Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 3, 2008 1:59:06 GMT
Rope Alfred Hitchcock 1948 | USA
Two friends murder their companion for a social experiment, and throw a party for the victim's friends and family, the drinks for which are served on the trunk in which he lies.
Notable thriller, overlooked now and very underrated, critically dismissed at the time and by no means a commercial success, for which Hitchcock devised an entire, self-sufficient set and turned it, for production, into a technical slog, a coreographed film shot in continuous, ten-minute takes (cutting for the most part at invisible intervals). Things to note: it is probably Hitch's most overtly (on the nose for those familiar) philosophical film, with Nietzschean ideas discussed throughout; its humour is deranged, dark and hilarious in a perverse kind of way, contradicting both the initial crime and the homosexual overtones; the acting is superb, matching quite convincingly the meticulous writing; the sound design is top-notch. If it sounds like the one film in which Hitchcock went all stagebound (a three-walled set, an obvious proscenium arch), think again: much of the tension comes from camera placement, whether on Stewart's investigator when Dall slips up about the killing; or the subtle composition of the victim's father looking out onto the increasingly darkening skyline as the party discussion turns morbid; or the close-up on the table-cum-casket when the maid comes to shift the dinner decorations from it and into the other room. Granger steals the show: "Well, I guess I'm always... nervous when I throw a party."
|
|
|
Post by seyfried on May 6, 2008 0:43:49 GMT
Kenneth Mogg, an Australian based wriiter, has done the deed of connecting Hitchcock to Dorian Gray. And not just in this film, re-reading the book and re-watching the films, Alfred's oeuvre seems scattered with this textual tangents. Perhaps it's little coincidence that the screenwriter was gay, although I see more The Importance of Being Earnest than anything: the reckless dandyism being the disease of two characters as opposed to one (Lord Henry in Dorian Gray). But lest we remember that Nietzsche is mocked, much in the same way that Freud is in Marnie; the two friends/dandies/lovers seem to take too much to heart of what they've learned in secondary schools and what-not. Perhaps the same crimes Pete Doherty would commit if he wasn't so self-effacing and coked-up.
Hitch's "theatrical" films are, indeed, underrated.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 8, 2008 15:54:32 GMT
Good review Capo, though I'm still shocked that Hitch got away with the obvious homosexuality of the leads for that time in Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on May 8, 2008 21:57:39 GMT
Looking back at Rope, however much I like Jimmy Stewart, I think that Cary Grant would have been better to play Rupert. He's so obviously bi-sexual or homosexual, at least if you look at the script. Stewart's character displayed no homosexual tendencies whatsoever whereas Farley Grander and John Dall certainly did.
Intelligent, provocative for its time and still an amazing experiment to behold. A great chamber piece and one of Hitchcock's best of the 1940's and among his ten best.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 8, 2008 22:23:04 GMT
Yeah, Stewart looked extremely uncomfortable and miscast when I first saw this; I think that's quite effective now, though, whether it was intentional or not.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on May 8, 2008 23:48:54 GMT
No. His role is effective, and he's always a fine actor. It's just that, the ways he's written doesn't match at all with the way he acts; he is inquisitive, but the story line paints him as a homosexual or bisexual male.
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Jun 19, 2008 5:18:18 GMT
Yeah, Stewart looked extremely uncomfortable and miscast when I first saw this; I think that's quite effective now, though, whether it was intentional or not. That's an interesting point. I'm not sure how much of his work you've seen, but now that you mention it, I think he looks uncomfortable and miscast in most of his roles. It's part of his repertoire, really. The whole"aww shucks," down-home mid-American farm boy persona he often carries. That said, he's one of my favorite actors ever. I love his Hitchcock films and he is GREAT in Westerns. He and John Wayne teamed up in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance." And Mike, I've never heard Cary Grant mentioned as a replacement for Stewart, but you're right: the script obviously calls for the two roommate/colleagues to be gay lovers, and so it only makes sense that their mentor would also be gay. Stewart showed no effeminate tendencies at all. Grant on the other hand was suave, debonair, refined; he exhibited all of the characteristics that would be attributed to one involved in academia, and homosexuality. He would have been perfect for the role as Rupert.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Jun 19, 2008 6:35:29 GMT
"...Liberty Valence" is easily the greatest western ever made. Stewart was just so damned likable. He's great in this film, but it doesn't suit the story. It never did.
To my understanding, Grant didn't want to be associated with this one, considering the rumors about his sexuality that flew through hollywood since he stayed and lived for years with friend and fellow playboy Randolph Scott.
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Jun 30, 2008 20:57:56 GMT
John Brandon actually makes reference to Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment during one of his exchanges with Rupert. Dostoevsky was of course one of the founding fathers of existentialist thought. Crime and Punishment is absolutely a primary subtext of this film.
The murderer in this film, like Dostoevsky's protagonist Raskolnikov, wants to get caught--they NEED to get caught--the only difference that, Dostoevsky's protagonist is remorseful, even finding a certain salvation b/c of his crime. John Brandon (John Dall), though, wants to get caught for a much shallower and selfish reason; pride. Since the time of his youth, we learn that John has always been the type to seek approval by wanting to show others just how much smarter he was. He is an academic, and thus feels his academic superiority gives him a certain superiority and divine right over others -- a right so divine that he can even murder those he deems unfit. Subconsciously speaking, John wants his college mentor, Rupert, to know just how smart he is, and that he was able to take (what he thought were) Rupert's ideas, and put them into practice.
And as Rupert uncovers the crime, he then begins to re-examine his own personal thoughts on Nietzsche's Übermensch. Ultimately though, although we see a change in Rupert by the movie's end, we see no real change in John. He did what he did b/c he felt it was done with just cause. And for that reason; we're not upset by the fact that Rupert calls the police and tells John that he MUST die -- John in fact would rather die than admit he was wrong. Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov, however, does not receive capital punishment and nor should he. Unlike John, he was remorseful for his murder -- even finding a certain solace and inner-peace in his rehabilitation process. A very stark contrast to John Brandon... Yes, this masterful film is absolutely the Hitchcock version of Crime and Punishment.
|
|