A

My favorite Hitchcock, along with THE LADY VANISHES. A near-perfect suspense film.

Not my favorite Hitchcock movie, but it's in the top three. Today's audiences might find it a little slow, but I found it to be very suspenseful. My grade: B+.

Along with Psycho, my two favorite Hitchcock movies of all time. Can't believe how much suspense one can generate without leaving the room.

You should read the story.



Anyway, this is one of the few Hitchcock's I DIDN'T enjoy, upon initial viewing. But since then, I have read the story (which I thought was far better than the movie) and rewatched it - it's still not among my favorites, but it definitely improved a lot. Solid at least.

Right up there with Rope. I find Rear Window to be one of the most engaging Hitchcock movies made. Perhaps its his ability to make the movie have nothing to do with mystery being solved. I waited a few years before re-watching this movie, and somehow retained the neighbor's stories despite not remembering what had actually happened to the wife. I believe that says something as to the grande director's emphasis. Very suspenseful and always shuffling around the claustrophobic courtyard, Hitchcock builds an entire film from snippets of overseen and overheard actions. That film is so many different narratives wrapped into one taught bundle. I must say, he had a bit of humour at the end when the dancer's fiance comes back from the war as well.

A

One of the greatest films ever made, and one of the most insightful with respect to the relationship between the artist, the subject, and the audience. Somehow, Hitchcock managed to find the right story to tap into a topic that has been intensley discussed for, well, a few thousand years. What is the relationship between the artist and the subject (s)he observes? How does the artist (re)interpret events, and how authentic is his/her interpretation? Is authenticity important at all? Is it right to transgress the boundaries separating the subject from the artist, and can anything escape his/her subjection? From the audience's perspective, which is the more legitimate position to take: that of the observer, or that of the observed? Are we in the audience, after all, not made to be subjects to the artist's interpretation of events? Hitchcock, after all, is behind this film, and he is the one dictating a series of events to us, which might or might not have occurred as he says they did. If this is fiction, why would this man peeping through the window end up being right? Why is it that the man who is the subject could not be innocent? Is he really guilty? How about us, and how we relate to the observer? Are we not exactly like him, voyeurs intruding on the lives of others who play out their parts in front of us? Don't we spend time (and money) in order to satisfy our curiousities about the lives of others, even if they are reenactments? And in the case of documentaries or home videos, they might well be authentic; in the case of television, they are at the least based on reality.


I can't do this film any justice with an adequate critique because that would take me days, and would probably end up being booklength (so...months?). But you can see from the sheer number of questions that immediately spring up just how profound a film this is. An absolute masterpiece from one of the greatest artists of his age.


An enthusiastic A


Take this as an A+ if you want to, which I haven't given to any film thus far (ignore my 2001: ASO comments at present, I'm reevaluating everything). I find grading the great films to be quite a ridiculous idea anyways, because they each stand on their own merits, and are beyond categorization in simple grade brackets. Suffice it to say that this is among the top ones. I don't have a problem, btw, with giving out A+s, only I don't see the point, if an A can get the same point across. At any rate, the grades aren't important. This is a great film, and that's all that matters.


P.S: just to share one observation: notice that we never find out the real names of either Miss Lonelyheart or Miss Torso. Those women that are seen from the window and the photographer's perspective are not the women as they exist in real life, but as he sees them. There is nothing more to them than his interpretations based on what he observes. There is no knowledge of their past lives, little indication of how their future will play itself out (even with the somewhat surprising endings), and significantly, no account of what their thoughts and real feelings are. What else is there to Miss Lonelyheart? Obviously, she is seen at the end holding a decent conversation about music. So, did she study it before? What else is there to her beside her being brokenhearted? And Miss Torso is clearly able to look beyond physical attraction if she is in love with that small, rather wimpish soldier boyfriend of hers. But even that is merely my interpretation of what I'm seeing on screen. And that's exactly the point: I as a viewer (and you too), will never know more about anyone on screen than what we are supplied with. Our understanding of the characters on screen is our interpretation of them and their lives; our conjectures, based on what we see onscreen, about their lives beyond the film is mere speculation.

And this extends to real life as well, which is what makes it so disturbing: will we ever know who those people around us really are? Think of how much others don't know about us and our real feelings and thoughts. Now think of how little we know about theirs. There is a kind of barrier that separates them from us, and vice versa. In Rear Window, it's the window, which gives the photographer access to the others, but which limits his viewpoint to that of a silent observer interpreting events from a distance. In real life, it's our eyes, our other senses, our thoughts, feelings, personality, character, in sum, our body and mind, which being unique, are separate from all others, and those of the others are separate from ours. The moment that we come into contact, we screen them, physically and mentally, and what we end up with is our interpretation of who they are. If we end up being right about them, then we are as lucky as the photographer in Rear Window. But there's a warning attached to this: he almost failed, and whatever victory was achieved was in large part due to a series of chance events, including him observing the man and his wife at the right time, and so on. There is no guarantee that we will be so lucky in our lives, or so wise in our judgements.

Excellent both as a pure suspense/mystery film, and as one that delves into the depths of cinematic theory. Without any knowledge of film theory, one can still enjoy this film as typical Hitchcock, with masterfully built up tension and elaborate set pieces. But, beneath that, there's a whole layer that is so much more interesting and intelligent. Multiple layers, actually. But, strictly as a film, it's very well made, perhaps a bit dated by our times, but still excellent filmmaking. Great performances, a taut script, and a perfect set design. Classic Hitchcock.

Great Hitchcock thriller. Keeps you on the edge of your seat. Great performace from Stewart. To tell the truth though, I liked Rope more.

-A

Just thought about my top 10 movies of all time recently, and Rear Window still stands at the top.

A-

Shares a similarity to Vertigo in that it takes a little while to get going, first 20-30 minutes wasn't that special... but once it does, it's a terribly fun flick, with good metaphors about us observing the world, as Box has already elaborated on. Stewart and Grace Kelly are both excellent. Was a bit disappointed in the ending, Thorman walking into the room and the photo thing was brilliantly done, but does someone have to fall down a ledge or building in every single Hitchcock film? Could see that one coming.

Anyways, great movie. Shadow of a Doubt is still his masterpiece for me though.

I second what xia said - I can't believe how much suspense can be generated from one room. This is a wonderful film... masterful. It's brilliant.

a+

mauls all suspense films today

true Hitchcock's film still tower way above all of the suspense films today even.


Was a little slow in the start but i was engaged through the whole film. When the man looked directly at you, man that was a big jolt!

A!

Saw this yesterday for the first time, and it is safe to say that it at leat enters my top 20 of all time, maybe top 10. I think this is a little better than Vertigo, although both are masterpieces. I *loved* the final 20 minutes or so. I'm discovering that Jimmy Stewart is fast becoming one of my favorite actors.

A

It's not as good as Psycho, but this is still an incredibly well-directed and suspenseful thriller filled with great performances all around.

A-

Perfect set design, suspensefuL at times, yeah but North by Northwest was much better, IMO. And I was kind of expecting a great twist in the end.

B+, on par with Psycho.

Now there's a great old film - - I've probably seen that more times than any other individual Hitchcock movie, except for perhaps Vertigo. We need a thread for that one!

I don't have a written review, but Rear Window is absolutely in Hitch's top tier...

Really good review Box, I think you nailed the allure of this movie... When I first saw this, I mostly concentrated on the story and mystery and that was why I was a bit disappointed; it was only later and on more viewings that I started thinking about it more and realizing its depth and meaning. The strength of the movie and why its one of the best is not because of the murder storyline itself, but rather the topic of voyeurism and how Stewart looking out his window represents us looking at the world and our constant desire to look into other people's lives, and so on. Of course it's also one of the best and most tensely shot movies ever and gloriously written and acted as well. It's a true masterpiece.

Really, one of the greatest movies ever made.

Hitch was a master at manipulating his aesthetics to control the audience emotionally and intellectually, and he was never better then with Rear Window. The way the camera floats and flickers from window to window, it's not so much a POV shot of James Stewart as it is the audience. Incredible.

This is what suspense films are suppose to be and the underlying themes are just an extra reward. James Stewart is fantastic of course and the small setting of the film is excellently used.

One of the greats. A

I've never seen this but my theater is showing it on Sunday, so I thought about going. I think I made up my decision by reading this thread. Thanks guys!

I'd love to go too.

Yes its worth seeing in a theatre. I watched this (for the 1st time) in an old restored theatre in 2001 and loved loved loved it.