Never miss a post! 
Review: ROPE
ROPE
Starring James Stewart, Farley Granger and John Dall
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. 1948. Warner Bros. Studios
Based on a play, which itself was based on the famous Leopold and Loeb thrill-killing murder, ROPE is one of Hitchcock's smallest, most contained films, all the action taking place in one apartment set. Lifeboat and Dial M for Murder would be a couple others, and I believe both of those were based on plays as well.
The story involves Brandon (Dall) and Phillip (Granger), two handsome young sophisticates, and we see them in the first scene completing the strangulation of another young man, their friend David. They stuff him in a trunk quickly, as they're on a bit of a timetable, because they're throwing a party for David's father, Mr. Kentworthy, and have also invited David's girlfriend Janet, Janet's old boyfriend and their former classmate, Kenneth, and their old headmaster Rupert (Stewart). David's father brings a family friend, Mrs. Atwater, who is there for comic relief as she can never remember the titles of movies or plays, and in fact there is a reference to Hitchcock's films Notorious and North by Northwest, though they go unnamed.
The reason for the party is ostensibly a going-away affair for Mr. Kentworthy, but it's really an excuse for Brandon to increase the danger of discovery of their "perfect crime," in order to make the getting away with it all the more delicious. He also wants to see if he can get Janet back together with Kenneth, strictly for his own amusement. The real danger here is Rupert, as Phillip frets about how smart he is and that if anyone will suspect, it's him. Not to mention that Rupert, back in school, had originally put forth his theory on how murder was a privilege for men of superior intellect, which Brandon feels he is. Brandon didn't invite Rupert in on the crime, as he felt Rupert was all talk and wouldn't go through with it, but there is a sense that he somehow wants Rupert's approval, anyway.
The two elements most mentioned about this minor masterpiece from Hitchcock are that the film is shot with only a handful of cuts--about four or five by my casual notice--and that Brandon's and Phillip's relationship has arguably strong homosexual overtones. More on that in a moment, but as far as the cutting, it's pretty overrated. I think the first cut was pretty clever, but at least twice, Hitchcock goes in close for a dark shot of Brandon's back, cuts, and pulls away for the next sequence, and it's very obvious and distracting, as there is no good reason in the story for the camera to focus on Brandon's back. The cuts are then somewhat awkward half the time, but the genius is in the long takes, which take in a lot of different bits of dialogue and action and really make the suspense sequences all the more powerful for the lack of cuts and different angles. A particularly good sequence is when the party is finishing and the maid takes the tablecloth and candles off the trunk, with the purpose of putting a pile of first editions into it that were laid out earlier for Mr. Kentworthy to peruse--apparently in the '40s it was cool to check out new books at a party. It does beg the question, however, that if this crime was really so perfectly planned, why Brandon and Phillip didn't think ahead that the maid would be returning the books to the trunk they came from. And that's also overlooking that David came up to their apartment (the view makes it appear to be the penthouse or at least near the top) in broad daylight and could have had dozens of people witnessing him, not to mention that they forget to dispose of the hat David has left in their closet. Rope, by the way, refers to what they strangled him with, which Brandon cheekily uses to tie up a pile of books for Mr. Kentworthy to borrow, the sight of which causes Phillip to become unglued in a most suspicious way.
As far as the homosexual overtones, the screenwriter Arthur Laurents meant them explicitly, but obviously in 1948 with the production code in place nothing could be so overt. But what we have are a concert pianist in Phillip and some sort of theatrical type in Brandon (he arranges for Phillip's big concert debut coming up) who have lived together, probably since college. They talk close to each other, which could be a convention of the filmmaking, and it's only natural they bicker and shout at each other when the pressure's on. The screenwriter may have intended their relationship to be a homosexual one, but it's not necessary for the enjoyment of the film for the viewer to understand this. You can read as much as you want into it, such as how Dall and Granger have longer, wavier hair and the other male characters do not. In fact, supposedly the Rupert character had a relationship with Brandon, but Stewart plays him absolutely straight and there is no chemistry at all between him and Dall like there is between Dall and Granger. Stewart plays Rupert as the probing, paternal type. Dall, who only registered as strongly in one other movie, the noir classic GUN CRAZY (as a very different kind of criminal), is at least as much the lead character as the top-billed Stewart. Brandon is the dominant one in the relationship with Phillip, and he takes great, cruel pleasure arguing with Mr. Kentworthy about how the superior class has the right to murder, to the extent it arouses Rupert's suspicions. Stewart doesn't have a lot to do, but what he does he does very well, from mild, facetious flirting with the maid--probably to get some information from her more easily later--to his eventual cat and mouse game with Brandon as he teases him about what he suspects and finally explodes in a speech of righteousness about the sanctity of life. Some have argued that in showing the murder first thing in the movie, Hitchcock cut off one rich avenue of suspense, such as whether in fact David was murdered at all or if the two men are just talking about it, but though that's interesting, it would probably have diluted the suspense there was, and would also have required presenting another possible reason for why Phillip was so jumpy (maybe because of his concert debut? Hmm, not bad). Still, I think Hitch knew what he was doing.
It's a small but effective suspense film, under an hour-and-a-half, with some outstanding moments and an unusual subject. Well worth checking out.
Starring James Stewart, Farley Granger and John Dall
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. 1948. Warner Bros. Studios
Based on a play, which itself was based on the famous Leopold and Loeb thrill-killing murder, ROPE is one of Hitchcock's smallest, most contained films, all the action taking place in one apartment set. Lifeboat and Dial M for Murder would be a couple others, and I believe both of those were based on plays as well.
The story involves Brandon (Dall) and Phillip (Granger), two handsome young sophisticates, and we see them in the first scene completing the strangulation of another young man, their friend David. They stuff him in a trunk quickly, as they're on a bit of a timetable, because they're throwing a party for David's father, Mr. Kentworthy, and have also invited David's girlfriend Janet, Janet's old boyfriend and their former classmate, Kenneth, and their old headmaster Rupert (Stewart). David's father brings a family friend, Mrs. Atwater, who is there for comic relief as she can never remember the titles of movies or plays, and in fact there is a reference to Hitchcock's films Notorious and North by Northwest, though they go unnamed.
The reason for the party is ostensibly a going-away affair for Mr. Kentworthy, but it's really an excuse for Brandon to increase the danger of discovery of their "perfect crime," in order to make the getting away with it all the more delicious. He also wants to see if he can get Janet back together with Kenneth, strictly for his own amusement. The real danger here is Rupert, as Phillip frets about how smart he is and that if anyone will suspect, it's him. Not to mention that Rupert, back in school, had originally put forth his theory on how murder was a privilege for men of superior intellect, which Brandon feels he is. Brandon didn't invite Rupert in on the crime, as he felt Rupert was all talk and wouldn't go through with it, but there is a sense that he somehow wants Rupert's approval, anyway.
The two elements most mentioned about this minor masterpiece from Hitchcock are that the film is shot with only a handful of cuts--about four or five by my casual notice--and that Brandon's and Phillip's relationship has arguably strong homosexual overtones. More on that in a moment, but as far as the cutting, it's pretty overrated. I think the first cut was pretty clever, but at least twice, Hitchcock goes in close for a dark shot of Brandon's back, cuts, and pulls away for the next sequence, and it's very obvious and distracting, as there is no good reason in the story for the camera to focus on Brandon's back. The cuts are then somewhat awkward half the time, but the genius is in the long takes, which take in a lot of different bits of dialogue and action and really make the suspense sequences all the more powerful for the lack of cuts and different angles. A particularly good sequence is when the party is finishing and the maid takes the tablecloth and candles off the trunk, with the purpose of putting a pile of first editions into it that were laid out earlier for Mr. Kentworthy to peruse--apparently in the '40s it was cool to check out new books at a party. It does beg the question, however, that if this crime was really so perfectly planned, why Brandon and Phillip didn't think ahead that the maid would be returning the books to the trunk they came from. And that's also overlooking that David came up to their apartment (the view makes it appear to be the penthouse or at least near the top) in broad daylight and could have had dozens of people witnessing him, not to mention that they forget to dispose of the hat David has left in their closet. Rope, by the way, refers to what they strangled him with, which Brandon cheekily uses to tie up a pile of books for Mr. Kentworthy to borrow, the sight of which causes Phillip to become unglued in a most suspicious way.
As far as the homosexual overtones, the screenwriter Arthur Laurents meant them explicitly, but obviously in 1948 with the production code in place nothing could be so overt. But what we have are a concert pianist in Phillip and some sort of theatrical type in Brandon (he arranges for Phillip's big concert debut coming up) who have lived together, probably since college. They talk close to each other, which could be a convention of the filmmaking, and it's only natural they bicker and shout at each other when the pressure's on. The screenwriter may have intended their relationship to be a homosexual one, but it's not necessary for the enjoyment of the film for the viewer to understand this. You can read as much as you want into it, such as how Dall and Granger have longer, wavier hair and the other male characters do not. In fact, supposedly the Rupert character had a relationship with Brandon, but Stewart plays him absolutely straight and there is no chemistry at all between him and Dall like there is between Dall and Granger. Stewart plays Rupert as the probing, paternal type. Dall, who only registered as strongly in one other movie, the noir classic GUN CRAZY (as a very different kind of criminal), is at least as much the lead character as the top-billed Stewart. Brandon is the dominant one in the relationship with Phillip, and he takes great, cruel pleasure arguing with Mr. Kentworthy about how the superior class has the right to murder, to the extent it arouses Rupert's suspicions. Stewart doesn't have a lot to do, but what he does he does very well, from mild, facetious flirting with the maid--probably to get some information from her more easily later--to his eventual cat and mouse game with Brandon as he teases him about what he suspects and finally explodes in a speech of righteousness about the sanctity of life. Some have argued that in showing the murder first thing in the movie, Hitchcock cut off one rich avenue of suspense, such as whether in fact David was murdered at all or if the two men are just talking about it, but though that's interesting, it would probably have diluted the suspense there was, and would also have required presenting another possible reason for why Phillip was so jumpy (maybe because of his concert debut? Hmm, not bad). Still, I think Hitch knew what he was doing.
It's a small but effective suspense film, under an hour-and-a-half, with some outstanding moments and an unusual subject. Well worth checking out.
Posted by ChristopherAllen at 12:08 PM [Link to this post]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home