Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

“Perfect“ films

belboid said:
In RW Mrs Thorwald is, imo, shown as shrewish, both through the glimpses we see of her and more especially because of Stewart’s commentary (which we go along with for the ride, initially). As the film progresses we see that her husband is obviously much worse. And by the end of the film, Grace can still only read that mag when hubby ain’t watching.
Click to expand...
I've just rewatched that, inspired by this thread. Jeff's commentary on nagging is exactly that, Jeff's commentary. As the viewer you are not given specific reason to go along with it. And its context is him trying to persuade himself not to marry Grace Kelly. That says something about him. It says nothing really about the Thorwalds, who as you say, we only glimpse through the window, without hearing anything. I totally agree with Spanglechick about the ending. She will be the one who decides whether she goes off with him or he stays with her. That's the meaning of picking up that magazine. I don't see misogyny in the film. The two strongest (and most insightful) characters are women - Grace Kelly and the nurse. And GK more than holds her own when she joins in with the speculation about the lives they're watching. Jimmy Stewart's character is pretty flawed. His old wartime buddy is a bit of an arse.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I've just rewatched that, inspired by this thread. Jeff's commentary on nagging is exactly that, Jeff's commentary. As the viewer you are not given specific reason to go along with it. And its context is him trying to persuade himself not to marry Grace Kelly. That says something about him. It says nothing really about the Thorwalds, who as you say, we only glimpse through the window, without hearing anything. I totally agree with Spanglechick about the ending. She will be the one who decides whether she goes off with him or he stays with her. That's the meaning of picking up that magazine. I don't see misogyny in the film. The two strongest (and most insightful) characters are women - Grace Kelly and the nurse. And GK more than holds her own when she joins in with the speculation about the lives they're watching. Jimmy Stewart's character is pretty flawed. His old wartime buddy is a bit of an arse.
Click to expand...
Hitchcock is, of course, a master film-maker first, and a misogynist some way down the line. He's not setting out to make a deliberately woman hating film, it's almost accidental, because that is his point of view. So interesting and rounded characters come first, the man has to be flawed, the woman at least interesting and capable of holding her own (to some extent). But it is still easy to see why many people find it flawed and deeply sexist. Although, I should recognise that if such (disputable) flaws rule out pretty much any Hitchcock, I did also nominate Some Like It Hot, which, as spanglechick pointed out, has a somewhat rapey premise which should see it rejected too.

With that in mind - we are given reasons to go along with Jeff - the shots are from his point of view, his is literally the gaze that we see. In that sense he is privileged within the film. And he's Jimmy Stewart, of course we trust him! Unless we've seen the film before, or Vertigo, etc etc. Add in his views absolutely matched the common ones of the day. One of the main points of the film is how such voyeurism draws us, the cinema goer, into a sympathy and comradeship with such the cameras eye. We are watching a Hitchcock thriller, so we are hoping for one of the women to be horribly killed so that we can get a thrill from the murder/film. We have to identify with Jeff initially to be drawn in - even if we think he's a bit of a dick, he's our dick. Of course as the film develops we start to challenge this opinion, but we still never get to see anything (directly through the camera) except from his view or Hitchcocks.

As to the end: so the alternative to her having acquiesced and just seeking out vicarious pleasures when Jeff isn't looking; is that she is sly and manipulative and tells him one thing but does another all along? Not exactly feminism 101.

We can interpret films with current sensibilities, but we do also have to bear in mind how audiences of the time would have viewed it. Barely 40 years after the birth of mass cinema, with the dominant social mores of the time, no TV to rewatch films, so you'd only be likely to see it once. We weren't anything like as used to that point of view shot, I can't think of a film that predated its interest in 'the gaze', how cinema is inherently voyeuristic. And while Hitchcock does absolutely undermine it later on, he's still telling us we love it, its what we want to see.
 
Last edited:
belboid said:
Hitchcock is, of course, a master film-maker first, and a misogynist some way down the line. He's not setting out to make a deliberately woman hating film, it's almost accidental, because that is his point of view. So interesting and rounded characters come first, the man has to be flawed, the woman at least interesting and capable of holding her own (to some extent). But it is still easy to see why many people find it flawed and deeply sexist. Although, I should recognise that if such (disputable) flaws rule out pretty much any Hitchcock, I did also nominate Some Like It Hot, which, as spanglechick pointed out, has a somewhat rapey premise which should see it rejected too.

With that in mind - we are given reasons to go along with Jeff - the shots are from his point of view, his is literally the gaze that we see. In that sense he is privileged within the film. And he's Jimmy Stewart, of course we trust him! Unless we've seen the film before, or Vertigo, etc etc. Add in his views absolutely matched the common ones of the day. One of the main points of the film is how such voyeurism draws us, the cinema goer, into a sympathy and comradeship with such the cameras eye. We are watching a Hitchcock thriller, so we are hoping for one of the women to be horribly killed so that we can get a thrill from the murder/film. We have to identify with Jeff initially to be drawn in - even if we think he's a bit of a dick, he's our dick. Of course as the film develops we start to challenge this opinion, but we still never get to see anything (directly through the camera) except from his view or Hitchcocks.

As to the end: so the alternative to her having acquiesced and just seeking out vicarious pleasures when Jeff isn't looking; is that she is sly and manipulative and tells him one thing but does another all along? Not exactly feminism 101.

We can interpret films with current sensibilities, but we do also have to bear in mind how audiences of the time would have viewed it. Barely 40 years after the birth of mass cinema, with the dominant social mores of the time, no TV to rewatch films, so you'd only be likely to see it once. We weren't anything like as used to that point of view shot, I can't think of a film that predated its interest in 'the gaze', how cinema is inherently voyeuristic. And while Hitchcock does absolutely undermine it later on, he's still telling us we love it, its what we want to see.
Click to expand...

qmeme_1366236068703_80.jpg
 
belboid said:
Hitchcock is, of course, a master film-maker first, and a misogynist some way down the line. He's not setting out to make a deliberately woman hating film, it's almost accidental, because that is his point of view. So interesting and rounded characters come first, the man has to be flawed, the woman at least interesting and capable of holding her own (to some extent). But it is still easy to see why many people find it flawed and deeply sexist. Although, I should recognise that if such (disputable) flaws rule out pretty much any Hitchcock, I did also nominate Some Like It Hot, which, as spanglechick pointed out, has a somewhat rapey premise which should see it rejected too.

With that in mind - we are given reasons to go along with Jeff - the shots are from his point of view, his is literally the gaze that we see. In that sense he is privileged within the film. And he's Jimmy Stewart, of course we trust him! Unless we've seen the film before, or Vertigo, etc etc. Add in his views absolutely matched the common ones of the day. One of the main points of the film is how such voyeurism draws us, the cinema goer, into a sympathy and comradeship with such the cameras eye. We are watching a Hitchcock thriller, so we are hoping for one of the women to be horribly killed so that we can get a thrill from the murder/film. We have to identify with Jeff initially to be drawn in - even if we think he's a bit of a dick, he's our dick. Of course as the film develops we start to challenge this opinion, but we still never get to see anything (directly through the camera) except from his view or Hitchcocks.

As to the end: so the alternative to her having acquiesced and just seeking out vicarious pleasures when Jeff isn't looking; is that she is sly and manipulative and tells him one thing but does another all along? Not exactly feminism 101.

We can interpret films with current sensibilities, but we do also have to bear in mind how audiences of the time would have viewed it. Barely 40 years after the birth of mass cinema, with the dominant social mores of the time, no TV to rewatch films, so you'd only be likely to see it once. We weren't anything like as used to that point of view shot, I can't think of a film that predated its interest in 'the gaze', how cinema is inherently voyeuristic. And while Hitchcock does absolutely undermine it later on, he's still telling us we love it, its what we want to see.
Click to expand...
I take your point about modern sensibilities, but some of the stuff is just there, and was equally there at the time. So Jeff's buddy dismisses GK's 'feminine intuition', decrying the hours wasted following up fruitless leads on feminine intuition. But what she's just told him isn't intuition. It's well-reasoned insight into behaviour. He just isn't listening. He's closer to the mark when he calls her the 'women's psychology department', but of course he's being disparaging with that remark. Link that to his earlier remark about how even idiot murderers can need thousands of man-hours to catch, and the only conclusion from the film can be that the police ought to pay more attention to psychology departments, women's or otherwise, not a surprising message for someone like Hitchcock to insert into a film. And that is just there - intentionally and unambiguously.

Just considering Rear Window, I don't think it is even a tiny bit sexist. If anything, the only sex being criticised by the film is men.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I take your point about modern sensibilities, but some of the stuff is just there, and was equally there at the time. So Jeff's buddy dismisses GK's 'feminine intuition', decrying the hours wasted following up fruitless leads on feminine intuition. But what she's just told him isn't intuition. It's well-reasoned insight into behaviour. He just isn't listening. He's closer to the mark when he calls her the 'women's psychology department', but of course he's being disparaging with that remark. Link that to his earlier remark about how even idiot murderers can need thousands of man-hours to catch, and the only conclusion from the film can be that the police ought to pay more attention to psychology departments, women's or otherwise, not a surprising message for someone like Hitchcock to insert into a film. And that is just there - intentionally and unambiguously.

Just considering Rear Window, I don't think it is even a tiny bit sexist. If anything, the only sex being criticised by the film is men.
Click to expand...
His army mate is a complete dick, definitely. But not even a tiny bit sexist? Come on. Not even that but when they look on askance at the attempted rape of Miss Lonelyhearts, but do absolutely nothing about it?
 
belboid said:
His army mate is a complete dick, definitely. But not even a tiny bit sexist? Come on. Not even that but when they look on askance at the attempted rape of Miss Lonelyhearts, but do absolutely nothing about it?
Click to expand...
Don't see it, no. They look away in powerless horror. There is no approval or excusing of it - she invited him in, she's asking for it. None of that. They're fond of Miss Lonelyhearts. The viewer is given no reason not to be fond of her as well. Then within a few seconds, she has fought him off. What could they have done?
 
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus said:
Don't see it, no. They look away in powerless horror. There is no approval or excusing of it - she invited him in, she's asking for it. None of that. They're fond of Miss Lonelyhearts. The viewer is given no reason not to be fond of her as well. Then within a few seconds, she has fought him off. What could they have done?
Click to expand...
They could at least have found out her name :)
 
killer b said:
oh wow this sounds terrible. :D
Click to expand...
I was flicking through the TV guide recently and saw Brief Encounter (which I love) was on. It was this version obviously. Not sure if it was a TV movie but that was definitely the look and feeI. Oh, and it had a contemporary (70s) setting. The five mins I saw were truly terrible.
 
it's on youtube - the 1970s setting is a little incongruous - it has the feeling of those public information films warning children off climbing pylons they used to show at school...

 
Sue said:
I was flicking through the TV guide recently and saw Brief Encounter (which I love) was on. It was this version obviously. Not sure if it was a TV movie but that was definitely the look and feeI. Oh, and it had a contemporary (70s) setting. The five mins I saw were truly terrible.
Click to expand...
It was shot as a TV movie for the US, with plans to release it in cinemas in Europe. The reviews were so terrible that the cinema release got scrapped.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sue
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wolveryeti
Films / TV that have scared you
2
Replies
49
Views
675
T & P
T & P
PR1Berske
Four Beatles films
Replies
3
Views
259
Yossarian
Yossarian
Yossarian
'Groundhog Day' films
Replies
29
Views
899
stdP
stdP
passenger
Aftersun film
Replies
23
Views
635
bcuster
bcuster
Spymaster
Best Dog Films
2 3
Replies
78
Views
2K
ATOMIC SUPLEX
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Back
Top Bottom