Rear Window (1954) - A Club Discussion

→ in
Tools    





Grace did just alright, but didn't really do anything to impress me. Still her presence cannot be understated. She really oozed elegance.



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."



I just now read the other reviews, some comments
....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 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 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,...
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 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 want to keep the conversation going so I am going to push back on this a tad again to see what you think Citizen. She mentions it, the detctive tells him he needs to knock it off, and Kelly's charcter is beginning to be annoyed by it. We are beginning to see some repercussions for his actions even if it is just a bit. All that goes away as soon as the characters know he was right. Stewart even has a line that says as much to the detective. Any negativety they had towards his actions vanish. If he has Kelly and Ritter do what they end up doing and there is no murder. Boom, instant repercussions for his actions throughout the movie. I would leave it open ended, but there is even a possibility he loses his girl over it.

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



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.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019



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:
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.'
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.



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.
Well you know, if you feel like you should take Hitch's side over me I guess there is a bit of evidence you are backing the right horse.



this is the least one i liked in the list of 5 films:
1-psycho
2-north by northwest
3-vertigo
4-to catch a thief
5-rear window



Where is the North by Northwest thread?
Coming tonight. I apologize. I have already watched it. Been home late every night this week and I have been so amped for binging Better Call Saul I keep blanking on creating it.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
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?
You're using 21st Century logic for a 1954 film.

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.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yeah that's true. But instead of him confessing the crime, wouldn't it just make more sense for L.B. Jeffries to use pull the villain out of the window and, have him fall to his death, so he doesn't get away with it instead?



This movie is cited in one Simpsons episode. Bart breaks his leg and spies on Flanders next door.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
One thing in the movie I don't understand, is how was Thorwald able to get Jeff's phone number? Where did he get it from?