Rope (1948)
Although I’m familiar with many of Hitchcock’s most famous works, Rope is one I’ve never gotten around to watching - in fact, until last night I knew very little about it, outside of it starring James Stewart and taking place in a single location.
Verdict? I loved it. In all honesty, it hooked me from beginning to end and I could easily consider this for my top 5 favourite Hitchcock films. Technically, it’s undeniably brilliant. The illusion of the entire film being one continual shot is probably most notable, but there's much more than that to rave about.
The film starts with a bang as we witness two men brutally strangle thier old school-chum David and dump his body inside a wooden chest. After the act the character of each of our killers is made plain to us simply by the looks on their faces. One, Brandon, calmly lights a cigarette with a smile on his face, the other, Philip, leans forward staring out into space, clearly traumatised by the act.
If this was simply one of Hitchcock’s spy thrillers then this scene would be so much easier to process. Unfortunately, the death is not one of occupational hazard, but one committed purely for the thrill of it - an experiment. This viewer revelation is a horrifying one, and is further exacerbated when the container for the body is adorned for use as a buffet, the plan being to host a party there that evening and dispose of the body after dark once everyone has left. Attending the party, of course, are friends and family of the deceased, along with their old tutor, Rupert, played by James Stewart.
As soon as the guests start arriving and conversations take place we start to notice lots of “appropriate” (or inappropriate?) phrases and remarks being dropped here and there, some perhaps intentionally by the overenthusiastic Brandon, but also by other members of the party:
“It isn’t somebody’s birthday is it?” “Almost quite the opposite...”
“I’m to be locked up”
“I hope you knock them dead”
“I could really strangle you…”
Surprisingly, none of these feel forced or on the nose and are in fact fairly normal things to hear in conversation, and yet they stick out to us like a sore thumb because of the evening’s morbid context – namely, that David’s corpse is right under everybody’s nose. Indeed, the presence of the body is felt throughout the film even though we don’t see it, thanks to Hitchcock’s masterful directing and constant visual use of the rope (murder weapon) and chest (hiding place). In some ways, Philip feels like a representative of how the audience feels – we feel his guilt, his horror - whatever stops his heart, stops ours. Although Brandon is equally aware of the true circumstances, his reaction and demeanour are chillingly inhuman and therefore unrelatable.
Jimmy Stewart is excellent as the old tutor “Rupert” and his slow uncovering of the mystery is very believable. There is a scene in which the camera rests solely on the chest as we listen to the sound of Rupert asking questions. As our ears hear him prying, our eyes witness the chest gradually being cleared of items, finally culminating in the near discovery of the body…
Another scene I found particularly affecting is when Rupert prepares to leave and is passed the wrong hat; the camera briefly passes over David’s initials within before panning up to show us Rupert’s expression. His fear of his suspicions being confirmed painfully apparent.
One of my favourite scenes though, has to be when Rupert is interrogating Philip as he plays the piano. As the scene plays out, Philip reflects the undulating tension through his playing, the speed steadily increasing/decreasing and the notes wavering between jolly melody and aggressive dissonance. The entire thing is done with such rhythm and perfection that one could almost mistake Philip for consciously scoring a scene from a play, and it is one of the many elements that contributes to the films stage-like atmosphere.
Of course, the story was initially adapted from a play - the original also does not show the murder. This was also the case with the original film script, the plan being to leave it as an ambiguous element, leaving the audience as uncertain of the truth as Jimmy Stewart’s character.
Although I felt that seeing the murder right at the start created an incredibly unique tension throughout, I can’t help but wonder how different the film might have been had the murder scene been omitted as planned...
I also watched the masterpiece collection version and both picture and audio were very good. Although, I noticed oranges and reds to be a bit dominant in a sort of “the tube is broken on my TV” kinda way. Apparently, this was Hitchcock’s first film shot in colour and he found himself reshooting much of it because the hues weren’t coming out right. Maybe that’s what I’m seeing? - or maybe there’s just something wrong with my TV... (or maybe its just me
)