Reviews of Rear Window
Displaying all 5 reviews
Jordan K. Ellis
26Jan12
Rear Window (1954) is without a doubt Alfred Hitchcock’s way of expressing “pure cinema,” meaning film at its peak. He was always working with the mise-en-scenic structure of art and filmmaking. It is considered one of the benchmarks of his career. Based on the short story by crime writer, Cornell Woolrich, entitled “It Had to Be Murder,” the plot follows a photographer (a poignant way of expressing the story and cinematographic his techniques) confined in his apartment, seeing through his “rear window” suspects that murder has been taken place in another apartment. The situtation becomes dangerous to be heavily involved with. Of course, changes were made to Hitchcock’s adaptation, such as the ending, the replacement of caretakers, and a romantic love interest with the main character.
However, what makes Rear Window faithful to the original work was the overall theme of voyeurism. Both Hitchcock and Woolrich follow the idea that people are practically all “peeping toms.” This puts in context, the idea of giving our own perspective to what we are able to see and assume, it is a conflicting issue of how we deal with spying. The film is a way of analyzing other people’s private lives and knowing their secrets. In common sense, we, both the viewer and reader, become confined as well to this one apartment, so we instantly become the observer. It tries to twist our aptitude. Hitchcock plays with the audience not seeing everything that involves the murder plot, so it creates the suspense and rural imagery that we have come to suspect. Woolrich does the same quite well.
Another way that makes the film essential to the original work was the environment itself. The protagonist’s apartment becomes the entity that we see. In the original story, it does take place in apartment complexes, but it does not give off the little play-lets (sub-dramas) or the sub-arcs that involve the tenants in the other apartment windows that can be seen in the film. In fact, Hitchcock enhances this usage by giving the impression of natural apartment life, especially with the diegetic sound such as planes going by, the busy street, and people shouting. We are able to see distinctive private lives of all these tenants.
I think one of the reasons for adding a female character, a romantic interest, was probably a balance for a target audience, possible brand names, or the fact that there is a female blond in all of Hitchcock’s films. Whatever it may have been, it worked. Grace Kelly in Rear Window plays the entrancing, alluring beauty of the female character that you cannot possibly lay a finger on. Another Hitchcock trademark is how he plays with sex in a robust way without really interpreting it in terms of dialogue. These tactics really broke the limits of American filmmaking and became a way of tackling with real lives. In fact, the film version deals with relationships both love and aspiration.
Rear Window is a master film that worked so well going back to its original form by Cornell Woolich. Hitchcock, being fond of criminal novels and short acts, wanted this to be on his plate. Rear Window works extremely prominent in a cinematic structure of telling a story. Both the film and short story are something to view more than once. It definitely confronts our way of dealing with scopophilia like the protagonist does, but either way, we are drawn into these characters.
Cinesthesia (aka Duncan)
14Aug10
Consider the motivations. As James Stewart, Grace Kelly, and Thelma Ritter investigate the disappearance (and possible murder) of their neighbor, their motive does not appear to be a sense justice or even fear (at least not at first). Instead, it’s pure, morbid, nosy curiosity about what the people around them are up to. Listen to the way the talk about the murder, hypothesizing how it must have happened. It’s a horrifying idea, yes, but they’re clearly also thrilled by it—just like, well, the audience of a Hitchcock film. It’s a fine, almost satirical subtext. Hitchcock is famous as the “master of suspense”, but he’s underrated as a comedian.
Rear Window is often regarded as one of the master’s best. It’s neither as rich nor as fun as North by Northwest and doesn’t pack the punch of Psycho. It also isn’t the dreamlike directorial coup of Vertigo (though I find that film to be a tad overrated). But it’s definitely up there. Hitchcock’s skill with visual storytelling is as strong as ever. The film is wonderfully entertaining, and the ideas of voyeurism make for a coyly blatant subtext. Anyone curious about how a film can be about murder but so much more could definitely start here.
10 out of 10.
- Currently 5.0/5 Stars.
Conner Rainwater
3Jun10
Maybe it’s because it’s the last Hitchcock film I saw, but I just don’t see what all the fuss is with Rear Window. Yes, it’s a fun movie and Grace Kelly is flawless in it, but I think it’s one of the more obvious attempts at thrillers that Hitchcock did. Everything fits together a little too well and no one is ever in any real danger. What I mainly found to be the strong suit was Hitchcock’s visual style, you could tell he just loved working with the set and having it move so eloquently. I do think it’s a good movie, it just doesn’t come up to the Hitchcock standard.
- Currently 4.0/5 Stars.
J. Ridiculous
8Jun09
This decade was perhaps Hitchock’s most creatively and financially successful period, producing innumerable classic films and Rear Window may be the best example of his more populist thrillers. While it lacks the innovation and thematic challenges of his darker and more risky films, it still is basically a film that turns the audience into peeping toms along with the main character. In effect, we overtly become what all audiences truly are; voyeurs. The story itself is thrilling and compelling, and never lags, which is amazing considering that the main character is completely immobilized for the entirety of the film. Jimmy Stewart gives one of his classic performances, and there might never have been a more beautiful actress than Grace Kelly. Thelma Ritter is also superb as Stewart’s wise-cracking nurse.
- Currently 5.0/5 Stars.
jaredmobarak
26Nov08
After seeing Alfred Hitchcock’s classic Rear Window for the second time, I am even more convinced that the broo-haha surrounding Disturbia and its ripping it off was uncalled for. Besides the premise of a person confined to their window, seeing what they think is a murder, the two could not be anymore different. This film is one that will never age, whether it story, acting, or sheer inventiveness in its execution. Only Hitchcock could build the suspense as high as he does for almost two hours never leaving one room the entire time. Our hero is in a full leg cast and a prisoner to his room and window. Besides that interior, everything else we see is from his vantage point across to the rest of the apartment complex and a sliver of space opening to the street beyond. A clinic or choreography and showing us only what we need to know, Rear Window leaves you guessing right up until the final scene, unaware of what the whole truth to the situation is.
Technically, the film has no flaws. Its utilization of a pivoting camera that pans left to right out L.B. Jefferies apartment is one-of-a-kind. With only the zooms from his camera lens and binoculars, we are allowed to see everything he does, letting us as the audience come to our own conclusions as well as become a part of his. This is a slow burn of a story, revealing each new discovery as though the layers of an onion peeled away. The sheer amount of rehearsals must have been staggering. There are plenty of long takes that go from window to window, catching the precise moment of activity we need in order to continue the story. Each actor had to be able to hit their mark at the exact moment necessary; timed to perfection. It is a joy to think about the work that went into the film every time we are shown characters moving from room to room, stopping at each window for our benefit, yet never feeling unnatural. Full credit goes to the cinematographer for orchestrating it all.
The premise and craft are not the only things going for it. Acting-wise, there is not one misstep. James Stewart truly was the greatest actor of his generation. His delivery is uncanny and he can go from serious drama to light comedy without a blink. There is a lot of heavy emotional tension between him and his girlfriend that is treated with the same amount of care every other plot thread is. His relationship with Lisa Fremont, the gorgeous Grace Kelly, is mirrored in that of the quarrels and love trysts happening all around him. Without the murder mystery and the peeping into the lives of other couples, they may end up breaking up forever. His middle-class upbringing and photojournalist lifestyle just doesn’t match well with her patrician ways and necessity of wearing a dress only once to keep appearances up for her job. The two could not be anymore different except for the fact they are madly in love with the other.
Kelly is not just a pretty face either. Her performance is realistic at all times, keeping up with Stewart’s sarcastic wit and playing the girlfriend being spurned all while slowly becoming engrossed in the story of the Thorwalds across the way. She becomes a photojournalist herself in many ways, looking through the camera and coming to conclusions for what the story may entail. In opposition to this, Stewart morphs into that which he thinks can never change in his love, her ability to stay on the fringe while others do the hard labor. Many times towards the end, he is the one left to watch others risk their safety for his manifested theories. He himself is the helpless being unable to go into the trenches, but instead prepare everything for the others to carry out. Whether Thorwald killed his wife or she has taken a train to visit family, the hold the mystery has on them finally shows the two what the other goes through and their respect for the other blossoms to become as strong as their love.
My favorite aspect of the complete achievement, however, is the levity infused at all times. Sure the subject matter is very serious—I wouldn’t be surprised if it was at first created to be a commentary on the Red Scare and worrying about what your neighbors could be up to—but at every turn we get witty banter helping to alleviate the tension and give us viewers a breather. Stewart and Kelly are quite the team and they perform the words of John Michael Hayes’ script with ease. The timing is superb and many of the best lines are mixed into the dramatic dialogue always breaking up the suspense. We aren’t talking gags and jokes, but instead puns and sly shots taken as a result of the conversations at hand. This is one smart script and I find myself even more interested in seeing The Man Who Knew Too Much—the second version Hitchcock directed—to see how well the team does, joined together again.
- Currently 4.0/5 Stars.