m critics to a such extent that his carnality becomes more and more veiled by mystery and fairy tales.

The naturalized term “Hitchcockian” as pointed out by Boyd and Palmer is widely spread among film critics and film lovers. This term might be a sufficient example of a fashionable detachment of Hitchcock’s flesh from Hitchcock’s concepts. High honor is given to Hitchcock himself, but on the other hand, it is slightly troubling for critics and film academicians. (as if Hitchcockian was the monster Kronos who ate all of his own children, in an effort not to be overthrown, but the problem lies in the fact that we are more interested in his children).

Moreover, there are couple of other obstacles which keep us from approaching Hitchcock’s films more closely; In the first place, as Robin Wood claims, Hitchcock is not perceived as “a serious director” by many film academicians or critics since he was a part of Hollywood movie production whose commercials intentions were blatant. Hence, Hitchcock is suspected of “ being influenced by commercial interests and compromising his vision to accord to the mob’s taste .”|ustupky komercniho ohledu a na zasadni kompromisy s pokleslym lidovym vkusem |. (Wood 9)

What is more, Hitchcock himself offered many murky comments or an absolute silence concerning his movies. William Rothman in “The Murderous Gaze” seems to be irritated by John Russell Taylor’s conclusion in an authorized biography of Alfred Hitchcock which claims that: “It seems unlikely that Hitchcock, even in the secret places of his heart, regarded himself as anything other than a practical movie-maker.” William Rothman, an eager admirer of Hitchcock believes that “Hitchcock’s silences mocked those who took for granted that they knew him when they had not penetrated his most elementary secrets, not escaped his simplest traps, not even recognized his disdain or his anguish. “ ( Rothman 346 )

Finally, we are getting closer to the reason why we sketched a few obstacles which problematize ‘ a smooth hooking on’ to Hitchcock’s films. The intention of this paper is to narrow down two interpretations of Rear Window and consequently to unwrap my own interpretation. The number of analyses and interpretations revolving around Hitchcock’s oeuvre is plentiful, however just a few of them withstand to abovementioned traps.

Before starting with the interpretations themselves, we will summarize the plot of Rear Window to refresh reader’s mind.

James Stewart as Jeff in a role of a photojournalist who is imprisoned in a cast and hence is trapped to stay in his apartment for a while. The film starts within his last week in the cast in stifling weather. Almost everybody in his Greenwich Village neighborhood has rolled up their blinds to ventilate their apartments. However, along with wind, Jeff’s gaze enters their apartments, in his attempt fend against boredom. Even the common sense of his nurse Stella ( Thelma Ritter) does not repel him from looking at his neighbors, especially those who directly oppose his rear window. What is more, even the presence of beautiful Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) who is visibly interested in him, has no power to change the direction of his look.