART TWO, we're met with life in 1940's Paris as we are introduced to two of our main characters, Gèvigne and Flavières, when Gèvigne visits his "old" friend, Parisian lawyer Roger Flavières, about a ... situation ... he's having with his wife ... Madeleine.
Gèvigne thinks his wife believes she's the spirit of her great-grandmother, Pauline Lagerlac, providing Flavières with numerous details to support his suspicion. And believe me, (POSSIBLE SPOILER IF YOU'VE NOT SEEN THE FILM), as the story builds, you begin to arrive at the same suspicion yourself, regardless of what you've seen in the film, and there comes a point you're not so sure if what's happening in the pages is what happens onscreen. And having read the book ... there are several points that don't match print-to-screen.
It's from this initial encounter between the two men you can feel the dark Noir-esque texture take control as if your own surroundings have been painted on canvas with you in the center. You feel every word, every description, and you inhale the tension between the two in the room, an impression you encounter every time you pick up the book, carried through life in print.
We're instantly drawn into a setting filled with the hues and sleekness I visualized differently in the book than with the film, despite all the lovely colors Hitchcock uses in the 1958 adaptation. Possibly due to the difference in the era, its backdrop sets a different tone, being in the midst of 1940 WWII Paris.
Overall, the delivery of the story in the novel is more of a sexy Noir with rich colors and tones, executed differently than in the film. PART ONE, specifically, is sleeker and sexier. In my eyes. Whereas PART TWO escalates into a nervousness that propels you to flip from one page to the next. In my experience.
Without giving plot points away, when Flavières witnesses that turning event in the story, it is almost like you could see the nervous breakdown happening in the pages, the sweat dripping from his face, and the shakiness of his body. All from print into the imagination, as you do with Gèvigne in the book, when a different result occurs to him in print than onscreen. Without giving anything away to those new to the film/book, you could feel everything going out the window!
We're instantly drawn into a setting filled with the hues and sleekness I visualized differently in the book than with the film, despite all the lovely colors Hitchcock uses in the 1958 adaptation. Possibly due to the difference in the era, its backdrop sets a different tone, being in the midst of 1940 WWII Paris.
Overall, the delivery of the story in the novel is more of a sexy Noir with rich colors and tones, executed differently than in the film. PART ONE, specifically, is sleeker and sexier. In my eyes. Whereas PART TWO escalates into a nervousness that propels you to flip from one page to the next. In my experience.
Without giving plot points away, when Flavières witnesses that turning event in the story, it is almost like you could see the nervous breakdown happening in the pages, the sweat dripping from his face, and the shakiness of his body. All from print into the imagination, as you do with Gèvigne in the book, when a different result occurs to him in print than onscreen. Without giving anything away to those new to the film/book, you could feel everything going out the window!
In trying to keep this spoiler free, I can say, for me, traveling through PART ONE of the novel, drifting through the pages of the tale, an intensity builds in your mind regarding Madeleine believing she's the spirit of her great-grandmother (even if you have seen the film), and it's through this development, describing her activities, her movements, her mannerisms, her looks, that you become curious and intrigued by what you think you know and what she's not telling. She is draped in a blanket of mystery that induces you to want to know more.
The commitment and dedication used to describe Madeleine in PART ONE directs the reader to follow her almost as closely as Flavières. You can understand how he becomes infatuated with her ... within reason and up to a point. As I said, no spoilers, so from there, you're on your own.
I think, in the book, we're able to spend more time with Madeleine, to a certain extent, though it's through Flavières's vantage point in some ways, allowing us more of a connection to her through her mystery that I don't think we get with Kim Novak as Madeleine in the film. This isn't a strike against Ms. Novak as an actress or portrayal of the character; it's all the little moments we pick up through Flavières's thoughts about Madeleine out loud to us as the reader that we don't get in the film.
There is more to Madeleine we find out as we go along, but ... no spoilers.
The commitment and dedication used to describe Madeleine in PART ONE directs the reader to follow her almost as closely as Flavières. You can understand how he becomes infatuated with her ... within reason and up to a point. As I said, no spoilers, so from there, you're on your own.
I think, in the book, we're able to spend more time with Madeleine, to a certain extent, though it's through Flavières's vantage point in some ways, allowing us more of a connection to her through her mystery that I don't think we get with Kim Novak as Madeleine in the film. This isn't a strike against Ms. Novak as an actress or portrayal of the character; it's all the little moments we pick up through Flavières's thoughts about Madeleine out loud to us as the reader that we don't get in the film.
There is more to Madeleine we find out as we go along, but ... no spoilers.
During the first encounter (from a distance), Madeleine attracts Flavières on impact. The way he watches her, an instant obsessiveness for Madeleine orchestrates seemingly on sight and continues to develop in a way that doesn't transition in the same vein for me in the film with Scottie. Not sewn into the fabric as it is written on the page.
Well, that is ... until we see Jimmy's eyes spark when his character looks at Kim Novak's Madeleine in his flat after she emerges from his bedroom ... Priceless. "Careful, Tom."
In print, Flavières is way more obsessive, terrifying, and spine-chilling that, to me, adds to the way the story clutches into you and carries you along as if you were watching all of this play out right in front of your eyes, every walk, car ride, inside the rooms and mind of the characters (Flavières, more specifically).
SIDE NOTE, in a coffee chat sort-of-a-way: Through my eyes, at first, I told my friend that I kept seeing Matthew Goode as Flavières and James Purefoy as Gèvigne, but as the story went on, I think the characters sort of became themselves in my mind, as individual, unique characters. Never did I see James Stewart (sorry, Jimmy!) Haha!! My friend admitted the same, saying she initially saw Adam Driver as Flavières before the character, in print, took over himself as well.
(Jean-Paul Belmondo and Alain Delon would have been ... magnifique. *💋*)
As for Gèvigne, in the book, he seemed less in control in my mind than Tom Helmore does as Gavin in the film. Onscreen, the way Tom Helmore portrays the character, you practically suspect something wrong on his end from the start, but in the book, I felt Gèvigne to be a bit unstable, to a point you don't know who to trust, who to believe, who's telling the truth, who's trying to get away with what or whether or not everything described is true or all an illusion. And ... you don't. As I mentioned, there is uncertainty if what happens onscreen is what is happening in print. Either way, you'd have to read the book for yourself.
|
All leads to a reveal that happens midway through the film, as opposed to print, where it all comes to life at the end with the final act not being disclosed until it does ... and what a close curtain it is. Such a sweep, I literally had to reread it twice, like ... Wait—What?! Did he ... backtracks a paragraph ... *snap* ... OMG! Mind. Blown! I had to confirm if what I read was told correctly.
In short, for the film adaptation, I suppose the ending we receive does fit what we've just spent the journey seeing onscreen. But for the book, I favor the ending we read. It fits perfectly with the story tying in with Flavières's character.
And, while on topic, I did hear about Robert Downey, Jr. doing a possible remake of VERTIGO before my friend and I decided on a buddy read, and personally, I don't think it wouldn't be a bad task to take. While I'm not a fan of remakes in general, in this case, I think someone like RDJ would do justice to both the original material (though I had not read the book yet when this news was announced) and the 1958 film adaptation.
Final thoughts ... Comparing the book with the film, I like the book better. For the storyline, it just ... works in the book. The film, I almost see as a standalone (if that makes sense). There's just that extra layer in the read that I don't get in the film. Even from Hitchcock. But for the film Hitch was trying to make, it's well-shot and beautifully displayed.
In short, for the film adaptation, I suppose the ending we receive does fit what we've just spent the journey seeing onscreen. But for the book, I favor the ending we read. It fits perfectly with the story tying in with Flavières's character.
And, while on topic, I did hear about Robert Downey, Jr. doing a possible remake of VERTIGO before my friend and I decided on a buddy read, and personally, I don't think it wouldn't be a bad task to take. While I'm not a fan of remakes in general, in this case, I think someone like RDJ would do justice to both the original material (though I had not read the book yet when this news was announced) and the 1958 film adaptation.
Final thoughts ... Comparing the book with the film, I like the book better. For the storyline, it just ... works in the book. The film, I almost see as a standalone (if that makes sense). There's just that extra layer in the read that I don't get in the film. Even from Hitchcock. But for the film Hitch was trying to make, it's well-shot and beautifully displayed.
I hope this CINEMA COFFEE chat inspires someone to read the book and rewatch the film if they haven't already, I think it will allow you to see the film in a whole different light.
comment:
For my other CINEMA COFFEE blog pieces:
#ForMyMom Cinema Coffee ... | COFFEE CINEMA: Talking Streetcar | CINEMA COFFEE: "Et tu, Brute?" | CINEMA COFFEE: "La Chocolaterie" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Milk? I loathe milk!" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Elderberry Wine ..." | CINEMA COFFEE: "The choice I never had ..." | CINEMA COFFEE: "The smell of Mimosa" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Mighty like a Rose" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Don't cry on the rolls" | CINEMA COFFEE: "You're the first Kansas I ever met" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Everybody calls me Gracie" | CINEMA COFFEE: "What the devil are Belinskis?!" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Hello friends and enemies." | CINEMA COFFEE: "Stop remindin' me of heaven." | CINEMA COFFEE: "Even Gatsby could happen" | CINEMA COFFEE: "I made a wish" | CINEMA COFFEE: Audie Murphy | CINEMA COFFEE: Put The Blame on Mame | CINEMA COFFEE: "Just Singleton." | CINEMA COFFEE: "Where I Come From, Nobody Knows" | Film Therapy: Coping through Cinema | CINEMA COFFEE: Socks fall down | CINEMA COFFEE: "The moon's reaching for me" | CINEMA COFFEE: The Horne: Luso World Cinema Blogathon | CINEMA COFFEE: Aunt Bettye Lightsy | CINEMA COFFEE: I never lose | CINEMA COFFEE: "I have a mother!" | CINEMA COFFEE: THE SIGN OF GEMINI | CINEMA COFFEE: Venus Rising | CINEMA COFFEE: Stan vs Geek | CINEMA COFFEE: "Positively the same dame" | CINEMA COFFEE: I would rather lose ma whip than lose ma Daisy!
#ForMyMom Cinema Coffee ... | COFFEE CINEMA: Talking Streetcar | CINEMA COFFEE: "Et tu, Brute?" | CINEMA COFFEE: "La Chocolaterie" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Milk? I loathe milk!" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Elderberry Wine ..." | CINEMA COFFEE: "The choice I never had ..." | CINEMA COFFEE: "The smell of Mimosa" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Mighty like a Rose" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Don't cry on the rolls" | CINEMA COFFEE: "You're the first Kansas I ever met" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Everybody calls me Gracie" | CINEMA COFFEE: "What the devil are Belinskis?!" | CINEMA COFFEE: "Hello friends and enemies." | CINEMA COFFEE: "Stop remindin' me of heaven." | CINEMA COFFEE: "Even Gatsby could happen" | CINEMA COFFEE: "I made a wish" | CINEMA COFFEE: Audie Murphy | CINEMA COFFEE: Put The Blame on Mame | CINEMA COFFEE: "Just Singleton." | CINEMA COFFEE: "Where I Come From, Nobody Knows" | Film Therapy: Coping through Cinema | CINEMA COFFEE: Socks fall down | CINEMA COFFEE: "The moon's reaching for me" | CINEMA COFFEE: The Horne: Luso World Cinema Blogathon | CINEMA COFFEE: Aunt Bettye Lightsy | CINEMA COFFEE: I never lose | CINEMA COFFEE: "I have a mother!" | CINEMA COFFEE: THE SIGN OF GEMINI | CINEMA COFFEE: Venus Rising | CINEMA COFFEE: Stan vs Geek | CINEMA COFFEE: "Positively the same dame" | CINEMA COFFEE: I would rather lose ma whip than lose ma Daisy!