close



Rear Window



cast :

Grace Kelly, James Stewart, Raymond Burr, Thelma Ritter

crew :

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Written by: John Michael Hayes
Produced by: James C. Katz
DOP: Robert Burks
Editor: George Tomasini
Music Score by: Franz Waxman

release date :

1954

‘Rear Window’ (1954), is considered one of Hitchcock’s greatest films along with ‘Psycho’ (1960) and ‘The Birds’ (1963). His films generally contain themes of voyeurism, fear, and murder, which are all explored in this film. As always Hitchcock cleverly uses the audience’s fears and desires and plays to them.


As well as being a visual masterpiece, Rear Window, can be understood as more than that, and rather a metaphor for cinema itself. Its focus on the nature of voyeurism, the pleasure we get out of it and our desire to see without being seen, are all explored in this film to some level and along with the concept that along with this pleasure comes the consequences of looking.


The story revolves around L.B ‘Jeff’ Jeffries (James Stewart), who is confined to his small New York apartment after an accident left him in a leg in a cast. He has nothing to do except look out his window, as a heat wave takes its grip over the neighbourhood. His confinement has resulted in him becoming interested the lives of his neighbours and to become less involved in his own, namely his relationship with his girlfriend Lisa, (Grace Kelly). Soon the activities of their neighbours, namely the Thorwald’s draws the attention of them both, after Jeffries believes he has witnessed a murder.


The plot can be viewed as two major story developments; the alleged murder believed to have taken place and Jeffries’s relationship with Lisa. The real story however is what Jeffries witnesses out of the window. Hitchcock develops this storyline well, slowly hooking the audience into the goings on of the neighbourhood, until we become as addicted to watching them as Jeffries himself. In this way Jeffries represents the cinema audience; he is confined to his chair and is forced to watch out of his window. Further proving the film is a metaphor for cinema itself.


For years, the nature of going to the cinema and the act of voyeurism has fascinated many, but rarely is there a film than can so clearly been seen as film exploring these activities and the consequences so explicitly. This is a film that is all about spectacle. Having been made in the era of Classic Hollywood, with high production values it is a spectacle in itself. It has all the necessary, with its glamorous stars, intriguing story line and one of the biggest sets in Hollywood at the time.


The set is almost another star of the film. Its works because it is so convincing, it pays attention to detail and together with strategic lighting and soundscape, allows the audience to really believe that we are watching real people’s lives. This plays to the audiences’ desires, allowing them to participate in the voyeurism within the film by giving them an entry point into the world of the film. And on this set, the neighbours become like a montage of attractions. As the camera pans across the neighbourhood, giving us snippets of each character’s life, the characters are displayed to us, so perfectly giving us just enough to make us want to watch more.


Of course, over the history of cinema there have been many theories about cinema and the activity of spectatorship, one of the most widely read is Laura Mulvey’s work on male spectatorship within cinema (Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, 1975). Although established in 1975, Mulvey’s views can still be considered relevant within modern cinema, with cinema built for audiences’ visual enjoyment rather than any educational or narrative pleasure. She also believed that as well as the audience being forced to gaze at their beloved stars, there were also gazes within cinema that shaped the way audiences viewed the film.


‘Rear Window’ is a great example of her theories put into action, most notably her work surrounding the ‘male gaze’ can be clearly seen here. Mulvey revealed there was a dominant order in cinema, showing the relationship between males and females. She described this as active male and passive female. We can see this clearly within this film. In mainstream cinema this is the way the look is dominated. It this relationship of looking that has dominated mainstream cinema; the males do the looking while females are there to be looked at. In ‘Rear Window’, all the shots of the neighbourhood are from Jeffries’s apartment and from his point of view. He is controlling the audience’s gaze. And in this respect, Grace Kelly’s character is purely there to be looked at, although Jeffries seemingly pays little attention to her and prefers to watch ‘Miss Torso’ (Georgine Darcy) a blonde dancer in the apartment across from him. We also see Lisa attempt to control his gaze with her exhibitionism, but in the end is forced to share in his gaze of looking at the neighbours.


Lisa fulfils these views, as she is there to be looked at, which is shown explicitly in the way she introduces herself to Jeffries, which is the first time we see her. We are forced to watch Grace Kelly as she gracefully walks around the apartment, switching on the lamps and introducing herself, “Lisa…Carol….Freemont” fully aware that Jeffries’s eyes are on her, and in turn so are the audiences. Lisa is also part of the appeal and the spectacle of the film. She is, as Mulvey would describe an object who is there to be looked at. As well as being beautiful, Grace Kelly is displayed to us in an array of glamorous costumes, which she happily shows off to Jeffries and the audience, confirming her role of object rather than subject within the film. The costumes act as a fashion show of sorts, another form of spectacle.


Mulvey also raised the issue of how the audience view the film. It is true that audiences need to be able to identify with characters within a film to understand and relate to their predicament. In the case of ‘Rear Window’, many of the shots are composed from Jeffries’s point of view, further showing the active male look within cinema. This suggests that in order for female audiences, to identify they have to masquerade as male, they have to see the film from a male perspective. It is harder for female viewers to identify with Lisa, as she is not the main character and is therefore not driving the narrative. While this film shows us the active/passive relationship within cinema, the audience both male and female can relate to Jeffries’s character as most of the shots in the film are from his perspective, therefore we see through his eyes, and are not simply watching him look. The look here is also central to the plot, so the point of view (POV) shots we see of the neighbours help us to make the transaction into identifying with the Jeffries.


‘Rear Window’ can also be seen as a self-reflexive film, with Jeffries representing the cinema audience, unable to take his eyes away from what he is watching. Like a spectator, he tries to make sense out of what he is seeing and creates a narrative from the actions he witnesses.


Interestingly one of the first things we learn about Jeffries is that he is a professional voyeur. As the camera pans around his small apartment, we learn that he is a photographer he has taken pictures of car races, the war, which is the cause of his broken leg, and being confined to a wheelchair, his first punishment for getting too close.


As the film explores the pleasures of voyeurism, it is balanced out by the pain of being discovered. Jeffries, who has already been punished for his voyeurism in his job, also is punished again after breaking his other leg. Showing with the pleasure of looking, comes the punishment for being seen.


However not all of the shots are from Jeffries’s point of view, towards the films climax we see from Lars Thorwald’s (Raymond Burr) point of view. We see Jeffries’s apartment from his point of view and are forced to rethink Jeffries’s role as a spectator. This is the only time the point of view is not from Jeffries’s apartment, and it neatly gives us a shift in perspective.


Aside from all the theories surrounding the film, Hitchcock has managed to create a film that is so perfect, and well-constructed that it has managed to withstand the test of time and still be considered a great work of art even today and it is easy to see why; it is hard to find fault in this film.


The film is shot beautifully, and part of the reason it works so well is the level of reality it tries to create with the neighbours and the neighbourhood itself. It feels and looks believable, which works for the film. The more believable it seems, the more the audience want to watch the goings on of these people. The set is definitely one of the points of the film that works and works beautifully, displaying the neighbours as a montage of attractions.


Hitchcock is a master storyteller, he lets the story carefully unfold, all the while giving the audience something to feast their eyes on and keep them entertained. He has a way of drawing the audience into the world of the characters and sharing their perception.


When we watch the film, we are watching ourselves watch someone watching someone else. This setting really makes the audience become aware of the act of voyeurism. With the discovery of being found Jeffries is punished, further prompting the audience to think about their role as a spectator and whether there is a consequence for the nature of spectating.


Watch


Country: USA
Budget: £571526.55
Length: 122mins


Bibliography:
Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, 1975, Laura Mulvey


Filmography:
‘Psycho’, 1960, Alfred Hitchcock, Shamley Product
‘The Birds’, 1963, Alfred Hitchcock, Universal Pictures


Pub/2008


More like this:
Old Boy, 2003, directed by Chan-wook Park
Naboer (Next Door), 2005, directed by Pal Sletaune
M, 1931, directed by Fritz Lang