Post by Clark Nova on Dec 18, 2006 19:26:36 GMT -5
Alfred Hitchcock was undoubtedly one of, if not the most influential filmmaker of his time, easily perfecting the suspense genre in constructing a number of classics that are still studied today. For all of his genius in camerawork, acting, pacing, and what not, one talent of his that I feel goes relatively unnoticed is his ability to make gimmicks work. The Oxford English Dictionary defines gimmick as “a tricky or ingenious device, gadget, idea, etc., especially one adopted for the purpose of attracting attention or publicity.” Whether considering “Rear Window’s” taking place entire in one room and courtyard, or having the main heroine of “Psycho” killed off in the film’s first half, or even Hitchcock’s now-infamous walk-on cameos in each of his films, he somehow used these devices effectively, not to draw attention to his style but to make his films unique and memorable. Perhaps no “gimmick” of his is more prominent than in “Rope,” his 1948 play-within-a-movie. In addition to being his first color movie, the film, at a short yet crisp 80 minutes, occurs in real-time, with minimal cuts, as if it is a one-set play rather than a feature film. While the technique, along with the film itself, doesn’t exactly go off without a hitch (no pun intended. Honest.), it still has that signature Hitchcock style and at least deserves mention among his all-time greats.
Partly based on the 1924 Leopold and Loeb murder case, “Rope” begins as young roommates Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger) are strangling their friend David (Dick Hogan) with a piece of rope in their spacious New York apartment. After stuffing the body in a trunk, we soon learn that the pair committed the murder simply for the thrill of it, with Brandon in particular believing it is his right as an intellectual to do away with his inferiors. To further show his audacity, Brandon sets up a buffet over David’s makeshift coffin for a party. The party features a range of guests, including the maid (Edith Evanson), the late David’s father (Sir Cedric Hardwicke) and aunt (Constance Collier), David’s fiancée Janet (Joan Chandler) and her former flame, Kenneth (Douglas Dick). It is the appearance of the boys’ former headmaster Rupert (James Stewart), however, that sets in motion the suspicion and suspense that Hitchcock is known for.
While not executed perfectly, the now-famous camerawork for “Rope” is nonetheless innovative and the first of its kind. With the story occurring in real-time, gone are typical quick-cuts between conversing characters and the like. Instead, the film has the feel of one continuous cut, letting the camera move from room to room and person to person fluidly. Of course, with the limits of 1940s technology and a massive color camera, one continuous take was impossible, meaning that there are nine total cuts, still remarkable considering what a typically edited film entails. While some cuts resemble those typical to any old movie, others try to mask themselves, giving off the illusion of one continuous take, usually by zooming into a character’s back, and then zooming back out at the beginning of the next take. While certainly a valiant effort to maintain the illusion of one straight take, the sudden and unusual movement is nonetheless jarring, calling attention to rather than hiding the fact that a camera cut is coming. Still, though, you have to give Hitchcock an A for effort for at least trying something so new and innovative, and indeed the simulated one-take film and the real-time give an otherwise typical thriller that added edge.
What particularly impressed me about “Rope” was its ability to tell such an interesting and ultimately deep story with such a small running time. Despite a mere 80 minutes of celluloid, one genuinely gets the sense of time passing, as the sky outside the large window gradually darkens and the party progresses. The biggest contributors to the film’s depth, though, are the performances and the changing characters. Though a film of such a short length really has no choice but to be mainly plot-driven, you have the sense that you’ve known these characters for a long time, making long exposition unnecessary. Conversations between Janet and Kenneth, for example, clue you in to their failed relationship and a pervading sense of jealousy and sadness concerning David, despite never having met these characters before. Conversations about the latest Cary Grant movie, for example, give the party a somewhat realistic feeling, despite some exaggerated performances, particularly David’s hoity-toity aunt and father and the near-obnoxiously spunky Janet.
Alas, there is the plot of a dead body in a trunk to get to, and by God, Hitchcock won’t let you forget it. This is mainly due to the outstanding performances by Dall and Granger. As Brandon becomes increasingly smug and proud of his accomplishment and the less secure Phillip’s nervousness becomes more obvious, a surprising amount of character development is shown in such a short movie. It’s interesting to see them act as foils to each other, as opposite reactions to a heinous crime. Despite their differences, the actors work off of each other well, making for a natural couple. In fact, it’s not exactly difficult to recognize through the mannerisms and dialogue that the two are homosexual. The only reason why this wasn’t overtly revealed, in fact, was the censorship laws of the 1940s. Putting this aside, the characters add to the tension nicely. A dinner conversation, for example, concerns Rupert’s teaching about Nietzsche’s Superman, able to transcend the laws of lower men and even commit murder when it is necessary. Brandon twists this principle to justify his deed, as Dall’s performance as the outwardly smug and overly-charming Brandon in this regard is both absorbing and terrifying. You can’t help but be both enthralled and terrified by the character.
Of course, such conversation and the boys’ increasingly erratic behavior makes Rupert suspect that something is amiss, and this practically cues Hitchcock’s signature style of suspense and long, drawn out set pieces. One scene, for example, has the partygoers, concerned about the missing David, talking in the living room. The camera, however, remains fixed on the very trunk where David’s body is stored, as the maid slowly clears it off to put books inside. As time passes, one can’t help but drown out the dialogue by watching the slow but steady clearing of the trunk’s top. This scene and others takes full use of Hitchcock’s cardinal rule of using the lead-up to full effect, making the shock of the “exploding bomb” an afterthought. He knew this was the essence of suspense, and this scene alone demonstrates that fully. This, along with the changing characters and whether Rupert can discover the secret, keeps the otherwise short and undeveloped story going.
Oddly enough, the one performance that really doesn’t seem to fit is that of the most prominent star. Still with the same humble and down-to-earth persona of his other films, Stewart makes an adequate makeshift detective, but something is definitely missing from his performance. It is implied from the source material that Rupert is also homosexual and in fact previously had an affair with one of the boys. Though a performance as eccentric as Dall’s and Granger’s was not exactly necessary, Stewart’s deadpan delivery doesn’t exactly suggest any type of relationship or understanding with the boys. He’s convincing as a mentor or role model, which is certainly conveyed in Brandon’s justification for the murder, but I personally wanted more out Rupert’s character. As it is, Rupert seems like an observer and detective rather than an active participant, making for a rather conventional “this is how it happened” climax and conclusion.
While “Rope” undoubtedly has a compelling story that keeps you interested until the end, it’s definitely one of Hitchcock’s more experimental films, and with experiment often comes imperfection. Indeed, while Dall and Granger give outstanding performances and the story makes full use of the limited running time, it’s all slightly drowned out by the obvious experiment in continuous takes and camera movement. While the technique is interesting to say the least, it almost feels like this filmed pseudo-play gets somewhat in the way, much like the now-infamous way the huge camera and movable set got in the way of the film’s performers. Despite that, “Rope” is certainly one of Hitchcock’s more unique efforts, and the revolutionary camerawork, combined with the flawed yet compelling story, make the film a must-watch, at least to marvel at just how versatile the Master of Suspense really was.
8/10
