Reliable quality

Rating: Null/10 (26 December 2012)

Hitchcock is one of those director's that you're not really allowed to hate. The man has such a reputation that if you don't like one his films, you're just not getting it or there's something wrong with you. Mostly this reputation is well-earned as his movies are extremely good and well-made, but sometimes this expectation to love a film causes sort of a backslash where you're fighting against the film, critiquing every little detail, not allowing it to pull you in. Thus I think that I did myself sort of a disfavour with Rear Window. I liked it quite much, but my expectations were too high.
What did the movie get right? The characters for one. The main couple of Jeff (James Stewart) and Lisa (Grace Kelly) is the centerpiece of the entire film and these two actors pull it off beautifully. The characters are quite different, but both actors play them quite similarly by adding a lot of charisma to them, as well as an underlying streak of good humour. With Lisa this streak is quite visible at times, as she is almost always smiling and a pleasant person in general. With Jeff it's a bit more subtle, but Stewart plays the character like he's usually quite a charmer, but now that he's been forced to spend several weeks indoors, he has become quite grumpy as a result. Very subtle performances from both, as is to be expected from two stars such as them.
Furthermore the various inhabitants of Jeff's neighbourhood are also quite interesting and given a lot of character, even though most of them only have a few lines of dialogue, if even that. But Jeff has spent weeks observing them and we see them through his eyes, which makes them more real and gives them colour. The names, such as Miss Lonely Heart and Miss Torso are especially telling.
I also quite liked the themes that got addressed throughout the film. The film has surprising amount of depth, considering that the premise itself is quite simple. A man notices that something is amiss with his neighbours and decides to investigate. With a lesser director that would have been all, but Hitchcock adds in a lot more without making it feel clustered. The obvious mystery plot is still the main attraction, but the film has lots to say about relationships, neighbourhoods and human character in general. And none of these themes feel forced or preaching. A lot isn't even said aloud, rather various shots and visuals are used to both introduce the characters and to deepen their personalities. This leaves more time for meaningful dialogue because it isn't needed to force in exposition.
What wasn't so hot in my opinion, so to speak? The main mystery, frankly speaking. Of course this is such a classic film that it's hard to see it without knowing how it's going to go beforehand, but I still would have liked for it to have been a little more complicated and/or deeper. Now the problem is introduced and at least I deduced instantly what had happened. Thus the main conflict isn't really finding out what happened, but finding out how they're going to prove it. Perhaps Hitchcock meant it to be like this, but I would have preferred a bit more ambiguity. The story itself isn't all that bad and it is told masterfully, with no motions or scenes wasted, but the mystery is overly simplified. For me that was a problem, but it doesn't mean that it will be so for everyone.
Final thoughts: It's a strong film because of its characters, its skillful technical details and its sheer flawlessness. The mystery plot might leave you wishing for more, but it's not an outright flaw, rather than a matter of opinion. So I quite liked the film, though I wouldn't call it one of the best films of all time, like some do. It's great, but not that great.