FILM: Rear Window (9/10)

Why did I watch it?
I started 2013 having seen no Hitchcock films, Rear Window was number three and was one I was familiar with having seen both Disturbia and the references to it in The Simpsons.

What's it all about?
Remember The Simpsons episode where Bart breaks his leg and spends all his time cooped up alone, looking out of his window, until he becomes insistent he saw Ned Flanders murder his wife? That plot is a fully lifted tribute to Rear Window. Professional photographer James Stewart is wheelchair bound with a broken leg and passes his time casually watching out across the yard where he can see into the windows of all his neighbours. Things turn sinister when he notices the wife of one neighbour is missing and becomes certain the husband is guilty of murder. Grace Kelly stars as his girlfriend, at first uncomfortable with his 'peeping tom' habits.

Should you watch it?
In one word, absolutely. With a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Rear Window is often listed amongst Hitchcock's best films and the praise is just. Although I had seen the story played out in modern adaptations, Hitchcock's original felt fresh and superior. I shouldn't even be comparing Rear Window to Disturbia, despite enjoying that film, but by being immobile compared to just under house arrest, Stewart is all the more helpless later on in the film in comparison with Shia LaBeouf, resulting in far greater tension.

Straight from the opening credits, I felt that the set developed for the film was perfect, almost claustrophobic, allowing the camera to flow freely from window to window from Jeff's (Stewart) viewpoint as he keeps up on the lives of their occupants. 

Voyeurism is an addictive habit and one that everyone is guilty of to some degree. Jeff's visitors frown upon his behaviour initially but after becoming persuaded by the serious possibilities of what Jeff claims to have witnessed, they become equally obsessed. There is something about spying on someone who believes they are in a private environment that appeals to the seedy side of human nature and Hitchcock succeeds in reeling the audience in as they become voyeurs too through Jeff's eyes.

By the time Jeff and his budding detectives have put themselves in harms way, Hitchcock has taken the slow burning tension through the roof to great effect.

The view from Jeff's rear window

FILM: The Birds (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
I watched this as part of my voyage through some of Hitchcock's more famous films.

What's it all about?
San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) visits an isolated Californian coastal town to track down bachelor Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor). What she doesn't bargain for is the town being violently attacked by masses of birds.

Should you watch it?
I hadn't even heard of The Birds until a few weeks ago, let alone just never watched it. Now I am glad I have. In The Birds, Hitchcock created a really suspenseful 'monster' film, not with aliens or the like, but with the common bird fulfilling the 'monster' role. Using vast numbers of birds in some excellent shots, he skilfully gives the bird masses, in particular the crows, a menacing nature you would not think possible.

The attack scenes vary from somewhat camp and over the top to terrifying, think of the birds pecking through the front door in the final attack. By choosing not to use a score, Hitchcock ratchets up the suspense as the audience listens out for the crowing warning sounds of another attack.

Imagine the droppings

Underneath the bird attacks, the central story passes along a little slowly to begin with, serving only to get the protagonists in place, but I guess this, and the acknowledgements that something seems amiss with the local bird population, only builds up the suspense for what is to come later.

That the bird attacks are never explained only adds to the terror, was it the lovebirds, or was the terrified lady right, was it Melanie herself?

An accomplished horror based on a simple idea.

FILM: To Catch a Thief (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
So this was it, my first Hitchcock film. After making a New Year's resolution to dedicate some time to The Master of Suspense, I had the opportunity to watch To Catch a Thief on a plane recently.

What's it all about?
A string of jewel thefts from wealthy holidaymakers on the French Riviera lead the police to suspect that retired American burglar and Riviera resident John 'the Cat' Robie (Cary Grant) is not as retired as thought. Whilst protesting his innocence, Robie schemes to expose the copycat thief by getting close to a wealthy mother and daughter (Grace Kelly) with valuable jewels but can he be trusted?

Should you watch it?
Frankly speaking I was more than a little disappointed with To Catch a Thief. Watching it without knowing what to expect, the film seemed more style than substance and where provided, the substance is more romantic comedy and sexual innuendo than thriller. There is no doubt that Grant and Kelly have good chemistry as they flirt with each other throughout, using the witty script to good effect. Neither is there a doubt that the film must have looked impressive upon release, full as it is of shots of the Riviera and its grand hotels. Hitchcock manages to maintain intrigue over the question of Robie's intentions until the film's finale, but it would be kind to call this true suspense.

Enjoyable though the film was from a romantic adventure point of view, perhaps To Catch a Thief was not the best Hitchcock film for me to start with.