movie entitled"notorious"? While the word "notorious" describe
something or somebody the is widely known to be bad, I didn't see the
senario has much connection to anyone's fame. I once guessed maybe
it's the last scene where Sebastian let Devlin to carry Huberman away
because his fame is at stake. But that's not very possible.
SO, why was the movie entitle notorious? It's must be something
that was closely related to the movie on the whole. But why?
I referred to the title in class, as you may recall. I said a title
is always important and one should try to see how it applies to the
film on many levels.
For example, in Hitchcock's Spellbound (I gave this example
in class) "spellbound" obviously applies to the mental patient (Gregory
Peck), dominated by a "spell" ("bound" by a spell: haunted by the past;
hence he's "spellbound"); at the time same time it applies to the doctor
(again, Ingrid Bergman) who is under the spell of love (she is
cold and has never been in love before). So the title applies to her
too.
In Notorious, clearly the title alludes to the Ingrid Bergman character, Alicia. She's notorious from the beginning: wanting to have a good time, getting drunk, driving fast, hating the police, and estranged from her notorious father (he's convicted of spying and sentenced to 20 years in prison).
In the Hollywood of the 1940s there could be only vague references made to a "loose" woman. Moreover the leading star could not be identified with a loose woman, a "bad" woman, or "whore." It would ruin her "star image."
So the screenwriter and director had to walk a thin line, suggesting instead. Note the loud blouse Bergman wears in the party scene, the disheveled (messed up) hair while driving the car (recall the strand of hair in her eyes), the aggressive way she talks to men (she calls Devlin "handsome").
The scarf that Devlin wraps around her waist has two purposes. One, it suggests she's naked and needs to cover up. Two, it links with the later necklace and suggests Devlin is "binding" her in the same way the American agents, and later the German agent, does, with the necklace.
Devlin stands in her room when she awakens with a hangover in bed! How did Devlin get in the house? Did he stay all night, after the party? Did Devlin and Alicia make love between night and morning? (We may assume so, though this could never be shown; it's implied.)
So long as the director or screenwriter does not actually show a sexual encounter, a scene like that was accepted by the film censors, who censored only what was clearly spoken or shown. Even the word "communism" was forbidden, though it's implied (as in Grapes of Wrath, where Tom Joad asks, "Who is these 'reds' anyway?").
(In view of censorship codes, it's a wonder Grapes of Wrath was filmed at all. As recently as 1960, a toilet bowl could not be shown in movies. Hitchcock fought to have a shot of one in Psycho that same year.)
So Hollywood is a cinema of "coded" images. Today we use the word "signifier": a sign pointing to an idea (the "signified"). For example, in Westerns, the saloon girl was a signifier of a loose woman. A perfumed handkerchief carried by a man was a signifier of his homosexuality (see The Maltese Falcon). The educated viewer knew how to "read" these signs.
The Hollywood cinema works with narrative economy. Hence the use of generic conventions; star images; or set direction: A telephone in the bedroom of an apartment shared by two men signified homosexuality, as in Hitchcock's Rope.
These codes are due partly to the nature of cinema itself and the way it is exhibited. A film is not a novel and cannot explain things to us in detail the way a novel can. A novel can write chapters about Alicia's
sexual appetite. A film can't do this. First it doesn't have the
available time (about 2 hours). Second, the censors wouldn't
allow it.
A movie is exhibited for about 2 hours to an audience of limited
viewing skills (and attention) & must communicate many ideas in
fast moving images to that same audience, many of whom came only to see a famous star looking glamorous.
This is not to dismiss Hollywood movies! All art involves compromise. In the Renaissance painters had to paint royalty into their pictures; or they had to paint pictures of Jesus and angels. We don't value that art less for this.
In sum, Alicia Huberman is "notorious." But the title might refer to Devlin's notoriously ruthless character too.
Devlin is cold-hearted. He exploits Alicia to serve the ends of his
government (espionage) agency, and he never stops chastising (scolding) her, making her ashamed of herself.
It's because of this that Alicia makes him think she's drunk when they meet in the park, though she's really sick. She allows Devlin to think the worst of her, since she's given up hope he'll respect her anyway.
But Devlin only represents the even more "notorious" government
agency that exploits a weak woman in order to advance its espionage goals. This point is clear when an agent ties a necklace around Alicia, as if putting her in bondage. Now she's a "bought" woman: a whore.
It's this necklace (or a similar one given her by Alexander) that is featured in the later shots when Alicia is sick in bed.
If it was given to her by Alexander it forms a link between the good guys (who gave her the first necklace) and the bad guy (who gave her a necklace that looks like the first). So this woman is victimized by men who act more notoriously than she, forcing her to be worse than she is. Before she was only a loose woman; now she's a bought woman.
So I interpret the title on many levels, all valid. Clearly the title is
intended to be ambiguous and applied at many levels.
Later Hitchcock films, such as North by Northwest (1959)
make clear that Hitchcock disapproved of government exploitation of
citizens to advance national interests. As the same Cary Grant (who played Devlin in Notorious) says to the espionage agent in North
by Northwest when he discovers that his love interest in the film has been
used to further espionage goals: "You ought to start losing a few cold wars!" ("Cold war" was the name for non-military "war" between the US and the then Soviet Union.)
As for Devlin in Notorious, he's not as ruthless as some have claimed. For Alicia's sake, Devlin defies his co-agents; and, in one scene, he actually insults one of their wives in defense of her!
In fact, this is the key scene in understanding Devlin's ambivalence; his feelings are divided between love for his country and love for Alicia. But his co-agents have no divided feelings: they're willing to risk Alicia without qualms.
Devlin has feelings for Alicia but also has a job to do. And there's no question he redeems himself at the end when he puts Alicia above his job. (He has been warned not to interfere with the agency's goals, but he ignores this warning.)
So though Devlin is not your typical romantic hero, he's torn between devotion to his job and country, and to Alicia. Just falling in love with her is a violation of professional ethics. So it's not a simple issue of choosing between his job and Alicia, but of violating ethical and professional codes too.
No comments:
Post a Comment