For me, Alfred Hitchcock is first and foremost a master thriller. This mesmerizing atmosphere of uncertainty and unsettling anticipation that he can create captivated me even after the first movie he saw. What do we see here?
Photo reporter Al B. Jeffries is confined to a wheelchair due to a broken leg. He has no choice but to look out the window all day, watching the courtyard and its inhabitants. Gradually, he begins to remember the habits and routines of his neighbors. But once the usual routine is violated by one of the neighbors opposite. Watching him, Al B realizes he must have committed murder. Sharing guesses with his nurse Stella and girlfriend Lisa, Al B even suspected what adventure he dragged them into.
In this case, the concept of suspense can be forgotten. This is a detective who takes us into the lives of a dozen people, residents of an ordinary house. Almost all of them have their own secondary story with meaning. But this is done rather to increase the timekeeping of the tape and dilute the main plot. In principle, it would be possible to cut them, the meaning of the film would not suffer from this.
Now for the main storyline. It would seem simple - a bored photo reporter, who is periodically visited by a nurse and a friend, begins to follow the neighbor, suspecting him of murder. But gradually the story acquires new details, and now almost the plot is all revealed. Once again, everything turns upside down, and you do not know what to expect from the film. Alfred Hitchcock was a great master at confusing viewers, and this time he did not fail.
Despite the fact that the film takes place in one location, it is not boring to watch. On the contrary, you quickly forget about it. You just follow the story, and you try to connect the whole picture of what is happening on the screen. You just don’t pay attention to the rest. Not every director can do that. Bravo Hitchcock!
This is one of the best and highest grossing (it is now 89th in the history of American cinema) films by Alfred Hitchcock, which had a great influence on world cinema. Although this film was initially not paid for its merits (had 4 Oscar nominations, including for film and directing, but was completely ignored by the Academy), it is now included in the National Register, considered a cultural heritage of the United States. And, by the way, very highly rated (8.7 on the ten-point system and 13th in the overall list) by modern Internet users on the site imdb.com.
Observing the almost classic “unity of time, place and action” (a hero named L. B. Jeffreys is forced to be unable to move and, sitting in a wheelchair, initially just looks out of boredom through binoculars outside the windows opposite), and also using a minimum of expressive means, Hitchcock not only skillfully creates his trademark tension in the frame, but also practically gives us the opportunity to guess about one of the ontological essences of cinema. After all, the camera, like the eye of the main character, who becomes a casual witness to the murder of a woman by a certain man in one of the apartments of a neighboring house, turns out to be a kind of unwitting voyeur of reality, sometimes noticing in it what is hidden from others. And the viewer, who must identify himself with the hero, also turns into a kind of spy of what is happening, and being exactly “no movement” in the cinema or watching a movie on TV, and just as deprived of any opportunity to interfere in what will still happen before his eyes.
Thus, the cinema itself is like a “window to the yard”, allowing you to see the underside of life, the background of reality, which often remains inaccessible to an outsider. By the way, in cinema there is the concept of “rear projection”, referring to the use of a specially shot background image behind the figures of the characters in the foreground. Alfred Hitchcock seems to change the main focus of the frame, making the main thing just what is behind, switching attention to the seemingly secondary, suddenly acquiring a special meaning, albeit not fully understood by an external observer. It is possible to interpret what happened outside the windows of another apartment and whether it happened at all. In fact, Hitchcock anticipated in his “Rear Window” the formulation of the quite philosophical question “Does everything visible turn out to be authentic?”, which will occupy, for example, Michelangelo Antonioni in “Photomagnification”.
Apparently, with the wrong film, I began to get acquainted with the work of Hitchcock. Something interesting and intriguing is in the idea. But the implementation of such a great idea was not so good. Yes, you can say for a long time that this is still 1954, and then it looked at times impressive. But we can still leave some food for the mind and for posterity.
The film is full of far-fetched details that “break through” at once. Constant change of absolutely unnecessary frames and especially characters inhabiting the courtyard. On the other hand, if such an idea were realized in our time, it would be a deadly boring detective drama. And Hitchcock apparently understood this earlier, and diversified the picture.
The ending wasn't too happy either. A completely indistinct picture, crossing out many details, was formed at the end of the story.
Since this is my first encounter with Hitchcock, I’m not going to put out this movie. Maybe after seeing his other paintings, I'll come back to this one, looking for answers. So I'm going to stay in the middle.
5 out of 10
Alfred Hitchcock made very different films. From his pen came out and detectives, and horror films, and even military paintings. However, best of all, he turned out “black cinema” – classic noir. And each of his new films was unique, completely different from the previous one. For example, “Rear Window” (" Window to the Court) is not just another noir, but a very unusual movie from all points of view.
The plot is as follows: the main character broke his leg and, being chained to a chair, from boredom watches the neighboring house. His idle curiosity eventually leads him to conclude that one of the house’s neighbors across the street killed his wife. He has no direct evidence, but his confidence convinces him to help his friend in this risky business. The film turned out to be measured, leisurely, at least until the moment when the killer realizes that he is being watched. His look at the camera (actually at the main character) is one of the most eerie moments in the history of cinema.
Among the actors, I would like to note first of all the beautiful Grace Kelly – “Window to the Court” – one of the best roles of the future Princess of Monaco.
Personally, I don't think this film is Hitchcock's best work - the suspense master has much more decent work. But to see “Window to the courtyard” is still worth it – now such an unusual movie is not removed.
9 out of 10
“Rear Window” was the first Alfred Hitchcock movie I saw. I have always been particularly emotional and susceptible to the impact of cinema on me. This picture was no exception, and on the contrary, it took me out of reality and transported me to the world of absolute voyeurism. But, by nature, I am distinguished by a complete lack of desire to peek, and when it is imposed on me, I am filled with a sense of irritation and frustration. Thus, while watching the film, I have repeatedly had to move away from the screen further or turn away from what is happening on the screen, in order to avoid “discovering” what I am not supposed to see as an ordinary person. But this same fact confirms the superiority of Hitchcock’s skill in creating the effect of “penetration” into areas previously inaccessible to us, or the skill of voyeurism.
I want to draw attention to those moments that did not leave me indifferent in my attempts to analyze the artistic picture of the director.
Action
The film takes place in a relatively familiar cultural setting, that is, in the backyard of a residential area. Such a building is not typical for the Soviet audience, but is easily perceived due to the familiarity of its components: houses, windows, yard, neighbors. As for the cinematic action, it is characterized by maximum continuity, which aggravates the effect of the involvement of the viewer in the course of events on the screen. We encounter, or rather even get into an inseparable movement that “leads” us, accompanying the actions of the characters of the picture with the focus of the camera. The narrative is interrupted only when the main character ceases to be awake, and for this purpose fade out and fade in through black is used. In my opinion, it is this technique that contributes to the perception of the action as a “dream”, an effect that is often created in a cinema, but which is only amplified by internal influence.
Space
Hitchcock’s painting is distinguished by a combination of Renaissance and Greek traditions, that is, a distant and close look at the image. This effect is achieved through the use of technical means within and outside the screen: using binoculars and a camera lens and camera operator, respectively. Thus, voyeurism acquires a superreal form, which is characterized by dynamics and maximum response to the needs of the viewer, namely, timely approach to actions hidden for the ordinary view. But at the same time, during the subjective focus on the “piece” of space, the viewer is limited in his ability to return to the full picture: he is dependent on the ideological component of the picture.
Female image
The film "screams" about the need for a female image, not only within the framework of the psychoanalytic concept proposed by Laura Mulvey, but also to emphasize gender difference as such. I can not agree with the author completely that the female image is infringed by the “male” view, in my opinion, Alfred Hitchcock emphasizes the uniqueness of these gender opposites. The woman here appears as a kind of complement, balancing, the missing part, the feminine principle. The picture is full of female images, without which actions like this did not take place at all. I will not forget the look of the main character, at the time of the return of his beloved (Grace Kelly) after the “first operation” to solve the case: the heroine adds character to the male character, she fills the whole picture with experiences that, of course, are reflected in the public.
Subject
The subject, both internal (the camera) and external (the viewer), is felt in the action of the film, which is achieved due to the “fixed point”. But in this case, we are dealing with a unique directorial interpretation: a reaction to what is happening. The subject occupies an observational position, the camera, for the most part, is at the level of the viewer’s potential gaze, but it is static only until the need to react to the current movement of action. In the process of watching the film, the subject “slips” through and inside the reality of the picture. He is a participant in the moments of “entry” into the eyes of the protagonist, and he is an observer of the hero at the same time. Moreover, there is a moment in the film when the viewer gets an “advantage” over the main character (when we see a couple leaving the apartment, and the hero is shown to us still asleep). But as we see later, it only exacerbates our engagement as viewers.
Perception
We find ourselves in a double position in relation to what is happening on the screen, because the work of the camera does not leave us the opportunity not to react by becoming “our eyes”, but at the same time does not give control over the situation due to the cinematic and directorial ideology. I would say that perception is transcendental, that is, according to Kantovsky, it is within the boundaries of a priori ideas.
The effects of knowledge
This may be my tendency to exaggerate, but there were a few moments in the film when it was “overshadowing”, and it was unobtrusive, but very effective. I cannot be specific in establishing direct links between the experiences of the main character and his own, but, nevertheless, I cannot but note the success of the director in creating the effects of knowledge, even confidence in the correctness of his interpretation of what is happening on the screen, which is another sign of direct involvement in the film.
In my opinion, the effects of knowledge were achieved by the combination of Ego and Cogitum, that is, in moments of awareness of oneself as a participant, as a hero of the film, as an observer, as a subject of voyeurism.
A look
Hitchcock used many of the subject's gaze techniques, but the most remarkable to me were the "gaze into the camera" and the "gaze from above." The first allowed us to feel our presence in the picture, and not as participants, but as objects of observation, which reverses the effect of voyeurism and makes us feel like its object. The second view gives us complete superiority over all action, both physically and psychologically. Moreover, with the help of close-ups and “slices” on body parts, we also came under the directing influence.
Intertextuality
I don’t think anyone else had this stupid idea, but throughout the film, I couldn’t help but refer to a 2006 short film directed by Esben Tonnessen. In my mind, involuntarily there was a connection between the main characters, as well as a line of reflections built by the director.
Conclusion
The window to the courtyard is not without reason one of the brightest examples of cinematic art and technical skill within its framework. After watching it, you find confirmation of almost all the theories set forth by such authors as Baudry, Samutina, Mulvey, Bart and so on. Personally, this film helped me come to understand the concept of constructing reality and using cinematic means for this purpose. If before that I had naively believed in a straightforward representation of reality, now I am confidently ready to consider and pay attention to the “invisible” but definitely visualized components of the target effect.
Hitchcock’s fame has long overcome all imaginable limits. The geniuses of the post-war era: Wilder, Wells, Zinneman – faint stars in comparison with Alfred. Innovator, creator of suspense, discoverer of the thriller, a key figure in Hollywood. Forget the cliché. Let’s take a critical look at one of the most remarkable works.
The window is hard to see from the first approach. The mise-en-scene is frankly decorative and dreary. At any time, you can click on the pause and see only the Paramounta pavilion. Recall “Dogville”, Trier generally limited to hangar, only the energy and naturalness of the narrative do not even allow you to think about the conditional and schematic atmosphere of the work.
Hitchcock rarely took a pen. The plot and dialogues to his films were brought down by screenwriters and playwrights, brought up, apparently, on classical theater productions and cinema of the 30s. Such conservatism in terms of text, gave rise to meaningless chatter, stuffed in each film shapeless piles. The main verbal lawlessness takes place in Birds, a later work. “Window” is limited to two or three stupid phrases – this is a plus.
The Princess of Monaco is beautiful. Stuart is manly. But no heat! The efforts of the actors, the tricks of the operator - everything flies into the furnace because of the weak plot, the complete absurdity of what is happening and the boring staging of shots. Okay, let's take an example. How a person with the naked eye can see the neighboring house, every apartment, every room, every movement of tenants, while remaining unnoticed. Is he invisible? Why do residents who are under surveillance every second never close windows, pull blinds or curtains? Even at night! Obviously, the backlit room is burning from every angle. And the most basic dilemma, why not cover your face with your palm when you are blinded with a flash for the fourth time in a row?
Don't look. Pulls on the old - early Kubrick, Wells, Wilder. Welcome to you!
God created different people. In difficult moments of life, a person can hardly count on sympathy and understanding of others. Rarely, who tries to understand the motivation of a person committing a particular act, but the craving for discussion, peeping and shaking someone else’s dirty laundry is embedded in everyone. Whether it’s bad or normal, everyone has to decide for themselves. These characteristics of people are "basic" and in no way depend on the time epoch. In one of his most famous paintings, Alfred Hitchcock played a detective story in an unusual chamber setting, when all the action takes place in a single room facing the courtyard. The legendary director showed what the human craving for peeping turns into. The eyes of the main character become the eyes of the viewer. Banal boredom and the desire to somehow have fun, can be transformed into an extremely unusual situation, which will highlight the true impulses of his soul.
It is especially difficult for an active person to realize his temporary disability. Al B Jeffries - a venerable photographer, in pursuit of a valuable frame not afraid of risk. The last time he was unlucky, he had been in a wheelchair for months. The camera is always with him, but what to shoot in a dirty room? Only it remains to stare out the window, the goodness of the courtyard is small, the neighbors do not hide and you can look at other people's homes all day long. Now a temporary disabled person would have found something to do, but in those days, even TV was a luxury. Fortunately for himself, Jeff is not alone, he is regularly visited by the grumpy but kind-hearted nurse Stella and the beautiful model Liza Fermon, who cherishes the hope of marriage with a grim photographer. At first, Jeff's relationship doesn't really stick with either. The nurse is annoyingly teaching him life, and Lisa wants more from him than he is ready to offer her. An unexpected hobby transforms the dreary life of a photographer. A professionally tenacious look leads Jeff to the idea of a possible crime in the next house. In a Boy Scout zealous way, he begins his own investigation, to which the ladies will later join.
To understand the beauty of this film, it must be divided into parts.
Camerality
I do not know any other detective, where for almost 2 hours only 2 scenery would be involved. We see Jeff's little room, which is only shown from two angles. All the main events take place in the courtyard. Each neighbor's window is like a pool hole, where the balls / eyes of the hero fall. An elderly couple with a charming dog, which is lowered to walk on a homemade lift. An old maid trying unsuccessfully to find a man. A frantic couple of newlyweds who can't get out of bed. A beautiful ballerina, whose exercise turns into a dance, and around which there are always plenty of suitors. An unsuccessful musician trying to compose a masterpiece. Finally, a solid-looking man caring for a disabled wife. Let him not deceive the banality of every inhabitant. Hitchcock doesn't have any extra characters here. Each person has a certain life cycle during the allotted period. The director acts as a rewarder of fate, rewarding or punishing people for their aspirations. It is behind one of the windows, under cover of night, that the alleged murder takes place. Jeff suffers from insomnia and to his trouble hears a heartbreaking cry. Then he's not going to sleep anymore. It wakes up a professional, who only serves. It's there, or Jeff tries to see it that way. He has only a powerful lens, and field binoculars. And to win not just a likely killer, but above all the skepticism of people who are not strangers to him.
Characters
James Stewart is a man with an unusual fate. A war hero who has made a magnificent career in cinema - there are few such "blocks". Playing a photographer is clearly not the most difficult task for a specialist. But the intricacies of Stewart's acting are manifested precisely in the excitement that gradually covers Jeffries . Every man at heart is a boy. Who hasn’t dreamed of being a detective? What difference does it make that a police friend finds facts that contradict his conclusions? It is interesting that you have to dispel the truth through the clouds of lies. For a long time to admire the game Sturt is not worth it. Hitchcock wouldn't work with a talentless man. The actor understood and presented all the plans of the director. A photographer who has become an amateur detective and a person in moments of danger understands how much he needs a tired woman - these are two elephants on which the acting work of the former pilot stands.
The strong must be a man to resist the spell of Grace Kelly! A stunningly beautiful woman! Her outfits carry the fashion spirit of those years. The future Princess of Monaco is not the weakest actress in the world. The episode, when the airy "Liza" in a couture dress swings on someone else's balcony, is able to melt even an icy heart. Charming eyes on the face with magnificent makeup weigh a lot, but much more important is the strong spirit of Lisa. It is not clear what her ambitions are more, sincere excitement or a desire to win Jeff’s heart. It is easy to portray just a beauty for Grace, and convincingly play a brave woman capable of taking not always justified risks is a completely different matter!
Thelma Ritter carries within itself the sermy everyday truth that she puts into the mouth of her heroine. The nurse Stella penetrates his client. At first, she seems just grumpy, not without a kind of humor. However, her wise eyes over the years notice the “wrongness” of the relationship between Jeff and Lisa. “What is stopping these people,” she thinks. Her extraordinary courage for an elderly woman aims not only to expose the killer, but above all to unite the rushers. We have known for a long time how joint action can bring people closer together. The subtle play of Thelma, hiding behind simple phrases the soulful messages, really delights.
Detective
The above does not mean that the film is perfect. His main “specialization” is just sagging. The ambiguity of Jeff’s observations is not bad. The coin has two sides, and even an unambiguous fact allows for different interpretations. Hitchcock has a classic division into “believer” (Jeff) and “skeptic” (policeman Cohen). Until the very end, the viewer will implicitly doubt the iron conclusions of the photographer. It is hard to believe to the end that a respectable jeweler brutally dealt with a sick wife, whom he had just carefully cared for. There is no explanation for such a monstrous human change. The ending is absolutely banal, there is no confession of the killer, without which many questions remain unanswered. After all, killing in a fit of despair is one thing, and cold-blooded, followed by dismemberment, is quite another. For the sake of effects, like Jeff's magnesium flash, Hitchcock did not go into the nuances. And here they were needed.
A logical end to the jeweler case, a logical end to the stories of all the neighbors, but not for the protagonist. Whether Jeff has rethought his goals in life, whether he has changed his attitude to Lisa - all this is off-screen. Hitchcock invites us to complete the story of the detective photographer on our own. Subtle director’s moves here the whole film, but the gap in the detective component does not allow us to consider the “window to the back” an unconditional masterpiece. Great movie, true classic, but it can be better. And it's the same Hitchcock.
First, read the synopsis – a photojournalist with a plastered leg sits in his Manhattan apartment and counts the days until his former mobility. Two women come to see it once a day - a nurse from an insurance company and a beautiful lover. In the hours of solitude, the main character examines the backyard and the windows facing it. In 1955, television was not a panacea for boredom due to the still small number of programs and the high cost of the device itself, before the Internet it was like before the moon, reading newspapers and books temporarily cramped in movement apparently tired. On the street established an unprecedented heat and the absence in nature at that time home air conditioning forces everyone to keep the windows open wide. And now the voyeur involuntarily, for a month watching everyone notices a strangeness in one of the windows - the behavior of the husband after the sudden disappearance of his wife resembles the behavior of the killer, getting rid of evidence.
In the windows of the backyard, the main character can be seen a slice of the entire American society. Old, young, rich, poor, single, family people are all here. But, without generalizing, we can say about the uniqueness of each case, during conversations with his wife and nurse, the main character Jeff analyzes the life and character of everyone who has been watching from boredom for more than a month. He seems to be watching a play in which everyone regularly played their roles, and here one of the actors turns out to be a villain hiding under the guise of an exemplary family man. And everything is built in such a way that neither the patient himself nor those to whom he tells do not know whether this is a game of imagination or a sound deduction.
The royally beautiful Grace Kelly plays great. Her sincere love is also very convincing, despite the fact that Jeff treats her a bit like a "jerk," as Americans would say. And that's because he feels she's too good for him and wants to, say, scare her away to avoid responsibility. But a couple of them are great. And the scenes with their kisses are probably the freest in the cinema of that time. Jimmy Stewart is also good. His slightly self-confident hero, accustomed to free life suddenly, in fact, immobilized for a month and a half. At this time, his potential bride is activated, and a murder may have occurred in the windows opposite. And Stewart convincingly shows first a lively interest, then an obsession with the idea and perfectly acts out the tense final scene.
As in "In case of murder, dial M", the space of the film is extremely limited. There are only two locations – the main character’s room and a backyard with windows in which comedies and dramas are played out. But as in that movie of the same year, that was enough. The development of the plot goes at first slowly, and then rapidly accelerates. As soon as you humble yourself and wait for more reflection and additional scenes confirming Jeff’s guesses, Hitchcock gives a go-ahead and the mechanism of the thriller and tension comes into rapid motion. And the denouement of the story will take your breath away and make you shrink several times, clenching your fists from feeling for the heroes. And don’t let the whole story seem a little implausible, for even considering that Hitchcock has always been an impressionist, not a realist, he does not shoot fairy tales, but very believable thrillers.
- What did he do with the case at three in the morning? - Lanterns?
It's a great movie! I’m just getting acquainted with Hitchcock’s filmography, but I want to say that I liked The Window more than Psycho.
The second one's probably too hyped. And as strange as it sounds - a film in which for almost two hours the main character with a changing company from a girlfriend to a nurse and a friend - a detective - sits looking out the window outside the neighbors - seemed to me much more dynamic than about the psycho Bates.
For it all started too long, first the blonde victim drives in the car for half an hour, then arrives and the dialogue with the "psycho" continues for another half an hour, and only at the end does something happen. And it’s all predictable because we’ve seen it in the movies we’ve seen. Contemporary directors do not hesitate to poke one idea, then another from Psycho. Although we know that Hitchcock was the first.
Here in the "Window" - in two hours, much more happens. Yes, he would seem to just look out the window, but it turns out to be peeking at neighbors is sometimes very interesting and exciting.
The movie is very stylish and spectacular. Sometimes the atmosphere gives even some comfort and romance.
I liked some of the dialogues, although I would still shorten some of them.
I like the humour of the humour.
For example,
- What did he do with the case at three in the morning?
- Lanterns?
Very smiley.
I also laughed when it rained and wet the neighbors sleeping on the balcony. And then they put that mattress through the window.
I really laughed. That was very funny!
I also found a way to “walk” the dog. Original what to say!
Of the minuses, I can see a not entirely clear ending. There was no clear explanation of the exact events that occurred in that apartment because of which all the fuss was not clear. Why did he do that to his wife? Was she there the whole time? Where did he go? What kind of woman was leaving with him? After all, the beauty of detectives is that they give you a clue. Or maybe I misunderstood something.
Also did not like the episode when the girlfriend of the main character sneaked into that apartment, and when the owner found her, the hero only called the cops, but until they arrive, because anything could happen.
But these are small things against the background of the big picture and in general this film is one of those that almost immediately aroused in me a rare desire to ever review it, and maybe more than once. It is uniquely remembered, cuts into memory and looks very fresh, even in our time.
10 out of 10
In 1954, director Alfred Hitchcock directed one of the highest-grossing films of his career, The Backyard Window. The main roles in this film were played by James Stewart and Grace Kelly. The plot of this film is very interesting and is, to some extent, quite innovative for Hollywood of the 50s of the last century.
Photographer Al B. Jeffries is forced to sit quietly in one of the apartments of a house in Greenwich Village, as his leg, completely (from foot to hip), in cast after a fracture. Only three people visit him: Stella, a nurse, a friend who works as a model Lisa Fremont, and, occasionally, his friend who works in the police.
The window of his apartment overlooks the yard, from where he, with nothing to do, observes the lives of neighbors in the yard through binoculars. After constant observation of one of the apartments, he begins to guess that there was a murder, but the question is how to convince the others?
The plot of the film is very tense, the film looks with great interest. The actors in the film play very well. James Stewart on the background of his younger partner looks quite old, but in the film this drawback is not so noticeable - his game pays off more than everything!
Grace Kelly fits perfectly with her co-star. Beautiful, bright, mysterious, witty, radiant - I think men had someone to envy when watching the tape. By the way, Kelly’s career is the only role where her character is shown with cigarettes in his hands!
Another fact: according to legend, the prototype for the novel of the photographer and model was the novel of the famous photographer Robert Capa and Hollywood movie star Ingrid Bergman. Well, it's quite possible...
Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter and Judith Evelyn complement the film perfectly with their roles.
Well, what else can you say about this film in summary? Interesting plot, wonderful actors, excellent directing and camera work ... In a word, a masterpiece - and this is all said!
10 out of 10
Alfred Hitchcock’s film “Rear Window” has a rather banal story, the story of a man who, by the will of fate, had too much free time, to which he found a use – to watch, and sometimes watch, for neighbors. A broken leg has that in it. Time for the protagonist flows too slowly, and he, by virtue of his profession as a photojournalist, used to live a full life, visiting many dangerous places. And now, being in a chair, he experiences a lack of thrills, begins to look for a double bottom from neighbors, in the hope of seeing their not quite ordinary, secret life.
In this work, there are four clearly identified main characters - these are the people who stand and look into the yard from the room. Everything else is shown behind the glass, as if we, the audience and the main characters, look at all the neighbors in the aquarium. There, in many apartments, people do something, say, swear – all this we see behind the glass, through which only occasionally hear random sounds.
Detective, as a genre, covers a huge number of works, in which, in most cases, a lot of action, dynamics. Here we live days with the protagonist, who can only move around the room, and all the tension and drama is expressed through dialogue, in which we see not only the present, but also the past of the characters: their lives, actions, actions and motives. All this is interspersed with the puppet movements of people outside the window.
And despite the fact that the protagonist tries to use his logic to find evidence against one of the neighbors, the director shows us all the neighbors, their whole lives and small tragedies, about the lives of which we hear from the mouth of the main character.
While it doesn’t have any epic ending that almost every modern feature film has, it’s not disappointing. Many of his films A. Hitchcock ends this way - and after watching you begin to scroll through the whole film in your head from beginning to end, and you remember not only the finale, than modern cinema sins.
"Rear Window" is a detective film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Cinema is a pillar of American cinema, one of the most fascinating films of its genre and a donor of scenes for directors around the world. Who doesn’t actually quote “b”? The window to the yard, ranging from "The Simpsons," The Cohens and ending with series such as "Castle."
Fundamental film for the genre of detective, noir. A movie that pushes the viewer into the abyss of a script based on a story by Cornell Woolrich.
The world of the main character is not verbose, cold and closed. At his disposal is a small apartment, binoculars and a camera with zoom. A dynamic and turbulent life flows sharply into a dull, lonely and boring existence. Books are not read (and in vain), come to visit very rarely, our hero does not sin with alcoholism, but is applied more than once in almost two hours of screen time.
A professional photographer has a sharp look and also looks into any lens, finding on the other side of the lens the most interesting and fascinating features, features that are not immediately striking, but look amazing, intriguing.
Left alone with his fracture, slowly the photographer begins to be interested and observe life, so diverse and exciting. The whole city lives and moves in the flow of events, energy and emotions.
One day, Al B. Jeffreys sees an event that inspires the protagonist with a spirit of life, interest and an obsession. An idea that destroys his peaceful world and predicts him for urgent, prompt action. All this fills him with adrenaline and a sense of touch with the life of society, his value as a person.
In addition to the main window of the house, others have their own life, behind which El watches with interest. As events unfold in these windows, the viewer realizes that they are connected and intertwined. If one event did not occur in one window, the other would be completely different. And no one is able to influence these events, fate itself decides their outcome.
A friend, a friend, and a caregiver is this small company that visits El. He is cold and insensitive to his friend, it is unclear what keeps them together, they do not have that emotionality and love, it has become a routine. A friend comes very rarely and does not particularly take comments Ela. A friend in the position of detective does not believe in his words and treats them as a sick fantasy, an entertaining fiction from boredom.
Helpless, lonely, but driven by a thirst for spying, a thirst for detective surveillance and insight, Jeffries unravels a tangle of facts firmly sealed outside his apartment that he cannot access. He's locked in the grip of his stupid accident.
Great detective Watching events unfold is a pleasure. A dynamic, emotional, unbiased and suspense-inducing film. Great camera work, some scenes are brilliant, take for example a scene with a flash. The flash is like an “effective” weapon against a villain, while on the screen the frame freezes like a shot and gradually pours red tones, like blood.
The film is interesting and exciting, despite the fact that from the very beginning we know about the bomb, we know who committed the crime. And this is a sign of the quality of an outstanding gift to bring suspense to any film.
Genius actors participate in this cozy, chamber film. Beauty Grace Kelly and magnificent James Stewart. The tandem of such actors is the key to the success of the film. James Stewart is delightful and beautiful, one of his most popular roles. A great man and one of the most interesting actors in the history of cinema.
"Window to the yard" is a sample of the detective genre in the cinema. Brilliant, stylish and irrepressible in its energy film, to follow the moving pictures on the screen is a pleasure.
The masterpiece and the cult status of the film - and this is all due to merit.
I just have to look at .
I recently saw this film in good quality (for the 1954 film of course) and decided to download it.
I wanted to watch Grace Kelly, because the other actors I did not know, I heard something about the Oscar-winning hero of the second world war Jace Stewart – that’s probably all.
Earlier - in the nineties, I often watched old American films, forties-fifties yearls, and the aesthetics of that time is close enough to me and more or less clear, in the case of this Hitchcock creation, there is a clear advance of its time by ten years so precisely.
Although of course all the signs of the fifties are present - this is not futuristic fiction, but a kind of fusion of a detective with a not very action-packed thriller.
The protogonist, due to a broken leg, is forced to sit in a chair for seven weeks and from idleness, will watch through open windows what is being done in apartments in an apartment building opposite.
And then one rainy night, he, being a man of observation, notices something that leads him to the idea of a crime committed - murder.
Of course, our hero has no direct evidence, but with the help of his girlfriend (played by the charming Gray Kelly), a visiting nurse and colleague in the Second World War, and now a police detective, he eventually manages to solve this deadly mystery.
Personally, the film left me with exceptionally positive emotions - although there is some playfulness in the depiction of emotions (in particular, in Kelly's game), but with some reflection, I decided that this is an echo of silent cinema - because the teachers of the same Grace Kelly were most likely from the silent film generation, and there, as is known, facial expressions and gestures were the priority.
And one more remark - personally, I'd be in the place of Hitchcock, for the role of Jeffreys would take an actor younger than Stewart. Well, he doesn't look like Kelly. Or as an alternative - instead of Grace Kelly, take a more adult actress.
The rest of the film is very, very even pleasant, and most importantly exciting - that's what it means to make a master!
I've never seen a Hitchcock movie before. And, as it turned out, in vain. I will begin my acquaintance with this wonderful and cult director. By the way, I immediately recognized the director when he appeared in the frame.
Oh, shit! Soon everyone will be watching each other. How accurately noticed by an ordinary nurse (sanitary) Stella. In our time (the time of social networks and surveillance of special services) this is so relevant. Back in 1954, people could just open a window and their lives could be seen in the palm of their hands. While in our time, our whole life is laid out on a page in the social network. Nevertheless, people remain indifferent and cold to the fate of people living nearby. So in the movie, everyone looked out the window when they heard a woman scream. But then, when the show was over, they went back to their business.
The main character is a photographer, forced to sit at home, and watch the neighbors, because he needs to walk in a cast on his leg for 6 weeks. In order not to die of boredom, he decided to watch his neighbors. And in the process, involuntarily began to notice the strange behavior of the neighbor opposite. This is where the story begins. Focus on small things, reasoning, arguments, conclusions.
I want to celebrate the beauty and sophistication of Grace Kelly. She is incredibly feminine, elegant, charismatic and eye-catching. Her character is perfect. Ideal for men: beautiful, kind, gentle, caring. But what we hear from the main character: “I’m not ready to get married.” This girl is not for me. She's too perfect! (Oh, these men!)
In the film, we see a photographer’s room and neighbors’ apartments. But everything is filmed very skillfully, as if there is a whole world in front of us and it is interesting to observe every detail. It was all the more interesting to find out who was right: a photographer who might have had his imagination out of boredom or a police friend. Look and you'll find out!
It is a classic to be treated with respect. Everyone knows Alfred Hitchcock, even me. We will talk about an excellent plot, directorial work and skillfully written by the hand of the master picture of life.
Of course, the plot is similar to the movie “Paranoia”, but rather the opposite. Today, it is very fashionable to make bright covers and remixes on the classics - to the modern viewer, give paints more silky, brighter, and action more entrenched. Actually, due to the action and tension, Paranoia wins, but the Window in the Backyard puts the opponent on the shoulder blades with meaning, excellent dialogue, and most importantly - vitality.
Behind the windows of the houses lies an absolutely private life: with its own tragedies, joys and events. But how many people would like, out of deep curiosity, to open the veil, to put shutters in a man’s house, to learn something secret about him. How often, as children, did we like to spy on someone from the shelter, glad that no one could see you? People grow up, and old habits, sometimes, remain. What can we say about an experienced photojournalist, who is supposed to do this. But is this ethically correct?
One of these peeks ended for the reporter with a real investigation and, almost, death. The main character, taking advantage of temporary non-transportability, finds occupation, peeping behind the residents of the yard. Of course, various devices, fashionable at the time, allow him to do this: binoculars, and long-focus lens, filmoscope. It would seem that Jeff already knows all about the residents of the yard, but the real revelation is the behavior of a certain Mr. Torvald, whom Jeff and his very attractive girlfriend Lisa begin to suspect of the murder of their wife. A real detective story begins, the line of which runs along a ornate path between the relationships of the main characters, the life of the yard, and at the exit expands, creating the atmosphere of a real psychological thriller that will make anyone watching this film squeeze the handle of the chair in an exciting stupor.
Discarding various naive and not quite logical actions in the film (when did Jeff manage to photograph the flowerbed?) Why didn’t Thorvald think to speed up the step and at least frown his eyes when Jeff was blinding with a flash?, I declare that the film is really good, but not so much a detective story as its vitality. Moreover, the detective line in the film is not the most important. Even the ending remains a little blurred: like the criminal and captured, but to understand the situation of the police is just yet, because nothing has yet been proven.
We often miss really important moments in pursuit of something interesting and exciting. Like in this movie. The main thing here is the relationships and lives of ordinary people, the lives of perhaps not even the main characters of the film. We learn about the attitude of Jeff and Lisa at the very beginning of the picture, although the essence of their relationship is revealed by the wonderful dialogue between Jeff and his nurse Stella (a strong character). But in the future, their relationship does not develop much, except for the fact that, in the end, Lisa moved to live with Jeff (did she move?).
But the secondary tenants themselves are very interesting - in front of us, against the background of the detective story, their life also goes on as usual, not so exciting, but filled with its deep meaning. Moreover, those people whom we at the beginning, perhaps, treated with negativity, at the end of the film caused sympathy, and vice versa.
We can see the story of newlyweds who are up to their ears in love with each other and spend all the time in bed, without even having time to take a smoke break. What a joy! In the end, however, the usual picture of life, described in two sentences: You promised that when we were married, you would find a decent job. - I'm asking you, darling.
Here is the story of a caring couple who got a dog, but for nothing, about nothing lost a pet. And having lost, speaks eloquently about the attitude in a seemingly friendly courtyard. A place where neighbors should love and be friends. At first it seemed so, but in fact everything is different.
Here is the story of a dancer who got the hardest work of a woman - she pinches geese. Preferably richer. She evokes some contempt, but in the end you can see that she is very sensual and most of all she likes ordinary, nondescript, at first glance, small, and not solid gentlemen.
This is a collection of noble people who love to listen to music. At the cries of a woman who lost a dog, they, like many rotozei, go out to find out what is so interesting terrible happened. And then, with a smile and complete indifference, they return to the buffet. However, music plays an important role in the film. I would say the main thing.
A very eloquent image, almost the main one, is the image of Miss Loneliness, who often gets drunk from loneliness and fantasizes, imagining imaginary gentlemen who allegedly visit her house. She imagines a picture with all the feminine tenderness, touching, but, faced with a real “gentleman”, she is upset. She tries to take her own life, takes out pills, writes a suicide note - all this is so obvious, but the main characters, drunk with their detective investigation and seeing preparations for death, do not even try to help the person who dies in front of their eyes. It is much more interesting to know what is buried in the flower bed under the flowers. And Miss Loneliness will save - music. There can be no other, because her image and every appearance is accompanied by pleasant music, with semantic words. And the music in the film is the most pleasant, touching. What many people like is something that can save a person’s life (Miss Loneliness) and make a certain decision, evoke a sense of love (as Lisa froze, fascinated by music). Therefore, the phrase Miss Solitude at the end of the film visiting the musician: "You have no idea what this music means to me" shakes, as her life in the allotted 10-15 minutes flies before my eyes with kaleidoscopic speed.
I hope that this film did not leave anyone indifferent and made you think about the fact that there are people who feel lonely, and we pass by and do not even suspect what is going on in his soul. And the soul is like a window, you can also look into it. That's just someone curtains, and someone opens wide open so that they can see, notice, feel. It seems to me that if the neighbor knew the neighbor, was friendly and respected, and not covered with three layers of blinds, then social problems would be much less. Actually, blinds are a symbol of how open the character’s soul is. Occasionally lowering the curtains of Miss Loneliness, open windows, but without light (dark soul) Torvald and the main character, who, like and with open windows, however, now and then, goes into darkness, and barraging the whole film between darkness and light. But in the end he finds himself at the window, sitting on a strip of light, remembering how the darkness almost consumed him.
Alfred Hitchcock is a great filmmaker. His paintings are studied in institutes. What can I say, commercial Hollywood makes movies about him? But when they start talking about his work, what do they mention? Of course, all the brightest: "Psycho", "Dizziness", "Birds", "North by Northwest". But believe me, “Window to the courtyard” is no less spectacular, but there are its nuances.
To begin with, this film, unlike most of Hitchcock’s work, is more of a detective than a thriller. The viewer and the main character together follow the development of events, they have a common point of view, and they both can not influence what is happening. This brings us even closer to the character of James Steward, especially since he is not a hero, not the owner of a courageous profession, but just a photographer, an ordinary person who fears marriage more than the Arctic cold, bomb explosions and all other extreme situations combined. Yes, he is charismatic, has a sense of humor, but how can you resist Grace Kelly is simply incomprehensible!
In the recent biopeak "Hitchcock" raised the theme of the perfect blonde, which all his life sought the maestro. And in my opinion, Lisa Fremont's character should be as close to him, if not at the top of the list. Her first appearance on the screen is truly divine! A light smile, a cute look, a blush on the cheeks, a beautiful shawl and sophisticated clothing are simply introduced into a slight stupor. And now add a graceful figure, a sense of style, a spirit of adventure, a playful character coupled with a subtle sense of humor and you will forever fall in love with this character. Speaking of a sense of humor, that's all right. However, this technique in itself is a classic: you sometimes need to let off steam, so as not to boil from the tension in the middle of the film.
It sounds ordinary: a beautiful heroine, a hero who is easy to associate with himself, humor, a detective. Familiar? Wrong word! But! We all know that everything great is in the details. If you make a movie full of special effects, it will be flat and stupid, if the film will contain a thousand and one plot twist, it will be boring, and the ending we do not understand. Therefore, "Window to the courtyard" plays on halftones and aftertaste.
For example, the storyline in addition to the main narrative line about the investigation of strange circumstances has a dozen other interesting stories. It can be a love story of the main characters, small lives that take place in other apartments, social satire and tragedy. All of them not only exist harmoniously within the main plot, but also sometimes complement it. What about the fact that the story comes from almost one point of view. Especially for this film, in the pavilion, then a modest company Paramount Pictures, the floors of one of the floors were demolished to build a huge courtyard scene. Four different lighting was thought out, several rooms were built, and the director shoots all this splendor, essentially from one point. And to give expressiveness, Hitchcock uses interesting visual moves. You can come up with a certain interlocutor, in the dialogue with whom the plot will be revealed, or you can tell about the hero much brighter in one scene. Also in the picture there is no background music, all sounds, exclusively everyday. And you can not say that everything around is somehow chambered and boring. And as for the camera work and installation, it’s just phenomenal! A middle angle for the event, then an instant close-up for the main character - and his attitude to this event is immediately clear. In this simple way, the viewer immerses himself in the atmosphere, learns better than the main character and increases the dynamics.
And it's 1954! And how many more interesting subtleties hide these 112 minutes of storytelling! So many interesting techniques, hidden meanings and comparisons. The film can be studied and studied, watched more than once and every time to find a new, more and more subtle to perceive every little thing, to look for something interesting in it. And for those who just want to watch a movie, The Backyard Window is also a very good option. Despite the murder speeches, you won’t see a single drop of blood, but sometimes you’ll be pushed into the back of your chair with tension. You will see a detective story without a single plot hole, every action of the hero will be justified and harmonious. You are the image of a romantic woman from the past, without vulgarity and ostentatious sexuality. You will immerse yourself in the world of quality cinema with a thoughtful plot, beautiful artists, bright humor and attractive suspense. These films are beginning to be neglected. That’s why the window is unique.
The creators of many of today’s successful films, including detective films, eagerly draw inspiration from the classics of the past, including the works of the cult director Alfred Hitchcock. I cannot name the films in which I saw the embodiment of ideas from this picture, but during the viewing, there was a pleasant feeling of Deja vu - that very touch of the classics.
I got acquainted with these films under vivid impressions of “In case of murder, dial M” and “Psycho”, perhaps that is why I was slightly disappointed, not getting the same emotions. This is certainly a well-known painting, like many of Hitchcock’s other works, ahead of its time. I had a clear perception of the picture at the level of the early 70s. Of course, today what is happening is perceived not so fresh, and the level of production is incomparable with modern cinema. Each era has its own characteristics, so it will be incorrect to make comparisons here. I remember the introductory scene for a long time - the opening minutes, giving us an idea of the main scene. This is the courtyard of a residential area of an American city, which is a whole small world with its worries, joys and bitterness. Hitchcock's traditional focus on people, each of the acting characters, helps with an interesting narrative. The film contains the so-called moments of “suspence”, legendaryly known for the works of Hitchcock.
As for the story itself, which is considered a classic of the detective genre, I did not have a constant tension and deep immersion in what is happening. Frankly speaking, the plot itself is developing very slowly, with seven-mile steps leading us to the end. A dozen stories come to mind where the intrigue was presented more vividly. On the other hand, it's not so much an action movie as a discussion, which is typical of Hitchcock movies. The predominant focus is on dialogue and character disclosure. Here, even side personalities who do not take a significant part in the investigation are shown as objects of observation and study for the protagonist.
It’s amazing how sometimes a simple story can capture a person’s attention. It would seem interesting in the story about how one person peeks at others? This situation is quite common, even these days. Of course, now relations between neighbors are rarely amicable, but otherwise this situation is extremely relevant. Thanks to competent directing and excellent camera work, "Rear Window" enchants and falls in love with himself. After all, in addition to the intense action, we are fed with interesting dialogues, including the topic of how difficult it is sometimes to be with someone when the nature and interests of the couple do not coincide.
After a huge number of years, after the release of another Hitchcock brainchild, his younger brother was born, a modern interpretation with Shia LaBeouf in the title role – Paranoia. It was very pleasant to realize that despite the similar canvas, these are completely different films, both in content and overall atmosphere. The modern brother put more pressure on the psyche than on the intellect and did it not without brilliance, but lost in almost everything else, especially with regard to acting. It is not surprising, because modern technology allows you to make really scary moments, from which goosebumps begin to run down the back.
In the window to the yard, a kind smile also slips in places, because some dialogues are damn witty, well, to watch the main character who has brains, but there is no way to help physically, fascinatingly.
Verdict: Interesting and curious.
If we look at the abyss for a long time or how little we know about the people around us...
The plot makes this film interesting to watch even after half a century. From the very beginning of the film, the director presents us with many interesting and mysterious characters who live peacefully in their homes and go about their business. Each of the neighbors of the protagonist is individual, has its own unique hobbies and stories. It makes you wonder, ‘Where will the main action take place?’ Who should we focus on?
Alfred Hitchcock puts us on the same footing as Jeffreys, the whole movie we see through his eyes. This allows you to reflect on what is happening and make your own conclusions, which will be far ambiguous, because in the course of the plot we will be thrown contradictory clues. Throughout the film, the viewer has to hesitate over his "decision", and the solution we learn only at the end. Thanks to this picture keeps us in suspense to the very titles.
Excellent play by James Stewart and Grace Kelly
+good story
What you will not see from a huge window, being temporarily confined to a wheelchair! Here you and a gymnast, breaking the hearts of men one by one, and a lonely woman, prone to suicide and unusual for the sake of a musician who has gone into himself through creative torments, for lack of a muse. All these people have their secrets and cockroaches in their heads, but our hero, like us, is attracted by a window in the middle of an inconspicuous house.
Maestro Alfred Hitchcock will be honored for years to come, if not all the time allotted to mankind. The second Orson Welles, cinematic revolutionary and almost original genius, deservedly called the master of suspense.
A paranoid thriller, sweetened with black humor and a detective line - this is how you can characterize "The Window in the Backyard." The film is about human lack, temptation and desire to invade someone else’s life, believing that it is quite acceptable, especially if the action is good. Hitchcock does not stop, and almost the entire timekeeping “talks” to the viewer that you should not get into your own affairs, but all the secret, sooner or later will become obvious.
That's what bribes. This idea is easy, simple in its content and not difficult to think about. But we don’t care, curiosity takes its toll, and hands reach for binoculars to see what is happening opposite. It's instinct.
You can watch naked women and spend all the years at the window, dead pervert, or look after your neighbors, and suspect them of terrible things. It's one thing to catch a criminal red-handed, it's another to put your existence on the line. Cinema and reality are different worlds. Is it worth it? Life outside the courtyard is much more interesting.
And so the blinds go up, but the camera is still motionless, the opening credits are replaced, the music is encouraging, but you can see the courtyard. Cozy, slightly unkempt, framed on all sides by brick houses - a typical place of Lower Manhattan. There is something attractive in this yard, homely cozy. Nothing bad can happen here.
A little more and I will die of boredom, watching as a married couple opposite to find out the relationship. Every day. Day after day. But I am a successful photographer who has seen the world, so to speak, a man in the dawn of life! Because of this stupid misunderstanding, I'm sitting here with a cast in this cramped apartment, like a forgotten and useless old man! And then there's my caregiver -- no, she's a good woman, she's also not baldly sewn, she looks like me in some ways, she's just as dissatisfied, a little tired of something and observant, um, overly observant, she sees through me, in principle she could be my wife, but she's lower than me in all respects, I'm too good for her, and in addition to everything with her, I feel like I'm out of my plate -- she feels that trouble is near. But this conversation about Lisa Fremont is really a nuisance! Marriage, marriage, commitment...why does everyone want the same thing from me? Colleagues, friends, women – all hint at this.
Newlyweds are always happy, at least the first days are so sure: so they give the impression that nothing bad will happen. For the time being, the viewer must watch the dull bachelor life of the protagonist. This life must seem unsettled. But here's the new couple: they're so excited, they have their wedding night ahead of them, and then there are many more unforgettable moments, they kiss so passionately that Jeffreys gets uncomfortable - he's embarrassed. Something bad is creeping into his head. Do you have doubts about your life?
No, Lisa's not for me. She's too beautiful, she's too smart, she's too rich, she has such powerful relatives, she never wears the same dress twice. Oh, her toilet. He's always perfect. She's too perfect for me. Beauty and monster, what could be more stupid? Yeah, although I'm not a monster at all, I just don't fit her, I'm from other circles, an adventurer. I'm a man, I want freedom, I'm a bird that needs to heal its broken wings and fly out the window of this stuffy room to uncharted places, warm edges. There's so much to take off, the wife is a burden. I want to travel, the Himalayas, Indochina, Africa... so many places I haven’t been! They're waiting for me! The bohemian life Lisa is in doesn't suit me at all. I'm in a blue suit running my own Park Avenue studio, which is ridiculous. No, I will not exchange my life for the Upper Light, but it will not change its own. Then why all this? Oh, these women, but I am a man.
He's not a man, just a little kid, a boy with a gray head. The whole movie is either in pajamas or a pastel-colored shirt. Left for a few weeks alone with himself, he will peek at others in order to remove his mania, bordering on voyarism, and not think about more pressing matters and, of course, his passion. But he's not going anywhere. Responsibility, adulthood is not for him, he and the travel photographer are just to escape any obligation. He doesn't want to become an adult. But in the apartment from nothing to do he will increasingly look out the window. A window instead of a TV. Its complexes will be projected on people living opposite. Complexes will turn into mania, mania into investigation, and this, in turn, will become a kind of game. At the same time, the main character until the last will be only a passive observer, all or almost all the difficult work for him will be done by women. Any unusual or unusual action will be interpreted in a negative way. The audience will only know what Jeff knows. But in the end, this knowledge will not save the viewer from an unpredictable and rapid outcome, which, nevertheless, will be quite expected.
The audience will be confused, but they may not feel the tension, but they can only feel it at the very end - at the worst they will convince themselves that there was a wild tension after all, and I am sure of this, they will still be delighted, they will like it, because they consider me a genius. I won't disappoint them.
I liked the movie right away, from the first minute. The most important thing I wanted to see was the scenery. They seem to be from another world (although they were in fact), fabulous, very thoughtful and, in the end, just beautiful. The atmosphere and style add charm to the film. Cinema, despite 54 years - very thought out, to the smallest detail, every detail. The characters (neighbors) are all so different and colorful.
It’s incredible, I knew who Hitchcock was and what kind of movies he made, but I didn’t really know what an incredible movie he was making. Yes, Hitchcock didn't pay attention to social issues in movies. It is. During his lifetime, he was often criticized. But he wanted to entertain the audience. It involved not only dialogue but also visual effects. He created a new genre of suspense. His talent went beyond commercial entertainment and his paintings became world classics.
A few words about the main characters and actors who played them. Grace Kelly was Hitchcock’s favorite actress largely because of her hair. In all his films, you can pay attention to the preferences and hidden tastes of Hitchcock (in women). He clearly preferred blondes. I really liked her in this film - the cold but perfect beauty and passionate character hidden behind her. It was her acting role. James Stewart played mainly in his psychological paintings. For Hitchcock, he had the image of the average little-known American, impressionable and artless. That's how he picked up roles. His hero - a paranoid who became so out of boredom - was perfectly played by the actor.
It was the first Hitchcock movie I saw, but it became a favorite (although I liked the director’s other films after that).
"Window to the Backyard" is the third film for me, the legendary director Alfred Hitchcock, well, at least that's how it is called. Watching this famous film, I realized one thing that very spoiled myself really good, interesting ideas, new films, for example.
The films Paranoia and Night of Fear, the second example is not entirely accurate, but with the same composition where a person peeks at neighbors and finds something very strange, and later he or his friends climb into the house of this strange neighbor and look for some evidence.
I really liked the 2007 film Paranoia, but after watching the 1954 film Rear Window yesterday, I realized the talented and original writers who worked on the script for Paranoia. And by the way, this is not my first film, where I notice that modern, talentless screenwriters take as a basis in writing their plot, old films, use them, do something of their own, and in the end, you get a piece of something new against the background of the old. All right, let’s stop complaining, I don’t see the point.
The plot tells about professional photographer Al B. Jeffreys, who was brilliantly played by actor James Stewart. Jeffries is a very talented photographer, but for the time being, sitting in his apartment, scratching his broken leg and looking out the window, the view of which falls on the whole yard. Well, what can you do with such an injury all day long, if you have binoculars at hand, and you can see the whole yard in your palm, and how interesting it is to watch the lives of other people.
So Jeffries looks through his binoculars all day, until he discovers the very strange behavior of the neighbor opposite. The next morning, his wife disappeared, Jeffries suspects that her husband killed her last night. To sum up, a wonderful and interesting detective thriller.
“The window to the yard” is an excellent adaptation of the detective Cornell Woolrich “It must have been a murder”, skillfully performed by maestro Alfred Hitchcock .
The plot of the film belongs to one of the typical Hitchcock categories: the investigation of a murder committed by a madman. In this case, we see on the screen a classic static detective, the action of which takes place in a limited space, and the mystery is unraveled solely by logical reasoning (although here it was still not without a practical test of the theoretical conclusions obtained).
In the role of a detective in “Window...” is professional photographer Al B “Jeff” Jeffries (James Stewart), imprisoned in one of the apartments of Greenwich Village due to a broken leg received during filming. Jeff is an active nature, so forced inaction depresses him. Jeff is occasionally visited by his friend Lisa (Grace Kelly) and nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter), but his inquisitive personality can not find anything to his liking (and this is strange, because there is such a girl nearby!). From nothing to do, Jeff begins to watch the neighbors in the yard with the help of his camera and one day his inquisitiveness is rewarded: Jeff begins to suspect one of the neighbors of the murder of his wife.
In addition to acting, the main advantage of “Window...” is the masterpiece of the operator Robert Burks. The background in the picture plays no less a role than the proscenium. Throughout the film, the camera draws the viewer’s attention to small details: features of the interior of Jeff’s apartment or facial expressions, gestures and behavior of the supporting characters. Thanks to this, as well as the successful angles of shooting, the viewer has a feeling of direct presence at the scene of the film. We watch the story as if from behind the back of the protagonist, or even his eyes. Hitchcock masterfully plays on the feelings of the viewer, convincing that he is really in New York in the 1950s.
A significant role in this conviction is played by the beautiful scenery “Windows”. Hitchcock's tape is a kind of historical monument, which makes it possible to observe the life of ordinary New Yorkers in the first postwar years. The director and the cameraman pay great attention to the everyday life of the characters of the picture, which contributes to an increase in audience interest and identification with the characters of the film. After all, such a story could happen absolutely in any yard with absolutely any people.
As for the story, that is, the plot, it is in them that the only minus of “Windows” lies. Still, some of the slowness of the plot and the sluggishness of time are a little tiresome, especially in the second half of the picture. But at the same time, the ending of the film is incredibly dynamic, and the master of the atmosphere of tension Hitchcock perfectly brings the viewer to the most dramatic scenes.
There are no questions about Hitchcock. It is very interesting to watch the relationship between Jeff and Lisa, the witty dialogue of Jeff and Stella. Especially good in the "Window..." short pantomime inserts that allow the viewer to make his impression of each resident of the court, whether it is a young ballerina, an ever-busy composer, young lovers, a husband caring for a sick wife, a married couple lowering a dog from the balcony in a special basket-elevator, or Miss Lonely Heart. Every shot, every scene is very attractive and does not let the viewer get bored. The film perfectly coexist strict uncertainty and excellent black humor.
Naturally, it is worth noting the masterpiece of James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter and Wendell Corey (as Lieutenant Thomas Doyle and part-time friend Jeff). Due to the fact that only two characters participate in each dialogue of the film, the viewer has no choice but to admire the impeccable playfulness and honed interaction of the actors. Every line, every gesture and every action is polished, elegant and attracts attention.
It is a special pleasure to follow the development of each character. First, Jeff is an older photographer who is skeptical about his relationship with Lisa and is clearly experiencing a midlife crisis. Secondly, Lisa is a girl from high society with beautiful manners, always dressed in the latest fashion. She genuinely loves Jeff, hints that she expects him to offer a hand and heart, and gently pushes him to take this step. Third, Stella is an older woman, an experienced nurse, whom the director of “Windows...” singles out as a carrier of wisdom. Her judgment is dispassionate, her irony unparalleled. Fourth, Thomas Doyle is a veteran police officer, a longtime friend of Jeff’s, confident of his paranoia about suspicions against his neighbor. Fifth, Lars Thorvald (Raymond Burr) is the same neighbor, silent and highly suspicious.
The film “Rear Window” must be seen to plunge into the atmosphere of the 50s of the last century to admire the charming and brave Grace Kelly. It is worth getting acquainted with this work of Alfred Hitchcock in order to look at yourself from the outside and feel the rich detective nature of the final episodes, when in the spirit of Sherlock Holmes the main secret of the whole story is revealed.
It's an amazingly boring picture. I decided to look at it because as a child I reread the story of the same name three times. So the film is not next to it: how could Hitchcock so spoil the end, where just the most interesting! The endings of the film and the story are strikingly different.
The story reads in one breath, but here - ' Oh my God, another day of the main character! When will this be over?' And in the book really some incredible intrigue, for some reason it seemed to me (now I do not remember the story in detail) that the main character is watching the neighbor for the most part in the evening. How he guesses everything - what happened to that type of wife - that's exactly what's not in the movie. And it seems that the girlfriend of the hero was invented by Hitchcock (probably to admire Kelly). In the film everything is somehow crumpled, which is surprising - I wonder what viewers think about the neighbor's wife?
Attracts only the work of the operator - watching the neighbors, as it turned out, incredibly interesting! Probably, only when you live on a posh floor, as the main character - ' high sitting, far looking'.
5 out of 10
Just to the beloved James Stewart and the good old school of acting.
Continuing my acquaintance with the work of Alfred Hitchcock, I can’t help but focus on The Backyard Window. To describe this film in one word, it is “exciting.” And captivated me so much that overcoming the dream (paying homage to the genre, I watched this creation in the late hour), I was completely absorbed in what was happening on the screen, and all 112 minutes of viewing flashed in one breath.
Photographer Al B. Jeffreys (James Steward) is confined to his apartment and wheelchair for several weeks because of a broken leg. He is visited by a nurse, Stella, a police friend, and model friend Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly). Jeff's only occupation is to look out the window, facing the courtyard and observe the lives of neighbors living opposite.
This class is quite interesting, because each of the windows of the neighboring house tells colorful stories and introduces people to their lives with their joys and sorrows. How not to pay attention to the girl “lonely heart”, always waiting for someone; a composer living in the attic, a ballerina with a crowd of her cavaliers, an elderly couple, letting a cute dog walk from their floor.
But most of all, the main character is attracted by a certain Lars Torvald, who cares for his sick wife. According to Jeff and his logical chain, Torvald killed his wife. The main character convinces Lisa and Stella of this, but can he prove his point?
Throughout the viewing, I did not leave the feeling that I had a theatrical performance in front of me, because the convincing play of the actors, and the dialogues strongly composed with a share of humor and sarcasm, and the same scenery testify to this, increasing the interest of viewing.
I admire how skillfully Alfred Hitchcock weaves a romantic line into a dashing detective story, saturates it with reflections on the union of a man and a woman, which makes viewing incredibly interesting. Emotions of experience for the main characters are diluted with appropriate jokes and a portion of sarcasm.
Characters are pleasing, created by a great director - of course, a blonde adventurer, fearlessly moving towards her goal is so characteristic of Hitchcock; a charismatic protagonist, a dangerous, calculating criminal. Moreover, in the “window in the yard” well-drawn characters of the second plan, which creates a unique atmosphere.
“The Window in the Backyard” is certainly a masterpiece; in my opinion, one of the best detective stories, and I appreciated the highest ball. To view the true connoisseurs of this genre strongly recommend.
Alfred Hitchcock gave us many masterpieces during his career. And if “Psycho” is out of competition, since Hitchcock, you can say, shaped the genre as it is to this day, then “Rear Window” is exactly his second best film.
It will not be enough to say that it has already been disassembled into quotes and camera tricks. And even a remake in the form of a youth thriller “Paranoia” was shot, which, thank God, did not claim anything, but made true connoisseurs still return to the classic Hitchcock tape. After all, the secret of success seems to be absolutely clear - this time the maestro brought all the components to absolute perfection. For example, the plot is simple and understandable even to a child, but nevertheless everyone will find something of their own in it, because in the course of the development of the detective line you can discover a lot of veiled ideas that were here as if by chance.
So, a professional photographer by the will of fate was confined to a wheelchair. And since there was absolutely nothing to do at home alone, he found a very original fun for himself. To see through your lens life in the house opposite. When he sees something strange, he begins to investigate. At the same time, connecting people (his charming girlfriend, detective friend, even a nurse), but in view of his position, not participating in all this himself. It seems at first measured, leisurely action, after half an hour it captures the beholder with his head. The viewer is already chained and has nothing to do with himself. It remains only to catch the elegantly scattered keys to the denouement. And fills the film with vital energy, which does not allow it to fade away for more than half a century, of course, the actors.
Where rises above all James Stewart, playing here sometimes with only eyes. Sharp, polished dialogues paint us a portrait of both a courageous, intelligent man and a caustic joker. In his quest to get things done, when it seemed like it was over, he magically became paranoid. But anyway, believe every word of his character - perhaps the secret lies in the natural charisma of the actor. And how successfully fit into the cast Hollywood beauty Grace Kelly, who did not cease to please during the entire timekeeping soy incredible beauty and charm.
Do not forget about the main feature of all the creations of the director. Of course, this creation is filmed in a somewhat ironic and adventurous manner, like some kind of “North by Northwest”. But don't fool yourself. With proper involvement (and the scenario will certainly ensure this) in the most spectacular denouement, the tension reaches its climax, forcing you to forget about the somewhat outdated technical side of the project. Suspense was felt even earlier, when let’s say the main character remained one-on-one with his observations, even during the brave penetration of the girl into the villain’s residence. This was facilitated by chamber camera work, which built virtually the same plans before the eye, and sharp installation stickers in balance with the excellent work of the sound operator.
The due should be given to the composer, who was able to relax at the same time, and suddenly pull back sharply, disturbing notes. In general, you can lick each component of this ingenious thriller for a long time, but its biggest plus is probably still that it remains relevant in our time. It’s not just a classic that everyone should watch. And not even because all the subsequent directors who decided to shoot their films in one location, borrowed this move from Alfred. And probably because the local concept of events is now visible in almost every paranoid thriller. Unless there is another innovator-genius, which thank God sometimes happens.
Verified-honed, perfect in each frame and one of the strongest in its genre - all these epithets can be applied to the "Window to the courtyard". No 4 Oscar nominations will be able to appreciate the full impact of this immortal masterpiece. Carefully built artistic component makes us believe that this picture will grow more than one generation of film lovers.
10 out of 10
I heard about the movie and wanted to see it for a long time. The film did not disappoint me.
I really liked the story. After all, it is quite simple: journalist L. B. Jeffreys broke his leg, and is forced to stay at home until the cast is removed from him. With nothing to do, he begins to follow his neighbors from across the house and discovers that one of his neighbors has killed his wife. Jeffreys begins to investigate the case with the help of his friends.
It's nice to see the same actors at Hitchcock's. James Stewart, as always, played well. Of all the Hitchcock films that James Stewart played, he played the best.
Grace Kelly creates a romantic setting in the film. Knowing her from the films "In case of murder, dial M" and "Catch a thief", she also played not bad here.
Beautiful jazz music from a nearby house fits the film very well. It even seems to show the protagonist’s feelings as to what he is thinking, whether he is tense or relaxed. This is all a credit to Alfred.
To summarize, we can say that this is a classic Hitchcock. The director's handwriting is immediately recognized. The film is a little long, but it does not prevent you from watching it.
9 out of 10
Every person, or almost every person, has something to do. Or just a hobby. Someone collects coins, someone collects rare butterflies, someone paints windows. Some people like to peek through these windows. This is an unusual hobby of photojournalist L.B. Jeffries (played by James Stewart, one of Hollywood’s most talented and famous actors of the Golden Age). But he did it quite spontaneously. The reason for this was a leg injury he received on one of his dangerous business trips. You don’t want to, but being in a cast, and even in a wheelchair, there is little interesting to find. So our hero decided to break his profession for a while in a different direction. And look at the neighboring house - as if in three steps. To the left on the top floor lives a young ballerina, who has no break from fans. A little to the right is a funny couple who sleep on the balcony all the time. The floor below is "Miss is a lonely heart" who cannot arrange her personal life for her own little follies. Here you can see the window of a pianist who is in a mental crisis. You can also see the window of the apartment where happy newlyweds live. It's fine, calm and smooth. But...
... Hitchcock wouldn’t be Hitchcock if he didn’t bring a bit of fear into a seemingly calm and aesthetic film. He wouldn't be a suspense master if he didn't put murder in the picture. Let's not see him there. But you can feel it. Feel the taste of fear. And in order to constantly pull the strain out of the viewer, the master makes a kind of “accordance” in his movie offspring. There is an alternation of good and bad events. Positive characters are interspersed with one extremely negative hero. And it is not for nothing that Alfred Hitchcock introduces Lisa Freemon, the passion of the main character, into the film. She's young and beautiful. She is a model and belongs to the elite of society. She's smart and smart. Her female intuition alternates with direct logical arguments. In the eponymous detective story of Cornell Woolrich, there was no such character. And Mr. Heach went all-in. And I won. The charm and charm of actress Grace Kelly paid off an empty place in the storyline of filmmaking. Her Lisa was not only a spectacular beauty, but also a certain loyal assistant tracker, Dr. Watson in a skirt, whose Sherlock was at the window with a spyglass and a broken leg.
But our Sherlock has not only dragged in the case of a sweet Miss Watson, but also a fellow policeman, and even a nurse, provided to him by the insurance company for sick leave. And as we can see, Jeffries has turned a personal non-trivial hobby into a general hobby. Each of the characters has its own social status and location in the cell of society, but they are all involved in one dangerous business. So, what is this all about?
On one of the beautiful clear days of his imprisonment, Stewart's character notices that Mr. Lars Thorvald's wife's window is closed. But it was never curtained. And in it you could see the scandalous scenes of a huge Lars with his fragile and sick wife. The day goes by, the second, the third... and the window does not open. And the behavior of Torvald himself is not adequate. In the end, a chain of rather mystical events leads to what we learn about the physical elimination of a poor woman. Just how it all happened, I will not tell you. Better watch this classic of world cinema or read the work of Woolrich. I did both. Only the film adaptation I like better. And this is not only because of the beauty of Grace Kelly or a rather funny look of the protagonist, coupled with his interesting and unusual passion. This is due to the vividly conveyed dialogues, the delicate work of the operator (his eye and lens served as a kind of look into other people's windows), the exquisite work of the costumer (the clothes of the main character are simply magnificent) and the efforts of the decorator (the main character's apartment was furnished modestly but with the taste of that time). Well, of course, bravo to Alfred Hitchcock.
And as for the hobby, which became the fault of interesting, strange and mystical events... then – look more often and you will see a lot, but... you do not look too much. Bad for your health!
Honestly, I expected a lot more from this picture. I've been told a lot about her and, in general, this tape is very famous. And Hitchcock is a man whose name is already a guarantor of a good movie. However...
But I didn’t like the movie very much. We can say that almost a good half of the film there is not much going on. It's kind of tedious and viscous. The picture seems very long. There is a lack of action. I expected the ending to be more interesting and unexpected.
I’ve seen some of the director’s films, but I’m sure I still have his best work ahead of me. The same picture did not cause me any serious emotions. Of course you can. It is even necessary, because it is considered a classic, but, nevertheless, I did not experience fear or at least some experiences, to my great regret.