rear window (1954)

as a childhood fan of james stewart's "harvey''-era work i often found it difficult to enjoy his more mature roles. having never seen "rear window" prior to this viewing, i am definately realising the error of my ways. sure, these later roles may be very different to the earlier one's, but thats not a comment on the quality of them.

"rear window" opens with one of the most beautifully crafted scenario's i have ever seen. the incredibly limited location is displayed fully with the inventive camerawork on display. specifically placed items tell the whole backstory, as a shot of the broken leg is followed by a shot of a broken camera before the camera moves onto a photograph of a car crashing into view. in this one instance we are shown the problem, the reason and the cause (two very different things). its masterfully paced storytelling, and uses very well paced, traditional techniques.

the opening scene is followed by small vignettes, each told from the point of view of the protagonist, l.b jeffries (stewart), that serve to introduce each of the supporting players key characteristics. this is again, a very traditional technique, used greatly in which to introduce the characters.

although the plot of the film largely revolves around the point of view of our protagonist, we are privy to one piece of information that he isnt, although in turn this is used against us, as if to confuse and throw us off of the mark. the piece of information that i am referring to is the moment quite early on where thorwald, the ''evil'' neighbour leaves his appartment with a woman whilst jeffries sleeps. it is with this action that we are led to believe that thorwald is innocent and jeffries is wrong. alas, as it is later proven, we were too a victim of thorwald's deception.

one thing that i didnt realise until recently is that ''rear window'' was made only 4 years after "harvey" which in turn was made between hitchcock projects. this adds testiment to the versatility of stewart, and only serves to prove just how wrong to seperate the two styles of work.