Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” wonderfully showcases the overwhelming perception and infliction of The Male Gaze. In the introductory shot of Lisa, as we’ve reviewed, she was seen as this dainty character, not as ruggedized or dangerously adventurous as Jefferys makes himself out to be. With this dynamical relationship of both parties wanting the other to concede to their lifestyle, Lisa — perhaps knowing she would never win this indirect battle, or maybe fueled by the intensity of male praise — starts this journey of self-erasure. To paraphrase as Professor Zinman said, it’s almost like Jefferys couldn’t desire her until she was seen through that window. Until he was able to predatorily window shop and stalk her as he did his neighbors, she was going to be seen as a stagnant being in his eyes– under the male gaze. Almost like she had nothing more to offer than being perfect and that dynamic was threatening to his own masculinity, especially while he was crippled and forced into stagnancy he interpreted her as. Thus, she underwent this whole persona change driven by her desire to be fetishized by Jefferys instead of coming to the hard truth that he wasn’t love-driven like any other man looking her way.

It would be anachronistic to say this wasn’t a typical occurrence, as even within this movie we get many representations of “nagging wives”, or in other words, unhappy wives due to their unfit and undeserving partners. However, the period of America in 1954 gives this trope some latitude. We get mirroring representations like the neighbor that wore long shorts and got to spread out on the lawnchair reading the newspaper– indeed something many women coming out of the 50s were still getting acquainted with seeing. A detail that struck me was Mr. Thorwald being the only male working a job and also given scenes that show duality in his marriage. For example, he tended to his garden so thoroughly while his wife was bedridden (and perhaps when she was well, as well). The parallels between the two with respect to the overall character of Thorwald could possibly reflect the internal rage the male gaze has against any feelings of subservience. These observations paired with the continuous sly jokes about how you’re supposed to treat a woman now showcase the movie’s deep-rooted thematical misogyny that encompassed Lisa’s character as a whole. Dawning on my reflections on this movie itself reminded me of an important part of the reading. Stating, “usually the art/entertainment split rest on a value judgment.” (FA 3) One could conclude that since the message of the film was offputting and discredited the experience the filmmaker brought upon them. Or we could use our judgment to appreciate the art of cinema, and how this misogynist filmmaker showcased his own internal urges which are (debatably) more interesting to deliberate and analyze than a superficial piece. “They [filmmakers] take us through experiences” (FA 2) In what other ways does the time period show a deeper understanding of the representations of misogyny?