It’s not bad to parody Alfred Hitchcock but to do it you have to know his obsessions by heart and dare to dismantle them on screen to generate, where the master of suspense managed to increase the palpitations, a laugh.
Netflix was encouraged to premiere among the first series of this year “The woman in the house in front of the girl in the window”, a failed attempt to satirize “Rear Window” that throughout 8 episodes starts as if it were of an exciting police story and is full of flaws that baffle the viewer but do not make him smile.
/Home Embedded Code//End Embed Code/
It is better to address the production problem faced by Rachel Ramras, Hugh Davidson and Larry Dorf as soon as possible so as not to look for strange motivations for the incredible blunder of the story. The viewer is never fueled by the parodic intention; 20 or 30 minutes go by, an entire chapter is consumed with a hackneyed plot but one that can be confused with dozens of others found on the same streaming platform.
Anna (Kristen Bell) lives in a beautiful house, consumes more alcohol than she should and mixes it with anti-anxiety drugs while obsessively spying on what is happening in the house across the street, where its new inhabitants, a young and attractive widower, have just arrived. (Tom Riley) and his young daughter (Samsara Yett).
Except for the unusually long title or the size of the container where the bottle corks end up, which Anna uncovers as soon as she opens her eyes, there are no hints of parody attempts. This is not exactly “The Naked Gun” where each typical action movie scene has a humorous derivation and the audience is immersed in a new laugh when they still haven’t recovered from the previous one.
There is no trace of humor here. The story is an exact replica of “The Woman in the Window” (also available on Netflix), starring Amy Adams and based on “Rear Window.” The story promises to get interesting when Anna, One meter from the window and in the midst of the cloud of torpor caused by the wine and the anxiolytics, he thinks he is witnessing the murder of his neighbor’s girlfriend.
But it is a false alarm because it does not change the rhythm or the action and the policemen who appear and should be the subject of satire-because they are ineffective and incapable of seeing beyond their noses-they hardly contribute their presence. The argument and the way of unfolding it wouldn’t have worked for an 85 minute movie let alone an 8 episode movie.
There is no way to laugh because they do not get the complicity of the viewer. It is not that they have to warn about the alleged satirical intentions, but they do show them. The series begins as a conventional thriller and at some point one suspects that it will not have a proper ending but the last minutes can leave anyone frozen.
In short, everything that could go wrong went wrong, but nonetheless there were critics who warmly recommended it for the morbidity that results from the inadvertent mistakes and those that seem to have been included to laugh at the genre.
Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun Times wrote, “It’s ridiculous. It’s wildly over the top. It’s gleefully offensive. But it’s wonderful thanks to a performance by Kfristen Bell, a script by genre-savvy creators, and a successful direction.” What we experienced when watching “The Woman of the House…” Chitra Ramaswamy of The Guardian newspaper gave the series two stars out of a possible five, criticizing the tonal confusion as “ridiculous at best and disturbing at worst” and summing it up as “not funny, just horrible”.