The View from the Rear Window

The sheet we were handed in class last week has a short blurb on P.O.V. that asks the question "are there techniques of expressionism or subjective distortions [in the film]?" I haven't seen too many films where there are obvious examples of this type of distortion, but Rear Window sure does have it in droves.

Through the use of lenses (from Jefferies' camera and binoculars), Hitchcock distorts the "naturalistic" P.O.V. tendencies of most films, at least in the technical sense. I use the word "naturalistic" lightly of course, but for the most part, I've only seen films where the P.O.V. is normal, with no framing like those lens-framed shots in Rear Window were. It's irregular, though not incredibly interesting visually. But what it affords Jefferies and the movie's audience is remarkable. A closer view, greater detail, new possibilities for the plot. We discussed this in class, so maybe I shouldn't get too redundant. But even the small amount of visual freedom the distorted P.O.V.s create can translate to a ton of payoff in a film.

I suppose this is all hypothetical, because it's not like Jefferies wasn't going to get this change of P.O.V.... it was written into the screenplay after all. But I'm trying to approach this from within the movie's logic. Notice how the binoculars are the highlight of this poster advertisement for the movie:


And as discussed in class, there is the infamous shot of Jefferies with the camera lens sitting atop his knee, pointed outside and reflecting. Pretty cool how a couple of seemingly minor props can make a movie what it is in the public's consciousness.

P.O.V.

Not sure exactly what this blog entry is supposed to be about because Point of View is a broad subject. I'm just gonna wing it and discuss film and POV.

Most viewers will never even think about POV when watching a movie. It's just a thing that has been trained into our brains from growing up with television and movies that we don't notice it. Walter Benjamin says in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" that film is a more exacting form of visual media, as opposed to the stage. The director can chose the POV he wants us to gaze from; whether it's the inside of a train car, the bottom of a toilet bowl, an ultra-wide birds-eye shot of the city, or a close up of a person eating their breakfast, it is completely up to the director and editor. On the opposite end we have theater. The audience is only allowed one POV, their own. If they have bad seats they aren't able to see the show as it was intended. This gives a more personal experience with the art, but is extremely limited in its POV options.

I find this utterly mind blowing. I never thought about it like this, but it is true. There is no way anyone would ever be able to see the Earth from space, but that shot might be perfect to tell the story of an alien invasion. It's all about telling the story effectively. Use any POV you can to get that message across and, if you can, have it connect emotionally with the viewer. We all love movies that tug at our emotions, and the right POV can make or break a scene. That is why editing and directing are true artforms.

Next time you're watching your favorite flick take a moment to analyze the POV in a specific scene. Most movies follow only a handful of POVs (the main characters), but we don't see the film through their literal "Point of View." There isn't a successful movie out told from the "eye" of one character. I know this can be done for special effect in a particular scene, but it is not used exclusively (at least that I am aware of).

Point of View is a powerful tool! Behold the power of P.O.V.!