Rear Window (1954) – Classic

Genre: Suspense Thriller

Platform: Amazon Prime – Rent

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Time: 1 hour 47 minutes

Cast:    James Stewart (L.B. Jefferies). Grace Kelly (Lisa Fremont). Thelma Ritter (Stella).  Wendell Corey (Tom Doyle). Raymond Burr (Lars Thorwald)

Plot:  Due to an accident in which his leg was fractured while capturing a motor race accident, photographer Jeffries is confined to his wheelchair for six weeks in an apartment. With nothing to do he observes the neighbourhood through his window and sees various stereotypes. He is convinced that the jewellery salesman in the opposite flat has murdered his invalid wife as he has seen him make mysterious trips in the middle of the night. His girlfriend Lisa and his physiotherapist Stella think he is crazy but soon they too are convinced that something is not right ….

From the early to the late 1980s, I was a member of a film club which showed all the ‘world masters’ such as Kurosawa, Ingmar Berman, Fellini etc . I innocently asked one of the society organisers why they do not show Hitchcock films. He gave me a look that was a cross between disgust and anger. When I persisted , he mumbled something about appropriate 16 mm prints being unavailable .

During the Red Lorry Festival in March this year, I attended the “Directors masterclass” by Sriram Raghavan. Amazingly he narrated a similar incident where during his FTII days, he was ticked off for requesting that Hitchcock films be shown and even included in film studies.  Hitchcock is more or less standard in most Western film schools while I am not sure whether it is taught in Indian film schools .

Because Rear Window remains an amazing example of the craft of film making.

Looking at the film today and judging by the audience response in a recent screening, the film still holds its own and is not at all dated. The audience response was EXACTLY the same as when I saw it three days in a row , forty years ago. A private screening at a friend’s place, the response was exactly the same with the audience letting out gasps at the same places as happened years ago.

So what is it that makes this CLASSIC?

The amazing set design? looking at how tightly the camera moves, it is impossible to believe that whatever Jeff sees from his point of view is actually one gigantic setting filled with amazing characters such as the struggling song writer, ‘Miss Lonelyhearts” – a single somewhat aged woman who is struggling to find a partner, Miss Torso – the well endowed ballet dancer who is trying to find the ‘right man’, a deaf sculptress, Thorwald the jewellery salesman mocked by his invalid wife, an aged childless couple who let down their pet dog every day by a basket , a newlywed couple who rarely open the window once they enter the nearby flat .  And so on.

As mentioned by Donald Spoto in his classic book The Art of Alfred Hitchcock, each of them represents the various possibilities that Jeff and Lisa may end up as – lonely,  embittered couple, childless couple ; as Jeff says “he would welcome trouble at this stage”. And boy does he get it.

Much more than the murder mystery angle is the totally sneaky way in which the film gradually peels away the layers and points out why we love films – basically we are all voyeurs! Stella clearly tells Jeff “we have become a race of peeping Toms; we should go out and take a good look at ourselves’. Since it happens in the film’s beginning most of us may miss that line but it is THE clear connection about film being nothing but scripted voyeurism!

This is sophisticated film making and as with any Hitchcock, the script crackles with wit , sometimes macabrely – when Jeff is about to eat his morning bacon breakfast, Stella looks at Thorwald’s flat and wonders aloud “where would he cut her up ? where could he have done it?’ Needless to say Jeff puts the bacon back on the plate.

Many moments like these pepper the film which remains easily among any top 10 Hitchcock films.

The final word –  WATCH IT  ANYHOW.

PS: With such a terrific story , its no wonder that many have tried to remake it . Some have succeeded while others remain meh! Here are the list of two remakes that I know of:

1. Rear Window (1998) – Christopher Reeve as a paralysed man confined to his wheel chair who is sure he has seen a murder; would love to watch to check out how it turned out. The film is available on You Tube!

2. Disturbia (2008) – A teenager confined to his home with an electronic locker on his foot, is sure he has seen a murder, in the neighboring home. Very gripping.

Script – 5 out of 5

Story – 5 out of 5

Direction – 5 out of 5

Photography – 5 out of 5

Total – 5 out of 5

One response to “Rear Window (1954) – Classic”

  1. Robin Bhat avatar
    Robin Bhat

    Hi Rammesh,

    Another great review! Yes, to some extent or another, we are all ‘voyeurs’ !

    A small bit of trivia, also from the Spoto book:

    “The movie begins as the credits appear over a slowly ascending bamboo shade. The view we finally see beyond the shade is the panorama of the largest indoor set built by Paramount Studios up to the end of 1953 – the array of apartments in the buildings surrounding Jeff”.

    The book goes on to explain how Hitchcock did his homework… the address of the apartment.. proximity to the police station… in the film, and in reality; this is not the first Hitchcock film where one can trace the local address/geography in the film to an actual map.

    (In contrast.. unlike typical Bollywood masala, where most murders/takedowns/police sirens end up – if a Mumbai setting at the Ballard Estate area or if New Delhi, the ‘Lutyens’ area)

    Any Hindi film remake of ‘Rear Window’ ?


    Lastly, very impressed at knowing that you attended the “Directors Masterclass” conducted by none other than masterclass director Sriram Raghavan! (Ikkis, Andhadhun, Badlapur, Johnny Gaddar…)


    Regards,,, Robin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Becket (1964) and Namak Haram (1973) – One story Two Versions – again

When I was doing research for my book on Hrishikesh Mukherjee (Human Cinema available on Amazon on Kindle and Print ; for Amazon link, please click here http://bit.ly/4pnxUPL ), I came across this statement by Hrishida – “My film is not a copy of any foreign film; it is just a story of two friends one of whom doesn’t want to let go of the other”. If anything, Hrishida was very good at dissembling and diverting attention in a cheeky sort of way. He said similar things about Anupama (supposedly based on a cousin’s life story) and Abhiman (supposedly about one of his friends who had a problem with his wife and NOT any musical personalities’ personal lives).

When Namak Haraam was released, there was some loose talk about it being a direct copy of the 1964 English film Becket, updated for modern times. I can confirm that this supposed loose talk is more than true. The King becomes the Industrialist and the Head Priest/ Arch Bishop becomes the Industrial worker turned Union Leader. In both cases the King/ Industrialist places his friend in a position thinking that his “friend” would be his puppet. Predictably his friend, the supposed puppet, turns adversary, does what is morally right and not what is convenient for the King.

There is NO WAY that anyone can dismiss Namak Haraam as anything but an – er – inspiration of Becket. Yet, I find the Indianisation perfect and contemporary to the times in which it was set in. The early 1970s were filled with news of various industrial strikes across India due to labour unrest, fuelled by a perception that the ordinary industrial worker was not getting his dues and all the ‘profits’ from their labour were filling the coffers of their masters. The most famous or should we say infamous example of this was the textile strike of the late 1970s/ early 1980s that ultimately resulted in massive job losses and multiple textile mills in the area of Parel-Lower Parel-Mahalaxmi shutting down and never opening again. Today the land has been sold and most of them are made in to apartments or malls while the chawls in which the workers lived, still stand in their original semi dilapidated condition, cheek by jowl with the towers.

Coming back to Namak Haram. When it was released in 1973, the biggest indicator of Amitabh Bachchan’s rising stardom was as shown in the hair cutting salon which I used to visit. There was an “Amitabh cut”, complete with Amitabh’s photo and how the hairdressers would go about doing it.  This also was the second film in which Rajesh Khanna and Amitabh Bachchan worked together. Hrishida also said in an interview that he had to keep the ending a secret as both stars wanted mileage out of the ending. Amitabh was supposedly upset that he didn’t get to ‘die’ onscreen.

Vicky as a character is fascinating at best; he cannot give up his friend and he wants to childishly hold on to him despite growing evidence that Somu is a different human from the friend with whom he used to go drinking, chasing women and indulging in extravaganzas he couldn’t afford and he knows that everything is paid for, by Vicky. Somu ‘grows up’ from something of a ‘chamcha’ as his locality calls him, to a ‘planted union leader’ designed to break the stranglehold of Bipin Lal the Union leader, to finally a human who realises where his moral duty as a Union Leader lies, which is to fight for the labourer’s rights.  In contrast, Vicky remains the same embittered somewhat childishly selfish person he always was. Only Somu’s death makes him see the light and he promises to set things right.

Becket’s story is somewhat similar. Becket’s King is bothered by The Church which keeps questioning his authority and wants him to submit to it. So, what better way to control it than to have his friend, a priest, be made the figurehead Arch Bishop whom he can control? While he thinks He, The King, is the law, the Arch Bishop soon starts countering saying that there is a HIGHER LAW that has to be obeyed and soon both are at loggerheads with each other.

So, which is the better version? This is incredibly difficult to answer.

Becket is the longer film and has some moments which we cannot relate to, especially the religious and historical angle. From that context alone, Namak Haram is easy to relate to due to the Indian milieu in which it is set, the focus on the friendships and of course music which forwards the story. The side plot of the drunk poet is something that is not there in the original film but is a perfect example of the localisation that was done, leading to an interesting song situation, the totally melancholic Mai shaayar badnaam.  A fleeting shot of the dying poet looking at Bipin Lal’s daughter leaves us with a question – is she the woman who ditched him, leading to his alcoholism, and his sad smile is a final thank you? Such ambiguity is there in many of Hrishida’s films and we can make whatever meanings we want out of it.

Both films begin in the same way. In the Hindi film, Vicky released from prison, goes home and is confronted by the photo of a smiling Somu. In the English film, the King reaches a mausoleum where the death mask of the Bishop has been kept; the King starts questioning the death mask. So right from the first scene, we know both the characters are dead. Immediately the film cuts to the past with both of them running away from a young girl’s farm loft, while being chased by the girl’s parents. Similar scene in the Hindi film except that in keeping with th1 1970s, the two work in a law firm and sketch their boss’s female secretary.  

Finally. Which is the better film? No. I am not going to answer that question but let you judge for yourself.

I would rate BOTH versions 5 out of 5 for direction, screenplay, dialogues and superb performances from the leads, namely Richard Burton and Peter O’Toole in the English original; Rajesh Khanna and Amitabh Bachchan in the respective Hindi roles.

Both films are free on You Tube

Namak Haram is free on You Tube https://youtu.be/2aZaJjoFFl8?t=2

Becket is free on You Tube  https://youtu.be/LMwgMDUjVf0?t=4

PS: I NEVER got an Amitabh haircut 😊

One response to “Becket (1964) and Namak Haram (1973) – One story Two Versions – again”

  1. Robin Bhat avatar
    Robin Bhat

    Hi Rammesh,

    Beautiful, side-by-side look at two classic films!

    I would say that Namak Haram is easily the more relatable film to the Indian movie-goer.

    Beckett is also a gem, with three huge actors (Peter O’Toole, John Gielgud and Richard Burton)… but unless one is deep into Henry II and his era (1154-1189), there is little context to the film., except for the titanic encounter of State vs. Religion. (a struggle resonating the news as recently as yesterday, July 4).

    Naram Haram was in the hotbed of Indira’s India, the times when ‘Garibi Hatao’ became an empty slogan, and the unfortunate mill workers of Parel (Mumbai), became pawns in a ruthless war (the union strike, Datta Samant, etc.). Deewar was set in the same general time, and VInay Lal’s book on that film covers the same terrible angst of India (and Bombay’s) youth.

    Only some points to add on Namak Haram:

    1. This is the second (first being Buddha Mil Gaya) of ten (?) collaborations with R. D. Burman. Four solos for Kishore Kumar in Namak Haram, and, IMO, one of the very best of the RDB-Anand Bakshi efforts seen in ‘main shayar badnaam’.

    Though probably having heard the others maybe a thousand times, the one I love is the evergreen election song! ‘Woh jhootha hai’ is a number that is useful every few months.

    (Not ashamed to admit that only a few years ago, I voted for a local politico, who did get elected, but is now in prison. LOL!)

    2.
    Small, but important footnote. This was Gulzar’s second back-to-back Filmfare Award for Best Dialog – first Anand, then Namak Haram.

    3.
    A nod to Om Shivpuri for his role as wily father/factory owner.

    4. Asrani was nominated for Best Comedian.

    Lastly, I always a chuckle at Hrishida and Amitabh flaunting for us the ‘tech toys’ of that era – a spool recorder… a video camera!


    Thanks….. Robin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

On the Waterfront (1954) – Classic

Genre: Crime Drama

Platform: Netflix/ You Tube

Time: 1 hour 47 minutes

Director: Elia Kazan

Cast: Marlon Brando. Eva Marie Saint. Rod Steiger. Lee J Cobb. Karl Malden.

Plot:   Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) watches his friend Joey Doyle being thrown off the roof by a couple of gangsters whom he knows is part of his brother Charlie’s (Rod Steiger) group who in turn reports to the boss of the waterfront extortion racket Johnny Friendly (Lee J Cobb). The whole area is “D&D” – Deaf and Dumb and everyone knows the truth but no one wants to talk. Terry pursues Edie, Joey’s sister who in turn wants answers to her brother’s death, aided by the local priest who tries to appeal to the conscience of the suffering labourers. Terry knows that if he testifies to the crime commission, he is as good as dead . Terry also knows that if he wants to win Edie’s love, he must tell her about the truth about his part in Joey’s death…

On the Waterfront got the Oscar for the best picture (producer Sam Spiegel), best director (Kazan) and best leading actor (Brando). The morality tale is camouflaged as a crime drama and was largely shot in the Hoboken , New Jersey , supposedly resembling the New York waterfront. The black and white cinematography adds to the overall gritty feeling of the film and we can feel the grime and desperation of the men, battling both their inner conscience and the need to earn an honest dollar in an honest way.

The film is also controversial for a completely different reason and this is to do with Kazan testifying in the HUAC – House of UnAmerican Activities – against some of his fellow Hollywood brethren resulting in some of them being blacklisted unjustly for belonging or suspicion of belonging to Communist organisations. There were even objections to him getting the Oscar for best director. The film was viewed as Kazan’s cinematic justification for his ratting out on his former comrades and saving his own life and career.

That may be the political angle but the direction can’t be faulted as everything moves perfectly and there is not a single performance or scene out of place. The confrontation scene between Charlie and Terry in the back of a taxi is the stuff of legends and has been endlessly studied and even imitated (Robert de Niro as Jake Lamotta, does an imitation in Raging Bull as per the character

The film is largely male dominated as it’s everything that one an expect from great cinema – brother against brother, crime versus conscience, harsh reality of dock workers versus flowery speeches about duty and honor , and finally the loss of innocence/ growth of Terry as a human with a conscience and what is morally and legally right.

Tailpiece: Ghulam (1998) starring Aamir Khan as “Terry Malloy”/ Munna, Sharat Saxena as “Johnny Friendly”/ Ronnie, Rajit Kapoor as Charlie/ “jai”, Rani Mukherjee as “Edie”/ Alisha was a 70% copy of On the Waterfront.  It is Alisha’s brother Hari (Akshay Anand) who inspires the local shopkeepers to stand against Ronnie’s extortions , aided by a lawyer Fatima madam (Mita Vashist) and who pays the price, which shocks Munna. There is a long prologue about Munna engaging in confrontation with a bike gang where Alisha is a member and some distractions about how Munna is asked to throw a boxing match. The “taxi” scene becomes a temple pond’s bank scene and is less impactful even though the dialogues and even Jai’s killing are all the same. Despite that Ghulam is a decent 70% copy that adds the typical Indian masala moments that somewhat dilute the relentless gritty feel of the original.

I saw the film at the special screening of the Film Heritage Federation at Regal cinema, where they screen a classic every Thursday free for anyone, on a first come first served basis. Strangely I found the next day that the film was on Netflix too (Netflix gave me a notice of “you might like this”). The film is also free on You Tube (I saw it some forty odd years ago and also have the DVD).

Script – 5 out of 5

Story – 5 out of 5

Direction – 5 out of 5

Photography – 5 out of 5

 Total – 5 out of 5

2 responses to “On the Waterfront (1954) – Classic”

  1. Robin Bhat avatar
    Robin Bhat

    Hi Rammesh,

    Nothing much to add to your review… (except maybe to say bringing Aamir Khan into the discussion was a bit of a jolt !)

    Some other random comments:

    The film is among the handful that have won ‘The Big Five’ in Oscars -Best Picture, Direction, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay and an additional three, for a total of eight, out of twelve nominations.

    One of three was for Best Black and White Cinematography… capturing the gritty environment of the Hudson Waterfront/Hoboken, New Jersey, across from New York City. (Hoboken was also the birthplace and hometown) of Frank Sinatra).

    Probably the only film where all three primary supporting actors – Lee Cob, Rod Steiger, and Karl Malden were nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (Award went to another actor).

    Eve Marie Saint, born not too far from Hoboken, will celebrate her 102 birthday this July 4 !

    The thug who plays ‘Barney’ was Abe Simon, a real-life professional heavy-weight boxer and with his bulk and 6.4 feet frame, had nicknames like ‘The Ape’ and ‘The Hebrew Hulk/Hammer’.

    A bit deeper trivia – “while preparing for the role, Marlon Brando became friendly with a young Al Lettieri, who was an acquaintance of real-life Mafiosos. Brando based much of his performance on Lettieri, who later become his co-star in The Godfather (1972)

    One of the classic scenes with Lettieri (Sollozzo).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_MMLb2QB5g


    Thanks…

    Robin

    1. Rammesh avatar
      Rammesh

      Whoa. Lettieri had Mafia connections ? didnt know that. Thanks for the trivia.

      KVR

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *