Call me a plausible, but you can’t just forget about practicallity for the sake of entertaining an audience.

I don’t think Hitchcock really needs another person to praise his work, so even though I like his movies, I’m going to put him in the hot seat and focus on the negative. Hitchcock is a very talented film maker and I enjoy watching his movie’s, but the way that he neglects plausability or reality all together makes it difficult to be a true fan. I realize that his neglect is to thank for a lot of the classic Hitchcock plots but at times I think it goes to far. For example, in Rear Window I like the voyeurism aspect of the movie and it is interesting to see what you learn about the characters in Jeff’s neighborhood just by being a peeping Tom. At first it is a fun way to learn about the characters but after a while the voyeurism aspect is lost to the unlikelihood of being able to have such unlimited access to their personal lives, just by looking in their window. What im trying to say is that Jeff’s virtually unobstructed view of everything from his room causes the voyeurism aspect to lose its touch because it hardly challenges Jeff at all. I feel like what makes the film unique is that you only know what you can learn from Jeff’s window, but it becomes rapidly apparent that you can know EVERYTHING from Jeff’s window so what is the point? But really I do like the idea, I just feel like the point is lost in how much you know from the window. And then the whole flash camera to save your life ending was kind of ridiculous. Thorwald is definitely not cut out for that sort of thing which totally ruins the whole suspense thing that everybody praises Hitchcock for.
Great movies nonetheless, just felt like challenging the film God.