Wednesday, September 10, 2008

New York City of the Mind: Rear Window Open Thread at Newcritics



The Wednesday Night at the Movies open thread at Newcritics is still accepting comments. Please feel free to stop by there and leave a comment, or do so right here. Next week's edition: Sweet Smell of Success.

The Siren spent a number of her early New York years in a rundown apartment on the fuzzy border between Harlem and Morningside Heights. Everything about it was ramshackle, including the wiring, and our doubts about whether the outlets could stand up to an air conditioner meant I spent several scorching summers with only a few fans. Naturally I got in the habit of sleeping naked. You would too. One night, having been out too late, I awoke in the wee hours and decided I wanted some milk to settle a drink-sozzled tummy. Since my roommates were dead to the world I just got up in the altogether and went to the kitchen, which faced a narrow airshaft and a window directly into the kitchen of the apartment in the next building. I didn't turn on the light. I opened the fridge, grabbed the milk carton and with the door still open, because the air felt good, I turned to grab a glass. And what should I see across the way but a neighbor, also stark naked, standing next to his fridge and also holding a carton of milk. I let out a shriek and bolted. I think he did the same.

Say what you will about New York, that kind of thing probably doesn't happen much in Dubuque. (And right now any readers I have in Dubuque are saying "Thank god.")

But this brings me to Rear Window. Like all great movies it offers many avenues for interpretation, but today the Siren is after the question of what it may tell us about living in New York.

Did you know that sellers of telescopes and binoculars do a brisk business in New York? Just one problem--the incredible amount of light pollution in the city makes stars quite hard to see. People aren't buying this stuff to look at Neptune. As with this woman quoted by the New York Times, they're hoping to "see something totally unexpected." Life being life, and not the movies, they usually don't. But, like James Stewart's photographer, still they look.

People go to great lengths in this most crowded of American cities to preserve a sense of privacy. If you live here, or visit, take some time on the subway to observe the almost balletic maneuvers that New Yorkers will make to preserve a sense of personal space as the car gets crowded. Americans in general don't like people standing too close, but an average New Yorker needs Yankee Stadium around his body to feel truly comfortable. So observe, too, the way New Yorkers react to someone who, whether deliberately or out of ignorance, doesn't get it and insists on full-frontal contact with another passenger--the dirty looks, the impatient sighs, the way the New Yorker twists away from the clueless interloper. If an argument should start, though, notice how no one appears to be listening. They are, trust me. Just drop by Overheard in New York. We are constantly listening and looking. But we also do a good job of not seeing things if we feel we shouldn't--the girl crying silently on the train, the neighbor whose anatomy you know better than you should.

The classic interpretation of Rear Window is as a metaphor for both moviemaking and movie-watching, Jeff (Stewart) standing in for both Alfred Hitchcock himself and those people out there in the dark. The murder drives the plot, but it is far from the only thing that grabs you in that vast array of windows so impossibly arranged across Jeff's courtyard. You also focus on the composer, who is having a hard time with his art despite living in the most desirable apartment in the building (that's a very New York observation, sorry). There's Miss Lonelyhearts, kindhearted but hating every minute of being single. There's Miss Torso, doing her calisthenics and entertaining an all-male party (why all men?). There's the (probably) childless couple, lowering the wife's beloved dog into the garden every morning for a romp. There's the honeymoon couple...well, they're the most boring for sure.


Rear Window is one of cinema's greatest uses of the subjective camera. Our point of view across the courtyard is always Jeff's, keeping our identification with him. So his dilemmas become ours, which is why the Siren thinks the Jeff-as-film-director-and-audience viewpoint is true, but not probing enough. Where's the quandary in that? In both cases, people are just doing their jobs, the director making the movie and the audience watching it. Both acts are morally neutral. You can throw around the word "voyeur," but it's the reaction to what you see that counts. In the context of 1954, with Joe Breen and his minions on smut patrol, it's amusing to note the ways Hitchcock introduces a non-stop series of sexual innuedos, from Jeff's (ahem) highly extendable telephoto lens to Lisa (Grace Kelly) holding up a filmy negligee and announcing "Preview of coming attractions." (This is the favorite part of every male the Siren has ever discussed the movie with.) Still, there's nothing particularly daring about pointing out to a movie audience that they want to be entertained, or even titillated, by other people's lives.

The real question of Rear Window isn't about the morality of looking, it's about the ethics of intervention. A little less than a decade after the movie's release, a young woman was murdered in Kew Gardens, Queens, stabbed to death within earshot of neighbors who mostly dismissed her screams. While later research led to doubts about whether the neighbors realized Kitty Genovese was fighting for her life, the story passed into legend, the ultimate indictment of people not wanting to get involved. And to this day it's used as an example of the unique callousness of New Yorkers.

Rear Window, however, is Kitty Genovese in reverse: rather than "I didn't want to get involved," it's New Yorkers getting very involved indeed. "I'm not much on rear-window ethics," says Lisa, but the movie asks us to become just that. At what point are you looking at things you shouldn't--when you witness one neighbor drunkenly trashing his work, or another's despairing loneliness? And when are you obligated to act--when you see that neighbor trying to kill herself? All right, that one is easy. But how about when you suspect a murder, but can't prove it, and can't get the police interested, either?

Only three creatures in the movie pay a real price for observing, and in all cases their undoing comes when they get involved. Jeff breaks his other leg. Thorwald (Raymond Burr), the murderer, sees Jeff across the courtyard and comes after him, only to get caught. Presumably he will pay the ultimate price off-camera. But the one whose curiosity ends in death on screen is the neighbor's dog, who scratches in the flowerbeds where Thorwald has buried some part of his wife. When the dog's body is discovered, his owner flings her anger across the courtyard:


Which one of you did it? Which one of you killed my dog? You don't know the meaning of the word 'neighbor.' Neighbors like each other, speak to each other, care if anybody lives or dies, but none of you do. But I couldn't imagine any of you bein' so low that you'd kill a little helpless, friendly dog - the only thing in this whole neighborhood who liked anybody. Did ya kill him because he liked ya? Just because he liked ya?


As if to emphasize their complicity, Hitchcock gives us a shot of each neighbor. But is the dog owner's accusation entirely fair? The Siren looks at Miss Lonelyhearts, tenderly placing the dog's body in his basket for the last time, and thinks not. The stricken faces around the courtyard don't suggest casual disinterest. Maybe the characters don't trill "Good morning!" (though we do see some greeting going on) and inquire after everyone's health, but let's face it, that can be either heart-warming or annoying as hell. Many people move to big cities to get away from small-town nosiness. And we've been spending our time with Jeff and Lisa, who definitely care whether Mrs. Thorwald lived or died. After the speech everyone moves away from the window, except Lisa and Jeff (and us, via Hitchcock's camera). But the most guilty person in the movie, the one who killed his wife, strangled a dog and doesn't go to look, is Thorwald. The shot of his apartment, dark save for the glow of his cigarette, is the Siren's favorite in Rear Window.

Could this movie have been about any city other than New York? Possibly, but it wouldn't have hit the same truths. Because New York is a city where neighbors ostentatiously stay out of each other's business when they're out on the sidewalk, then go home and do everything they can to find out what's happening across the air shaft. Sometimes, as with what the Siren's roommates later dubbed the "milkman incident," your discoveries are accidental. More frequently, you're looking on purpose. Either way, you gather information but usually don't need, or even want, to act on it. When the Siren encountered the milkman on the street a few weeks later, we did an excellent job of pretending It Never Happened.

Certainly Hitchcock is teasing the audience for its need to watch, and giving us a taste of being behind the camera, able to influence events but not dictate them entirely. The director is said to have loved storyboards, planning every shot and trying to mold every scene to the way it unspooled in his head. Well, like most legends that one isn't entirely true. But even if you take it for granted that Hitchcock was a control freak, what an actor does when the cameras turn is something that can never be completely controlled--for that you'd need a marionette. (Cattle, to cite Hitchcock's notorious comparison, can be even less biddable than a recalcitrant star.) Jeff's lack of power--his initial inability to catch Thorwald, his helplessness while watching Lisa in danger, his immobility when the murderer comes stomping up the stairs for him--is a highly exaggerated version of the way New Yorkers see more in a day than they can possibly react to.

In the penultimate scene, Thorwald confronts Jeff and asks "What do you want from me?" The question could be addressed to us as New Yorkers. What do we want? We make our lives here because our fellow New Yorkers are interesting, and because interesting things happen here. We want to observe the stories around us, but we also want to be left alone as we live out our own.

You gotta problem with that?


***


There is a great deal more to be said about Rear Window, of course, and the Siren hopes to hear many people saying it tonight at 9 pm Eastern Daylight Time at the Newcritics open thread. Bring up all the stuff I didn't, like the incredibly great Thelma Ritter--is she the movie's conscience? Or does that honor belong to Lisa, a character celebrated for her incredible wardrobe but often derided for what Molly Haskell called "chic vacuousness"? Speaking of chic, the costumes are phenomenal, some of the best Edith Head ever did. And maybe there's someone out there brave enough to go contrarian and plump for David Thomson's view, that Hitchcock was ultimately rather shallow. Come by and get involved.

41 comments:

Karen said...

Sorry I missed it, Siren; I had an event to go to.

Rear Window is my favorite Hitchcock, and I could go on for hours about it. (I won't. I'm not a SADIST.) I will say that any male whose favorite part isn't Grace Kelly saying "Preview of coming attractions"--followed closely by the breathtaking shot when she removes her demure mint-green jacket to reveal that spectacular backless white halter--isn't the kind of male I'd want to get involved with.

My own personal favorite is the ay the camera slows like a hallucination when Kelly beds down to kiss Stewart. But that's followed closely by yours, Siren: Thorvald's cigarette tip glowing in the dark apartment, while everyone runs to listen to the dogowner's reproach. Speaking of which, I've seen this film so many times that, reading that speech, I could hear the actress' voice perfectly in my head, every pause and intonation and inflection. Uncanny!

I agree that the film isn't just about voyeurism, but about involvement. I may even have said in other comments on this site that Jeff is not just a voyeur, he's a professional voyeur, paid to look through a lens and record what's happening to other people. The moment he stops watching and gets involved--when he gets too close on the racetrack--he gets injured, and becomes a forced voyeur.

His past involvement, on the racetrack, leads to more voyeurism, which leads to a desire for involvement which he can't satisfy. Stewart's frustration and panic and anxiety when Jeff sees Lisa attacked by Thorvald is beautifully, beautifully played. I don't know how anyone can watch it without squirming in their own chair. And as a result, again, from the safety of his viewing chair, the involvement comes in on top of him, in the person of the looming Thorvald in Jeff's own apartment--and in another broken leg.

Russell Baker, back when he still wrote a column for the NYTimes, made a wonderful observation about New Yorkers. We live in our safe havens, our little boxes in buildings stacked full of little boxes, and when we leave them each morning we walk through crowded streets to crowded subways taking us to crowded offices. Once we walk out our apartment doors we are aggressively in the public eye, and so the compact that New Yorkers make with each other is that we carry our little boxes around with us, like invisible turtle shells. We don't make eye contact, we don't intrude on each others' space--even though we may observe, and do observe each other--because that violates that compact by which we all have an illusion of the privacy that the suburbanite has, say, in his or her car.

I think that's true. We do carry around our privacy with us, like an invisible Cone of Silence. And mostly it works. Sometimes something breaks through--we see someone do something nutty, or we see a particularly adorable and unself-conscious child, and then we see that others are looking too, and we smile in mutual recognition. These are wonderful New York moments--shared moments of delight, or of the absurd.

And that's what Rear Window captures so beautifully, and what makes it such a quintessentially NYC film, despite being filmed on a lot: that sense of private lives lived in public view, the compact that allows that to happen, and what happens when that compact is broken.

Karen said...

My own personal favorite is the ay the camera slows like a hallucination when Kelly beds down to kiss Stewart.

Yikes! That's "way" and "bends." My keyboard must be sticking!

Vanwall said...

Karen, you should post on the thread anyway - this is very good. I threw something over there myself, even if I was late. Thanks for the invite, Siren.

Gerard Jones said...

I just want to reassure Karen that my favorite part of Rear Window is definitely Grace Kelly saying "Preview of coming attractions," followed closely by the breathtaking shot when she removes her demure mint-green jacket to reveal that spectacular backless white halter.

(Man. Lucky I read her post before I said my favorite part was when Raymond Burr is advancing savagely on a helpless Jimmy Stewart...)

Karen said...

Thanks, vanwall, I'm honored!

Oh, and Gerard, you know I'd make an exception for you!

Jacqueline T Lynch said...

Great post. Also love those scenes mentioned, and the one in the middle of the night when it's raining, and Stewart briefly wakes, thinking he has heard an act of violence, but drowsily isn't sure. Creepy.

David C said...

I like the little car horns that sound, incredibly and increasingly distant, as Lisa recites her name in response to Jeff's "Who are you?"

Campaspe said...

Karen, I have a pal who has spent the better part of a shopping lifetime trying to find a version of that halter. Me, I don't want to spark the comparison.

Your comment is so fabulous I have little to add, except to say I wish it had been part of my post, and that you'd made it over to Newcritics last night.

That said, you'll never convince "bed down" wasn't a major Freudian slip. :)

Campaspe said...

Gerard, I was un-pc enough to say my favorite part involved cancer sticks so I need no such reassurance. If you'd picked anything other than Grace I probably wouldn't have believed you anyway. :)

Jacqueline, thanks for reminding me of that scene! Last night at Newcritics some people were saying they found Hitchcock's pacing a bit slow. Me, I find that his best movies have slow, subtle moments like that scene of an awakening Stewart to balance the pulse-pounding setpieces that we all remember from Hitchcock.

David, the sound design in the movie is fully as marvelous as the set, and something I wish I had brought up too. Last night Tom Watson was remarking on how the actors in the building were often across the set from the microphones, giving their voices realism and eeriness at the same time.

DavidEhrenstein said...

Rear Window is New York in the 50's ie. my childhood. Ah yes, I remeber it well. Rents were cheap in "bohemian" Greenwich Village. As you will note, air-conditioning hasn't arrived. Had it been there -- no movie.

Somehwere Dawn Powell is writing another novel while Anatole Broyard is scoring with chicks while passing himself off as white. "Beatniks" are just beginning to stir the cultural air. And Frank O'Hara is writing a poem in the typewriter that used to sit outside of the Olivetti tyypewriter store on 5th ave.

Meanwhile at the Plaza. . .

Get the picture? Hitchcock does.

Campaspe said...

David it's always kind of painful for me to read about NYC in the 50s and early 60s because dearly as I love it now, I think that may have been the city's golden age. You could see a soon-to-be-classic play on Broadway for a few bucks, walk to Toots Shor's for a drink and then repair to the Village for the best of jazz.

I realize that there was a great deal of turmoil under the surface, but all the same, it must have been swell.

X. Trapnel said...

Agreed about "Preview of coming attractions," but has anyone ever noticed how pretty Mrs. Thorwald is in that slip? All wasted on lumpish Lars.

Campaspe said...

oh but my goodness, Mrs. T is a harpy, however pretty. The tip-off is when he puts a rose on her breakfast tray and she tosses it away. This is part of why I think Roger Ebert is wrong about Thorwald being entirely unsympathetic.

X. Trapnel said...

True, but we never learn the whole story. We're always guessing and inventing when we observe life in fragments.
Siren, I'm trying to resist your gauntlet regarding David Thomson on Hitchcock, but I will say that if Hitchcock is "superficial" then so are Hopper (soul brother to L.B. Jeffries), Nabokov, and Kafka. The question is whether alienation, the irrational, and the arbitrariness of life in the modern urban world can be expressed within the supposed confines of "commercial" cinema. The mere fact that Hitchcock remains so endlessly discussible not only in these general terms, but also in terms of the the daily business of living (as the Siren's post so eleoquently shows)exonerates him of Thomson's charge. By contrast, The Sweet Smell of Success, a great film and a great NY film dramatizes a world and a way of life that no longer exist. something like Rear Window is happening somewhere in the city. We still live in Hitchcock's world and it still lives in us.

X. Trapnel said...

And Roger Ebert is wrong about so many things (in inverse proportion to David Thomson who's only wrong about Bogart and Hitchcock). Let'a add Thorwald's pleading and broken "What do you want from me?"

Campaspe said...

X. Trapnel, I do like Ebert very much, especially when he is writing about the great films he truly adores. Thomson is more provocative, but also far more wrong about John Ford, for example. Today I am disagreeing with the great Roger on that Thorwald point, but I want us to go easy on him. At the moment Dirty Harry has a schoolyard taunt up that in turn provoked the ugliest comments thread I have ever seen on a film blog, left or right. I'm sure Ebert didn't even notice it, but I am still in shock.

Anyway, Thomson. No need to ignore him, just don't bring up his glasses! When I first read Biographical Dictionary of Film I was ready to rip out pages but now I love the book, never more than when I completely disagree. I can see what Thomson's saying on Hitch to a certain extent, but I think it's applicable only to Hitchcock's minor works, certainly not something like Shadow of a Doubt or this movie. I think he makes a fundamental error of conflating Hitchcock's interview persona, which was deliberately kept at an ironic distance, with what he was after once he was behind the camera. There's nothing shallow about Rear Window, although you can certainly interpret it on a shallow level. I was trying to burrow a little deeper, as you do too.

"The question is whether alienation, the irrational, and the arbitrariness of life in the modern urban world can be expressed within the supposed confines of "commercial" cinema." Yes! and what makes Rear Window all the more remarkable is that Hitchcock's milieu often isn't all that urban. He could do country-house dread, sinister vacations or urban alienation. His preoccupations adapt well.

X. Trapnel said...

Ok, let me pull back a bit from my Ebert swipe (he does, after all, loathe Dead Poets Society). Perhaps I only hold against him some obtuse comments on Laura (specifically the characters of Laura and Mark--when will people finally realize that McPh is the true poet/aesthete and that Waldo is a bogus, materialist collecter?). Re Thomson: The Biographical Dictionary is for me the single, indispensible desert island film book and even when I find Thomson perverse or "wrong" I sense that his opinions are grounded in ambivalence, an argument with the self that yields rare insight and an escape from dogmatic assertion whether positive or negative. His rejection of Ford (which I reluctantly share--so much greatness, so much awfulness often in the same film) is rooted in a dismay with the nature of film itself that is ultimately a tribute to Ford. What seems to elude him about Hitchcock is that the violence and terror in his films coexist in dramatic conflict with an essential humaneness and beauty that gtive them weight, resonance, and open-endedness (let's never forget, for example, how riveting and memorable Hitchcock's characters are). If Hitchcock's films were simply closed systems for producing momentary thrills and chills why are they always breaking out into emotional realms where few of his contemporaries ventured? As much as I love and admire Hawks (Thomson's hero), the Hawksian cockpit is truly a closed system wherein characters stand or fall by stylishness and an often admirable moral correctness, not much room for ambiguity.

Campaspe said...

"What seems to elude him about Hitchcock is that the violence and terror in his films coexist in dramatic conflict with an essential humaneness and beauty that gtive them weight, resonance, and open-endedness (let's never forget, for example, how riveting and memorable Hitchcock's characters are)."

Absolutely. And what makes for minor or (in the single case of Frenzy) truly dreadful Hitchcock is when his humaneness is abandoned, and we're left with the director, pulling the wings off the characters and watching them flail for life.

DavidEhrenstein said...

It was indeed swell, campaspe. The top price for a Broadway musical was $9.95. EVERYONE went to see shows. Three or four times a year at least. They were made for a large paying public. After six months when the replacement cast came in so did the out of town tourists. Now Broadway as all about the tourists.

In 1951 I was five years-old when my parents took me to my first show -- Guys and Dolls with the original cast. When Stubby Kaye got up and sang "Sit Down You're Rockin' the Boat" I was a total goner for musical.

X. Trapnel said...

Excellent point; Hitchcock fails when he himself is the malign first cause. At his best, though, he is the dark corrolary to Renoir's sunlit humanism: Everyone has their unreasons.

BEH said...
This post has been removed by the author.
StinkyLulu said...

I think I love you, Siren.

I also just adore this piece.

Perhaps because my favorite part of the movie has forever been the "community" of neighbors. (Though I do have a love for the negligee moment, too. How much feminine wonderment does she have tucked away in that discreet clutch?)

But, truly, the moment with Miss Lonelyhearts, the dog, and the basket? Slays me every f'n time...

Gerard Jones said...

Elegant words about Hitchcock's humaneness. Thanks to all. Vertigo, for example, could have been just a well-made creepshow, except for all the effort he (and the writers and actresses) put into making Midge and Judy so human and sweet, and using them both to give Scotty such clear avenues to normal happiness.

Midge, with her worried glances, is a constant reminder that Scotty is basically, mostly, a good guy, and he could live a fulfilling life if he could just get over that one obsession.

Judy, when we see her as a shopgirl, laughing with her coworkers, shows us that beyond the annihilating glamor of "Carlotta" there is a compromised and messy but nurturing real life that Scotty can connect with if he will just let Judy be Judy. And what does them all in is not just Scotty's madness but Judy's desire to make him happy, and Midge's desire to let him make his own decisions, her hope and trust that he will ultimately choose sanity.

I can hardly think of another movie that makes that motherly love of a woman for a wounded man more palpable and believable. A much more adult and interesting portrait of the way men and women really interact than that other Novak movie of the same period, Picnic. I like Picnic, but its emotionality feels much more artificial and two-dimensional than Vertigo's. The latter is a terribly human story, maybe a too human story. Which is why I find it, and Hitch's other best movies, bittersweet and haunting, not just spooky.

Campaspe said...

Ah D., you saw Stubby Kaye! I. Am. So. Jealous. Truly. When I talk to people who were here for that era they often get teary for what we don't have anymore. I can see why.

StinkyLulu, back atcha. You, X. Trapnel, Gerard, Karen and Vanwall, who also posted over at Newcritics -- I can't believe the insight this post is unleashing. If I had known it would prompt this sort of eloquence I would have written up a Hitch masterpiece a long time ago.

Gerard, if you've written up Vertigo link us right now. If not, I really want to see a full post.

Gerard Jones said...

I've never written anything on Hitch before, except an email here and there. Now you've got me wanting to, Campaspe--but all my blogging is consumed these days either with one of my books in progress or this election. It's definitely something I'll get to, though, once I can bring my blog back to movies again (which is what I mainly intended my "Second Act" blog to be about in the first place, before the election drama seized me.)

darkcitydame4e said...

Hi! Self~Styled Siren,

This will be my first time posting on your eBloggerspot. And I must admit I am a "Hitchcock Fanatic" Yes, I own the 2 Disc(s) "Special Edition" of Hitchcock's film "Rear Window." (To be honest,I own almost all of his films!) Btw, another blog that I post on plan to feature a 31 days "tribute" to Hitch's films in October! Yay!

Campaspe said...

Hey Gerard: Tonight on TCM, three Borzages! Three Comrades (seen it, excellent); Secrets (will watch this one, Pickford's swan song); and Shipmates Forever, which I know zero about.

DarkCityDame, welcome! What's on Disc 2? I will definitely check out the Hithcock marathon.

Gerard Jones said...

Three Borzages I've never seen! I'm setting the TiVo now. Thanks, Siren!

darkcitydame4e said...

Oops!...I am so sorry! Self~Styled Siren, that was my first post yesterday on your blog and I made the "ultimate"
Hitch mistake!(smile)...I confused Hitch's film (The Collector Edition) of "Rear Window" with my other fav Hitch's flick "Strangers on a Train." (2 disc Special edition)(Btw, SoaT is my fave Hitch flick, therefore, I must be going through what fans of SoaT sometime experience after watching SoaT too many times..."Sotbd" "commonly" known as... "Stranger on the "brain" drain!")
Tks,

operator_99 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
operator_99 said...

Completely off topic, but not sure where to post this. I read your contribution to "Film Criticism in the Age of the Internet: A Critical Symposium" in the latest issue of Cineaste. I must say that first it was odd reading you in a different person, but your take on the co-existence of internet and print criticism seems one of the more balanced opinions - there are certainly some strong opinions expressed by the 20 or so contributors. And I agree wholeheartedly with your opening comment: "The Internet has been a democratic revolution in film criticism, giving ordinary cinephiles an ability to be heard that didn’t exist before. In terms of critical interaction, we are living in a golden age." I hope everyone gets an opportunity to read the piece, as it should give current and future bloggers a quite a bit to chew on.

Vanwall said...

I forgot to add a bit about the Kitty Genovese murder, which actually may have been influenced to a degree by "Rear Window" as far as reinforcing a crowd mentality to "stay out of it, whatever it is". As pointed out in the NYT retrospective article, quite a few people must've heard what was going on, but only a very few saw anything - Moseley, the killer, stated that the man at the top of the stairs where Kitty was finally overtaken had actually opened his door and looked out quickly before closing it. This was a Jeffries moment, unfortunately not followed through in real life. Moseley also was supremely confident of getting away with it, because no doubt he'd seen this kind of group thinking before. If not for a detective's chance question to the murderer himself, it may have gone unsolved for much longer, possibly forever.

Recommended reading is "Chief!", an excellent biography of Albert Seedman's career in the NYPD where he eventually rose to Chief of Detectives, and it has a first-hand account of this case, (among many other spectacular cases), with a lot of interesting facts, especially about the absolutely chilling final moments as reconstructed. Moseley was a budding misogynist serial killer, a psychopath to give you nightmares. At one point, the NYPD was wondering if Kitty's sexual orientation had anything to do with her murder - she was gay, and there was informal speculation that may have played a part in the indifference some of the potential witnesses may have had.

It wasn't easy - getting answers was like pulling teeth, and I still don't think the cops got all of info. The book has a number of these "mute witness" moments in other cases, as well, and it's a kind of motif thru it. Fortunately, there are an amazing number of instances of the casual New Yorker noticing mundane details that lead to solutions, and in the Kitty Genovese case, that mattered a lot, after all.

This kind of mass don't-give-a-damn isn't particular to NYC, either - the recent scandal on the beach regarding Gypsy children drowning was just another example - it'll never stop.

Vanwall said...

Ops, I forgot to add the Gypsy incident was in Italy.

Alexa said...

Siren, thank you for this one!

Gerard Jones said...

Operator 99, thanks for pointing us to Campaspe's contribution to that online symposium. And I certainly agree about the "democratic revolution." I doubt that I would ever have written about movies if not for blogs, but I find that it's gratifying, that some other people seem to value what I have to say, and that it may even point some new directions in my writing career.

And Vanwall: very interesting linkage of Rear Window to the Kitty Genovese case, but man...I really can't see it as contributing to it. This is something I've thought and written about quite a bit, the ways media influence behavior and also the ways we ASSUME an influence when in fact there's only a correspondence. I just don't see Rear Window actually affecting the behaviors either of the killer or of the witness.

What I do see, though, is that Cornell Woolrich (who wrote the original story) and the moviemakers were aware of how the growing urban culture of anonymity might affect the concealment and discovery of a murder, and so were exploring some social developments that came to a head in a particular gruesome way in the Genovese case. Both the fiction and the reality might have been caused by the same social trends, but I'd be really hesitant to see the fiction as causal to the fact.

Vanwall said...

Gerard -
I posted a little regarding Woolrich and "Rear Window" on the Newcritics thread, and there were interesting differences in character developements between the two. I'm not saying "Rear Window" is a causal event, and only marginally complementary, what I really meant to express was the acceptance of prevailing popular culture as a kind societal zietgiest, and there's plenty of evidence that unintentional manipulation happens along those lines, like a Kuleshov effect that is happening only your head - what you see onscreen only reinforces what you interpret something you see in real life, which could be easily turned the other way by a different movie experience. It's a smoke 'em if you got 'em effect.

Gerard Jones said...

Thanks for the clarification, VanWall. I just too often see movies, TV, and other popular arts, in their effort to comment on the worst social realities, accused of fostering them. I regret missing the Newcritics evening. I think I'll go see if I can still read the threat right now...

Apure said...

Dear Siren, I should not mention this after your bright, clever post on Rear Window (a favorite of mine since ages), but Born to Be Bad is out in France, under the deceptive title of La femme aux maléfices. I watched it yesterday evening, and thought of your excellent posts about Fontaine. How is she in Born to Be Bad ? Well, actually rather creepy, which is to the point. Here's the link to Editions Montparnasse, which has a wonderful RKO collection : http://www.editionsmontparnasse.fr/titres/la-femme-aux-malefices

Tonio Kruger said...

Rear Window is one of my favorite Hitchcock movies and it's no coincidence that it's one of the first Hitchcock movies I ever possessed on DVD.

I was actually fortunate enough to see it on the big screen when they re-released it to certain arts theatres back in the late 1990s.

Anyway, this was a great article, Campaspe. But I suspect you knew that.

DavidEhrenstein said...

Here's Howie Kurtz, the "Media Critic" of Pravda, on Drudge. For those of you not in the know, Mrs. Howie is Sheri Annis -- an extremely hogh-ranking Republican operative who was responsible for making Arnold governor of California.

These creatures are lower than pond scum.

DavidEhrenstein said...

Whoops -- worng thread!