One kind of Hitchcock film rejects "the omniscient narrator": We're stuck with the mind of our protagonist, who may or may not be right to think that a supporting character is acting in a sketchy way.
This is the trick in "Rear Window," and in "Suspicion." Is our neighbor awake at 3 AM because he is trying (covertly) to bury the corpse of his wife? Or is he awake just because he is awake?
A new movie, "Watcher," seems to borrow from Hitchcock. An American woman moves to Romania because her husband has found a job. A killer is on the loose--"the Spider"--and our heroine starts to think that she has unmasked the Spider by chance, against her own will.
Our heroine's well-intentioned husband is skeptical; and, at times, our heroine herself is skeptical. Does a guy sit deliberately, directly behind our heroine (the setting is a screening of "Charade")? Is this an intimidation tactic? Or is one particular seat just really desirable? The guy sometimes stands in his window and waves. Is this a neighborly gesture? Or is this harrassment? And there is a certain plastic bag on the subway. Does it hold a melon? Or does it hold a human head?
As in Hitchcock, here small moments become clues. A woman mentions having purchased a gun: We know this purchase will have major implications for the plot. One building-resident worries about playing music too loudly. That one moment of worry isn't just a "throwaway line" in the script.
I loved spending time in this Romanian world, with these mysterious characters. I'd see this movie again.
Comments
Post a Comment