Title: Rope
Rating: 3 Stars
Rope is kind of a strange Hitchcock film. It essentially disappeared for a while after it was released. It was one of five films (including, amazingly enough, Hitchcock classics Rear Window and Vertigo) whose rights were held exclusively by Hitchcock. When he died, the rights were inherited by his daughter. Therefore, there was a several decade period where Rope was essentially not publicly shown.
If known today, it’s because of its gimmick instead of plot or characters. The film takes place in essentially real time. I say essentially because apparently Hitchcock did do some tricks like speeding the sunset so that the film seemed longer than its 80 minute running time. Even so, the film seemingly unfolds in real time. If you’re watching the film, it appears to be four long takes. Now, in those days, a movie camera could only hold ten minutes of film. Therefore, Hitchcock had to employ various sleights of hand to make it seem as if two takes were actually one long scene.
In the first scene, two young men (Brandon and Phillip), convinced of their greatness and that that greatness leaves them immune to laws, strangle one of their friends. They then place his body in a chest in their living room. That night they host a dinner party. Guests include the murder victim’s father and fiancé. They also invite their former prep school housemaster Rupert (James Stewart). He was their intellectual mentor and Brandon, at least, believes that Rupert would approve of their actions.
Even more brazen, at the dinner party they serve the food from the top of the chest. Phillip is clearly the weaker of the two. He’s easily discomfited and gets drunker as the night progresses. The murder victim’s father and fiancé become increasingly worried about his absence as the night progresses. On the other hand, Rupert, even as he continues to espouse Nietzschean philosophies of the superman (ie great men being above common law), becomes ever more suspicious of his proteges. This heightens Phillip’s concerns while increasing Brandon’s superciliousness.
By the end of the film (spoiler alert for a 75 year old film), Rupert has figured what Brandon and Phillip have done, discovered the body, disarmed them of a gun, and is waiting for the police to arrive to take them away forever. The perfect crime of the two super geniuses falls apart within an hour or two.
From the plot summary, it shouldn’t be too surprising that the play upon which it was based was inspired by Leopold and Loeb. I’ve written about them before. Leopold and Loeb were two young men that kidnapped and murdered one of their younger classmates. They were both mentally gifted and from wealthy families. They (specifically Loeb) became obsessed with committing murder. Leopold, in love with Loeb, agreed to plan the murder in return for sexual favors. Despite their brilliance, their plan immediately fell apart. For instance, Leopold managed to lose his very unique glasses where the body was found. It was only legal heroics by Clarence Darrow that kept the two from the gallows. Loeb was murdered in prison while Leopold was paroled after thirty years in prison.
Although little remembered now, the Leopold and Loeb case held a cultural fascination for decades. The murder took place in 1924. Rope was released in 1948. The novel Compulsion, a thinly veiled fiction based upon the crime was released in 1956 (this novel inspired the career of the great LA crime noir writer James Ellroy). If you’re interested, I wrote about Compulsion here. Decades later, thinly disguised films and novels were still being released about the case.
As just said, there was a gay love component to the Leopold Loeb relationship. In the novel Compulsion, this was made fairly explicit. The play that inspired this film also made this explicit. However, with the Hays Code still in place, there was no way that this could be openly portrayed. Attempts have been made by later critics to mine a gay subtext to this film. If it’s there, it’s hidden away pretty deeply.
Apparently, of the Hitchcock films in which he appeared, this was Stewart’s least favorite. He felt that, during filming, the mechanisms involved in executing the long takes (eg movable sets) shifted the focus of the film from the characters to the camera work. To me he seemed miscast. Stewart doesn’t exactly have the air of a radical school headmaster. His speech at the end, after he has exposed Brandon and Phillip, is an almost Mr Smith type monologue where he refutes all of his previous teachings that were the inspiration for the murder. It felt tacked on.
Although I’m sure technically impressive in 1948, Hitchcock’s tricks to seamlessly merge scenes together seem pretty primitive by today’s standards. In several cases, the film zooms into the back of a man’s black suit as the segue to the next scene. If you’re looking for it, it is pretty obvious.
Because it takes place essentially in real time within the confines of one apartment (most of the action takes place in one room), it feels much more like a filmed play than a film.
I’ve seen several films that have used the gimmick of long takes. There is the film Locke, starring Tom Hardy, that takes place entirely within one car trip on a English motorway. The plot unfolds as Hardy’s character takes and makes phone calls.
There is the Russian Ark, which was filmed in one take as a narrator wanders through the Hermitage museum in Saint Petersburg. The focus is much more on imagery than plot or character.
Victoria was also filmed in one take using one camera. It’s a crime caper film, so it actually does have things like a plot and characters. Even more amazing, the film moves through many locations, including car rides and climbs to rooftops. It truly is a breathtaking technical cinematic achievement.
That’s the thing. In all of these cases, if it wasn’t for the novelty of long takes, these films would have never hit my radar. None of these films is particularly noteworthy on any other merit.
I would place Rope in this same category. It’s not a bad film and it is technically impressive. It just pretty much exists because I think Hitchcock wanted to know if he could pull it off. It’s a directorial feat but not that great of a film.
dorkenstein 