This review has been gnawing at me for a couple of weeks now. Once I put up the “Paradine Case” review, I figured the next movie I wanted to review would be “Rope”. There are so many things to say about this movie that I have had a hard time in which way I wanted to attack the review so to say. Technically, the movie was filmed in a pretty innovative way. In addition, the social commentary running throughout the film was rather different from the movies released at the time. However, the most important thing I gained from the movie when I viewed it the first time was the “creepiness” factor. After a couple of drafts of the review (mostly outline type of things), I have decided to focus on the “creepiness” factor rather than the technical and social aspects of the film. I still want to discuss these aspects of the films, but I would rather not dwell on them.

With that said, I will quickly discuss the technical aspects of the film to get it out of the way. First of all, this was Hitchcock’s first film in color. Not that this is significant in this movie, because it might have been just as good in black and white, I just wanted to make sure that this fact was noted. Secondly, the way the film itself was shot was interesting. “Rope” was originally a stage play and it seems that Hitchcock wanted to keep the feeling of the play. The sets themselves were rather sparse, with a main room in the apartment, the dining area and the kitchen much like a stage play would entail. Hitchcock also used a sort of “on the fly” type of editing for this film. All the takes were done in ten minute intervals with interesting cuts being employed. Cuts between the scenes would often focus on the back of an actor or other similar objects. Ten minute takes were used because that was the longest physical take a director could use at the time due to the limitations of the length of the film canisters.

In order to a brief summary of the social commentary in the movie, I need do a bit of a plot summary just so the social stuff makes a bit of sense. Basically, two dudes (who may or may not be gay – more on that later) decide to kill one of their “friends” for the thrill of it. Part of the thrill is to see if they can get away it, made more difficult by a plan that must have been concocted by Brandon (John Dall). Brandon decides to throw a dinner party with the dead body still in the apartment. To make matters worse, he invites all sorts of people to the party who were close with the dearly departed including his fiancé, father, mother (who cannot attend the party and is replaced by his aunt), and another acquaintance of both the killers and the dead (and also an ex-lover of the fiancé). To round out the guests, the boys also invite a former teacher (James Stewart) whom may have planted the seeds of the murder in the first place. Throughout the party, the guests are anxiously awaiting the arrival of David (the dead dude), but of course, he is already there, he just can’t say much being dead and all. Through the course of the dinner party, Brandon gets bolder with his clues (more on that later), while Phillip (Farley Granger) becomes more guilty and fidgety. To make a long story short, we get to see some of Rupert’s philosophical ideas that may have become implanted into the boys heads through conversations with the other party guests (and with Brandon prompting them a bit), which leads Rupert to start suspecting that the boys might have done something. Because you know, he is a smart dude and all. I won’t give away the rest of the plot, but hopefully you get the idea.

With the plot briefly explained, I can now briefly explain the social issues that were tackled in this film (I should say the play to be more precise, but I’m not reviewing the play). The motive for murdering the poor bloke can be looked at a couple of ways. Brandon and Phillip kill David because they think they are superior to him, mostly in mental capacity, but we can just say they think they are better than him, especially Brandon. Rupert (Stewart) planted the seeds in their heads during their years at a prep school in which he was one of their teachers. I could go on about the theories he speaks of during the movie, but the important part is that the idea was planted and has suddenly sprouted. A more minor motive, but still important, is that guys killed the dude for the fun of it, or simply to see if they would be able to get away with it. The whole party, the guests, and the crazy shit that happens during the party all point to them doing it for “kicks”. This might not seem that ground breaking in 2003, because the nightly news covers this kind of crap to get ratings on a regular basis, but in 1948 when this film was released, the idea of killing someone because you were better than them and for fun just wasn’t something that was discussed all that much. Throw in the garbage with Rupert motivating them, and you have a modern Marilyn Manson type of Trench Coat Mafia saga (course, Jimmy Stewart will never be confused with MM).

Another interesting idea that was supposedly interlaced in the movie is the idea that the boys were homosexuals, and get this – one of them might have had an affair with Jimmy Stewart’s character while they were at school. Actually, from what I understand, this is how it went down in the play (which I believe was staged in England, but based on an American case – could be wrong of course – those pesky Brits have always been a bit more liberal than us since we kicked their ass haven’t they?). I’m sure if you look through pink colored glasses with loud frames and explain it with a lisp, you can make a case that there was homosexuality involved in the movie. I just somehow didn’t see it, maybe from being naïve and such, but it didn’t seem that important. On the special features of the DVD, the screen writer, Aurthur Laurents makes sure to say that it was indeed present in the movie. They referred to the gay thing in 1948 as “it”. “It” was in the movie, blah blah blah. I’m not going to argue with the guy, but if it was present, it sure as hell wasn’t really that evident. I’m guessing that with it taking place in 1948 and in America, they skirted “it” as much as possible.

I guess I did go kind of long on the plot summary, technical stuff, and social stuff, but they are really important to this movie. My original point of this review was to point out that this movie was really creepy. Not creepy in the Exorcist or Texas Chainsaw Massacre sense, but more because of the events that happen in the movie. Think about it: For the most part, all of David’s (the dead guy) loved ones are in the room eating, drinking, and having a dinner party sort of time while the body is lying in a chest that the dinner itself is served from. To add to the creepiness, I think that John Dall (Brandon) did a very good job with his character. You believe his character would kill someone for the fuck of it. You believe that he does think he is better than everyone else. His character is just a fucked up dude in general. He’s sort of an arrogant intellectual, mixed with salesman and fucked up killer, all in one. All the other actors do a pretty good job as well (fucked up segue on my part? You be the judge). Stewart does well with his role as usual (though he wasn’t that convincing at being gay!). Farley Granger plays Phillip extremely well. He’s more like the guy who seems like he should be popping Rolaids throughout the entire movie rather than a thrill kill type of fellow, but that’s what his character is and he does it convincingly well. All the others do a nice job (this has gotten too long to individually prop all the other actors up).

What more do I have to say about this movie? Sure, it isn’t one of Hitchcock’s classics. Perhaps it falls a little short because Hitchcock getting all experimental on it. It is definitely worth a watch though, for all the reasons mentioned above. Most of all, it is worth a watch because it is creepy.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I think this movie would have been a great choice for Gus Van Sant to remake over Psycho. Psycho was a damn near perfect movie (besides, Gus didn’t change any shots anyways), while this movie could have used a little tinkering but kept the same general feel. It may have been a success with the proper director remaking the project.