Before watching Rear Window, I went in expecting to really enjoy it because I liked the short story it is based on, It Had to be Murder by Cornell Woolrich. While I did like the film in general, there was something about it that made me hesitant to be really excited about what I had just seen; something that had made me a bit uncomfortable throughout the film. This something was the view and portrayal of women throughout the movie.
When the film opens, we are treated to the view that Jeff has out of his back window. We see a variety of men and women that reappear in the next scene, where Jeff is on the phone, looking out his window. While there are a few men focused on, those we see are engaged in doing things, such as composing music or arriving home from work. The majority of Jeff's time is spent looking at women, who appear to be doing idle or silly things. For example, Jeff watches a couple of sunbathers on top of a roof, who appear to take their clothing off, though he can't see them. Another example that stands out to me is the dancing woman across from him. The first time she appears, her top falls off, and the next time we see her, Jeff watches her dance around in next to nothing, even bending over for a few seconds. She continues to appear in the film as an "object" of study for not only Jeff, but also for Doyle and even Lisa and Stella, though they seem to study her in a different way than the men do most of the time.
Another woman looked at in this way throughout the film is Lisa, Jeff's love interest. The first time we see her is a close-up shot of her face. She is done up to look perfectly gorgeous, and she looks almost like a dream, which is magnified by Jeff waking up to her face. It almost seems as though she represents what the ideal image of a woman should look like. Lisa is clearly very beautiful, but Jeff thinks she is too perfect. He is resistant to marrying her because he doesn't think she can handle what his job requires, no matter what she says about it. He only really begins to "see" her once she gets involved in his investigation, and he begins to actually care about her once she steps out of his apartment and into the world he looks at out his window.
Our first image of Lisa
The issue here is between those who get to look vs. those who are looked at. The camera eye of this movie, along with many Hollywood films still today, is male, meaning the female characters are gazed at by the camera. This can also be called the male gaze, where the man looks and holds the power, and the woman is looked at because she is just an object to be seen. The examples I gave are only a few of the many I noticed as I was watching.
The problem that arises from this view of "looker" and "looked at" is that the woman being looked at is seen as lesser, as she is reduced to an object. The most powerful example I saw of this was when Lisa told Doyle of her ideas about the missing wife's purse and jewelry. Not only did Doyle not believe her, he outright dismissed her on the basis that because she is a woman, any ideas she has are only "feminine intuition," which is only a fairy tale. He doesn't want to listen to her, but he had no problem looking at her when she first came into the room.
Lisa vs. Doyle
I could go on and on about this topic. There were many examples throughout the movie, and I didn't even touch on the film's treatment of marriage, especially the view of women in marriage. The important thing is to not let the negative words, actions, and even beliefs that permeate a film adversely affect our behavior, but instead to have open discussions about why we have to be different.
I think a lot of the problems you may have noticed are due to the times. This movie was made in a different time where women had less and were still being treated worse. Of course, there are still problems today in media when it comes to the portrayal of women, but I think it's a tad much saying that in todays society it's still the same and men are given the pedestal. There are ways men are portrayed in media that make it rough on a lot of men I know, including myself. I am aware it's not as equal as what women or minorities must deal with, but it's still there and to ignore it is still wrong. I noticed some of the problems you mention, especially the whole "feminine intuition" bit, but had to tell myself it was a different time. Of course that doesn't make it right, but in the end you can't change what views people had decades ago.
I agree with you, the way the women were treated in this movie was unfair, but such is life. Even in our modern age, women are still sex as sexual objects but then again so are men. For every Showgirls, there is a Magic Mike. I think though that women are a powerful force in this movie. Jeff is impotent to go after Thorwald himself so he has Stella and Lisa do his dirty work. Thorwald murdered a woman and it was two women that brought him down. I can see you point about Doyle, he was kind of a pig but his object of lust turned the tables on him and proved herself a worthy equal.
I don't agree with the statement "for every Showgirls, there is a Magic Mike." Men are rarely seen as sexual objects in film; however, a plethora of films that objectify women come to mind: the National Lampoon movies, the James Bond movies, Wedding Crashers, etc. Historically, women have been the ones being objectified, and Rear Window is an example of this happening in the 50's. Though modernity, many of the stereotypical 50's gender roles have changed, but I don't think that we can just brush off the issues that this movie demonstrated by saying "oh, well it was the 50's." A book that discusses the difficulties associated with our society in regards to patriarchy is "Revolution at Point Zero" by Silvia Federici. In Rear Window, marriage is something that is seen in a negative light for the men in the movie. However, Federici claims that for women being a housewife is simply being a servant/slave to the working class. I think that the portrayal of women in this movie can be seen through the lens of Feminist Theory, especially because the director and writers were men from the 50's. I think that viewing the movie from a Feminist lens is an acceptable angle, and I think that the fact that we are viewing it from a different era makes it more interesting and potentially more valuable.
Maggie is correct: Historically, women are the objects in film and men the subjects. In fact, it has only been within the past 20 years (at best) that Hollywood has begun to see women as a viable audience for film. We will discuss this issue more when we screen *Emma.* This isn't just a "1950s issue," as Maggie also observes. Great discussion here, everyone! Original and highly analytical post, Christina!
I would say this is a movie of its time but women sexuality and the weakness of women is still a part of some movies today. I do take my hat off to Alfred Hithchcock, even though he exploit sexuality, because he reversed the male and female roles of that time. Doyle was the male chauvinist idiot that over looked what was really happening because a female gave her opinion on a crime that has happened. He not only was weak minded but also helpless when it came to helping his friend. Whereas, Stella and Lisa were the smart and aggressive females that became the hero's in the end.
I think a lot of the problems you may have noticed are due to the times. This movie was made in a different time where women had less and were still being treated worse. Of course, there are still problems today in media when it comes to the portrayal of women, but I think it's a tad much saying that in todays society it's still the same and men are given the pedestal. There are ways men are portrayed in media that make it rough on a lot of men I know, including myself. I am aware it's not as equal as what women or minorities must deal with, but it's still there and to ignore it is still wrong. I noticed some of the problems you mention, especially the whole "feminine intuition" bit, but had to tell myself it was a different time. Of course that doesn't make it right, but in the end you can't change what views people had decades ago.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, the way the women were treated in this movie was unfair, but such is life. Even in our modern age, women are still sex as sexual objects but then again so are men. For every Showgirls, there is a Magic Mike. I think though that women are a powerful force in this movie. Jeff is impotent to go after Thorwald himself so he has Stella and Lisa do his dirty work. Thorwald murdered a woman and it was two women that brought him down. I can see you point about Doyle, he was kind of a pig but his object of lust turned the tables on him and proved herself a worthy equal.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the statement "for every Showgirls, there is a Magic Mike." Men are rarely seen as sexual objects in film; however, a plethora of films that objectify women come to mind: the National Lampoon movies, the James Bond movies, Wedding Crashers, etc. Historically, women have been the ones being objectified, and Rear Window is an example of this happening in the 50's. Though modernity, many of the stereotypical 50's gender roles have changed, but I don't think that we can just brush off the issues that this movie demonstrated by saying "oh, well it was the 50's." A book that discusses the difficulties associated with our society in regards to patriarchy is "Revolution at Point Zero" by Silvia Federici. In Rear Window, marriage is something that is seen in a negative light for the men in the movie. However, Federici claims that for women being a housewife is simply being a servant/slave to the working class. I think that the portrayal of women in this movie can be seen through the lens of Feminist Theory, especially because the director and writers were men from the 50's. I think that viewing the movie from a Feminist lens is an acceptable angle, and I think that the fact that we are viewing it from a different era makes it more interesting and potentially more valuable.
ReplyDeleteMaggie is correct: Historically, women are the objects in film and men the subjects. In fact, it has only been within the past 20 years (at best) that Hollywood has begun to see women as a viable audience for film. We will discuss this issue more when we screen *Emma.* This isn't just a "1950s issue," as Maggie also observes. Great discussion here, everyone! Original and highly analytical post, Christina!
ReplyDeleteI would say this is a movie of its time but women sexuality and the weakness of women is still a part of some movies today. I do take my hat off to Alfred Hithchcock, even though he exploit sexuality, because he reversed the male and female roles of that time. Doyle was the male chauvinist idiot that over looked what was really happening because a female gave her opinion on a crime that has happened. He not only was weak minded but also helpless when it came to helping his friend. Whereas, Stella and Lisa were the smart and aggressive females that became the hero's in the end.
ReplyDelete