I enjoyed this movie a great deal, but i don't think it's Powell's masterpiece.
In fact, it's probably the second weakest Powell film I've seen so far. Sometimes a controversial film will gain a reputation that it doesn't deserve and I think this is one of those cases. It's greatest flaw probably comes from a puritanical lack of violence. I know that's an odd thing to say about a movie with this kind of reputation, but it's true. Peeping Tom is very violent for a movie released the early 60's, but this shouldn't have been made in the early 60's. It was too soon for a movie like this. The subject matter needed a more explicit approach.
Imagine Henry: portrait of a serial killer, only without any blood, and every time a murder is about to happen, the camera cuts away or fades out. That's what Peeping Tom is like. It's so well made that you don't really notice this right away and I'm sure it was very shocking to people when it was released... I didn't really begin to realize this was the problem until about half way through the movie but even before that i felt a certain detachment and the movie seemed to lack an emotional punch that should have been there.
Hitchcock got around this in psycho with ingenious editing that made the audience believe they were seeing more than they were... Fritz lang does it frequently in movies made even before this through manipulative techniques that cause you to use you imagination to fill in the blanks... Powelll doesn't resort to those kinds of tricks. For one thing it's not really his style and also because peeping tom is a much different kind of film. While psycho is fundamentally a horror film, and most of Fritz Langs more daring efforts are noirish crime thrillers, peeping tom is really more of a morbid character study. A clinical examination of an insane mind. A movie about a killer where the audience views the film from his perspective. A movie like that needs to make the audience feel uncomfortable. You need moments in the film where you are sickened by what you see on screen but peeping tom handles the viewer with kid gloves. That's not really anyone's fault..
Peeping Tom is simply a product of it's time and it's one of those cases where they could have made a much better movie about 12 years later. It's rare that i see a movie and my main complaint is that it's too old fashioned, but that's what's wrong with Peeping Tom.
There are great scenes though... Moments when you get an idea of what a great movie it could have been, like the scene where the killer is showing his girlfriend home movies from his childhood. We see his father frightening him on purpose and sadistically filming it. It's a graphic demonstration of emotional violence that makes you wince. It's all expertly filmed and edited and it gives you a hint what Powell might have done a few years later.
In the end I have to recommend Peeping Tom.. It's certainly worth viewing, but make sure and lower your expectations if you've built it up as some kind of masterpiece.. It's not a masterpiece, it's just excellent, but that's OK.
In fact, it's probably the second weakest Powell film I've seen so far. Sometimes a controversial film will gain a reputation that it doesn't deserve and I think this is one of those cases. It's greatest flaw probably comes from a puritanical lack of violence. I know that's an odd thing to say about a movie with this kind of reputation, but it's true. Peeping Tom is very violent for a movie released the early 60's, but this shouldn't have been made in the early 60's. It was too soon for a movie like this. The subject matter needed a more explicit approach.
Imagine Henry: portrait of a serial killer, only without any blood, and every time a murder is about to happen, the camera cuts away or fades out. That's what Peeping Tom is like. It's so well made that you don't really notice this right away and I'm sure it was very shocking to people when it was released... I didn't really begin to realize this was the problem until about half way through the movie but even before that i felt a certain detachment and the movie seemed to lack an emotional punch that should have been there.
Hitchcock got around this in psycho with ingenious editing that made the audience believe they were seeing more than they were... Fritz lang does it frequently in movies made even before this through manipulative techniques that cause you to use you imagination to fill in the blanks... Powelll doesn't resort to those kinds of tricks. For one thing it's not really his style and also because peeping tom is a much different kind of film. While psycho is fundamentally a horror film, and most of Fritz Langs more daring efforts are noirish crime thrillers, peeping tom is really more of a morbid character study. A clinical examination of an insane mind. A movie about a killer where the audience views the film from his perspective. A movie like that needs to make the audience feel uncomfortable. You need moments in the film where you are sickened by what you see on screen but peeping tom handles the viewer with kid gloves. That's not really anyone's fault..
Peeping Tom is simply a product of it's time and it's one of those cases where they could have made a much better movie about 12 years later. It's rare that i see a movie and my main complaint is that it's too old fashioned, but that's what's wrong with Peeping Tom.
There are great scenes though... Moments when you get an idea of what a great movie it could have been, like the scene where the killer is showing his girlfriend home movies from his childhood. We see his father frightening him on purpose and sadistically filming it. It's a graphic demonstration of emotional violence that makes you wince. It's all expertly filmed and edited and it gives you a hint what Powell might have done a few years later.
In the end I have to recommend Peeping Tom.. It's certainly worth viewing, but make sure and lower your expectations if you've built it up as some kind of masterpiece.. It's not a masterpiece, it's just excellent, but that's OK.