Alfred Hitchcock's first colour movie - and his first with James Stewart as leading man - comes in the shape of "Rope", a 1948 thriller that has ceaselessly generated debate and division since its release. The film is a highly experimental work which finds Hitchcock far more engrossed with technical possibilities than with his story and actors. Hitchcock ambitiously tries to make the entire film as if it is unfolding in real time, telling the story without any cuts in the action. In actuality, the film is divided into eight ten-minute takes (a movie camera could only hold 1000 feet of film at that time, which equates to ten minutes of footage), but at the end of each take the camera zooms in for a close-up of an object or a person's back, then zooms back out and continues to track the action, giving an impression of non-stop fluidity. The idea is interesting but not particularly cinematic, and there is a definite flavour of filmed-theatre hanging over this film that some viewers may find irritating.
College friends Shaw (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger) ruthlessly and motivelessly strangle another college buddy David (Dick Hogan). They commit this awful crime as a psychological exercise, chiefly to see if they can get away with it. The next phase in their twisted psychological game involves hiding the corpse in a trunk in their apartment, then proceeding to throw a party while the body is in the room. No ordinary party, mind you, but a party in which all the guests have an association with the victim. Among the guests are David's fiancée Janet (Joan Chandler), his father Mr. Kentley (Cedric Hardwicke), and a lecturer named Rupert Cadell (James Stewart) who formerly taught Shaw, Philip and David. As the party progresses, the murderous duo grow in confidence and they begin to slip clues into the conversation regarding what they have done. At one point, for instance, Mr. Kentley is given a pile of books bound together with the very rope used for the murder. Will the killers get away with their hideous crime, or will their tasteless audacity be their undoing?
"Rope" is exciting in some ways, though disturbingly much of the excitement comes from subconsciously rooting for the villains. Only when the film is over do we realise that Hitchcock has manipulatively made us a player in Shaw and Philip's horrifying game. Throughout the film, we have cleverly been made to become part of their game - we KNOW their dreadful secret, yet are helpless in alerting the characters who do not. As a result we unwittingly become the "third murderer", and consequently hope our secret is not uncovered. The film's theatrical nature is unusual, but it's hard to say if it improves the story. It certainly generates debate (e.g. is this a film of claustrophobic brilliance, or perpetual tedium??) and makes the film memorable, though not necessarily for all the right reasons. "Rope" is an important film from one of cinema's most important directors, in the sense that he is given an opportunity to experiment with the very principles of film story-telling. It might not be a hugely successful experiment, nor even an entertaining one, but it is at least interesting.
College friends Shaw (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger) ruthlessly and motivelessly strangle another college buddy David (Dick Hogan). They commit this awful crime as a psychological exercise, chiefly to see if they can get away with it. The next phase in their twisted psychological game involves hiding the corpse in a trunk in their apartment, then proceeding to throw a party while the body is in the room. No ordinary party, mind you, but a party in which all the guests have an association with the victim. Among the guests are David's fiancée Janet (Joan Chandler), his father Mr. Kentley (Cedric Hardwicke), and a lecturer named Rupert Cadell (James Stewart) who formerly taught Shaw, Philip and David. As the party progresses, the murderous duo grow in confidence and they begin to slip clues into the conversation regarding what they have done. At one point, for instance, Mr. Kentley is given a pile of books bound together with the very rope used for the murder. Will the killers get away with their hideous crime, or will their tasteless audacity be their undoing?
"Rope" is exciting in some ways, though disturbingly much of the excitement comes from subconsciously rooting for the villains. Only when the film is over do we realise that Hitchcock has manipulatively made us a player in Shaw and Philip's horrifying game. Throughout the film, we have cleverly been made to become part of their game - we KNOW their dreadful secret, yet are helpless in alerting the characters who do not. As a result we unwittingly become the "third murderer", and consequently hope our secret is not uncovered. The film's theatrical nature is unusual, but it's hard to say if it improves the story. It certainly generates debate (e.g. is this a film of claustrophobic brilliance, or perpetual tedium??) and makes the film memorable, though not necessarily for all the right reasons. "Rope" is an important film from one of cinema's most important directors, in the sense that he is given an opportunity to experiment with the very principles of film story-telling. It might not be a hugely successful experiment, nor even an entertaining one, but it is at least interesting.