JayDee's Movie Musings

Plot – Photojournalist L.B. Jefferies (Stewart) is used to travelling the world in search of the perfect pictures. Except that now he is stuck in his apartment as the result of a broken leg. Unable to work or do much of anything Jefferies has only the company of his girlfriend Lisa Carol Fremont (Kelly) and his home care nurse Stella (Ritter) to keep him from going stir crazy. Well their company and a little something else. With a pair of binoculars in hand Jefferies begins to form a fascination with keeping tabs on his neighbours. All seems harmless enough until he believes he has stumbled upon a murder, even if he has a hard time getting anyone to believe him. So the question is, did Thornwald (Burr) really kill his wife?

Over the last couple of years I've became a huge fan of both Alfred Hitchcock and James Stewart. And the occasions were they teamed up - Vertigo, Rope and The Man Who Knew Too Much – were all big hits with me. So you'd expect that I'd have been desperate to watch this and would have done so a while back. Well I was going to but decided to save it as a treat, something to really look forward to. And a couple of nights ago I decided it was finally time.

And it's another great example of Hitchcock's wonderful craftsmanship. It's actually quite a simple film in some ways. It's a really taut, rigid A to B story which is told in quite a simple manner. Filmed in just one room the film largely consists of a basic action - Jefferies looks out the window, sees something and then reacts to it. Looks out the window, focuses on something else, reacts to it. Rinse and repeat. The only interruptions from this routine come when he is receives visits in the form of Lisa, Stella, and a cop friend of his. And yet despite this fairly static simplicity Hitchcock is able to mine great levels of suspense and intrigue. One thing that is not simple however is the terrific courtyard set that was built for the film. It is a thing of beauty, like a life-size dollhouse for Hitch to play with and manipulate. With numerous levels and individual rooms for all of the tenants it's got to be one of the most impressive sets I've ever seen built.

Film trivia – Speaking of the set here are a few facts about it. At the time of construction it was the largest indoor set ever built at Paramount Studios. To accommodate the set, a higher ceiling was required, resulting in the soundstage of the studio being ripped up to reveal the basement. So the courtyard is actually down in the basement and Jefferies' apartment was actually at street level. The set featured one thousand arc lights which were used to simulate the changing light pattern of the day, from sunrise to sunset. The changeover from day to night could be made in under 45 minutes. Though the heat they generated made the residents on the top level very uncomfortable, and were actually so hot that they once set off the soundstage's sprinkler system.

Alfred Hitchcock's work often had quite a pervasive and voyeuristic quality to it. This time he forces the viewer to share his leering vision as he puts us in the shoes of James Stewart's L.B. Jefferies, a photographer recovering from a broken leg. With the camera solely set in the small apartment which Jefferies inhabits (save for a couple of shots near the end) the viewer only sees and hears what Jefferies can see and hear. As a result we have quite a detached experience; safe due to the anonymity, until the moment were Thorwald looks up at Jefferies, and we are caught in the act.

As is quite common for his films Hitchcock is in no hurry to throw us right into the thick of the action. Indeed it takes over half and hour before Jefferies, and we, start to suspect anything at all may be up. In that opening half hour we are introduced to the characters and we get to know them. In fact for the opening stretch the film actually feels like it's going down the route of a relationship drama as Jefferies wrestles with whether he wants to marry Lisa or not. By taking so much time to introduce the characters and by making us care about them, we are then made to care so much more about what happens to them.

As always James Stewart proves why he was one of Hitchcock's go-to actors and why he was perhaps the best actor Hitchcock had at his disposal throughout his career. The reason for this is Stewart's terrific ability to embody the 'everyman' persona with which he is most associated. He just seems like such a normal guy that we can pretty much all identify with him. Whereas Frank Capra made good use of that quality to give us someone to root for, Hitchcock exploits it to amp up the fear we feel. If we can identify and see ourselves in Stewart, then the terror he experiences feels more real and we can just imagine it happening to us. And Stewart again delivers the goods for Hitch, giving a likeable showing full of dry humour which slowly gets more and more desperate as he deals with his confinement to his wheelchair and his inability to prove Thorwald's guilt.

As his girlfriend Lisa, Grace Kelly is just stunning to behold. Her introductory shot is a beautiful, almost ethereal entrance as she moves toward the camera before leaning in to kiss Stewart. It's perhaps the closest I've seen anyone come to matching Marilyn Monroe in terms of their sheer level of radiance on screen. And then there is the film's unsung star in the form of Thelma Ritter as Stella. She provides a large number of the laughs on show, and some of her banter with Stewart is priceless.

Film trivia – The set was so impressive in construction that every apartment in Thorwald's building was equipped with electricity and running water, and was suitable for living in. Indeed Georgine Darcy (Miss Torso) actually did so in between takes. While shooting, all 'residents' stayed in their respective apartments and Hitchcock communicated with them through flesh-coloured earpieces that every actor wore.

Another neat little trick that Hitch pulls relates to the characters who inhabit this little community that surrounds Stewart. We never 'meet' the characters beyond what we are able to see from Jefferies' window, and hear barely a word from any of them. And yet somehow Hitch is able to give each individual their own personal identity and character. Just by their actions and the running commentary provided by Jefferies, Lisa and Stella we feel as if we know them. There's the composer who has abundant talent but is struggling with the classic problem of creative block. There's the ballet dancer (aka Miss Torso) who constantly practices in her underwear while playing off numerous male suitors against each other. And then there's the lonely lady dubbed as Miss Lonelyhearts who through a series of simple shots is able to generate great sympathy as we witness her throwing dinner parties for male suitors who don't exist. All of these neighbours are used to reflect the anxieties that Jefferies has about relationships and why he is reticent to marry Lisa. Hitchcock also uses the neighbours as a rich source from which to mine his usual humour. As always with him there is a large degree of macabre humour, but there are also some lighter touches such as the antics of the newly married couple across the way.

I did find the film came up a bit short on occasion when compared against some of Hitchcock's other classics, though for the most part they seem unavoidable as they result from the manner in which the film unfolds. For a large stretch I wouldn't say the film is as thrilling, nor as full of memorable set-pieces as Strangers on a Train, Psycho, Frenzy etc. Though when we do get a memorable set-piece it's a cracker as Thorwald returns to him apartment with Lisa still inside. It's an unbelievably tense moment. Also as a result of Jefferies never really meeting or interacting with the villain until the very end I didn't find that he carried the same menace or threat as say Bruno from Strangers on a Train, Norman Bates from Psycho or Uncle Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt.

Film trivia – As part of the publicity upon the film's re-release, ad campaigns carried the slogan “Rear Window is such a frightening picture that one should never see it unless accompanied by an audience."

L.B. Jefferies makes for an interesting and uncommon 'hero.' Stuck in a wheelchair which he cannot leave, he has to rely on his girlfriend and home care nurse to do the dirty and dangerous work on his behalf. And then there is his overall character. After all he doesn't just happen on the murder by chance – something he seems out of the corner of his eye. He witnesses it as a result of the fact that he is guilty of peeping on his neighbours and their goings on.

Conclusion – The Master of Suspense delivers another classic thriller for the ages which features many vintage Hitchcock touches. Though I personally would place it around 5th I think in terms of my Hitchcock films; that however is a result of Hitchcock's level of terrific output as opposed to any great flaws with this particular film.

__________________

Awesome film, the premise of Woolrich's book has been done numerous times but Hitchcock's take is by far the best of the lot.

__________________

Fine the film is "awesome" but no comment on my review?! And I feel I should just have kept the solid 4.5/5 rating I originally had. I threw in the little minus not so much for this film, but to distinguish it from the other Hitchcocks I love.

And funnily enough up next we have another film which used a premise very much along the same lines.

Lol! Yeah, your review was ok I guess...

nice review I am a big Hitch fan

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I don't enjoy Rear Window as much on a personal level as maybe I ought to/most seem to (-, probably) but technically it's a marvel. I wrote a paper on a couple of its scenes for a class last year and it really does just keep on giving - thematically, visually, so much subtlety and such depth. Plus it's pretty much the textbook suspense thriller.

Maybe it's due another re-watch. I do love the Stewart/Kelly duo and both their performances are great, and of course it looks incredible, it just doesn't really get my heart racing as a imagine it should.

Talk about genius not being appreciated in its own time!

I can understand that. While they're not that far apart my level of enjoyment was less than my level of admiration and as a result I was wavering for a while between 4 and 4.5. Oh my, sounds very studious! My review must seem very simple and limited in comparison!

Certainly the best Hitch flick and holds up beautifully with repeated viewings. I'm not saying that there aren't a couple of close contenders, but when I say the best I also mean my favorite, hands down.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

On the technical side of things I can certainly see why many consider it his best film and I wouldn't put up a great arguement (well maybe with Psycho) but on first viewing I just didn't enjoy it as much as others. However most of the Hitchcock films are ranked on only one viewing at the moment and on repeated viewings I could see my love for this overtaking other films. On first viewings, films such as Frenzy had more thrills for me but once I know what to expect of the films the sheer skill this is constructed with might give greater pleasure with repeat viewings. If you know what I mean

Plot – After his father is killed in a car accident Kale Brecht's (LaBeouf) life and attitude being to fall apart. The final straw comes in school one day when he punches his Spanish teacher. Placed under house arrest for 90 days Kale thinks it will be a breeze, three months of Xbox and itunes, until his mother takes them away. With nothing else to occupy his mind his attentions turn outside and to his neighbours. He becomes a voyeur as he spies on their antics. Two neighbours in paricular attract his attention – the lovely young Ashley (Roemer) and Mr Turner (Morse), whom Kale suspects may be a murderer. In their attempts to uncover the truth Kale, his friend Ronnie (Yoo) and Ashley go from hunter to hunted as the question becomes “who is watching who?”

After my viewing of Rear Window I thought I'd give the young pretender a shot.

Does everyone remember that series of For Dummies books? They're probably still about but I feel like I haven't seen them for years. Anyway so you got Computers for Dummies, Windows for Dummies etc. Will this is like Rear Window for Dummies. And as such it inspired me to make this new movie poster for it.


Ok so perhaps I'm being a bit unfair both to the film and those who enjoyed it (which includes myself) but it really does frequently come across as a dumbed down, sexed-up take on Rear Window. I can just picture everyone involved getting round a table with the topic being 'What can we do to appeal to as many people as possible and make as much money as we can?' "Well first things first get rid of the James Stewart character - who wants to watch a middle-aged fogey as our hero? So let's bring in a teenager. And the broken leg angle? Dull! Let's give him a bit of a cool, edgy charisma by making him a criminal under house arrest."

Film trivia – Location filming took place in two California cities, Pasadena and Whittier. And while the homes of Kale and Mr Turner where meant to be next door to each other, one house was in Pasadena the other in Whittier.

To be honest I didn't have high hopes for the film. Alongside some of the negative views I'd heard about it, the film also had two other things going against it. The first was the presence of Shia LaBeouf who I've so far found to be one of the worst and most wooden actors to make it 'big' in quite a while. I personally just find him so incredibly irritating! Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was never on the way to being a great movie but he killed any chance it had of being decent. And he always seems to play the same character – the fast-talking smart mouth with a bit of geeky side. And the other negative was the previous team-up of LaBeouf and D.J. Caruso, Eagle Eye; an exceptionally ridiculous and infuriating film attempting to update another Hitchcock classic, North by Northwest. However I felt the film was able to rise above it and come out as a highly enjoyable, if unspectacular, little thriller.

It's probably the most I've enjoyed a performance of LaBeouf (not saying much!), though a lot of that I felt was down to his character. It wasn't a character that really called for to be liked. While there is the excuse of suffering after his father's death he's still a bit of a douche. As for the other characters they are very thinly sketched personas which aren't conducive to creating memorable performances. As the girl next door Sarah Roemer is merely the standard love interest, while Aaron Yoo as Kale's friend , is purely the dose of comic relief. However as such he does a very good job I thought; by far the most entertaining and endearing character of the piece I thought.

The film certainly forgoes any of Hitchcock's subtlety and craftsmanship, relying much more on cheap thrills and jump scares as opposed to skillfully building any suspense. And towards the end the film tosses aside any pretensions of being a psychological thriller, and disappointingly settles into clichιd horror film stalk and slash territory. Cliche upon cliche stack up as the lights go out, lightning flashes and people are revealed by closing fridge doors. Though one thing I thought the film was able to do pretty well was its introduction of modern technology into the story.

Film trivia – Turns out David Morse was pretty intimidating off screen as well as on. Throughout the whole shoot while they were filming he would not speak to any of the teen actors in the film. Once the cameras were off he was friendly but nothing when he was in his 'zone'. And at one point he slammed his hand into a wall during a scene, breaking three fingers. Despite being clearly mangled he brushed everyone's concerns away that everything was ok, and that they should just go again.

However if you're going to enjoy this at all you're going to have to overlook quite a few flaws and plot holes. Most of them are to do with keeping the story going. After all I had to frequently ask why doesn't he just call the police with his suspicions? And he's got a camera with him the entire time to watch the goings on and yet it never occurs to him to record it for evidence?!!! And the fact that after everything that happens the last scene seems so false; after all the horror of what happened the next day everything is hunky dory! And even the killer seems pretty weak. This guy is an experienced serial killer and yet he seems to make numerous dumb moves. I mean the first victim we see of his, he parades her into his house for the neighbourhood to see, and then we hear her screams and are able to see her terror through the open curtains and blinds. Yes he attempts a cover-up but it still seems daft. Or maybe I've just become too accustomed to Dexter's methodical approach.

Perhaps the fact that I've only just seen Rear Window helps in my regard to liking this film. While other people may hold Rear Window in great reverence and love, and be appalled by this modern updating of it, I've not had time to form a great attachment to it, no matter how great a film I found it to be.

Conclusion – Considering the many flaws I've highlighted about this film it may sound like I really shouldn't like it whatsoever, but turns out I did! It's not a great film but I had quite a lot of fun watching this piece of Hitchcock-lite nonsense.

Nice review!!!

Yeah, it's a bit tame compared to Hitchcock's take, I found it watchable but nothing special... it lacked the tension needed for such a film too.

An old favourite of mine this. And given my recent spate of Clint Eastwood films I thought it was time for a rewatch. Indeed up until a few months ago this was just about the only Clint film I had ever seen. I know a lot of people may see this as just another standard action thriller but I've always had a real place in my heart for it. I'm not sure if I'll be able to explain exactly why it rises above numerous similar films but I'll give it a go.

If Unforgiven was Clint's last hurrah in the western genre, then this can be seen as his goodbye to the cop flick. And released just a year apart it's fascinating to see the many parallels between the characters. Unforgiven's Will Munny and In the Line of Fire's Agent Horrigan are so incredibly similar. In both films Clint is prompted to return to his former glories; in Unforgiven it was due to financial concerns, here it's a result of pride and guilt. However in neither film is he the man he once was. In both films the evil that is time is catching up with him, leaving him physically weak . It presents in small ways at first; unable to mount his horse in Unforgiven and struggling to keep up with the convoy he is protecting. Then however in both cases extreme fatigue and a constant cough begin to grind him down. And the inclusion of the JFK angle gives an interesting character facet to Horrigan's story. In fact the character of Frank Horrigan was inspired by real-life Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was with President John F Kennedy in Dallas and who later broke down on national TV during a live 60 Minutes interview saying that he felt responsible for the President's death.

Film trivia – While it's the double act of Eastwood and Malkovich that ensures I love this film, it could so easily have been very different. Ranging from being offered the role to actually being in place all of the following were in contention for the role of Frank Horrigan - Val Kilmer, Robert Redford, Sean Connery, Dustin Hoffman. And for Leary Robert DeNiro, Robert Duvall and Jack Nicholson were all in the frame.

While there are a few minor roles which do make an impression, for the most part this is actually a classic two-hander. And while it's cat and mouse game between the hero and villain may be familiar it's that two-hander, brought to life by the great double act of Eastwood and Malkovich, that raises this above other fare of a similar nature. Reminiscent of 1984's Tightrope starring Clint the film draws plenty of parallels between the hero and villain, showing they have more in common than may seem initially obvious. Both men seem to think the country has gone down a wrong path, and that the country has sold them out. In Horrigan's case it's the fallout of the fact that he failed to save JFK on that fateful day in Dallas; a fact that Leary takes great flee in reminding him of. What separates them is Horrigan has a resolve and decency, while Leary has gone down a dark path.

And in acting terms the film gives us a great face off between Eastwood and John Malkovich. Eastwood may just be playing yet another slight variation of himself, but you know what, he does it really well. Grabbing the pain and guilt his character feels Clint also displays a little twinkle in his eye when it comes to his interaction with Renne Russo. As the antagonist of the piece Malkovich is just a joy to watch as the psychotic Mitch Leary; it's a role he really seems to sink his teeth into. He easily embraces the sinister, threatening side of Leary but is just as successful at convincing us of the character's intelligence, thus making him a bigger threat than if he were just a standard psycho. He doesn't just resort to large histrionics either, for the most part his character is cool, calm and collected. So much so that when he does actually explode during a phone conversation with Horrigan it makes for a fantastic scene. To me he actually felt a lot like the mirror version (shout out to my fellow Trekkies! ) of MacGyver; intelligent, able to construct ingenious contraptions and a master of disguise he makes for a worthy adversary for Clint.

Film trivia – Talk about your method acting. In preparation for the role Malkovich lived in almost total seclusion for the month prior to filming, trying to tap into Leary's sense of isolation. He didn't leave his home or talk to anyone on the phone in that time, and very rarely watched TV – when he did it was news programs.

The romance that strikes up between Horrigan and Rene Russo's Lilly Raines could easily come across as bit forced and clichιd; never really conving. However Russo's breezy, likeable showing ensures that it never irritates but instead proves to be rather entertaining when it comes to the back and forth verbals they engage in, helped along by a script which provides them with some realistic sounding discussions. Oh and as a huge fan of the TV show Frasier I got a real kick out of seeing John Mahoney as an old buddy of Clint's. He may not be around for long but he makes for a warm, engaging presence.

It's a film that doesn't fall into the trap many thrillers seem to nowadays; the film is not just about the action, it has a good degree of brains about it as well. And Petersen paces it beautifully, drip-feeding us one clue after another, with a few twists and turns thrown in for good measure. And it all concludes with a spectacular pay off as Horrigan and Leary finally confront each other. Oh and I have to mention the clever and very effective use of special effects used to insert a young Clint Eastwood (from his Dirty Harry days) into newsreel footage featuring JFK. It cost $4 million to make happen.

Conclusion – A real favourite of mine. A sharp script, taut direction and two stand-out performances ensure that anytime I watch this I hugely enjoy it. It' a first rate, supreme example of a thriller.


EDIT - When I did my previous favourite films list this placed at #106, but I pretty much immediately thought it should be higher, around about the mid 90s.

Nice review matey.
In The Line Of Fire is on telly right now... you watching it?

Good review of a film I too love, JD. On another day, this would've made my top 100.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Thanks guys, glad you enjoyed the review. Though next time instead of 'nice' and 'good' you might want to try 'excellent' or 'brilliant', something along those lines.

Nope that was complete coincidence. Watched it on Sunday night and posting while it was actually on was a pure fluke.

Excellant, Brilliant

Rear Window is without a doubt the best Hitchcock movie. The most filled in dialogue and in moments. Disturbia wasn't to bad as you pointed out, just didn't really make us feel like Shia was trapped despite the whole house arrest. But those two are my type of movies.

__________________

There you go. Finally someone with some class showing me some appreciation.



Yeah that's true. James Stewart was completely trapped, and when confronted by Thorwald was pretty much helpless. LaBeouf however was able to move easily about his house and even in his garden. And while Stewart was unable to go over and do anything LaBeouf is actually able to, it just means the cops come. Which in the circumstances would be a good thing.

That reminds me, are you still planning on listing your films that just missed out such as In the Line of Fire? Also reminds me to add a little mention to my review of where it placed on my last 100 list.

I have thought about it recently, but I've not done anything about it yet. Maybe in the coming weeks.