I’m at the ‘Window’:A look at voyeurism in the cinema and society

Extract

[...] The ‘Peeping Tom' scenario, in which the voyeur watches his objects, though they are unaware of being watched, is a relationship in which only the voyeur is capable of deriving pleasure, and certainly much of—if not most of—such pleasure comes from the fact that the object or objects being watched don't know it. Metz describes this as primal scene the keyhole” (Voyeurism, 547). The act is so pleasurable because its ‘taboo' nature, to use Freudian terms (Silverman, hasn't been fully exposed; because the watching is taking place in private (at least for now, as long as the object doesn't identify the voyeur), the spectator can still derive the pleasure from it. [...]

[...] Metz attempts to answer this in “Film and Dream,” suggesting that the film is a way of projecting or releasing our own fetishes through the watching and interpretation of films. What does our (your, really, as it is about as individual and personal as things get) desire to watch this film say about us, about who we are? That isn't something that can be collectively answered, but only by the individual cinematic spectator. Ultimately, Rear Window does a remarkable thing in that it forces us as cinematic spectators to recognize—to become aware of—our own roles as voyeurs in the theater. [...]

[...] While the voyeuristic experience at the time tends to be rather intimate, the cinema is an example in which afterwards (that is, if everyone is following the rule of talking'), there is a collectiveness to the voyeurism, in which each spectator projects his or her own bit of the fantasy. So when the question of voyeuristic ethics, dubbed “rear-window ethics” in the film, certainly differ when considering a real life situation, such as the narrative of Rear Window, and watching a film. [...]

[...] Because we are the apartment' with Jeff—by nature of existing there as transcendental subjects (Baudry)—we indulge in these voyeuristic fantasies as well. Watching Rear Window, we become voyeurs watching a voyeur, while at the same time participating in his voyeurism. We share partially in the pleasure derived from this, in that we are given the opportunity to create several stories—the different stories of the neighbors throughout the building—but we cannot share in the pleasure derived from the inherent danger of being a ‘Peeping Tom' voyeur; it would be impossible for us to achieve the same rush of adrenaline that Jeff receives, [...]

[...] At the end of the film, Jeff is completely obsessed with his voyeuristic fantasy, convinced Thorwald is a murderer, and begins to break out of the safety of his own private ‘theater' of his apartment. He makes a personal telephone call to Thorwald, then sends Lisa to his apartment as his surrogate; he crosses the boundary where he carries out his voyeuristic desires into the realm of ‘social taboo'. What is interesting is that Jeff—and we, as spectators—know very well what the potential consequences are; Jeff is constantly afraid of being caught in the act, and yet he pursues his voyeurism anyway to fulfill his own desire of catching Thorwald, a man who may or may not be a murderer—Jeff, Lisa, Stella, and we as spectators, have only the story that Jeff creates along the way to go by. [...]