L ist nicht nur Liebe

"Windows" was directed by noted cinematographer (and frequent Woody Allen collaborator) Gordon Willis, and as one would expect, he has a great eye for artful compositions, creative use of light / shadow, and New York. The film is (nearly) always visually interesting, which helps sustain it through a rather thin story. Elizabeth Ashley is both touching and unsettling, but Talia Shire seemed to have already been typecast into the mousy, "Rocky's wife" type of roles. Trivia: apparently in 1979 you could rent an apartment in Brooklyn Heights for $300 a month!! **1/2 out of 4.

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.

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 !

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.

This is one of those flicks I've wanted to see since it came out (I was underage at the time). The plot just sounded very freaky and bizarre. Regardless, it is one of the THE most impossible films to find since I don't believe it got a video release (except overseas) and I don't even think it played on cable in the '80s. It is however on YouTube now :-).

This film gets trashed by a lot of people immediately as being non-PC and homophobic. I think that's more a signpost of when the film was released, when attitudes toward people with other orientations weren't so enlightened.

No, the core problem behind this picture is that it's just a raving, stinking mess, and it really is virtually all Willis' fault. When you read the opening credits, your jaw drops...they read like an A-list of movie greats: Morricone, Bourne, Willis as DP. How could they screw this up? Easy. A) Don't build any suspense; B) Don't establish any characters or motivations; C) Allow the writer to write any damn thing he wants to, no matter how stupid or no matter what expense to the actors; D) Resort to constant dissolves when you don't know what else to do, especially since there is virtually no coherent action; E) Don't direct your actors...after all they're pros, they know exactly what to do. The list goes on....

This is a stalker movie....it should be about stalking. There is absolutely no fear built, no tension. It's a real master class in wasted celluloid.

Still, part of me has to admire this in a way you sometimes admire any bad movie. It sure didn't have any self-censoring going on. it did what it wanted to do and took no prisoners. One of the many things that makes it a museum piece today, even if that museum is a wax one.