"Rear Window" Movie Poster
The poster and opening scene above are from the classic 1954 film “Rear Window”, starring Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly. The film was directed by movie legend Alfred Hitchcock. The film is a comment on the Cold War culture of skepticism, where you did not know who was a Communist spy among you. Therefore, in this film, the analogy is a murderer, and Stewart’s character, L.B. “Jeff” Jeffries, is suspicious of a possible murderer across the street from him. Jeff broke his leg, and is so bored he spends his time watching people, and came across this suspicious gentleman who is now going around his house without a woman around. Jeff swears he saw her murdered, and tries to get his girlfriend, Lisa (played by Kelly) in on it. She does side with Jeff, and even tries to aid him in on his quest to prove his neighbors guilt. The movie ends somewhat ambiguously, as you really don’t know who the aggressor and the victim is by the end of the film.
The beginning of the film is breathtaking. Windows begin to open right in front of us as we slowly approach it, and then we go on a continuous shot to see our immediate area, and each little window we get to peek in is like its own story. For example, when we start to see the Ballerina, Mrs. Lonelyheart, the piano player, and, eventually, the suspected murderer. We don’t know much about these people, only what we see. What’s interesting is we’re seeing these people only through the eyes of Jeff, who has a story for everyone. The camera does a great job mimicking this too, as every shot into someone’s window looks like we’re Jeff, peering into the window without anyone noticing. I also find interesting is that while we look into other people’s apartments, our sense of “creepiness” never really sinks in – we almost feel privileged. Indeed, a movie camera gives us privileged views, but we still aren’t entitled to look into the private lives of other people. Yet, that thought doesn’t surface right away.
The opening scene continues with brilliance. After we’re done stalking the outside world, we are confronted with Jeff’s face, sleeping and sweating in the heat. Thus, we learn it’s hot – the next shot being the thermometer tells us that, too. We start to follow down his body, and we see that one of his legs is broken, which explains why he’s laying there in the heat and why he’s in a wheelchair. All this we know about the character, WITHOUT ONE WORD BEING UTTERED! Don’t worry, it continues! We then pan over to a busted camera, which we can only imagine is his. We confirm that it’s his after we see a picture of a car crash, with the totaled car heading in the direction of the photographer (which, one can only assume, is him). This explains, then, why he’s in the wheelchair and why his leg is broken. Again, no words yet, just pure camera genius. Then, the conundrum. There is a negative photo of Lisa, framed, among his collection of photos. I did not know what this meant at the beginning, but having finished the movie, I believe it is that Lisa and Jeff tend to swap gender roles (Lisa = more masculine, Jeff = more feminine), and so the negative shows that the “opposite” of her is the real one. At the end of the film, rather, she wears a man’s shirt and reads a “man’s magazine” when Jeff isn’t looking! This is only a guess, though. The cool thing, however, is I can make that assumption, simply from the visuals the film gives me. There has been no dialog, just visual spoon feeding. A split second later it becomes apparent that Jeff took the photo, as it was a negative of a cover shot of Lisa for Paris Fashions – lucky guy.
Speaking of Lisa, when we first meet her, it’s a little weird. She is leaning into us, approaching us, and then it “slow-mo’s” into a wake up kiss for Jeff. Again, lucky guy. The camera stays tight in the two of them as they ave a typical couple chat, and it’s very playful. But, with her face on above Stewart’s, she is being the aggressor, and looks more dominant – another reason why I find that symbolism in the negative photo. These are all visual cues that give a deeper meaning to the film – I’ve learned that there is much more to a film than just what is said. There’s a lot said that you can’t hear.
The last scene I will find very memorable. When the “bad guy” shows up in Jeff’s apartment, his eyes are cast in light – normally something done to the good guy in films. Jeff, on the other hand, is completely dark, and you can barely make out his figure. Again, it is hard to tell between the aggressor and the victim. While it looks likely, we really have no proof that the mysterious man killed his wife; if he didn’t, the Jeff is harassing him, in which case he would be the victim. So, while we’re on Jeff’s side, we almost sympathize with “the bad guy”. The visuals in the film, then, help with our brain process – the visuals direct where our thought process goes.
As they talk in this scene, it becomes apparent that “the bad guy” did, in all likelihood, kill his wife. He starts asking some menacing questions, but with an air of begging (“what do you want?”, he asks). Jeff remains calm and patient, covered in that dark light, that eventually envelops the top half of “the bad guy”. When Jeff gets menacingly approached by “the bad guy”, he starts to take flash photos of him, blinding him. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it’s almost as if flashing him with light, “revealing him”, ends up being his downfall. Of course, he does get to Stewart and the flash only slows him down – but that’s just it, it slows him down. Once again, we see all these visual metpahors being said, without words being uttered. I find that fascinating.
I think this film made AFI’s top 10 in the Mystery category because it is well-acted, well-directed, but most importantly, it tells multiple stories within one film. Each window, in essence, is a mini-story waiting to be told. Since no one will tell it, we just take Jeff’s “point of view” (wink!). The visual metaphors add different layers and components to the story. In fact, we probably would not understand certain aspects of the film had we not seen some of the well-placed visual material. Hitchcock does a master job of using visual cues to give us information that give whole new elements to the movie, so it’s not just about the acting or dialog. Perhaps, though, it’s the entire metaphor for the Cold War culture that does it. At the end, the whole struggle was to get a Search Warrant, not even a conviction. While the “bad guy” appears guilty, all we know from the film is circumstantial evidence. It may turn out that it was all a hyperbole on Jeff’s part, but the film does not address this issue. Thus, the film, to me, is saying that it is practically meaningless to try to find out if some is “bad” just form observation. More often than not, if someone doesn’t want you to know something, they won’t let you find out. Overall, the hierarchies, positive-negatives, light-dark, good-bad: the film was a constant struggle between two forces, and sometimes the viewer doesn’t know which side to choose. In my opinion, that makes a great movie – let alone the wonderful shots of the surrounding area with no cuts. I would be this technique was not common in the 50s!
I did enjoy this movie, and I feel that everyone should see it!
