Rear Window Revisited
Nov. 18th, 2003 10:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sdelmonteLast night, I watched (for the fifth time) the classic film Rear Window. What follows has spoilers, so if you've neglected this work, be warned.
The DVD of Rear Window offers both a recently restored version of the film, colors painstakingly recreated to match what it looked like on its release, and a nice documentary about the making of the film and its restoration. Naturally, it's letterbox, giving the viewer the full effect of the courtyard set where everything takes place. It's a beautifully shot and crafted film, with fine acting by Jimmy Stewart and even by Grace Kelly (whom I've never really cared for).
On the fifth viewing, the mystery loses a bit of its oomph. But the rest of film remains a delightful and somewhat cynical appraisal of how, even in the 50s, we've become a society of peeping Toms. While we assume that Jimmy Stewart's character, photographer LB "Jeff" Jeffries, is in the right for uncovering a murder plot, we're left to decide if he isn't still due for some criticism as he gets too involved in the lives of others through his telephoto lens. I would even add that there might be some mild criticism of all those who openly make their living with such lenses.
Stewart plays a very interesting character beyond just being a good amateur sleuth. Jeffries never quite becomes likeable, even with Stewart's charisma. He keeps his devoted girlfriend at arm's length. He seems to have few friends, and treats his buddy the cop and war hero with a good deal of condescension. We feel sympathy for him, stuck in his apartment for two months with a shattered leg, but wonder if he really couldn't find something better to do with his time. He's a layered figure, certainly moreso than most heroes in contemporary film. As much as Tom Hanks is today's Jimmy Stewart, Hanks rarely plays less than likable heroes.
This film is also a great snapshot of the last time in technological history that the events portrayed could happen. It's a heat wave in Greenwich Village, so everyone's windows are open and the courtyard is always noisy. Jeffries is stuck in his apartment, so he turns to the courtyard for entertainment. You wouldn't get that today, with the hum of air conditioning replacing the din of people, with television and the Internet providing our sources for voyeurism. You could certainly do a modern version of Rear Window - indeed, there was a forgettable one with Chris Reeve some years back - that would retain the mystery and perhaps comment on today's version of peeping Toms. But the world where you could live the lives of so many just by sitting at your window is long gone.
And that's really what this film is about. The murder, as some have suggested, is just an excuse for Hitchcock to explore notions of human interaction and the lack thereof. We see a fascinating cross-section of people, some lonely, some not, few of whom interact with each other, some of whom do in profound ways. The film seems to say, here is the world outside your window. You can watch it go by, or you can be part of it. You can live in your own little window box, or you can leave it. And sometimes, if you're a man like Jeffries who has to be forced to stay still, you have to watch that world go by if you want to appreciate your own.
Of course, this being a film by the Master of Suspense, it may all just be about keeping the audience engrossed, and none of it means anything. But I doubt it.
So, what are you waiting for? If you haven't seen this, go get it! If you have, see it again.
The DVD of Rear Window offers both a recently restored version of the film, colors painstakingly recreated to match what it looked like on its release, and a nice documentary about the making of the film and its restoration. Naturally, it's letterbox, giving the viewer the full effect of the courtyard set where everything takes place. It's a beautifully shot and crafted film, with fine acting by Jimmy Stewart and even by Grace Kelly (whom I've never really cared for).
On the fifth viewing, the mystery loses a bit of its oomph. But the rest of film remains a delightful and somewhat cynical appraisal of how, even in the 50s, we've become a society of peeping Toms. While we assume that Jimmy Stewart's character, photographer LB "Jeff" Jeffries, is in the right for uncovering a murder plot, we're left to decide if he isn't still due for some criticism as he gets too involved in the lives of others through his telephoto lens. I would even add that there might be some mild criticism of all those who openly make their living with such lenses.
Stewart plays a very interesting character beyond just being a good amateur sleuth. Jeffries never quite becomes likeable, even with Stewart's charisma. He keeps his devoted girlfriend at arm's length. He seems to have few friends, and treats his buddy the cop and war hero with a good deal of condescension. We feel sympathy for him, stuck in his apartment for two months with a shattered leg, but wonder if he really couldn't find something better to do with his time. He's a layered figure, certainly moreso than most heroes in contemporary film. As much as Tom Hanks is today's Jimmy Stewart, Hanks rarely plays less than likable heroes.
This film is also a great snapshot of the last time in technological history that the events portrayed could happen. It's a heat wave in Greenwich Village, so everyone's windows are open and the courtyard is always noisy. Jeffries is stuck in his apartment, so he turns to the courtyard for entertainment. You wouldn't get that today, with the hum of air conditioning replacing the din of people, with television and the Internet providing our sources for voyeurism. You could certainly do a modern version of Rear Window - indeed, there was a forgettable one with Chris Reeve some years back - that would retain the mystery and perhaps comment on today's version of peeping Toms. But the world where you could live the lives of so many just by sitting at your window is long gone.
And that's really what this film is about. The murder, as some have suggested, is just an excuse for Hitchcock to explore notions of human interaction and the lack thereof. We see a fascinating cross-section of people, some lonely, some not, few of whom interact with each other, some of whom do in profound ways. The film seems to say, here is the world outside your window. You can watch it go by, or you can be part of it. You can live in your own little window box, or you can leave it. And sometimes, if you're a man like Jeffries who has to be forced to stay still, you have to watch that world go by if you want to appreciate your own.
Of course, this being a film by the Master of Suspense, it may all just be about keeping the audience engrossed, and none of it means anything. But I doubt it.
So, what are you waiting for? If you haven't seen this, go get it! If you have, see it again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: Nov. 18th, 2003 02:59 pm (UTC)I've not seen all of his films yet. I love Vertigo, and Rope is delightfully sick. Shadow of a Doubt is interesting, and Strangers on a Train is beautifully done -- I am not generally on the edge of my seat over a tennis match.