Rear Window

Rear Window was an interesting adaptation to observe for class.  Considering it was adapted from a short story, I think Alfred Hitchcock did an amazing job expanding the source material.  Hitchcock took the simple concept of staring out the window in a confined setting, and made it into an engaging 2-hour film. 

           

I first came across the film in a different class, and I was blown away that the movie took place almost exclusively inside the apartment.  As a matter of fact, there were only two shots that were taken outside of Jeff’s apartment.  In a story centered on a main character that spends his free time observing his neighbors through his window, this creates an interesting atmosphere for us viewers.  There is a parallel between the audiences looking unnoticed upon the life of Jeff through the screen, and Jeff looking unnoticed upon the life of his neighbors.  Since Jeff is unable to move around, the claustrophobic atmosphere through which we are forced to view Jeff’s life helps us connect to him.  The limited perspective really drew me in, the film managed to be engaging despite the fact that we’re stuck in Jeff’s apartment.  It was incredible to me that a 2-hour movie about a character looking out of a window managed to hold my attention so well.  Did anyone find the movie to be boring or lacking at all because of the atmosphere? 

I found this trailer to be really interesting; it describes Jeff's life as being shrunk down to the window, which I thought was a good illustration of what happened to Jeff when he broke his leg. 

I also thought it was interesting how in the short story, watching his neighbors was excused.  In the film however, it was questioned whether or not it was right to spy on his neighbor’s lives.  I think ultimately the film justified it, since it solved a murder.  It made me consider that as an audience, we enjoy watching the lives of other people.  We are outside observers of these character’s stories, that is what our entertainment is made up of.  Books, movies, and television aren't quite on the same level as watching your neighbors through the window, but it's still watching people's lives, and it's what we call entertainment.  Granted in film the people are fictional, but are we any better than Jeff? Is there anything wrong with what Jeff was doing?  Is it different for us because we look in on fictional characters where Jeff is watching actual people?  It’s a fascinating question that the film raises. 

Just briefly, this clip helps illustrate my point below.  After looking at it, think of how the characters were shown at the beginning, and how they evolved throughout the film.

One area I think the film did slightly better than the short story was opening up multiple storylines.  For a man who watched his neighbors all day, the short story really only focused on the life of the Thorwalds.  The short story did briefly discuss the other neighbors, but nothing much happened to them throughout the story.  The film gives life to the people Jeff is watching, there is more to them than there was originally.  Miss Lonelyhearts, The Songwriter, Miss Torso, and the newlyweds.  We see most of them differently by the end than we do at the beginning, because their characters actually evolve.  If felt that the characters in the movie were richer than the characters in the short story.  Anyone feel that the neighbors were just as engaging in the short story? Anyone think it would have been better to focus more on the Thorwalds? 

The Great Gatsby (2013)

The first time I read The Great Gatsby I didn’t enjoy it, but over time I’ve come to appreciate the tale.  Though I was familiar with the book and both movies, I still enjoyed reviewing The Great Gatsby for class.  I’d like to talk about both films individually, so for this blog I’ll focus on the 2013 version.  The 2013 version of The Great Gatsby is my personal favorite.  I think the best way to explain why, is that it captured the spirit of the novel.

Feel free to disagree, but I believe there were a few steps the film took that portrayed the novel better.  Modern audiences are used to faster paced films, it grabs our attention better.  As a videographer I’ve experienced how easy it is to lose people’s attention when your video is too slow.  Considering the novel covers 3 months, and the 1920s flowed much slower, the film seems to fly through the events.  I think the brevity of everything held my attention better, and made the film overall livelier.
 

If you would quickly watch this clip from the1974 film, and pay special attention to the dancing and music.

Now I know a lot of people disliked the music, but I think it actually contributed.  This is where I need to bring up the whole equivalence of meaning for this to make sense.  The driving scenes were much faster than they’d have actually looked, the parties were much more upbeat, and the dancing obviously wasn’t the Charleston that you’d expect from the 1920s.  What does that have to do with anything?  Well, I think the film was trying to put things in terms an audience 80 years later would understand.  When Gatsby was driving 50 miles per hour, maybe seemed as fast to someone from the 1920s as it did to us in the film.  Maybe the parties, which would have looked dreadfully slow to us, would have seemed to them as wild as the one the film showed looked to us.  The music caused a distraction since it was modern music contrasting the 1920s appearance.  That’s a fair point, but how distracting would the party scene have been if it were set to the actual music of the 1920s?  I think by attempting to put things in terms a modern audience would understand, they helped to better capture the spirit of the novel.

Imagine how the party would have looked matched up to the music from the previous clip... it wouldn't have worked very well would it?  This trailer showed a bit of everything I was talking about, the driving, the dancing, the music... it's very different from how the 1974 version depicts it.  It isn't necessarily a better depiction, but seeing the two side by side, did they both seem as wild a party to you as it was supposed to be?

As much as I enjoyed this film, and felt it represented the novel well, there were a few issues I had in terms of it faithfulness.  I may just be nitpicking, you can call me out on it, but there were two things story wise that I disliked.  The scene where Daisy has Gatsby over, in the book Gatsby is introduced to Daisy’s daughter.  I couldn’t recall seeing this in the movie, unless I just missed it.  It wasn’t a major event in the novel, but I thought it was an interesting event.  The child was a manifestation of Daisy and Tom’s relationship, which would still be present regardless of how things went for Gatsby.

There was also a slight twist at the end too that I personally didn’t enjoy.  Originally the press just claimed that it was a random murder by a madman, and in the movie the press turned it into a major scandal.  Gatsby’s death in the novel felt quiet and lonely, which the movie didn’t capture very well in my opinion.  Having the media trying to storm his mansion was a turn around from the novel where no one seemed to notice the passing of Gatsby. I couldn’t help but be disappointed by those details, but does anyone feel that the changes were an improvement?  Anyone feel that the film was just as fair as the novel regardless of those details?