Rear Window
1954
Alfred Hitchcock
Zoom: April 29, 2025, 9:00 PM to 10:10 PM EST
Participants: Allison, Batts, Brianna, Brittany, Frank, Joe, Kait, Pam, Pat, Sam, Sean E., Sean G., Stephan, Sunny, Walter
I tried to take notes during the Zoom meeting, and was inconsistent at best (I kept getting distracted by the good conversation). But here are some points and thoughts that I wrote down.
- This is a movie about the audience, how it makes as a part of the action, and holds us accountable.
- There have been so many Rear Window-type movies and references that it can be hard to view the original as "fresh"
- How did the ending play to you? Did you think he was "crazy"? Should he have been?
- Everything was intense, including the score (diegetic music)
- Jefferies only got horny for Lisa when she was playing into his obsession
- Was Jefferies supposed to be an asshole?
- He's always viewed other people's stories through the lens, that's always been his thing.
- This whole story is about a fear of commitment.
- It was pointed out that the least erotic part of the movie involved the most touching (the massage).
- Some brief information on the background of Alfred Hitchcock, how some elements were autobiographical or alluded to himself, the voyeurism etc.
- Were you angry during this film?
- A charge against Rear Window for being sexist.
- The monologue about the dead dog is one of the only times that we "break the meta movie," i.e. the camera leaves the apartment and does close-ups of other characters
- "Murder porn"
- Does Thorwald entering the apartment break a fourth wall?
- Lighting / the use of flashbulbs during the climax
- The use of the camera in filmmaking as what controls how we view it, creates a box that we're in
- The Hayes Code was still in effect until 1968, but its enforcement lessened throughout the '50s.
- Interesting how thoroughly Stella gets roped in after being dismissive at first.
- Is this a condemnation of being invested in other people's stories?
I'd love to hear some more thoughts, whether you couldn't make the Zoom meeting and have something to say, or you were there and some new ideas have sprouted in the past 36 hours.
Here is the full quote from the dog lady after the dog's death. This felt like the most poignant moment in the movie for me:
"Which one of you did it? Which one of you killed my dog? You don't know the meaning of the word 'neighbor.' Neighbors like each other, speak to each other, care if anybody lives or dies.But none of you do! You don't talk, you don't help, you, you don't... even see. But I couldn't imagine any of you being so low that you'd kill a little helpless, friendly dog! The only thing in this whole neighborhood or liked anybody!Did you kill him because he liked you? Just because he liked you?"
What grade would you give this? If that's the kind of thing you do. It is for me, so I'll give it a 4.5 pukes out of 5. I don't think that grade changes after talking about the movie, but it's a pretty strong 4.5. The ending just gives me pause—not that it's weak, per se, but more so that it confirms a pessimistic view of humanity that I've not fully bought into.
ANYWAYS, let's hear what you think.
16 comments:
Something that I've been thinking about since our Zoom is the idea of a movie being "sexist," and maybe there being a difference between characters in the film being sexist and the film itself being sexist. The first can be true but the second not necessarily. I don't think Rear Window was sexist, like I don't think it agreed with the sexism of the detective. But maybe 1950s audiences would disagree with me, I don't know.
I'll also say that I thought a good point was made about how the music really helped to build the tension just by being so incongruous to the shit that was happening. It was mostly diegetic, so while Lisa was being confronted and possibly attacked by Thorwald in his apartment, we heard... a songwriter playing a beautiful love song.
For anyone interested, here's the 1942 Cornell Woolrich short story "It Had to Be Murder". It was published as part of a six story compendium book called "After-Dinner Story." The second most famous work in that collection is "Marihuana," which recounts a guy smoking his first joint ever and immediately going on a killing spree.
I hope I wasn’t rambling too much during the zoom! But there’s a lot to talk about with this movie, and a lot to like, in my opinion.
I know towards the end of the call, I wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on how Rear Window is filled with “suspense” instead of “surprise” (or “a twist,” if you will), since Hitchcock himself has talked about the different effectiveness of each. I feel like this is the “suspense” version of this story, while a film where Jeffries is might just be paranoid would be more “surprise” oriented. And I would if my own feelings on the ending have to do with expecting the latter instead of the former.
This was a good call, Pat. I'm usually weary reading the books/stories that a good movie was based on, but I read the first couple pages of this so far, and I can already tell I like the writing style. I will report back at a later date when I read the whole thing.
Yo Batts! You are clearly pretty knowledgeable on the subject, don't feel bad about sharing the goods!
I really like this framing of the "did you like the ending" question. I can say that I least expected what actually happened. Whether that constitutes "surprise" or not, I'm not sure. But I thought for sure that it was going to end up that he was wrong, that Thorwald was just a normal guy. So when it ended up that he was the killer all along, yeah, I guess technically that was surprising.
But that's not a "twist." I feel like a twist would have been some unknown third option, something out of nowhere that upends our basic expectations of "Jefferies is either wrong or right." Maybe we needed a twist like that. Or maybe the ending is fine as is, since clearly it is fueling a lot of conversation.
I was fascinated by this discovery during the discussion and didn't get to bring it up because-kids. But in all my times watching this movie it had never once occured to me that Jeffries was just paranoid. I assumed from the very first time that he would be vindicated in his fear of murder, because it is a thriller film and it would feel like movie audiences would be disappointed if it turned out Jeffries just had an overactive imagination. We as an audience are ROOTING for the murder to have taken place, for cathartic purposes. It also got me wondering, I know sometimes movies have unreliable narrators but is there an example of a movie that has a main character believe something and then it turns out the outside world that dismisses him is actually correct?? Even another Jimmy Stewart movie like Harvey seems to reach at least net neutral "believing in Harvey makes the world a little better"
It just really surprised me that people felt there was tension in the reveal that Thorwald was a bad guy, which I can see, but never once felt.
First of all, I appreciate you keeping the conversation going. My hope is that these comments sections will just stay open indefinitely, and maybe down the line, someone will have a thought about Rear Window, and we can meet back here.
The evidence is definitely there, in terms of Thorwald being the killer, so I get where you're coming from. But I'll maintain the two scenes that were already mentioned (in the zoom discussion or on this blog, I forget now)—the lady yelling about how neighbors should love each other, and Jefferies and Lucy coming to the "temporary" conclusion that being nosy and voyeuristic is ultimately a bad thing—led me to believe that there was going to be some comeuppance for Jefferies et al. for snooping, and why not it be getting egg on their faces?
I don't agree that surprising me like this made the ending "weak," but I definitely felt tension throughout, and was personally unsatisfied that it turns out that evil exists!
That’s an interesting point, Frank, about films where the protagonist really is paranoid. It’s a BIG OLE SPOILER, but there is 1 movie from 2010 that comes to mind. But that story treats it as a big reveal, a “twist,” which it is in the context of that movie.
I will mention that the Simpsons parody of this movie (“Bart of Darkness”) did end up with Bart just being paranoid, so that might be why there’s a predisposition to that possibly, especially if you saw the Simpsons episode first.
I missed the Zoom, time difference! Hopefully I'll make another one sometime. Here are some thoughts:
I found myself focusing a lot on the relationship between Jeffries and Lisa, especially the way Jeffries doesn't want to marry her and essentially blows her off all the time, even though she's throwing herself at him. She is potentially the most incredible, gorgeous, devoted to him woman he could possibly imagine, and to top it all off it's clear that he likes her. So why is he such a dick to her for most of the movie? Also, why does she keep coming back to him? Obviously in the end he cares about her when he sees her confrontation with Thorwald. The whole relationship between the two bothered me. Somehow, it feels relevant to today - so many men ignore amazing women who are right in front of them, swiping for the next one on the app (or doing some similar version of it not on apps). This relationship gripped me more than the plot of the actual murder.
I am curious why this movie is considered one of the greats. I don't necessarily see Jimmy Stewart as such an incredible actor here. Grace Kelly is amazing, though. I feel like there's an element of older movies like this that I just can't connect to (notwithstanding my previous comment).
I was watching it with a friend and she observed that the ability people had to focus on anything back in the day was much stronger. I think it's true. Jeffries can just look out the window at all the things happening without many breaks. I wonder if a movie today would be able to have a character who could focus on something so deeply for so long.
I think 4 AM is doable!!!!
I appreciate all three of these points that you made. I have thoughts, but I'll first say that I hope it's not annoying that I'm responding to all the comments in these posts. Maybe some questions or thoughts raised are meant to be rhetorical, and if so, my bad! I will also apologize in advance if thoughts I have were repeats of things that people specifically said in the Zoom meeting. Even though I took notes, five days out it's already tough to remember who said what when.
My takeaway from the "why is he a dick" is that he's used to being out on the road, and he's now seeing what life is like when he's stuck at home, and he's always seen Lisa as representative of that "stuck at home" lifestyle too, "being tied down" and whatnot. But then Lisa displays the opposite traits, willing to risk life and limb for the truth, and he realizes that, hey, maybe she's not gonna tie me down at all, maybe we can have adventures together (the Harper's Bazaar switcheroo at the end notwithstanding).
Someone or more than one person definitely mentioned what Rear Window might look like in 2025 and said it would be on TikTok reels or whatever. I don't know if I'd like that movie (okay, fine, I would hate it), but that definitely speaks to what you're saying about concentration. Totally right, and a great point. Though maybe Rear Window is saying that concentrating like that over such a long period causes you to go insane? I also wonder if his profession as a photojournalist has anything to do with his patience. If anyone knows any photographers, maybe we could ask them.
As for the "older movies" thing... I think that all comes in time. Just like with Record Club and older music or genres you're not used to. There's a rhythm to older movies that you just have to get used to in time with more exposure.
Not sure if anyone is checking old comment sections, but I dunno where else to put this: our own Batts wrote an essay about Rear Window for his Substack, and mentions Film Club. Check it out here!
Post a Comment