Rear Window (1954): Hitchcock And The Audience As Voyeur

by Paul Batters
u-g-P98IPN0

‘That’s a secret, private world you’re looking into out there. People do a lot of things in private they couldn’t possibly explain in public’ – Detective Doyle (Wendell Corey)

Often described as one of the greatest directors of all time (and deservedly so), Alfred Hitchcock knew how to play his audience and to paraphrase a line from The 39 Steps (1935) ‘lead them down the garden path’. Hitchcock did so not only through brilliant execution of cinematic technique, fascinating character arcs and truly thrilling plots but because he knew his audience. Francois Truffaut made the interesting observation, that Hitchcock shaped his films by asking ‘all the questions (he thinks) will interest (the) audience’.

Rear Window is one of Hitchcock’s most celebrated masterpieces and one which usually tops the lists of favourite Hitchcock films. Critics raved about it at the time, with Bosley Crowther acclaiming the film’s tension and plot whilst also its’ thematic concerns. That acclaim has not died down. In 2000, Roger Ebert made the fascinating point that what was ‘intended as entertainment in 1954, is now revealed as art’. Indeed.

Photographer L.B Jeffries (Jimmy Stewart) is stuck in his apartment and laid up with a broken leg. Called ‘Jeff’ by his fiancée, Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly), he’s a frustrated man as his very nature as well as his job is to be out and about taking photos. Lisa is a beautiful fashion model and it is obvious to the audience that she wants to desperately be with him but is frustrated by his distance. The only other visitor is his therapeutic masseuse Stella (Thelma Ritter) whose early comments offer some foreshadowing to the greater crime that will follow.

84880-universal_pictures_home_ent

As Jeff sits in his apartment, he looks out his window and in his direct line of sight are a series of apartments into which he watches the goings-on of their occupants. Jeff becomes immersed in what they do from the mundane to the sad and eventually the tragic. As Andrew Peachment states in Time Out: ‘everyone’s dirty linen: suicide, broken dreams, and cheap death…’ is hung out for all to see. As the story unfolds, Jeff will become more than a passive witness to all of this and find himself immersed in a murder mystery. This reviewer will leave you to discover that journey yourself! Needless to say, as much as Jeff’s involvement appears as passive, he will not remain as a strict spectator.

Hitchcock knows exactly how to draw in the audience from the moment the film begins. The camera not only guides the eye of the audience but becomes the eye of the audience, tracking across the neighbourhood and settling along the way on small details, seemingly simple moments until it sets itself on what will be the centre of attention. Before long, the camera and the eye of the audience will meld into the view of the protagonist and our journey ‘down the garden path’ begins with Jeff. It is a brilliant and incredibly empathetic approach from Hitchcock and his knowledge of his audience shines from the opening. Of course, the powerful irony is that the audience experiences it all through the eye of the camera.

 

But it is not enough for Jeff to watch with the naked eye and he uses his expertise with the camera, to get a closer, deeper and more refined view to feed his obsession. Interestingly, enough the camera acts as multi-functional tool for Jeff; it gives him greater and closer access but it still remains a barrier or shield, it provides greater intimacy yet provides him with distance and allows him penetration without fear of impotence.

Rear Window is a film about intimacy and the powerful irony of a man who watches the intimate moments of others whilst avoiding a more intimate and deeply emotional involvement with Lisa. Ebert has suggested that Jeff’s avoidance of something deeper with Lisa is a fear of impotence, symbolised in great part by being stuck with a full leg cast. If going by the many psychoanalytical essays written on Hitchcock’s sexual pathology, Truffaut’s statement that Hitchcock is revealing a great deal of himself in the film rings true.

Grace Kelly is unbelievably stunning whose ice-cold blonde beauty is one of controlled eroticism. Certainly a favourite of Hitchcock’s, the audience gets the sense that the focus should be on Kelly’s sexual allure and incredible beauty and not on what is happening in the apartments of other people. Indeed, one cannot help wondering ‘what the hell is wrong with this guy?’. Of course, with voyeurism comes a price.

rear-window-1954-movie-still

Yet this links to the theme of obsession, one which Hitchcock regularly explored, most famously in Vertigo (1958). Of course, both Vertigo and Rear Window star Jimmy Stewart, in two very different roles yet both sharing an obsession with what they see. For Scotty, it is obsession with Madeline; for Jeff it is an obsession with the lives of his neighbours. Yet they also share a deeply-rooted problem with intimacy – Scotty cannot make that physical connection with ‘Judy’ until she transforms into Madeline, the woman with whom his obsession took root. Indeed, he becomes obsessed with transforming ‘Judy’, objectifying his obsession and driving her to exasperation. His ‘impotence’ is ‘cured’ once the transformation is realised.

Jeff is similarly impotent, as discussed earlier, and indeed completely imprisoned as well as incapacitated by his predicament. The only release that he has is to watch his neighbours and thus this becomes his obsession. It is also one which creates an intimacy without being intimate, and additionally an escape. His broken leg may very well be a hindrance to expressing love and connection for Lisa but the deeper symbolism holds far truer. But there is another level of intimacy that becomes apparent and that is that of the audience experience. It’s far easier to love from afar than finally have what he desires in his arms only to find that he cannot perform sexually. Avoiding that disappointment becomes the easier option. It is a foundational reality at the core of the theme of voyeurism. Michael Sragow in The New Yorker correctly describes Rear Window as ‘an audience-participation film’, although our own impotence is evident through the inability to act.

rear-window-watching-recommendation-largeHorizontalJumbo-v4

That theme of voyeurism is also at the core of the film’s gaze. The audience and Jeff meld into one, both restricted to and yet drawn into the secretive world of Jeff’s view. His eye, the audience and the camera all become the one vision, which as a result will also heighten the tension and leave us bound by Jeff, as much as he is bound by his broken leg. Perhaps this is part of Hitchcock’s little joke on us. Of course, the tension and danger are also born out of his inability to act, as the audience watches the danger unfold and like Jeff all that we can do is watch.

Rear Window is also a perfect example of how story is always the driving and central force of any film. The famous constructed courtyard set offers a view into many other apartment windows  and becomes an obvious focal point, due to Jeff’s incapacitation. But it also shows how suspense and tension does not need multiple or expansive sets, nor incredible special effects. Nevertheless, the real art of the set is found in its’ construction; far more intricate than meets the eye.

EB20000220REVIEWS082200301AR

There are other clever in-jokes as well. Listen carefully and you’ll notice Bing Crosby singing “To See You Is to Love You”, hinting further at Jeff’s obsessions and the addiction of voyeurism. (I can’t help but see this as foreshadowing of Vertigo!) Hitchcock was not simply a master of the visual but of the complete cinema experience, and was careful to use sound as a powerful part of that experience. Diegetic sound beckons to Jeff (and the audience) as it drifts across the courtyard, drawing him towards the windows across from him. It also amplifies that Jeff is a part of the neighbourhood, which he is only watching and not participating in. Of course, sounds such as a far-off siren not only signal life in a city but is also ominous for the danger that will unfold. To quote Peachment again, the audience in essence is watching a ‘silent film’ of other people’s lives, whether across a courtyard or up on a screen…’ with the sound of the action being incidental.

d1966e85ecee9e8da59d499e3c467806

Jeff gives his neighbours interesting and even humorous names (Miss Torso, Miss Lonelyhearts etc), ‘knowing’ them from watching them. Yet, does he know them or what is he projecting onto them? Jeff’s need to watch them and track their lives also exhibits an intimacy with being intimate.

Hitchcock holds the spell right through to the end. The final moments of the film between Jeff and Lisa suggest some sort of common ground to their relationship. Hitchcock gives the audience some sort of ending, regarding the neighbours whose lives have been carefully watched. A wry smile would surely appear on the audience’s face when the newlyweds have their first fight and the other ‘stories’ are also suitably dealt with.

And yet the greatest joke of all is that the audience shares that obsession with Jeff. We, too, enjoy watching what they are all doing and wonder how their story will unfold. All of Jeff’s neighbours have their own stories and perhaps we find kindred spirits in the lives of those we are watching. In the midst of our mild disapproval of Jeff’s actions, we are also voyeurs and the greatest irony is that as film-viewers, we too are enjoying intimacy without being intimate.

Paul Batters teaches secondary school History in the Illawarra region and also lectures at the University Of Wollongong. In a previous life, he was involved in community radio and independent publications. Looking to a career in writing, Paul also has a passion for film history.

 

16 thoughts on “Rear Window (1954): Hitchcock And The Audience As Voyeur

    1. Thanks so much Maddy. I agree regarding the top two Hitchcock films being Rear Window and Vertigo – true masterpieces for different reasons. You’re so kind to add me to the entries! I’m doing okay by the way and hope you’re also well! 🙂

      Like

  1. I enjoyed reading this, Paul. And it’s good to see you back!

    Films like this one can be intimidating to write about sometimes, because there’s so much going on, and there are several different ways to approach it. A few years ago I would have said it was Hitch’s best, but I’m not so sure now, as there are so many good ones. It’s got to be in the top two or three though.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks so much Jay – trying to get back on the bike and just write!

      A movie like Rear Window can be tough to write about especially as so much already has been. I agree that there a number of ways to approach it – cinematic technique to me is interesting but only insomuch as to what the impacts are of those techniques and what it evokes for an audience.

      I always feel there are a number of Hitchcock’s films which jockey for position as his best and yes, they change over time depending on our own viewpoints and feelings at a particular time. But I guess that adds to the fun! And yes it has to be top three.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. It is difficult to understand why Hitchcock so often chose Jimmy Stewart to play a leading man: he was too old both for Grace Kelly and Kim Novak. It moreover is clear that his character and Grace Kelly’s were unsuited to each other. The romance seems forced, as it is in: ‘Vertigo’. It is equally difficult to see what either woman would have seen in him. I think Bruce Cabot or David Farrar would have been a better choice for the role of the photographer – and Stewart Granger would have been ideal for the role of Scotty in: ‘Vertigo’, with Diana Lynn as Midge. As to: ‘Rope’, Stewart is again I think miscast: here, Michael Gough would have better conveyed the impression of the character that Patrick Hamilton so carefully limned in the play.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting insights into possible casting instead of Jimmy Stewart – I find it hard to get past it perhaps because I love Rear Window (and Vertigo even moreso). Hitchcock felt that Vertigo’s box office failure was a result of casting Jimmy Stewart.

      It’s been written about so many times that Jimmy Stewart represents the ‘everyman’ and there’s a truth to that, yet he could play cynical men as well.

      Like

    2. IMO, there was an element of voyeurism to Hitchcock, in which casting an older man opposite might have been playing to his deep internal desire to possess a younger woman, in sort of a “self-inserting, but still watching from a distance” thing that as a director, he tended to do. (He used Cary Grant opposite young women a lot too, and Cary was also a fair bit older than his leading ladies.)

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Nice review. I wrote about it a while ago and came pretty much to the same conclusions.

    I agree that Hitchcock is very empathetic of the characters. He was occasionally accused of treating the characters in his movies with a certain sadistic glee. This may be true of other films but not here. They’re all treated with compassion and respect.

    I tried to stay away from an outright Freudian analysis in my review. My mind is a bit more of a shallow puddle. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you so much! I’m glad we see Rear Window in similar ways. I think Hitchcock knows his characters all too well and there is an empathy he has with all of them – I always felt that of Madeline in Vertigo as well. And he knows his audience and I think that’s why audiences loved and still love his films.

      I couldn’t help delve deeper into the analysis but I must take serious issue with your final comment – your mind is anything but a shallow puddle!!!! On the contrary actually!

      So nice to hear from you and hope you are well!

      Like

  4. Dear Paul,

    I just nominated you for a Blogger Recognition Award: https://pureentertainmentpreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2020/08/28/the-blogger-recognition-award/. By the way, in this post I invited you and the other nominees to join my upcoming blogathon, the Joe Pasternak Blogathon (https://pureentertainmentpreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2020/08/21/announcing-the-joe-pasternak-blogathon/) and my monthly guest series, What the Code Means to Me (https://pureentertainmentpreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/what-the-code-means-to-me/). I would be honored if you would join one or both of these!

    Yours Hopefully,

    Tiffany Brannan

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Oh thank you so much! That’s very kind of you and I’m very honoured! I really appreciate the recognition and I will get onto a response right away.

      Your other blogathons looks very interesting and inviting and I will certainly see what I can do to contribute to them. I remember writing a piece for What The Code Means To Me last time and I really enjoyed it.

      Thanks again Tiffany! I hope you are well!

      Liked by 1 person

  5. A typically thoughtful and insightful article on a most deserved subject. So many merited superlatives have been ascribed to “Rear Window” over the years; masterful director Hitchcock presented an audacious, layered story, all within the confines of a single set. I also find the checkered rights history of the film as fascinating as the movie itself. I clearly remember first seeing “Rear Window” on a television showing in 1971; I later found out the broadcasting network actually did not have the legal right to air the film. The film had otherwise been withheld from viewing for twenty-five years before its initial release to videocassette in the early 1980’s. After further litigation the copyright case was eventually heard by the American Supreme Court.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you so much Robert. Actually I like your use of the adjective ‘audacious’ and wish I had used it myself! It does describe the approach by Hitchcock, particularly in terms of the set and an incapacitated protagonist.Interesting background to the film’s release, which I was not so schooled about and you were fortunate to see it when you did, considering the film was hard to see.

      Whilst Vertigo is my favourite Hitchcock film, Rear Window runs a very close second. Truly a masterpiece!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to Charity Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s