I remember seeing this film in 1987. I was 15 years old, on holidays and having a bit of a rest after a day of touring around. There was nothing else in English on the hotel TV, so I thought I would give it a shot.
That day I had an awakening. Up until then, I had been raised on a diet of action and thrillers, big on spectacle and short on script. I was blithely following the trends of my peers, more interested in the latest blockbuster than trying to find anything on my own. I had also dismissed any of my parents' favourites as boring talkfests. I had reluctantly sat through their viewing of North By Northwest and Vertigo and not really understood the value in their narrative. The action in these films was interspersed with long periods of dialog which did not appeal to my diet rich in Stallone and Schwarzenegger.
But I would give this one a go. And was seriously impressed. I had thought that films produced before I was born were a cultural wasteland just waiting for the advent of special effects. Ah, the pride of teenagers. This movie had Jimmy Stewart displaying his considerable acting chops while being limited to a single room. In a wheelchair. And his focus must have been sorely tested with Grace Kelly smoking up the set. Talk about class. Talk about chemistry.
And what a unique film. Forget for a moment the top shelf acting and script. Technically, this was a brilliant film. To my young eyes, I knew there was something "different" about this film. It was all shot on a sound stage, with a purpose built apartment building, no musical score and with most shots originating from Jimmy Stewart's apartment. Hitchcock was forcing us to live the life of the voyeur through Stewart's experiences.
Imagine pitchcing this sort of movie today:
"We're going to take one of Hollywood's leading men.."
"Like Tom Cruise? Good, I like it."
".... and pair him up with a hot young actress..."
"Like Cameron Diaz? This just gets better!"
"...and we'll put him in a wheelchair, he gets to spy on his neighbors and we're not sure if he's seen a murder or not."
Pause. "Okay, you lost me there. How many car chases do we have?"
"None. It's all shot on a sound stage."
"Hmm. How about the murder scene?"
"We never get to see it."
"You're losing me. There has to be some kind of fight or something!"
"There is! He gets to fend off the bad guy using..."
"A gun! No, an axe!"
"Better! A flashbulb!"
Pause. "Get out. I suggest you don't dawdle, I have released the hounds."
In looking up this film, I was surprised that it didn't win any Academy Awards and completely missed out on any acting nominations. Okay, so it was up against On The Waterfront. And it wouldn't be the Academy without making boneheaded decisions every now and then. But come on, surely there was some artistic merit to this film.
This is one of those films that requires a certain maturity to view. To my mind, it needs to be shown to a growing teenager (say, around 14) to remind them of their own cultural heritage, that there was something before the internet, before CGI effects. It is a wonderful movie to show on a rainy afternoon, when there are no other distractions and your teenager is trapped inside the house. It is the sort of film you will want to keep under the radar. Rent it out with a handful of other movies and slip in in to the DVD player in the same way that my wife will make herself gorgeous and say, "What, this old thing?" Don't make a big fuss about it.
Either your child will get it or they won't. And if they don't get it, don't despair. Just save it for another rainy day.
And what a unique film. Forget for a moment the top shelf acting and script. Technically, this was a brilliant film. To my young eyes, I knew there was something "different" about this film. It was all shot on a sound stage, with a purpose built apartment building, no musical score and with most shots originating from Jimmy Stewart's apartment. Hitchcock was forcing us to live the life of the voyeur through Stewart's experiences.
Imagine pitchcing this sort of movie today:
"We're going to take one of Hollywood's leading men.."
"Like Tom Cruise? Good, I like it."
".... and pair him up with a hot young actress..."
"Like Cameron Diaz? This just gets better!"
"...and we'll put him in a wheelchair, he gets to spy on his neighbors and we're not sure if he's seen a murder or not."
Pause. "Okay, you lost me there. How many car chases do we have?"
"None. It's all shot on a sound stage."
"Hmm. How about the murder scene?"
"We never get to see it."
"You're losing me. There has to be some kind of fight or something!"
"There is! He gets to fend off the bad guy using..."
"A gun! No, an axe!"
"Better! A flashbulb!"
Pause. "Get out. I suggest you don't dawdle, I have released the hounds."
In looking up this film, I was surprised that it didn't win any Academy Awards and completely missed out on any acting nominations. Okay, so it was up against On The Waterfront. And it wouldn't be the Academy without making boneheaded decisions every now and then. But come on, surely there was some artistic merit to this film.
This is one of those films that requires a certain maturity to view. To my mind, it needs to be shown to a growing teenager (say, around 14) to remind them of their own cultural heritage, that there was something before the internet, before CGI effects. It is a wonderful movie to show on a rainy afternoon, when there are no other distractions and your teenager is trapped inside the house. It is the sort of film you will want to keep under the radar. Rent it out with a handful of other movies and slip in in to the DVD player in the same way that my wife will make herself gorgeous and say, "What, this old thing?" Don't make a big fuss about it.
Either your child will get it or they won't. And if they don't get it, don't despair. Just save it for another rainy day.
No comments:
Post a Comment