Humanities

17/9/2018

Respond to one of the following questions. Develop a clear argument and point of view. Integrate at least two texts we have discussed this semester into your response (one of these texts can be from English). You'll want to back up your argument with plenty of examples from the film and course readings. Please feel free to focus on any one angle of the question that interests you (don't try to cover everything). Tell us something we didn't already know! Feel free to write as much as you wish, but note that it would probably be difficult to respond in anything less than 200-250 words. Pay attention to what your peers' have observed before you so as to ensure that the conversation is advancing. You may have until Saturday to complete your response. Good luck!

1) Plato's Cave Allegory and Freud's "Three Essays," in very different ways, connect the human quest for knowledge with a desire to see what is forbidden. In what ways does REAR WINDOW illustrate, or complicate, either Plato or Freud's perspective on knowledge?

2) What might we learn by comparing Jeff, Lisa, and Stella's approach to uncovering knowledge? How might class background and gendered norms inform their style of discovering truth? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach? What are the obvious, and not so obvious, implications of their methods (personal and social) for cracking the case?

3) Analyze the relationship between Jeff and Lisa. How does it evolve? What are its strengths and weaknesses? What are Jeff and Lisa's fears, anxieties, and insecurities? What role does boredom, excitement, and third parties play in the evolution of their romance? Do they make sense as a couple? You are encouraged to consider questions of gender, power, and perversion (including "castration complex," "penis envy," and the "infantile") in your response.

4) Many scholars have argued that Plato's Cage Allegory, Freud's theory of dreams, and Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW each provide excellent metaphors for the experience of watching movies. Provide an analysis of REAR WINDOW as a metaphor for cinema that touches on at least one of these theories.

69 Comments

Meghan Rulli

18/9/2018 07:41:15 am

Question #1)
Freud’s “Three Essays” can be easily related to Jeff’s character throughout the movie REAR WINDOW. Because Lisa is such a strong, female character in this movie, who is constantly going places and buying beautiful outfits, Jeff is suffering from castration anxiety, stuck inside with a leg injury with absolutely no fulfillment for his Eros. This leads to his perverse actions of watching others; voyeurism.
An aphorism in Adam Phillips ‘Monogamy’ text “We are never misunderstood we are just sometimes understood in way we don’t like.” (120) Relates to Jeff’s perverseness. Because of Jeff’s voyeurism, he’s understood in a way that he doesn’t like, especially when Lisa, the powerful, female character in the film, whom threatens the masculinity of Jeff, judges his actions and calls them ‘diseased.’ But then Lisa joins in on this perverse act, along with Stella. Not only does the movie represent voyeurism within Jeff, Lisa and Stella, but represents voyeurism within the audience watching the movie. By the end of the movie, we can’t look away. We want to know what happens, just as much as Jeff and Lisa. In this way, we connect with them.
“The effort of the infantile investigator regularly remains fruitless, and ends in a renunciation which not infrequently leaves a lasting injury to the desire of knowledge.” (p.2). Because of this perverseness, his desire for knowledge on Mr. Thorwald and what happened to his wife becomes a lasting injury, mentally and physically. Mentally, he begins to lose sleep as he watches Mr. Thorwalds every move through his binoculars and cameras. Physically, he ends up breaking his other leg at the end of the film, due to his desire of knowledge.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 01:31:13 pm

Many great observations here, Meaghan! I encourage you to do just a little more to bring all your points together into one overall argument and to make sure to integrate rather than float quotations. Finally, you might say a little more on *how* Lisa is such a strong character and the way she threatens Jeff. Overall, very good job. ✔

Julia Prud'Homme

18/9/2018 10:53:22 am

Question 3
At first, Jeff and Lisa seem completely incompatible. He is a photographer who loves adventure, and he seems to not love her as much as she loves him. Lisa loves dresses and wants a relatively stable life it seems. As Adam Phillips’ aphorism 94 explains, couples often need a third person to act as an enemy, because “two is company, three’s a couple.” They need something to resist against. In their case, the “enemy” they needed manifested itself as the murderer. They needed something to focus on where each of them could feel intelligent and important. They needed something to fight against. As the investigation goes on, Jeff starts loving Lisa more and more, because he sees an adventurous side of her he didn’t see before, but desperately needed in order to love her more, but never completely. Lisa wants him to reciprocate her feelings towards him, and her showing him she can do things that are risky and seeing him love her for it validates her feelings towards him. However, Lisa never wants Jeff to really love her, because then the chase is gone. I’d compare Lisa’s attitude towards Jeff to Edmundson’s text about the narcissist. He states, “when the narcissist does break down and show need, then the fascination is gone.” In REAR WINDOW, Jeff is the narcissist Lisa is pining after, but if ever she had all of his love I don’t believe she’d want him. For example, when she’s leaving the apartment, upset because he insists on leaving and that she can’t come, he asks her when she will be back. She says not for a long time, but then says she will return the night after. I think that if Jeff had begged her to return, or to stay, she genuinely wouldn’t have wanted to return. However, because he asked so casually, she did. Jeff and Lisa are only compatible as long as the chase is still alive and they have something to fight against, or else they get bored and don’t want each other.

Source: aphorism 94, Adam Phillips, Monogamy
Edmundson introduction 2003

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 01:32:34 pm

Excellent observations, Julia! ✔+

Kelly Rosialda

20/9/2018 07:47:19 pm

Rear window is a film production within itself.
As explained in Plato’s cave allegory, we are usually restrained to seeing things through a single perspective, our own that is molded by societal norms. We aren’t able to easily unchain ourselves from our thoughts shaped by personal and cultural experiences. Just as described, from our perspective, in REAR WINDOW L.B “Jeff” Jefferies observes his surroundings, his neighbors through his perspective, the one of his window. As his cast might reveal, he is restrained from certain views as everything is framed, thus limiting eagerness, “leaving a lasting injury to the desire to knowledge” as Freud had said. However, from Jeff’s viewpoint, everything is seen with such intrigue and fascination. In fact, he just sits there all day and observes and shows at times much more interest and attention in his neighbors lives than his own girlfriend.
Just like the men in the cave in Plato’s allegory, Jeff is “predisposed” to nothing other but his window. Just like the men, he hasn’t left his cave thus explaining why his finds such interest in such an activity as “window watching.” He becomes so intrigued to what is in front of him that he forgets about reality just as we do when we watch movies. We often lose our thoughts and sensations just as Jeff’s motionless body.
What are windows to Jeff are what movies are to humans. They are our natural way to express our perverseness. They become our way of unconsciously expressing our forbidden wishes and desires making the sense of guilt we normally would evince less prominent or important. Movies are a form of art, “a unique way of channeling their [writers and artists ] issues” and through relativity we, the observers, are able to do the same.
Jeff not only observes, he stalks behind his window just as we hide behind our projectors and screens. We are all attracted to the mystery behind every story line, intrigued by the suspense and fulfilled by knowledge and relieved of our repressed thoughts and emotions.

Sources:
The infantile sexual investigation, Freud, Three Essays, Cont.
Excerpts, Freud, Three Essays on sexuality

Kelly Rosialda

20/9/2018 07:51:35 pm

Question #4

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 01:35:25 pm

Very nice observations, Kelly. I think you could push this just a little further by reflecting on the fact that Jeff's voyeurism does eventually lead to active involvement in the story and the capture of the murderer. Overall, I also think more (quick) examples from the film could be provided. Overall, though, nice connections to Plato and Freud. ✔

Jenna Howor

20/9/2018 10:09:32 pm

Question 3) In the beginning of the film, Jeff says “I'm just not ready for marriage” and throughout the film you see Lisa doing everything she can to get Jeff to reciprocate her feelings. She is extremely affectionate with him; we see her bringing him a sandwich, sitting on him, kissing him and doing his investigation work in going over to Mr.Thorwald's’ apartment. Jeff observes his neighbors and sees how lonely or unhappy some of them are -- the woman in the bottom apartment is seen setting up a dinner table for two and carrying on a conversation with no one on the other end, another couple arguing and nagging each other and the disappearance of a woman who was killed by her husband. Seeing these things had an impact on Jeff and opened his eyes to how lucky he was to have Lisa in his life.
I believe that a sense of excitement was also needed to spark Jeff’s interest in Lisa. Julia stated that “he sees an adventurous side of her he didn’t see before” this could be seen as a contributing factor to his growing interest in Lisa because as Adam Phillips put it in “Monogamy”, “people have relationships not because they want to feel safe… but because they want to find out what the danger is” (34). Jeff was bored sitting in his chair all day having Lisa fawn all over him, he needed to feel a sense of danger. When the two began to conduct their own investigations alongside the nurse, Stella, they were “united against a common enemy” as Julia put it. This provided Lisa with an opportunity to truly showcase her active role in the relationship as well as her daring, adventurous side. When she is caught in Thorwald's apartment, it was a turning point, as it shows how much Jeff has begun to care for Lisa and how much he worried for her. This also demonstrates the danger of a relationship as you risk losing the other person.
It is interesting to see a twist on the standard gender roles in a film. Often it is the woman who stays home, cleans, and in essence doesn't do anything eventful while the man is the hero, the adventurous one. In REAR WINDOW, Jeff is stuck in his chair because of his cast and he plays the more passive role while Lisa does the risky and dangerous tasks and uncovers the key information to prove Thorwald guilty in killing his wife.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 01:38:53 pm

This is a very strong response, Jenna! I'm especially impressed with all the evidence from the film that you marshall to make your point and your engagement with Julia's earlier post. That said, please note the instructions called for the discussion of two course texts. There were several ways here that you might have incorporated Dickinson, Freud, or Edmondson in this response. Overall, though, please keep up the good work.

Vanessa Amar

20/9/2018 10:11:05 pm

From the beginning of the movie it is clear that Jeff, an adventurous photographer, is not interested in pursuing his relationship with Lisa, a woman who is dedicated to fashion. When she asks him if he thinks one of them could possibly change for the other, he says that he does not believe so. He believes that her lifestyle does not accommodate his, that she would be uncomfortable living in his realities. However, as the murder investigation progresses, they get closer. As Julia stated earlier, they are incompatible and needed a common enemy. The act of having to work on something together is what unites them. Adam Phillips suggests this when he asks “what would they do together if no one else were there?” [aphorism 94] In this case, what would Lisa and Jeff do if Mr. Thorwald weren’t there.

However that no longer becomes the case as their relationship develops. Lisa, as well as the other woman in the courtyard, take a more stereotypically male position in the relationship and in their lives. For example, in the window of the newlyweds, it is the wife who seems to want to have more sex. At the end of the day, Jeff is waiting for Lisa at home and she is the one to tell him about her business meetings that day. In the murder investigation, she becomes the one willing to take risks and adopt an aggressive and impulsive plan of action. This change of attitude is comparable to Edmunson’s text on love where he states that “what the beloved finds admirable, or interesting, or just noteworthy, is splendid behaviour.” [page 7] Lisa adopts her actions to fit Jeff’s life and what he finds to be admirable behaviour. By the end of the movie, she is no longer wearing heels and a dress, but rather flats and modest pants. She is seen reading a hiking book, but when she sees Jeff sleep she takes out her fashion magazine. She does all this to fit in his world.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 01:42:50 pm

Great observations, Vanessa. I think you could push this even further, though, by noting the "payoff" of your analysis. What does Lisa's more stereotypically "masculine" behavior, and her dissimulation at the end of the film,for instance, reveal about the film's gender politics more generally? ✔

Larissa Szaniszlo-Luty

20/9/2018 11:09:35 pm

TOPIC #2
Each character from the movie REAR WINDOW by Alfred Hitchcock attempts to decode the crime in their own way; Lisa appears to go out of her way to show her courageous side, whereas L. B. Jefferies does the exact opposite of that.

Throughout the movie, “Jeff” can be seen sitting in a wheelchair with a cast on his leg, obviously symbolizing the Freudian theory of “castration anxiety” he’s experiencing (Tyson 14). He’s staring out the window and using his camera to uncover the truth behind each window by zooming into the lives of his neighbors. Jefferies can be described as a ‘passive’ character because he never really acts upon any of his findings. At the beginning of the film, he notices what looks to be a murder but due to the fact that he’s in a cast – or perhaps it’s just in his character – he’s limited to what he can accomplish. This characteristic in Jeff reminds me of Roderick Usher in the short story, “The Fall of the House of Usher,” because both men were observant of the events around them yet neither were truly able to do anything about them. “Yes, I hear it, and have heard it. Long—long—long—many minutes, many hours, many days, have I heard it—yet I dared not [speak of it]” (Poe 215). In this line from Poe’s work, Roderick Usher says that he heard Madeline’s movements but felt as though he was being held back, much like the cast had been restricting the protagonist of the film.
In contrast to Jefferies, Lisa can be described as a much more ‘active’ character in the sense that she was willing to risk everything for the case (like climbing into the suspect’s apartment). Lisa, in my opinion, was “obsessed by a need for reassurance” from Jeff, which would explain how careless she had been (Riviere 2). In an attempt to please her partner (Jefferies), Lisa seemed to lose her true self but in the final scene, through the use of the magazine, it was shown that although she acted a certain way (courageous, fearless) for him, she was still the feminine woman that she was depicted to be in the first scene. Perhaps Lisa was following in the shoes of other women by, “putting masks on their faces in order to avert disaster”; she didn’t want to lose Jefferies so she had to act as though she was more than she really was (Riviere 3).

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 01:47:36 pm

Very interesting observations, Larissa. I think you could push this a little further with a clearer overall argument from the beginning. Your application of Riviere to Lisa is extremely promising, and in fact, you could easily write a whole post (or essay!) about that idea. What does it mean that Lisa becomes a strong and independent character, seemingly in the quest for masculine approval? This is a complex question where you could develop an equally complex answer, building of both Riviere and Freud.

On a minor point, while I like the link to Usher, Jefferies does *attempt* to be active (trying to convince everyone to help him), in a way which is much more subtle in Roderick's case (he invites the narrator to the home, but can't really openly express what he is repressing).

Overall, good job.

✔

Taïna Dushime

21/9/2018 09:54:54 am

Q1
Voyeurism can be defined as the practice of taking pleasure in observing something private, sordid or scandalous from a secret vantage point. This perverse envy humans have to look into other people’s lives is tempting because forbidden things are always more enticing. In “Three Essays”, Freud explains this as part of an “activity which is ascribed to the impulse for knowledge and investigation” (p.1).

The movie REAR WINDOW by Alfred Hitchcock is a great representation of Freud’s point of view on knowledge because the movie is based on two important concepts he worked on: voyeurism and the quest for knowledge. In “Three Essays”, Freud explains that people are generally curious because they constantly want to know more and that’s because so many things are forbidden to know about. Mix that with “the desire for looking”(p.1) out of boredom or for sexual gratification and you understand why Jeffrey, the voyeur, spends his days looking out the window. The fact that valuing privacy is such an important thing our parents taught us as kids, that it’s forbidden to spy on others because it’s an invasion of one’s privacy and that you shouldn’t know about what your neighbors decide to keep from you is what makes it even more irresistible. This is exactly what Freud means as he talks about young children wanting to know about how other people’s genitals look like. You see, since kids are told to keep their private parts hidden at a young age, they can’t help but to start peeking and comparing themselves to others to find out about what they are hiding as well and that’s because they are seeking knowledge. As Jeffrey is seeing more and more things he shouldn’t be seeing, he becomes obsessed with watching Mr.Thorwald day and night to understand what happened to his wife. However, as Meghan said, Lisa did not agree with his ways at first and called them “diseased”. So, to keep going, Jeffrey had to remind himself “That we never lose control, we just sometimes break the rules. That we are not entirely unfaithful, we are just faithful to something else” (Phillips:112). With that in mind, he could continue watching and investigating the suspect because even though he was going against everything he was taught about respecting privacy, he was being faithful to a greater cause, justice for Mrs.Thorwald.

Taina Dushime

21/9/2018 01:43:15 pm

The quote I used from Adam Phillips is an aphorism from "Monogamy" published in 1996.

Taina Dushime

22/9/2018 01:08:26 pm

I meant to say Jeff and not Jeffrey in my response.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 01:53:20 pm

This is a very good post, Taina! I really like the connection you draw to Freud, here. I encourage you to consider developing this into your essay later in the term. My only advice, however, is to note the specifically sexual aspect to both voyeurism and knowledge-seeking (where it is repressed) that Freud is suggesting. When you quote, Phillips, therefore, it's not simply that Jeff's quest for knowledge is "pure", at least from a Freudian perspective. The fact that Jeff's camera is portrayed as such a phallic symbol in the film, suggests the way Hitchcock is making a link between this desire for "forbidden knowledge" and sublimated sexuality. Overall, nice job. ✔

Hannah Di Francesco

21/9/2018 10:44:02 am

Question 1
Humans always want to see what they cannot. We can see this in both PLATO’S CAVE ALLEGORY and in REAR WINDOW. When the prisoner is released, the first thing he does is turn around to look at what he was forbidden to see his whole life behind him, Jeff also does this, when his neighbours open the blinds he looks into their lives, even though he know he shouldn’t. They are both compelled to see what they are not supposed to, they look at it even though they know it could harm them in the end. The prisoner will not be able to see as well in the darkness after he sees the fire and sunlight for too long and Jeff could be caught spying and would face consequences with them and possibly with the law also. It is noticeable that they are both looking for knowledge, although on very different things. This is why REAR WINDOW complicates the allegory. It shows that human beings are on a constant quest for knowledge, but that sometimes we put our morals aside to know more about others. We want to see what is going on in their lives, we like gossip, and this can clearly be seen in the movies. Jeff is looking through the window to see what is going on in other people’s lives even though he will not gain any concrete knowledge from this. He puts his morals aside when he looks at the newly married couples’ window and keeps looking back even when the blinds are closed, this shows he is interested in seeing what is happening, even though he already knows what is probably going on. This shows that there is a difference between knowing and seeing and that sometimes we want more than just the knowledge of what is happening, we want to see it to prove it.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 01:56:52 pm

This is solid work, Hannah. I like the connection you draw between the world outside of the cave and Jeff's investigations into his neighbor's lives. I also appreciate your "complication" by bringing up the ethics question. That said, note that not "everyone" in the cave seems to desire this knowledge--remember, the majority of the prisoners don't want to be set free. Also, for this response, the instructions ask for the application of two course texts. Overall, though, this shows promise. ✔-

chloe casarotto

21/9/2018 03:06:36 pm

Question 3:

Throughout the movie Rear Window we are introduced to the characters L.B. Jeffries and to Lisa Fremont, two opposite characters who have an unconventional relationship and who have opposing views on certain aspects of life. Although, as the film progresses we witness their relationship develop and change as a whole and we witness the two individuals change. To the people around them, Lisa and Jefferies are thought to be a couple, although in reality they are not. Their relationship begins with hostility and insecurities between each other which can be revealed when Jeff explains that he does not wish to be married, especially to Lisa, while on the other hand Lisa seems to have feelings towards Jeff and wishes to be with him this causes hostility because their opposing views (the one who wants to help and the other who wished no help) allow for them to argue constantly. However, as the movie continues Jeff becomes more possessive towards Lisa and wills to make sure she is always alright and that she does not put herself in danger. When she volunteers to break into Thorwald’s apartment, Jeffs asked her to refrain from doing so because it is not a good idea, although she is adamant on going in and being apart of the action. This shows that his feelings towards her are changing and he is becoming more protective and wishes her to be safe, on the other hand she is constantly caring for him and making sure he is comfortable and all of his needs are met while he is in a cast and confined to a wheelchair. An aspect that challenges their relationship is that of her will to be involved in solving the mystery of the murder and his denial of such, which can easily be related to what psychoanalysist refer to as “penis envy” this is the ideology that women are jealous of the man’s penis because of the authority it give them as well as the respect they earn when it is the opposite for women. This can be related to Lisa because she is always willing to do a man’s job and is not afraid to get her hands dirty, this may be because she wants to same respect and appreciation a man gets for simply being a man and having a penis. She does not wish to be undermined and to always follow society's rules, she wants people to see how smart she can be which can be seen when she after she gets mad at the detective for blowing her off and trying to undermine her. We can also see parts of Edgar Allen Poe’s The Man of the Crowd incorporated into the film. One aspect throughout the short story is the narrator attempting to learn to secrets of Londoners by examining their body language, which is what is happening in Rear Window with Jeff as well as Lisa. Jeff is acting in the same manner as the narrator because they are looking for what “does not permit itself to be read” (Poe 1) from the outside. By examining Thorwald, he is committing the same act as the narrator who is following the old man with the dagger and diamond. With Lisa’s help, Jeff is finding out the secrets of a possible murder and motive. This evolves their relationship because they are starting to find common ground and getting to know each other better. By doing such, they are both realizing the feelings they have towards each other and that they may be compatible together.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 02:04:00 pm

Good work, Chloe. As Lois Tyson notes, it would be more accurate to view the old style concept of "penis envy" as power envy, as you imply in your post. That said, one of the things that's interesting the film is that Lisa become more active, seemingly, as a way to court L.B.'s desire, who on some level, fits the stereotype of "castration" given his lack of mobility and total dependence on women. I think bringing these points together, along with connecting the examination of body language with Lisa or L.B's gendered body language in the film, could take these ideas in this post to the next level. Overall, very nice job. ✔

Sophie-Leprohon Watters

21/9/2018 03:31:24 pm

‘Plato's Allegory of the Cave’ can be compared to ‘Rear Window’. Jeff represents the man who sees reality, “Now what is approaching nearer reality in his eyes turned toward more real existence, he has a clearer vision” (Plato’s Allegory of the Cave). With this ‘clearer vision’, he tries to convince people of the murder which occurred next door. The person Jeff was never able to convince until his fall at the end of the movie is the detective. The detective symbolizes the men who are chained up staring at a wall thinking shadows are the reality the world. He's comfortable in the notion that there's nothing particularly wrong and argues that the murderer's wife is gone on a trip. He denies the proof Lisa, Jeff, and Stella have uncovered until he is forced to face the uncomfortable truth when Jeff is being attacked by the murderer. Jeff is perceived by the audience as seeing the world as it is, just like the enlightened man in ‘Plato’s Allegory of the Cave’. However, can this really the truth? As Kelly said, his cast is preventing him from leaving his apartment and seeing the rest of the world around him. In actuality, Jeff is one those men chained up watching shadows in front of him perceiving a distorted view of reality. Also, he’s a narcissist who believes he should be trusted and followed above all others, “The essential leader, whose reign recurs interminably through time” (Edmundson, 19). It is shown that Jeff shouldn't be completely trusted as a leader when Lisa says, "I think she's doing a woman's hardest job, juggling wolves." By the end of the movie, the audience discovered that she was right. Ms.Torso gave other men attention to succeed professionally in her career as a dancer. This proves that Jeff only one perspective on his neighbors' lives, that isn't necessarily correct, one window at the back of their apartment complex. This is comparable to the, one, perspective the chained men have, the cave wall. Jeff isn’t as enlightened as he is perceived to be, he too is trapped in chains believing shadows on a cave wall is reality.

Sophie-Leprohon Watters

21/9/2018 03:33:09 pm

This is an answer to question #1.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 02:10:49 pm

This is a very good post, Sophie. I especially *love* the "twist" in your argument, when you note that L.B too, doesn't actually have all the truth. To take this post to the next level, I would just want to see one line about what enables him to have knowledge regarding the murder (his reasoning and observation abilities gleaned from his time as a journalist) but that fails him when it comes to understanding Ms. Torso (something like the blinders of "male privilege."). Overall, though, very good job. ✔

Jade Karakaly

21/9/2018 07:40:48 pm

Question #3
Jeff and Lisa had a strangely evolving relationship throughout the course of the movie. In the beginning, both were uncertain about their future and they weren’t ready to change for on another. Lisa was willing to stay in her sophisticated and wealthy world. On the other hand, Jeff wasn’t interested in all of that. What he wanted to do was to stay home and stalk on people from his back window. Plus, we could say that Lisa is really dependant of Jeff’s love. For instance, when she got mad at him and told him that they wouldn’t see each other for a long time, she regretted what she said, came back to the door and told him that they would see each other tomorrow night.
Later in the movie, the relationship will evolve, and we will see a flagrant difference on how Lisa acts with Jeff. This is where I think penis envy comes into play. According to the Three Essay: “She is immediately prepared to recognize it, and soon becomes envious of the penis; this envy reaches its highest point in the consequentially important wish that she also should be a boy.” What is explained here is that the girl doesn’t physically want to have a penis, but she potentially wants to get all the power that boys have in the beginning of life and growing up. I think this was seen in Lisa’s behavior. Effectively, we saw her taking a lot of initiatives in the quest of the truth and she started to act stereotypically like a boy. For instance, she did the heroic act at the end of the movie where she had the guts to go into Thorwald’s house and this allowed Jeff getting answers to his questions. Often, in other movies, this scene would have been acted by a man because he is known as the one being scared of nothing, but this really threatened Jeff’s power assumed by his gender and it put the woman on the map.
The presence of a third party really allowed their relationship to evolve and become more exciting. Indeed, in the beginning, as explained earlier, they didn’t have the same interests. Later on, they started to get interested and kind of sustained this third party which is all of what Jeff sees through his window. Adam Phillips explains that: “The couple needs to sustain the third parties in order to go on resisting them.” And I think this is what Jeff and Lisa did. They started to get more and more interested into what was outside, and this allowed them to have a better chemistry between them. What I understood is that the fact that Jeff was so into what was outside disturbed his relationship with Lisa. Therefore, Lisa decided to kind of support Jeff in his quest which is the “sustain” part for them to be able to resist this third party when it really became something that’s part of their relationship. In the end, these third parties allowed them to have a better relationship later.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 02:16:10 pm

This is a solid post, but I do think you could push it further by noting the way that L.B. doesn't seem threatened by Lisa's newfound activity, but actually comes to desire her for it. And, relatedly, Lisa's activity seems to come less out of envy for male power, than (seemingly) the quest to receive male attention. Finally, make sure to cite the work of your peer's earlier up thread to ensure the conversation is progressing. Overall, solid work. ✔-

Lyna Ikram Bayou

21/9/2018 10:44:46 pm

Question 3
Jeff and Lisa are visibly dissimilar. Their personalities, lifestyles and interests are very different, in a way that goes beyond the saying that “opposites attract”. From the very start of the movies, Jefferies has this idea of Lisa in his mind. He perceives her as too perfect; too good for him. He doesn’t think they’re made for one another. Lisa, on the other hand, wants their relationship to work and believes it can. She loves Jeff and is willing to give up her fancy, high-end lifestyle if it means being with him. Having a strong independent woman in his life may have made Jeff feel uneasy because while he is in a wheelchair, unable to move, Lisa is the one going out, taking care of him and managing with everything. When she had an opinion, Lisa made sure to get her point across, even if it meant not letting Jeff speak. She is a power figure and it was something difficult to accept, especially by men in the 50s.
In Freud’s “Three Essays”, he suggests that men can be affected by the castration complex. Tyson also mentions it in “Psychoanalytic Criticism”. Jeff somehow had this “fear of demotion to the powerless position occupied by females” (Tyson 26) because having a woman in a position of dominance was something unusual. He is afraid to lose his masculinity if he lets Lisa take on such a big role in his life by becoming a lover. Hitchcock putting the protagonist in a cast, unable to move or defend himself, next to a powerful female lead was a great way of illustrating the complex. By the end of the investigation, Jeff starts to be fascinated by Lisa. The way she delivers the letter and climbs up the fire escape to break into Thorwald’s home makes him see a new side of her.
As Jenna mentioned Lisa and Jeff seem to enjoy the feeling of danger and risk provided by the investigation. They illustrate quite well Adam Phillips’ saying that “people have relationships not because they want to feel safe… but because they want to find out what the danger is” (34). By trying to arrest Thorwald and prove he is a murderer, they put their lives at great risk—Jeff almost being thrown out the window and Lisa getting arrested. Clearly, Jeff is afraid of losing Lisa when he sees her getting caught by Thorwald. This whole situation exposes one of the dangers—but also the exciting side—of being in a relationship. They feel and experience new things. Therefore, although they are not compatible, they manage to work things out because the investigation brings them closer.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 02:23:43 pm

Very good work, Lyna. It seems that L.B. fears Lisa when she appears too much in what he perceives as the role of "smothering mother," but he begins to be interested in her when she takes on the more characteristics of the active detective. How does this latter point complicate your application of the castration complex? Your observation about the "danger" being key for the couple's evolution is a good one, and makes one wonder (as Julie points out up threat) what will happen when it is no longer around. Where will they find the danger? Overall, good work. ✔

Isabella Martino

22/9/2018 01:11:00 am

Topic 1:
The escaped prisoner in Plato’s Cave Allegory and Jeffries from Hitchcock’s REAR WINDOW both share the desire to know what is beyond their limits. For Jeff, he is drawn to the world of others, and everything that encompasses their existence. So much so, that he becomes obsessed with following the lives of his neighbors, and acts as if he is subsumed into them. Similarly, when the prisoner is liberated from his shackles and notices the exit, he is overcome with immense curiosity. His impulse to explore what is beyond the comfort of the cave overpowers him and causes him to flee, despite feeling dreadful. In fact, both characters “[set their] fright at liberty” (Dickinson 22) by embracing their fear of engaging in something that is out of their comfort zone, and feel a sense of exhilaration in doing so. Adam Phillips describes that people engage in relationships “not because they want to feel safe […] but because they want to find out what the danger is” (Phillips 11). In Jeffries’ case, he has become fully engaged in his neighbors – in spying on them that is – and has developed an unspoken relationship with them. A desire to know the conflicts – in other words the dangers – of his neighbors compels him to keep on staring, which deepens the relationship he created. Consequently, Jeffries feels fulfilled when he discovers Mr. Thorwald has potentially murdered his wife. As for the prisoner, he too feels captivated by the relationship he has formed with the real world. However, it is not because he feels safe and is constantly reminded of the cave; the prisoner feels driven to discover the unknown, and will continue to do so until he finds something that scares him into going back. Both characters are driven by the excitement of knowing that what they’re engaged in could potentially put them in mortal danger, and will not stop until they are confronted by that danger.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 02:29:42 pm

Very good response, Isabella. The only thing you might add is that the philosopher argues that to lead the good life, it is much better to risk death for truth than to submit to the "wisdom of the cave." It seems that Jeffries views things in a similar fashion. Arguably, this links up very nicely with Dickinson's "Tis so Appalling it Exhilarates" in complex ways. Overall, nice job. ✔

Chris Morgan Arseneau

22/9/2018 01:12:11 am

(Question #3)

I agree with what Meghan said in regards to Jeff suffering from castration anxiety, but I don’t believe that the conceptions of femininity associated with Lisa played any part in causing Jeff’s castration complex.

According to Freud, “Castration anxiety is thus best understood as fear of demotion to the powerless position occupied by females.” (Psychoanalytic Criticism, Page 26). Simplified, castration anxiety is an overwhelming fear of being emasculated, specifically by damage or loss of the penis.

From the beginning of REAR WINDOW, Jeff appears castrated. His leg is enveloped in a long, stiff cast which protrudes from his body. This cast serves as a symbol for his castration complex, suggesting that something is broken or weak. It allows viewers to deduce that Jeff is physically and/or sexually impotent.

When elaborating on the castration complex, Freud states that: “The substitutive formations of this lost penis of the woman play a great part in the formation of many perversions.” (Three Essays, Page 1). Through voyeurism, Jeff appears to find a temporary escape from his castration anxiety. Observing his neighbours and stalking their private lives without being seen provides him with some sort of sexual pleasure or gratification. It makes him feel powerful (to some extent) and manly. Moreover, Jeff takes several precautions such as turning off the lights to ensure that he isn’t spotted or caught spying on his neighbours, giving him the luxury of sexual gratification with little fear of emasculation.

To circle back to what Meghan mentioned, I don’t believe that Lisa played a role in causing Jeff’s castration complex, but rather believe that she played a major role in restoring some of his ‘manliness’ or sexual potency, even though he breaks his other leg at the end of the film.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 02:33:53 pm

This is an *excellent* observation, Chris. I agree with your point about what's causing Jeff's castration anxiety and the way that he tries to compensate for it with his voyeurism. That said, you could make this point even more effective with one or two visual examples from the film to make your case. The most obvious would be the very obviously phallic nature of the camera itself in the movie. There's also the fact that so many of the stories he's watching are of a sexual nature (i.e. most obviously, the newlyweds and mrs. torso). Finally, you could then make an even bigger point by noting the way that film's centered around the "male gaze" position all audience members the same way as L.B. is positioned in the film. Overall, good job. ✔

Kathleen Fabella

22/9/2018 03:21:35 am

Question #4
Rear Window is not just a simple movie, but it is a film within a film. To explain, Rear Window is known for its amazing way of portraying the metaphor of cinema itself. As viewers, the thrill and the scenes of the movie we witness are limited to what Jeff sees, the protagonist of the film. Through his binoculars and huge lenses, we are able to only observe the daily doings of his neighbors but more specifically, what Jeff seeks to see. It's as if we were forced to be Jeff's accomplices and where his curiosity brings him.

Jeff gives in to the overwhelming intrigue he feels. The curiosity consumes his every thought and action, to the point where he neglects his health and general well-being. Due to his current physical limitations, he seems to vicariously live through his neighbor's lives. He finds enjoyment and excitement in watching what's happening through his window. This strange desire can be linked to the concept of voyeurism, which we have discussed in class. It's kind of like when Freud mentions that we are more tempted to do the things we know we shouldn't do. It comes back to the concept of the Id and the Super-Ego. How Jeff follows his wants rather than taking into account what society will think of him, just like how his girlfriend Lisa and his nurse Stella judged him for his odd pass time, yet he continued to do so.
Society's views and beliefs may not necessarily reflect our own, but that doesn't inevitably disprove of what we think. Similarly to Plato's Cave Allegory, the prisoners chained to the ground humiliated the free prisoner when they find out he doesn't perceive things the same as them anymore. It comes back to the movie Rear Window, how his entourage didn't believe his theory about the murderer next door until they actually saw it through his lens, in other words, through his own perspective. In a sense, we could be just like Jeff, or even the chained prisoners, who don't feel the need to search beyond what's in front of them, through their "window". They seem to have become complacent to the limited life they've settled with. Just like us as spectators of a movie, everything seems to fade into the background, until all we see, all we know of, is what's presented to us and we are satisfied with what's in front of us.

Cinematography is all about capturing a specific scene or moment from a certain point of view. It's a beautiful art form that allows us to sympathize with what the characters feel and what they go through. It can help us to see the world from a different perspective, rather than our own. The only question is if we'd rather keep our window opened or closed?

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 02:40:08 pm

Solid work here, Kathleen. You make a nice point about the way that Jeffries' obsessive voyeurism mirrors that of film audiences. That said, I think this post could be more effective with some engagement with the earlier work of your peer's upthread who deal with similar themes (always show how the conversation is advancing). I also think some quotes from the texts, examples from the film, and a more pointed and focused overall argument would make this stronger (there's a lot of writing in this response, but few examples to back up a main idea). All that said, you do make some important connections that could be more fully developed in the future. ✔-

Idia Boncheva

22/9/2018 10:02:59 am

As pleasant as movies can be, they tend to bend reality to a single person, or a group of people’s points of view. As Kelly said in her response, this issue on perspective can be linked to both Plato’s Cave Allegory and Hitchcock’s movie Rear Window. Just like the men in the cave, Jeff is limited to only what he sees from his window. And as soon as his detective friend provides him a rational explanation or proof that the assumptions he has made about the neighbor who killed his wife are false, he gets defensive. Thus, relating back to the fact that most people aren’t just comfortable in their ignorance, but hostile when their illusions are contradicted or questioned. In the movie, Jeff turned out to be right. His deductions were accurate. But let’s imagine he wasn’t. When would he have accepted the fact that his neighbor was innocent? He had to be freed from his chains—or his cast, and step outside his home to see all the things he missed. He had to step outside of his cave to face the sun and see the material objects instead of their shadows.
I also believe that what we see in cinema isn’t always what is shown. We sometimes chose what we see to fit with our own perspectives. Our interpretation of a certain movie can reflect the things we try to bury. As we have previously discussed, “symptoms are derived from the repressed, they are, as it were, its representatives before the ego”. Jeff wants to believe his neighbor killed his wife, which could be a symptom of his desire to leave Stella. He considers her too perfect for him, as Adam Philips has said, “It is not that one person cannot satisfy all our needs, but that with each person we create a new set of needs.” Jeff is then conflicted, he thought she was the one for him, but he realized how much he craved adventure He chose to distract himself from his personal problems by looking out the window, the same way we watch movies to escape reality.

Idia Boncheva

22/9/2018 10:07:35 am

(Q.4) The works cited are Adam Philips' Monogamy (1996) aphorism 100, and Freud's The Dissection of the Psychical personality,

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 02:46:05 pm

There are some solid observations here, Idia. I particularly like your point about cinema and repressed desire; the way we can vicariously live through our fantasies by going to the movies. That said, this point is a little buried in the overall response, which covers too much ground in a short space. Moreover, note that Jeffries' doesn't solve the mystery by himself: it's very much a team effort, which suggests that discovering of knowledge doesn't have to be a solitary enterprise limited to one perspective. Finally, note that it's Lisa who is his girlfriend, not Stella. Overall, this response shows promise, but I do think you can have more focused and rich examples for future works. ✔-

Cato Usher

22/9/2018 10:47:49 am

4
Alfred Hitchcock’s REAR WINDOW is a classic tale of intrigue, voyeurism and our desire to know more. In the film, L.B. Jefferies, a wheel-chair bound, extremely bored, world-renowned photographer sits in his apartment on a hot summer day, peering into his neighbours’ open windows. What starts as a pass-time quickly becomes quite the obsession, when his voyeuristic tendencies make him the witness to a murder.

This aspect of REAR WINDOW brings the themes it shares with Plato’s Cave Allegory to mind. Both stories deal with and challenge the notion that “seeing is believing”. In REAR WINDOW, Jefferies goes to great lengths to convince Detective Doyle of the murder he believes happened, without actually witnessing the murder itself. This is similar to the way the prisoners saw the world in Plato’s Cave Allegory, treating everything they saw as absolute fact because they had never experienced anything else. This theme, covered in both stories, makes them equally effective metaphors for cinema. When watching a movie, we are putting all of our trust into the filmmakers’ hands, believing everything we see. However, there are many examples of films having what are known as “distorted narratives”, such as David Fincher’s Fight Club, where the story deals with twists and turns that make us lose our trust in the filmmaker.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 04:48:06 pm

Nice link to the idea of "seeing is believing" as it plays out in both the cave allegory and REAR WINDOW. That said, this post would be more effective if you expanded upon the point, particularly in what it may tell us about the nature of knowledge and cinematic spectacle more generally. Also note that the instructions called for references to at least two course texts. Again, nice observations, but I hope to see them more developed in the future. ✔-

Patricia Brassard

22/9/2018 12:00:42 pm

Q.#3

Jeff and Lisa are an unlikely match. They come from different backgrounds, have different interests, and want different things. Their conflict of interest seems to be leading to a separation when a murder unites them. Adam Phillips states ‘we need our partners to help us find rivals. We need so many people to make desire work’ [aphorism #105], which is particularly fitting for this relationship, since they need both Stella and Mr. Thorwald to function properly. Stella will give her unsolicited love/marriage advice to Jeff and suggests marriage isn't necessarily bound to fail. The solving of the Mr. Thorwald mystery will create a common goal for the couple, giving them a false sense of kinship.

L. B. Jeffries and Lisa seem to become more and more compatible as the mystery is unfolding. This is because there is a metaphorical transfer of the penis. It is possible to read ‘Here lies the broken bone of L. B. Jeffries’ on the mans left leg cast in the beginning of REAR WINDOW. This symbolizes his impotence and his inability to take on the ‘man’s’ role to fulfill the quest. L. B. Jeffries castration complex is palpable towards the end of the movie as Lisa will substitute him in his masculine duties as she solves the murder, as Meghan said. She emasculates him unconsciously, which is arguably worst, by trying to please him and make him proud to make their relationship work. The metaphorical penis is transferred from the adventurous photograph journalist to the beautiful model because she does everything he is supposed to do.

This couple will never thrive because there won’t always be a murder to solve. At the end of the movie, when Jeff is in his double cast and she wears the pants, we see just how much the relationship shifted. But, just before it ends, we see her switching reads from BEYOND THE HIMALAYAS to BAZAAR, which confirms Edmundson’s quote ‘‘we are, […], not so different from our former selves’’. This suggests that even after this adventure, the couple will return to square one, with their initial incompatibility.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 04:55:46 pm

There's a lot to like about this post, Patricia. I particularly appreciate your application of Phillips' concept about the many factors involved in keeping desire alive, which was see played out in this film. My only criticism would be your point about Lisa emasculating Jeffries by "doing everything he is supposed to do." This makes it sound like you are *agreeing* with the gender norms of the time, which I imagine is definitely not the case. Also, why can't "playing" with strict gender norms possibly not stimulate desire, as we seem to see happen in the film? It seems as though Jeffries feels more emasculated when Lisa plays the more traditional "mothering" role (giving him food, care, etc.), and he becomes interested once that sense of risk, which you rightly highlight at the end of your post become more central (perhaps he likes it when she more explicitly takes up the symbolic phallus that you highlight). I 100% agree that ideas such as the castration complex (your point about the writing on the cast is great) and reversal of gender norms is important to this film, but I would just urge you to consider the "flip" side of this gender-bending implicit in your own argument. Overall, very good work. ✔

David Boghen

22/9/2018 01:13:30 pm

(Question #4)

Freud’s theory of dreams and Hitchcock’s REAR WINDOW have similar ways of explaining why we enjoy watching movies. When we think about dreams, we often discount them because we feel like they are disconnected from our thoughts, and are just arbitrary images that result from our experiences of the previous days. However, when we use the term “dream” in our daily vocabulary, we use it in a similar manner as we do the words “goal” or “wish”. Therefore, we are conscious that these dreams are in some way an expression of our goals and wishes, although they are often perverse and thus, we refuse to accept them as such. As Freud said in the third of his three lectures on “The Origin and Development of Psychoanalysis”, “The manifest dream, which we remember after waking, may then be described as a disguised fulfillment of repressed wishes”. Dreams and movies are closely related in this sense, because we go the movies not only to watch someone else’s life unfold, but to be able to express our repressed wishes through them.

I am interested in what Cato brought up when he mentioned the notion of “seeing is believing”. As in Poe’s “The Man of the Crowd”, we often assume that there is more to what we see than meets the eye, and we will search for as long as we can to uncover the mystery. Although Jeff, as well as the audience, believes that there was a murder, because all the information that he has pointed towards that conclusion, we are never sure until Thorwald admits to the crime at the very end. When we go to the movies, as did Jeff, we not only believe everything that we see, but we also believe things that we don’t even know for sure to be true. We speculate based upon what we have seen, trying to anticipate what will happen, and even though those speculations are generally not founded, we sometimes believe them even more than when we see what actually happened. Sometimes this is because our speculations are based on what we want to happen, because it will allow us to fulfill our repressed wishes, and therefore we believe it so firmly to be true that we make it true in our mind, so as to satisfy our perverseness.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 04:58:25 pm

First, let me say your point about the way we use the word "dream" is amazing. This is a great observation. I also like the way you apply it to cinema. The only issue with this post is that there is so little on what actually happens in REAR WINDOW, here. You want to always make sure to bolster your argument with specific examples from the film. Overall, good job. ✔

Julia Bifulco

22/9/2018 01:35:48 pm

Question One:

REAR WINDOW illustrates Plato’s views on knowledge. In the film, Jeff spends all of his time looking out his window at his neighbours, examining them, and intruding on their private moments. He knows, as anyone would, that what he’s doing is intrusive and morally incorrect, but he can’t help himself. Jeff becomes completely invested in each neighbour’s story, especially a certain Mr. Thorwald, who he thinks has murdered his wife. Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” depicts the dangers of ignorance, which is shown by the prisoners who do not wish to be freed. Jeff from Hitchcock’s film mirrors the freed prisoner from the Cave Allegory—they know something that others around them do not, and when they try to share their knowledge, they are pushed away and ridiculed. The freed prisoner is also similar to Jeff because he knows that turning around and looking at the outside world is forbidden, but he does it anyway, just as Jeff continues to stare out his window. In the end, Jeff solves a murder and the freed prisoner becomes enlightened, and both characters “win”, in a sense. Jeff was constantly told that Thorwald was innocent, but he wasn’t, and he (Jeff) was right all along. Those who doubted him were just as ignorant as the prisoners in the cave who refused to leave; they believed that there was nothing more to the world than the shadows, and only the freed prisoner could see the truth. Both REAR WINDOW and Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” prove that ignorance is not, in fact, bliss.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 05:01:35 pm

Very solid post, Julia. Your analogy is a good one. That said, I think you could push this further by pointing out what "knowledge" looks like for both the freed prisoner and for Jefferies. You might have also further explored your observation about the seemingly immorality of his voyeurism, which contrasts with the way Plato highlights the ultimate "good" that is the quest for knowledge. Finally, please make sure to build off earlier posts and note the instructions called for referencing at least two course texts. Again, I like how you wrapped up your argument, but try to push your analysis further in future work. ✔-

Victoria Caputo

22/9/2018 02:39:16 pm

Question #4

As children and as we grow up, we are taught by our parents that “spying” on others is bad. We begin to learn what is socially acceptable and what isn’t, voyeurism being one of the things that isn't respectable behavior. When you get caught staring at someone, you feel guilty. The morbid fascination we have with knowing what other people are doing, with watching them and observing their every move, is something that society teaches us to repress at a very young age. Everyone has primal curiosity within themselves, even if they respond negatively to an act of voyeurism — Lisa calling Jeff “diseased” when she sees what he’s doing — they only do so because they have been conditioned to repress this natural curiosity. As much as they seem against it at the beginning of REAR WINDOW, Lisa and Stella become just as invested as Jeff, if not more so. They quickly become involved in the mystery, despite their previous resistance. Humans are naturally perverse creatures, and even if we are told not to do certain things, we never stop wanting to do them, we just repress that wanting. This relates to Freud’s thoughts on Partial Impulses from his Three Essays on the Infantile Sexual Investigation. He says that children have a natural perverse desire to know what other people’s genitals look like and even describes them as “voyeurs and zealous spectators” when talking about the gratification they get from others’ “excrementitious needs”. Freud also mentions that even once it’s repressed, their interest in seeing genitals is still a “tormenting desire”. Moviegoers are also “voyeurs and zealous spectators”. We willingly pay to sit down in a room full of people to simply watch other people do things. We can’t watch our neighbors without our actions being deemed socially unacceptable, so we project this voyeuristic need elsewhere. Films allow us to explore our repressed desire to watch others, but they do so in a way that doesn’t make us feel guilty for the gratification we get from our actions. During any viewing of REAR WINDOW, we are people watching a person watch other people. Every window Jeff peers through during the film is its own “movie”, each room has its own characters and its own narrative. This Hitchcock film is our own metaphorical window through which we perversely watch a story unfold.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 05:04:55 pm

This is a very strong post, Victoria! Well-argued and well-observed. In the future, though, consider adding just one or two more examples from the film; note the instructions called for references to two texts; and build off earlier posts in the forum. That said, overall, this is very effective work. ✔

Marilena Mignacca

22/9/2018 02:43:54 pm

Question 1

Humans are always drawn to the forbidden because usually we have the capacity to see anything in our surroundings but as soon as we find something that is closed or covered we are tempted to see what’s inside. It’s in our human nature to question; “why can’t I open that? Why am I not allowed to see what’s behind there? Is there something bad that’s in there that I’m not allowed to find out?” because when we are unaware of the unknown we get scared but also intrigued. We know we shouldn’t be looking at it which makes our desire to look even stronger, which is what Freud explains in his THREE ESSAYS text. “When the sexual life of the child reaches its first bloom…it evinces the beginning of that activity which is ascribed to the impulse for knowledge and investigation.” For a child, the one thing they want to know is what is underneath his/her’s clothes and why it is covered. They are taught by their parents that they shouldn’t show anyone their genitals or look at anyone else’s because it’s an invasion of one’s privacy and it is wrong which is why it’s done in secret and very quietly because a sense of guilt also accompanies it. Well in REAR WINDOW, Jeff is drawn to the lives of his neighbours because a sense of knowledge is aroused in him but he’s also very discreet about it, such as when he thinks he’s been caught he backs up into the dark, because he knows he shouldn’t be looking but forms of repressers keep him wanting more, like the curtains on the windows. For example, Freud explains that when a child’s tendency to look becomes repressed, their curiosity becomes a tormenting desire and strengthens the motive to look at what they shouldn’t be looking at.
When Jeff’s neighbours close their curtains he gets frustrated and leaves him wanting to know more, and his thoughts make up of “I wonder what they’re doing now?” Like in the 113th monogamy in the PHILLIP MONOGAMY text, it says “Imagination, then, is the comforting word for sexual jealousy; ambition, the slightly less comforting word; and obsession ... ?” He becomes obsessed with his neighbours, in particular Thorwald because he doesn’t exactly know what he did to his wife, it’s his imagination that’s taking control and making him obsessed with his case. But the missing piece of the unknown increases his desire to uncover the truth.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 05:07:38 pm

Very nice post, Marilena. I do think this would be even more effective with a clearer explanation/integration of the Phillips quote and some engagement with the work of your peers' upthread. Overall, though, nice job. ✔

Wendy Lopez Ponce

22/9/2018 05:01:50 pm

Question 1

Plato’s cave allegory demonstrates how when shown the same reality repeatedly, we believe it is the only right perspective of the world. But when liberated from those limits we are driven by curiosity to find out what was kept and hidden from us knowing it may differ completely from what we have been taught for years. He hints that humans have this sort of perverseness to know the unknown. Which is why Hitchcock’s REAR WINDOW is a clear illustration of Plato’s view on knowledge.

In REAR WINDOW, we clearly see that the detective is a representation of Plato’s men in the cave that laughed once the prisoner who was set free came back to tell them about the reality beyond the cave. Just like those men, the detective refused to listen to Jeff instead he did as if what he was saying was impossible, according to him. It was his way of believing that a man as debilitated as Jeff could be making these things up. Thus, why he is constantly trying to get these assumptions over with by reassuring Jeff that everything he thought he saw was false. As for Jeff, he represents the man that was released and that went out into the world to come back with an entirely new and different perspective from the other men. The prisoner saw what had been hidden from him for such a long time, something that he shouldn’t have seen. Just like him, Jeff saw things he wasn’t meant to see, he entered his neighbours private lives by looking through their windows, even when told that it was wrong and unacceptable, he continues to do so. He is so driven by this perverseness and curiosity to see what he shouldn’t which is why when he shares it he gets similar reactions as the man in Plato’s cave allegory did, since he too knew more than he should. Jeff became looked down on by the detective as if he had an obsession making all those facts up. Everyone refused to believe the reality of the murder he saw happen threw Mr. Thirlwall’s window. Thinking that a voyeur such as Jeff wouldn’t be able to have any knowledge on the murder because it is something he shouldn’t know. This shows that there is a constant battle of right and wrongs on the quest to know more then we should.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 05:11:26 pm

Wendy: You find some solid comparisons between the Cave Allegory and Rear Window. You are right to highlight the way the "truth-seeker" is dismissed in each story. I do think this would be more effective with a reference to a second text (as noted in the instructions), in this case, Freud (just because you are dealing with voyeurism). I also think that some discussion of the way knowledge is achieved in each story would also make this even stronger. Finally, please make sure to engage the work of your peer' upthread. Overall, this does make some nice points. Looking forward to reading more of your work in the near future. ✔-

Ruhullah Muhtat

22/9/2018 08:21:31 pm

Question #1:
As Julia stated in her response, Jeff is clearly a narcissist and it is why Lisa seems so much attracted into him. I would like to go further into why Jeff is a narcissist and the impact of it on his relationship with Lisa. We see how Jeff is independent and “need nothing and no one but himself” when Lisa is told by him that they can’t be together because he is too adventurous and isn’t the stable man Lisa is looking for. Right there, Jeff clearly shows Lisa that he is not in love with her, but rather satisfied “from being loved”. In Edmundson’s text the figure of the narcissist is described as someone who takes the place of the super-ego of his lovers. This statement can be seen in a particular scene that Julia also talked about: when Lisa decides to go and dig into Thorwald’s yard. Notice how Lisa was completely into Jeff’s plan even though the elegance she exudes might make us think that she won’t go in there and commit something illegal. Lisa, at this point, has no super-ego other than Jeff, so when her super-ego is asking for someone to go into Thorwald’s yard, she doesn’t hesitate at all because she is completely bewitched by Jeff. Beside the fact that Jeff and Lisa’s relationship is based on Jeff’s narcissism, their couple can be considered as “in search of a crime”, like Adam Philips says in his Monogamy text. In fact, their couple really becomes one when they decide to elucidate the mystery behind Thorwald’s strange behaviour. They decide to become criminals by intruding someone’s personal life and by doing so they become partners in crime.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 05:14:01 pm

Great observations, Ruhullah. Really like the points about narcissism and the super-ego. This would be even more effective if you more clearly connected it to your second point about the relationship and danger. Moreover, please make sure to provide page/aphorism numbers for quotes when applicable. Overall, good work. ✔

Ameera Kabir

22/9/2018 09:08:25 pm

[Q.1]

I believe that Wendy makes interesting parallels between Jeff and the “enlightened”, and Detective Doyle and the prisoners, however I drew the opposite comparaison. In Plato’s Cave Allegory, the prisoners are shackled and unable to move from their seats; they can only see what is directly in front of them. In a similar sense, Jeff is bound to his cast and can not leave his room. All of them are fixated on illusions they believe to be true. Jeff is certain that Thorwald murdered his wife based on indirect evidence. Whether Jeff is wrong or right isn’t of much importance, but rather that he believes his judgment to be reality instead of assumption; he is solely relying on his senses and thus his beliefs are not justified. What complicates Plato’s perspective on knowledge is that Jeff relies on illusions which ultimately prove to be true. The difference between Jeff and the escapee is that the latter experiences the outside world first hand. They were able to interact with it, touch it, and come to conclusions that were based on experience as well as reflection and not, as David put it, speculation. Jeff did none of these things and created a narrative in his mind that suited what he saw through the window, but since he was right, he is seen as a hero for bringing a murderer to justice. This raises complications as Plato states that is the job of the enlightened to inform those who are not, however Jeff despite being right, is not enlightened.
If Lisa and Stella had not believed in Jeff, would he have continued to fight for Thorwald’s conviction? It is doubtful, especially considering that Jeff himself is unable to take action on his own. If there is no one to back up his beliefs, he might start to question them, especially since they are based on flimsy grounds. This is another aspect that differentiates him from the escapee, since they would not need the prisoners to believe them ― even though they might want it ―, because they have acquired the knowledge through reflection, and not as Jeff did through assumption. In this sense, Jeff is more similar to the prisoners who are trapped in their limited view of reality.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 05:20:03 pm

Ameera,

First let me say that I'm super impressed with how *motivated* and counter-intuitive, yet extremely plausible, your response is here. You are one of the few commenters who really thought about the nature of knowledge in the cave allegory. I do think this post would be even more effective if you took it *one step higher,* at the end, for example, what might the implications be regarding knowledge and film spectatorship from what you note here? Or, does the film, with it's emphasis on knowledge-building as "team-work," built upon both logic, but also intuition, perhaps challenge Plato's more rationalistic approach? Also note that the instructions called for the discussion of two course texts, and only one is included here. Again, overall, I love what you do here. Please keep up the good work. ✔

Doha Ani

22/9/2018 10:13:11 pm

Question 4

The movie REAR WINDOW is considered an allegory to cinema because of its particularity of having a movie inside a movie. In the story we follow the main character Jeff peep on his neighbours through his window which could be related to Plato’s Cage Allegory because Jeffries room could be seen as the cave itself. If we consider the fact that he never goes out of his room, if we see the window as the wall where the shadows were projected and the fact that he can’t move, due to his disability and his desire to peep, represent the chains and the head support that makes him enable to move. Also, as Cato said when she talked about the notion of “seeing is believing” just like in Plato’s Allegory Jeffries believe that what he is seeing through his window is the one and only truth because he is persuaded that Mrs.Thorwald was killed by her husband even though he never saw the murder and there is no serious or real proof to that conclusion. So when we take all of that information into account we can come to the conclusion that Jeffries is just like the main character in Plato’s Allegory because he will eventually get out of the cave, yet by force but still out, and see the real world.

Furthermore, the movie REAR WINDOW really illustrate cinema because whenever we watch a movie we only see what the movie director wants to us to see but we are never aware of that fact because we follow the narration of the movie but after watching REAR WINDOW I became more “aware” of that phenomenon because we don’t have a broad vision of the scene but a very precise one because we watch the movie or movies, if each window is a small movie, through the protagonists eyes. So that movie really brings out the fact that just like the main character we almost “live through” the characters of the movies that we watch.

Julian Nemeth

23/9/2018 05:23:18 pm

Very nice observations, Doha. Your analogies between the prisoners in the cave and Jefferies in his room are good ones. That said, how is it that Jefferies ends up solving the murder? Is it possible that REAR WINDOW suggests a more active understanding of viewership than the Cave Allegory? Also note that the instructions called for the integration of at least two course texts. Again, your analogy was good, but I do think you can push your arguments even further. ✔-

Maria Fatima Agustin

22/9/2018 10:31:09 pm

Question #4

Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” is an interesting film that contains elements related to the cinema metaphorically. To begin, I should mention that Jeff, a professional photographer who is housebound due to his broken leg, spends his days observing his neighbors’ doings through his apartment window. Perversely enough, he finds pleasure in that pastime. Like Kathleen mentioned, when one finds thrill into watching someone, that specific desire could be linked to the idea of voyeurism.
Similarly to a movie theater’s frame, Jeff’s window enables him to become a spectator of his neighbors’ daily routines. Because he performs this action in secret, it leads me to discussing about Freud’s theory of dreams. In his text- The Origin and Development of Psychoanalysis, Freud writes: “You must differentiate between the manifest dream-content, which we remember in the morning only confusedly, and with difficulty clothe in words which seem arbitrary, and the latent dream-thoughts, whose presence in the window unconscious we must assume.” (Freud, 19). That passage helps us understand the difference between those two concepts, however he also discusses about “dream-work” (the process in which the latent-dream thoughts transfers into the manifest-dream content). Essentially, dream-work transforms our forbidden desires into pleasant ones. Consequently, the feeling of anxiety diminishes which enables us to maintain a good sleep.
It sounds a lot like Jeff’s situation: by staying in his apartment while practicing his pervasive habit, he is transforming his inappropriate action (stalking his neighbors) into a fair substitute. In a way, not being seen by his surrounding helps reduce his anxiety, which enables him to keep calm and continue being a voyeur. Personally, I think that breaking his leg isn’t as torturing as he seem made it like in the beginning, because it is, in a way, an excuse for him to stare at the people who live around him. In fact, that excuse helps his peace of mind stay at rest, because, in his point of view, observing his neighbors, in a wheelchair, will simply be an act of innocence.

Julian Nemeth

24/9/2018 06:05:05 pm

Nice connection of LB's voyeurism to dreamwork, Maria. I think you could push this even further by noting the way that his interest in the murder, also allows him an alibi for all his other peeping on the lives of his neighbors. Also the instructions called for a reference to at least two course texts. Overall, solid work. ✔-

Isabeli Pizzani

22/9/2018 11:38:10 pm

Question 4:

I think Idia brought a really interesting point, just as in dreams, in films we take the elements that seem meaningful to us and give them a sense and REAR WINDOW is a great example this. Some of the sense we find to these elements might be shared with others due to our common culture. However, we may also see some interesting differences.
According to Freud, “dream-content is the disguised surrogate for the unconscious dream thoughts” (Freud, 14). Our repressed wishes are “hidden”, and we try to unveil them. People sharing the same culture might find similar meanings in certain symbols, as Tyson said: “there are some images that tend to have the same symbolic meaning from dreamer to dreamer, at least if those dreamers are members of the same culture,” (Tyson, 9). We take the little pieces we have access to and create a meaning for ourselves and, sometimes, with the help of its setting challenges the view we have of certain elements in our life. So, our interpretation of the dream says more about us than the dream itself.
In REAR WINDOW, Jeff, through his window, has access to fragments of all his neighbours’ life, but it’s Mr. Thorwald that draw his attention the most. With the few pieces of his Lars Thorwald’s life that he has access to, he imagines a backstory. Lisa and Stella also get caught on that same platform, but they give different meanings to certain elements, for example, when the ballerina is having some man over her house. Jeffrey thought she was interested in all of them, but in Lisa’s point of view she wasn’t in love with any of them. Their interpretation of the situation says a lot about them, especially Lisa’s since as a woman she had experienced that same situation. This example shows that even though some elements are interpreted in the same way, their experiences also have an impact on how the couple perceive the same scene. We can even see that Lisa’s response has impact on her boyfriend perspective. He realizes that a woman doesn’t always keep man around because they like them, but also because of their position. Especially on the 50, when woman didn’t have a meaningful status on the workplace.

Quoted sources:
The Origin and Development of Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud (1910)
Psychoanalytic criticism by Lois Tyson

Julian Nemeth

24/9/2018 06:10:21 pm

This is a very good response, Isabeli. I like how you connect the way that interpretation tells us as much about the person as the dream itself, and the way you link this to characters in the film. I do think you could make this response even more effective with just a few more quick examples (for instance Lisa's focus on the importance of the ring), but overall, very good job. ✔

Bridget Griffin

22/9/2018 11:51:41 pm

4) REAR WINDOW begins with L. B. Jefferies staring out his window in passive amusement. Confined to a wheelchair, this has become his main source of entertainment. To him, the characters on the other side of the window aren’t real people; he refers to them as nicknames that he has created for them based off of their outward behaviour, such as Miss Lonelyhearts and Miss Torso. He has become the ultimate voyeur, as they have become the ultimate exhibitionists; though they are simply going about their daily lives, they seem to be putting on a show. Miss Torso spends her days prancing around in skimpy clothing, while Miss Lonelyhearts pretends to have dinner with an invisible guest, all with the blinds open. However, though these characters may briefly capture his attention, it’s what he doesn’t know that truly occupies his mind. Just like how sometimes the most important things are that which don’t seem important in psychoanalysis, the same can be said for the murder of Mrs. Thorwald. It’s easy for Doyle to dismiss the entire case, as the chained prisoners in Plato’s Cave Allegory can easily dismiss the enlightened prisoner, but Jeff’s seen the light, and he knows that silence speaks volumes. Slowly, that passive amusement starts to turn into active engagement, and he starts to influence the events occuring on the other side of the window.
This all can be seen as a metaphor for cinema because it expresses, and sometimes criticizes, our society’s affinity for viewership. Jeff knows that he doesn’t know everything, but he wishes for the story to conclude. He cannot himself figure out what is going on, just as we as viewers cannot explore the worlds created in movies beyond what is shown on the screen. He therefore asks Doyle, and later on Lisa and Stella, to help him solve the mystery, sending them off into the far-away world that is framed by his window.
When Jeff sees Mr. Thorwald disappearing at night, he’s drifting in and out of consciousness, as if the events could be a dream. As Freud said in his third speech, “If I were asked how one could become a psychoanalist [sic], I should answer, through the study of his own dreams.” Jeff must dissect Thorwald’s actions in order to get to the root of the mystery, as one would dissect their own dreams, or symbols in a movie in order to further comprehend a movie maker’s intentions.
He doesn’t want to know what happened to Mrs. Thorwald because he’s worried about her, he’s never even met her. He wants to know because he has this need for excitement in his life that is currently nearly boring him to death. He simply needs a conclusion to the story, feeling entitled to one as many people do when watching movies. The obsessiveness that arises when he finds that the answers won’t come easily is a reflection upon a culture that is obsessed with consuming stories: if we are so self-centered that we believe we should know everyone’s story, where does it end?
Eventually, Jeff becomes so intrusive upon Thorwald’s story that he becomes part it, when Thorwald literally propels him into the world he has been watching through a window the entire movie.
REAR WINDOW can therefore be viewed as viewership gone too far; as Stella says, “We’ve become a race of Peeping Toms.” A race of Peeping Toms who are in constant search for the truth.

Bridget Griffin

22/9/2018 11:54:37 pm

Quoted source: The Origin and Development of Psychoanalysis (1910) page 18

Julian Nemeth

24/9/2018 06:13:23 pm

Great response, Bridget. The numerous and salient examples you provide to both the course film and texts are impressive. You also develop a nice argument, especially towards the end. Please keep up the good work. ✔+

Emily Trankarov

23/9/2018 09:21:11 pm

Question 1

My interpretation of Plato's Cave allegory comes down to the fact that, the way we learn is inextricably affected by our past. The prisoner who has been released first finds easiest looking at the shadows, and slowly from there builds on what he is capable of seeing, to finally end up looking at the sun itself. To him seeing the shadows is simplest at first because it's most similar to what he's known his entire life up till now. All he has ever witnessed where the shadows projected on the cave walls. Knowledge always starts with something familiar and builds up to be something new and acquired. In the same way that the prisoner came about to looking at the sun, Jeffries in REAR WINDOW slowly lived through a sort of evolution of knowledge when investigating in the Thorwalds’ case. He starts by simply observing the daily lives of those surrounding him through his neighbors’ windows. Thus, acquiring a certain base of knowledge in regards to the daily rituals and habits of each of those individuals. His inquiries and suppositions or something fishy happening go about in a sort of increasing manner. He doesn't suddenly start suspecting murder, but rather witnesses a series of events which act as an accumulation to what he is already aware of as being ‘normal’. What helped him distinguish those suspicious activities was in fact the knowledge she had previously acquired through his observations. He therefore quickly and exponentially started noticing the odd behaviors. Including Thorwald’s various outings late at night, the saw which he brings into his apartment, later the trunk tied with ropes and most of all the missing wife, which Jeffries had known thanks to his observations that she was ill and on bed rest which would imply that her absence is out of out of the norms. In other words in order to understand the present Jeffries, just as the prisoner did in the cave allegory, based what he was learning from what he had learnt in the past. Jeffries spots inconsistencies because of how his knowledge has been tinted, just as the released prisoner compares the sun and everything he's learning leading up to his discovery of the Sun to what he knew for a long time before, which was the shadows. He therefore includes in his conclusion that the sun is the source of the shadows which he knows very well and were always so familiar to him. Jeffries concludes that the deviations from the habitual life and patterns which he’s accustomed to are proof of a crime which he strongly believes has been committed.

Julian Nemeth

24/9/2018 06:18:06 pm

This is a beautifully observed post, Emily. I really like the way you connect the shadows in the cave to Jeff's slow enlightenment towards the reality of the murder. This post would be more effective, however, if it also engaged with some of the earlier posts on the cave allegory upthread (notably, Ameera's) and included references to two course texts as noted in the instructions. Overall, good work. ✔

Angele Wen

24/9/2018 03:35:56 pm

Question 3

When Lisa first appeared, she kissed Jeff. This is a sign that they have affection for each other, but then, in their conversation, we learn that Jeff isn't as interested in this relation as her. It was almost a one sided relation, because Jeff didn't seem like he was advancing in his feelings. Meanwhile, Lisa was working hard to get him to love her more and she was convinced they would work out. To prove to Jeff that she was capable of being adventurous, she even climbed up a balcony to help him resolve the criminal case of his neighbour. Seeing she was actually more like him and not just a girl who likes fashion, he seemed more interested in her. This relates to Joan Riviere's WOMANLINESS AS MASQUERADE, but instead of wearing a feminine mask, she's putting on a masculine mask to hide her feminine side to conquer Jeff's heart. Joan Riviere also suggests that men prefer women under their control, women that are “weaker”, which brings up their narcissist in them. Edmundson also said that Freud suggested that love makes our childhood narcissism come back. Jeff, contrariwise, he seems to like a strong woman who would be willing to do dangerous acts with him. Having a broken leg actually made him more feminine, since he wasn't able to do any physical work. We can think about it as if he was castrated. He switched roles with the woman of his life. Lisa becomes the man and Jeff becomes the woman. Putting this concept into body parts, we can think of Lisa as the legs and arms of the relationship while Jeff is physically unavailable. Jeff would be to brain and eyes, since he constantly looks through the binoculars and he was guiding the women when they broke in the neighbour's house. Mrs. Torso, as her name suggests, would be the torso, the body part that tags along and isn't actually helpful. She is more a company to the couple. I also found it interesting that she's only there to rub on Jeff's torso to give him a massage from time to time. At the end of the film, we see that Lisa reads a mountain climbing magazine to impress Jeff and once he's fallen asleep, she puts it down to read THE BAZAAR. That's the moment when she stops wearing her mask to return to her feminine side.

Julian Nemeth

24/9/2018 06:21:30 pm

There are some solid observations in this post, Angele. I especially like the reference to "Womanliness as Masquerade." I would note, however, to always use the language of "socially constructed" masculinity to differentiate from some "essential" masculinity. Your section on Edmondson's discussion of narcissism is promising, but would need to be more developed. Finally, please note that Mrs. Torso was the woman practicing her dancing in the window, while the character who gives Jeffries the massages is Stella. Looking forward to reading more your posts. ✔-

Avraham Cymbalist

27/9/2018 09:43:04 pm

#4

REAR WINDOW and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave are very similar. Both are metaphors for cinema and how we currently watch films. In REAR WINDOW, Jeff is constantly enveloped by the scene that’s unfolding outside his rear window, he never takes his thought and attention off his rear window scene. The way that Jeff treats Lisa when she’s trying to talk about something other than the rear window scene can be a metaphor for the cellphone policy in today’s movie theaters. At the beginning of every movie the audience is shown a clip to tell them to silence their phones so they can pay full attention to the movie and not distract others. When Jeff is always changing the subject to the rear window he is in a way doing exactly what the cell phone clips are doing. The one difference between cinema and REAR WINDOW or the Allegory of the Cave is that when we watch films it’s an escape from reality that connects a world that we see on the screen with the world that surrounds us. The characters in REAR WINDOW and the Allegory of the Cave don’t have the means to compare what they’re seeing with the “real world” because the scenes that they’re seeing are their realities.

Humanities

Leave a Reply.