by Lee Sarang
In my previous classes, when I encountered Rear Window, I mostly just heard about Hitchcock’s theme of “voyeurism.” At that time, I thought Hitchcock was a master director who truly showed the audience the essence of “film” as a medium. However, reading the chapter on the film from Steven DeRosa’s Writing with Hitchcock for this assignment was a great opportunity to learn about the background behind the scenes, specifically the collaboration process with screenwriter John Michael Hayes. It was enlightening to realize that what elevated this film to a classic was not just Hitchcock’s camera, but also Hayes’s contribution of infusing glamour, romance, and humanity into a dark story.
First, I must address my impression of Hitchcock. Of course, I believe that a great director’s capability includes choosing the right writer and maximizing their potential to elevate the film. In this sense, Hitchcock was undoubtedly a capable master. However, learning that he actively cultivated the image of being the “sole creative force”—often by failing to acknowledge his writer—left a bitter taste. As the book points out, Hitchcock allowed the media to ignore his writers. For a director of his stature, failing to acknowledge his partner felt ungenerous. It made me realize that the “Hitchcock” we know is as much a constructed brand as it is a real person.
The most striking evidence of Hayes’s influence is the transformation of the source material. The original story, It Had to Be Murder, is bleak and loveless. Hayes didn’t just add a “love interest”; he created Lisa Fremont, a force of life and beauty. Personally, I feel the romantic atmosphere of the film isn’t just in the dialogue—it’s in the visuals, specifically Lisa’s fashion. When Lisa first appears, turning on the lights in her $1,100 Paris dress, she looks like she stepped out of a different movie. Hayes wrote Lisa to be “too perfect,” and Hitchcock visualized this through costume and lighting. This stark contrast between Lisa’s glowing elegance and the gritty murder scene in the courtyard serves a specific purpose: I believe it serves as a device to heighten the tension. I initially questioned why this romantic gloss was necessary in a suspense film. The answer lies in the emotional investment. By making Lisa so vibrant and the relationship so complicated, the film creates a “dual suspense”: we are worried about the murder, but we are equally worried about whether Jeff and Lisa will survive as a couple. Because Hayes makes us fall in love with Lisa’s charm, the terror we feel when she enters the killer’s apartment is amplified. We aren’t just watching a character; we are watching a vibrant, beautiful woman we care about stepping into darkness.
If Lisa provides the “high” of romance, Stella provides the ground. According to the reading, Hayes created Stella to serve as a “Greek Chorus”—voicing the audience’s thoughts and providing comic relief. Without Stella’s sharp wit to neutralize the tension, the film would have been too heavy and suffocating.
Of course, this doesn’t diminish Hitchcock’s role. Even if he didn’t write the words, his control was absolute. He “pre-cut” the film on paper, dictating the visual structure that contained Hayes’s characters. This meticulous planning reminds me of his earlier film, Shadow of a Doubt—which, interestingly, Hayes studied 90 times during the war. Both films masterfully explore the horror infiltrating a safe, domestic space.
Rear Window is often cited as Hitchcock’s masterpiece, but I now see it as a triumph of collaboration. Hitchcock built the house, but it was John Michael Hayes who invited the guests, dressed them in high fashion, and gave them something to say.
Works Cited
DeRosa, Steven. Writing with Hitchcock: The Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and John Michael Hayes. 2nd Edition, Cinescribe Media: New York, 2011.
I agree that reading the introduction of Steven DeRosa’s Writing with Hitchcock really shifts one’s perspective on the Hitchcock “myth”. Discovering the depth of John Michael Hayes’ influence gives Hitchcock’s persona a bit of a disingenuous flare and an air of pride, control, and even arrogance. This isn’t to take away from his brilliance or his massive contributions to the screenwriting process, but it makes this specific collaboration so much more interesting to delve into. It’s fascinating to see the perspectives they were able to conjure mutually; there’s a real irony in the fact that for all of Hitchcock’s need for creative control, this partnership produced a level of success that neither man was able to duplicate to the same caliber ever again.
I think your description of Hitchcock’s masterpiece as a triumph of collaboration was beautifully phrased, especially the comparison of Hitchcock providing the home while Hayes gave it the essential structure and elements needed to complete the masterpiece. In Reading Writing with Hitchcock: The Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and John Michael Hayes, we dive into the mind and ideas of Hayes as he sculpts the characters into contrast to the Woolrich story. Hayes created the character Stella to serve as narrative voice that engages the audience with her sense of humor also portraying her as a woman of reason. By having Stella participate in the investigation of the murder, the audience is more easily convinced that Thorwald did, in fact murder his wife. Stella’s character made a significant impact on the film. Overall, I completely agree with your blog regarding Hitchcock leaving a bitter taste for failing to acknowledge his writer.
I found it interesting how his active dismissal of the media acknowledging the writers that he collaborates with, is an act of cultivating an image and brand. I cannot understand why Hitchcock would drag the writers through the mud with his remarks as I believe a director and their production team is greater than the sum of its parts. Hitchcock himself could not have made movies to the level as he wanted, most tellingly when he searched for writers for the movie Torn Curtain as mentioned in the book.
In regard to John Michael Hayes’ contributions, it was interesting seeing the combination between Cornell Woolrich’s short story, Joshua Logan’s treatment, and the adjustment’s Hayes’ have done. He has mentioned the motive for James Stewart’s character to realize his love for Lisa was in part an experience he felt. He mentioned a car crash in which he and his wife were involved in. I can assume that this must be a very personal project of his given this event.
I like your thoughts on Hitchcock and John Michael Hayes and agree that Alfred Hitchcock comes across as a meticulous and brilliantly controlling genius. He is portrayed as a director with a carefully crafted, ambitious vision for his films, often engaging the audience in a very deliberate way. His relationship with Hayes reveals Hitchcock’s appreciation for talent, yet it also shows how he can sometimes overlook his collaborators, leading to a difficult and messy professional breakup. Although Alfred Hitchcock didn’t always craft the final dialogue for his screenplays, he maintained almost complete control over the entire production, acting essentially as both producer and director. He relied heavily on careful pre-production planning, especially detailed storyboarding, to ensure the final film truly reflected his vision, a process he lovingly called “pure cinema.”
Shadow of a Doubt (1943) and Rear Window (1954) are beloved Hitchcock thrillers. Despite being made 11 years apart, these films beautifully share key themes and cinematic touches, like voyeurism, the doppelgänger, and the sense of being trapped that the main characters often feel. Both films involve the audience in the act of looking, a key theme in Hitchcock’s work. Rear Window is often appreciated as a film that beautifully explores the artistry of filmmaking and the unique experience of watching a film. The disillusionment of young Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt resonates with viewers, capturing that emotional journey from seeing the world through an unrealistic lens to facing its more complex, darker realities.