Brian Bendernagel
February 12, 2012
Period 5 – Lodge
Rear Window
Alfred
Hitchcock was one of the greatest film directors and producers in the world and
was even nicknamed the “Master of Suspense.” Hitchcock displayed his talents
and mastery of suspense in his 1954 film, Rear
Window. This movie had the simplest, yet incredibly complex plot and was full
of anticipation and angst. The story begins with L.B. Jeffries, an injured
photographer confined to his apartment dwelling in Manhattan, fixated in a large cast and
sitting in his wheelchair. He was an average man, with no significant status
and constantly traveling around the world, getting into dangerous situations
while trying to be a great photographer. In this movie, he puts himself in the
most dangerous position, not due to his job, but rather his own boredom and
burning curiosity. Hitchcock masterfully recreates the short-story, “It Had to
be Murder,” written in 1942 by Cornell Woolrich, into the most suspenseful and
thrilling mystery movie ever.
L.B.
Jeffries is at a rough spot in his life. He is lower middle-class, and does not
think of himself very highly. He loves his job as a photographer, and fears
that all of these factors do not make him suitable for his fiancée-girlfriend
Lisa Fremont. Fremont is a wealthy fashion model
who resides on the upper east side of Manhattan
and loves Jeffries very much. Jeffries loves her too, but is skeptical that
they could be compatible due to the contrast in their lifestyles. The whole
movie takes place in Jeffries’ apartment, situated in an area with views of
multiple other windows of apartments and a courtyard. Jeffries’ is in week 5 of
being confined to this apartment. To try to keep busy, he observes the lives of
his neighbors, who have no idea they are being watched. While casually watching
one of his neighbors one night, he notices that jewelry salesman Lars Thorwald
is acting rather suspicious. His wife is sick and is always nagging him to help
her. One night, she mysteriously disappears, and Jeffries is convinced he has
accidently stumbled upon a terrible crime. Thoughts of what might have happened
and curiosity commandeer his mind, and suddenly it is all he can think of. While
his personal nurse and girlfriend both try to talk him out of these crazy
speculations, they to become convinced by their own doubts of the crime, that
they also become obsessed. The three play detectives and try to gather solid,
convicting evidence that proves Lars murdered his wife. Through the
investigations, Jeffries finally falls for Fremont and realizes that she can keep up
with his adventurous lifestyle. Through many plot twists and turns, the reader
is left hanging with one question: what happened to Emma Thorwald?
A
suspenseful movie is one that leaves the viewers on the edge of their seats,
and makes them think and worry what will happen next. The viewer is constantly
thinking about the circumstances and processing the information presented. A
good movie would present just enough information to get you interested and
thinking, but make it all circumstantial and wait to drop the solid evidence
until the end. Rear Window does
exactly that. The viewer is presented with information of Lars Thorwald leaving
and coming back to his apartment on three separate occasions within a short
amount of time on the night of his wife’s disappearance. Also, he is shown
disposing of a long hack-saw and a huge butcher’s knife, scrubbing down his
bathroom, and disposing of his wife’s jewelry. Now, all this evidence points to
something suspicious, but is not proof enough to show that he really killed his
wife. Perhaps the most suspenseful part of the whole film comes at the end,
when Lars discovers who has been watching him. All you hear is the footsteps of
Lars Thorwald coming up the stairs to Jeffries’ apartment. Then, the lights go
dead in the hallway, and all you can think about is how a defenseless, helpless
man in a wheelchair, alone at the time, is going to defend himself against this
murderer. “This film is one of Hitchcock's greatest thrillers, especially in
its final twenty minutes,” (Dirks). To say this about the guy who had been
called “the master of suspense” and produced thrillers like Psycho and The Man Who Knew Too Much really shows how suspenseful this film
was. I think my heart skipped a few beats in the last twenty minutes. The plot
was so simple yet so clever, and I was scared, nervous, excited, and puzzled
all at the same time. That is exactly how a suspenseful movie should have its
viewers.
One could
argue that this is just the run of the mill cheesy love story amidst a
crime-solving experience and that the plot takes too long to develop. Also,
people argue that having the one viewpoint is too unilateral. But in fact, the
entire time, the viewers were getting the background necessary on the whole
neighborhood because in the end they all relate to each other and the crime.
Without the slow start, the viewer would be unable to identify any of the
important characters. The love story is what made this film stand out from the
rest because not often does the woman end up being the one venturing out to
take all the risks while the man stays in his window as surveillance. It is
such a clever way to present crime-solving because the entire movie is from the
vantage point of this man in a wheelchair just looking out the window. The lack
of presenting other views added to the suspense because you had to think like
Jeffries, always wondering whether your mind was playing tricks on you or this
was actually happening. In the end, all of the seemingly insignificant
neighbors who don’t really pay attention to each other become connected in a
way they never thought they would. For instance, the lonely suicidal woman is
saved by the beautiful music created by the lonely musical genius in the apartment
above her. Had that woman not been suicidal, the police would not have been on
hand to prevent Lars Thorwald from killing Lisa Fremont when he caught her
snooping in his apartment. Grasping these subtle connections required heavy thinking
by the viewers and ultimately created the suspense and thrill involved.
The film
received four Academy Award nominations and helped boost multiple people
involved, including Alfred Hitchcock as one of the greatest directors of all
time, and James Stewart and Grace Kelly as two of the greatest actors/actresses
of all time. It is a classical film that involves a mystery, a troubled love
story, and the struggles of a man looking to find a way to innocently pass the
time of recovering from his accident. This film explored the power of human
curiosity and how although compelling, can get anyone into deep trouble.
Works Cited
Dirks,
Tim. “Filmsite Movie Review: Rear Window (1954).” AMC Filmsite Movie Reviews. http://www.filmsite.org/rear.html
Rear Window. Directed and Produced by
Alfred Hitchcock. Paramount Pictures 1954. DVD
Brian, you constructed a very thorough analysis of this film. After reading, I felt as if I really understood the plot; at the same time, I was left hanging without the slightest clue as to how the movie ends. The one point that you definitely discussed well was the idea that this film could appeal to all audiences. Not only is it a love story, but also a mystery full of suspense. The plot is indeed constructed in a "clever way" as to intrigue anyone who may want to watch the movie. I also think that it was important you included the fact that the movie was nominated four times for Academy Awards, as someone reading this would accept the fact that it is considered a "good" movie by many who have seen it.
ReplyDeleteI felt like you also did a good job of writing in an informal style. The writing sounded as if it were a conversation, as if you were making this argument to your typical person via conversation. Good job recognizing what some may see as flaws in the film, and not basing your argument completely on your opinion. However, be careful with the flow of the piece. Some of the transitions were hard to follow, especially when you went between discussing what made the film good and the plot. Try to organize the writing so that when you are discussing plot, it is all in the same tense, and is completely relevant to the points you are making. Overall, I would say you did some great work on this.
This was a fantastic review of a film relatively unknown to myself. Of course, this was no problem considering the amount of context you provided and the ease at which I could understand the plot and the reasons why Rear Window is considered such a fantastic film. Great job at defining what a great suspense movie is; you used concrete language and cut straight to the point, allowing the reader to understand exactly what you are talking about. Also, I thoroughly appreciated your usage of specific scenes. Not only did they provide invaluable evidence backing up your reasoning, but they made me want to watch the film even more. You provided just enough detail in your specific examples so that I had a good idea of what was happening and how it related to the central idea of your argument, but left enough details out to purposely frustrate me into wanting more. Of course, the review itself was reinforced by the professional reviews you incorporated. They not only supported the notion that Rear Window is a good film, but made you come across as a credible and knowledgeable reviewer.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNice job defining the role of a successful movie within the context of the plot. You immediately establish pathos with a some sarcastic tone and conversational nature, which is good when you consider that the primary audience of this is your peers. I also like how you move directly from a generalization of the plot to the definition part seamlessly, taking parts of the plot and working them in to the definition to give a comprehensive understanding of the film. Not only do you make the film come off as credible and worthy of being called successful, but you make yourself come off as credible. It's also good for the logos of your conclusion that you address the flaws with the film, because there are A LOT of critics of Rear Window because of its slow pacing, but you could have gone into more detail about the film culture of the time, and how slow pacing and detail was normal and required for a successful movie in the 50s. If you had done this, your ethos would be a little more credible. Overall, this was a really good evaluation though.
ReplyDelete