Rope (1948), from the stageplay by Patrick Hamilton, deserves as much fame as any of the better known Hitchcock suspense thrillers. The fact that it is lesser known, however, isn't so bad. Let's call it our secret. No need to tell anyone what we're up to. You get my drift?
Two Harvard snobs murder one of their peers. They then throw a party in the room where the body is hidden. Why do we say 'throw a party'? Your guess is as good as mine, I expect. Their party is both meticulously planned and also in a sense thrown together in a separate sense, as host Brandon (John Dall) makes little final innovations before the guests arrive, and even reveals details his co-conspirator Phillip (Farley Granger) is unaware of, putting him into a state of anxiety. Brandon, the dominant one, chief sociopath if you like, is frightfully cool and collected, Phillip volatile and emotional. But who are the guests? Well, first, there's David, the corpe, then also the corpse's girlfriend Janet, love rival Kenneth, and the parents of the deceased, the Kentleys. Lastly, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), housemaster from the boys' old prep school, and as Phillip warns, "the one man in the world most likely to suspect". Is Brandon aiming to rival Highsmith's Tom Ripley, or is he destined to become another Raskolnikov?
The movie is famous for being shot in long takes that are knit together to give the illusion of one continuous take. As such it demonstrates its affinity with its origin as a stageplay, and indeed the whole thing takes place in one setting, the apartment. The only exterior shot comes at the beginning for the opening credits. The movie begins with the death, rather than the act of murder, of David Kentley, and this bit is the least convincing segment of the movie, his cry of distress and then the moment of death sounding and then looking a little too stagey. Aside from a few minor inconsistencies along the way, the kinds of things you wouldn't notice in the cinema (but which are easily picked over when he review on our devicesm as opposed to view), the movie sets in to become completely absorbing. I love the way the screenplay draws our attention to all the figurative language used in everyday parlance, especially the kind that implies violence. For example, when Kenneth, hearing that Phillip is soon to make his concert debut, exclaims "I hope you knock them dead!", or when Janet becoming impatient with Brandon's meddling, "Oh why can't he keep his hands off people?". There is a straightforward use of light and dark as symbolism, simple but indubitable, and being in cahoots, albeit temporarily, as onlookers, we know more than the guests do and so elements take on a thrilling and unsettling character.
It's also interesting to speculate upon the sexuality, the implied homoeroticism of the movie. This must have been deliberate, but can it have been widely comprehended? Was it there in the original of 1929, or is it added by the writers who adapted it for the movie, Hume Cronyn and Arthur Laurents? Are Brandon and Phillip a couple in the closet or is the murder somehow a consequence of their repressed sexuality? We're told, later on, that Brandon was seeing Janet at some earlier period. Given the homoerotic undertones, some of the dialogue takes on a comic aspect, and the gun-in-the-pocket bit, well I'll let you infer what you wish about that one.
I suppose, were it remade today, the movie would be full of quick cuts and shots from multiple angles, reactions in close-up, and these would replace feelings of suspense in the spectator with nervous tension. Thankfully, no-one's been foolish enough to try it. Personally I think the performances could hardly be bettered. Farley Granger makes a superb show of Phillip's gradual unravelling, the effect of the drink as he gets more and more inebriated. Dall makes an effective sociopath, charming, aloof, torn between the need for disguise and a prideful wish to expose hise genius. How riveting it becomes when the camera reveals Jimmy Stewart's materialisation in the room, a movie star amongst the actors. I love the droll reference to another Hitchcock movie, Notorious (the guests can't remember the title). According to Wiki, Hitch does make a cameo, but looking at it, I ask you, really? That? Never mind.
I wanted to say something about how Rope contrasts with a film like Funny Games, but I can't think of anything beyond the fact that Hitchcock, unlike Haneke, never treats the audience with contempt. He doesn't need to shame the audience to make us appalled by crime. Patricia Highsmith, or rather Anthony MInghella and Matt Damon, manage to get us on sociopath Tom Ripley's side. We end up wanting him to escape detection. We never want Brandon and Phillip to do so despite spending so much time with them. Whether they do or do not get away with the murder of David is something you will have to find out for yourself.
Two Harvard snobs murder one of their peers. They then throw a party in the room where the body is hidden. Why do we say 'throw a party'? Your guess is as good as mine, I expect. Their party is both meticulously planned and also in a sense thrown together in a separate sense, as host Brandon (John Dall) makes little final innovations before the guests arrive, and even reveals details his co-conspirator Phillip (Farley Granger) is unaware of, putting him into a state of anxiety. Brandon, the dominant one, chief sociopath if you like, is frightfully cool and collected, Phillip volatile and emotional. But who are the guests? Well, first, there's David, the corpe, then also the corpse's girlfriend Janet, love rival Kenneth, and the parents of the deceased, the Kentleys. Lastly, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), housemaster from the boys' old prep school, and as Phillip warns, "the one man in the world most likely to suspect". Is Brandon aiming to rival Highsmith's Tom Ripley, or is he destined to become another Raskolnikov?
The movie is famous for being shot in long takes that are knit together to give the illusion of one continuous take. As such it demonstrates its affinity with its origin as a stageplay, and indeed the whole thing takes place in one setting, the apartment. The only exterior shot comes at the beginning for the opening credits. The movie begins with the death, rather than the act of murder, of David Kentley, and this bit is the least convincing segment of the movie, his cry of distress and then the moment of death sounding and then looking a little too stagey. Aside from a few minor inconsistencies along the way, the kinds of things you wouldn't notice in the cinema (but which are easily picked over when he review on our devicesm as opposed to view), the movie sets in to become completely absorbing. I love the way the screenplay draws our attention to all the figurative language used in everyday parlance, especially the kind that implies violence. For example, when Kenneth, hearing that Phillip is soon to make his concert debut, exclaims "I hope you knock them dead!", or when Janet becoming impatient with Brandon's meddling, "Oh why can't he keep his hands off people?". There is a straightforward use of light and dark as symbolism, simple but indubitable, and being in cahoots, albeit temporarily, as onlookers, we know more than the guests do and so elements take on a thrilling and unsettling character.
It's also interesting to speculate upon the sexuality, the implied homoeroticism of the movie. This must have been deliberate, but can it have been widely comprehended? Was it there in the original of 1929, or is it added by the writers who adapted it for the movie, Hume Cronyn and Arthur Laurents? Are Brandon and Phillip a couple in the closet or is the murder somehow a consequence of their repressed sexuality? We're told, later on, that Brandon was seeing Janet at some earlier period. Given the homoerotic undertones, some of the dialogue takes on a comic aspect, and the gun-in-the-pocket bit, well I'll let you infer what you wish about that one.
I suppose, were it remade today, the movie would be full of quick cuts and shots from multiple angles, reactions in close-up, and these would replace feelings of suspense in the spectator with nervous tension. Thankfully, no-one's been foolish enough to try it. Personally I think the performances could hardly be bettered. Farley Granger makes a superb show of Phillip's gradual unravelling, the effect of the drink as he gets more and more inebriated. Dall makes an effective sociopath, charming, aloof, torn between the need for disguise and a prideful wish to expose hise genius. How riveting it becomes when the camera reveals Jimmy Stewart's materialisation in the room, a movie star amongst the actors. I love the droll reference to another Hitchcock movie, Notorious (the guests can't remember the title). According to Wiki, Hitch does make a cameo, but looking at it, I ask you, really? That? Never mind.
I wanted to say something about how Rope contrasts with a film like Funny Games, but I can't think of anything beyond the fact that Hitchcock, unlike Haneke, never treats the audience with contempt. He doesn't need to shame the audience to make us appalled by crime. Patricia Highsmith, or rather Anthony MInghella and Matt Damon, manage to get us on sociopath Tom Ripley's side. We end up wanting him to escape detection. We never want Brandon and Phillip to do so despite spending so much time with them. Whether they do or do not get away with the murder of David is something you will have to find out for yourself.