One of our finest all-time posts here at the Basket was Miss Darkly’s meditation on the Hitchcock blondes of Mad Men. But no episode has been more rich in Hitchcockian metaphor (yes, Hitchcockian is a word now, deal with it) than The Inheritance.
What floored me was William’s entry into the Hofstadt home through the window. Rebecca, anyone? The scene was visually a near replica of the sinister George Sanders’s first meeting with Joan Fontaine, Hitchcock’s most vulnerable blonde.
Joan Fontaine in Rebecca
In Rebecca, Sanders is an intruder, a former friend of the family who now resorts to uninvited entry. In The Inheritance, Betty feels like an intruder in her own family home. In Rebecca, Fontaine is captivated by a family portrait; a portrait, she later learns, that triggers a profound memory of the dead Rebecca. The entirety of Manderly is filled with these triggers; Rebecca’s belongings, Rebecca’s monograms, and Rebecca’s deranged maid. In The Inheritance, Betty stands before a famiy portrait, the last in the home of her late mother Ruth. The house is being emptied of memories of Ruth, a “birds” ottoman (another Hitchcock reference), and a (really ugly) jardinare.
Fontaine and portrait
As in Rebecca, the tension in the Hofstadt family is in part triggered by a second wife, so that the notion of intrusion and replacement is prominent. Both Hitchcock blondes (Fontaine and Betty) learn that it is ugly to be made over in a dead wife’s image; Fontaine at the tragic costume party, and Betty when groped by her father.
Meanwhile, Bud and Pete are explicit about Rope. They find it funny. I think they’ve found it funny for years; the movie came out when Pete was 14 or so. I think the Campbell boys spent childhood hours fantasizing that they could do better than John Dall and Farley Granger. That they could hide their mother’s body, or that of some annoying classmate, in plain sight, and no Jimmy Stewart would come along and catch them.
(And tell me that Vincent Kartheiser couldn’t play John Dall!)
Granger (left) and Dall in Rope
The final Hitchcock tie-in is the two sisters-in-law named Judy (Bud’s and William’s wives). Judy is the name of Kim Novak’s real character; the brunette hiding behind the blonde Madeline in Vertigo. All of that “Judy” is like a hint that there’s a truth hiding under all the lies. The truth Viola has; that Gene is “very, very sick.”
The Inheritance is our guided tour of the upper classes, with the formerly very rich Campbells, and the not so rich but nearly as snooty Hofstadts. And by strongly suggesting Hitchcock, Weiner is telling us that murderous thoughts lurk under the surface of ice blond(e) repression. There are two things we can know about these people: They do not tell the truth, and they long to harm one another.
53 Responses to “Why, yes, this IS a Hitchcock homage. Why do you ask?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Brilliant once again! I didn't pick up most of the references, yet all the movies you note connections to are favorites of mine. That certainly also jives with the disjointed feeling of the episode. Weiner is clearly such a fan of Hitchcock, with the obvious Vertigo and North by Northwest images in the opening, that I am not surprised at all he created a Hitchcockian episode.
In Rebecca, Fontaine is captivated by a family portrait; a portrait, she later learns, that triggers a profound memory of the dead Rebecca.
And remember, Fontaine is completely wrong about nearly everyone's feelings toward Rebecca in that house, particularly her husband's – and that house is full of secrets as well, many of them sexually sordid (the book makes that explicit, the movie can only hint at it). What has Betty been horribly wrong about and what secrets does her family home hold? We know she married a man she really did not know (much like Joan Fontaine's character impulsively marrying Maxim deWinter, who is much older and somewhat mysterious), who's character is very suspect, and we suspect there are things hidden under the proper Main Line surface.
Great analysis once more. I admit I was still digesting this episode and seeing your posts have made me pay attention to some of the more obscure details. hanks again.
Ah! Another chance to post my favorite link to the 1993 British revival of the play, Rope. http://www.johnbarrowman.com/stage/rope.html
With Anthony Head in the Jimmy Stewart role; John Barrowman & Alexis Denisoff as the lovers/murderers.
(Is this a "no-squee" zone?)
BB, god, that's so completely fanservice it's not funny.
Brill, Deb. I also flashed on Rebecca when Bets was looking at the portrait, but I forgot about the window scene. There's no Mrs. Danvers, tho. Well, maybe Betty herself!
I notice Hitchkock refs in pretty much every ep. Weiner must have as many Hitch movies in his collection as I do.
This is a first contribution to BOK; I read you daily, you are the best, and I am so grateful for smart minds.
One of the courses I took in college at Berkeley in the early 70's was entitled "Existentialism in Philosophy and the Phenomenology of Film." Our first assignment was having to view 25 Hitchcock films. I had already been a Hitchock fan, but, as an undergrad, I had no idea what I was about to learn from that genius. We paired our viewing assignments (also required to view films of Renoir) with reading assignments with existential themes. The Brothers Karamozov, After The Fall (Arthur Miller's play, with suspicions he fashioned Maggie after Marilyn Monroe). We read Truffault and his interviews with Hitch.
That's how I learned about all those camera angles, close-ups of important props, and the uses of color (or black and white) as harbingers. That said, I have felt from the first episode of MM, a strong undertone of Hitchcock style. One of his trademarks (I hope I have this right…it's been awhile…) was the use of a "MacGuffin," a plot device that "motivates the characters and advances the story," the details of which are of little importance.
I recall "The Lady Vanishes," and the chasing of spies for a "secret code." At the end of the film they finally get the code. What is it? The whistling of a tune. So that got me thinking about…might there be MacGuffins's in MM? Any thoughts there?
Last thought. Of course, this might have already been posted, but the interlude music when MM returns from a commercial break, has this little low drumbeat that is so reminiscent of music between commercials for Hitchcock's Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Whoa… does that ever take me back.
Keep up the great offerings on your marvelous website.
Alex, welcome to the conversation and thank you!
DB, Gloria talking about her nightie = Mrs. Danvers and the unmentionables? I know, it's a stretch…
Deborah–What a marvelous article. I hadn't really thought about it, but you're so right about all the Hitcockian homages in MM. They were there all along, but they really came to fruitian in this episode. I can think of so many things Weiner uses on a regular basis–the large depth-of-field shots which give you such a complete overall read of the scene; the fascination with props–in this case the ugly jardiniere—the use of trains, both sonically and location wise to advance the plot, the underlying chill between people that exists below the perfectly manicured images of domesticity–the list goes on and on. I've always maintained that each episode of MM is a perfect self-contained mini-movie in and of itself, and it's largely because of this cinematic orientation, which was more prevalent in the early days of tv when it was still a new medium and the producers and camera people were more adventurous and less constrained by economics, but is far more rare today.
In fact just about the only thing that's missing is a Weiner "cameo." Maybe Matthew should make a brief appearance in each episode the way Hitch did?
Deb, but Mrs. Danvers worshipped Rebecca, which Gloria obviously does not. Maybe mentioning the underwear was a half-assed attempt to mention it, but it doesn't really fit.
Viola, maybe? Naw, she's too balanced.
Dame Judith Anderson was so creepy. Love her.
And of course, when I said Deb, I meant Roberta. Sorry.
I love the idea of a Weiner cameo.
Not Deb, Roberta.
Our mom does it sometimes too ;- )
I just have to make one comment about the object they called a jardiniere.
It wasn't what the French label as one. Usually a jardiniere is either a large stand OR pot for a plant. That thing was a stand WITH a matching pot. Looks like it's a majolica ceramic from England. All of which is interesting given that Hitchcock is British.
Good observations! Personally, I prefer the Masterpiece Theatre version of Rebecca which is closer to the book.
Hofstadt, as pointed out before, sounds German. Seeing how snooty the family is, I wonder about thier past. It seems quite possible they left Germany in the 1800s, came to America, and had to start over. Even if they had money, they would have been looked down upon as immigrants. I could see a major part of the family being "do not forget where you came from." Reinforcing the idea that they are special, and above other people.
There's another Hitchcock reference in "For Those Who Think Young" when Betty and Don are in their hotel room in the Savoy. She opens her bag to show him what is presumably her diaphragm, saying, "I came prepared," then disappears into the bathroom. In "Rear Window," Grace Kelly opens her purse to show Jimmy Stewart her nightgown, saying, "Preview of Coming Attractions."
@johnrothschild: as a student of American art pottery, I can say that it was a jardinere with a pedestal. The jardinere is the pot, and I happen to own several, but some of them also came with the matching ceramic stand. The one in the show looked like Roseville. See here: http://www.artpotteryblog.com/art_pottery_blog/20…
Didnt Don refer to Freddy and Cosgrove as Leopold and Loeb in some just past episode which Rope was based on?
Did anyone else think of the ugly pink elephant from the Campbell's in "Flight One" when they saw the ugly jardiniere? I thought it represented an ugliness in the midst of all the beautiful surroundings, just like the people that lived in those houses.
(PS – I'm back as me. "Miss Ilma Rose" was my grandmother's name and I found it really difficult to post with her name. She wouldn't have approved of any of these characters!)
The jardinere in TI had a shinny glaze and not the softer glazing of Roseville, so I assumed it was European origin.
Lucky you to own Roseville pieces, they're beautiful.
I loved how Pete and Bud laughed about "Rope"; it is clear that that movie has been a long-standing joke between the two brothers. And of course, don't forget that "Birdy" is the nickname of the ice-blonde Betty.
Also, in Vertigo, the first time Scotty sees Madeleine, she is gazing at the portrait of Carlotta.
I think Mrs. Danvers=Viola. Exactly the opposite reads as exactly the same. A significant maid/housekeeper who was close with the dead person and is a truth-teller.
When I looked up the spelling of "jardiniere" and then did an image search, I ended up with a bunch of pictures of small pots. Under the spelling "jardinare" I got the stemmed pot that Judy brought to Betty (our mother has a pair in blue and white, much nicer than that orange/green monstrosity). It is stem-and-pot in one piece, not separate. I'll watch again to be sure, but the way Judy was carrying it would be awfully precarious if it was two pieces.
Yes, "Leopold and Loeb" was used. Everyone believes that Rope was based on their killings, but the playwright denies it.
Patti, good catch about Carlotta!
Deb, do you remember the giant blue and white stemmed pots we used to have in the old house, that ended up with Harvey (and are either with Dan now or with mom… color me unobservant)… 'jardinares'. No idea how we spelled them, but that's what mom called them.
The orange/green monstrosity is one piece.
#21–I can see why you make the comparison Mrs. Danvers=Viola. However, Judith Anderson's depiction of a twisted repressed lesbian (there was never any other kind, back in the day) remains indelibly etched in my memory. Viola is a stark contrast of stability, strength, and mental health for Betty.
However, Betty=Jennifer/ the new Mrs. DeWinter is dead-on; a woman married to a man she doesn't know very well–and doesn't get much information from until late in the film; a woman who is very childlike but grows up in the process of the story; a woman whose husband carries the memory of a woman who is the shadow on the relationship (I am jumping to the assumption that the loss of Rachel is more significant than the presence of all his other affairs–even though Betty's reactions are triggered more by his affair with Bobbie).
Viola helps to make Betty stronger, while Mrs. Danvers only drags Jennifer deep into her madness/obsession until she can stand up to her.
Wow, that's an incredibly astute observation Deborah. I always had the sense from early on this season there was a Hitchcockian vibe so far this year.
All we need now is for Brian De Palma to direct a few episodes and then the comparisons will be off the hook. Actually, that might be a good idea. De Palma's done some excellent suspense-thriller-dramas over the years (The Untouchables, Black Dahlia, et al) – this show might be a natural fit for him.
This one is Weller and pretty hideous, but this gives you an idea. There were all kinds of knockoffs, too. Who knows which one Betty's mom had?
http://www.michianaantiquemall.com/images/pottery…
When we all watched FTWTY, when Betty made her entrance down the stairs and the music swelled, I believe I said, "This is so Hitchcock it's De Palma".
What Max said about Viola.
They are doing quite a bit of Magic Negro on this show. I hope when Hollis Sheila get to be more fleshed out as characters, they aren't as perfect and wise as Viola and Carla are now. In fact, I want Carla's backstory, too.
Please, Matt, we know you can do it.
re: a Weiner cameo: can we count his son's appearance as Glen?
Good calls, DB and MD!
Roberta, those jardinares of Mom's you mention in #22? I mention them in #21. That's how I got the spelling. If you Google jardinare you get ones like Mom's and Ruth Hofstader's, if you Google jardiniere you get this little thing. But all one piece.
Mom's jardinares are in the dining room against the window.
In terms of Viola, like I said, an exact opposite can read as the same. But it's not a perfect match. I don't think this household needs a deranged housekeeper; Gene is already deranged.
Good call on the Magic Negro. Unfortunately, on the fly-by conversations we have with them, it's hard for them to be other. If we don't see Carla or Viola in her own home, we don't see them with permission to be other than magical. I hope Sheila ends up with some stone bitch qualities, 'cause that'd help and we know Paul likes that.
Oh, look at that, you do.
And yeah, they are.
@ Bridget Burke #3
With Anthony Head in the Jimmy Stewart role; John Barrowman & Alexis Denisoff as the lovers/murderers.
Holy crap, if they revived that now with the same cast they couldn't find a theater big enough to contain all the fanboys/fangirls.
@ alex #6
Welcome!
might there be MacGuffins’s in MM? Any thoughts there?
This is as densely written a show as I can imagine. There doesn't seem to be anything that's there just for the sake of moving the plot forward. Even what seem like incidental details end up connecting to something more or having a deeper metaphorical significance.
They are doing quite a bit of Magic Negro on this show. I hope when Hollis Sheila get to be more fleshed out as characters, they aren’t as perfect and wise as Viola and Carla are now. In fact, I want Carla’s backstory, too.
Please, Matt, we know you can do it.
Oh, god, yes. Pretty please with a cherry on top?
Sometimes the clients/work are sort of MacGuffins.
In Six Month Leave, that last meeting with the animated turtle campaign… that whole scene was pure shop talk and a little confusing and not interesting, but the point of it was for Duck to ask Peggy, Are you okay with that? (I paraphrase.) Clearly we did not care about what they cared about.
I think Mad Men is filled with MacGuffins. Certainly, as Roberta said, the client's work is a MacGuffin, but there are other bits, too. In hindsight, Don's relationship with Midge seems MacGuffinish. Even the whole Sarah-Beth Arthur plot line seems like a MacGuffin, now that I think about it.
According to Wikipedia (I know, I know, not the most reliable of sources, but I think it gives an accurate description of this concept…):
Sounds like a lot of story lines and plot elements in Mad Men, if you ask me. Maybe "Meditations in an Emergency" will turn out to be a MacGuffin as well…
Nah…
#36 @Hullaballo,
I've been wondering about the blood drive in SML.
There was a lot of time spent on informing us how EVERYONE was going to participate.
I don't know if they tested blood donations back in the 60's for syphilis.
It would shake up any of the character's lives if they discovered they had a sexually transmitted disease.
Or what if Pete is A+ and Peggy is B- blood type. And then sometime in the future Pete's and Trudy's adopted child is discovered to be AB- and looks like Pete/Peggy…
To clarify what Bridget said, blood tests were never proof of paternity, but they were often used to disprove paternity. The blood type indicates only whether paternity is possible.
Clearly I haven't watched enough Hitchcock. (Just Psycho, The Birds, and Rear Window, I think.) These allusions and parallels are fascinating. Kudos to everyone who's finding them. Once I have more free time, I'm going to have to sit down and watch a few more movies so I can join in the fun.
Appropo of nothing and off topic, last night I watched Shoot with the hubby (he's trying to catch up to S2) and noticed one or two interesting things:
1. When Betty goes to do her modeling, she gets some old lady (Enid, Esther?) to watch the kids. No Carla in sight.
2. That last scene when Betty pretends that she wasn't fired and Don pretends he doesn't know, Don is particularly kind and thoughtful to her. What happened to that guy in S2? Now, every time he is offered the opportunity to show Betty that he actually cares, he drops the ball. ("You need me" instead of "I need you," for instance.)
Blood has been tested for syphilis since just after WWII; now we also test for HIV, HTLV & several Heps. But the lengthy questionnaire is also important. It’s newish–the Mad Men would have gotten many yucks from Those Questions. (Learn more than you ever wanted to know about blood here: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/testingperformed.html )
Genetic testing is the only sure way to prove parentage. Many years in the future from the MM, of course.
DB, they have both changed towards each other. When Don came home late in Smoke Gets In Your Eyes, Betty said there was a plate for him. When he came home late in The New Girl, she said “Where the hell were you?”
And Don was dropping the ball in S1 as well; “Who knows why people do what they do?” was THE! WRONG! THING! to say to a woman talking about male infidelity. It was full of Don preparing to excuse himself, and Betty absolutely knew it.
I don’t know if I posted it in comments, or if I just mentioned it in conversation with my sister (it gets like that), but there is a big difference in how much Carla gets used by the Drapers since Don got his big-ass promotion. They have more money to spend on her now.
thanks roberta, melville, hullaballoo for your thoughts on MacGuffins. I had been wondering whether that French film (have we ever confirmed? La Notte/La Nuit? L’Ecclise?) might have served as a MacGuffin for awhile. Blogs were crazy with wanting to nail that film and identify its importance…and for what? I think a MacGuffin has to have a longer shelf-life, though, to be considered a MacGuffin—not just any old prop or possession or relationship that has momentary intrigue. I could be wrong, though.
Here s more info on Hitchcock and the MacGuffin.
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tours/hitch/tour6.html
#42 Oh, you’re right, Deb, he was always clueless, it just struck me that he is so rarely shown being thoughtful about Betty’s feelings, that it really stuck out.
There’s someone out there in the interwebs who has said that Don is only compassionate if he didn’t cause the hurt. Shoot is definitely somewhere in between….the other ad agency was only courting Don, not Betty, so it is indirectly attributable to Don, yet, he’s compassionate.
And the whole point of S2 is that Betty has changed, some time in the intervening months. What we are seeing now is Don’s reactions and the fallout from those changes.
More money and more Carla time, and Betty asking for things for herself, as in, time at the stables and away from the children.
She’s doing so many things that are on the right track, if she could just figure out what she wants (right now she’s only been working out what she doesn’t want). Plus be as nice to her kids as she was to Glen.
@ #43 Alex:
I wrote a post on that film and its “significance” to Mad Men here. Essentially, it’s the answer to how many licks does it take to get to the end of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop?
A lot of Mad Men is like that.
hullaballoo…what a gift. Thank you!!!
Another frequent reader but this is my first time adding anything. I really love the show and this supersmart blog. So many great observations on a refreshingly intelligent and engaging show. You all make Monday more fun.
We probably run the risk of beating the Hitchcock thing to death, but I have to admit the now famous Betty-Savoy icy blonde scene was so reminiscent of Vertigo, N by N, and Rear Window with its Technicolor feel that it really sealed the deal for me – the Hitchcock thing is one of the reasons I love MM and I’m betting we get more going forward.
A couple of MM “Hitchcockian†observations:
As Patti pointed out, the Vertigo “Carlotta†portrait scene with Kim Novak was scary similar to Betty staring at the portrait of her mother. Recall that in Vertigo, we get the story of Carlotta from the local bookseller. She is “the beautiful Carlotta, the sad Caroltta and finally the mad Carlotta.†This progression could easily apply to Betty since S1. She seems to be entering the mad phase – but is it angry-mad or something more? As someone pointed out in the July Hitchcock post, we know how it ended for Carlotta – hopefully not for Betty!
Last week we had Jimmy Barrett call Don “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit†just before he got popped. This is probably fodder for a whole new thread given the family v. worklife identity stuff going on in that movie. Cary Grant was called the “spy†in the gray flannel suit in N by N and recall that his character was none other than a Madison Ave ad-man.
Love the McGuffin observations and hullabaloo’s post on the same. The McGuffin may not be very useful for advancing plot, but everything is there for a reason. We love the McGuffin because it is a part of the mystery – we don’t know which device is real and which is a red herring. But as Roberta points out, it always has meaning if only to fill in some blanks about a character. There may never be a follow up about Duck’s dog, the handprints on Betty’s car or even the book Don drops off at the end of S1, but they tell us plenty about the characters.
Its part of what I love about this show – it dares to be less literal and give viewer something to chew on — like the tootsie roll center!
Thanks much for Basket and see you next week!
dd, welcome, and thanks for the great contribution!
Isn't this entire show a series of MacGuffins masking other MacGuffins, seemingly meaningful moments revealing half-truths, red herrings that go nowhere, secert identities, mysteries, odd shorts scenes of intimate moments within characters' lives, all revealing the frailty of life itself and the meaningless of existence, like a mirror that only reflects another mirror, mirroring other mirrors until everything falls down and answerinf nothing?
Wait, no, I'm thinking of "Kenan & Kel."
There was a scene where Don placed his hand over Betty's nape, after the um… groping incident, that reminded me of a similar gesture made in the auction scene in North by Northwest. You get that vibe of male possessiveness that was so Hitchockian…
I can't believe I miss all that Rebecca references… time to watch the movie again!
[...] Ep 2:10: The Inheritance Rope multiple visual references to Hitchcock [...]
[...] 2.10: The Inheritance is Weiner’s Hitchcock movie. It very specifically combines Rebecca and Rope, but really, it’s all of Hitchcock in a [...]