Rear Window vs. Disturbia

Rear Window v. Disturbia

The differences and similarities between these two movies, I find, are hilarious. I find humor in what directors and writers change per audience and these two films have striking differences.

The most obvious differences between these two films are what decade they were filmed. While Rear Window was released in the 50s, Disturbia was released in 2007. This huge time gap brings into action many technological changes. Disturbia has a lot of cell phones, the Internet, video games, XBOX and iTunes usage. In Rear Window phones still had cords and it's not like you saw James Stewart playing with his iPod when he got bored.
Interestingly enough, the use of binoculars remains in Rear Window's remake. Shia LaBeouf's character, Kale, uses them to spy on his neighbors while under house arrest (unlike James Stewart's character's broken leg). This simple piece of voyeurism technology still proves useful in 2007.

Other similarities in the film include the sidekicks. In Rear Window, Jeff has his girlfriend- a pretty blond- and his nurse. In Disturbia, Kale has his girlfriend- a pretty blond- and his best friend from school. The romantic interest is a necessity in the films so the plot is constantly tense for the viewer and the every hero needs the funny sidekick who turns into the voice of reason.

As noted earlier, in both movies, the hero is confined to his house. Jeff has a broken leg as a result of trying to get the perfect action shot for his job. Kale is on house arrest as a result of punching his Spanish teacher after his teacher makes a quip about Kale's late father (Kale was with his father when he died in a car crash after a father-son fishing trip).
I found the differences interesting. For a man in his late forties, surely nothing could be more frustrating than losing his independence to a wheel chair. Jeff is used to being out in the world in action, taking chances- getting into trouble. His handicap not only keeps him in place but allows the audience to relate through his limited mobility.
Kale's house arrest was a good choice. Since the main character is a teenager on summer vacation for this film, an injury wasn't going to make enough of a sting for the audience. Taking away a teen's freedom with an ankle bracelet, though, is perfect. Teens feel cooped up as it is but the ankle bracelet, in my opinion, was great. He is free to move around, but only within his house and some of his yard. If he steps outside his borders, the police are alerted and show up to reprimand or arrest him. (The nurse in Rear Window somewhat "polices" Stewart's character as she constantly nags at him.)

The murderers change from film to film. In Rear Window, Thorwald merely kills his wife and chops her to bits. In Disturbia, Mr. Turner is a serial killer- he kills multiple women and cuts them up into pieces before storing them in his house.
Both murderers keep a garden in the films. These gardens, I find, are a clue to the murderer's finical habits. (I don't believe Mr. Turner uses his garden to bury his victims as Mr. Thorwald does in Rear Window.) Both gardens are home to small, furry creatures’ deaths- the neighbor’s dog in Rear Window and a helpless rabbit in Disturbia.

I kind of just wanted to stray from our teacher's question this one time. The differences between the two films display the needs of today's audience- technology, fear, aggressions, etc. The only things that did not change(because the audience didn't need them to change) were the basic plot frames and the attractiveness level of the female companion.
Today's audience finds it more humorous than suspenseful that Jeffries uses a flashing camera lens to blind his attacker. At the same time, in Disturbia, Kale actually ventures into Mr. Turner's house, leading to... I won't spoil the ending!

I highly recommend watching Disturbia as the little brother of Rear Window and watching as this film takes on Hitchcock's film.

Glengarry Glen Ross

First off: loved the play, even though typically I am very against reading plays because, in my opinion, they were meant to be seen, not read. Anyway! This was an exception to me. The characters were very well played and I enjoyed reading it.
I don't really see Mamet as anti-women, really. I saw his characters at times being anti-women but not misogynists.
It seems clear with Levene- he is very concerned about his daughter and you see his devotion to her throughout the play. I especially liked the movie's portrayal of this sub-plot. In the play and movie, you see Levene calling the hospital to check on her, and attempt to speak to her. Men may have problems with women but once they have daughters that seems to change, huh?
As for the other characters, I didn't see a distaste for women in general but for particular women. There is some bitterness over "that guy's ex" for ruining a deal and "deadbeats" signing contracts they have no intention of buying, but this bitterness seems directed at their own personal and professional losses.

How are we to deal with the women in the play? As merely background? They are somewhat important but you never see them- like Romeo and Juliet's Rosaline -there for emotional substance filling in otherwise empty character developments. We see these men as constantly moving people, concerned with their jobs and careers and the women add to that concern. Levene's daughter is the perfect example. I didn't really feel sorry for him when, at the end, he turns to his boss and says "My daughter...?"

This blog has proved somewhat difficult for me as the question caught me by surprise. Mamet's women hadn't really come to mind actively as I was reading or watching as much as the gripping plot twist did.