Rope (1948)

(On DVD, December 2006) Any Hitchcock film is now regarded with respect, but even on its own, this cleverly-made thriller would be worth a look. The first and most obvious distinction of the film is how it’s conceived as a filmed play with a minimal amount of cuts: The lengthy segments lend an air of sustained tension to the storytelling, showcasing the skill of the actors. But beyond the surface, there’s a lot of subtext to the piece, whether it’s the references to the Leopold/Leob case, or the heavy allusions to homosexuality. James Stewart unfortunately looks like a boy-scout in the middle of all this, but his reassuring presence makes up for his lack of emotional involvement in the story. The technical fascination of the film’s making-of only adds to the interest of the film itself, making for a viewing experience that will reward viewers even sixty years later. Among other questions raised by the film is this one: Why hasn’t this type of film-making been attempted more often since, aside from oddities such as Mike Figgis’ Timecode?

(Second Viewing, On Cable TV, June 2021) I thought a second viewing of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope would damage the film – I remembered semi-fondly as an audacious but flawed experiment in “real time” one-cut cinema, but I expected to be disappointed in measuring it against many more recent examples of the form. Much to my surprise, I ended up liking as much, if not even more, this time around. For one thing, it’s obviously not a “real-time” film – the camera may move smoothly around the studio (with not-so-invisible cuts), but there’s clearly several hours of action crammed in 80 very efficient minutes, with the sun setting outside the confines of the set and people arriving, leaving and coming back to the action. James Stewart is quite good here as the man who figures out the murder mystery, but John Dall and Farley Granger are also quite good as the two young men who murder their classmate, then host a party while the body of their victim is hidden inside a chest visible to everyone as a buffet table. The party mixes inane chatter with far more portentous philosophical discussions outlining the thematic concerns at the heart of the film, all leading to a great conclusion. I don’t see the flaws of the film as much as I applaud its audaciousness and the way it manages to reach its objective – but that may say more about my evolution as a movie critic and the weight I now tend to place on high concepts. Hitchcock (working from a story by none other than Hume Cronyn!) does create an almost-subliminal sense of tension in the way standard film editing devices are avoided – the “can they pull this off?” is as meta-cinematic as it is plot-driven – and he pulls one of the most unusual cameos of his filmography here. Rope is a daredevil act by 1948 standards (through premise, execution and not-so-veiled references to homosexuality), and it still works really well for twenty-first century viewers. Don’t miss it.