Introduction
Nowadays, it became a commonplace practice among many people to oppose the social manifestations of sexism and male-chauvinism, as such that result in the humanization of women. Nevertheless, as practice indicates, not too many people are thoroughly aware of all the discursive aspects of what the above-mentioned notions stand for. In this respect, watching the 1954 film Rear Window by Alfred Hitchcock should come in as a great asset for them, because (contrary’s to the director’s will) it does expose the metaphysical ground, out of which men’s sexist attitudes towards women actually derive.
In my paper, I will explore the validity of this suggestion at length, while referring to some of the film’s scenes, as such that subtly promote the essentially sexist idea that, when compared to men, women appear to be differently ‘brain-wired’, which in turn implies their cognitive/perceptual ‘otherness’ – if not an outright inferiority.
Body of the paper
The fact that Rear Window clearly tends to stereotype women in terms of a ‘nuisance’, becomes quite obvious in the film’s initial scene, where the main character (Jeff) talks on the phone with his employer, while mentioning that one of the reasons why will not consider marrying a woman, is that this would force him to spend too much time with a ‘nagging wife’ (00.06.24). The very manner of how Jeff came up with this statement leaves only a few doubts that he sincerely believed that one of the main ‘functions’ of wives, is to bug their husbands. However, even though Jeff’s assumption, in this respect, appears rather unsubstantiated, during the course of the fifties, it remained the integral part of what was then the predominant socio-cultural discourse in America.
As the film’s plot continues to unravel, viewers get to be exposed to more and more scenes that appear to confirm the validity of the male-chauvinistic idea that the socially disadvantaged status of women is thoroughly ‘natural’. The discursive legitimacy of this suggestion can be well illustrated, in regards to the scene, in which the character of Jeff’s maid Stella expounds on the sheer appropriateness of a ‘loveless’ marriage, as such that sooner or later is predetermined to end up in the romantic reconciliation of the involved parties: “Some of the world’s happiest marriages have started ‘under the gun’, as you might say” (00.11.45). Having been expressed by an older (and presumably wiser) woman, this idea correlates perfectly well with men’s unconscious anxiety to impose their dominance upon women – even if the latter exhibit the signs of resistance.
Nevertheless, in light of what is about follow in the film, the earlier mentioned emanations of the cinematographic sexism can be well deemed rather ‘innocent’. The reason for this is that many of the film’s consequential scenes seem to be fully consistent with the philosophy of one the 20th century’s most notorious sexists – Otto Weininger. For example, according to Weininger: “The male lives consciously, the female lives unconsciously… The woman receives her consciousness from the man” (61).
The suggestion that this idea may not be altogether deprived of a rationale is supported by the film’s scene, in which Lisa (Jeff’s fiancée) elaborates on how she spent her day: “I had to dash to the Waldorf for a quick drink with Madame Dufresne, and then I had lunch with the Harper’s Bazaar people… Then I had to have a cocktail with Leland and Slim Hayward” (00.20.01). It is understood, of course, that this implies that the life of a single woman is pointless to an extent – unless we are to assume that there is indeed some deep purpose to one’s bellyful idling.
The sexist idea that, while remaining single, women will not be able to realize their existential potential to the fullest, is being explored even further in the scene where Jeff watches one of his presumably divorced female-neighbors serving a dinner for two in her apartment, while pretending that she is being on a date with some invisible man (00.22.51). After having been exposed to this scene, viewers will inevitably conclude that there is indeed something utterly unnatural about the situation. After all, in it, the concerned woman is shown being in the state of an acute emotional distress – all due to her loneliness. At the same time, however, viewers are expected to give her a credit for not giving up on the dream of finding happiness in marriage – throughout the film’s entirety, she tries to lure the potential ‘suitors’ to her apartment.
The movie’s apparent sexism is also exhibited in the where scene Lisa suggests that no price for a fashionable dress can be high enough: “If I paid (highly) for it, it means it was well worth it” (00.17.35). This can be well interpreted as yet another indication that women are naturally ‘preprogrammed’ to go about striving to attain a social prominence by the mean of affiliating themselves with men, who after having been turned into husbands, begin to play the role of hunter-gatherers. After all, a woman’s ability to please the eye of a man represents the foremost precondition for her to be able to win a husband.
There is another memorable scene in the movie, where Jeff and Lisa converse on the subject of what triggers a man’s sensation of affection towards a woman: “Lisa: How far does a girl have to go before you’ll notice her? Jeff: Well, if she’s pretty enough, she doesn’t have to go anywhere” (00.44.14). It goes without saying, of course, that the quoted verbal exchange between the two is there to advocate the idea that used to be considered thoroughly appropriate in the fifties – a woman’s worth is solely concerned with what happened to be the particulars of her physical appearance.
Apparently, the director believed that, on an unconscious level, women are perfectly aware of it, which is exactly the reason why Rear Window contains a number of scenes, in which women appear to be solely preoccupied with creating the atmosphere of a sexual tension, while in the company of men. The most illustrative of them is probably the one, in which Jeff’s another female-neighbor flirts with three men at once (00.24.25). Yet, as the film implies, the purpose of this flirtation is far from having been concerned with the woman’s desire to socialize, but rather with the fact that she happened to be aware of what constitutes her foremost existential priority – ‘catching’ a rich man for a husband.
As Jeff noted: “She picked the most prosperous-looking one” (00.24.29). The subtle message that this scene conveys can be deciphered as follows: as opposed to what it happened to be the case with men (who usually resort to socialization, as the mean of expanding their intellectual horizons), women indulge in this specific activity solely for the purpose of living up to what happened to be their biological ‘calling’ in life. This interpretation correlates perfectly well with Weininger’s sexist assumption that: “It is true that woman has the gift of speech, but she has not the art of talking; she converses (flirts) or chatters, but she does not talk” (118). The above-stated implies that, as compared to men, women are being much closer to nature – hence, the popularity of another sexist idea that women tend to act rather instinctively, while facing life-challenges.
Sure enough, Hitchcock’s movie is there to confirm the validity of this stereotypical assumption. It is not only the Lisa takes pride in the sheer acuteness of her feminine intuition, but she clearly refers to it as the instrument of pursuing an unmistakably sexual agenda, on her part: “Lisa: I will trade you (Jeff) my feminine intuition for a bed for the night” (01.10.45). This, of course, is nothing but yet another proof that Rear Window deliberately stereotypes women as the emotion-driven creatures.
However, it is specifically the fact that this film appears to emphasize the sheer strength of female sexuality, which can be seen the most clear indication of its gender-biasness. To illustrate the validity of this suggestion, we can well refer to the scene, in which Lisa admits to Jeff that when she feels sexually aroused, the sensation in question completely overwhelms her: “When I want a man, I want all of him” (00.44.32). After all this scene implies that, whereas, male sexuality can be compared with an incidental skin-itch, which goes away after having been scratched, female sexuality is best compared with an allergic skin-rash, the scratching of which only increases the itch’s severity.
Perceptually arrogant males may well assume that the very specifics of women’s bodily constitution, determine the mentioned state of affairs. The reason for this is that the female genitals are ‘internal’, which in turn implies that women experience a somewhat hard time, while trying to act in the asexual manner – hence, the phenomenon of numerous ‘G-spots’ being located all over a woman’s body. Thus, even though that, in the formal sense of this word, there is nothing utterly inappropriate about the mentioned scene; it is far from being the case de facto, as it hints that a woman’s whole body is in essence one big sexual organ. It is understood, of course, that this idea is potentially capable of dehumanizing women. As such, it can hardly be considered socially appropriate.
Conclusion
I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, in defense of the suggestion that the film Rear Window emanates the strongly defined spirit of sexism, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, Rear Window could not offer a discursively progressive interpretation, as to what delineates the qualitative essence of the interrelationship between the representatives of both genders, by definition – the movie was produced at the time when the notion of sexism did not even exist. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a certain educational value to the film in question. After all, as it was mentioned in the Introduction, it does contain a number of clues, as to what account for the theoretical premise, upon which the sexist prejudices toward women continue to be based.
Works Cited
Rear Window. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. James Stewart, Grace Kell, Wendell Corey and Thelma Ritter. Paramount Pictures, 1954. Web.
Weininger, Otto 1906, Sex & Character. Web.