Rear Window (1954)

Khannie

So I watched this yesterday, partly (to be honest) because of its high score on IMDB - it's number 19 in the top 250 films of all time.

Now I thought it was good, but not "19th best movie ever" good. So am I missing something? What's all the fuss about?

Sleazus

Khannie wrote: »

So I watched this yesterday, partly (to be honest) because of its high score on IMDB - it's number 19 in the top 250 films of all time.

Now I thought it was good, but not "19th best movie ever" good. So am I missing something? What's all the fuss about?

I think that Hitchcock is a little difficult to get in retrospect. Don't get me wrong - his work is still fantastic to any modern cinema viewer - but a lot of what made his work cutting edge has been drafted into the mainstream. Directors these days take for granted his technique, to the point that audiences just assume that movies were always made like that and that these ways of racheting up tension or structuring twists are nothing but clichés.

It's odd that his work - which was pioneering at the time - now seems almost conventional.

It's a cracking film though.

Eirebear

Obviously, these things are all subjective. So maybe if you asked yourself what, in your opinion, is "19th best movie ever good" then we'd be closer to a reason why you dont think Rear Window deserves to be up there.

Its been years since i watched the movie personally, but its a fantastic piece of work by Hitchcock, definetly up there with his best work.

Meeja Ireland

Khannie wrote: »

So I watched this yesterday, partly (to be honest) because of its high score on IMDB - it's number 19 in the top 250 films of all time.

Now I thought it was good, but not "19th best movie ever" good. So am I missing something? What's all the fuss about?

Hmm, some quick thoughts. Movie theorists and critics like it a great deal, because it is in some ways an examination of the psychology and morality of filmaking and film-watching. James Stewart's character basically watches through his neighbours windows, like someone looking at a screen. He uses his camera to pry closer into their lives. These things put him into the same position as a viewer or a director. They may also be linked to the suggestions of emotional distance or immaturity, or even impotence, in the character.

That being said, I'm inclined to agree with you that it's over-rated. I think the characters are pretty shallow, and it just doesn't grip me the way much of Hitchcock does.

Eirebear

Sleazus wrote: »

It's odd that his work - which was pioneering at the time - now seems almost conventional.

I was actually going to mention this in my above post. Your right, many of the techniques which Hitchcock brought to the fore are now seen somewhere along the line in just about every film we watch.
However for me, this is testament to just how good his films were.

podgemonster

Isnt there a remake of it starring the late Christopher Reeves?? Saw it advertised on TV3 once. Havnt seen it but I assume it aint a patch on the original!

Khannie

Thanks for the replies. Interesting stuff.

Eirebear wrote: »

many of the techniques which Hitchcock brought to the fore are now seen somewhere along the line in just about every film we watch

Yeah, maybe you need to be more conscious of these things. I mean, I'm aware that hitchcock was pioneering, but it's difficult to see that if his techniques have been used all over the place since he pioneered them and you're not aware of which techniques he pioneered. I'm not a "movie buff" or whatever, though I'm starting to branch out a bit in what I watch.

Eirebear

Khannie wrote: »

Yeah, maybe you need to be more conscious of these things. I mean, I'm aware that hitchcock was pioneering, but it's difficult to see that if his techniques have been used all over the place since he pioneered them and you're not aware of which techniques he pioneered. I'm not a "movie buff" or whatever, though I'm starting to branch out a bit in what I watch.

A big thing for me when watching older films is having to find a way of reminding yourself that it is an older film.

Then when appraising it you have to try and put yourself in the position of someone from that era watching it for the first time.
Obviously the first question is "Did it stand the test of time", if the answer to that is yes, then you can start to difest it a little bit more with regards to techniques etc.

The Volt

Disturbia was a remake of this, a spit in the face of Hitchcock.

Rear Window is one of the first of it's kind, needless to say he's the master of suspense.

jf852003

This is actually one of my favourite films of all time. I love the way it plays out on such a small canvas of this NY apartment building yet never feels it. Gradually the tension builds till the final scene.
While i love Jimmy Stewart in it, my real favourite is Grace Kelly. IMHO, I've never seen a more beautiful women on screen then in this film. Its a fine performance, and she looks like she is having fun playing with the conventions of the time.
I mean, the scene where she comes to visit and brings just a nightdress in her bag, implying she was staying over. That would have provoked comment at the time. I think its often overlooked how apart from being technically advanced, Hitchcock's films were shall we say "morally" advanced for their times. Think of the second half of Vertigo or Psycho. They were genuinely shocking to the viewer back in the day.

magma69

Khannie wrote: »

So I watched this yesterday, partly (to be honest) because of its high score on IMDB - it's number 19 in the top 250 films of all time.

Now I thought it was good, but not "19th best movie ever" good. So am I missing something? What's all the fuss about?

I felt the exact same way when I watched it. Expecting to see a masterpiece and was totally let down. It was not rubbish but it was far from captivating too. "Meh" was the word that sprung to mind when the credits rolled.

mike65

The IMDB top billion list is an aggregate of votes therefore any film that scores consistantly high will be very high in the list. Only a cinematic dunce would rate Rear Window anything less than a 7 and those who appreicate its technical skill and storytelling verve will award it 8+ (some will give it 10 cos they are fools). Hardly a shock that its so high but also hardly a shock that many raised in the era of Michael Bay movies would find it hard to warm to.

Wacker

jf852003 wrote: »

While i love Jimmy Stewart in it, my real favourite is Grace Kelly. IMHO, I've never seen a more beautiful women on screen then in this film. Its a fine performance, and she looks like she is having fun playing with the conventions of the time.
I mean, the scene where she comes to visit and brings just a nightdress in her bag, implying she was staying over. That would have provoked comment at the time.

Indeed. Anyone weird enough to follow my posts here might know of my adoration for that fantastic specimen of womanhood that was Grace Kelly. This is her, and by extension, any woman ever, at her loveliest. Remember her first appearance in the film, with that slight;y out-of-focus kiss? Hitch wanted that shot to symbolize an orgasm. I am unashamed to admit that I've had more than symbolic orgasms to that shot myself!
What is near unbearable is how nasty James Stewart's character (Jeffries) is to Kelly's (Lisa Fremont). It makes me want to throttle him! I mean, how could anyone not love the woman pictured below? Madness!

kelly.jpg

Rear Window is my second favourite Hitchcock film, behind Psycho. But I doubt I'll ever see a more alluring performance than Grace Kelly's.

magma69

mike65 wrote: »

The IMDB top billion list is an aggregate of votes therefore any film that scores consistantly high will be very high in the list. Only a cinematic dunce would rate Rear Window anything less than a 7 and those who appreicate its technical skill and storytelling verve will award it 8+ (some will give it 10 cos they are fools). Hardly a shock that its so high but also hardly a shock that many raised in the era of Michael Bay movies would find it hard to warm to.

I don't know where to begin to point out your complete arrogance of that post. Movies are art. Art is subjective. Where do you get off with your self righteous dismissing of anyone who gave the movie 10 or >7 as a cinematic dunce or fool. Cop on to yourself ffs:rolleyes:.

Eirebear

magma69 wrote: »

I don't know where to begin to point out your complete arrogance of that post. Movies are art. Art is subjective. Where do you get off with your self righteous dismissing of anyone who gave the movie 10 or >7 as a cinematic dunce or fool. Cop on to yourself ffs:rolleyes:.

I would suggest he's actually making the point that to make judgements on films based on something like IMDB's ratings system is folly, rather than anything else.

Ann22

Khannie, I feel the same way. I only watched it recently. I like James Stewart and love Hitchcock so thought I was in for a real treat but I was a wee bit let down. It was quite good but nowhere near as great as I thought it was going to be. I loved every other one of Hitchcocks that I've seen so far.