A Rear Window View: Reviewed

I read the New York Times review of Rear Window, published back in 1954. While detailed in its descriptions of the film, I found it interesting how the author did not include any distinct opinions on the movie. Unlike other film reviews, like Roger Ebert for example, there was no numerical rating, nor was there any strong language indicating whether this film was enjoyable or not. Instead, the reviewer explained and analyzed Hitchcock’s cinematic and theatrical techniques and let the reader decide if they appreciate what he has done. They talked about what parts of the movie were well done and what parts were lacking a little bit. The style in which this review was written made it enjoyable for me to read. Oftentimes I am turned off by reviews from other people, especially strangers, because people’s tastes can vary dramatically. How can I know if I can trust the reviewer? I appreciated how this reviewer detached themselves from the film and backed up their claims with evidence from the movie.

When I read this review for the first time, I was immediately captivated by the first line. “The boorish but fascinating pastime of peeking into other people’s homes.” I just loved this line and I feel like it sums up the premise pretty well. Hitchcock chose to create a film about something that we all do, whether we like to admit it or not. But it is not something we ever really do willingly. Every time I have found myself staring into other people’s homes was when I have exhausted just about every other form of entertainment that I have to the point where I have to turn to something that most of the time is not entertaining at all. It truly is very boring and you almost never see anything juicy. Yet, we all still do it to fill this strange biological need to know what everyone else around us is doing. Describing a movie as boring, but in a good way is such a great way to encapsulate the reader.

Towards the middle of the review, the author says “Mr. Hitchcock’s film is not ‘significant’. What it has to say about people and human nature is superficial and glib.” I understand this perspective. When you boil it down, I don’t see any hidden message or underlying moral to the story. Hitchcock is not trying to sell you some idea. But I don’t necessarily see this as a problem. Not every movie needs to be commenting on an issue in order to be taken seriously. In fact, I found this movie to be quite pleasant to watch as a second semester senior because I didn’t have to try that hard to understand the narrative. I felt that the spectacular writing and beautiful set design fully compensated for any narrative shortcomings.

The review dedicated an entire paragraph to describing the side characters in the film. For this film specifically, they are obviously worthy of that space. I liked how this was a main focus in the article and that the reviewer chose it as one of the selling points of the movie. In my opinion, nothing beats a well thought out cast. Deeply developed side characters are a good indicator of a quality film. The reviewer said just enough to interest the reader while leaving out just enough to avoid spoilers and keep them wanting more. The characters are all so absurd that as a reader, you can’t help but wonder how they all fit together into the story. If I hadn’t seen the movie yet, this paragraph would definitely have made me add it to the list.

I understand completely why the author chose not to speak of the ending for fear of spoilers. After all, many people read reviews before they set out to watch the movie. However, from someone who has already seen the film, I craved for some discussion about the end. I want to hear other thoughts about whether the ending came as a shock. While I could relate to LB Jeffries’ curiosity and voyeurism throughout the film, I could not relate to his confidence and need to interfere. I simply do not have the courage to confront people like that. For me, I spent the entire movie doubting LB Jeffries just as I would doubt my own thoughts if I were in his position. Therefore, when Thorwald actually ended up committing the crime, I was truly surprised. Despite seeming like a straight forward ending, Hitchcock subverted my expectations by not including the classic twist ending.

Works Cited Crowther, Bosley. “A ‘Rear Window’ View Seen at the Rivoli.” The New York Times, 5 Aug. 1954.