
CerÂtain direcÂtors like to impliÂcate their audiÂence in their onscreen crimes, drawÂing on decades of expecÂtaÂtions creÂatÂed by popÂuÂlar cinÂeÂmatÂic tropes and playÂing with the viewer’s innate desires. FilmÂmakÂer Michael Haneke takes a HitchÂcockÂian approach in this regard, in nightÂmarÂish visions like Benny’s Video, The Piano PlayÂer, and CachĂ©. “Haneke uses voyeurism to disÂmanÂtle the space between the film and audiÂence,” writes PopÂmatÂters,” and in doing so, he takes advanÂtage of what might be thought of as Hitchcock’s voyeur appaÂraÂtus and forces the audiÂence to quesÂtion its place withÂin the narÂraÂtive.”
Hitchcock’s “voyeur appaÂraÂtus” has inspired many anothÂer idioÂsynÂcratÂic filmÂmakÂer — most notably, perÂhaps, David Lynch. Like JimÂmy Stewart’s Jeff JefÂfries in Hitchcock’s Rear WinÂdow, Kyle MacLachlan’s JefÂfrey in Lynch’s Blue VelÂvet becomes corÂruptÂed by illicÂit vision.
These are clasÂsic iterÂaÂtions of the PeepÂing Tom, the casuÂal voyeur sexÂuÂalÂly awakÂened by covert obserÂvaÂtions of othÂers. The road from HitchÂcock to the psyÂchoÂsexÂuÂal alienÂation of latÂer artÂhouse cinÂeÂma may be a short one, but where did HitchÂcockÂ’s framÂing of the voyeurisÂtic gaze come from?


One answer, says writer Diane Doniol-ValÂcroze — daughÂter of Cahiers Du CinĂ©Âma co-founder Jacques Doniol-ValÂcroze — is found in a comÂparÂiÂson of Hitchcock’s visuÂal sense with that of Edward HopÂper, the invenÂter of midÂcenÂtuÂry modÂern loneÂliÂness and also himÂself kind of a clasÂsic PeepÂing Tom. In a series of juxÂtaÂpoÂsiÂtions on TwitÂter, Doniol-ValÂcroze shows how HitchÂcock adoptÂed the framÂing of paintÂings like Hopper’s Automat (1927), Night WinÂdows (1928), Hotel Room (1931), Room in New York (1932) for shots of Rear WinÂdow’s “Miss TorÂso” and “Miss LoneÂlyÂhearts.” She is not the only critÂic to make the comÂparÂiÂson.
“For HitchÂcock in parÂticÂuÂlar,” writes Finn Blythe at Hero, “Hopper’s gaze was like a petri dish from which an infiÂnite numÂber of posÂsiÂble narÂraÂtives could grow. EviÂdence of Hopper’s influÂence can be found throughÂout Hitchcock’s oeuÂvre, but espeÂcialÂly his 1954 clasÂsic Rear WinÂdow. Just as the powÂer of Hopper’s paintÂings lies in what he choosÂes to exclude, so the tenÂsion and specÂtaÂcle in Hitchcock’s Rear WinÂdow relies on what is obscured or unseen.” Hopper’s figÂures are not only loneÂly and alienÂatÂed, they are vulÂnerÂaÂble, and espeÂcialÂly so in priÂvate, unguardÂed moments in their own homes.


HitchÂcock takes Hopper’s gaze, so often framed by winÂdows, and makes it about cinÂeÂma itself. “As viewÂers,” writes Blythe, “we become comÂplicÂit in the same morÂbid human fanÂtasies,” as Stewart’s creepy Jeff, “rubÂber-neckÂing the same lurid acts from the safe vanÂtage point of our chairs.” As the cinÂeÂmatÂic image of the voyeur has shown us, howÂevÂer — in HitchÂcock, Haneke, Lynch, and its many iterÂaÂtions of what LauÂra MulÂvey called the “male gaze” — the act of watchÂing from a disÂtance can become a kind of vioÂlence all its own; in HitchÂcockÂian cinÂeÂma, the menÂace that often seems to lurk just out of frame in Hopper’s paintÂings can burst into the picÂture at any moment.

RelatÂed ConÂtent:
Alfred HitchÂcock Reveals The Secret Sauce for CreÂatÂing SusÂpense
Edward Hopper’s IconÂic PaintÂing Nighthawks Explained in a 7‑Minute Video IntroÂducÂtion
How Edward HopÂper “StoÂryÂboardÂed” His IconÂic PaintÂing Nighthawks
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in Durham, NC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness

