Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:40:44 AM
713383 Posts in 53058 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  Rear Window (1954) « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Rear Window (1954)  (Read 6605 times)
trekgeezer
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 4973


We're all just victims of circumstance


« on: May 21, 2008, 11:20:58 AM »

For those who haven't seen this Hitchcock classic, Jimmy Stewart plays a photographer laid up with a broken leg who takes to playing peep tom to his neighbors in his Greenwitch Village apartment house.  He accidentally uncovers a murder plot by one of his neighbors (Raymond Burr) to rid himself of a burdensome wife.

Eventually he has his girlfriend  (Grace Kelly) and nurse (Thelma Ritter) involved with watching Burr go about his business.  His NY cop friend (Wendell Cory) doesn't believe there was a murder, just some vivid imagining going on.

The comings and goings of the neighbors is interesting to watch . They include the newlyweds, Miss Lonely Heart, and a dancer he refers to as The Torso.

This is one of Hitchcock's best films and one of my favorites.

 
Logged




And you thought Trek isn't cool.
asimpson2006
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 46
Posts: 887



« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2008, 11:24:18 AM »

It's been while since I've seen the film in it's entirety.  I watched for the first time in 2003 in HS and loved it.  I'm thinking about renting it soon and watching it again.
 
Logged
peter johnson
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 107
Posts: 1489



« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2008, 11:36:55 AM »

Hitchcock always liked to play with the technology available to him at the time --
See especially his early sound films, wherein he purposely has people walk off-camera while still talking & yet he keeps the camera on the person who is listening.  Things like that --
In Rear Window, he has Stewart shoot his flash at Burr to keep him at bay -- he allows the screen to go to pure white/actually burning out frames of film with flash, in order to achieve the effect.
Yes, brilliant in every way --
peter johnson/denny crane
Logged

I have no idea what this means.
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2280
Posts: 20726


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2008, 11:47:56 AM »

Probably my favorite film, certainly my favorite HITCHCOCK.  I see the film as advising JIMMY STEWART's character through  observing his neighbors, of all of the possible futures of a married relationship with GRACE KELLY: the newlyweds offer the promise of sex, but it devolves into a nagging wife; the older couple with the little dog sleep in the "great outdoors" comically awakened by the late night rain storm; the composer is a lost lonely aging man, running out of time (hear the radio near the beginning inquire: "Men...are you over forty?") and his apartment is where HITCHCOCK makes this film's cameo: winding a clock.  There is also the phallic sculpture labelled "Hunger" by the aging sculptress, Miss Torso is suggestive of dismemberment (remember we see only her head in her bathroom window as Lars Thorwald (RAYMOND BURR) skulks back from one of his late night trips carrying (?) just a few feet away in the hallway.  And of course we have the worst-case scenario of the Thorwalds: the husband driven to murder...

Great film, trekgeezerThumbup
« Last Edit: May 21, 2008, 06:42:55 PM by Allhallowsday » Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
Raffine
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 812
Posts: 4466



« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2008, 12:17:18 PM »

Hitch shot the whole film from the perspective of Stewart's apartment, probably to highlight his helplessness and isolation from the rest of the world.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT! Other than the climax, there is only one scene that is outside of the apartment. Any guesses?
Logged

If you're an Andy Milligan fan there's no hope for you.
trekgeezer
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 4973


We're all just victims of circumstance


« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2008, 12:18:09 PM »

I watched this on TCM last night and when Robert Osborne does his little trivia spiel at the end of the movie he told a story about the lighting Hitchcock required for the set. Seems they went all over the studio nabbing additional lights, even borrowing some from another studio. When they were all set up they created so much heat that the sprinklers were set off, which put everyone in a panic.  Hitchcock just asked for an umbrella continued working.

The set itself is very impressive, hard to believe the whole thing was in a sound stage.


This is an interesting site that I find rather hypnotic that reminds me of this movie.  http://www.hbovoyeur.com/
« Last Edit: May 21, 2008, 12:24:26 PM by trekgeezer » Logged




And you thought Trek isn't cool.
asimpson2006
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 46
Posts: 887



« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2008, 01:00:45 PM »

I watched this on TCM last night and when Robert Osborne does his little trivia spiel at the end of the movie he told a story about the lighting Hitchcock required for the set. Seems they went all over the studio nabbing additional lights, even borrowing some from another studio. When they were all set up they created so much heat that the sprinklers were set off, which put everyone in a panic.  Hitchcock just asked for an umbrella continued working.

The set itself is very impressive, hard to believe the whole thing was in a sound stage.


This is an interesting site that I find rather hypnotic that reminds me of this movie.  http://www.hbovoyeur.com/

I saw that it was on last night and was quite happy, even though I just saw a small part of it, before changing the channel to watch some CSI.
Logged
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2280
Posts: 20726


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2008, 04:41:23 PM »

Hitch shot the whole film from the perspective of Stewart's apartment, probably to highlight his helplessness and isolation from the rest of the world.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT! Other than the climax, there is only one scene that is outside of the apartment. Any guesses?
The scene where Miss Lonelyhearts hands up the dead dog...  TeddyR   Miss Lonelyhearts: Is she GRACE KELLY's possible future?  Like the aging composer Miss Lonelyhearts ends up with at the end is STEWART's?   

Oh!  My TRIVIA: upon whose story is the film based? 
« Last Edit: May 21, 2008, 06:41:06 PM by Allhallowsday » Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
Doc Daneeka
The Game is Finished?
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 168
Posts: 1849


It's neVer over!


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2008, 07:26:33 PM »

NOTE: I got a bit out of hand here and something that could be considered a "rant" follows:
----
Oh boy... First let's kiss up; I find Hitchcock to be one of, if not the master of suspense, Psycho was better than the book, and North by Northwest was a "Zarkorr!" (Bunch of action scenes later tied together by a story) done very right. That being said, I honestly find Rear Window to be one of Hitchcock's most overrated films, in fact perhaps the most overrated film ever. Honestly I can't understand why so many people completely adore this film, and here are the reasons for my confusion:

The suspense was almost nonexistant, instead of tense or chilling scenes we watch our protagonist absorb the meager clues with limited interest but high imagination, and invite his equally indifferent peers to do the same. Despite the emphasis reviewers put on Jeffries broken (But quickly healing, if I remember correctly) leg, no one seems to be out of their safety zone but for two scenes. Even during the spying scene where LB is seen by Thorwald, he displays little more than minor panic, heck Fright Night did the "failed spying on murderous neighbor" thing better... Of the "dangerous scenes" the former (sneaking into Thorwald's apartment) was resolved too quickly and cleanly. The latter scene (The final confrontation) was ridiculous. I realize Hitchcock has never been a total realist but the climax was quirky for quirkiness' sake; Planning to cover up a murder by killing one of the three witnesses with your bare hands? Defending yourself using a flashbulb instead of a blunt object? What happens during the confrontation? Well both characters turn out to be powerless, Thorwald succeeds in pushing Jeffries out the window, and is then anticlimactically caught by the police and confesses offscreen. Danger over. It barely even began...

I found the whole voyeur aspect to be unappealing, no not within itself, but rather the way it was handled. First, the diretorial criticism: When you are absorbed in watching something you focus in on it, blocking out surrounding noises and images. In Rear Window we have the camera watching from afar and Stewart narrating the voyeur in his trademark friendly drawl. It would have not only been more engrossing, but actually more realistic rather to zoom in past the windows to focus on the characters, then tell about them once looking away. --

(I've had an odd scenario in my head wherein Rear Window was a silent film; The camera would fade in from a shot of all the apartment residents to a close-up on whatever occupant was being focused on, watch them act for a few seconds, then have a title card giving any explanation needed. Honestly, I could see Rear Window being done as a silent film in the 20s, the climax wouldn't have seemed as anticlimactic there, since a lot of fight scenes in silent films were more or less quick struggles preceded by mugging.)

-- Now, the side stories with the various residents were in fact entertaining, probably even moreso than the main plot! However these sideplots felt out of place in a film, especially one you can only look at from afar. Unlike the main plot where we have to fill in the blanks for ourselves we have Stewart blurt every detail he's observed in these peoples' lives. It doesn't make for an entertaining movie hearing highlights of a character's life, then revisiting them in the background time after time, just going through the motions! Ms. Lonelyhearts was the best story as it actually integrated in to the story (unlike The "Torso"'s), and presented an interesting, conflicted character (Unlike the "dog couple" who ended up having significance but did not make interesting characters). If all the "window-characters" had more focus on them (maybe see one looking out the window theirself...), then it would have improved it greatly IMO.

The symbolism in the film is plentiful, as you can read in any analysis of it, but that does not make up for the fact that I do not find the film entertaining at all! What is symbolism without entertainment? It's learning! Hatred If the apartment residents had more plot relevence (Whilst still staying seperate from Jeffries) then it wouldn't have been as obvious that they were symbols!

All in all I thought the movie would end up much more entertaining then it did, but instead I got a dull, unsatisfyingly scripted and directed film. I am apprently the only person who feels this way (Most others who share the general opinion that Rear Window was not good are adolescents who don't like movies to be "boring"), but I hope you will take my series of opinions/criticisms and accept them as fellow movie fans.
----
...Oh boy, it's fun having a divergent opinion Smile
« Last Edit: May 21, 2008, 08:31:41 PM by Mr. Briggs Inc. » Logged


https://www.youtube.com/user/silverspherechannel
For the latest on the fifth installment in Don Coscarelli's Phantasm saga.
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2280
Posts: 20726


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2008, 09:37:58 PM »

The suspense was almost nonexistant, instead of tense or chilling scenes we watch our protagonist absorb the meager clues with limited interest but high imagination, and invite his equally indifferent peers to do the same. Despite the emphasis reviewers put on Jeffries broken (But quickly healing, if I remember correctly) leg, no one seems to be out of their safety zone but for two scenes. Even during the spying scene where LB is seen by Thorwald, he displays little more than minor panic, heck Fright Night did the "failed spying on murderous neighbor" thing better... Of the "dangerous scenes" the former (sneaking into Thorwald's apartment) was resolved too quickly and cleanly. The latter scene (The final confrontation) was ridiculous. I realize Hitchcock has never been a total realist but the climax was quirky for quirkiness' sake; Planning to cover up a murder by killing one of the three witnesses with your bare hands? Defending yourself using a flashbulb instead of a blunt object? What happens during the confrontation? Well both characters turn out to be powerless, Thorwald succeeds in pushing Jeffries out the window, and is then anticlimactically caught by the police and confesses offscreen. Danger over. It barely even began...
Hmmm... you make a good point, perhaps without realizing it, about the "powerlessness" of the protagonist and antagonist.  The broken leg of JIMMY STEWART (L.B. Jeffries) has more than once been pointed out as a symbol of his impotency (and yes, the allusion is intended but hardly all.)  Remember my theory (if you read the thread) of each scenario being a possible future? 
I must also point out that aside from working intellectually, I still find the scene where we hear Thorwald (RAYMOND BURR) coming up the stairs in the dark riveting and creepy.  Why should he try to attack and kill a witness so nonsensically, so amateurishly...?  Because Thorwald is an amateur!  Sometimes violence and murder can visit the most unexpected places, like a backyard courtyard in Greenwich Village, in full view of dozens of potential witnesses.  Just an average man goaded into murder by a desire to be shed of a nagging needy wife...

I found the whole voyeur aspect to be unappealing, no not within itself, but rather the way it was handled. First, the diretorial criticism: When you are absorbed in watching something you focus in on it, blocking out surrounding noises and images. In Rear Window we have the camera watching from afar and Stewart narrating the voyeur in his trademark friendly drawl. It would have not only been more engrossing, but actually more realistic rather to zoom in past the windows to focus on the characters, then tell about them once looking away. --
The film does all that you describe...  Question

I think many people look for a lightshow in their movies, and other people appreciate atmosphere, which this film has in spades.  On to other matters of this film's greatness, the sound in this film is remarkable, with the music, the rain, the voices in the courtyard, the street, and even the sound of the river. 

Oh, and Raffine, I think the shot when Thorwald spots LB and Stella (the great THELMA RITTER) HITCHCOCK's camera pulls suddenly back, revealing the view of the two in the window.  That one might qualify as a scene outside the apartment...  Perhaps you originally referred to the nearly end scene below LB's window...?  Did you forget about Miss Lonelyhearts...?  TeddyR  (See my response to your trivia above.)
« Last Edit: May 21, 2008, 09:40:14 PM by Allhallowsday » Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
Raffine
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 812
Posts: 4466



« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2008, 09:59:49 PM »

Other than the shots after LB falls out of the window (and is no longer in the apartment!) I beleive the only exterior shot is, like you said, the discovery of the dead dog.  Drink

Logged

If you're an Andy Milligan fan there's no hope for you.
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2280
Posts: 20726


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2008, 10:31:33 PM »

Other than the shots after LB falls out of the window (and is no longer in the apartment!) I beleive the only exterior shot is, like you said, the discovery of the dead dog.  Drink
Y'know, I never gave it a thought about being scored by FRANZ WAXMAN until I watched the first few minutes last night (yes, I remember you're quite the fan of HERRMANN). 

Whose story is it based on?
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
Raffine
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 812
Posts: 4466



« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2008, 12:14:49 AM »

It's based on a Woolrich story, or was that based on a true story?

One thing Hitchcock and Waxman had meant to portray in the progression of the film was what goes into the creation of a song, from the composer's first frustrated attempts to the final composition. This does happen in the film, but it's not quite as clear as they'd originally intended.

Quote
Defending yourself using a flashbulb instead of a blunt object?

I think Hitchcock was showing Jeffries defending himself, a bit ironically, with a tool he was familiar with and normally used to 'spy' on other people.

A bit more about that poor dog: not only is it the only time the camera moves outside of LB's apartment, it's the only time all the neighborhood characters connect. We don't see them react to LB's fall, but we do see them all react to the discovery of the dog.

I think Hitchcock filmed it the way he did for a couple of reasons: to make the viewer a 'Peeping Tom' along with LB, and also for the technical challenge of it. Remember, this is the guy who made ROPE, with its appearance of being filmed without any cuts, as a technical stunt just a few years before.

Quote
yes, I remember you're quite the fan of HERRMANN

 Thumbup Cheers It's been a good year for Herrmann fans! HANGOVER SQUARE was finally released on DVD, a complete rerecording of the NORTH BY NORTHWEST score, and the great Morgan and Stromberg team released brand new complete rerecordings of MYSTERIOUS ISLAND and FAHRENHEIT 451!

The Balloon

Small | Large



The Giant Crab

Small | Large



EDIT: My 1,000th post!
« Last Edit: May 22, 2008, 12:22:00 AM by Raffine » Logged

If you're an Andy Milligan fan there's no hope for you.
BoyScoutKevin
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 277
Posts: 5030


« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2008, 07:25:02 PM »

A great film showcasing Hitchcock's skill as a director. I'm sure nearly everyone recognized the husband living above the Thorwalds as Frank Cady, who is probably best known for playing Sam Drucker on "Green Acres." Probaly lesser known is the songwriter who was played by songwriter Ross Bagdasarian and the man responsible for "Alvin and the Chipmunks."
Logged
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  Rear Window (1954) « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.