"What I See" in Rear Window

Alfred Hitchcock once said that "there is a distinct difference between suspense and surprise." To Hitchcock, suspense was about involving the audience in a scene and creating anxiety within that scene, usually by having them see something which a character in the film could not see. Hitchcock is now considered a master of creating suspense within cinema and in a film like Rear Window it can be seen why. In a nutshell, Rear Window is about a photographer who is stuck at home because of an injury, begins to spy on his neighbors, discovers a possible murder and tries to gather evidence (with the help of his girlfriend) to prove the murder occurred.
Audience involvement plays a large part in the creation of Hitchcockian suspense and it is rather simple to achieve in a film where the main theme is voyeurism, a topic that easily lends itself both to viewer association (in that we are in a sense voyeurs when we view the lives of others through cinema) and to suspense. The voyeuristic tendencies of the protagonist Jefferies (played by James Stewart) are emphasized throughout the film by the use of subjective point of view editing. Many times we get a shot of Jefferies, then a shot of what he sees, and lastly a shot of his reaction. There are even some scenes where Jefferies uses a camera with a telephoto lens attached to get a closer look at the subjects of his spy work. In these scenes, the frame is changed to a circular one and a telephoto lens is actually used to create the sense that we are seeing exactly what Jefferies is seeing. By giving us these point of view shots, Hitchcock limits our scope to Jefferies' perspective. It is as though the camera is not actually a camera, but Jefferies' eyes. Another way in which the camera acts as Jeffries' eyes is through pans and tilts. Whenever Jefferies surveys a scene, the camera either pans or tilts in the direction which his eyes are moving.
As a result of this, the audience is pushed to connect with Jefferies because we are seeing what he sees. Another reason why we connect with him is that we get a lot of close ups of Jefferies as opposed to the long shots we get of the antagonist Thorwald. By keeping Jeffries closer to the camera and Thorwald farther, Hitchcock creates a more intimate relationship between the viewer and Jefferies and a more distant relationship between the viewer and Thorwald. Hitchcock continually involves the audience with Jefferies' world by giving them access to private things that should not be seen (by neither Jefferies nor the audience). An interesting note about framing can be made when Jefferies looks in on his neighbors and views them through their windows. These windows act as a frame to the events which Jefferies is looking in on, creating a sense that these events are framed for Jeffries to watch as the film is framed for the viewer to watch. The windows are frames within the frame of the film, yet another link between Jeffries and the viewer of the film.
There is a scene in the film which demonstrates how brilliantly, yet simply, Hitchcock is able to create suspense within the film. Lisa (played by Grace Kelly) breaks into Thorwald's apartment in order to gather evidence. As Lisa is in the apartment, we see Thorwald walking up the steps to his apartment within the same frame. By juxtaposing these two simple scenarios, Hitchcock is able to create immediate suspense through composition. The viewer sees Thorwald and knows Lisa does not. Immediately the viewer begins to wonder whether Lisa will be caught or not and what will happen if she is. The fact that this is all being witness from the point of view of Jefferies from the apartment across adds to the voyeuristic "feel" of the film. Through such a manner, Hitchcock is able to capture the suspense of voyeurism in Rear Window.

Museum of the Moving Image

I remember being to the Museum of the Moving Image when I was younger and having loved it the first time I was there. So it came as no surprise that I really enjoyed this second trip to the museum. I was really amazed to see how far the technology surrounding moving images has come over the last century or so. Viewing the thaumatrope and zoetrope made witnessing the Feral Fount exhibit that much more impressive. It was amazing to see how something as elaborate as the Feral Fount evolved from something as simple as thaumatropes and zoetropes; the Feral Fount works in the same basic way: displaying the still images and incorporating the flickering light to make the still images seem as they are moving.
The automated dialogue replacement exhibit was pretty cool; I really like hands-on exhibits. I know they might seem boring but my favorite exhibits were the Kinetoscope and The Great Train Robbery exhibits. I've read a lot about the Kinetoscope and actually getting to see one in action was great. Its hard to fathom that the movie technology we use today, like the grand IMAX theatres, began from such humble beginnings as the tiny Peep Shows of the Kinetoscope which only a single person was able to view at a time. I also learned something new about Kinetoscopes from the tour guide: that their nitrate film was flammable, which didn't fare well with the fact that they were made of wood. The reason I liked The Great Train Robbery exhibit is basically the same: its pretty cool to see how cinema has evolved from short, unedited, straightforward narratives to the CGI saturated, intricate plot line films we see today. Seeing The Great Train Robbery in its soundless, black and white simplicity and then comparing it to something like Transformers with its over the top CGI and computer effects really goes to show how far the technology surrounding moving images has come.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog. Hope you're interested in what I've got to say, and if you're not thats too bad. Come back!