Deadlock
New member
As was mentioned in the Film Connoisseurs? Club thread, we?ll be discussing the film decided upon last week. So for those who are ready, this is where we?ll discuss Rear Window. This thread will definitely not be spoiler free, so you?ve been warned!
To agree with my esteemed colleague Joe Brody, Grace Kelly steals the show in Rear Window. In her character, I find a fascinating perspective on femininity on film. Let me explain...
Rear Window was released in 1954. Now when I think ?1950s? and ?women?, I definitely get a mental image of the uber-homemaker (IE Mrs. Cleaver). Now, I?m guessing I?m not the only one, due to several films I?ve seen recently (Pleasantville, Mona Lisa Smile). Of course, our modern sensibilities recoil at the concept of women as uber-homemakers. Thus, both of the films I mentioned are stories about breaking free from ?the fetters of stodgy 1950s morals?. These films are definitely preaching from a romanticist/bohemian/hippy soapbox. (And just to be clear, it?s not that I don?t think that the uber-homemaker archetype wasn?t present in 1950s... it?s just that I this false ideal was propaganda at the time, and that it?s STILL propaganda.)
Enter Rear Window... Here?s a film made and set in the fifties. At first blush, it seems that Grace Kelly?s character, Lisa Fremont, is going to follow our expectations of the stereotypical fifties women. Instead, she rapidly destroys the Mrs. Cleaver idol: Grace Kelly is aggressive (and not in just her business dealings ), independent, and not about to cash her in interests just to make Jimmy Stewart happy. Grace Kelly is the one who drives the two storylines in Rear Window: the murder-mystery and the love story between Jeff and Lisa. If things were left up to Jimmy Stewart, he would have remained on the sidelines, a mere spectator.
As Grace Kelly takes the active role in infiltrating the Thorwald?s apartment... I?m watching her doing this burglar stuff dressed up in her very feminine fifties woman getup. Afterward, I was reflecting on how that just SHOULDN?T work. If I said, picture this: Mrs. Cleaver climbing up a fire escape to collect evidence from a murderer?s apartment. The mental picture seems too far-fetched or silly to work. But ol? Hitch made it work... it was one of the great suspense scenes of the film (which may be why he?s a legendary filmmaker, and I?m not. ). There was something about a very feminine character in this dangerous situation that was just really stood out in my mind. In that suspenseful scene in the apartment, she avoided all sorts of other common portrayals of women in the movies. She was neither a helpless victim nor a semi-worthless tagalong. At the same time, she wasn?t ?masculine-nized? either.
I love the ending scene of the film. It teases us with the idea that she sold out... but that last second replacement of ?Beyond the High Himalayas? with ?Bazaar? let?s us know that Grace Kelly is still behind the wheel.
I found Rear Window?s portrayal of an independent fifties woman so much more appealing than any of the modern attempts. Not just because it?s Grace Kelly , but because Hitch didn?t have to preach it. Lisa Fremont doesn?t need the ?liberation? that our wooden revisionist films want to offer her.
To agree with my esteemed colleague Joe Brody, Grace Kelly steals the show in Rear Window. In her character, I find a fascinating perspective on femininity on film. Let me explain...
Rear Window was released in 1954. Now when I think ?1950s? and ?women?, I definitely get a mental image of the uber-homemaker (IE Mrs. Cleaver). Now, I?m guessing I?m not the only one, due to several films I?ve seen recently (Pleasantville, Mona Lisa Smile). Of course, our modern sensibilities recoil at the concept of women as uber-homemakers. Thus, both of the films I mentioned are stories about breaking free from ?the fetters of stodgy 1950s morals?. These films are definitely preaching from a romanticist/bohemian/hippy soapbox. (And just to be clear, it?s not that I don?t think that the uber-homemaker archetype wasn?t present in 1950s... it?s just that I this false ideal was propaganda at the time, and that it?s STILL propaganda.)
Enter Rear Window... Here?s a film made and set in the fifties. At first blush, it seems that Grace Kelly?s character, Lisa Fremont, is going to follow our expectations of the stereotypical fifties women. Instead, she rapidly destroys the Mrs. Cleaver idol: Grace Kelly is aggressive (and not in just her business dealings ), independent, and not about to cash her in interests just to make Jimmy Stewart happy. Grace Kelly is the one who drives the two storylines in Rear Window: the murder-mystery and the love story between Jeff and Lisa. If things were left up to Jimmy Stewart, he would have remained on the sidelines, a mere spectator.
As Grace Kelly takes the active role in infiltrating the Thorwald?s apartment... I?m watching her doing this burglar stuff dressed up in her very feminine fifties woman getup. Afterward, I was reflecting on how that just SHOULDN?T work. If I said, picture this: Mrs. Cleaver climbing up a fire escape to collect evidence from a murderer?s apartment. The mental picture seems too far-fetched or silly to work. But ol? Hitch made it work... it was one of the great suspense scenes of the film (which may be why he?s a legendary filmmaker, and I?m not. ). There was something about a very feminine character in this dangerous situation that was just really stood out in my mind. In that suspenseful scene in the apartment, she avoided all sorts of other common portrayals of women in the movies. She was neither a helpless victim nor a semi-worthless tagalong. At the same time, she wasn?t ?masculine-nized? either.
I love the ending scene of the film. It teases us with the idea that she sold out... but that last second replacement of ?Beyond the High Himalayas? with ?Bazaar? let?s us know that Grace Kelly is still behind the wheel.
I found Rear Window?s portrayal of an independent fifties woman so much more appealing than any of the modern attempts. Not just because it?s Grace Kelly , but because Hitch didn?t have to preach it. Lisa Fremont doesn?t need the ?liberation? that our wooden revisionist films want to offer her.