![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rear Window (1954) (YouTube)
Based on a short story by Cornell Wollrich from 1942 called 'It Had to Be Murder", this movie is part of the peak period in Alfred Hitchcock's filmography.
A photographer named L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart) has been homebound for almost two months due to a hip and leg fracture while at work. He wears a cast from his waist all the way down his left leg. When the movie opens, there's only one more week to go before he can get rid of the cast.
There are only two ppl who visit him on the daily. One of them is Stella (Thelma Ritter), a nurse assigned from the insurance company to take care of him. The other one is Lisa (Grace Kelly), a high-class and chic model who is also Jeffries' girlfriend.
Jeffries' only way to entertainment himself is to look out his window which faces a giant courtyard that includes three other buildings. Although he doesn't know any of them by name, he does give them nicknames and spends some time trying to suss out their lives.
A couple inside one specific apartment catches his attention. It involves a woman who is bedridden for some reason and her husband (who works outside the home.) They have a v. contentious dynamic going on. One night, v., v. late, Jeffries hears a woman screaming. Half-asleep, he tries to figure out who screamed, but passes out shortly after. The next morning, something's going on in the apartment across from him. Although Jeffries doesn't know what that is, he starts to wonder...
I wish there was a word above "perfection". If only so that I could give this movie a better fitting accolade. Hitchcock's level of creativity (the set design alone!) is going at 100%, the plot has a fantastic balance of suspense and humor, the dialogue is chef's kiss, and the acting! Like, there's not one single actor (and I'm including background folks with zero dialogue here) who doesn't give a great performance.
It's the kind of film that works on EVERY LEVEL.
I loved the breaking down of themes in addition to the A plot abt the mystery surrounding the neighbors. For instance, there's Jeffries' reluctance to take his relationship with Lisa into something more serious because that'd mean having to adjust his life. The level of pettiness when it comes to his stubbornness abt the possibility of getting married AND how the movie forces him to re-examine those ideas. His hangups abt Lisa (that end up being complete wrong).
This inner turmoil is then explored thru the film by showing three different "archetypes" of single women. Represented by Lisa and "Miss Torso" (a ballet dancer who is something of a party girl played by Georgine Darcy); "Miss Lonely-Hearts (played by Judith Evelyn)", a single woman in her late 30s/early 40s who is extremely lonely; an older woman in her early to mid-60s who is a sculptress (in the cast sheet, she's called "Miss Hearing Aid" (no idea why) and she's played by Jessyln Fax).
I like how the movie offers a counterargument for each of Jeffries' complaints. Lisa and Miss Torso might present a carefree, slightly promiscuous image BUT they do care abt their respective partners way more than Jeffries could've ever imagined. The sculptress is pretty content with her life. Eventually Miss Lonely-Hearts does realize what she really wants companionship-wise instead of going abt trying to settle with the first dude who looks at her. Growth, it's a thing that happens, LOL.
Then there are three couples depicting what Jeffries thinks of as the tedium and horrors of married life: the newlyweds (Rand Harper and Havis Davenport) who are riding on the high and horniness of being recently married but don't know what married life is really like; the Thornwalds (Raymond Burr and Irene Winston) who show the truth of what marriage is, i.e. a lot of fighting and nagging; the couple with the little dog (Sara Berner and Frank Cady) who are true partners but (allegedly) lack passion.
As for the marrieds, I felt like Jeffries focused too much on the Thornwalds' apparent mutual dislike vs. the happiness of the newlyweds and the mellow respect of the couple with the dog.
MOVING ON
I legit cannot single out one actor as the MVP. Stewart does a good job in showing Jeffries cynicism and having to acknowledge that he doesn't know anything abt anyone. Ritter's portrayal of Stella is of a no nonsense woman who is full of direct commentary that's realistic (i.e. life isn't full of rainbows and kittens, but that's OK because as long as you love each other, you'll want to have the best life possible with your SO.) Kelly's Lisa is amazing and resourceful. This is the Grace Kelly I wish we had seen onscreen back in Dial M for Murder! (Funnily enough, Dial M dropped in late May and this movie premiered in August of the same year.) And then, ofc, there's Raymond Burr as Lars Thorwald and he's great too.
Oh, and the costumes! Grace Kelly wore some truly dreamy clothes designed by Edith Head. But even Miss Lonely-Hearts had a couple of va-va-voom dresses. APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE!
Do I have any criticisms?
No.
Do I recommend it?
LISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEN, if you haven't watched this movie, you better get on it! If you have watched it, rewatching it will never be a waste of time. FTR, I have literally lost count of how many times I've watched this movie throughout the years. I've owned it on VHS, DVD, and digital formats. Managed to watch it at a movie theater some 15 yrs ago.
So, it's deffo one of those movies I LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURVE body and soul. I'm giving it a 5 out of 5 with the understanding that it's multiplied by abt 100M! . It's available for free on YouTube (probably til the end of this month, i.e. Friday), but it does tend to air on TCM and I know it's available for rent everywhere.
Queerness level
Yes? BUT not the way y'all might think. "Officially", I can't give it a rank within the movie, but there was at least one queer man in the main cast.
Raymond Burr (Lars Thorwald) did marry a woman for 4 years post-WWII. THAT SAID, sometime in 1960 (Burr had divorced by then) he met Robert Benavides (a fellow actor). They were a couple from that time until Burr's death in 1993. Burr and Benavides lived together, held parties at their home, etc. Burr continued acting for a while on and off; Benevides retired from acting by the early 1960s and focused on working as a producer (for the Perry Mason TV show that had Burr in the title role.). They had an orchid nursery and a vineyard business. By the time Burr passed on, he left his entire estate to Benevides. AFAIK, the vineyard continues to this day.
In short, their domestic partnership was one of those "open secrets" in that everyone KNEW they were a couple but no one really commented on it. FTR, Burr never came out, but Benevides did talked about his relationship with him. This was corroborated by enough people (friends and colleagues) to verify their relationship being real for 33 years.
Rear Window (1998) (YouTube)
This a made-for-TV adaptation that was interesting in many ways.
The movie is abt Jason Kemp (Christopher Reeve), an architect who is paralyzed from the neck down after a car crash. He goes thru rehab while his house is getting retrofitted with everything he needs in order to continue his job and life as a person with a disability. From then, he moves back to his 2-story loft alongside Antonio (Ruben Santiago-Hudson), his main nurse, and Allison
(Ali Marsh) his night nurse.
He also has a new working partner, Claudia (Daryl Hannah) a fellow architect who took over a few of Jason's projects. In between trying to catch up with the work he's missed for the past few months, he spends a significant amount of time staring at several apartments from the building across from his. He doesn't know anyone's names, but he's intrigued by their different lives.
One of the people across from him is a beautiful blonde woman (Allison Mackie) who is also something of an alcoholic. She's the wife of Julian Thorpe (Ritchie Coster), a volatile and famous sculptor. There's something in her that Jason is attracted to in a casual way.
And then, one late night, he's awakened by someone's scream…
Like I said, this is an adaptation that modernized the original plot in a way that works for the most part. I don't think there is one specific actor that I'd say is the MVP per se. However, I do feel the need to point out that this is the last of the (admittedly few post-accident) acting roles Christopher Reeve did before a break that resumes around 2004.
Thing is, I'm a little at odds with him in this specific role. OTOH, he is good, charismatic, and has a fantastic dry sense of humor that brings his likability up. OTOH, there are moments (particularly in the first 30 mins of the movie) where his dialogue includes a lot of commentary on disability rights, the cost of disability in the US, etc. It does makes sense given what happened to Jason. However, because Reeve was also an activist IRL, it kinda blurrs things between the fictional Jason and Reeve's own public persona. I'm not saying I didn't like it, but I'm sill a little like 🤔 abt that aspect of his role.
The pacing is faster than the 1954 movie. Maybe because there's more dialogue.
Do I have any criticisms?
Sadly, I do. *sighs*
The first has to do with aestheics. This is a v. late 1990s movie. Everyone's apartment has a general interior decor that made me kinda giggle, NGL. Then there's the costuming, hairstyles, and make-up for the female characters that is PAINFULLY 1998. In one scene, Claudia is wearing the butterfly hair clips that were v. popular and I just abt DIED, NGL.
I also 😒 Daryl Hannah as Claudia in terms of her wardrobe and acting. The styling is OFF. Claudia spends most of the movie wearing a lot of short-sleeved turtlenecks and silk skirts in deep browns that don't work in this one instance. Unfortch, the palette in Jason's whole apartment consists of deep browns with a few touches of cream and beige. This means that Claudia ends up sorta blending into the background a lot of the time. There are some instances in which she wears gray suits buuuuuut they are ill-fitting. IDK what happened here. Whoever did the tailoring hated Hannah. Oh, and she also wears a white and chartreuse dress toward the end that was garish.
Aside from that, Hannah chooses to give Claudia a bubbly personality that doesn't match with whoever Claudia is supposed to be. She's wide-eyed and naive in a way that gives teenager-y vibes. It doesn't make sense since Claudia is in her mid-to-late 30s. I wanted to like her, but that wasn't meant to be. THANKFULLY, by the last 25 mins of the movie, she does dialed down the perkiness into something more natural.
I also didn't like the villain. That character is too cartoonish. The actor keeps chewing the scenery in a bad way, hahah.
Do I recommend it?
I do. It's a pretty quick movie that I watched for free on YT (it's been available over there for at least 3 yrs.) Taking into consideration that it is a TV movie, the acting is fine and the pacing is okay. I'm giving it a 3 out of 5. Can't give it any higher cuz I have some complaints, won't give rate it any lower since it's not a terrible movie.
Funnily enough, I watched his movie live back in late fall 1998. It was a BIG fucking deal back then given Reeve had the main role. Finally, THIS movie is the reason why I came up with the idea for the "comparing Hitchcock movies to their adaptations" series. Go figure!
Queerness level
Medium-high! I'm shocked.
It so happens that one of the apartments across from Jason's has a M/M couple residing in it. I like their inclusion--which, yeah, IS subtle…but then, keep in mind this aired on network TV in 1998.
There's a sequence early in the movie (after Jason moves back home) that shows different couples in the apartments and then focuses on the M/M one. (The rest of the couples are M/F.) All of the couples have the same kind of intimacy and tenderness. FTR, the two guys don't kiss, but small mercies and all that, I guess.
Another scene has the gay couple having a party with a whole bunch of queers. And you KNOW they're all queer cuz everyone's wearing vests. I know this sounds weird but, as someone who was a baby queer in the 1990s, I can attest for the fact that a lot of gay, lesbian, bi, etc folks of any gender would wear vests. WHY? IDK, but it was a fashion thing back then. XD
The final scene with the gay couple shows them hanging out with a WLW couple!!! One of the women is femme-coded with a bright (yellow?) dress and long light brown or blonde hair. She's the one sitting the furthest away from the camera, so I can't go into full detail abt her. Meanwhile, her girlfriend/wife/partner is a soft butch brunette who is wearing A VEST, hahah. (I told y'all that vests were super HIP and "Fashionable" in the 1990s!.)
In any case, it was pretty cool to see that. No idea what was the overall reaction from the hets OR if there was any backlash against showing queer ppl living their lives. I'm sure there had to be ppl who didn't even think they were a couple, but if you know, YOU KNOW. ;)
Aaaaaand so here's the end of the Hitchcock vs. Remake posts. FWIW, there is one more two classic movie that I'll be posting abt next month. ;)
Based on a short story by Cornell Wollrich from 1942 called 'It Had to Be Murder", this movie is part of the peak period in Alfred Hitchcock's filmography.
A photographer named L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart) has been homebound for almost two months due to a hip and leg fracture while at work. He wears a cast from his waist all the way down his left leg. When the movie opens, there's only one more week to go before he can get rid of the cast.
There are only two ppl who visit him on the daily. One of them is Stella (Thelma Ritter), a nurse assigned from the insurance company to take care of him. The other one is Lisa (Grace Kelly), a high-class and chic model who is also Jeffries' girlfriend.
Jeffries' only way to entertainment himself is to look out his window which faces a giant courtyard that includes three other buildings. Although he doesn't know any of them by name, he does give them nicknames and spends some time trying to suss out their lives.
A couple inside one specific apartment catches his attention. It involves a woman who is bedridden for some reason and her husband (who works outside the home.) They have a v. contentious dynamic going on. One night, v., v. late, Jeffries hears a woman screaming. Half-asleep, he tries to figure out who screamed, but passes out shortly after. The next morning, something's going on in the apartment across from him. Although Jeffries doesn't know what that is, he starts to wonder...
I wish there was a word above "perfection". If only so that I could give this movie a better fitting accolade. Hitchcock's level of creativity (the set design alone!) is going at 100%, the plot has a fantastic balance of suspense and humor, the dialogue is chef's kiss, and the acting! Like, there's not one single actor (and I'm including background folks with zero dialogue here) who doesn't give a great performance.
It's the kind of film that works on EVERY LEVEL.
I loved the breaking down of themes in addition to the A plot abt the mystery surrounding the neighbors. For instance, there's Jeffries' reluctance to take his relationship with Lisa into something more serious because that'd mean having to adjust his life. The level of pettiness when it comes to his stubbornness abt the possibility of getting married AND how the movie forces him to re-examine those ideas. His hangups abt Lisa (that end up being complete wrong).
This inner turmoil is then explored thru the film by showing three different "archetypes" of single women. Represented by Lisa and "Miss Torso" (a ballet dancer who is something of a party girl played by Georgine Darcy); "Miss Lonely-Hearts (played by Judith Evelyn)", a single woman in her late 30s/early 40s who is extremely lonely; an older woman in her early to mid-60s who is a sculptress (in the cast sheet, she's called "Miss Hearing Aid" (no idea why) and she's played by Jessyln Fax).
I like how the movie offers a counterargument for each of Jeffries' complaints. Lisa and Miss Torso might present a carefree, slightly promiscuous image BUT they do care abt their respective partners way more than Jeffries could've ever imagined. The sculptress is pretty content with her life. Eventually Miss Lonely-Hearts does realize what she really wants companionship-wise instead of going abt trying to settle with the first dude who looks at her. Growth, it's a thing that happens, LOL.
Then there are three couples depicting what Jeffries thinks of as the tedium and horrors of married life: the newlyweds (Rand Harper and Havis Davenport) who are riding on the high and horniness of being recently married but don't know what married life is really like; the Thornwalds (Raymond Burr and Irene Winston) who show the truth of what marriage is, i.e. a lot of fighting and nagging; the couple with the little dog (Sara Berner and Frank Cady) who are true partners but (allegedly) lack passion.
As for the marrieds, I felt like Jeffries focused too much on the Thornwalds' apparent mutual dislike vs. the happiness of the newlyweds and the mellow respect of the couple with the dog.
MOVING ON
I legit cannot single out one actor as the MVP. Stewart does a good job in showing Jeffries cynicism and having to acknowledge that he doesn't know anything abt anyone. Ritter's portrayal of Stella is of a no nonsense woman who is full of direct commentary that's realistic (i.e. life isn't full of rainbows and kittens, but that's OK because as long as you love each other, you'll want to have the best life possible with your SO.) Kelly's Lisa is amazing and resourceful. This is the Grace Kelly I wish we had seen onscreen back in Dial M for Murder! (Funnily enough, Dial M dropped in late May and this movie premiered in August of the same year.) And then, ofc, there's Raymond Burr as Lars Thorwald and he's great too.
Oh, and the costumes! Grace Kelly wore some truly dreamy clothes designed by Edith Head. But even Miss Lonely-Hearts had a couple of va-va-voom dresses. APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE!
Do I have any criticisms?
No.
Do I recommend it?
LISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEN, if you haven't watched this movie, you better get on it! If you have watched it, rewatching it will never be a waste of time. FTR, I have literally lost count of how many times I've watched this movie throughout the years. I've owned it on VHS, DVD, and digital formats. Managed to watch it at a movie theater some 15 yrs ago.
So, it's deffo one of those movies I LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURVE body and soul. I'm giving it a 5 out of 5 with the understanding that it's multiplied by abt 100M! . It's available for free on YouTube (probably til the end of this month, i.e. Friday), but it does tend to air on TCM and I know it's available for rent everywhere.
Queerness level
Yes? BUT not the way y'all might think. "Officially", I can't give it a rank within the movie, but there was at least one queer man in the main cast.
Raymond Burr (Lars Thorwald) did marry a woman for 4 years post-WWII. THAT SAID, sometime in 1960 (Burr had divorced by then) he met Robert Benavides (a fellow actor). They were a couple from that time until Burr's death in 1993. Burr and Benavides lived together, held parties at their home, etc. Burr continued acting for a while on and off; Benevides retired from acting by the early 1960s and focused on working as a producer (for the Perry Mason TV show that had Burr in the title role.). They had an orchid nursery and a vineyard business. By the time Burr passed on, he left his entire estate to Benevides. AFAIK, the vineyard continues to this day.
In short, their domestic partnership was one of those "open secrets" in that everyone KNEW they were a couple but no one really commented on it. FTR, Burr never came out, but Benevides did talked about his relationship with him. This was corroborated by enough people (friends and colleagues) to verify their relationship being real for 33 years.
Rear Window (1998) (YouTube)
This a made-for-TV adaptation that was interesting in many ways.
The movie is abt Jason Kemp (Christopher Reeve), an architect who is paralyzed from the neck down after a car crash. He goes thru rehab while his house is getting retrofitted with everything he needs in order to continue his job and life as a person with a disability. From then, he moves back to his 2-story loft alongside Antonio (Ruben Santiago-Hudson), his main nurse, and Allison
(Ali Marsh) his night nurse.
He also has a new working partner, Claudia (Daryl Hannah) a fellow architect who took over a few of Jason's projects. In between trying to catch up with the work he's missed for the past few months, he spends a significant amount of time staring at several apartments from the building across from his. He doesn't know anyone's names, but he's intrigued by their different lives.
One of the people across from him is a beautiful blonde woman (Allison Mackie) who is also something of an alcoholic. She's the wife of Julian Thorpe (Ritchie Coster), a volatile and famous sculptor. There's something in her that Jason is attracted to in a casual way.
And then, one late night, he's awakened by someone's scream…
Like I said, this is an adaptation that modernized the original plot in a way that works for the most part. I don't think there is one specific actor that I'd say is the MVP per se. However, I do feel the need to point out that this is the last of the (admittedly few post-accident) acting roles Christopher Reeve did before a break that resumes around 2004.
Thing is, I'm a little at odds with him in this specific role. OTOH, he is good, charismatic, and has a fantastic dry sense of humor that brings his likability up. OTOH, there are moments (particularly in the first 30 mins of the movie) where his dialogue includes a lot of commentary on disability rights, the cost of disability in the US, etc. It does makes sense given what happened to Jason. However, because Reeve was also an activist IRL, it kinda blurrs things between the fictional Jason and Reeve's own public persona. I'm not saying I didn't like it, but I'm sill a little like 🤔 abt that aspect of his role.
The pacing is faster than the 1954 movie. Maybe because there's more dialogue.
Do I have any criticisms?
Sadly, I do. *sighs*
The first has to do with aestheics. This is a v. late 1990s movie. Everyone's apartment has a general interior decor that made me kinda giggle, NGL. Then there's the costuming, hairstyles, and make-up for the female characters that is PAINFULLY 1998. In one scene, Claudia is wearing the butterfly hair clips that were v. popular and I just abt DIED, NGL.
I also 😒 Daryl Hannah as Claudia in terms of her wardrobe and acting. The styling is OFF. Claudia spends most of the movie wearing a lot of short-sleeved turtlenecks and silk skirts in deep browns that don't work in this one instance. Unfortch, the palette in Jason's whole apartment consists of deep browns with a few touches of cream and beige. This means that Claudia ends up sorta blending into the background a lot of the time. There are some instances in which she wears gray suits buuuuuut they are ill-fitting. IDK what happened here. Whoever did the tailoring hated Hannah. Oh, and she also wears a white and chartreuse dress toward the end that was garish.
Aside from that, Hannah chooses to give Claudia a bubbly personality that doesn't match with whoever Claudia is supposed to be. She's wide-eyed and naive in a way that gives teenager-y vibes. It doesn't make sense since Claudia is in her mid-to-late 30s. I wanted to like her, but that wasn't meant to be. THANKFULLY, by the last 25 mins of the movie, she does dialed down the perkiness into something more natural.
I also didn't like the villain. That character is too cartoonish. The actor keeps chewing the scenery in a bad way, hahah.
Do I recommend it?
I do. It's a pretty quick movie that I watched for free on YT (it's been available over there for at least 3 yrs.) Taking into consideration that it is a TV movie, the acting is fine and the pacing is okay. I'm giving it a 3 out of 5. Can't give it any higher cuz I have some complaints, won't give rate it any lower since it's not a terrible movie.
Funnily enough, I watched his movie live back in late fall 1998. It was a BIG fucking deal back then given Reeve had the main role. Finally, THIS movie is the reason why I came up with the idea for the "comparing Hitchcock movies to their adaptations" series. Go figure!
Queerness level
Medium-high! I'm shocked.
It so happens that one of the apartments across from Jason's has a M/M couple residing in it. I like their inclusion--which, yeah, IS subtle…but then, keep in mind this aired on network TV in 1998.
There's a sequence early in the movie (after Jason moves back home) that shows different couples in the apartments and then focuses on the M/M one. (The rest of the couples are M/F.) All of the couples have the same kind of intimacy and tenderness. FTR, the two guys don't kiss, but small mercies and all that, I guess.
Another scene has the gay couple having a party with a whole bunch of queers. And you KNOW they're all queer cuz everyone's wearing vests. I know this sounds weird but, as someone who was a baby queer in the 1990s, I can attest for the fact that a lot of gay, lesbian, bi, etc folks of any gender would wear vests. WHY? IDK, but it was a fashion thing back then. XD
The final scene with the gay couple shows them hanging out with a WLW couple!!! One of the women is femme-coded with a bright (yellow?) dress and long light brown or blonde hair. She's the one sitting the furthest away from the camera, so I can't go into full detail abt her. Meanwhile, her girlfriend/wife/partner is a soft butch brunette who is wearing A VEST, hahah. (I told y'all that vests were super HIP and "Fashionable" in the 1990s!.)
In any case, it was pretty cool to see that. No idea what was the overall reaction from the hets OR if there was any backlash against showing queer ppl living their lives. I'm sure there had to be ppl who didn't even think they were a couple, but if you know, YOU KNOW. ;)
Aaaaaand so here's the end of the Hitchcock vs. Remake posts. FWIW, there is one more two classic movie that I'll be posting abt next month. ;)
