"Rear Window" (1954) - Director Alfred Hitchcock's "Audience-Participation" Mystery Starring Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly

[DIShGo]

A recent discussion about "Vertigo" on this website made me think about watching "Rear Window" again. I saw this film years ago, and I loved it. I watched it again last night with the same result.

This film is regarded by many critics as one of Hitchcock's best. It stars James Stewart as a world famous photographer sidelined with a broken leg. As he sits in his apartment recovering from his injury, he becomes a voyuer, passing the hours watching the lives of his neighbors unfold through their rear windows.

The result is a fascinating look at human nature, and our desire to watch. Like Stewart's character, Jeff, we are drawn into the lives of these strangers, without knowing their names or in some cases, ever hearing them speak. Love, marriage, fidelity, success, failure and of course (it is Hitchcock after all) murder--all of these subjects are put on display, simply by allowing us to sit and stare out of the window with Jeff.

Grace Kelly is luminous as Jeff's girlfriend, Lisa Fremont. A successful fashion model who is madly in love with him, she appears in one gorgeous dress after another, begging for Jeff's attention, but failing to draw his gaze away from the window with her more than ample charms.

Hitchcock films Lisa so that we are seduced by her, even when Jeff is not. She faces the camera as she kisses his neck, begging him to pay attention to her. Her Edith Head wardrobe is divine. Anyone remotely interested in 1950s fashions will love seeing the frocks Kelly so beautifully wears.

Jeff ignoring Lisa for his voyeuristic pursuits makes this film feel relevant in 2016. Who hasn't seen groups of people sitting together, heads down, scrolling through their Facebook feeds or reading the news on their phones? Would they be happier if they looked up and talked to each other? Or, consider the concert-goers, taking endless photos and posting them on social media. Would they enjoy the performance more if they pocketed their phones and lost themselves in the music?

In 1954, Hitchcock was making a statement about people watching films and, perhaps, TV. Think about how much more pervasive passive voyeurism has become in the past 60 years.

"Rear Window" succeeds on many levels. It is a story of romance and mystery. There is a great deal of suspense in this film as it unfolds, all extremely well done by the master. If you haven't seen "Rear Window," I highly recommend that you do. 

[DonRocks]

1 hour ago, DIShGo said:

A recent discussion about "Vertigo" on this website made me think about watching "Rear Window" again. I saw this film years ago, and I loved it. I watched it again last night with the same result.

This is a great synopsis, DIShGo.

DIShGo and I had talked about both watching this film and reporting on it afterwards - we almost always have the same taste, but with "Rear Window," I'm going to be the minority (the extremely tiny minority) and say that the film was very, very good while falling short of being legendary-great - or, at least *as* great as the critics report it to be. My biggest problem with it is that it drags in the middle, and with what was essentially multiple silent movies going on at once, there was very little character development; instead, it was more of a "moral character study" with the characters being studied the audience themselves! Few films have audiences looking in the mirror as much as Rear Window does, especially after it's over and there has been sufficient time to reflect upon it (during the film, you're looking at others; after the film, you're looking at yourselves).

*** MILD SPOILERS FOLLOW ***

Grace Kelly (playing Lisa Carol Fremont) seemed wildly out-of-place for this role - I just don't see this impossibly beautiful woman throwing herself at Jimmy Stewart (playing "Jeff" Jeffries, a fine-looking, reputable man to be sure, but he was a somewhat ordinary (okay, fairly successful) photographer who was almost completely ignoring her - he didn't even realize he loved her (assuming he did) until late in the film. Lisa was about as perfect-looking as a woman can be, and it just seemed beneath her to be groveling as she did, when in reality, Jeff would have been groveling after her. (I understand I'm being superficial talking about looks here, but if you see the film, you'll know what I mean - he looked completely beyond her, into the wild beyond).

So, the mid-film lull - I'm not even sure I remember the middle 30-45 minutes very well, even though I saw it less than 24-hours ago. There were lots of little things, but just not enough to convince me that Jeff should have suspected *so* strongly what was going on, especially with all the credible, seemingly rock-solid contra-evidence - it didn't seem believable to me that he wasn't talked out of his insistent suspicions. Actually, he *was* talked out of them until the "dog incident," after which he had a wake-up call, and became resolute once again.

Mega-points for being novel (and this film was absolutely novel - it still is), and if I were giving grades, I'd hand it an A-minus, but I still prefer "Psycho" and "Vertigo," and would rank this as my third-favorite Hitchcock film of the perhaps ten that I've seen. This is *not* a slap-down - being a Hitchcock fan(atic), I'd say this is quite a high compliment, and I'd recommend Rear Window to every lover of the suspenseful, Hitchcockian genre of movies - it is positively brilliant, and I'm certain there are numerous technical and dramatic aspects that I'm overlooking, which is often the case with great works of art after only one encounter.

[DIShGo]

30 minutes ago, DonRocks said:

*** MILD SPOILERS FOLLOW ***

Grace Kelly (playing Lisa Carol Fremont) seemed wildly out-of-place for this role - I just don't see this impossibly beautiful woman throwing herself at Jimmy Stewart (playing "Jeff" Jeffries, a fine-looking, reputable man to be sure, but he was a somewhat ordinary (okay, fairly successful) photographer who was almost completely ignoring her - he didn't even realize he loved her (assuming he did) until late in the film. Lisa was about as perfect-looking as a woman can be, and it just seemed beneath her to be groveling as she did, when in reality, Jeff would have been groveling after her. (I understand I'm being superficial talking about looks here, but if you see the film, you'll know what I mean - he looked completely beyond her, into the wild beyond).

I see your point about Kelly, but I think she was perfectly cast as the "perfect" girlfiriend. The fact that Jeff could ingnore someone like that strengthens the case for how far gone he was into voyuerism. If he ignored an "ordinary" girl, it wouldn't be as jarring. Having said that, when she walked out on him early in the film, I was secretly saying, "you go, girl!"

On one hand, it seems implausible that she would tolerate his treatment. She was beautiful and successful in her on right, and she seemed bright and caring. But there are countless stories about attractive, competent women who put up with much worse treatment from men, so I think this idea really isn't such a stretch. Some movies from this era depict couples who "fall in love" quickly and unbelievably. I found Kelly's portrayal of Lisa believable. I bought that she truly loved Jeff and would do what she had to in order to make their relationship work.

[DonRocks]

11 minutes ago, DIShGo said:

On one hand, it seems implausible that she would tolerate his treatment. She was beautiful and successful in her on right, and she seemed bright and caring. But there are countless stories about attractive, competent women who put up with much worse treatment from men, so I think this idea really isn't such a stretch. Some movies from this era depict couples who "fall in love" quickly and unbelievably. I found Kelly's portrayal of Lisa believable. I bought that she truly loved Jeff and would do what she had to in order to make their relationship work.

Yeah, for whatever reason, the best-looking girls seem to react better when they're semi-ignored - they're so used to being fawned over that it catches them off-guard when they aren't. It's a useful tactic in the battle of the sexes.

Either that, or catch one after they've been in a bad marriage - they're so grateful to be treated decently that they're willing to overlook major flaws. 

And if you think Jeff is "so far gone" in his voyeurism, you haven't seen me when I'm trying to work on my website. 

[DIShGo]

46 minutes ago, DonRocks said:

Yeah, for whatever reason, the best-looking girls seem to react better when they're semi-ignored - they're so used to being fawned over that it catches them off-guard when they aren't. It's a useful tactic in the battle of the sexes.

Either that, or catch one after they've been in a bad marriage - they're so grateful to be treated decently that they're willing to overlook major flaws. 

And if you think Jeff is "so far gone" in his voyeurism, you haven't seen me when I'm trying to work on my website. 

No, you are mistaken again! Women, no matter what they look like, react best to being treated well. 

And I HAVE seen you working on your website. You make Jeff appear disinterested in his neighbors, by comparison. 

Roger Ebert wrote a great review of this film. He compares the way Jeff in "Rear Window" and Scotty in "Vertigo," both played by Stewart, mistreat the caring women who love them.