Every Hitchcock film invites for rich debates full of open interpretations and absolutely none can be intellectually or emotionally assimilated in one viewing. "Rope" is not an exception, although it's exceptional.
The movie is notorious for being one of the first to be shot in real time, featuring as few editing as possible to provide a sense of fluidity and continuity within the plot. The film is set like the very play it was adapted from, hence respects the unity of space, time and action with a remarkable precision. But beyond this technical achievement, "Rope" elevates itself to other cinematic levels, never is the experimental novelty used as an end but much more as a way to build a powerful psychological suspense. In other words, the editing serves the story and doesn't reduce it to an exercise in style.
The movie opens with a shocking scream immediately followed by the last breath of David Kentley (Dick Hogan), tightly held by Brandon (John Dall) while Philip (Farley Granger) strangles him. But regarding Hitch's refined cynicism, the real shocker comes with the aftermath: Brandon puts the corpse in an antique wooden chest in the middle of the house, and light a cigarette for relief while Philip doesn't look quite enthusiastic. Hitchcock was said to shoot murders as love scenes, and love scenes as murders, while the murder's aftermath clearly has some sexual undertones and a sort of 'we done it' effect, I think relying all the interactions between the two villains on that aspect is just ignoring what I consider to be the core of the film.
Endless threads have been posted about "Rope" homosexual undertones and while I understand this positively contributed to the movie's fame as the first to cover some controversial material, I don't think it plays a significant part to the plot in the very context of the film, regardless of all the peripheral elements that went probably unknown by movie viewers in 1948. This is why I feel like cheating by knowing that Brandon and Philip were a couple and that their admiration toward their ex-headmaster Rupert (James Stewart) confined to a more intimate form of appreciation, because it has nothing to do with the movie and Stewart's performance and it distracts from the real beauty of the character study which is Rupert's redemption. I'll get back to that.
Now, so many people focus on the Brandon-Philip duo and Rupert but there's a character in this film so unfairly overlooked: it's the murder itself. Through the body hidden in the chest, improvised as a dinner table when the guests come to the house: David's father, his aunt, his fiancé Janet and her ex Kenneth, they're all discussing about the reasons of David's absence and our knowledge makes the whole setting particularly disturbing and adds a level of poignancy and subtle sadness that doesn't get much attention. While Brandon amusingly leaves some hints of the murder, Philip drowns his sorrow in alcohol and from his tormented conscience, we feel the presence of the murder, and Rupert the headmaster will be our guide to the macabre discovery.
What makes the murder so cinematically fascinating is how fully cynical it is. Beyond the whole setting that makes the table look like a sordid altar, the reason behind the atrocious act IS the real groundbreaking thing about this film. Brandon 'the brain' and Philip 'the tool' did this to validate the very idea that some superior men have the right to decide who deserves to live and die among inferior human beings, believing in the idea of 'supermen'. These Nietzchean conceptions have been inculcated by Rupert who, during one of these discussions, materializes his theories about the triviality of killing. His words, spoken with a sort of calculated cynicism, rings in Brandon's heart as true words of wisdom while it shocks David's father who intelligently refers to Hitler.
The ambiguity, yet the fascinating aspect of the murder, is in the way it contradicts itself. Brandon kills to prove his control and superiority over David and all the others. He acts like a puppeteer that brings all of David's relatives in the house, playing the matchmaker between Janet and Kenneth. He's so confident that he deliberately leaves clues and hints, as if he unconsciously wanted to lead Rupert to the truth, what Philip foresees and tries to hide under many drinks of champagne. Rupert wants to provoke his mentor's admiration, for the student who finally made the words reality. And as the movie progresses, the secret is in danger of being unveiled especially in an endless shot where everyone discusses about David's absence while the maid is cleaning up the chest but the twist doesn't happen here, not even in the genius part where Rupert puts the wrong hat and realize it features David's initials.
The twist is symbolical, as the most important development lies in Rupert's morality. His horrified reaction when he discovers the corpse is the pivotal point where he reconsider all the ideas he believed in. All his life toying with the ideas of supermen, inferior and superior, Rupert underestimated the extent of his charisma and the way he transmitted extremely dangerous ideas, his character's arc is achieved when he redeems himself by punishing the two killers and calling the police, after a passionately hateful speech, where part of the hatred seems to be aimed toward him. The movie ends silently with the three men waiting for the police to come, each one carrying a part of guilt, the one who held the victim, the one who strangled him, and maybe the most guilty of all, the one who communicated the hatred.
How pointless are all the debates about the sexual orientations when the film is so intellectually rich. The best in "Rope" is in the cold and sophisticated murder and its hideous but spectacular unmasking, while the rest is simply film-making at its best.
The movie is notorious for being one of the first to be shot in real time, featuring as few editing as possible to provide a sense of fluidity and continuity within the plot. The film is set like the very play it was adapted from, hence respects the unity of space, time and action with a remarkable precision. But beyond this technical achievement, "Rope" elevates itself to other cinematic levels, never is the experimental novelty used as an end but much more as a way to build a powerful psychological suspense. In other words, the editing serves the story and doesn't reduce it to an exercise in style.
The movie opens with a shocking scream immediately followed by the last breath of David Kentley (Dick Hogan), tightly held by Brandon (John Dall) while Philip (Farley Granger) strangles him. But regarding Hitch's refined cynicism, the real shocker comes with the aftermath: Brandon puts the corpse in an antique wooden chest in the middle of the house, and light a cigarette for relief while Philip doesn't look quite enthusiastic. Hitchcock was said to shoot murders as love scenes, and love scenes as murders, while the murder's aftermath clearly has some sexual undertones and a sort of 'we done it' effect, I think relying all the interactions between the two villains on that aspect is just ignoring what I consider to be the core of the film.
Endless threads have been posted about "Rope" homosexual undertones and while I understand this positively contributed to the movie's fame as the first to cover some controversial material, I don't think it plays a significant part to the plot in the very context of the film, regardless of all the peripheral elements that went probably unknown by movie viewers in 1948. This is why I feel like cheating by knowing that Brandon and Philip were a couple and that their admiration toward their ex-headmaster Rupert (James Stewart) confined to a more intimate form of appreciation, because it has nothing to do with the movie and Stewart's performance and it distracts from the real beauty of the character study which is Rupert's redemption. I'll get back to that.
Now, so many people focus on the Brandon-Philip duo and Rupert but there's a character in this film so unfairly overlooked: it's the murder itself. Through the body hidden in the chest, improvised as a dinner table when the guests come to the house: David's father, his aunt, his fiancé Janet and her ex Kenneth, they're all discussing about the reasons of David's absence and our knowledge makes the whole setting particularly disturbing and adds a level of poignancy and subtle sadness that doesn't get much attention. While Brandon amusingly leaves some hints of the murder, Philip drowns his sorrow in alcohol and from his tormented conscience, we feel the presence of the murder, and Rupert the headmaster will be our guide to the macabre discovery.
What makes the murder so cinematically fascinating is how fully cynical it is. Beyond the whole setting that makes the table look like a sordid altar, the reason behind the atrocious act IS the real groundbreaking thing about this film. Brandon 'the brain' and Philip 'the tool' did this to validate the very idea that some superior men have the right to decide who deserves to live and die among inferior human beings, believing in the idea of 'supermen'. These Nietzchean conceptions have been inculcated by Rupert who, during one of these discussions, materializes his theories about the triviality of killing. His words, spoken with a sort of calculated cynicism, rings in Brandon's heart as true words of wisdom while it shocks David's father who intelligently refers to Hitler.
The ambiguity, yet the fascinating aspect of the murder, is in the way it contradicts itself. Brandon kills to prove his control and superiority over David and all the others. He acts like a puppeteer that brings all of David's relatives in the house, playing the matchmaker between Janet and Kenneth. He's so confident that he deliberately leaves clues and hints, as if he unconsciously wanted to lead Rupert to the truth, what Philip foresees and tries to hide under many drinks of champagne. Rupert wants to provoke his mentor's admiration, for the student who finally made the words reality. And as the movie progresses, the secret is in danger of being unveiled especially in an endless shot where everyone discusses about David's absence while the maid is cleaning up the chest but the twist doesn't happen here, not even in the genius part where Rupert puts the wrong hat and realize it features David's initials.
The twist is symbolical, as the most important development lies in Rupert's morality. His horrified reaction when he discovers the corpse is the pivotal point where he reconsider all the ideas he believed in. All his life toying with the ideas of supermen, inferior and superior, Rupert underestimated the extent of his charisma and the way he transmitted extremely dangerous ideas, his character's arc is achieved when he redeems himself by punishing the two killers and calling the police, after a passionately hateful speech, where part of the hatred seems to be aimed toward him. The movie ends silently with the three men waiting for the police to come, each one carrying a part of guilt, the one who held the victim, the one who strangled him, and maybe the most guilty of all, the one who communicated the hatred.
How pointless are all the debates about the sexual orientations when the film is so intellectually rich. The best in "Rope" is in the cold and sophisticated murder and its hideous but spectacular unmasking, while the rest is simply film-making at its best.