"Rear Window" Relationships

In Hitchcock's film "Rear Window," each character serves as a relationship archetype. Miss Torso is the promiscuous socialite, who by the end of the movie seems to find love; however, it is hard to take her character seriously after watching her invite so many men over to flirt with. The Composer is sort of similar to the ballerina. He seems very devoted to his art and also likes to be the center of attention. He plays the part of the happy bachelor. While a bit less flirty than the dancer, he invites over way more people and just likes having fun. He does not seem to be too invested in seeking a relationship. In the beginning of the film, Jeff discusses how he does not feel Lisa is a good fit for him, because she seems to be too much about high society than adventure. Later, she proves him wrong by sneaking into the Thorwald’s apartment. I think the Composer and Miss Torso represent less mature versions of Jeff and Lisa, perhaps versions they could be if they were not seeking love. Lisa even mentions how the ballerina’s apartment resembles her old one. Jeff is obviously very passionate about his job as a photographer, and we know this is why he broke his leg. Lisa is constantly reading magazines and dresses like a model; she talks enthusiastically about her experiences as a fashion consultant.

Miss Lonelyhearts first appears in the film after Jeff has given his spiel about Lisa being too high class for him, so it is hinted at that she represents a more ordinary by-the-book woman. However, Hitchcock seems to abruptly counter a purely positive thought process concerning Miss Lonelyhearts by revealing that she makes dinner for two every night but eats alone. This is a little strange, and I was torn between feeling sorry for her and thinking she was a little off. Maybe it just goes to show that nobody is perfect: Jeff does not think Lisa is ordinary enough, and Miss Lonelyhearts is obviously lonely for some reason. Miss Lonelyhearts provides a contrast to the happier single lives of the Composer and Miss Torso.

The Newlyweds and the Thorwalds represent what Jeff and Lisa could be if they were married as opposed to being single. The Newlyweds are obviously in the honeymoon stage of their relationship; they are - for the most part - completely absorbed in one another. On the other hand, the Thorwalds represent one of Jeff’s greatest anxieties: dead romance. Mr. Thorwald makes their relationship even more dead by killing his wife. The beginning of the film shows her pretending to be sick in bed when he comes home. They also argue, and she laughs at him. Neither seems very happy.

Jeff witnesses the lives of all five archetypes, and soon has suspicion that Mr. Thorwald is a murderer. While Lisa does not believe him at first, she quickly changes her mind and ends up taking the greatest risk in finding out the truth. Her effort not only reflects an eventual support and respect for Jeff’s opinion but also reveals that her personality is the right fit for him; and furthermore, they make a good team. By the end of the movie, he is once again bound to a cast (perhaps a play on his feelings of belonging to a lower caste than Lisa), and Lisa too, after only briefly reading “Beyond the High Himalayas,” is status quo with her copy of “Harper’s Bazaar.”

One final note: there is a lot of subtle humor and assumption in this film, and I think maybe Hitchcock wants his audience to wonder exactly what will happen to this couple. realizing that there are no guarantees in life. While the movie does end happily in that none of the protagonists die and the antagonist is exposed, I was left with an eerie feeling of what could be and still wanting to know if such a brief stint was enough to prove Lisa’s compatibility to Jeff. Could Lisa be foreshadowing something when she says, “I could see you looking very handsome and successful in a dark blue flannel suit”? After all, I believe Mr. Thorwald wears a blue flannel suit throughout the film.

Feminism v. Fraternity

While reading through the play, I did sometimes get the feeling that the characters were a little sexist, but that is not to say the author is. The first time this thought occurred to me was in scene two of the first act when Moss is telling Aaronow about Jerry Graff's business. When I read that he said Graff bought a list of nurses, I wondered whether the fact that it is nurses is significant. Is he saying women are easier to work?

I was also thinking it might be interesting for Mamet to write a follow-up play to this one. The play could take on the perspectives of people higher up on the ladder in the company, perhaps even Mitch and Murray themselves. Maybe Murray is really the last name of the female founder of the company? Just a thought. The play could possibly be relevant to our contry's current economy. It is evident in "Glengarry" that the business world can be very cutthroat, and this can be especially true for business owners. Perhaps Mitch and Murray did not really want to fire several employees but were for financial reasons forced? It was hard for me to fully sympathize with any one character in "Glengarry." Maybe a follow-up play would further prove that grey areas for morality and justification do exist in life.

I also fabricated this story in my head about Lingk and his wife. There are so many gaps the author leaves in their story. In the second Act Lingk says "She wants her money back." It appears that Lingk's wife is the breadwinner in the family. Maybe she's a nurse or businessperson herself? Regardless, it seems clear he does not have the authority in the relationship. When Lingk says that she has threatened to call the attorney, maybe she is subtly implying divorce. Even though Lingk is unhappy, maybe he does not have the money to hire a divorce attorney or live on his own. When he tells Roma he does not have "the power to negotiate," he might have a double meaning in his words. I think he is not only referring to his negotiations with Roma but his negotiations with his wife; in general, this translates to a weakness at doing business, and maybe this is exactly why his wife is the breadwinner: she's aggressive.

Roma sort of plays the part of a fraternity president, calling men to group together. He manipulatively says, "We'll speak to her, Jim..." He goes on to say "Sometimes we need someone from outside." It is almost as if he is trying to engage a fraternal bond which (in his morality) overrides the bond of marriage. Lingk, in desperate vulnerability, says, "you met my wife..." I think he is trying to engage a little male sympathy from Roma, which in turns makes marriage in this play seem like another struggle for power, a business deal.

Later in the second act, Roma says "It's not a world of men...Dying breed...we have to stick together." Once again his manipulation tactic is fraternal bond as he attempts to persuade Levene to be his partner.

Lear's "Inner Woman"

Coppelia Kahn's take on Lear's femininity holds some very strong arguments. She mentions the absence of a mother in "King Lear." This argument brings to mind a passage found in the very first scene of the play when Cordelia declares her true love for her father (though in less flattering speech than her sisters). She says:

Why have my sisters husbands, if they say
They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,
That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry
Half my love with him, half my care and duty:
Sure, i shall never marry like my sisters,
to love my father all.

I think this passage is significant to Kahn's argument for two reasons. The first is that in Lear's need to be fully loved by his daughters, he is assuming the position of not only a husband, but two parents. The second is that in requesting specifically the love of his daughters (and not too his sons-in-law), he is trying to fortify himself with a feminine love. Perhaps this is significant, because we know he lacks a wife (and a mistress is never mentioned), and through years of lonely parenting the love of his daughters fulfills the lost love of his wife. Kent's love offering ("Royal Lear...Loved as my father...") is clearly rejected, and an enraged Lear banishes him from the kingdom. To further support the "inner woman" argument, Lear's need for an exclusively feminine love might in madness be contorted to a need for female companionship. None of the characters who are faithful to him throughout the play, other than Cordelia, are female.

In scene 4 of Act I, Lear spouts curses at Goneril of which the modern day equivalent is: "I hope you have a child just like yourself." In the passage he calls upon mother nature to make Goneril sterile or give her a child which will make "cadent tears fret channels in her cheeks...that she may feel how sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child!" First, I find it interesting that Lear is asking a goddess to sympathize with him, a man to punish his daughter. Second, he next breaks into tears himself. To him parenthood has neutralized. He is not making a distinction between his role as father and Goneril's potential role as mother; he is just speaking of the relationship between any parent and child. His hope that her child will make her cry is soon reflected in his own crying. Even as Albany tries to question the king why he has just cursed Goneril, Lear basically ignores him and speaks again to Goneril in tears. He says, "I am ashamed that thou hast power to shake my manhood thus..." I do not question Lear genuinely being upset, but perhaps his demonstration of vulnerability was also a subconscious attempt to engage her female sympathies?

Something else I'd like to add (as a tangent to something mentioned briefly in class) is the fact that women were not in plays in Shakespeare's day. For me at least, even though Lear's character is meant to by played by a man, it is extra ironic that his character is pawning women who really have no say-so in the first scene of the play (for as we also discussed in class, Lear had already decided how he would divide the kingdom; Cordelia merely dissuaded him). In fact, for the theatregoer of the early 17th century, there truly is no woman's voice in the play. Any action, reaction, and emotion of the female characters in "King Lear" is assumed by men. So in a play centered around a male character who lears (lear: lesson; to learn. See http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Lear) to embrace his inner woman, this is exactly as the actors playing Cordelia, Goneril, and Regan must do.

Pictures in Persepolis

One picture which stuck out to me, is on page 44 of the book. Marjane and her parents are talking to some of their neighbors. The husband says, "Look! a bullet almost hit my wife's cheek. Liberty is priceless." Marjane's mother says, "Oh!" Marjane is in the middle of the two couples, staring up at them. The reason why this picture struck me is probably psychological. To read the description of a smile is different from actually seeing a smile. And it really bothered me that both neighbors were smiling. Marjane and her parents were frowning, but the neighbors were smiling; meanwhile, the husband is happily pointing at a scar on his wife's cheek.



This is book is filled with a lot of sensitive issues, because it is about a country with politics so deeply intertwined with religion. It definitely makes me more curious to know what the Qu'ran actually says and just differences in how it is interpreted. The phrase "liberty is priceless" is usually so positive, but if it is found alongside a picture of a husband pointing to a scar on his wife...I dunno. And considering the context, found within a country that seems to be very sexist, it is certainly not something to smile about. In an American context the phrase, "liberty is priceless" might come up, but it is usually after a patriot has died for their country in order to honor them. Americans tend to value life, and it would be considered taboo for someone to go around lying about a loved one being grazed by a bullet in the name of freedom.



Another picture which really struck me was on page 142. It reads, "I saw a turquoise bracelet. It was Neda's. Her aunt had given it to her for her fourteenth birthday..." The picture depicts Marjane's mom pulling her away from a pile of rubble. Her mom is looking worriedly at her while she stares down at a bracelet amidst the rubble. Her eyes are a little big. To me, this is a heart-wrenching picture. The way that the author leaves a lot implied by the words forces the reader to depend on the pictures. The author never actually shows Neda. I was definitely left with a hollow feeling; I completely understand the picture of complete blackness four pictures later.

The very last picture in the novel also left me with a deeply sad feeling. Marjane has her hands and face pressed against a floor-to-ceiling window at the airport. She watches her father walking away carrying her mother. People outside are staring at them, while inside the airport life moves along; one can see the silhouette of a large line of people behind Marjane. Her father looks half-silhouette himself. Her mother is obviously dressed in black, but her face is white with large eye slits. She almosts looks dead, as though she has died of heartache. I assume she just is just passed out or collapsed out of sorrow. I think the feeling of movement in this picture is very significant. Interestingly enough, the author does not even need to show a plane flying off in the distance, just passers-by. One would actually think that after all the Iranians have been through at this point, to see a lone woman collapse is not such a spectacle. But maybe the author is trying to depict a sense of humanity that remains within the people despite all they have been through. Or maybe just curiosity and confusion from being constantly aware they could be attacked any moment.

Binx's Search

Despite his lack of "inclination to say much on the subject" of his search, Binx does say he has "not the authority...to speak of such matters in any way other than edifying." Then he goes on to say "it is not open to me even to be edifying...or do much of anything except plant a foot in the right place as the opportunity presents itself." With regards to the word "edification," he is specifically making reference to Kierkegaard. As discussed in class, Kierkegaard was the "father of existentialism." He believed that each individual is found in one of three spheres of existence: the aesthetic, the ethical, or the religious. I feel personally that even though Binx does ponder certain ethical and religious matters throughout the book, he never fully transitions from the aesthetic to the ethical sphere. It seems this is clarified when he adds the sarcastic comment: "...if indeed asskicking is properly distinguished from edification."

There is much ambiguity in the phrase "right place as the opportunity presents itself." What is "right" defined as? No specific system of ethics is implied here. Furthermore, what can be seen as opportunity to some might be misfortune to others. So I think the quick sarcastic comment that follows is actually very significant. He is juxtaposing the terms "asskicking" and "edification." Edification is defined as "a moral or spiritual uplifting." It is certainly a positive term, and in true Binx fashion the description of his search becomes an internal mockery. Perhaps it could be interpreted that he is kicking himself in the ass. I certainly feel the novel ends with Binx still lost and frustrated. The tone of the Epilogue, the fact that he loses another family member (Lonnie), with whom he shares a special connection is a continuation of the depressed tone held throughout the novel.

To return to the topic of the spheres of existence, I think it is also clarified that Binx has not reached that of religion, as he directly states that he "[shies] away from the subject of religion" and admits himself to be suspicious of the word "religion."

A few pages earlier, Binx tells Kate "There is only one thing I can do: listen to people, see how they stick themselves into the world, hand them along a ways in their dark journey and be handed along." This again evokes of tone of depression and despair. He says there is only one thing he can do, as if he has no choice, as if he finds himself trapped. He feels for everyone life is a "dark journey," that people are merely "handed along, and for good or selfish reasons." The latter is another ambiguous ethical statement. He does not seem to care to make the conscious effort toward good motivations. And again, one might ask: what is a "good" reason?