Alfred Hitchcock: A Glimpse into the Mind of a Master

Not long ago, I happened to watch Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window." Although I've seen very few of his films, my previous experiences with "Vertigo," "Dr. Edwardes," and "North by Northwest" have already earned him my admiration. As is widely known, Hitchcock made cameo appearances in 35 of his films, so watching his movies becomes a delightful experience as you try to spot his brief appearances.

"Rear Window" holds a special place among Hitchcock's works and is, in fact, one of his most renowned films, ranking 13th on IMDb's list of the best Hitchcock movies. It's one of the most watched and beloved popular films he ever directed. What "Rear Window" is mostly associated with is the theme of voyeurism. It reminds me of a statement from a film class where my teacher remarked, "If you're watching a film about murder, it's at level one; if it's about voyeurism, it's at level two; if it's about love, it's at level three; and only when it transitions from chaos to order does it reach the highest level." Indeed, Hitchcock's success lies not only in the stories he tells but also in how he tells them. He masterfully unfolds the suspense in a murder mystery, starting with inner conflicts and ending in a calm and orderly manner. The entire film takes place within a range of roughly 100 meters, radiating from the window of a single apartment. The protagonist's activities are primarily confined to sitting by the window, which emphasizes Hitchcock's storytelling ability and filmmaking skills.

While watching this film, I contemplated several intriguing questions:

1. Hitchcock's Moral Perspective on “Peeping”

If this is a film about voyeurism, the great Alfred Hitchcock had a complete understanding of it. Voyeurism is a psychological instinct inherent in every individual. Freud believed that voyeurism satisfied a subconscious need within people. Through this, they obtained a sense of sexual fulfillment. This concept relates to Freud's "pansexuality," referring to a type of sexual desire that goes beyond simple reproductive functions. Hitchcock was significantly influenced by Freudian psychology, and in many of his films, he attempted to analyze the motives of the characters and the plot through Freudian psychological analysis, particularly dream interpretation. Hitchcock, a director with a deep understanding of Freudian psychology, meticulously employs his carefully crafted shots to delve into this philosophy. He orchestrates the protagonist's voyeurism as he witnesses dramas unfolding in the neighboring apartments, spending his days observing others' lives. We are shown that no one can escape the temptation to spy and the awkwardness of being spied on, revealing the depth of human nature.

When the protagonist stumbles upon a murder while voyeuristically peering into his neighbors' lives, the otherwise immoral act of voyeurism paradoxically becomes a moral act. In a country that values personal privacy, voyeurism seems less honorable than murder. However, in this film, voyeurism's discovery of a murder elevates it to a moral act in opposition to immorality. So, where does the boundary lie between these two acts? Aristotle explored this question in ancient Greece within his ethical philosophy, stating, "Moral virtue primarily involves the recognition of the distinction between right and wrong." Therefore, morality is closely related to the good but not entirely identical to it. So, what is moral, and what is immoral? The application of the term "immoral" is relatively narrow. For instance, we know that a lack of willpower is not immoral, so is it immoral for young and able-bodied individuals to beg for help? There are many examples of such dilemmas in life, such as suicide. The debate is ongoing. In the context of this film, perhaps one interpretation is that voyeurism is inherently considered immoral. Still, because the evil it causes is far less than that of murder, it is not so sinful. The boundary between morality and immorality is forever an exciting topic of debate in ethics, and Hitchcock's films consistently play with this concept.

2. Semiotics of Voyeurism in Film

In this film, Hitchcock also explores the very essence of filmmaking. In the realm of film semiotics, this movie embodies the understanding of cinema. Christian Metz stated that films fulfill our desire to voyeuristically watch and dream. One can use a simple theoretical framework to deconstruct the process of viewing films: active/passive, subject/object, viewer/viewed. (Of course, in the eyes of deconstructionists, any binary opposition is a trap.) This film theory is deeply influenced by Jacques Lacan's structuralist psychoanalysis theory, which, in turn, draws from Freud's legacy. Metz says that, on the one hand, films are exhibitionists, while spectators are voyeurs; the two desires are permanently in communication, active/passive, subject/object, viewer/viewed.

On the other hand, films are neither exhibitionists nor voyeurs. When I watch it, it does not watch me, or it may be aware that I am watching it, but it does not want to acknowledge that fact. "It is this fundamental denial that turns all classical cinema into the mode of the story, ruthlessly erasing the inferential foundation of the story. At most, it creates a beautiful, closed object." Therefore, the film is both a knower and a non-knower, but these two aspects are inseparable. When a film is screened, the audience is present and aware of the actors, but the actors are absent and unaware of the audience. During filming, the actors are present, but the audience is absent. Therefore, the film somehow manages to become both an exhibitionist and a concealer in this way.

In this sense, Hitchcock's "Rear Window" is also a movie about cinema. Layering the discussion, first, we see a movie about the male and female protagonists. Secondly, the male protagonist sees that every neighbor across the street has their movie playing. Lastly, a murder in a businessman's house shapes the entire story. So, movies within the movie fulfill our desire to watch films. To tell this story, Hitchcock meticulously crafted a lengthy and detailed introduction at the beginning. Notably, he imitated the male protagonist's subjective point of view to advance and zoom in on the neighbors' apartments. Each window is like a play, with the neighbors magnified at the center of the screen. They enlarge and shrink with the voyeur's use of binoculars, paralleling the protagonist's thoughts. This is not only a movie within a movie but also a reflection of our role as viewers. In this movie, half the story is the neighbor's life scenes recorded by the voyeur. What amazes me is Hitchcock's imagination and creativity in portraying the neighbor's story. For the most part, he uses a documentary-style approach, omitting voiceovers and subtly allowing us to hear the neighbors' conversational topics. He conveys events through their actions and expressions, leaving much to the audience's imagination. The transitions from one window to another resemble internal montages. The viewer's emotions are easily guided as the protagonist's deductions influence the viewers' speculations. This is where Hitchcock's magic lies. Ever since Eisenstein, the essence of montage in film has been emphasized. Hitchcock, in "Rear Window," once again showcases the wonder of montage in a montage. Hitchcock's contributions to filmmaking techniques and storytelling are numerous, and his impact on cinematic history is immeasurable.

3. Watching Old Films

"Rear Window" is a classic film from 1954, and it's often challenging to watch old films. I'm not watching a movie but rather observing how to make a movie, which can be exhausting. Nearly all old films serve as textbooks. I recall taking a film history class in college, where the professor analyzed classic films like "Patton," "The Graduate," and "Citizen Kane." For instance, he explained how the opening ten-minute speech in "Patton" was shot and when Orson Welles broke the fourth wall in "Citizen Kane." This teaching approach resulted in a profound understanding of film as an art form but also made watching films less of a sensory pleasure. The film is captivating, but I've also contemplated: how much enjoyment do I lose when I understand all the intricacies? Suppose I comprehend the secrets behind a scene, its significance, or how a certain line contributes to the plot. Do I leave enough room for my personal experience of the film's emotions, joys, sorrows, and laughter? So, my approach to watching films has become more rational. Some films are meant purely for leisure entertainment, while others are designed for study.

In film history, there are several ways that later filmmakers pay homage to their predecessors. There are two very straightforward methods. First, they might insert a segment from their favorite director's film into their own, either related to the theme or merely an expression of admiration, even if it doesn't connect with the narrative. An exceptional example is "Zabriskie Point," where director Michelangelo Antonioni's character "Cat Man" mimics Hitchcock's seven-minute airplane chase scene from "North by Northwest," a portrayal both earnest and comical. The other method is a more daring one, reinterpreting a classic film. It requires immense courage since classics are already classics, making it challenging to surpass them. Please do so to avoid one's work being compared unfavorably with the original.

The two more discreet methods entail filmmakers incorporating the essence of a predecessor's work into their own, shaping a unique style. For instance, acclaimed director Hou Hsiao-Hsien acknowledged his admiration for Truffaut and Yasujirō Ozu but managed to maintain his distinct style in his films. These filmmakers manage to skillfully integrate their influences to craft their personal style and become masters themselves eventually.

In conclusion, Alfred Hitchcock, often quoted as saying his suspense films are really love stories and his love stories are suspense films, has left an indelible mark on cinema. He masterfully balances commerce and art, creating many eternally debatable topics. This is why he is rightfully acclaimed as a master of filmmaking.

Two essential books for Hitchcock enthusiasts are François Truffaut's "Hitchcock/Truffaut," where the author, a proponent of "authorship cinema," expresses his deep admiration for Hitchcock, and Slavoj Žižek's compilation, "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Lacan (But Were Afraid to Ask Hitchcock)," edited by a Lacanian psychoanalyst and student of Jacques Lacan. Some fans describe this book as a collection of highbrow articles unrelated to filmmaking, targeted at cinema studies Ph.D. candidates, setting an example of how to write high-end film theory articles. This book is not particularly useful for practical filmmakers or those who enjoy film solely for entertainment. Nevertheless, it serves as a reminder that even the most profound analysis should be based on the examination of the film text. Thus, in-depth reading is always worthwhile.