Read Vertigo (Pushkin Vertigo) by Pierre Boileau Thomas Narcejac Geoffrey Sainsbury Online


The story could have happened to any of us, but it happened to a man named Flavieres. His days as a detective were over, and everyone knew he had his reasons. But when an old friend appeared out of nowhere with concerns about his withdrawn and mysterious wife, Flavieres didn't have the heart to refuse. And soon he would be scouring the streets of Paris in search of an answThe story could have happened to any of us, but it happened to a man named Flavieres. His days as a detective were over, and everyone knew he had his reasons. But when an old friend appeared out of nowhere with concerns about his withdrawn and mysterious wife, Flavieres didn't have the heart to refuse. And soon he would be scouring the streets of Paris in search of an answer - in search of a girl who belonged to no one, not even to herself. Soon intrigue would be replaced by obsession, and dreams replaced by nightmares. This is the story of a desperate man. A man who ended up compromising his own morality beyond all measure, while World War Two raged outside his front door. A man tormented - and destroyed - by a dark, terrible secret.This sinister, mindbending roman noir was turned into a 1958 Hollywood classic, starring James Stewart and Kim Novak, directed by the great Alfred Hitchcock.From the Trade Paperback edition....

Title : Vertigo (Pushkin Vertigo)
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 25428983
Format Type : Kindle Edition
Number of Pages : 192 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Vertigo (Pushkin Vertigo) Reviews

  • Jesse
    2018-11-14 04:38

    For any good cinephile the standard line is that on its way to the screen Vertigo (1958) radically transformed its original source material, the (relatively) obscure French mystery novel written by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac, most commonly known by the portmanteau moniker “Boileau-Narcejac.” This transformation directly resulted in what many feel is not only Alfred Hitchcock’s most deeply and intensely personal film, but one of the greatest films of all time. This is more or less what I expected, but it is not at all what I got.What I discovered instead was an extremely interesting psychological mystery, and nearly all of major plot points and narrative events included in Hitchcock’s film originated within its pages. As some research demonstrated, I’m not the only one to feel like Boileau-Narcejac’s has received a critical short shrift. As Peter Lev writes in a thoughtful consideration of the connection between novel and film: “D’entre les morts is a thoughtful and innovative work of mystery fiction that deserves study both in its own right and as the precursor to the film Vertigo.”* I highly recommend Lev’s essay and some other scholarship that has emerged on this topic for deeply considered analyses, but for the sake of a review I offer several cursory thoughts and observations.[Technically some of what will follow could be considered spoilers, though this shouldn’t be an issue for anybody who is even cursorily aware of the film’s plot.]To begin, the commonalities: the aforementioned similarity in the basic narrative and plot, the central character of a former police detective (named Flavières in the novel, Scottie in the film) who becomes obsessed with his client’s wife, as well as the name of “Madeleine,” who becomes the object of Flavières/Scottie’s desire and obsession. It is this last attribute that most immediately interests me, as it nicely evokes what Carol Mavor (who is herself invoking the ideas of the late, great Chris Marker) describes as “the Proustian inflection of Scottie’s pursuit of Madeleine in Vertigo.”** For reading the novel after seeing the film–which is, I presume, the case with the vast majority of the novel’s reader’s today–is to experience involuntary recall, with memories of the movie’s lush imagery constantly materialize with a potency attributed to the madeleine by the narrator of À la recherche du temps perdu. But for me this is far from a bad thing, but instead creates an ideal site where a film and a literary text can and should be read as being in dialogue with each other, and a consideration of this type in turn reveals a number of insights, gaps, and resonances that can deepen and complicate understanding of both texts.Because more than the similarities, what fascinated me most were the elements that appear in one text but not the other, as these often were the things that would often open up unexpected vistas of possible meaning. A particularly good example: D’entre les morts is overtly intertextual in a manner the film never is. The myth of Orpheus and Eurydice figures prominently in the narrative–so much so that Flavières’s affectionate pet name for Madeleine becomes “little Eurydice” (I had never considered Vertigo as an explicit retelling of the Eurydice myth. It seems so obvious now). It also references the cinema at a key point as well, as Flavières “rediscovers” his Eurydice when he glimpses her on a larger-than-life movie screen after he aimlessly wanders into a Parisian theater one afternoon. Considering that Vertigo is often characterized as an implicit meditation on cinema itself, it is interesting to note that these seeds seem to have (at the very least) been planted in the original novel. On a completely different level, while Vertigo is a depiction of one man’s obstinate descent into obsessive desire, the novel uses these personal experiences to explore the larger social trauma experienced by the French during WWII, which is perhaps why it leads to a darker conclusion than Hitchcock dares (though on a dramatic and emotional level, the film’s conclusion is far superior). This review has amplified the novel’s strengths; I could further explicate the many areas where the film exceeds Boileau-Narcejac’s vision (the dream-logic of the narrative, the general oneiric quality it evokes, the representation of space, the creation of the supporting character of Midge to form a heartbreaking love triangle, etc.). Vertigo was crowned “the greatest film ever made” in the most recent Sight & Sound poll, and there’s a reason for that–it a legitimately great film, yes, even one of the great films. And this is a level of distinction that Boileau-Narcejac’s novel never comes close to achieving itself. But just because it’s not one of the all-time great mystery novels doesn’t at all detract from the fact that it’s very, very good. And this is something Hitchcock scholarship has tended to downplay–often to the point of deliberate obscuration–but much like the story of “the sad Carlotta Valdes” or her textual equivalent Pauline Lagerlac, in any consideration of Vertigo Boileau-Narcejac’s novel lingers like a mysterious specter, implying backstories and whole alternative histories that might well be repressed, but never fully erased.*Collected in The Literature/Film Reader: Issues of Adaptation**Black and Blue: The Bruising Passion of Camera Lucida, La Jetee, Sans soleil, and Hiroshima mon amour"She was dead. And he was dead with her."

  • Cphe
    2018-11-23 04:36

    A psychological thriller about a lawyer known as Flavières and his relationship with Madeline the wealthy wife of an old friend. What starts out as fascination soon turns into a spiral of obsession, mystery, reincarnation and alcoholism. You know that Flavières is doomed from the start as you watch him spiral out of control and lose touch with reality.Loved the atmosphere and setting of pre war Paris and this translation suited the mood, tone of the story. No real surprises at the end though, couldn't really see it turn out any other way.

  • Owlseyes
    2018-12-04 03:38

    I’ve watched the movie (of 1958) with the same title, by Alfred Hitchcock.This is a psychological thriller of the best quality, I have ever seen. As the film-director W. Friedkin put it, it’s a case of “a lost love and mistaken identity”. Especially in the first part [my division] of the movie the viewer is focused on the pathology of Madeleine (played by Kim Novak); whereas in the second part Scotty (played by Jimmy Stewart) becomes somehow pathological (melancholic) due to the presumed death of Madeleine, the person he was in love with. The last (third) part of the movie provides the viewer with the sort of scam revelation Scotty has been under since the very beginning. But since he’s not careful enough he loses his second chance: he loses Judy too, in fact Madeleine under disguise. The introductory scenes show how Scotty became acrophobic and, henceforth, a retired detective. Maybe due to Hitchcock’s maturity coupled with the 1950’s inherent beauty*, the movie results in a fine work of art; from the moment it starts till the end. Shot in San Francisco, it allows the viewer the chance to enjoy bumpy roads, the Golden Gate and the Bay area landscapes a few times; even a visit to the sequoias forest. But most beautiful* are the camera sequences shot in the Art Gallery when Madeleine contemplates a painting, under the secret eyeing of Scotty, then with a mission: to unravel the pathology of the wife of his friend. “Just follow my wife”; Scotty, the retired detective, accepts the assignment.Scotty had seen her “falling” into the Bay; so he rushed to save her from the waters. She doesn’t know what happened. Her husband had told Scotty that someone had taken possession of Madeleine: Carlota Valdes.Scotty will get fooled in a visit to a church, “witnessing” Madeleine falling from its roof. Thence his melancholy state. Until he meets another woman called Judy, remotely resembled to blondish Madeleine. Throughout their acquaintance period, Scotty tries, by all means, to change Judy’s looks: her clothing and hair color, namely. Scotty turns obsessive about the looks. The last scenes of the movie, showing a determined Scotty forcing Judy to climb the inner stairs of a church, in this kind of going back to the scene of the crime, turns therapeutic for himself, who overcomes temporarily his fear of heights; yet fatal to Judy/Madeleine who gets scared, by the appearance of an innocent wondering nun; and, in fact, falls from the church heights. About the movie Hitch commented it was a chance for Jimmy Stewart to “indulgence in a form of necrophilia”.PS Just to say that this movie ranks 1st in a poll of July 2015Check here:…...*My appraisal.

  • Tom Mathews
    2018-11-25 04:08

    Yep, this is that Vertigo, the one that Alfred Hitchcock made famous although you shouldn’t go into this hoping to find it similar to the movie. For starters, this was not based in San Francisco. The book was written in 1954 by French collaborators (a poor choice of words) Pierre Boileau and Pierre Ayraud under the pen name Boileau-Narcejac. Originally titled D'entre les morts, "Among the Dead" it is based in Paris during the years just before and shortly after the German occupation. It is a fascinating tale of suspense that is oh so French, complete with lots of lunches in Parisian cafés and walks along the Seine. And passion. We mustn't forget the passion. This is Paris, after all. Former policeman Roger Flavières is hired by an old acquaintance to keep tabs on his wife whom he claims has been behaving strangely. She has apparently developed an unhealthy obsession with a grandmother that had committed suicide long ago. The acquaintance, Gévigne, says that his wife has begun copying the dress and mannerisms of the deceased granny and he is worried about her. Flavières reluctantly agrees to look into the matter but his reluctance vanishes quickly once he lays eyes on the Mme. Gévigne, and he rapidly falls head over heals in love with her. It doesn't end well, but I'll let you discover that for yourself. For a long time I had no idea where this story was going. Is it a crime story, a psychological drama, maybe even something a bit paranormal? I had no clue. I hadn't seen the movie in decades and couldn't remember how it ended but from all that I had heard, the endings might be totally different. (They still might. I have a copy of the movie on hold at the library.) The ending totally took me by surprise, which made up for a few slow spots in the third quarter that bordered on tedious. Bottom line: This book has been on my tbr list for a few years and I am glad that I finally read it. Now I definitely want to read Celle qui n'était plus which director Henri-Georges Clouzot made into the magnificent movie,Diabolique. My thanks to the folks at the Pulp Fiction group for introducing me to this and many other fine books and giving me the opportunity to discuss it with them.

  • Nancy Oakes
    2018-12-09 05:36

    My very first thought at this particular moment is that I'm surprised by how many people did not enjoy this book, which I felt was absolutely stunning. I guess it's a case of "I've seen the movie and the book doesn't match" or something along those lines, but I focused entirely on the novel, putting the movie completely out of my head as I read it. The two have a number of similarities, and the basics of the book have definitely made it to the film, but there are also a number of differences. The novel itself is very dark, and is one of the best examples of a crime novel I've read in a long time, although really, as I've said before about other books, wedging this novel into one specific category is definitely a challenge since it covers a wide range, much in the same way as Highsmith's novels do. I've written about this book at thecrime page of my online journal; what I will say here is that even if you've seen the movie and then later read all about the movie, well, you still haven't read the novel. And it's excellent.

  • Gaetano
    2018-12-06 00:13

    Quando un romanzo ti prende tanto da farti provare angoscia, paura, ansia e rabbia, io penso che abbia colto nel segno.Se poi, come questo, è un giallo denso di atmosfere noir (e Parigi si presta magistralmente allo scopo), di ossessioni e incubi, con misteri e colpi di scena sino alla fine… bisognerebbe farne un film!Ops, qualcuno ci ha già pensato regalandoci un capolavoro: Vertigo, uno dei più belli del maestro Alfred Hitchcock.

  • Leah
    2018-11-28 06:25

    From among the dead...As Paris waits uneasily for war to begin, Roger Flavières is approached by an old college friend, Gévigne, who puts an odd proposition to him. Gévigne is concerned about his wife, Madeleine. She has been lapsing into odd silences, almost trances, and seems bewildered when she comes out of them. Gévigne knows she's been going out during the afternoons but she says she hasn't – either she is lying, which Gévigne doesn't believe, or she has forgotten. Gévigne wants Flavières to follow her, partly to find out what she's doing and partly to make sure she is safe. Flavières assumes she is having an affair, but eventually agrees to Gévigne's request. But a few days later, Madeleine steps quietly into the river and Flavières has to rescue her – a meeting that leads to him developing a strange obsession for her, which he calls love. This is, of course, the book on which the famous Hitchcock film is based, a film I have always admired more than enjoyed, partly because I'm not a huge fan of Kim Novak. The plot is very similar to the book, though Hitchcock has changed the emphasis to make more of the vertigo aspect. Apparently the book was originally called D'entre les morts (From Among the Dead), and this is a much more apt title. Flavières does suffer from vertigo and this was the cause of him being indirectly responsible for the death of his partner when he worked for the police, and also provides a crucial plot point later on in the book. But the focus of the book is much more on the breakdown of Flavières' hold on reality as he comes to believe that Madeleine has the ability to return, like Eurydice, from the dead. The book is set in wartime, with the first section taking place in Paris just as the war is beginning and the second part four years later in Marseilles as it is heading towards its end. This gives a feeling of disruption and displacement which is entirely missing from the film, set as it is in peacetime America. It is impossible for Flavières to track Madeleine's past because records have been destroyed, and people are constantly on the move, both physically and socially, as black marketeers and weapons manufacturers grow wealthy and those who can, leave the parts of France most affected by war. Flavières failed the medical for the army, for reasons left deliberately rather vague, and feels he is despised by strangers who see an apparently fit man avoiding service. Another major difference is that in the book Flavières is a loner – or, at least, alone. He appears to have no friends and gets no fulfilment from his job as a lawyer. In the film, Scottie Ferguson (the Flavières character) has a devoted friend in Midge Wood, and is an all-round decent chap, although guilt-ridden. Flavières is not a decent chap! He is a weak man, pitiable almost, whose obsession with Madeleine seems like an extension of an already unstable mental state rather than the cause of it. As the book progresses, he steadily disintegrates, and his behaviour becomes ever more disturbing and crueller towards Madeleine for not admitting to being who he thinks she is.The book is very well written, and well translated for the most part, although with an annoying tendency to leave some phrases untranslated, such as names of paintings or institutions, meaning I had to resort to Google from time to time to catch a nuance that a translation would have made clear. Apparently, according to the notes in the book, Boileau and Narcejac wanted to create a new style of mystery, away from the standard fare of whodunnits and hard-boileds, putting the victim at the centre of the plot. Boileau was responsible for coming up with the plots while Narcejac created the characterisations. In my view, a partnership that worked brilliantly – the plot of this is fiendishly complex, and Flavières' character is a wonderful study of the effect of obsession on a weak mind. Overall I thought it was much darker than the film, mainly because Flavières may be a victim but there is no attempt to make him out as a good guy - an example of how to write an unlikeable character in such a way as to make him fascinating. The beginning is somewhat slow but I suspect that may be because I knew the plot from the film. As it begins to diverge in the second half I found it completely riveting as it drove inexorably towards its darkly satisfying ending.Unusually for a Hitchcock film, I think the book actually delves more deeply into the psychology and makes it more credible. Hitchcock's decision to elevate the importance of the vertigo aspects somehow makes his Ferguson a less complex and intriguing character than Boileau-Narcejac's Flavières. And the ending of the book is much more satisfying than that of the film. For once, despite my abiding love for Mr Hitchcock, on this occasion the victory goes to the book!NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Pushkin

  • Mec
    2018-12-10 01:28

    Il romanzo narra un'ossessione che si avvita su se stessa fino a fagocitare l'uomo che ne è vittima.Per buona parte del libro ho rimpianto il film di Hitchcock, perché pur seguendo il tormento del protagonista ho faticato a lasciarmi coinvolgere dalla narrazione e dal mistero che avvolge la donna oggetto di tanta fatale passione.Le cose sono decisamente migliorate nel finale, grazie all'accelerazione ed al crescendo allucinatorio che trova finalmente sbocco.Non è un'opera memorabile e non mi ha lasciato il desiderio di leggere altro degli autori, ma ogni tanto l'immersione in un'atmosfera rétro non mi dispiace.

  • Ben Loory
    2018-11-21 02:37

    next time someone says "the book is always better than the movie," this here's exhibit A for the other side. it's the whole movie-- structurally-- beginning to end; only in france, during WWII, and minus a few keys things:1) jimmy stewart (this guy's just a hopeless asshole loser)2) kim novak (there's no magic and the love story's unconvincing)3) the character midge (without whom, no hope of normalcy)4) the inquest scene (for me, always the most painful part)5) the final, all-important re-creation scene (and the overcoming of the main character's vertigo)it's easy to understand how the first four might be missing from the original, but the last is just kind of mind-blowing. how could anyone think that the book ended properly with the ending that it actually has?? bizarre.anyway, it's not a bad book, it's just... not vertigo. it's short and cynical and unromantic and ugly. it's way more boris vian than james m. cain (or m.r. james). you never buy the whole ghost story aspect at all, you never even consider it (and i buy it every single time, watching the movie).chalk a big one up for the auteur theory.(actually titled D'entre les morts and originally translated as The Living and the Dead.)

  • Nicola Mansfield
    2018-11-25 00:30

    I've been getting around to reading some of the novels and stories that Hitchcock based his movies on. I've seen "Vertigo" starring Jimmy Stewart a couple of times but it isn't one I know too well. Going into the book I was looking forward to the big Vertigo scene in the church tower. I vaguely remembered the plot but did know what the big reveal was. The book is divided into essentially two parts: the before and the after of the big event which happened at exactly 50% on my kindle. The first half is slow and rather dull while the second half is obsessive and frenzied. None of the characters are to be liked and I was surprised at how close the movie had followed the book. I'll now have to rewatch Hitchcock's version with this still fresh in my mind.

  • David
    2018-11-21 02:11

    I am moving to San Francisco. To prepare for this move I have spent the last few months immersing myself in the history and cultural output of the city, and so it was inevitable that I should find myself watching Hitchcock’s Vertigo, which is based in part on this slim thriller by the French masters Boileau and Narcejac. The story of Vertigo is in a tradition aside from the English puzzle mysteries of Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie, and of the American tradition of crime mysteries from Hammett, Chandler, et al. While there is an atmosphere of suspense an mystery, the story is an exploration of love, loss, identity, obsession, and masculinity. While many of the reviews on this site have focused on the richness of Hitchcock’s classic at the expense of Boileau’s and Narcejac’s source material. But I see tremendous virtues for both; and by comparing them side by side, I can see concentration of the character of San Francisco as it was injected by Hitchcock into his greatest film.To start, the character of Scottie in the film is the self-conscious Flavieres in the book. While Scottie is a social being, good-natured, and loveable, often in the company of women like his ex-fiancee Midge, Flavieres is a loner, inwardly disparaging of his own sense of self-worth after his failure to follow a suspect onto the roof which resulted in his partner’s death. While Scottie is very candid about his handicap and diagnosis of vertigo, Flavieres is standoffish and embarrassed. He was exempted from the ongoing Second World War as a result of his poor lungs or cowardice, and he feels that embarrassment often as he travels about with Madeline. The wartime backdrop is removed in Hitchcock’s film, and the focus falls more closely on the characters of Scottie and Madeline.When Flavieres/Scottie are called up by an old friend (Gevigne/Elstir) and shipping magnate to watch his wife, he reluctantly accepts though he is skeptical of the verity of Madeline’s being possessed by the wayward spirit of her dead ancestor (Pauline Lagerlac/Carlotta Valdez). The meanderings of Madeline in both book and film create a profound sense of place for both Paris and San Francisco. While in the book she traverses along the quay and to the Passy cemetery, the film takes her to much more iconic San Franciscan locations: the Mission Dolores cemetery (one of two cemeteries in the city), the Legion of Honour art museum, and Fort Point beneath the Golden Gate Bridge, where she takes her first jump. While Pauline was a troubled French socialite who committed suicide for no apparent reason, Carlotta was a jilted young woman left with a child – a representation of the American exploit of the local Latin/Mexican community in California. While many reviewers found the book’s romance less believable than the movies, I am tempted to disagree. The psychology of Flavieres – never having been in love not ever having had the confidence to approach women, he is suddenly in a position of guardianship and savior to a beautiful young bride of a man of whom he is jealous. Madeline is an empty vessel for his longings and his insecurities, and her seeming helplessness fortifies his diminished sense of masculinity. While Scottie is a troubled man in the film, it does not seem he suffers from a diminished sense of the masculine (for that matter, neither do any of Hitchcock’s male leads). The character of both Madelines is blank, scarcely formed while she is “alive” and our sense of her is inhabited by Scottie’s and Flavieres’s interpretation of her. In the film she is an easel of blank and nervous stares, wide eyes, pristinely coiffed hair, and striking green eyes. In the book she is the lacuna between words and phrases on the page, she is vacant.The cowardice of Flavieres reaches a fever pitch when Madeline dies and he lies to Gevigne about his attendance at the scene. Perhaps the most poignant moment in the film is the inquisition of Scottie after the jump which forces him to accept her death and admit to his inability to save her. For Flavieres he has never had confidence in his ability to save her, and constantly he has felt her beyond his grasp – not because of his fear of heights but because of her magnetism toward death, and his own cowardice and unmanliness. When he spirits away to Dakar, to escape the encroaching war, Flavieres takes to alcoholism and dissoluteness. He returns four years later to a changed Paris. All the trace of Madeline is gone from the Paris he knew. Pauline Lagerlac’s house put to new purpose. The memory of her death lives alone in the memory of an old woman who discovered her body and the hotel attendant where the Gevignes lived. Madeline’s grave has been destroyed by acts of war, and Gevigne too has been erased, dead. While Flavieres is often in a fog, at turns literal and metaphorical, Scottie’s San Francisco is preternaturally (for the locale) clear-skied – and Scottie’s voyeuristic obsession and later madness is brutally clearsighted.When the book is stripped away, what remains is Hitchcock’s love letter to San Francisco – a city whose hilly topography and thick matte air lends itself so well to the meandering mystery of Madeline. Whose imperial history lends itself so well to the tragedy of Carlotta. Whose historically seedy underworld lends itself so well to the corrupt motives of the industrialist Elstir. A story which uncovers Hitchcock’s mannered yet mysterious San Francisco: the counterpoint to the rough and seedy Tenderloin of Dashiell Hammett’s San Francisco.

  • Suni
    2018-11-24 00:16

    Si usa dire che il libro sia quasi sempre meglio del film, ma sarà così anche nel caso del libro da cui è stato tratto Vertigo di Hitchcock, uno dei migliori film della storia del cinema? In questo caso forse no, ma quella di D'entre les morts – uso il titolo francese così non ci confondiamo tra romanzo e film, che invece in italiano hanno lo stesso nome – è stata una lettura notevole, di quelle che lasciano il segno.La storia all'inizio è più o meno la stessa, ambientata però in Francia anziché a San Francisco, mentre da un certo punto in poi troviamo delle piccole ma significative differenze, per cui le due trame non si allontanano davvero ma non sono più sovrapponibili come nella prima parte.È anche molto importante la collocazione temporale della storia originale: i primi tempi della Seconda Guerra Mondiale, quando a Parigi in pochi temevano che i tedeschi avrebbero invaso la Francia, e poi, dopo uno stacco di cinque anni, l'immediato dopoguerra, con le macerie e la distruzione, tra cui chi può cerca di riprendere la vita come era prima, ma non ci riesce mai davvero.Perché la copia non è mai come l'originale (per non parlare del fatto che quale sia l'originale e quale la copia è un concetto relativo). E contro questa evidenza continua a scontrarsi il protagonista, che vuole che la donna che ama sia viva, vivente, anzi ri-vivente per la terza volta (non ho mai capito perché il titolo italiano spoileri male, dato che le volte sarebbero tre e non due), come l'Euridice di Orfeo, il mito a cui l'aveva accostata già al tempo del loro primo incontro.Così, pagina dopo pagina assistiamo alla caduta di un uomo in una spirale allucinata (e alcolica) di autodistruzione e di allontanamento dalla realtà, al suo volo in un abisso che non sembra avere fondo, ennesima beffa proprio a lui che soffre di vertigini, che per le vertigini ha lasciato la carriera da poliziotto e da allora si è fatto consumare dentro da un senso di colpa tanto schiacciante quanto immotivato, finendo per crogiolarcisi e fare il possibile, inconsciamente, per accrescerlo.C'è anche il mistero che alla fine viene svelato, e se non lo si conosce dal film è senz'altro una bella trovata, ma il vero nucleo del romanzo è l'inesorabile discesa negli inferi del protagonista, descritta dai due autori in un modo a mio avviso così reale e terribile che ogni tanto mi mancava l'aria.

  • Aslıhan Çelik Tufan
    2018-11-13 02:20

    Şapka çıkaralım. Okuyalım, okutalım.

  • Fabiola
    2018-11-21 01:11

    Se si pensa a La donna che visse due volte forse, oggi, vien prima in mente la sua controparte cinematografica (titolo omonimo o, in inglese, Vertigo, di Hitchcock) che non quella cartacea.Nonostante l'abbia visto anni e anni fa quando ero più piccola e ora non lo ricordi nella sua interezza, ricordo bene il fascino calamitante di quel film che riusciva - e sicuramente riesce tutt'oggi - a farti tenere gli occhi incollati allo schermo.Contrariamente ad altri, io ho riprovato questa sensazione anche leggendo il libro da cui ne è stato tratto.Il libro si apre con la scena di due vecchi amici, Gévigne e Flavières, che si reincontrano dopo molti anni. L'incontro non è casuale: è Gévigne, infatti, a cercare Flavières, ex-polizitto che soffre di vertigini (da qui il titolo inglese del film), riformato in seguito a un incidente durante uno dei suoi casi, ora avvocato. Gévigne, che dai tempi dell'università ha fatto strada e ora ha una solida posizione finanziaria anche grazie al matrimonio contratto con una ragazza facoltosa, cerca l'aiuto di Flavières proprio perché preoccupato dalla giovane moglie: chiede all'amico di assurgere al ruolo di investigatore privato e tenere d'occhio Madeleine (tale è il nome della giovane) poiché da qualche tempo ha riscontrato in lei strani atteggiamenti che neanche i medici hanno saputo spiegare. Fisicamente sta bene, persino a livello mentale non viene considerata pazza, eppure il marito ha notato ch'ella tende sempre più a estraniarsi dal mondo, che - se lasciata in questi stati - è sempre più difficile riportarla alla realtà e che in lei sta crescendo sempre più una sorta di ossessione per la sua bisnonna (mai conosciuta) Pauline Lagerlac, morta suicida alla stessa età che ha ora Madeleine. In uno scambio di battute dette e altre lasciate intendere, ci si domanda se Madeleine non sia stata "posseduta" dallo spirito della bisnonna. Flavières inizialmente vuole tirarsene fuori, ma, alla fine, la preoccupazione e l'insistenza di Gévigne lo vincono e accetta il caso. Da qui si dipanerà poi la trama vera e propria, con Flavières che si innamorerà perdutamente di Madeleine e cercherà, al contempo, di risolvere il mistero che ruota intorno alla vita di questa donna dai misteriosi occhi color ghiaccio.Non anticipo altro perché, pur essendo storia famosa, la trama del film non ricalca pedissequamente quella del libro, anzi, per quanto possa ricordare, in alcuni punti si discosta abbastanza, quindi è bello "scoprire" le cose pian piano durante la lettura.Le tematiche che fungono da perno del romanzo sono essenzialmente due. In primis, le vertigini, intese come vertigini vere e proprie, "handicap" psico-fisico del protagonista, ma anche come "vertigini amorose", in quanto l'amore presente nella storia sarà sempre un amore del tipo più instabile e pericoloso e, ancora, vertigini come movimento rotatorio, circolarità della storia, ripetizione innaturale di determinati eventi; continui saranno i riferimenti a vertigini, spirali, vortici. In secundis, il tema del doppio (o del "multiplo"), l'elemento che forse più di tutti conquistò Hitchcock e su cui creò il capolavoro, un dualismo, una molteplicità inquietante in maniera sottile, un contrasto tra realtà e irrealtà che ammalia, coinvolge e fa confondere e dubitare finanche il lettore.La donna che visse due volte è un giallo e anche un noir che gioca non su una simbologia visiva e sonora come il "fratello" cinematografico ma, al contrario, su ciò che non si vede, sull'introspezione: i pensieri e i sentimenti del protagonista sono analizzati, eviscerati e messi in mostra per noi-pubblico che, progressivamente, vediamo scivolare Flavières in una spirale interiore di dubbio, orrore, confusione, inquietudine e follia e perdersi in questa.Le atmosfere cupe, il senso di oppressione, i particolari macabri e l'inquietante irrealtà sono tutti elementi che rendono grande questo ipnotico romanzo, che ovviamente consiglio e per il quale ringrazio sempre l'amata Adelphi!

  • Blair
    2018-11-25 05:17

    I was so confused about the provenance of this edition of Vertigo at first. I had initially assumed it was a new translation, but it's actually (I think) a reissue to tie in with the launch of Pushkin's Vertigo imprint, dedicated to 'writers of the greatest thrillers and mysteries on earth from countries around the world'. (I really want to cut 'on earth' from that sentence) (and possibly 'countries') Adding to the confusion (which is perhaps very apt for this novel), I was half asleep when I read it. So I can't write anything much in the way of a review, but I did really enjoy this noirish mystery and tale of obsession; it's a quick read with a great ending. I'll certainly read more Boileau-Narcejac.

  • S. Hm
    2018-12-06 03:19

    شش صفحه آخر کتاب را که میخواندم تصور نمیکردم با داستانی جنایی سر و کار داشته ام. انقدر که درگیر جنبه عاطفی داستان شده بودم. با اینکه میدانستم هیچکاک فیلمی با ژانر پلیسی از این رمان ساخته. خوب غافلگیر شدم ...خوب

  • Jim Dooley
    2018-11-17 03:14

    In the comments from the publisher at the end of the book, it is noted that this novel came from the teaming of two award-winning mystery writers. They were tired of the typical British “locked room” murder mystery and the popular American hard-boiled detective story. So, they wrote their first book, SHE WHO WAS NO MORE, with a definitive slant toward the dark, psychological side. None other than the great director, Alfred Hitchcock, became very excited about the book and tried to option it … but, it was already acquired. Eventually, it was restructured to become the wonderfully nerve-wracking film, DIABOLIQUE. Hitchcock made certain that he was first in line for their next one, VERTIGO. Of course, he needn’t have worried. They wrote it with him in mind.If you have seen Alfred Hitchcock’s VERTIGO, you will see that it was a remarkably faithful adaptation of the book. Changes were primarily of time (just before and after the WWII years to the mid-1950’s) and location (France to California). There are some other differences, but they are not significant. The best reason I can think of for the VERTIGO film fan to read the VERTIGO book is for the backstory and a deeper exploration of the character motivations. They definitely help the appreciation of the story. The movie is the style and the book is the substance.The book is written in a straight-forward manner that often describes what is being seen and the character’s reaction to it. Sometimes, a character will be caught in an obsessive thought process, and the descriptions will take us along that descending spiral. The writers seem to take a special delight in exposing us to the mysterious or unusual, and then allowing us to supply our own interpretation until it is time for the final revelation.If you’re new to VERTIGO, there is quite a bit to enjoy. Although it is firmly a mystery novel, it is different from most that I’ve read. Its brevity keeps it from attaining a P.D. James depth, yet that also adds to its allure.If you are a big fan of the movie, here’s a friendly bit of fair warning. The Bernard Herrmann music will likely follow you throughout the book and for some time after you finish.

  • Rita Araújo
    2018-12-09 06:10

    Projeto #viagemdovertigo ❤️

  • Col
    2018-11-24 05:33

    Synopsis/blurb…….."Do you think it's possible to live again, Monsieur? ... I mean ... is it possible to die and then ... live again in someone else?"You're no longer in the police, but when an old friend asks you to look after his wife as a favour, how can you refuse? She's been behaving strangely, mysteriously - but she's dazzling. And so Flavières begins to scour the streets of Paris in search of an answer - in search of a woman who belongs to no one, not even to herself. Soon intrigue is replaced by obsession, and dreams by nightmares, as the boundaries between the living and the dead begin to blur.This is the story of a desperate man. A man who ended up compromising his own morality beyond all measure, while the Second World War raged outside his front door. A man tormented by his search for the truth, and ultimately destroyed by a dark, terrible secret.A bit of classic crime fiction with French double act Boileau and Narcejac’s 1954 book Vertigo – the basis for Hitchcock’s classic film.--------------My take.....Set in war-time Paris, former detective Flavieres is asked by an old friend Gevigne to keep an eye on his wife. Something appears to be troubling Madeleine but her husband can’t put his finger on it.Flavieres, a lawyer and a loner agrees and very soon becomes obsessed with Madeleine. Madeleine behaves strangely, visiting a graveyard, renting a hotel room for afternoon visits, penning letters but ripping them into pieces before attempting to drown herself. Flavieres rescues her and as a consequence his relationship with her becomes more intimate (not in a physical sense).She is convinced that she has lived before, as one of her ancestors – Pauline Lagerlac - her great grandmother who committed suicide. The Paris narrative ends with the death of Madeleine falling from a high church tower in a town away from the capital. Flavieres again, overcome by vertigo is impotent and unable to prevent her sudden actions.At this point in reading, I realised I had seen the film albeit some years previously. Long enough ago to have forgotten the outcome anyway.The second part of our book, picks up four years later in Marseilles. Flavieres is still alone, his life revolving around his next drink. A chance viewing of a newsreel clip featuring DeGaulle in Marseilles and Flavieres believes he catches a glimpse of Madeleine as the camera pans the crowd.His obsession reawakens.Fantastic book, complex, convoluted plot but plausible enough or at least not too fanciful to require a suspension of belief. Flavieres is interesting as our protagonist; he’s neither loathsome or sympathetic, which is a clever portrayal and balancing act. Did I care about him and his outcome? Probably not, I was more interested in getting to the bottom of the book. Great read4.5 out of 5.I’m tempted to re-watch the film soon. Vertigo the movie is set in the US unlike the book. I’m unable to remember whether the two – that difference apart – resemble each other closely or not. It’ll be interesting to check.Vertigo has recently been republished by Pushkin Vertigo Press. Their website is here. recent blog post highlighted their recent launch and mission statement. Here. received a copy of this from them.Read in September, 2015

  • Dfordoom
    2018-12-01 05:27

    Vertigo the novelPierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac’s Vertigo (original French title D'entre les morts) is of course the source material for Hitchcock’s famous movie. The novel was published in an English translation in 1956 under the title The Living and the Dead and Hitchcock’s film followed a couple of years later.They also wrote the book on which Clouzot’s Les Diaboliques was based and I’ve wanted to read one of their novels for years. Sadly this one seems to be only one readily available in an English translation.As is the case with the movie caution is needed when discussing the plot. There are major plot twists that I don’t wish to spoil so I’ll be a vague as possible about the plot.The movie followed the storyline laid out in the novel surprisingly closely. The changes are fairly minor in themselves, but significant especially with regards to the motivations of the characters.The story opens in 1940. Flavières had been a cop but had been forced to resign after an unfortunate incident on a rooftop. He had been chasing a suspect but suffered an attack of vertigo and lost his nerve. As a result a fellow policeman was killed. Flavières now works as a lawyer. An old acquaintance whom he hasn’t seen for years contacts him out of the blue asking for help in a delicate matter. He is worried about his wife’s odd behaviour. Could Flavières keep an eye on her?The wife, Madeleine Gévigne, seems to be obsessed with a long-dead ancestress, the mysterious Pauline Lagerlac. Pauline had committed suicide and Madeleine’s husband fears she may do the same. Flavières soon discovers this apparently simple job isn’t so simple after all, owing to the fact that he fallen hopelessly in love with Madeleine. Something he is ill-equipped to deal with, being chronically ill-at-ease with women. Of course if you’ve seen the movie you know that catastrophe will strike about halfway through the story.Like the movie it’s a story of an ex-cop’s obsession with a woman, and with death and with control and identity. The major difference is in the personality of Flavières. The character he became in the movie, Scottie Ferguson, is dark and disturbing in his own way and has some serious emotional and sexual issues. But he is at least a person who believes he is a basically good and moral person. That’s responsible for much of the pathos and the irony of the film. Flavières has no such illusions about himself. This difference in characterisation gives the endings of the novel and the movie rather different feels. In both cases the ending is bleak, but it’s not the same kind of bleakness.The other major difference is that the war plays a major role in the novel with the first half of the story occurring in 1940 as France faces defeat and the second half taking place in 1945 against a war-ravaged and cynical background of France in the immediate aftermath of the end of the war.There are sufficient differences in tone and characterisation that it’s possible to regard Boileau and Narcejac’s novel and Hitchcock’s movie as quite distinct works. The movie is an acknowledged masterpiece. The novel is a very fine piece of crime fiction and can be unhesitatingly recommended.

  • Karen
    2018-11-18 02:23

    Being a huge Hitchock fan this book particularly intrigued, but even if you’ve never seen a single Hitchcock film in your life, VERTIGO is an engaging, fascinating, and frequently beautiful book. If you are also a fan of the film, then there is greater nuance here than the film, and plenty to conjecture about for the reader.Set at the start of World War II, the central character of Flavières is troubled by many things, not just the need at one point to flee the war’s encroachment. He seems, on the face of it, a man who was destined to be obsessed with the wife of his friend. Her behaviour whilst mysterious, is mesmerising and her beauty in the eyes of Flavières incomparable. His obsession and the moral dilemmas presented to him by her husband’s insistence that he continue the friendship are understated, yet beautifully illustrated. The reasons posited for her behaviour are unexpected and yet oddly believable, but nothing is ever that straight-forward and VERTIGO delivers some twists and turns and stings in the tail that make it end up sitting somewhere between a mystery and a morality play.Beautifully translated with nary a bump to be detected in the language, VERTIGO is complicated, clever and another of those wonderful, one sitting reading experiences.

  • Tosh
    2018-11-16 03:20

    I bought this book in a remainder type of bookstore in London some years ago. I was very excited to find the novel, because I always have been a fan of the Hitchcock film version. Also being a fan of French crime fiction, it gave me that little push of interest.The book is very close to the film in many ways. Maybe not as obsessive as Hitchcock's own inspiration from the material, but nevertheless if you are a fan of the film, do try to locate the book.

  • Mosco
    2018-12-08 00:32

    Lo so, sono paragoni che non bisognerebbe fare, ma, a differenza del solito, ho preferito di gran lunga il film. Il vecchio pancione Hitch ne ha tratto un capolavoro.

  • LaCitty
    2018-12-07 22:26

    Gran bel libro. Sono indecisa se fermarmi a 4 o dargli le 5*.Ammetto che del film mi è sempre sfuggito il significato (secondo me arrivavo mezza addormentata alla fine e, ops, mi perdevo la spiegazione del mistero!), ma ora ho capito e l'inghippo è davvero diabolico (poi so che qualcuno più sveglio di me probabilmente ci sarebbe arrivato prima, ma tendo ad essere ingenua con questo genere di libri e a lasciarmi trascinare dalla storia). Detto questo, il libro è molto più oscuro del film. Il protagonista è tormentato, anzi ossessionato da Madeleine, al punto da rasentare (ma forse è più corretto dire "raggiungere") la follia. Il James Steward di Hitchock è un personaggio integerrimo, un cavaliere pronto a salvare la sua principessa in difficoltà, Flavieres invece... Flavieres è tutta un'altra storia!Super consigliato!

  • Williwaw
    2018-12-05 00:27

    There was a time when the Alfred Hitchcock imprimatur on a book title was a marketing goldmine. I was a teenager during the tail-end of that time. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then check this out: publication chronologyDuring those years (mid to late 1970's), I recall purchasing at least 15 or 20 short story anthologies in a paperback format, published by Dell. The covers were gloriously comic depictions of Hitch himself in macabre settings. The art was typically of very high quality. For example: stories not for the nervousThose Dell paperbacks can still be found at used bookshops or on ebay, but generally speaking, it's tough to find them in decent condition. Nevertheless, I have embarked on something of a re-acquisition project. In the process, I found this copy of Vertigo, which is a translation of a French novel that Hitchcock adapted for the much more celebrated film. From time to time, I have read criticism of the film. The book upon which it is based is routinely dismissed as second-rate, or characterized as having little in common with the film.Neither allegation is true! This is a short gem of a book. The writing is solid. In particular, the stream of consciousness style that depicts the inner workings of Flavieres' mind (Flavieres is the analog of Scotty in the film) is executed brilliantly.Also, the essentials of the movie plot are all there. Except that the story takes place in France, mostly during WWII; and although the main character has a fear of heights which is exploited, the phenomenon of vertigo is never really mentioned or explored in the book. Yes, Hitchcock did embellish the story quite a bit, and the film is a richer experience on many levels. But this book stands on its own legs, and deserves an audience. It should not be so completely overshadowed by the film.Not to mention that this old Dell edition has a fantastic cover! Seek, and you shall find!

  • Ayleen Julio
    2018-11-15 04:33

    Si, llegué a esta historia por la película de Alfred Hitchcook, con la promesa de una buena historia, que al final me enamoró por el gran trabajo psicológico que hacen los autores con Roger Flavieres, su protagonista. Y es que si bien al principio éste puede ser un poco chocante, con su aura de pesimista desencantado al que nada satisface, poco a poco nos encontramos con un sujeto con miedos, dudas y obsesiones que de cierto modo, han marcado el curso de su vida; Madeleine es sólo uno de ellas [ahora que caigo, fue uno de los elementos que me hizo un tanto tortuosa la lectura]. El ritmo narrativo es bueno, a veces decae, a veces es ágil, pero con el propósito de mantener en suspenso al lector. El final, sorprende si van de la mano del filme; y si no, es posible que no tanto porque va un tanto de acuerdo con lo que el relato va proponiendo, si bien éste parece ofrecer diversas salidas al conflicto.¿Y la adaptación de Hitchcook? Pues le reconozco la creatividad, pero es bastante pobre. Lo que sí me resulta loable es su capacidad de encontrar narradores muy buenos perdidos quizá, en el olvido.

  • Sara
    2018-12-03 03:27

    I've never seen the Hitchcock film, so I went into this without really having any expectations one way or another. The book follows Flavières - a P.I. of sorts - who is asked to watch over an old college friend's wife Madeline, who has been acting strangely. As he follows her, he ends up becoming obsessed with her and becoming a confidant of Madeline's. In general, the book is much more about the deterioration of the psyche of Flavières, especially in his belief (and obsession) that Madeline can come back from the dead. It was a quick, exciting read and I really enjoyed it. Curious to see the film adaptation!

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2018-11-26 06:31

    در میان مردگان، یا از میان مردگان، در سال 1954 نوشته شده، هیچکاک با نام سرگیجه، آن را بر پرده ی سینما برد. بوآلو - نارسژاک، از جنایت حادٍثه ای می سازند که، از رویارویی هیجانات و دلمشغولی ها، به وجود می آید. و از این طریق، به جایی دست می یابد که به تعبیر روژه کایوآ این رمان پلیسی، دیگر بازی ذهنی مستقل از داده های ملموس نیست. به رمان واقعی تبدیل شده است

  • Beth
    2018-12-05 00:21

    Like watching the movie in slow motion, with different people playing the parts. And in France during the war. The ending of the book doesn't live up to the movie, though. Madeleine's death scene is not recreated; the vertigo is not conquered.

  • ines mmi
    2018-11-14 03:24

    j'ai adorer ce livre <3 il est bizzard tous comme moi.. je sais pa prk mais je me suis en quelque sorte retrouver en madleine.....