Windows

I found this film the other day at a market stall; quite an obscure film. The film appears to be quite good when you read the back of the box, but when you watch it...really awful. The only thing Gordon Willis seemed to care about was the photography. In a film like this you need great acting. We don't get great acting however and you cannot take the film seriously. It just gets ludicrous at times, especially the psycho-lesbian lover storyline. It is disgracefully misogynistic, which is another reason not to watch the film.

I will say that the film's photography is stunning though (similar to woody allen's 'interiors') but that is the only reason to watch this garbage.

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.

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.

"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.

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.