Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Underwhelmed By Greatness?
Have you ever had this experience? Have you ever sat down with a book, a film, an album, what have you, that you’ve heard from time immemorial was a classic and thought…eh? Maybe you would have liked it if you had come to it cold, but it just couldn’t bear the weight of its own legacy.
I’ve always been a big Alfred Hitchcock fan. Vertigo is one of my favorite films of all time. The episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents entitled “Breakdown” is one of the most gripping 30 minutes of television I’ve ever seen (you can find it on Netflix or Amazon). While I’ve worked my way through most of the Hitchcock corpus, I had, until recently, somehow failed to make the time for Rear Window, considered one of the director’s all-time classics. Finding myself with some unexpected free time on a recent Sunday, I popped it up on Netflix. And, well…eh.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a solid film. The acting is stellar, confining the action primarily to Jimmy Stewart’s apartment was clever (it’s essentially the movie equivalent of a bottle episode), and there are some moments of genuine suspense. Overall, however, I came away underwhelmed. Without giving too much away (although, to be fair, the film is 60 years old, so a spoiler alert is an act of charity), the tension in the plot runs as follows: one of the main characters either did A or did B. In the end, it turns out he did B. Not exactly white-knuckle stuff.
Now, to be fair to the film, I probably would have had a much different reaction had I seen it in a cinema in 1954. In 2015, however, when thrillers go to baroque lengths to hide the ball on plot twists, Rear Window seemed almost pedestrian by comparison. Had it been some obscure little film, I probably would have delighted in it. As a movie that’s so deeply engrained in pop culture, however, that my first consciousness of it came through a childhood viewing of a Simpsons episode, it had a higher bar to clear.
And, honestly, that feels, at some level, like a disservice to the film. But there’s simply no way to decouple my reaction from the expectations created by decades worth of hype.
What “masterpieces” have you come to late, only to discover that your expectations were disappointed?
Published in Entertainment, Literature
Russian orchestral works and art song= yes! Russian opera= no.
Oh, Troy…and I had such high hopes for you. At some point you need to give Rear Window another viewing. Maybe wait a few weeks. All of the other apartments that Stewart spies on is Hitchcock’s running commentary on the state or stages of male/female relationships – promiscuity, affairs, desperation, loneliness, rejection, endless/exhaustive marital sex at the beginning of marriage, new found love, and the evil resolution of a loveless marriage – murder of one’s spouse. All these lives and episodes are reflected in the relationship that Stewart has with Grace Kelly that at select moments is warm, tender, playful, argumentative and strained.
Yes, the film was meant for a theater audience for a viewer compelled to watch as Stewart watches, unable to move (or waste their movie ticket and upset other moviegoers if they were to get up and leave) helpless to do much but watch a potential suicide and a murderer come toward them. As much as Hitch manipulates his moviegoing audience, he’s also making the viewer complicit in Stewart venial sin of invading the privacy of his neighbors and poses the question that everyone should grapple with – is it ever – or when is it – okay to commit a small sin to bring justice to a perpetrator of greater evil. Waterboarding terrorists, anyone? Do the ends ever justify the means? Or should greater evil be able to walk free? Stewart actually poses the question to which Kelly responds that she’s not an expert on rear window ethics…but the question still needs to answered by the audience.
Hitchcock was a Catholic moralist filmmaker whose characters are often tainted with original sin or lured into behaving deceptively or sinfully (or on the other side of the law) until they can clear their name and be forgiven or have another chance for a state of grace (Strangers On A Train, The 39 Steps, North by Northwest, Notorious, etc.). While other characters who have chosen an evil path are justifiably punished – Kim Novak’s character in Vertigo as Hitchcock impishly does when she is frightened and falls to her death at the sight of a rising, ghostlike figure that turns out to be a Catholic nun. Catholic justice in a world of sin.
I think this is why it was banned.
Anything by Hemingway. Not. enough. words. UT’sC/19thC prose: too many words.
Apropos of Nothing: In 1954, Rear Window was the third-highest grossing US film.
#1 was White Christmas
#2 was 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea
#4 was something called Demetrius and the Gladiators
So, it was beaten by a schmaltzy Christmas movie and a rubber squid, and it barely beat a gladiator movie that’s barely a footnote in movie history.
But, no, movie audiences back then were way more sophisticated than those of today.
If you want a great illustration of the technical achievement of Rear Window, this video does a great job of doing so:
However, I have to concur that the pacing and dialogue of the flick left me cold when I saw it. Also, I’ve always though Jimmy Stewart was a hammy actor and I make no apologies for my general ambivalence towards his movies.
Citizen Kane bored me to tears.
Holden Caufield might be a fair representation of teenage angst and arrogance, but why anyone would enjoy The Catcher In The Rye is beyond me.
A Tale of Two Cities put me to sleep before I reached the presumably good bits.
Now, regarding your question about dashed expectations – my disappointment was Bringing Up Baby with Cary Grant and Kate Hepburn. I found all the scenes ridiculous and weak and Hepburn performance incredibly irritating. I know it’s praised as a classic of screwball comedy but for me it’s pretty juvenile in its humor. There are much better screwball comedies and two of my favorites are Rene Clair’s I Married A Witch with Veronica Lake, Frederick March and Robert Benchley or Capra’s Arsenic and Old Lace with Cary Grant, Raymond Massey and Peter Lorre.
I fell asleep during Citizen Kane. The Third Man bored me silly.
Lest you think I just don’t like “old movies”, the first time I saw Casablanca all in one sitting I thought it was one of the great film experiences of my life.
On the subject of Hitchcock and Grace Kelly, To Catch a Thief was pretty pointless too. Was there a plot in that film at all? I’m convinced it was pretty much just a way for the cast to get a paid vacation on the french riviera.
I have to agree with the naysayers on Firefly too. Love Nathan Fillion in pretty much everything he’s ever done. But…nothing on Firefly. Watched two episodes on Netflix, never went back. But that beat out Max Headroom – watched most of one epsiode and turned it off.
I saw someone mention Caddyshack too – probably the most overrated comedy of the last 40 years. Most of what is funny in it is just from sheer repetition in the culture.
Demetrius and the Gladiators was a sequel to The Robe. The Robe was one of those 1950s Bible movies about Christ’s crucifixion, done up in cast of thousands style. They were immensely popular back then, which explains why a sequel to The Robe was made, however inaptly titled.
Seawriter
Amen. A second viewing showed just how uneven the movie is. It slows to a crawl when Ted Knight, Rodney, or Murray aren’t on screen.
Glad to hear sequels aren’t an invention of “today’s Hollywood”.
The Rolling Stones.
Except that Eastwood pictures are outliers. If America is divided in thirds between liberals, conservatives and the great unwashed and indifferent, any picture that caters to the underserved has a good chance of succeeding.
Demetrius and the Gladiators featured that wonderful actor Tony Powell. (<– veiled reference to the film by famed Italian director Federico Fabrizi …the…ahem…The Gold of Cairo.) Just testing everyone’s trivia quotient.
Bonfire of the Vanities (book not the movie). I made it about 60% through the audiobook and had to quit. Maybe it’s because I’m a child of the late 80’s/90’s, and find nothing about Wall Street or NYC culture to be interesting.
…which helps explain why nobody ever quotes the dialogue uttered by Michael O’Keefe, Cindy Morgan, or Henry Wilcoxon.
(I think you’re giving Chevy Chase short shrift, however. “Be the ball. Be the ball.”)
That seems counterfactual.
The problem with Hollywood is that they cater to the great unwashed so when a movie caters to an underserved market is becomes the #1 movie?
If that were true, every movie would be targeted at underserved markets and the great unwashed would be the ones who are neglected.
I think American Sniper was successful because it appealed to the majority just as much as a movie like The Avengers or The Hunger Games, much to the literati’s chagrin. All these movies are about traditional ideas of good and evil.
Catcher in the Rye is objectively horrible. I will duel any man who claims otherwise.
There’s a whole section of tv tropes.com that deals with very issue, called Seinfeld Isn’t Funny.
And that happens to be my answer. I can sit through HOURS of Seinfeld and never crack a smile. Same with All in the Family.
Network. Before I saw it, naturally all I knew of it was the memorable “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore” speech. Then I saw the movie and discovered that there is nothing else there. What a waste of time.
The Graduate. Been hearing for years that this was a classic, but I don’t get it. What an annoying, whiny, directionless main character, and a pointless story. Why would I want to spend an hour and half with this loser?
I saw James Joyce’s Ulysses at the top of a 100 greatest books of all time list, and I thought it was time for me read it. I got through ten pages and decided there wasn’t enough wine in the world with which to take that pill.
It’s a great seduction story, for one. I am not sure why people would deride Grace Kelly’s skill as an actress–anyway, Hitchcock knew what he wanted from his actresses, & not just to be blonde & pretty–when she is cleverly asked to play the lover instead of the beloved & does it so well. The show of her desire in the climactic night scene & then her outrage when she thinks herself betrayed–the whole movie is worth it just for that; it is not too obvious whether she dislikes being robbed or she is just insulted to be found less than mesmerizing, unable to turn a man’s head, so to speak… To catch a thief showcases the dangers love poses to law & respectability, & how a young woman might like a refined criminal–the man who knows what there is to want, knows what he wants, & is serious about getting it. The suggestion that that could be a happy marriage is itself stunning.
My teenage son broke my heart a few years ago when he was bored by The Godfather – my favorite film. Maybe in a few years he will give it another chance. I’ve never understood the appeal of Lucille Ball or Jerry Lewis either, they both bore me to tears.
To continue on in The Fricosis Guy’s thought – Springsteen. And Dylan. And while I’m at it, Rod Stewart. Whoever told these guys they could sing should be summarily executed.
I always thought that was the point. They get on the bus at the end, have a moment to quietly contemplate the situation, and their unspoken inner monologue is “what the heck did I just do?!”
You have to understand that The Pink Panther is really a pastiche of To Catch A Thief…so, Blake Edwards, Peter Sellers and moviegoing audiences forever owe a debt of gratitude to Hitch for that.
That was my defense, exactly, to my incredulous father, when he sat me down for a much anticipated and long overdue double feature many years ago, and I had to confess afterward that I was actually left a bit underwhelmed by . . . .
No, I can’t even say it. Someone’s going to find a way to leave a horse carcass in my bed for that kind of cinematic blasphemy.
Recently (about 3-4 weeks ago), Rear Window was shown nationally on the Big Screen by Fathom Events. I have seen it a bunch of times, mostly on TV, but once years ago on the screen. I thought it was wonderful, again, on the screen with a new print and great sound.
I know, it’s terrible – no space aliens, no ninja’s, no explosions, no superheroes, no 500 POV film cuts per minute, no swearing every five seconds, no bodily function jokes, etc., etc. Just seemingly real people involved in and trying to solve an apparent growing mystery. Oh, and as a few others have said, Grace Kelly (worth the price of admission, alone).
Everyone is different, but this is definitely a classic. Maybe it has to be seen on a big screen (and maybe that’s what you have at home) in a real big room with no other distractions. I just find the whole progression of inference that “Jeff” and the viewer have to make to piece a story together as fascinating. Gradually, others, “Stella” and “Lisa,” and to some extent, “Lt. Doyle,” become involved as well. The story makes sense. You could see this happening. There are the leaps of everyday fantasy that help knit the story, but not the kinds of leaps of reality-defying that we now take for granted in today’s movies.
The sets and the sound ambiance are all perfect.
Thelma Ritter’s character Stella is funny and real. She’s a real person. I thought she deserved a supporting actress award.
Sad to say, but I guess you have to be of a certain age to appreciate it. That’s pretty depressing.
I never thought I would like Jerry Lewis. I think The Bellboy is actually very good. I think The Errand Boy is hit or miss, but what is good is quite good.
And The Stooge, it is my understanding, replicates the Martin and Lewis stage act somewhat.
To be fair to your teenage son, even Francis Ford Coppola was originally bored by The Godfather. He only did it because he really needed the money:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19061_5-artistic-geniuses-who-only-became-great-after-selling-out_p2.html