Publication Date: April 20, 2007
Calvin Chimes
Headline: How close is too close?

How close is too close?
The cost of entertainment in ‘Disturbia’

Chris Beaumont

Though there is no official credit given to its predecessor, “Disturbia” is in many ways an adaptation of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1954 thriller “Rear Window.” In the original, Jimmy Stewart portrayed L.B. Jefferies, an injured photographer confined to a wheelchair in his apartment. With only the view from his window as entertainment, Jefferies begins to observe his neighbors through a telephoto camera, and convinces himself that one of them is a murderer.

Shia LaBeouf’s Kale is the Jefferies character in D.J. Caruso’s “Disturbia.” Though the details are different (Kale has father issues and is confined to his room through house arrest), Kale quickly assumes the role of neighborhood voyeur-turned-detective.

As a thriller, “Disturbia” takes full advantage of the 53 years of dramatic innovation that have transpired since Hitchcock’s film. The film moves quickly and remains taut through the relatively brief 100 minute runtime. Camera shots are also engrossing; unlike the intentional claustrophobia created by the cinematography in “Rear Window,” images here are kinetic. One of the most gripping scenes in the film involves a chase scene captured by Kale’s home camera and viewed entirely on his computer. There is plenty of suspense in “Disturbia” to remain interesting.

However, there is a much more disconcerting aspect of this film which is also a product of the past half century. In the past fifty years, our culture as a whole has become more like L.B. Jefferies, and it is now easier than ever to anonymously observe the lives of others. This is an age of YouTube and reality TV and Us Weekly and internet porn. It is an age when the terror of a school shooting is captured on a cell phone camera and consumed nation-wide within hours.

What makes “Disturbia” disconcerting is that it all but ignores the ethical dilemmas of watching that are prevalent in our culture. When Kale watches the attractive girl next door swimming and changing, the scene’s tone suggests that this spying is not unnerving, but hot.

This is the key departure of “Disturbia” from “Rear Window.” In the former film, Jeffries confronts these issues, wondering “if it’s ethical to watch a man with a binoculars and a long-focus lens…even if you prove he didn’t commit a crime.” Even Jeffries’ injury was sustained while capturing a dangerous close up shot of an out of control racecar, and is thus a metaphor for the cost of sensationalizing life for the purpose of consumption. If there is any parallel allegorical message in “Disturbia,” it is that voyeurism will get you the girl.

Perhaps this criticism of “Disturbia” is too harsh, since it is not an official remake of Hitchcock’s film. However, it is hard to ignore the film’s silence in regard to these ethical issues.

This is especially true this week, when we observe the way in which the news media has presented the Virginia Tech shooting. When TV reporters ask policemen to describe bloodstained hallways and present 3D maps of exactly where and when events occurred in play-by-play fashion, their reporting feels less like news and more like fuel for our curiosity to experience other people’s tragedy.

Having said this, “Disturbia” is not without merit. While it presents without criticism many of the problems of modern day digital voyeurism, it does so in a way that is thought provoking for those who want to tackle such issues. And while it may not have the allegorical (or, in retrospect, prophetic) value of “Rear Window,” “Disturbia” is certainly interesting as a text of what our culture currently values.

chris beaumont
beaumont@ifa.hawaii.edu
graduate student
institute for astronomy
university of hawaii at manoa
2680 woodlawn drive
honolulu, hi 96822