Thursday, Aug. 27, 2009

'Rear Window' stands up to prevailing movie tricks

By Ed Robertson, special to the Herald

Like all members of my generation, I only know if things exist if The Simpsons has made fun of it. I wouldn't have known there were parts of the world that weren't America if not for that episode where they go to that country where all the animals live in pouches.

For movies, The Simpsons (and the other, lesser shows like it) reference a lot of stuff that is, and let's just be honest here, boring. Last week I checked out a hilariously bad movie called Frogs that the video case compared to Hitchcock's The Birds--you know, like how Pearl Harbor is pretty much the same movie as Saving Private Ryan--but for those of us who've only seen the references, not the originals, how does a renowned classic like 1954's Rear Window look to eyes raised on modern movies?

Confined to his apartment while his broken leg heals, Jimmy Stewart has taken to amusing himself by watching his neighbors across the way. One night, he thinks he sees a murder, but without any way to gather proof, Stewart's friends think he's gone stir-crazy.

So, Rear Window is good. It's a compelling plot with witty dialogue. Hitchcock's direction is strong on visual storytelling and in advancing that story one detail at a time.

Now that crap's out of the way, on to what's important: is it humanly possible to sit through it? Ignore the rubber chickens in my hands, I'm being serious. I like the original Manchurian Candidate a lot, but I think the remake is more entertaining, in the sense that things actually happen.

The more movies I watch, the more importance I place on editing. Back in the day, editors didn't have our fancy star wipes and jump cuts to inflame our senses and remind us why life is worth living. Rear Window's scenes just fade to black all the time. It seems minor, but it slows the pacing down in a noticeable way.

It's also content to develop its characters in ways that aren't plot-relevant. This is genuinely interesting, but it's a tradeoff in terms of keeping things moving, especially with that sluggish editing and a lack of the trick shots, musical mood stings, and frantic stylistic hand-waving we take for granted.

Yet this lack of tricks and distraction makes what's there feel oddly fresh. If it's light on modern style, it's equally light on modern cliches. I do have a harder time watching older movies. Modern pacing is a real accomplishment. But when a movie's got as much going for it as Rear Window, the good stuff shines through without all the techniques we've drummed up to make it better.