Windows

WINDOWS reminds me of REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE. When REFLECTIONS came out in 1967, it had the book thrown at it for being deviant, sick, perverse, reactionary, offensive, pretentious (which is such a mouthful that it makes one believe that the hater(s)doth protest too much). On top of these epithets, was the final body blow, and "just plain boring." It's difficult to be all of the above and be "just plain boring" to boot which is the reason I was compelled to check out both movies. I'm glad I did. WINDOWS is not the outright triumph REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE is, but it's thoughtful and original about something that shouldn't be dismissed by film lovers out of court. It's not sleazy or exploitative; as a matter of fact, that's a major problem with it. It refuses to further sensationalize its wildly lurid "givens." It's artful enough in its intentions to try to suggest that the tragedy of urban life is not the violence of melodramatic evil, but the glass cubicles people live in that link and separate them in devastatingly emotional ways. Gordon Willis' direction is typical of a first time director. It suffers from being too studied but it's far from daft or moronic; visually, it's as thought through as REAR WINDOW, its obvious predecessor in voyeurism. But there's nothing in REAR WINDOW, as seriously naked and exposed as Elizabeth Ashley's performance. It's interesting that when great actors like Brando (in REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE), and Ashley in WINDOWS attempt something that goes beyond the average viewer's opinion of how a homosexual SHOULD be portrayed, there's is an automatic reflex action on the part of said viewer to distance themselves from the performance, to laugh at it or automatically dismiss it as being "over the top." This response is, in fact, more reactionary than the sins that have been dumped in the picture's lap. WINDOWS is not as dumb or insensitive as the knee jerk response it provokes in most people who feign an interest in the dark side until it becomes too real.

Windows (1980)

** (out of 4)

Emily (Talia Shire) walks into her apartment when she is attacked from behind. She is forced onto the ground with a knife where the man threatens to kill her unless she shows him what she has and that she moans in satisfaction so that he can record it. Police detective Luffrono (Joseph Cortese) questions Emily but she has no details of the man. Soon the two of them are striking up a relationship, which doesn't sit well with Emily's former neighbor Andrea (Elizabeth Ashley).

WINDOWS is a film that I heard about decades ago when movies like SINGLE WHITE FEMALE and THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE were making big cash at the box office. It seems WINDOWS was pretty much forgotten for the most part yet I always wanted to see it even with the rather negative reviews that it got. I must admit that the film wasn't very good and in fact it's pretty silly when viewed today. The film attempts to be a psychological study of two troubled women but in the end it's basically about a lesbian who can't tell another woman she wants her.

It's interesting that this same year also gave us CRUISING. That film was highly controversial and perhaps so much so that this film got away with the idea that a woman could be a nut simply because she was a lesbian and wants another woman. Instead of telling her she orders the woman to be sexually attacked and then she begins to stalk her. All of this should have made for a more interesting film but sadly WINDOWS just never really takes off. The biggest problem is the screenplay, which tries to avoid any real violence or anything all that dramatic and instead we just see the two women as they discuss their situations with the men in their lives. Emily has her cop friend and Andrea has her shrink.

I'm not going to sit here and say that the movie doesn't have any good qualities because it does. Shire was very good in her role, although the screenplay doesn't give her too much to do except to act scared at times and at other times to stutter. She's still quite good as the fragile woman as is Ashley, although she's given even less to do. The real standout was Cortese who was excellent in the role of the detective. The film does benefit from some nice cinematography and the New York City locations were great.

Some people might find the subject disturbing and some might find the film to be creepy but neither really worked on me. The film is mildly entertaining but it never has any real suspense and that's its real downfall. Gordon Willis was a wonderful cinematographer but it's easy to see why he never really blossomed as a director. The lack of any real energy or suspense kills the film and you just keep waiting for it to take off but it never does.

The general opinion of this movie is either that it is terrible, or that it is SO bad, it's actually good. Well, I don't think this movie is really "good" in any sense of the word, but it's not that bad either. It definitely has some good aspects. The cinematography is outstanding, not surprisingly perhaps since it was directed by famed cinematographer Gordon Willis. Visually it was kind of and attempt to update the moody film-noir style of the 40's and 50's to the present day (as of 1980 anyway). It was also filmed in NYC and it captures a lot of the palpably sleazy ambiance of the city in that era that can also be seen in films like "Taxi Driver" or "Dog Day Afternoon".

The plot is ridiculous, of course, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either. In fact, the people who were so offended by the movie originally should have taken into account that this movie defames real-life lesbians about as much as "Roadrunner" cartoons defame real-life coyotes. (And Wile E.Coyote gives a much more subdued performance and usually shreds less scenery than Elizabeth Ashley does in this movie). Besides the problem is not that lesbians are frequently portrayed as villains in movies. Even taking their relative numbers into account, there are still far less lesbian villains in movies (not including sexy bisexual women, which is a whole different thing) than there are white male villains. There is certainly a lack of POSITIVE portrayals of lesbians in movies perhaps even today, but that's a different issue. And, ironically, the typical negative portrayal of lesbians in the media does not generally involve them being murderous stalkers, but rather being shrill, self-righteous, humorless, man-hating busy-bodies who want to censor everything under the sun that offends their perpetually outraged sensibilities. Hmmm, I wonder where that stereotype comes from?

But back to the movie, this is one of 70's/80's movies that would actually be PERFECT for a re-make. They could put a really sexy actress in the lead who doesn't play the whole thing as deadly earnestly as ole "Yo! Adrienne!" does here. It would actually be pretty hard to best Elizabeth Ashley's campy, OTT performance, but I think modern audiences would certainly appreciate a performance like this a lot more than they did back in 1980. This isn't a good movie, of course,but why re-make a GOOD movie? Re-make, DVD release, or both--this is definitely long-due for some kind of revival.

I found this film the other day at a market stall; quite an obscure film. The film appears to be quite good when you read the back of the box, but when you watch it...really awful. The only thing Gordon Willis seemed to care about was the photography. In a film like this you need great acting. We don't get great acting however and you cannot take the film seriously. It just gets ludicrous at times, especially the psycho-lesbian lover storyline. It is disgracefully misogynistic, which is another reason not to watch the film.

I will say that the film's photography is stunning though (similar to woody allen's 'interiors') but that is the only reason to watch this garbage.

Directed by the cinematographer of THE GODFATHER and starring 2 good actresses. Storyline is quite interesting and camera job impressive. It is an original movie. As it was a Warner release (and as I have the Warner Home Vidéo VHS in French version) I wonder how the former commentary can wonder if it was released in vidéo ? Besides, it is the perfect example of a, by now, rare title, which sould be offered again on DVD with sharp image quality and, of course, French soundtrack or subtitles !