Grace did just alright, but didn't really do anything to impress me. Still her presence cannot be understated. She really oozed elegance.
Rear Window (1954) - A Club Discussion
→ in Movie Reviews
Cool piece of trivia on Rear Window ... I also really liked that scene.
"According to Georgine Darcy, the scene in which the man and woman on the fire escape struggle in their attempt to get in out of the rain can be attributed to a prank by Alfred Hitchcock. Each actor in the apartment complex facing Jeff's rear window wore an earpiece through which they could receive Hitchcock's directions. Hitchcock told the man to pull the mattress in one direction and told the woman to pull in the opposite direction. Unaware that they had received conflicting directions, the couple began to fight and struggle to get the mattress inside once the crew began filming the scene. The resulting mayhem in which one of the couple is tossed inside the window with the mattress provided humor and a sense of authenticity to the scene which Hitchcock liked. He was so pleased with the result that he did not order another take."
"According to Georgine Darcy, the scene in which the man and woman on the fire escape struggle in their attempt to get in out of the rain can be attributed to a prank by Alfred Hitchcock. Each actor in the apartment complex facing Jeff's rear window wore an earpiece through which they could receive Hitchcock's directions. Hitchcock told the man to pull the mattress in one direction and told the woman to pull in the opposite direction. Unaware that they had received conflicting directions, the couple began to fight and struggle to get the mattress inside once the crew began filming the scene. The resulting mayhem in which one of the couple is tossed inside the window with the mattress provided humor and a sense of authenticity to the scene which Hitchcock liked. He was so pleased with the result that he did not order another take."
I just now read the other reviews, some comments
I like what you said about the characters in the rear windows being more important than the overall plot. I like the ending but I could see it going the other way too, which reinforces the idea that pepping is wrong.
I liked that. And Thelma Ritter does take a dim view of Stewart's peeping and even mentions he could be in for jail time as a peeping tom. Certainly the script has that in mind, I'm not so sure Hitch did or not?
....I love how we see so much of the irrelevant windows. Ms. Lonely Hearts and Ms. Torso are as much a part of this film as Thorwald. Plot is secondary to them here and I think the movie is better for it. In fact I feel so strongly about it that I think the movie would be a bit better thematically if the ending went the other way. It's a small point of contention but I think it could have worked well....
I feel like the confrontation at the end could be interpreted as a form of punishment for his peeping. You pay a price if you get into other people's private business,...
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I liked that. And Thelma Ritter does take a dim view of Stewart's peeping and even mentions he could be in for jail time as a peeping tom. Certainly the script has that in mind, I'm not so sure Hitch did or not?
Now let me say this isn't Psycho. I mostly love the end of this film. I love Ritter and Kelly sneaking around and I adore that final scene. Just playing devil's advocate because I do feel one of the greatest movies ever could be even better.
__________________
Letterboxd
Letterboxd
X
Favorite Movies
I don't agree, @seanc. That approach would take away a layer of depth that is essential to the film, in my opinion.
To me, it would be like the Mexican kid in Touch of Evil actually being non-guilty instead of guilty. It takes away the ambiguity of the central sin that's being committed. I don't want a film that is obviously anti-peeping. I want a film that makes the peeper sympathetic and makes him save the day. It's way more interesting and opens up many more questions than the former example.
To me, it would be like the Mexican kid in Touch of Evil actually being non-guilty instead of guilty. It takes away the ambiguity of the central sin that's being committed. I don't want a film that is obviously anti-peeping. I want a film that makes the peeper sympathetic and makes him save the day. It's way more interesting and opens up many more questions than the former example.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I liked the ending pretty well, but after reading Sean's post earlier, I decided I liked his version of leaving the murder, or no murder, up in the air. I mean the beginning of the film really sets it up that James Stewart is obsessed. It's almost like Hitch is saying he's crazy from the heat and the boredom. So I thought that's how it would end with Stewart being the antagonist. I just read this bit of trivia:
And that worked on me, the way the confrontation scene was done, I felt sympathy for Throwald (Raymond Burr) for a few seconds before he grabs Stewart.
I do think Stewart's character is presented to us as somewhat of a dubious character. I mean he won't even marry Grace Kelly! So yeah if I had Hitch's ear during production I would go with the ambiguous ending.
In an interview with Peter Bogdanovich, Alfred Hitchcock claimed that he felt a bit of sympathy with all of the antagonists of his films. He said that he felt particularly sympathetic toward Thorwald, who was minding his own, albeit murderous, business before Jeff interfered. Hitchcock went on to say that he hoped the audience would share his sympathy during the confrontation between Thorwald and Jeff, when Thorwald asks him what he wanted and why he was doing this, while Jeff remains silent. Hitchcock concluded by saying "during that moment it makes one think, 'you know, he's really kind of a bastard.'
I do think Stewart's character is presented to us as somewhat of a dubious character. I mean he won't even marry Grace Kelly! So yeah if I had Hitch's ear during production I would go with the ambiguous ending.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I don't agree, @seanc. That approach would take away a layer of depth that is essential to the film, in my opinion.
To me, it would be like the Mexican kid in Touch of Evil actually being non-guilty instead of guilty. It takes away the ambiguity of the central sin that's being committed. I don't want a film that is obviously anti-peeping. I want a film that makes the peeper sympathetic and makes him save the day. It's way more interesting and opens up many more questions than the former example.
To me, it would be like the Mexican kid in Touch of Evil actually being non-guilty instead of guilty. It takes away the ambiguity of the central sin that's being committed. I don't want a film that is obviously anti-peeping. I want a film that makes the peeper sympathetic and makes him save the day. It's way more interesting and opens up many more questions than the former example.
X
Favorite Movies
Where is the North by Northwest thread?
X
Favorite Movies
I watched it again after a few years, and it gets better every time. One thing me and my gf both agreed on that is strange is the ending though. Why did the villain confess the crime? I mean all the police got him on so far is attempted murder, and breaking and entering, so why confess to worse crimes?
I watched it again after a few years, and it gets better every time. One thing me and my gf both agreed on that is strange is the ending though. Why did the villain confess the crime? I mean all the police got him on so far is attempted murder, and breaking and entering, so why confess to worse crimes?
During that era in films, a man who murdered his wife could never get away with it. The Hays Code had long insisted that movie criminals always get caught and punished.
X