Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

Vol. 5 No. 2 (2009): The Scene

Hitch-cockeyed: Ocular Dys/function in Alfred Hitchcock’s "Rear Window"

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14288/cinephile.v5i2.197946
Submitted
March 12, 2023
Published
2009-06-01

Abstract

Other critics discuss the theme of voyeurism in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1954 Rear Window (Modleski 73; Mulvey 31; Samuels 112-14), but few of them mention the specular figuration of the film’s mise-en-scène. In the film, voyeur L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart) comes to suspect salesman Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr) of murdering his sickly wife Anna (Irene Winston). From a wheelchair, Jeffries watches for evidence of the murder from the two windows looking into the Thorwalds’ Greenwich Village apartment. “Jeff,” resting up after fracturing his leg, whiles away the time spying on his neighbors, and ultimately convinces his fashion-conscious fiancée Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) to investigate the Thorwalds’ apartment after suspecting Lars of covering up Anna’s murder there. Lars catches Lisa in the act, even though she escapes after a few officers show up to question the two of them. Thorwald nevertheless follows Lisa’s signals and triangulates the eye-line into Jeff’s apartment. He shows up there to confront Jeff, who fires off camera flashbulbs to disorient the murderer until the officers once again come to the rescue. Although this climactic moment in the film deserves the critical attention it gets, a few earlier scenes more neatly capture the scopic regime of the film’s viewers and characters, one that suggests that ‘having a bad wheel’, at least in a Lacanian sense, refers to the relative incapacitation of their eyes (or I’s) rather than their legs. The two windows of Thorwald’s apartment mirror the viewer’s and Jeff’s eyes-Jeff even uses binoculars and a telephoto lens over the course of the narrative to examine the murder scene more closely. Later in the film, Hitchcock’s camera comes to focus straightaway on one window or the other, so that these ‘eyes’ function independently of each other in a way that resembles the ocular dysfunction of strabismus. This condition reflects the splitting of the film’s scopic register: one eye trains straightforwardly on the film’s narrative moves, character identities, and other readable elements, and the other inwardly on the unconscionable desires, fantasies, and ego-shattering enjoyment that at once drive and resist such profilmic representation.