The setting of the movie Rear Window is surprisingly reminiscent of the tenements found in Maggie. Buildings facing each other, windows wide open; there is a strong sense that the individuals who live there ought to have some impact on the lives of those around them. We see, however, in their varied social routines, from the impassioned cries of the lady with the murdered dog, in the sad plight of ‘Miss Lonelyheart’, that the people only affect each other in a peripheral manner- the film really introduces the concept of a personal space, where individuals interact in private. Of course, the premise of the movie follows the life of one man who spies into all of these hidden moments. What does Hitcock mean to say about the nature of the private space, or the nature of public space? It is clear that nearly all the tenants suffered from a sense of disconnection or estrangement. Could Mrs. Thorwald have been saved in anyone in the building thought to ask after her? Was the invasion of privacy worth the cost if it brought a murderer to justice? Are the private and public spaces really as separate as they first appear?
Hitchcock also observes quite a bit about human nature and its wish to perform. Lisa is purported never to wear the same dress twice, but Jefferies is most entertained by people in their unstudied state, how they act when they feel they can stop putting on a show. Similarly Lisa and Stella are immediately drawn in to the drama. What fascination exists in viewing other people’s intimate moments that would cause Jefferies to cease his romanticisms with Lisa for-- put all their lives in danger for? Does this drive exist in all of us? How does Hitchcock present the ethics of window-peeping?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
In the second part of Claire's post she stated that, "Hitchcock also observes quite a bit about human nature and its wish to perform." I think that the most obvious example of this in the film was portrayed through the ballerina dancer. She is constantly dancing and prancing around in her small amount of clothing despite her obvious large open window that looks out to the "courtyard" area that the neighbors share. She essentially uses the dancing and the parties as a shield for her the fact that she is anxiously awaiting the safe arrival of her beloved military man.
The newlywed male is conscienciously aware of the fact that he and his wife may be being watched. He reaching over to the window to pull down the shade before they proceed with their intimate situation. The fact that some of the neighbors are extremely aware (such as the newlyweds), while some neighbors are niave to the fact that someone could be watching him/her.
It seems as though Hitchcock thinks that window peeping can be appropriate depending on why one is window peeping. Jeffreies' window peeping is justified by the fact that he has "stumbled" upon evidence that seems to add up to a murder and is continued because he would like the murderer to be brought to justice.
Hitchcock really captures the people's (tenants) 'private' spaces in this film. The setting in a cityscape with the brick buildings all facing one another provide a great premise for 'Rear Window.' Private and public spaces are not really seperate in this film. Through their windows, Jefferies can see their daily lives or his neighbors who think they are being unwatched in private. Lisa herself says to Jefferies that isn't there things that you do in private that an onlooker would misinterpret and not understand. Breaking the barrier between private and public spaces, Hitchcock gives us a bird's eye view into these people's lives.
To Claire's second question, was the invasion of privacy worth the cost of bringing a murderer to justice...I believe we have all asked ourselves this question in the past few years when the Patriot Act was introduced and all Americans would lose some of their privacy (library, oversees phone calls, etc). I for one am opposed to losing a sense of privacy to be safe. (against the Patriot Act) However, in the movie, it worked out well to bring a murderer to justice, so it is a give and take question, one without a definite answer. One will think of course take away 'their' privacy for the protection of 'me,' but don't think for a second that you can take away 'my' privacy for the protection of 'them.' At least that is my selfish way of looking at it.
Lastly, Lisa and Stella are drawn into this because it is human nature to be attracted to a murder story, gossip. We are hard wired to believe the worst, partly in fact because it is a safety mechanism to protect us from 'the worst.' The ethics in this movie are a bit skewed. If Mr. Thorwald had not killed his wife, then it would have looked like Jefferies was the criminal, peeping in on him with huge binoculars and another obnoxiously big telescope. In my opinion, it is probably not a good idea to look into your neighbors windows, unless you want to be known as 'that' neighbor. For Jefferies, his peeping Tom behavior sought out a murderer, an extreme and 'lucky' example of the benefits of peeping on one's neighbors.
Through “Rear Window”, Hitchcock insinuates that privacy only exists to a certain extent. Our homes are commonly a place where we seek privacy, yet Jeffries takes away this sense of solitude his neighbors feel by his constant window peeping. As Claire mentioned, the mere structure of tenement housing seems to demand social relationships, however the characters do not interact on a personal basis. I completely agree with Claire’s explanation of Jeffries entertainment in viewing people when they feel they can “stop putting on a show”. This “show” is literally seen in the case of the dancer; however other characters put on these shows as well. Miss Lonelyheart for example is only able to expose her true anxieties and troubles within her own home, as she lays out the pills on her table.
As human beings we are often quite nosy when it comes to the affairs of others. What begins as simply people watching for Jeffries, turns into a complete obsession with the lives of others. In doing so he loses touch with the realities of his own life, and as a result pushes Lisa away from him. However, it seems Hitchcock does not see window peeping as a completely negative hobby. The ending implies that sometimes being overly inquisitive can lead to positive things rather than negative. Mr. Thorwald essentially receives the punishment he deserved all along in the closing of the movie. In my opinion, this invasion of privacy was justified in the end because it was such a severe crime. However, Jeffries initial snooping was merely to pass the time while he was crippled. Perhaps Jeffries ironic injury at the end represents the dangers and repercussions that can result from spying on others. Hitchcock presents a concerning reality that we can never really know whether we are alone or not.
One of Claire's questions that stuck out to me was the abstraction on private versus public spaces. It made me think of the contradiction between having doors that lock in this tenament and the idea of having all windows facing an open, shared space. I think we as humans love the idea of shutting out the outside would, keeping things private (locking our doors). However, due to the setting of a large city, the idea of completely shutting others out is impossible. That's where window's come in; while we love seeing other’s actions, we are inevitably open to their interpretation of our own acts. In Maggie, as Claire alluded to, the tenants are very aware of the social goings on, thus making them very conscious of their own. However, where the environment in Maggie is socially open with information flowing from ear to ear, the way Hitchcock portrays Jeffries shows humans as socially closed creatures having to deal with physically open spaces (he himself is embarassed of his own peeping Tom habits). So it seems as though despite the surrounding or way of obtaining information about others, we hope that others don’t find out about us as we try to find out about them.
That is where it get’s dangerous. We’ve talked about the dynamic of the observer and the subject, and I think Hitchcock adds to our group consensus that we assume things about the small percent of reality we see. Jeffries’ entire case against Mr. Thorwald was based entirely on shaky assumptions about his actions. He used his limited knowledge about Mr. and Mrs. Thorwald and superimposes a plot line between the two. Again with the observer versus subject idea, I noticed that as he tries to extrapolate a murder case between a possibly troubled couple, he himself is in a romantic dilemma. Could Jeffries problems with Lisa have led him to create this story between the Thorwald’s. It again points to the conclusion that we want to know about others, but want our problems and personal issues to remain quiet.
I agree that the invasion of privacy was definitely a motif in this movie. Viewers are left to decide for themselves whether ones personal space is worth it or not. The small establishment that Hitchcock lives in is a large public space full of small private ones. Some flaunt themselves freely and dance about in their underwear, while others just lean out the window once and a while for a smoke. They are all so physically close that they can all whether they want to be involved with one another, yet they choose to remain isolated. In contrast to what Claire said I think that the spaces appear very close at first glance, but they people create barriers between each other and ultimately create more space (not in a physical sense.)
The community as a whole is very open, but it seems that no one is really interconnected with each other, as portrayed when one of the ladies dog is killed. She laments about how they are all neighbors and yet nobody looks out for each other. But, paradoxically, I could probably guess that if she saw that someone was peeping on her she would be upset. It seems that people could condemn window peeping if it didn't produce any results. But if, like Hitchcock, someone discovers a murder of something of importance, he would be praised as doing the right thing. Window peeping would be considered ethical only if it produced results that people can see and understand, such as saving a life or discovering a crime.
As humans, we are certainly inclined to observe (or, less kindly, spy on) those who live around us. Though it may not be considered an overall ethical act, I definitely agree with Max’s idea that it would be seen as acceptable if it “produced results that people can see and understand.” This conflict between our intrinsic desire to watch others and our moral opposition is clearly evident in Lisa’s change of heart halfway through the film. In the beginning, all she can do is criticize Jeffries and scold him for peeping into others’ windows, however once she hears there is an interesting and potentially dangerous story behind his watching, she is suddenly convinced to take part.
I also believe, as many others have stated, that our private homes are certainly not as private as we think. There will always be the one nosy neighbor who happens to know everyone’s gossip without ever actually having to speak to them. Likewise, Hitchcock suggests that there may also be others who quietly observe, taking the Big Brother approach to spying. Though a disconcerting reality, I think that it is one which is generally accepted by most people, for everyone has existed on both sides of the spectrum – as both the observed and the observer…
I think the theme of confinement and also of freedom plays abig role in Rear Window. As claire brought up, the illusion of personal space both for thorwold and for jeffries is very apparent. Jeffries is literally confined to his chair and therefore recognizes the oppurtunity to peep into the next building. only becasue he is physically confined does he give in to his natural desire to peep. This "human nature" of discovering something that is not meant to be discovered is in everyone. He also discovers how each and every resident of the other building is essentially, although unknowingly performing. The only one who perhaps is not is thorwold and he is the one that jeffries is most interested in.
The involvement of the two women shows even more the natural desire to discover. They are not confind yet they become in volved in jeffries game simply out of curiousity. this is not to say that they have bad intentions, ut they justify it by trying to solve the murder. i think we all know it is wrong to intrude on ones privacy but if we declare our reasoning as plausibile then it seems to ok.
Claire brought up a good point about how Hitchcock observes human nature to a large extent in this film. I couldn’t help but compare Rear Window to the modern-day adaptation Disturbia. Although in Disturbia Shia LaBoeuf’s character does spy on other neighbors, the main focus of the film is the observations of the neighbor suspected of murder. Rear Window, however, has a much broader focus. In fact, the other neighbors factor into the plot just as much as the suspected murderer. This has a lot to do with the settings of the two movies: urban versus suburban.
I agree with Eric that public and private are not separated in the film. Hitchcock definitely blears the line between these two spheres of life. I think this is very true of urban settings. People are living so near to one another that inevitably someone’s private life becomes public at some points.
Although all of the neighbors are isolated from one another, I don’t think that they consciously choose this. I think this estrangement from one another is just what is expected of someone in an urban setting. It isn’t a meet-your-neighbor type of place. This goes back to what we were discussing in class about the environment’s influence on one’s mentality. The woman with the dog claims that they “don’t know the meaning of the word neighbor.” Even though it took the death of her beloved dog to vocalize it, clearly she has a problem with everyone being estranged from one another and not caring about each other. Perhaps she is not originally from the city, but rather the type of setting in which neighbors do take an interest in each other. However, despite their disconnection from one another, they seem to be all interconnected in a way even if they do not realize it. An example of this is when the songwriter’s music actually prevents Mrs. Lonelyheart from killing herself.
I agree with Tara L. that Hitchcock seems to think that rear window peeping is ethical if it serves the greater good. The means justify the ends. Even though Jeffries was becoming obsessed with spying on his neighbors, allowing this obsession to take over his life, causing him to ignore his girlfriend, it inevitably led to catching a murderer. In contrast, if Jefffries was just spying on the dancer all day that would be looked down upon.
Because you all know I'm a nerd, I feel confident posting again.
Tara LaPlante mentioned the line the ends justify the means, and that reminded me of a comment Tara Lonergan had when we watched the movie. She mentioned that Lisa could use the ring as evidence in a case against Thorwald, but I stated that because the evidence was obtained illegally, via trespassing into his apartment, it could not be used in court. So it seems that in a legal sense the ends cannot always justify the means, so why is this the case in a social way, regarding window watching?
I agree with the general statements made by the previous bloggers. Hitchcock’s dominant obsession with the limits on private vs. public space construct the film. It raises the issue of what Jefferies was attempting was morally wrong because he was doing what he wished within his own private space though it interfered with private environment of others. Thus is there really a separation between public and private spaces? Jefferies seems to convey it as society consisting in a public area and individuals owning their own private spaces. This raises the dilemma however of how people can do whatever they wish in their own home yet once they move towards the window thee make their actions public. When Jefferies watches other people’s intimate moments it looks as if he’s comparing his relation to Lisa with theirs. When he watches the single woman it’s as if he almost feels sorry for her yet is thankful his love life isn’t that complicated. This drive to evade in people’s private space exists within all of us. It’s just common human behavior to what to know what others have or do not in comparison to our own lives.
Post a Comment