Windows

WINDOWS (1980) */****

One of the all-time worst films I've ever seen. It's been 25 years since I saw this in a tiny theatre and simultaneously watched it vanish from history without a trace. This recent second viewing via a VHS dupe from some unknown source did not improve things much, but I've got a story to tell about this movie and how it's eluded me for such a very long time. This has become almost a "lost" film, and I'll have a theory later as to why nobody's seeing it anymore, aside from the basic fact that it simply stinks.

In 1980 I was 17 and went to see WINDOWS at the movies with my kid sister. It was only one of the two times in my life I ever recall going to a theatre with her, and we were both in shock at just how abysmal the feature before our eyes was. It was boring, badly acted, and by the final act, completely laughable. The whole theatre was in hysterics. It's not the kind of experience you forget when you're a movie fan, even 25 years after the fact.

The movie starts in its New York City setting with lousy actress Talia Shire (who apparently thinks she's still playing the timid Adrian from the first ROCKY film) being assaulted and raped in her own apartment, getting forced at knifepoint to moan and groan into the attacker's tape recorder. We later discover (and since it's not presented as any kind of mystery I'm not ruining anything that hasn't already been ruined) that Shire's got a psychotic and horny lesbian neighbor (Elizabeth Ashley) across the hall who's so in love with her that Ashley actually hired this rapist/goon to pull off the crime - so she can play the tape over and over and get off on it to her heart's content.

When Talia decides to move to a nicer apartment to start anew, Elizabeth and her loose screws aren't very far behind. She'll do anything to make Talia love her, as her ineffective psychiatrist seems to be aware. Enter vapid policeman Joseph Cortese (who's about as interesting as a door stop) to romance Shire (what the hell do Ashley and Cortese see in her insipid character anyway?) and "help" her ... in an unbelievable sequence, Shire is in a cab with a driver whom she recognizes as the rapist; she asks to be let off at a phone booth, calls the police, but is instructed to get back in the car with her attacker till the cops can get to them!

Besides being ineptly acted, WINDOWS is also dull and boring, but there's something curiously watchable about it for fans of bad movies only, for all its incompetence. It was the first and only film (no wonder) to be directed by cinematographer Gordon Willis; it was his photography that graced THE GODFATHER and some of Woody Allen's picturesque movies, so his shots of New York may be the one thing to watch for here, aside from getting a load of Elizabeth Ashley's embarrassing climax with Talia Shire. This film is also notorious as being the very FIRST film to be released in the entire decade of the 1980's, and of course as of this writing it's a movie that is virtually impossible to locate, as it was never released on home video except in France (I believe). It was through the wonders of the Internet that I was able to hunt this thing down and see how bad it still is.

So why has this film been so hard to track down? Well, for starters, it's got to be a humiliation to everyone involved. I'm fairly positive it's owned by Warner Brothers, and my personal opinion is that, in this Politically Correct world of today, we just cannot have a film available that depicts a homicidal maniac when she also happens to be a lesbian. But that in itself has made the movie all the more desirable for a viewing, and it's at the very least a reminder of the type of movies filmmakers used to be allowed to make. Proceed at your own risk -- if you can ever find a copy, that is.

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.

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.

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.

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.