“Rope” (1948) concerns two young intellectuals who are also killers. Not just any kind of killers, but thrill killers. They see murder as an intellectual exercise. They want to not only experience what it feels like to murder someone, but to see if they can get away with it.
To see if they can get away with it. It’s similar to what Alfred Hitchcock tried to do with “Rope.” Like his thrill killer subjects, he wanted to try something new to see if he could get away with it.
Get away with what?
“Rope” was based on a 1929 play by “Gaslight” and “Hangover Square” author Patrick Hamilton. Hitchcock wanted the movie audience to feel they were watching a play. That meant no cutting. With this decision in hand, Hitchcock set forth to undertake one of the most audacious films in his long and illustrious career.
To see if they can get away with it. It’s similar to what Alfred Hitchcock tried to do with “Rope.” Like his thrill killer subjects, he wanted to try something new to see if he could get away with it.
Get away with what?
“Rope” was based on a 1929 play by “Gaslight” and “Hangover Square” author Patrick Hamilton. Hitchcock wanted the movie audience to feel they were watching a play. That meant no cutting. With this decision in hand, Hitchcock set forth to undertake one of the most audacious films in his long and illustrious career.
Authors Robert A. Harris and Michael S. Lasky explain in their book “The Films of Alfred Hitchcock” (Citadel Press, 1976): “He shot Rope with no actual cuts and instead filmed ten-minute takes, the maximum amount of film (one thousand feet) that a camera will hold. Planning was necessary in defining just how the camera would move and how to create the effect of no cuts. The latter was obtained by closing and opening each ten-minute take in close up behind an actor or object so that they would create a solid texture on the screen. The total effect of Rope was of one continuous shot, the length of the film being the actual time of the action in the story.
“The single setting for the production had walls and furniture with silent wheels which could be moved away quietly while the camera was moving from place to place. A color backdrop skyline of New York was realistic. Clouds, made of spun glass, would move and the sky turned from the orange of sunset to the black and twinkling lights of night.”
In addition to the film’s technical challenges, it was also Hitchcock’s first color film. An odd choice for a color debut, since it all takes place on one set. It was also the first of four films James Stewart and Hitchcock made together. It proved a most fruitful collaboration.
The film cost $1.5 million to produce, mainly because of the many technical problems the film engendered. Plus, Stewart’s salary alone was $300,000. But the film earned its money back and even made a small profit.
While the no editing approach is interesting, it is somewhat limiting. To the best of my knowledge, no one ever tried to repeat this one-take approach. In that regard, “Rope” remains a most singular achievement.
“The single setting for the production had walls and furniture with silent wheels which could be moved away quietly while the camera was moving from place to place. A color backdrop skyline of New York was realistic. Clouds, made of spun glass, would move and the sky turned from the orange of sunset to the black and twinkling lights of night.”
In addition to the film’s technical challenges, it was also Hitchcock’s first color film. An odd choice for a color debut, since it all takes place on one set. It was also the first of four films James Stewart and Hitchcock made together. It proved a most fruitful collaboration.
The film cost $1.5 million to produce, mainly because of the many technical problems the film engendered. Plus, Stewart’s salary alone was $300,000. But the film earned its money back and even made a small profit.
While the no editing approach is interesting, it is somewhat limiting. To the best of my knowledge, no one ever tried to repeat this one-take approach. In that regard, “Rope” remains a most singular achievement.
The film opens on a New York street and we see an eagle eye’s view of people (including our beloved director, in his cameo appearance) scurrying past an elegant apartment building. We then track to a window followed by a choked off scream. We then see two men with a third standing listlessly between them with a rope around his neck. At first glance it looks like a rehearsal of some kind (is Hitchcock playing tricks with us?), but no, its murder and the two men are then shown placing the body in a large chest.
The two are Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger) who have just committed the murder just before hosting a small dinner party. Mrs. Wilson (Edith Evanson), their housekeeper and cook, is serving at the party.
Guest of honor is David Kently, a college classmate and friend of Brandon and Philip. Other guests include David’s father Henry (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), Henry’s sister-in-law Mrs. Atwater (Constance Collier), David’s fiancée Janet Walker (Joan Chandler), David’s former friend and Janet’s ex-boyfriend Kenneth Lawrence (Douglas Dick).
Late arrival is Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), the former teacher of the boys. Rupert is brilliant but has definite ideas of the superiority of some over others, and rationalizes killing the weaker elements in society.
Tension begins to rise at the party, not only at the guests’ repugnance at Rupert’s theories, but when the normally reliable David does not turn up at the party. The audience knows that David has been murdered by Brandon and Phillip and is now lying in a chest that’s being used as a buffet table for the dinner guests. Brandon finds this highly amusing and Phillip, who has shown doubts about the murder from the very beginning, begins to unravel over the course of the evening.
The two are Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger) who have just committed the murder just before hosting a small dinner party. Mrs. Wilson (Edith Evanson), their housekeeper and cook, is serving at the party.
Guest of honor is David Kently, a college classmate and friend of Brandon and Philip. Other guests include David’s father Henry (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), Henry’s sister-in-law Mrs. Atwater (Constance Collier), David’s fiancée Janet Walker (Joan Chandler), David’s former friend and Janet’s ex-boyfriend Kenneth Lawrence (Douglas Dick).
Late arrival is Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), the former teacher of the boys. Rupert is brilliant but has definite ideas of the superiority of some over others, and rationalizes killing the weaker elements in society.
Tension begins to rise at the party, not only at the guests’ repugnance at Rupert’s theories, but when the normally reliable David does not turn up at the party. The audience knows that David has been murdered by Brandon and Phillip and is now lying in a chest that’s being used as a buffet table for the dinner guests. Brandon finds this highly amusing and Phillip, who has shown doubts about the murder from the very beginning, begins to unravel over the course of the evening.
Rupert suspects something is up and after everyone has left, begins to bait the boys to get to the truth.
Running a crisp 80 minutes, the film is continually engrossing. Though based on a play, Hitchcock gives us two wonderful suspense sequences. Who but Hitchcock could squeeze suspense out of a stationary camera in a one-room setting with no editing?
In one, Rupert theorizes to Brandon and Phillip how the murder was committed. We don’t see the actors in the scene, only hear the actors as the camera tracks where the murder was committed, how the body was hid, how the furniture was re-arranged. The camera acts as a visual guide to Rupert’s remarks.
Running a crisp 80 minutes, the film is continually engrossing. Though based on a play, Hitchcock gives us two wonderful suspense sequences. Who but Hitchcock could squeeze suspense out of a stationary camera in a one-room setting with no editing?
In one, Rupert theorizes to Brandon and Phillip how the murder was committed. We don’t see the actors in the scene, only hear the actors as the camera tracks where the murder was committed, how the body was hid, how the furniture was re-arranged. The camera acts as a visual guide to Rupert’s remarks.
In the other, Mrs. Wilson cleans off the makeshift buffet table, removing the candles and dishes. The camera remains a stationary observer as she brings the dishes and food platters into the dining room in the background, and then returns with a stack of books brought from the dining room back to the chest. Running several minutes long, there’s no editing, but we hear the empty babble of a cocktail party conversation, and we wait in breathless anticipation for her to open the chest and put the books back in. It’s a marvelous sequence.
Because of the Production Code, any hint of homosexuality between Brandon and Phillip is buried, but astute viewers can figure out there’s something going on between the two, especially those viewers familiar with the Leopold and Loeb case, which helped inspire “Rope.”
Leopold and Loeb were two well-to-do students at the University of Chicago who in 1924 murdered their neighbor, 14-year-old Bobby Franks, in a desire to commit the perfect crime.
Both were homosexual and both subscribed to the Nietzschean philosophy of the superman – someone who has certain “superior” qualities inherent in themselves, and thus are exempt from the laws which govern “ordinary” men.
Brandon and Phillip think they’re above the law too, and I think Rupert does too. His realization that his theories have caused Brandon and Phillip to murder their friend is beautifully played by Stewart and is one of the most underrated bits of acting in his career.
Some think that Stewart is miscast here, and there may be some truth to that. Hitchcock wanted James Mason to play Rupert and I think he would have been marvelous. With that rich, plummy voice, I think Mason could make anyone feel inferior and not worthy of living. He’s so good in those kinds of roles.
But Stewart does well enough, and I think he’s good in the confrontational scenes with John Dall and Farley Granger. I’ve always liked Dall, ever since I first witnessed his magnificent sneering in “Atlantis, the Lost Continent” (1961) on Sunday afternoon TV.
“Rope” was adapted for the screen by Hume Cronyn, though the screenplay was written by Arthur Laurents. Laurents thought Jimmy Stewart was just playing Jimmy Stewart and someone like James Mason would have suggested a romantic relationship between the teacher and one, or both, of his students, thus giving the film even more of an edge.
Because of the Production Code, any hint of homosexuality between Brandon and Phillip is buried, but astute viewers can figure out there’s something going on between the two, especially those viewers familiar with the Leopold and Loeb case, which helped inspire “Rope.”
Leopold and Loeb were two well-to-do students at the University of Chicago who in 1924 murdered their neighbor, 14-year-old Bobby Franks, in a desire to commit the perfect crime.
Both were homosexual and both subscribed to the Nietzschean philosophy of the superman – someone who has certain “superior” qualities inherent in themselves, and thus are exempt from the laws which govern “ordinary” men.
Brandon and Phillip think they’re above the law too, and I think Rupert does too. His realization that his theories have caused Brandon and Phillip to murder their friend is beautifully played by Stewart and is one of the most underrated bits of acting in his career.
Some think that Stewart is miscast here, and there may be some truth to that. Hitchcock wanted James Mason to play Rupert and I think he would have been marvelous. With that rich, plummy voice, I think Mason could make anyone feel inferior and not worthy of living. He’s so good in those kinds of roles.
But Stewart does well enough, and I think he’s good in the confrontational scenes with John Dall and Farley Granger. I’ve always liked Dall, ever since I first witnessed his magnificent sneering in “Atlantis, the Lost Continent” (1961) on Sunday afternoon TV.
“Rope” was adapted for the screen by Hume Cronyn, though the screenplay was written by Arthur Laurents. Laurents thought Jimmy Stewart was just playing Jimmy Stewart and someone like James Mason would have suggested a romantic relationship between the teacher and one, or both, of his students, thus giving the film even more of an edge.
Like a lot of Hitchcock movies, the ghoulishness is lightened somewhat by some dry comedy. The dithery Mrs. Atwater can never remember the names of plays or movies she’s seen, though she recently adored the movie she recently saw with Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. I’m assuming she means Hitchcock’s “Notorious” (1946). And the alert Mrs. Wilson, with her snarky comments, shows she’s more on the ball than Brandon and Phillip think.
Atypical for Hitchcock, there’s no original score though a principal theme, “Perpetual Theme No. 1” by Francis Poulenec, is heard throughout the movie.
Despite its lack of editing, “Rope” remains a fascinating film. The wit of the script, performances, and Hitchcock’s unfailing visual eye make this one a winner.
There’s lots of good reading about other Hitchcock films in the Classic Film Association’s Alfred Hitchcock blogathon. Films and their sites are below. I’m looking forward to reading them and encourage others to do so as well, especially if you have a favorite Hitchcock title listed here.
1. The Birds – Classic Film & TV Café http://classic-film-tv.blogspot.com/
Atypical for Hitchcock, there’s no original score though a principal theme, “Perpetual Theme No. 1” by Francis Poulenec, is heard throughout the movie.
Despite its lack of editing, “Rope” remains a fascinating film. The wit of the script, performances, and Hitchcock’s unfailing visual eye make this one a winner.
There’s lots of good reading about other Hitchcock films in the Classic Film Association’s Alfred Hitchcock blogathon. Films and their sites are below. I’m looking forward to reading them and encourage others to do so as well, especially if you have a favorite Hitchcock title listed here.
1. The Birds – Classic Film & TV Café http://classic-film-tv.blogspot.com/
2. Dial M for Murder – True Classics: The ABCs of Film http://trueclassics.wordpress.com/
3. The Lady Vanishes – MacGuffin Movies http://macguffinmovies.wordpress.com/
4. Lifeboat – Classicfilmboy’s Movie Paradise http://www.classicfilmboy.com/
5. The Man Who Knew Too Much – Reel Revival http://reelrevival.blogspot.com/
6. Mr. and Mrs. Smith – Carole & Co. http://community.livejournal.com/carole_and_co/
7. North By Northwest – Bette’s Classic Movie Blog http://bettesmovieblog.blogspot.com/
8. Notorious – Twenty Four Frames http://twentyfourframes.wordpress.com/
9. The Pleasure Garden – Thrilling Days of Yesteryear http://www.thrillingdaysofyesteryear.blogspot.com/
10. Rear Window – Java’s Journey http://javabeanrush.blogspot.com/
11. Rebecca – ClassicBecky’s Film and Literary Review http://www.classicbeckybrainfood.blogspot.com/
12. Rope – Kevin’s Movie Corner http://kevinsmoviecorner.blogspot.com/
13. Shadow of a Doubt - Great Entertainers Media Archive http://greatentertainersarchives.blogspot.com/
14. The 39 Steps – Garbo Laughs http://garbolaughs.wordpress.com/
15. Three Classic Hitchcock Killers – The Lady Eve’s Reel Life http://eves-reel-life.blogspot.com/
16. Torn Curtain - Via Margutta 51 http://www.via-51.blogspot.com/
17. The Trouble with Harry – Bit Part Actors http://bitactors.blogspot.com/
18. Vertigo – Noir and Chick Flicks http://dawnschickflicks.blogspot.com/
19. The Wrong Man – The Movie Projector http://movieprojector.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment