Author: karma

Karma Nyendrak

10/30/20

Prof. Scanlan

ENG 2400/ Section # 0552

Woolrich vs Hitchcock

Writer Cornell Woolrich’s story “It Had to Be Murder” which was later adapted into the film “Rear Window” by director Alfred Hitchcock, tells the tale of a bored/isolated man who gets/sees more than what he bargains for. Due to an injury, L.B. Jeffries the “bored man” is bound to a wheelchair and for his amusement watches his neighbors up until one tenant which would catch his interest till the end. Jeffries essentially figures out that a murder has occurred, and so the story follows this fascination till the end when Jeffries and Thorwald aka the murderer meet. The film adaption does add its own minor details that weren’t in the original plot, but I feel that the movie thoroughly replicates the written portion with minor details even aiding the transition from book to film.

Speaking in terms of plot, both the film and the story are essentially the same, but where they differ is details. In Hitchcock’s rendition, we get to know a lot more about Jeff as a human with his profession being revealed and whatnot, which all aids the plot. For instance, in the story, Jeff is peering through his spyglass, but in the film, he has a camera with zooming capabilities. This camera comes into play together to also alter the story, but it gives a good reason as to why Jeff is doing what he is doing. In the story, we have no attributes about Jeff, outside the fact that he has this ever-growing suspicion in mind but in the film we can see that he is clearly more than that. Aside from the profession, the other small change was the replacement of characters, as Sam was the original housekeeper but in the film, we are introduced to Lisa and Stella. Stella was essentially Sam but in female form and also was a little more involved with than Jeff. Lisa was the helper/romantic partner of Jeff who would aid him in solving this case. They essentially split Sam in two, with one side being the housekeeper and the other being the aid. I would say Lisa, and Stella, are a lot more involved than Sam which ‘also adds another dimension to the film as the story was very cut and dry with Jeff’s perspective that often pushed sam to the side. Example “‘Sam came back parenthetically at this point and said: ‘That house is Number 525 Benedict Avenue..‘Sh-h’, I silenced, and motioned him backhand out of my ken. ‘First he wants it, then he don’t,’” Thus, we have a more dynamic story with the film as these various minor details all add up and keep the story flowing, while we view it.

I would consider the film to be a traditional translation of the book as while minor details are added, it never takes/strays away from the original plotline, as the details juice up the story even more. For instance, I would consider the best part of the film to be when Thorwald finally meets Jeff, and as he slowly approaches him, he gets flashed by Jeff. Though in the story this isn’t what occurs, the use of suspense, the almost fisheye lens from Jeff’s camera, and the constant camera switch from Jeff to Thorwald creates this scene that is almost identical if not better to the original. Now in the story, it is made clear that Thorwald has a gun but in the film, we aren’t shown any weapon aside from some saws, and blades so we are left to think what he has in his arsenal. This helps create suspense as initially, we don’t know what Thorwlad is coming to Jeff with, as his heavy steps are long drawn before they finally meet. We are left wondering if Jeff can fight off Thorwlad with his camera. Overall this scene was a perfect example of my point earlier, being that the film just added a little more details and changed certain things around to fit the visual narrative.

The next scene I want to reference is right after, as it is following the aftermath of Thorwald and Jeff’s meeting. In the book, the following occurs, with Thorwald shooting at Jeff initially and missing a couple of times until he gives up and tries to run. Example “ ‘You—’ I heard him grunt to himself. I think it was the last thing he said. … He flung over the sill on one arm and dropped into the yard. Two-story drop.” There he is gunned down by the police with Officer Boyne returning with both Thorwald and his wife. Now the film rendition is a little different but is practically the same. Thorwald tries to shove Jeff out the window, as he has no weapons in the film and he is thus stopped by two officers after the whole neighborhood sees the commotion. Now in the film, we aren’t told what happens to Thorwald, if he escapes or not but there seems to be a presumption that they got him, with the way the film ends afterward. I think this little change was sort of needed as f I personally felt their encounter to be sort of anti-climactic in the book, but in the film I was a lot more satisfied with that suspenseful shot of Jeff hanging for dear life. I felt that that scene portrayed more emotion than the written counterpart did, and was more worthwhile as the story had been building up for this final moment with which the book kind of brushes off.

Overall, the film to me was a good emulation of the book as not only did it tell the story, it would also change certain small details to fit the big screen more. I feel that if they hadn’t done minor tweaks, and whatnot, the story wouldn’t have been as interesting visually. I also appreciated how Hitchcock added more to the plot, in terms of characters, and scenes as the book itself is short, thus if it had been depicted like that it would have been over quickly. My main takeaway with this comparison from film to story would be that sometimes in order to really emulate or adapt a story to the big screen, you might have to change certain things to really have the plot fit a visual landscape.