While Rope is not necessarily the most famous of Hitchcock's films, it is still one I really enjoy. It is the first of Hitchcock's Technicolour films and technically it is very clever and uses some skills that were not necessarily mainstream in film. This psychological crime thriller is based on, and shares a title with, a 1929 play by Patrick Hamilton. This was also inspired by real-life events whereby a 14-year-old was killed by students at the University of Chicago to prove they could get away with it.
Brandon (John Dall) and Morgan (Farley Granger) decide to kill a former classmate from Harvard, David (Dick Hogan), in their Manhattan penthouse, just as a fun, intellectual exercise. They want to prove they are better than people by committing the 'perfect murder'. They host a dinner party which includes David's dad, aunt, fiancé, and best friend (his fiancés ex). Also included is their old prep-school teacher, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), who apparently inspired the murderers based on some philosopher's text (Nietzsche & De Quiney). The killers hide the body in relative plain sight, it is in a wooden chest that good finger food on it. With the guests wondering where David is, and with the hosts occasionally dropping hints - the film follows the evening to see if the killers can get away with the murders, or if somebody will work things out.
As I mentioned, this film uses some skills and techniques that were not mainstream in film. In fact, Hitchcock was being risky and experimental when he decided on how to do the film. I was lucky enough to study this film as part of a course I did at college and the lecturer was extremely passionate when talking about this - something I was quick to understand. The film takes place in real-time and there is extraordinarily little editing involved. It makes it look like the film was done in a single take. There is a small and limited setting in the film - not necessarily the first time Hitchcock has done this, see "Lifeboat" (1944).
Although the film looks like it has been done in single take it was not. It was cleverly worked to make it look like it was though. In fact, shots were roughly around 10 minutes at a time and then edited together. The clever techniques include things like a camera zooming into a close-up to the point that everything looks black - while it is black, a cut/edit occurs. The new shot then zooms out and looks seamlessly like it was a single shot with just some minor interference to the audiences view. If you look at interviews and reports that dissect the film, I am sure these will break it down for you better than I do here. Because of the techniques used, it was not just the actors who needed to be well rehearsed for scenes; the camera & sound teams, the entire production team, they all needed to be well practiced too. To help though, a lot of the furniture and props were fitted on tracks or with wheels so they could be moved without causing too much of a distraction to give the crew more room to work in.
The relatively small cast do well and are authentic enough. James Stewart is the standout for me, and he proves why he was a mainstay in future Hitchcock films. He comes across as intelligent and confident, a perfect leading figure to command the cameras attention. That is not to say that the others are not as good - John Dall and Farley Granger also do well as the high-society killers trying to prove they are above everyone else. They show smarmy confidence when it is required, but then also manage to portray shame and anxiety at the potential of being caught. The characters being shown would not fit well into modern cinema, but for the time they were a perfect fit for a film of the 1940's. When I say they are a perfect fit for the time - they were changed to fit. In the play the characters were homosexual but for the film they were changed because audiences would not apparently be as accepting.
While the acting was fine, the thing that is not as good, especially nowadays is the story. It has not got as much depth as other Hitchcock films to be considered a great film. Because of how blasé and 'matter-of-fact' it is, to modern audiences it would just seem outdated rather than horrific. It almost feels like the story is not as important as firstly the techniques being used, and then secondly, the actors who keep the audience attentive.
Not all experiments are successful. Although Hitchcock was pushing boundaries, the lack of depth to the story lets the film down a little. The acting being demonstrated made sure that the film was not a failure, but it is not consistent throughout - probably because the actors were tired and stressed from the long shots. In summary though, there is a reason why "Rope" is not regarded as one of Hitchcock's top 5 films amongst critics. Much like the murderers trying to get away with a 'perfect crime' and prove they are better than everyone else; this film feels like Hitchcock was trying to prove that he too was cleverer than others when it came to his art of film. I do enjoy this film and still think it is good, but to me it overbalanced with more style than substance.
Brandon (John Dall) and Morgan (Farley Granger) decide to kill a former classmate from Harvard, David (Dick Hogan), in their Manhattan penthouse, just as a fun, intellectual exercise. They want to prove they are better than people by committing the 'perfect murder'. They host a dinner party which includes David's dad, aunt, fiancé, and best friend (his fiancés ex). Also included is their old prep-school teacher, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), who apparently inspired the murderers based on some philosopher's text (Nietzsche & De Quiney). The killers hide the body in relative plain sight, it is in a wooden chest that good finger food on it. With the guests wondering where David is, and with the hosts occasionally dropping hints - the film follows the evening to see if the killers can get away with the murders, or if somebody will work things out.
As I mentioned, this film uses some skills and techniques that were not mainstream in film. In fact, Hitchcock was being risky and experimental when he decided on how to do the film. I was lucky enough to study this film as part of a course I did at college and the lecturer was extremely passionate when talking about this - something I was quick to understand. The film takes place in real-time and there is extraordinarily little editing involved. It makes it look like the film was done in a single take. There is a small and limited setting in the film - not necessarily the first time Hitchcock has done this, see "Lifeboat" (1944).
Although the film looks like it has been done in single take it was not. It was cleverly worked to make it look like it was though. In fact, shots were roughly around 10 minutes at a time and then edited together. The clever techniques include things like a camera zooming into a close-up to the point that everything looks black - while it is black, a cut/edit occurs. The new shot then zooms out and looks seamlessly like it was a single shot with just some minor interference to the audiences view. If you look at interviews and reports that dissect the film, I am sure these will break it down for you better than I do here. Because of the techniques used, it was not just the actors who needed to be well rehearsed for scenes; the camera & sound teams, the entire production team, they all needed to be well practiced too. To help though, a lot of the furniture and props were fitted on tracks or with wheels so they could be moved without causing too much of a distraction to give the crew more room to work in.
The relatively small cast do well and are authentic enough. James Stewart is the standout for me, and he proves why he was a mainstay in future Hitchcock films. He comes across as intelligent and confident, a perfect leading figure to command the cameras attention. That is not to say that the others are not as good - John Dall and Farley Granger also do well as the high-society killers trying to prove they are above everyone else. They show smarmy confidence when it is required, but then also manage to portray shame and anxiety at the potential of being caught. The characters being shown would not fit well into modern cinema, but for the time they were a perfect fit for a film of the 1940's. When I say they are a perfect fit for the time - they were changed to fit. In the play the characters were homosexual but for the film they were changed because audiences would not apparently be as accepting.
While the acting was fine, the thing that is not as good, especially nowadays is the story. It has not got as much depth as other Hitchcock films to be considered a great film. Because of how blasé and 'matter-of-fact' it is, to modern audiences it would just seem outdated rather than horrific. It almost feels like the story is not as important as firstly the techniques being used, and then secondly, the actors who keep the audience attentive.
Not all experiments are successful. Although Hitchcock was pushing boundaries, the lack of depth to the story lets the film down a little. The acting being demonstrated made sure that the film was not a failure, but it is not consistent throughout - probably because the actors were tired and stressed from the long shots. In summary though, there is a reason why "Rope" is not regarded as one of Hitchcock's top 5 films amongst critics. Much like the murderers trying to get away with a 'perfect crime' and prove they are better than everyone else; this film feels like Hitchcock was trying to prove that he too was cleverer than others when it came to his art of film. I do enjoy this film and still think it is good, but to me it overbalanced with more style than substance.