Rear Window Reworked (Rear Window [1998] (DVD))

Member Name: collingwood21

Product:	Rear Window [1998] (DVD)
Date:	21/08/09 (139 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: A good idea for reworking "Rear Window"...

Disadvantages: ...but it had a poor script and lost a lot of what made the original plot so good

Rear Window (1998) - FILM ONLY REVIEW

Certificate: PG (UK)
Running Time: 89 Minutes


Voyeurism is the act of observing the lives of others, often, though not always, for sexual gratification; it is a process by which the observer gets more satisfaction from viewing others than from experiencing their own lives. There is a little bit of this tendency in all of us, as what is watching a film if not opening up a window on the lives of others, be they real or fictional? It is no surprise, therefore, that the film industry has from time to time chosen voyeurism as the subject of its stories. A widely regarded classic of the theme is Alfred Hitchcock's 1954 film "Rear Window", an engrossing and suspenseful examination of what it is like to be a voyeur, first enforced by circumstance and later pursued through choice. It is often considered to be one of, if not the, best example of the director's work. In it, we are told the story of LB Jeffries (James Stewart), a photographer trapped in a wheelchair in his apartment by a broken leg. Apparently visited only by his girlfriend Lisa (Grace Kelly), he becomes bored and amuses himself during his confinement by watching his neighbours in the building opposite his rear window. What happens next is famous; he develops an obsession with the activities of these people, until one day when he becomes convinced that something terrible has happened to one of the women he has been watching. Being trapped at home and unable to do much himself to find out what, if anything, happened to her, we are left with a fascinating premise for an unfolding thriller that is tense and entertaining until the end.

I, like many people, enjoyed the original "Rear Window" and wondered what the 1998 remake of it would be like. There has been a fashion in Hollywood over recent years to remake and rework all manner of films, a lot of which feel pointless and tiresome when watched. There are, however, remake ideas that seem to make a lot of sense - bringing together "Rear Window" and Christopher Reeve seemed like one of them. Reeve suffered a terrible riding accident in 1995 that left him a quadriplegic, but rather than turn away from the public eye, he decided to carry on acting and use his profile to promote spinal cord research. After a couple of minor parts, this film marked Reeve's return to a leading man role.

The remade "Rear Window" is built around the same premise as the original film, but instead of a photographer with a broken leg, we instead have a paralysed architect as our central character. The architect is Jason Kemp (Christopher Reeve), who starts the film off in hospital as he recovers from a serious car accident that broke his spine, leaving him paralysed from the neck down. Being a wealthy man, he can fortunately have his colleagues adapt his large apartment to his new needs while he undergoes rehabilitation, so he returns home to find a lift and assistance technology installed, and a team of nursing staff available to help him as he resumes living his life and trying to get back into his work. As the project he was working on before his accident has been taken over by company "new girl" Claudia Henderson (Daryl Hannah), Jason finds her meeting with him regularly in his home and soon establishes a good friendship with her. Outside of her visits, though, he is largely alone and struggles to occupy himself. Being utterly trapped in his apartment, Jason soon takes an interest in the activities of his neighbours in the building opposite; the young woman who dances around her apartment in various states of undress while the curtains are left wide open, the lonely single woman, the newlyweds who provoke a wry smile as they kiss then pull their blinds closed. Most interesting of all, however, are the sculptor and his wife, who have a tempestuous relationship and are frequently seen arguing. Jason sees them fight and is concerned for the woman, but from such a distance he can only imagine what is going on. One night, however, as Jason lies in bed, he hears strange noises coming in through the window and immediately fears for the safety of the sculptor's wife. But by the time a nurse gets him out of bed there is nothing left to see, and Jason is left trying to piece events together and convince those around him that something terrible might have happened.

The result of this reworking is that we are presented with something that is both the same and different to the original film. Had I seen it without knowing anything about Hitchcock's film, I probably would have put it down as an average straight-to-video thriller and thought no more about it - but having seen and enjoyed the 1954 film, I found it hard to watch this one without making comparisons.

Firstly, this is very obviously Christopher Reeve's film. Reeve, as both star and co-executive producer, is clearly using it as a vehicle to promote disabilities awareness, and to this end it actually does the job well, if a little heavy-handedly. The film showcases all too clearly the everyday difficulties of someone with serious disabilities, and we are left to just imagine how much harder it must be for someone in that position who doesn't have their own nursing team and an impressive array of voice activated technology to assist them. On the flip side, it also shows very well that disabled people can still carry out a range of work providing the necessary support is in place - both through Jason's character and from Reeve's own work on the film. The use of a disabled character to replace man who was merely inconvenienced by a broken leg is also an interesting one: Jason is of course trapped to a much greater extent than James Stewart's character ever was, being both a prisoner in his own body as well as his flat. The sense of being trapped is often used in thrillers to create an atmosphere of suspense and tension, and while it is used in some scenes here, it is not played on as much as you might expect for something that is an original and compelling perspective on the idea - although perhaps that is understandable given the lead actor is not acting the disability.

Unfortunately, the characters and performances are in no way as memorable as the original film. The characterisation of Jason doesn't seem quite right for me. For someone who is so highly motivated as to want to return to work as soon as he gets out of hospital, why does he spend his time on so passive an activity as watching his neighbours? Unlike his forbear in the 1950s, Jason has access to a range of other activities in his apartment that have been adapted to his disability, so boredom cannot really be the excuse that it was for LB Jeffries. Ignoring that small inconsistency, though, Reeve is more than adequate in his role, and the rest of the cast is reasonable, if unspectacular. The script is pretty feeble, and I spent quite a lot of time feeling sympathy for Daryl Hannah, who is asked to step into the Grace Kelly role without being given the support and material she needs to do anything effective with her part.

Aside from the worthiness of this film, probably the best thing that I can say about it is that it enhances our appreciation of Hitchcock. The original film was about the same length as this one, but it had much more going on in it: the minor characters were given more of a place and added depth to the script and interest to the plot, which itself had more twists and turns, and the relationship between the two leads was much more believable and plausible. The storyline in the newer version has been "streamlined" - that is, simplified to make sufficient room to show off the technology that is a key feature of the film, and to showcase the everyday difficulties of disabled people. The cause is very worthy, but this mixture of after-school special and mystery story sits oddly together at times, and the film feels a lot more insubstantial as a result of the subtler elements of the plot being cut out in this way.

The result of this remake was a mixed bag; it had a lot of potential to offer a new and fresh perspective on the story by reworking the film around Reeve's disability and modern technology, but failed to deliver. While many viewers will feel warmth and sympathies for seeing Reeve return to work, it simply cannot make up for a miscalculated and disappointingly un-tense thriller that is the result of this project. It lacks the excitement and suspense of the original and was only moderately entertaining. While it may have decent educational aims, its credentials as good cinema are on far shakier ground. It is no way compares to the original.

Not recommended.

Summary: Watch the 1954 original instead