Of course the feel of a Hitchcock movie is going to go with Stewart enjoying such a wicked hobby. We are watching an actor smudge his image, the one we all associate with wholesome Americana (from his noble performances in such films as ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ and ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, just to name two), with such taboos as womanizing and voyeurism (Wait until ‘Vertigo’ is released - then we can add near-necrophilia and impersonation to boot). Hitchcock’s movies all feel as if somewhere in the film, someone is changing themselves from good to bad. They smolder with the ashes of a one-time reputation being corrupted forever - maybe corrupted by the things the actor is engaging in onscreen; maybe being corrupted, simply, by being in a Hitchcock film in the first place. Maybe being corrupted in a good way – maybe simply being altered.

 Will we ever look at some actors the same way in their run of the mill roles as we do in their Hitchcock films? Imagine Ingrid Bergman in either ‘Spellbound’ or ‘Notorious’. Now try to think of her in ‘Casablanca’ or ‘Anastasia’. It’s impossible to deny the difference - simply the modeled feel of Hitchcock’s direction - and his subject matter. Always back to that obsession factor. His films all regard some wonderfully entertaining (for us, the audience) form of forbidden fixation.

 Hence why film historians are so obsessed with him today, it’s pleasing and very, very satisfying to watch his unrivaled style - unique and complete - with very little left over to dispute.

 Back to ‘Rear Window’. What a technique! He employs such a wonderful edgy independence in exising the score (and using a radio playing at an open window to underscore action taking place), filming everything exclusively from Stewart’s POV  and, finally,  that masterstroke of making the claustrophobia of a single room and a single courtyard seem to be so real. And to see this film in the theater, these tiny spaces (the room and the courtyard) easily stand for the spaces of your seat and the theater itself.  My guess is that Hitchcock, playing with two types of intimate space - both of which are violated repeatedly - really meant for the tight atmosphere he creates. And also, more specifically, he really meant for them to be felt in a theatrical setting. And last, but not least – and most definitely – he meant to prod us with suspense once he had us in his cramped little web. And he does it so effectively.

 And what a thrill - as all the threads come together - to witness what is one of Hitchcock’s most famous films shimmering in that restored Technicolor color that’s unmistakable and really very lovely. And what a thrill, ever, to see a Hitchcock film in any way you can - as there’s just no mistaking - or taking for granted - the genius of the master as entertainment, intellectual value and a cinematic wonder to behold.