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" 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.

There are two reasons to watch this movie: Gordon Willis's cinematography & Elizabeth Ashley. It's not as lame as it is made out to be and has exquisite production values, but that being said, it is very niche, succeeding neither as a slasher nor a thriller, but occupying some odd space in between.

"Windows" also reminds us that you can be a great cinematographer but that doesn't necessarily translate to directing: in fact, Gordon Willis never directed another movie again. As far as Elizabeth Ashley, for those not acquainted she was sort of a Tallulah Bankhead of the 70s and 80s. She had a storied Broadway career and multiple husbands and was on The Tonight Show more than 20 times simply because Carson found her amusing. She is captivating, even in claptrap melodrama like this.

This movie was lambasted by the critics when it first came out, snuffing out Talia Shire's major studio leading lady career in the process. Shire had been a hot property after "The Godfather" and "Rocky" movies...but she made three high profile bombs in a row: "Old Boyfriends", "Prophecy", and, finally, "Windows." Film careers ending after a bomb or two happened to a lot of actresses back then and Shire was probably given more chances than most but the bottom line was she just couldn't carry a film.

The movie looks terrific. Ashley wears a series of shimmery Bloomingdales middle-aged Disco blouses and it is impossible not to look at her. She's very interesting as an actress. The city is shot like a lullaby...to Brooklyn (The Brooklyn Heights Promenade and Cher's Cranberry Street block in Moonstruck figure prominently, as does The River Café as well as Fulton Street near Brooklyn Bridge Park, or as it referred to in Windows: "River Street") and Pearl Street in Lower Manhattan. The use of locations is a wonder and everything is very desolate. It definitely creates a mood of unease.

Now, the problems. I don't have an issue with Shire's character, exactly. She is beyond mousey and nearly sexless, with her Prince Valiant hair and series of brown patterned sweater vests and plaid shirts worthy of an assistant librarian. She is certainly not someone one would expect Ashley to be obsessed with. Perhaps that is the point? But we'll never know because the entire story is underdeveloped. It seems to want to coast by on suspense but that is a flaw because there is hardly any suspense whatsoever. The film may have somewhat succeeded had it put some effort into characterizations. Instead we get some hints at what could have been and a choppy series of dull vignettes culminating in an anticlimactic showdown between Ashley and Shire. I do like that they don't spell everything out for you and, if you pause to think, the chain of events is coherent. But it's just not enough.

"Windows" could have been interesting. I think they were going for something akin to "let's make a women's picture about sexual obsession" but then lost their way. Ultimately, it is almost completely devoid of energy but a pleasure to look at and Ashley is always a treat to observe...even when she is wearing eyeglasses the size of dessert plates and stroking an enormous phallic telescope.

I've read the user reviews for this film, and some of them seem way too harsh. I understand Windows was critically bashed during its theatrical release and considered offensive to many viewers, but watching it today, it's not that bad. In fact, keeping an open mind as to how the characters interact with one another, it's at the very least interesting. Sure, there are plot holes the size of Manhattan, but this is a stylized thriller with beautiful photography at its core.

The story centers on a psycho named Andrea (Elizabeth Ashley) – who just happens to be a lesbian – infatuated with her timid neighbor Emily (Talia Shire). Andrea goes so far as to hire a creep named Obecny (Rick Petrucelli) to attack Emily and have the ordeal recorded. Andrea gets her kicks listening to the audio despite seeing a therapist. We soon learn that curing Andrea of her obsession may not be in the cards. What follows is Emily trying to cope and get on with her life while Andrea basically stalks and watches her through a telescope.

The film does drag a bit at times, but the climax certainly holds its own until the very end, where it just fizzles. However, I did scratch my head a couple of times in a good way by being perplexed as to what the intentions of the characters were. I also thought Ashley gave an unusual performance. Andrea was played as confused and sometimes volcanic, but with more subtlety, unlike an Alex Forrest (Fatal Attraction), for example. I think she should have been the focus of the film, giving Ashley more to work with and to create a deeper connection to the material. The acting was credible by the rest of the cast, especially Shire, who warms up to the role as the film progresses. Finally, the whole controversy over Andrea being a lesbian seems silly now. I mean, it's a character. We have all kinds of movies featuring different types of psychopaths relishing in various fetishes. Andrea just happened to be a lesbian whose obvious crush was going to be on another woman. Let's get over it already.

I wanted to see this film for over 30 years because of the controversy it spawned. Was it worth it? Yes and no. I didn't see it as controversial, but it did keep me watching until the end. Just watch the Syfy channel, and you'll see WAY more movies worse than this one in every respect, literally. If you do decide to see Windows, don't overanalyze it and remember this was the first and only directorial effort from the renowned cinematographer Gordon Willis.

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.