Peeping Tom is an attempt to understand the origin of fear, how it is reflected and expressed.
And how to understand the right line of correctness: the story is told through photo and video shooting, everyday processes, they are not associated with anything bad in ordinary life. But because it's a film, it's a work of art, everything inside it makes sense. Mark Lewis works as a cameraman in a film studio, works as a photographer, shooting nudes, because it brings more money, in his own words, dreams of becoming a director. And secretly shoots girls on his camera, he developed a reflex to grab the camera, he does not appear anywhere without it.
Not surprisingly, the film caused a scandal the year it was released. I understand that at that time this level of frankness and expressiveness, referring to sexual pathology, was excessive and did not fit into the norms of filming. Honestly, even now, having so many films in the list of viewed about various intricacies, this rather calm thriller in places led to confusion.
At least footage of Mark's lust, his fusion with a camera that acted as his body part. It is also clear why the film eventually became one of the iconic, because it really clearly reflects the traumatized hero, bearing his pain since childhood. He carried the attitude of his father towards himself, transferred his cruelty to women, tried to recreate the fear that his own father so persistently studied on him.
Ironically, Mark could be a good director. He could cause genuine strong emotions in the opponent, could shoot them on film, he did it, but he did not perceive art in the direct sense.
But parenting failures, parental cruelty, have done the opposite, and we've got a story about how one subject plays two roles. The camera as a creation of art and as a tool. With the tool, it can be used in different ways, Mark carried a trauma from his father, he used it as a guinea pig, caused fear, watched as the body grows. Mark didn't learn empathy. Therefore, the camera is a kind of revenge for his father who has already left him.
But the director did not forget to mention a very important aspect. I left a light for kindness. Even the most hardened, evil person can be touched with kindness. The rays of light here were made by Helen and her mother. In a way, Helen's mother is a metaphor and a marker of what's good/bad, like the illustration "even a blind man can see it." She is blind, but relying on her instincts, she realized that something was wrong with the guy, she said directly that he needed help. And Helen, with her empathy, was able to wake Tom up a little warmth, reach his mind, maybe even stop him from continuing to search for new victims. My camera will never see you, what I'm filming, I'm losing.
Martin Scorsese noted this film as one of the best in its genre, thanks to an accurate note. The filming process is cruel in some ways. He invades the personal space of a person, crosses borders not always when a person wants to. In the film, this is emphasized in the moments when Mark is shooting on camera: the frame is divided into four parts, the object is like a gun, without knowing it. But Mark himself is in the crosshairs - this is noted in the scenes with the window, in which he looks like in the viewfinder of his camera.
There is also a symbol that appears in the frames - the key (the big one that is given to Helen for 21 years, the key that was not given to Mark as a child, the key that the owner of the newspaper store leaves Mark when he leaves him to shoot with Millie). The screenwriter of the film Leo Marx was a decryptor, he knew how to "hack" codes, and wrote the key to the plot. Metaphorically, this symbol means finding a solution: Mark’s father sought the origin of fear, Helen tried to unravel Mark’s dark soul, Mark himself continued his father’s scientific research. And in the end, a person needs a key answer to understand what is happening. And it all comes down to psychology -- the roots of the problem lie in childhood, and that's where the key is. Mark 'cracks' the personal boundaries of his victims, Helen - kindly approaching Mark, Mrs. Stevens, Helen's mother - bluntly tried to push Mark on the path of recovery. In a way, they were their keys.
There are a few moments that have found their place in modern cinema: the horror on the victim’s face (‘The Call’), the strange quiet owner of the house with a big secret (‘Psycho’), the silence of the voices in the head so as not to be tormented (‘Silence of the Lambs’), the secret room in which it is better not to go (’50 OS’), the positive person who does not think that he is a maniac (‘Good, bad, evil’), the symbol of the lizard (‘Patrick Melrose’, where the father-son relationship is also in an unhealthy zone) – all this is really true for the time, but it’s true for the film. Quite frank, in tension holds, contains ideas that were reflected in the movie further. And that's great.
The study of the psychology of serial killers is a separate direction in cinema. Moreover, this direction can be widely represented in terms of genre, since there can be both thrillers and horrors, and comedies and dramas. But, of course, in order to better understand the psychology of a killer, it is necessary to use fear in the movie, and this feeling can be achieved either in a thriller or in a horror film. There are several examples of such films, the creators of which are trying to understand the motives of the inhuman actions of the main character. One example of such films is the British psychological horror film Peeping.
For others, Mark is a pretty guy who works as a cinematographer at a London film studio, as well as a photographer for an underground erotic photo show. For everyone, he is a nice, humble guy. But Mark has a dark, dangerous side. At night, he wanders the streets of the city in search of lonely women walking around to simultaneously kill and film the moment of the murder on camera. Everything changes when Mark falls in love with a young neighbor Helen, unaware of the dark side of his friend.
The game of actors “Seeing” has a classic set of characters for a horror film. Austrian actor Karlheinz Boehm played the role of Mark, a man who experienced a deep psychological trauma in childhood, because of which he is unable to get rid of the mania of observing human fear. But in order to create fear, he is forced to kill innocent women until Helen is one of those “promising” victims. The role of Helen was performed by the English actress Anna Massey, who embodied the classic image of the beloved monster, who has to cope alone with the manifestation of the “monstrous” nature of her cavalier. Scottish actress Moira Shearer played the role of Vivian, one of the victims of Mark, a dreamy actress and dancer who succumbed to the charm of the monster that eventually killed her. In general, the actors coped well with their roles, but I would not talk about something outstanding.
Before the Peeping career of Michael Powell confidently went uphill, and many producers predicted him world fame. Some of his films have even won Oscars, though mostly in technical or artistic nominations. But it was Peeping that actually put an end to Powell’s directorial career, which was just ahead of its time. The fact is that Powell, contrary to the established rules and instead of the usual monotonous intonation of films of the 50s - 60s, decided to violate all norms and make a movie about what no one had previously shot. By and large, Peeping can be defined as a drama in which horrors serve only as a tool for opening the subconscious of a serial killer. Before us unfolds the dramatic story of a hero whose innocent soul was destroyed by the inhuman experiments of his father, who left incurable wounds in the mind of his son with impunity. For this reason, the hero is forced to kill innocent women again and again. He realizes that it is bad, that he ruins other people’s lives and, above all, destroys his own. However, dependence on the very kind of horror, the overflowing eyes of his victims, prevents him from stopping. Everything changes when true love invades his life, which he risks ruining by taking the life of an innocent unsuspecting girl. Of course, these throws tear the hero’s soul apart until he finds the only way out for himself.
Screenplay. The plot takes place in London, and in the focus of attention is a young man named Mark. Mark has two lives. In one, which everyone knows about, he works as a cameraman at a film studio, as well as a private photographer, shooting naked girls for erotic photo albums. In another life, Mark is a serial killer. From time to time, he wanders the streets of the city with his video camera and tripod, in the leg of which a sharp blade is hidden. Finding a girl, he offers to retire, and then kills the innocent victim with a tripod, filming the horror captured on the faces of the girls. The fact is that as a child, Mark himself became a victim of the experiments of his father, a psychiatrist, who studied the nature of fear, and therefore constantly frightened the boy. All this distorted the consciousness of the hero, who is now obsessed with fear and horror, or rather the expression of the faces that this fear displays. Ideal candidates are young women who can only be frightened by threats to their own lives. And to remember this moment, Mark shoots all this on camera, then periodically watching his film masterpieces.
But everything changes when Helen appears in Mark's life. The fact is that Mark is also a homeowner and rents rooms to various people, including Mrs. Stevens and her daughter Helen. Upon acquaintance, Helen immediately expresses sympathy for Mark, which is unusual for him, since previously the girls did not pay such serious attention to him. Mark also not only shows reciprocal sympathy, but falls in love with Helen. But the maniac nature periodically makes itself felt, and there is a threat that the next victim of Mark may be Helen.
Over. Of course, Peeping is hardly a classic horror movie. Perhaps, at that time, he could shock the public with his naturalism and knowledge of taboo topics. Nowadays, the film is more perceived as a cruel joke. An unusual decision with musical accompaniment played its role. Nevertheless, Peeping catches it with the approach of showing history from the point of view of the criminal, the attempt to humanize him, to understand his motives. Therefore, it is recommended to view.
Peeping, or Curious Tom, as he is best known, has experienced a very strange story in his attitude. This film, being one of the first to actually be a slasher, in the 1960s took a lot of negativity from most reputable film critics from the Tribune, the Daily Express and other newspapers. The “peeping” was denounced for nausea, oppression, called monstrous and urged to lower him into the nearest sewer. Of course, the criticism affected the rental, and the film somehow managed to recapture the budget of 135 thousand pounds, which only annoyed the director Michael Powell, for whom, one can assume, the film was the collapse of his career. And indeed, after him, the director did not remove anything outstanding, which showed both distrust of the studios and some moral emptiness. Powell said in his autobiography, “I’m making a movie that no one wants to see, and then, thirty years later, everyone has either seen it or wants to see it.” Time was lost, as were the best years of his career, and there was hardly a belated recognition by the new ideologues of cinema, including, for example, Martin Scorsese, who said that Peeping had a huge impact on his work. However, the film still received recognition, and quite powerful, and the United Kingdom itself did not stand aside with praise.
By 1960, when Peeping was released, Powell was a famous film director. Many of his works were accepted by both the public and critics (though mostly American, while compatriots were often disparaged) almost immediately, without the test of time, while being ascetic in terms of money - no film cost more than 300,000 pounds. It seems that some respect, a positive attitude to the personality of the author should be present axiomatically. Hence the logical question – why the film about a maniac killer caused a flurry of indignation? Very strange, because the British press was well aware that cinema was undergoing changes, it would be time to look at the things of this author. Coming from the south, from France, the new wave, although it did not reach its climax by the beginning of the decade, did not slightly change the existing order. And films with psychological content went there since time immemorial, performed by “French Hitchcock” Henri Georges Clouseau. Although Powell’s work was strikingly different from the new wave, it deserved detailed study, not baseless terror. Most likely, it was simply not understood at that time, and the immorality, cruelty and anti-censorship contained were considered as disadvantages by the standard. And in vain, because very soon - in six months - will be "Psycho", which no one dares to criticize, which will immediately begin to praise and consider as a cult art. Although there, the violence is broadcast much more intensely than in Peeping, where the method of murder is the usual audience imagination, because it is not openly demonstrated. It is clear that critics were outraged by this level of sadism, albeit reliably veiled. And together with the nudity, which was very much enough here and which was cut for rental in Italy (the current theatrical version also does not contain such shots), you should approach the cinema with caution. Careful, but not to the point of moralistic fanaticism.
The problem of understanding Peeping is much more correct, because in fact the film goes deeper than it seems. Its depth is reflected in a rather superficial and simple plot, where all events for the time being go to please the main character, Mark Lewis, and a story that has its gaps and generally seems made for the background. The film is really unusual, the plot only sometimes helps to understand this argument. The director tries not to show an ordinary story, he tries to immerse himself in the psychological canvas of this story, to demonstrate the mental being of a maniac. Powell acts like the classical writer and compatriot Virginia Woolf: he forces the audience to ignore events and prioritizes the inner, inner environment of the person, thereby turning back time. This can be traced against the background of the events themselves, where, perhaps for the first time, the viewer sees the killer from the first minutes and perfectly understands who he is, and not as it was done in classical noir through the prism of the investigation. In the future, time is necessary in order to observe, evaluate and reflect on the strangeness of behavior and the soul, and not to contemplate a linear narrative. Thus, the film is unpredictable until the very end, the subsequent actions are a mystery. The atmosphere of Peeping is constantly set by the same author’s psychology. Trying to delve into the soul of the killer creates interest and, most importantly, does not fall into banal nonsense. And in the end, based on the lives of many infamous maniacs, the picture only strengthens its potential. It is believed not as a stereotype, but as an evil truth. The film is frightening not with the screemers, rather than the dwindling excitement clearly supported by an excellent keyboard soundtrack. That is why she is valuable, confidently keeps the bar and years later.
Tellingly, "Seeing" took the first thing all the same, in the United States. There they tried to study the picture both artistically and psychologically. Calling the themes of sadism inherent in the film, the relationship of fathers and children according to the teachings of Freud, audience voyeurism, critics were always right. And today, Powell’s work seems to be completely unexplored, because it did not have proper followers. Hitchcock’s Psycho cannot be called a full-fledged successor to Peeping because of the minimal difference between the release of both films and the approximately identical start of production, although many relevant details are present: the main characters as victims of domestic perversion, cold weapons, surprise murders. The British film does not remain fully studied because the genre of slasher - a film about a maniac-killer, has gained fame close to the commercial sphere, and not to the avant-garde. Therefore, “Halloween”, “Friday the 13th” and so on – films that are created for the direct purpose of scaring the viewer, therefore, have paradoxically stupid scripts. They do not need to focus on psychology, which makes it easier for both the viewer and the manufacturer. In the mainstream after the 1960s, there was no high-quality production of horror stories about real, adult madness, because of which psychology exactly flowed into detective stories. No one has ever learned to make a movie like Michael Powell, which is why the name is still respected. Five of his works, including Peeping, entered the top 100 best British films. It is a pity that the director did not live to see the day when his work was sincerely recognized by his native country.
8 out of 10.
Having collected such epithets as "sick", "nasty" and "brutal" from critics, immediately after its release in 1960, "Peeping Tom" was sent into temporary oblivion, and Michael Powell's career was completely destroyed. The operation to return "Peeping Tom" in 1979 was conducted by Martin Scorsese, a reissue of the film and screening at a festival in New York.
No films up to that point, neither Tod Browning's Freaks, nor Howard Hawks' Scarface, nor Alfred Hitchcock's insidious fantasies, have caused such thematic chaos. Within 100 minutes, a very striking story is told about a man lost behind the lens of his own movie camera. A man so much weathered by the perverted experiences of a controlling and antagonistic father that when he reaches adulthood, he sees fear as the strongest of emotions, and the camera as the safest barrier between the viciousness of his actions and their recognition.
The film became a kind of cinematic essay Michael Powell, in which he drew parallels between the killer scopophile and moviegoers. He equates photography and filmmaking with scopophilia, a painful desire to look at, look at (mainly: the everyday and intimate life of other people), and viewers with scopophiles who, with almost fetishistic desire, are stuck to screens again and again to watch individual episodes of human life (and lovers of horror films, and in general for its ending). This is a postmodern cinema, disguised in a formalistic approach, which is then disguised in a glossy style.
Total: Compared to all the other films that were made in the UK at the time, this is the most daring and ruthlessly outspoken thriller to come out long before its time.
Critics of the film in England didn't just peek at Tommy when it was released in 1960 - they gutted him. "The only really satisfactory way to get rid of the Peeping Tom is to buy it out and flush it down the nearest sewer quickly," said one critic, joining the chorus of voices, calling it "sick," "nasty" and "brutal." "Seeing Tom" was pulled from the box office in less than a week, and the upcoming career of "Michael Powell" was waiting for a collapse. Only in the late 70s, Martin Scorsese returned the film audience and recognition.
Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, often compared to Peeping Tom (both released in 1960), eventually shows Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) as a completely deranged man. That doesn’t go away with Mark Lewis (Carlheinz Böhm), a handsome gentleman who works as a movie studio focus tuner and kills women at night. And even by the end of the film, when you realize that Lewis is not the most worthy representative of society, you continue to sympathize with him and empathize with him. It's both the brilliance and the horror of the film. While Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece is undeniably the more common and formally groundbreaking of the two films, it can be argued that Peeping Tom is a more thematically profound and insightful work.
"Speeping Tom" is about dirty, creepy, prickly and uncomfortable things, such as voyeurism and other sexual deviations. Performed with visual elegance and wit that only reinforce the sense of taboo. Peeping Tom touches such dark, destructive areas of the human heart that your enjoyment of cinematic bravura carries with it hues of guilt.
Total: Watching "Speeping Tom" in 2017, it's not hard to see why the film caused such uproar at its initial release, but it's also clear that the voices of condemnation were wrong. The film is an incredibly insightful work, exceptionally well thought out, technically and thematically, and still shocking and disturbing. It’s not the easiest movie to watch, and perhaps not the one many will want to add to their collection, but it’s still a must-see for anyone interested in the unique power of cinema.
6 out of 10
Peeping Tom is the story of Mark Lewis (Karlheinz Bohm), a young focus cameraman at a British film studio who aspires to become a film director. A shy and lonely guy, Lewis is not very social, and prefers to spend time with his camera, working as a photographer for pornographic images of women. However, he has another secret, and that is that he is actually a serial killer. Things get complicated when he meets Helen Stevens (Anna Massey), a young girl who lives downstairs with her mother (Maxine Audley) in a room they rent from Mark. Soon, their friendship begins to mean a lot to Mark, as it offers him an honest understanding that he has never received before. However, the shadow of injuries does not leave Mark, and he faces his demons from time to time.
Unlike similar films, here the intentions and motives are not wrapped in the monologue of the psychopath, it is suggested to look at everything from his point of view and his eyes. At the end of the movie, you don't feel guilty about Mark. Maybe it's because he's fascinated by watching people and we're forced to watch him, which makes us as voyeurs as he is. As voyeurs, we continue to watch Mark and get real pleasure from it, and so Lewis appears in the aura of innocence, because we identify with him. Probably for the same reason, the film was defeated by critics: they were frightened in their sympathy for Mark.
Total: Powell considered this film his masterpiece, and I can only agree with it. Peeping Tom is a very deep and insightful work. The film was defeated by critics not because of the technical component of the film, but simply because it was ahead of its time.
6 out of 10
The fact that the film was banned may have made him some publicity, but he did not get better. There is no depth in it, and it is not a study.
I recently discovered that the number of English-language films of the late 50s and early 60s that I watched exceeded ten, and each of them left an atypical impression. There is a general prejudice that every time has its own plots and ideas, and much of what we see in modern films was not known before, or, say, was invented in the last 20-30 years. When you see another remake, for example, RoboCop, Terminator 5 or Nightmare on Elm Street, you wonder why they can not make a film with the same degree of influence on the feelings, but with independent ideas, with a different story, with other characters. Even masters in their genres repeat some successful tricks where they work, and even make special references to the films from which they borrowed them, but they create completely new characters, pose completely new problems for them, and as a result, the result is unpredictable and, therefore, interesting.
It is all the more surprising to see a film from the 1960s, which overlooks the details, metaphors and hints that most modern films as before the Great Wall of China. I think David Lynch was inspired by this film, sculpting his “Inner Empire”, especially since he shot it deliberately on an amateur camera to emphasize the importance of content and thoughts before the external quality and level of technology.
The name itself, in which the name Tom is no longer a name, but only part of this common expression, has its own, perhaps unreal, but legendary origin story, worthy of its plot.
The feeling of something not whole, not complete. Everything seems good, but something is missing. One-time. Even modern viewers sometimes make this film such an unambiguous label. This is, on the one hand, it is not enough, but if you call things by their proper names about most modern films, you can say this: “Silence of the Lambs”, also something is missing, the image of a maniac is not explained why he eats his victims, and why he also philosophizes at the same time. And will an adequate person review the Silence of the Lambs every year? Maybe, but still there are films that change the world view, and for this it is not necessary to watch them every year as an irony of fate or with a light steam, from which they have already made something like a reusable napkin, which can be conveniently and reliably obtained at a certain time and day. That, again, does not detract from the merits of Ryazanov, but can only emphasize them.
What struck me most was the focus on the facial expressions of mostly female characters. A prostitute, a stunt double, a model acting naked, a blind woman, and an aspiring writer, their essence, their character, way of thinking and interests are conveyed through their faces and their reactions to what they see. It's amazing. Not all of them played well or, let’s say, were interesting as individuals, but through the face of each you can read her being. Very cute both externally and in its story, the main character is a clear contrast in its openness, kindness and social maturity, and the more interesting it is to observe the change in the expression of her face, when first curiosity is expressed on it, then bewilderment, then something like squeamishness, then fear, but the authors of the film do not stop there, because fear is followed by doubts, questions, anxiety, I do not know how you will evaluate the actress’s play, but I experienced very great pleasure, and at least the very idea of focusing on emotional transitions, built so unobtrusively and necessary at the moment of the film, makes this complete.
The world through the eyes of the viewer, the eyes of the blind woman, the eyes of the main character, the eyes of the “victims”, the eyes of the director himself, but as one of the characters, I do not remember any film with such an easy arrangement of different points of view, and about what I actually look from different angles and different eyes, I guess only towards the end, but fully guess only when I try to formulate my thoughts about this film when I write this review.
An ending that clearly follows from previous events, as a logical conclusion from reasoning, is not so successful. Many interesting plots are buried with an abrupt ending, there are stories that simply do not have a beautiful ending, and it is better to just cut them off. The main character is truly sorry, all his actions and words, if you do not take into account his victims, give him a very subtle and vulnerable person. But, as the film says, the hero himself is only part of a larger character, an integral part of which is his camera. The external camera, as an object, of course, is helpless and inanimate, but it indicates that it is an indicator of the part that is inside the character, his too, a kind of second self. Perhaps this is expressed even more subtlely and veiledly than in Psycho. And in conclusion, I'm going to ask, isn't there an analogy between the different sides of character and the motivations of the man who fights in him, the wolves who feed on his successes and his failures, and the camera is just a way of seeing these wolves? Get your priorities right!
8 out of 10
PS.
"Dalys Powell, The Sunday Times, 1960"
Michael Powell went too far with his emphasis on nauseating preparation and the process of sadistic gratification. He will have to answer for this deeply flawed film.
From Michael Powell, a participant of all prestigious film festivals, critics did not expect a film about a maniac voyeur filming his murders on camera. In this rejection they showed complete unanimity. After a massive campaign in the English press, most cinemas withdrew the film for fear of losses, and the career of the director was destroyed: over the next 20 years, Powell made only six films. Limited American box office also did not bring, but gradually the film turned into a legend: almost no one saw it, but discussed and wanted to see everything. In the early 70s, it was accidentally seen by aspiring director Martin Scorsese and immediately fell in love, and nine years later managed to find a preserved copy and staged a screening at the New York Film Festival. As a result, Powell received the Golden Lion and the BAFTA Award for Merit for Cinematography, and Peeping took a place in the lists of the best thriller films.
Dilis Powell, The Sunday Times, 1994
If you're allowed to talk in the afterlife, I'll find Michael Powell and apologize to him. Now, I must admit, I consider the Peeping One a masterpiece.
Do you know what the worst thing in life is? It's fear.
Someone “removes” a prostitute, and simultaneously shoots her with a hidden camera. Suddenly, the client approaches the woman with the murder weapon and causes deadly terror. The entire murder process is recorded on camera.
The killer is known from the start; his goal is to capture fear on film. From around the corner he's filming cops, it seems he doesn't even bother to get caught. But what's the global agenda? What kind of movie is he making? What is the reason?
Young handsome photographer Mark works all day as a film operator, erotic photos, which in the 60s are still sold from under the floor in a magazine kiosk. But the main purpose, as we already know, is different. It is not often that the killer appears before the audience not as a beast, but as a person with a psychological problem that he cannot solve on his own. “Mark, how long have you been out of the house without a camera?” asks Helen, his newfound girlfriend. He cannot do otherwise: real life matters only in refraction through the lens. The obsession has long become overvalued and life goes along a long-established circle: removed - showed - viewed. The core of psychopathology, as always, in childhood.
Will love overcome the obsessive desire to capture fear, or will Helen face the same fate as the 2 previous victims? The final scene is unexpected and finally proves Mark’s determination to direct not only his film, but also his life.
9 out of 10
Peeping is a British dramatic thriller from 1960. This film directed by Michael Powell was an unexpected film of the time. This film was the first to show everything through the eyes of a murderer. The movie is original and for 1960 it is certainly a blast. This thriller is psychological and looks anxious. I watched this movie more than fifty years after it came out, and it was also creepy and out of place.
We see a maniac who captures the faces of his victims on camera close-up, and suddenly a sharp file pops up on them. A crazy maniac who had a bad childhood kills prostitutes and enjoys their deaths, watching film afterwards. In his usual life, everything will change when one girl from his house draws attention to him.
The movie is really creepy and dark. It is saturated with the cold madness and psychology of the protagonist, and goosebumps run from this. Karlheinz Böhm played the main role, and he did it very eerie and realistically. From his hero comes darkness and cold. He is so silent, but lost, he hides the true evil that everyone is so afraid of. It is terrible that there are such people, and they walk among us.
For 1960, this is an extremely unusual film, and the director discovers something new with his film, which frightens and amazes. "Peeping" - atmospheric thriller, it is this word that clearly characterizes it, an atmospheric thriller about a man with a movie camera. It takes a creep out of this whole story. Respect for the director.
Speaking of this picture, again I want to make a small philological digression and spray poison on the translators of the picture, at one time calling the film Curious Tom or Watching Tom. They were not confused by the fact that in the film there is not a single character named Tom, but they clearly did not know the English phraseology, in translation of which, as, for example, in Plain Jane (“simple”), the name is not used, and which simply means voyeur. The very picture of the famous British director Michael Powell (“Red Shoes”, “Black Narcissus”) during its release on the screen, critics also disliked, considering it a primitive indulgence of the base desires of the audience and savoring a cruel theme. And only time put it in its place, because this picture, which became the first tape in which the events are filmed from the point of view of a maniac, as well as one of the first films, exquisitely and theatrically visualized death. The film had a huge influence on the development of thrillers and horror, especially this influence is noticeable in the paintings of Dario Argento, in particular, Suspiria (1977), when it is not the plot that is important to create an atmosphere, but the audiovisual component, the play of light and color filters. Devoid of frankly cruel scenes, this film, showing the most terrible not directly, but through the reaction of the characters, causes tension to this day, and the beauty of carefully built frames and juicy color scheme will appeal to any film aesthete.
9 out of 10
In 1960, the film seemed scandalous, if not sensational. Especially since it was directed by a living classic of cinema – Michael Powell, who shoots mainly academic films.
These days, such a film would of course be seen solely as promoting juvenile justice. But, in those distant years - it was just one of the first films in which the problems of snuff were raised.
The focus is on a young tenant of one of the apartment buildings. Most of his earnings are related to camera work and photography. Only here he photographs models, prostitutes and porn.
His interest in filming comes from his parents. His father was a big fan of neurophysiology. He abused the child and recorded it on video. Now, a grown man is doing much scarier things to prostitutes and other women.
In fact, Powell made a very interesting alternative to Alfred Hitchcock’s then fashionable Psycho. The film is full of quotes from other films. But, at the same time, the universe painted by Powell turned out to be very viable.
Peeping directly or indirectly, visually or thematically influenced films such as Clouzot's The Captive, Antonioni's The Photo Enlargement, Paul Schroeder's Hardcore, Brian de Palm's Clothes to Kill and many other films.
In the end: I do not consider "Peeping" a masterpiece, but you can not ignore the influence of this film. In comparison, the same “Prisoner” by Henri-Georges Clouzot seems to me much more serious film work (albeit less recognized).
Cinema, of course, does not produce such a strong effect these days. This is due primarily to the rapid disclosure of the genre. But it is still necessary to understand the premises why films about maniacs have become so popular these days.
6 out of 10