spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,100
Likes: 9,421
|
Post by spiderwort on Sept 6, 2022 15:54:17 GMT
Someone on FG posted that he "Just watched this for the first time in about twenty years. I'd forgotten how good it actually was."
I think the question definitely belongs on the CFB. So what do you guys think? I believe it's one of Hitchcock's most interesting films, given the limited point of view it has. In spite of that -- or maybe because of it -- the master of suspense still manages to evoke lots of suspense.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 6, 2022 15:56:22 GMT
7.5/10. I always enjoyed it. Though can't say it is one of my favorite Hitchcock movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Sept 6, 2022 15:57:44 GMT
I posted that.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,100
Likes: 9,421
|
Post by spiderwort on Sept 6, 2022 16:00:42 GMT
Yes, I know, kolchak92 , and I'm glad you did. I just wish that you had posted it on this board instead. Most of us here have lots of thoughts about a film like that and would like to be able to share our thoughts here. I live for the CFB, and it's hard for me to see so many people drifting over to the FG board to talk about classic films when there's less and less activity here. So I hope you will join us here. I think you have a lot to offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on Sept 6, 2022 16:09:12 GMT
Probably my first Hitchcock and have loved it ever since. A definite re-watch as details become more and more noticeable with each viewing.  Simply SOOOOOO good ! |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 6, 2022 21:44:57 GMT
While it's not my purpose to divert any traffic from the CFB, spiderwort, I nevertheless encourage everyone here to hop over there long enough to check out wmcclain's excellent comments on the Rear Window FG thread. Good stuff. And then come back here, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Sept 8, 2022 0:54:54 GMT
I remember I hadn't seen it in years, and then sometime around the late 1980s-early '90s, a local TV station, WPIX out of NYC, acquired the rights to it and made a big deal out of airing it one weekend. The film, with commercials, ran close to 3 hours, I believe, and there was an odd scene that I couldn't quite remember seeing before in which Stewart's character is shown in freeze-frame or something as dialogue used previously in the film plays on the soundtrack, as if he's hearing the voices in his head and thinking about what they're saying. I thought it odd that I didn't remember this scene from previous viewings, but I figured I had just forgotten about it.
A few days later, the TV column of the local paper reported that many film fans had called the TV station to complain about this scene. In order to fill the time slot properly, and keep the viewers for a longer period, the station had manufactured that scene and added it to the film, and devoted fans were outraged that the original had been tampered with. I guess what they did wasn't as bad as editing out bits of the film to make it shorter, but it was still cinematically unethical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 8, 2022 1:18:42 GMT
I remember I hadn't seen it in years, and then sometime around the late 1980s-early '90s, a local TV station, WPIX out of NYC, acquired the rights to it and made a big deal out of airing it one weekend. The film, with commercials, ran close to 3 hours, I believe, and there was an odd scene that I couldn't quite remember seeing before in which Stewart's character is shown in freeze-frame or something as dialogue used previously in the film plays on the soundtrack, as if he's hearing the voices in his head and thinking about what they're saying. I thought it odd that I didn't remember this scene from previous viewings, but I figured I had just forgotten about it. A few days later, the TV column of the local paper reported that many film fans had called the TV station to complain about this scene. In order to fill the time slot properly, and keep the viewers for a longer period, the station had manufactured that scene and added it to the film, and devoted fans were outraged that the original had been tampered with. I guess what they did wasn't as bad as editing out bits of the film to make it shorter, but it was still cinematically unethical. Geez, that's gotta be the weirdest piece of movie tampering by a local station I've ever heard of.
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Sept 8, 2022 14:47:40 GMT
This is always satisfying to me, no matter how often I see it. I credit the very strong natural performances of the three main characters. The story is full of intrigue. It’s interesting to see Hitchcock wind out one of his here- there- everywhere plots, like 38 steps, Saboteur and Foreign Correspondant, but confined to what Jimmy Stewart can see out his window. The stories going on in each apartment are fascinating and the way they interlock only tangentially is very clever.
This film has one other characteristic I have come to look for in Hitchcock films. He very often has one character in charge of delivering a major speech or plot point, who is seriously out of tone ,and often sounds like a refugee from a high school play. In this film it’s the woman whose dog is found dead. Her speech to the other tenants voices the lack of compassion and sense of connection among the tenants but it is so out of tone, so over the top. Just imagine how Thelma Ritter or James Stewart would have sounded delivering that speech.
I’m trying to think of bad actor speeches in other Hitchcock films. I’m afraid in Rope it is James Stewart’s last speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 8, 2022 14:53:31 GMT
This is always satisfying to me, no matter how often I see it. I credit the very strong natural performances of the three main characters. The story is full of intrigue. It’s interesting to see Hitchcock wind out one of his here- there- everywhere plots, like 38 steps, Saboteur and Foreign Correspondant, but confined to what Jimmy Stewart can see out his window. The stories going on in each apartment are fascinating and the way they interlock only tangentially is very clever. This film has one other characteristic I have come to look for in Hitchcock films. He very often has one character in charge of delivering a major speech or plot point, who is seriously out of tone ,and often sounds like a refugee from a high school play. In this film it’s the woman whose dog is found dead. Her speech to the other tenants voices the lack of compassion and sense of connection among the tenants but it is so out of tone, so over the top. Just imagine how Thelma Ritter or James Stewart would have sounded delivering that speech. I’m trying to think of bad actor speeches in other Hitchcock films. I’m afraid in Rope it is James Stewart’s last speech. Hmm...are you sure that her "over the topness" isn't simply owed to the fact that her character has to be yelling so all the tenants will hear her?
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Sept 8, 2022 20:04:52 GMT
This is always satisfying to me, no matter how often I see it. I credit the very strong natural performances of the three main characters. The story is full of intrigue. It’s interesting to see Hitchcock wind out one of his here- there- everywhere plots, like 38 steps, Saboteur and Foreign Correspondant, but confined to what Jimmy Stewart can see out his window. The stories going on in each apartment are fascinating and the way they interlock only tangentially is very clever. This film has one other characteristic I have come to look for in Hitchcock films. He very often has one character in charge of delivering a major speech or plot point, who is seriously out of tone ,and often sounds like a refugee from a high school play. In this film it’s the woman whose dog is found dead. Her speech to the other tenants voices the lack of compassion and sense of connection among the tenants but it is so out of tone, so over the top. Just imagine how Thelma Ritter or James Stewart would have sounded delivering that speech. I’m trying to think of bad actor speeches in other Hitchcock films. I’m afraid in Rope it is James Stewart’s last speech. Hmm...are you sure that her "over the topness" isn't simply owed to the fact that her character has to be yelling so all the tenants will hear her? I am not sure. Of course not, but I have no trouble imagining other actors handling it better. I am always surprised when directors let things like this slide. Her crying was terrible too. Crying and throwing up are two tests lots of actors cannot pass .
|
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Sept 8, 2022 20:17:39 GMT
I rate it 6th in the Hitch canon. Supremely entertaining
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 8, 2022 20:36:24 GMT
Crying and throwing up are two tests lots of actors cannot pass . And how about laughing? It's irksome when a laugh sounds artificial.
|
|
|
|
Post by wickedkittiesmom on Sept 8, 2022 21:51:10 GMT
One of my favorite films, maybe I'll watch it tonight. This film was almost lost until it was rescued and restored.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Sept 8, 2022 22:39:48 GMT
One of my favorite films, maybe I'll watch it tonight. This film was almost lost until it was rescued and restored. Actually RW wasn't so much 'lost' as it was purposely withheld for years to increase its value. Hitchcock was able to acquire the rights to the film, along with four others -- ROPE, VERTIGO, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, and THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY (a quartet of Stewart, btw). After being out of circulation for years, the films were finally re-released (one at a time and with great fanfare and heavy profits) following his passing in 1980, which greatly enriched his surviving family members. REAR WINDOW was the first to be available, and premiered in major cities (New York, then Chicago, then Los Angeles, etc ).
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Sept 8, 2022 23:59:17 GMT
Hi Matt! Whose plan was this? Hitchcock, Pat, someone else?. It’s a lot like Disney’s plan , withholding properties, then releasing them on schedule with toys and other products
|
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Sept 9, 2022 0:31:12 GMT
Hi Matt! Whose plan was this? Hitchcock, Pat, someone else?. It’s a lot like Disney’s plan , withholding properties, then releasing them on schedule with toys and other products It might have been fun to have movie-related toys released along with these films. |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Sept 9, 2022 0:38:11 GMT
Hi Matt! Whose plan was this? Hitchcock, Pat, someone else?. It’s a lot like Disney’s plan , withholding properties, then releasing them on schedule with toys and other products A Hitch plan, Marsha. He came up with the idea in the early 70s, obtained exclusive rights, and kept the quintet of titles off TV and movie screens for ten years. Audiences were hungry for their return.
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Sept 9, 2022 6:36:46 GMT
Hi Matt! Whose plan was this? Hitchcock, Pat, someone else?. It’s a lot like Disney’s plan , withholding properties, then releasing them on schedule with toys and other products It might have been fun to have movie-related toys released along with these films. Hmm toys for Hitchcock films. Some are obvious, a key for Notorious, a camera for Rear Window.
|
|
|
|
Post by wickedkittiesmom on Sept 9, 2022 10:24:24 GMT
The film quality of RW was poor and had to be restored, on my DVD of RW there was a blurb about that. Hitchcock's daughter had control over the film.
|
|
