The second movie we watched was Rear Window directed by Alfred Hitchcock. No doubt a classic that I've heard about my whole life. My mother is always making references to Hitchcock and admittedly, I never took the time to appreciate his work. That may seem terrible, but it's because of the era his movies were filmed. I expected a very slow and dry movie, prior to the screening of the film last Friday. I can barely stand the slow progression of late sixties/early seventies movies so I couldn't even imagine the fifties. However, I was pleasantly surprised.
I was familiar with the movie through references and through another class. Last year I took Women and Art in Society where we studied how women were reflected in artwork. Interestingly enough, I've already studied and read Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Through a feminist lens, I've noted the phallic symbolism and the relationship between Jefferies and Lisa. The way in which we read it in Women and Art in Society, we confirmed that it was an example of the male gaze in film. However, my observation and opinion of this film changed with my own viewing of it. I'll return to that subject later.
Over all, I thought the film was excellent. It intrigued me deeply because of the unique circumstances of the story. I never imagined that a film, shot in such a small space, could successfully do this. As I watched, I also became invested with the lives of the characters who lived in the apartment complex. I thought that was clever, since, Jefferies is obsessed with them too. I felt a similar concern.. or nosiness for their lives. The more I saw the progression of the neighbors, the more I wondered about them. It was almost frustrating to not know the full stories behind all the characters that were shot in the film. For example, the newly weds who kept their window closed and covered most of the time, with the exception of the husband looking out the window.. I don't know why, but that was really irking me through the whole movie. Similarly with Ms. Torso. She was in her apartment with a few men and I remember thinking "Huh, what's going on." It's almost as if there were multiple possibilities of drama for Jefferies to witness. I feel that if I get drawn in, attached and worried while watching a movie, then it's a good movie. The director, crew, actors and editors have done their job. It was very suspenseful. A healthy amount of suspense that I enjoyed.
Now, aside from what I liked about it, I hated the fact that it was a little anti-climatic. Considering my disposition for older movies, it impressed me, beyond expectation. However, I felt the confrontation between Jefferies and Mr. Thorwald to be less than satisfying. It was funny, actually. I wasn't feeling threatened in that moment, despite the creepy lighting and danger. The contorting face of Mr. Thorwald as he's temporarily blinded via the flashing bulbs just made me laugh. It was too quiet and too repetitive. It became a gimmick to me rather than a threat. Somehow it negated the danger. Another thing that made me feel like "Oh, this is cliche" is when the dog died. I find it amusing that an animal dying is the epitome and threshold for all that is evil. There was more distress in that moment than any other. I was talking about this with my younger brother and he mentioned to me there's actually a website dedicated to "If the dog dies" in movies, you can look at that website here. I think you'll find it entertaining. Not that animal cruelty is funny, it's just weird how humans categorize that as a tragedy compared to other events in movies. Even human related distress or death.
I give Rear Window an 8/10 on my list. I'm not sure if I should rate the movies but hey, I will. It's fun. I take two off because of the anti-climatic endings and slight plot holes. For a fifties movie, it was great and I'm glad I got to experience it in the library theater.
