Rope (1948) User Reviews (473)

More Than Just a Technical Achievement

[MatBrewster · 8/10 · 18 February 2005]

This 1948 Hitchcock film is mostly noted for its technical achievements. Hitchcock filmed this story, about two well-to-do rich kids who decide to commit a murder for the fun of it, as a play. Which, it in fact, originally was, though based in London and not New York. Technical limitations did not enable his original vision of making the entire picture one continuous long shot. Instead it is made up of several 8 minute continuous shots. This was the length of film that fit into one reel. Using some very inventive cutting techniques the film appears as if it was filmed all in one take. This is more impressive when you see the actual size that color film cameras were during this time period. They were absolutely enormous, bigger than a man standing. To move the camera in and around the small stage space, many of the set pieces were set on casters and rolled about to keep out of the way of the camera. Some of the actors were noted in saying that they worried every time they sat down, that there might not be a chair for them to fall into. Another achievement of the film is in terms of lighting. The apartment that the entire film is set in has several large windows overlooking the city. As the movie is more or less uninterrupted from start to finish we see the lighting change as the sun begins to set and night falls. It is a testament to this achievement that upon first viewing you don't really notice the effect. Yet, the filmmakers took great pains to get it to look realistic, staging numerous re-shoots for the final few scenes.

Though the technical achievements are quite wonderful, it is a shame that they have overshadowed what it really a very good bit of suspense. It seems the two high society murderers have planned a dinner party just after the murder. They store the corpse in a wood box that is featured prominently in the midst of the dinner. This creates an excellent mix of suspense and the macabre. Throughout the party the murderers become more unraveled even as they are enjoying their little game.

All of the acting is quite good. The two murderer (John Dall and Farley Granger) do a fine job of playing intellectual, society playboys, with a desire for excitement. It is slightly annoying watching their excited, nervous mannerisms (especially some stuttering by Jon Dall) but it is fitting with the characters. Their former instructor, Rupert Cadell, is played magnificently by the impeccable James Stewart. This is a bit of departure from Stewarts typical roles. Here he is a tough, cynical intellectual. This was his first of four collaborations between Stewart and Hitchock and it is hard to imagine his role as Scottie in Vertigo without having first played in this movie.

The story unravels in typical Hitchock fashion. The suspense is built, then lessoned by some well timed comedy, and then built again to a final crescendo. Hitchcock was excellent as a technical director and allowed his actors the breathing room they needed for fine performances. In the end I left the picture feeling more excited about the superb storytelling than any particular technical achievement. It is a testament to his craft, that Hitchock allows you to leave a picture being enamored with his story over his technical achievements. Some of the greatest effects are those you don't notice because they seem so natural and real.

Alfred Hitchock manages a triumph of technical brilliance and suspense in Rope. It's influence in the technical realm of cinema far outshines any effect the story has on future movies. This is a shame, for the story being told is one of suspense, macabre and excitement.

Like this review? Go to www.midnitcafe.blogspot for more.

Hitchcock And Actors

[peterzullman · 8/10 · 1 May 2017]

You know the quote about Actors being cattle. Hitchcock corrected saying he never said that actors were cattle what he said was that actors "should be treated" like cattle. Great actors give perfect performances in Hitchcok films. Think of Grant and Bergman in Notorious, Cotten in Shadow Of A Doubt not to mention Anthony Perkins in Psycho. Often the improbabilities of the plot become totally credible by the credibility of the performances. Here, John Dall and Farley Granger act and act to outrageously that it's impossible to believe they can get away with it for more than five minutes. Their characters are impossible to warm up to like it happened with Anthony Perkins in Psycho or with Colin Firth in Apartment Zero, no matter how sickly those characters are you can't help connect with their humanity. Hitchcock in Rope seemed much more taken by the technical wizardry and it is unquestionably fun to watch. So Rope provided me with superficial pleasures and sometimes that's enough.

Some commentators miss the point of the 10-minute takes, etc.

[pt100 · 13 July 2004]

I have seen several negative comments about the eight 10-minute takes and three fade cuts that comprise this film, and many of them seem to miss the point. For example, bob the moo said, "but I don't understand why he didn't just accept that he would have to make do with 10 [actually, eight] different shots instead of trying to hide the edit. Each time he does it by zooming in on a black jacket and then pulling out again after the edit."

The whole idea was to build the suspense and make the action appear to take place in "real time" by not having the camera appear to blink. Thus the 10-minute takes (and three fade cuts at approximately 20-minute intervals); and I think it works very well. It also makes one appreciate the excellence of the acting. It is extremely difficult for actors to execute a film flawlessly in only eight 10-minute takes, and the three principal actors did a fantastic job under very stressful circumstances.

I think the reason the film was not a big box-office success is that people were expecting the usual Hitchcock action (think of earlier Hitchcock films such as Saboteur, Foreign Correspondent, The 39 Steps or The Man Who Knew Too Much). But any serious film buff should not miss this film.

Hitckcock's best film

[preppy-3 · 10/10 · 15 February 2004]

Spellbinding. It's about two (purportedly) gay men, Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger) who strangle a friend to death for the thrill of it. They then hide the body in a trunk just before a dinner party they have which include the victim's family and friends. They also proceed to serve the food on the trunk containing his body. They also invite a headmaster they had at school together--Rupert Cadell (James Stewart) a very cynical individual. As the party progresses Cadell realizes something is very wrong--and is afraid he might be responsible in an indirect way.

Absolutely fascinating. Hitchcock's first color film was also shot in 10 minute takes--Hitch thought it might provide a seamless flow of narrative. After all this was adapted from a play. I think it works very well--it's not distracting at all and the film does move very smoothly. Also he purposedly had the color toned down--he didn't think bright Technicolor was appropriate for the subject matter.

Purportedly Dall, Granger and Stewart's characters were all gay. It's never made clear but it DOES seem like Dall and Granger are lovers (and both were gay in real life) and the script was adapted by a gay man (Arthur Laurents). Also it's based the Leopold-Loeb murders in which two gay men killed a young boy for the thrill of it in the 1920s. So there is a strong gay subtext in the film.

Also there's plenty of black humor throughout. After the murder there are lines like "Knock 'em dead", "killing two birds with one stone", "I could strangle you" and "these hands will bring you great fame". They're actually quite funny and frightening at the same time.

With two exceptions all the acting is good. The two bad performances are by Sir Cedric Hardwicke (he seems to have no idea what he's saying) and Farley Granger. Actually Granger is so bad he provides some unintentional humor! The best acting is by Dall who is absolutely chilling and Joan Chandler (who Hitchcock kept tormenting on the set) as Janet Walker. She has some great lines and gives her all to every one of them. Best of all is Stewart--he doesn't pop up until the film is almost half over and he's incredible. He plays a very cold, cynical intellectual--this is unlike anything he's played before. His acting is very toned down (until the end) but you can see all his expressions through his eyes. This is easily one of his best performances. He hated making the film. For the 10 minute takes Hitch had to design a set which could accomidate the huge cameras. When the camera moved the set walls were designed to go flying up (off camera) so the crew could move from room to room. It distracted Stewart a lot and he couldn't sleep nights.

There's also the VERY impressive cyclorama background of NYC where we slowly see day turn into night.

This is basically all talk but every single line is fascinating. Stewart's lines especially are great and the philosophy described is intriguing. And the gay subtext adds another layer to it--see the looks Dall and Granger exchange once in a while. Actually Montgomery Clift was approached about playing Granger's role but turned it down. He was gay too but wanted to keep it hidden and that role was just a bit too risky.

All in all an absolutely fascinating picture. A definite must-see! It's short too (only 81 minutes). Don't miss this one!

One Dead Body in Search of its Killers.

[nycritic · 8/10 · 15 November 2005]

Alfred Hitchcock was a lover of the dark and the perverse hidden beneath smiles and complacency and in his relatively sparse ROPE, perversity runs amok and at times seems ready to burst itself at the seams. Based on the Leopold-Loeb murders, this is a pretty simple premise with no shock tactics, no surprise ending, but it's all mounting tension.

John Dall and Farley Granger play college students Brandon Shaw and Phillip Morgan -- lovers even though it's all implicit -- who kick the first scene strangling another college mate, played by Dick Hogan. The instrument they use is the title of the film and will make its appearance on more than one occasion which will at one point send poor Morgan over the edge as he is consumed with guilt and fear. Nevertheless, they have planned a dinner party over a trunk holding Hogan's body, and as the guests arrive, they begin an increasingly dark game of cat and mouse and at one point it seems they actually want to be discovered, but it's all a ruse. Shaw, the Machiavellian of the piece, admires writer and thinker Rupert Cadell played by James Stewart and has materialized Cadell's bleak thoughts by committing an act of murder. What he doesn't know is that Cadell will force them not only to confess to the murder, but to surrender to justice.

ROPE is an interesting film in the way it treats its homosexual subtext. Hayes Code aside, you don't have to see an actual physical contact to know that Shaw and Morgan are lovers and that Dall is clearly the dominant male to Morgan's almost effeminate, weaker, submissive male. There also seems to be some unexplored subtext involving the blind admiration Shaw feels for Cadell, who's wife is never mentioned and who's books told about the 'darkness' of the world. This is not implying Cadell is also homosexual, but the message is certainly clear due to the fact the script had it that Cadell had had a fling with one of the students. Why else would Shaw talk to Cadell with puppy dog eyes, and go to such lengths to impress him? At a time when being gay was unspoken of finding each other in itself was anything less than a miracle, especially if this someone had some deep thoughts which were mutual. Natural for Shaw to want to catch his eye, win Cadell's approval, not knowing he had twisted his work and made it ugly.

Technically, again, the Director proved he knew his "ropes" in terms of how he wanted us to see his picture. The suspense he creates doesn't lie in will the killer be revealed -- had he not included the opening shot of David's murder we might wonder if they actually had done the deed or were merely trying to shock their guests -- but how long will it take for their murder to be revealed. Long takes make us see the trunk at all times, never forgetting that despite the jokes and witty banter about astrology, there is a corpse waiting to be found. Along the way, Hitchcock allows his actors to talk about murder and play with the "where is David" motif until it's certain something must happen, and then, finally, it does, in the form of Jimmy Stewart's deft handling of the scene in which he unmasks the boys. Suspenseful, funny, and ultimately tragic: this sums up the experience of watching ROPE.

One of Hitchcock's greatest

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 8/10 · 15 July 2005]

What an unusual Hitchcock film... such a small cast, and the whole film consists of long takes. Before seeing this, I had heard enormously positive things about it... most of them coming from my father, who hadn't seen it for about fifteen years. I had high expectations for the film, but I must say it exceeded them. Though there are only a few cuts in this film, meaning the camera is running almost non-stop, Hitchcock makes great use of it; he manages to fit in many of his trademark angles and closeups in, without it seeming forced. At one point, the camera focuses for a minute and a half on an inanimate object with only one visible character moving back and forth near it, and he manages to drench the cut in suspense, leaving even the most calm and collected of viewers at the edge of their seat, biting their nails. Only the fewest directors could make that sequence work, and luckily Hitchcock is one of them. The plot is great. It's interesting and it develops nicely. The pacing is perfect. I was never bored for a second. The acting, oh the acting... John Dall is excellent as Brandon, the intellectually superior and very smug main character. Makes me wonder why he didn't get more roles in his career. Stewart is great, as usual. The rest of the acting is very good as well. The characters are well-written and credible. For such an unusual film, and despite the heavy feeling of watching a stage play rather than a film, it's very entertaining and effective. If for nothing else, watch this to enjoy Dall as the cold, calculating and manipulative psychopath. I recommend this to fans of Hitchcock and Stewart. 8/10

The Art of Murder

[moviemanMA · 9/10 · 19 October 2005]

Alfred Hitchcock broke boundaries in the movie making industry. He overcame the odds to create not just film, but works of art. He could tell a story like no other and it has been copied ever since. Horror, thrillers, crime, and mysteries were his specialties. His unique sense of how a film should look is unparalleled by any other. One of the most creative and interesting to watch has got to be Rope.

Rope is the story of two young men, Brandan and Phillip (John Dall and Farley Granger), who come together to perform the perfect murder. They're only motive is that they are superior beings like Nietzsche says. So why do they kill they're friend David? Are they really that much above everyone else? They seem to think so, and they're old school master Rupert (James Stewart) gave them the idea in the first place. It seems that Brandan and Phillip have taken it too far.

After strangling David with a piece of rope, they must prepare for the party they are throwing. The food is set, David is placed in a chest in the parlor, and the guests will be arriving soon. One more change is needed to really make this a work of art. The food is moved from the dinning room and placed on top of the chest where David is resting in peace. Mrs. Wilson, the maid, doesn't seem to understand but it is not her job. Now everything is set. All that are needed are their guests, including David's father!

Their friend Kenneth, David's girlfriend/Kenneth's ex-girlfriend Janet, David's father, Mrs. Atwater, and Rupert all arrive and begin to eat. Phillip is in a daze because of the whole situation before hand. He still hasn't quite settled down yet and is very uneasy. Branan on the other hand is quite chirpy, stuttering with so much excitement. The party includes some musical accompaniment from Phillip and talk of David's whereabouts, for he was supposed to be there...alive. He can't believe that he actually pulled it off. All that needs to happen is for the guests to leave and off to the country-side to dispose of David.

Hitchcock has taken Patrick Hamilton's play and made it into an absolute masterpiece. Hitchcock had to take out some elements to the characters of Brandan and Phillip, mainly their homosexuality. Originally on stage the two are homosexuals but because of the time in which the movie was made in, it had to be adjusted to suit American standards. Europe already had addressed the issue in movies, but the US hadn't made it that far yet.

The real standout of this picture has got to be the cinematography. The entire movie is basically filmed in one continuous shot. The camera moves around with the characters over the apartment. It is made to look like you would see it on stage. You see everything going on and hear everything, just focus your attention on the characters that are speaking of moving around. The only time Hitchcock would stop the camera was when a person would walk by it would zoom in on their back for a second of two, just so the whole movie wasn't filmed non-stop, and made editing very simple. There is only one setting for the whole movie so you know exactly what is going on everywhere at all times. You can feel the suspense thickening as the men's secret is close to being exposed.

Rope is a perfect film and couldn't have fallen into better hands than Alfred Hitchcock. His vision to make a movie based on a play surpasses all other attempts at making this conversion. The film runs only 80 minutes but nonetheless is exhilarating from beginning to end. Unfortunately due to the homosexual references, the movie didn't do as well as it should have, but left its mark in cinema history. Don't let this one get away!

81 minutes of sheer Hitchcock fear

[jstnosbrn · 7/10 · 28 March 2005]

I just saw this movie for the first time this year. I was amazed. Alfred Hitchcock does an absolutely amazing job of making the audience cringe. I read reviews about this movie saying that it wasn't well accepted by the audience when it first came out. But that is understandable because a lot of great classics aren't accepted when first released. One big example is The Shawshank Redemption, which didn't do as well as it should have in the box office. That doesn't make the content or the worth of the film any less. Rope was the twisted story based on the real life murder case of Leopold-Loeb. Two college students commit the "perfect murder" and invite the friends and family of their victim over for dinner. The acting is superb, especially from everyone's favorite, James Stewart. The fear builds slowly as this movie keeps you interested by morbid discussion that everyone has thought at one time or another. This movie really did creep me out, and although it might not be as thrilling as Rear Window or North by Northwest, it will not disappoint. You will be biting your nails for sure waiting to see what happens to the seemingly "perfect murder". I would easily give this movie an 8 out of 10.

The birth of an "eye"

[RResende · 10/10 · 5 February 2007]

I place this one in my list of films anyone should watch. That is, in order to understand some fundamental issues on film-making and films in the last 50 years.

What i'm least interested in here are the technical innovations. Those represent today a curiosity, a museum fact, worth being remembered and credited to those who worked for them, but just it.

I'm also not so interested in the underlying taboo subjects, namely those regarding the homosexuality issue. In respect to that, i even think the whole film construction, from casting to scene writing threw away many things. I'll get morecontroversial. I think Hitchcock in fact despised those messages (the writers were worried in exploring them, not Hitch), he was not after meanings or controversies, he was after something far more ingenious and influential. I'm talking about his camera eye.

Before this one, all Hitch's work was something between a classical construction and some exploration of the camera as carrier of a character's (and the audience's) emotion/feeling/sensation. The library scene in 'Shadow of a doubt', for example, is the perfect example of what i'm talking about. Anyway, that will Hitch had of making the camera follow around characters, sets, and reveal what a character (or "god") had to reveal was already notable. In here, he made that the theme of the picture. One single set, very few characters, a clear as water story (which he made even clearer by not throwing any doubt about the destiny of the murdered boy). The sexual issues also go to second importance issues. The apartment is at once simple enough to solve the technical difficulties of filming it, and large and divided enough to allow the camera to explore it, searching for elements, for dialogues or for actions. The camera has curiosity, it is almost a character, a character called audience. Years later, in different molds, Hitch would place Stewart behind the camera and definitely assume it as a physical character in the plot (Rear Window). In here what we get is fully a camera that moves to the whishes of the director. The curious, ever searching camera that dePalma would reinvent and Polanski master shows up here.

I believe the work of dePalma, in a way Polanski, Chabrol and even some Godard (Le mépris is filled with this) all derive from what happened here. Hitchcock would probably hit the top with Rear Window, but here is where he becomes an inventor.

My evaluation: 5/5 . one of the cinematic manifestos

Hitchcocks bid for independence

[policy134 · 6/10 · 15 September 2005]

Hitchcock thought this would become the way of the future - to have a film seem like one continuous shot. What it became was a rather interesting but in the end crippling experience for all involved. The actors must have gone through agony because if one of them blew a line they would have to do the 8 minute segment all over again (8 minutes being the length of one roll of film).

The film itself feels somewhat static and that's understandable since it took an enormous amount of effort to even move the camera. The subject is rather ingenious. Like Hitchcock's later "Strangers on a Train" it deals with totally self-important characters who think they are the smartest in the world but you almost hope they succeed because you know that they can't. John Dall is the ultimate smarmy character who thinks that what he does makes other people look like raving simpletons. But even better is Farley Granger who plays the jittery one who we are just waiting for to crack up. Between these two is James Stewart's character who served as kind of a mentor to them.

Any film that implies homosexuality which was made before the mid-60's was bound to rub a lot of noses but Hitchcock somehow never goes over the line and that is a testament to his brilliance. Anybody who can spot an outwardly homosexual reference in this film is a genius.

The end is kind of predictable and it is dragged out too long for us to care anymore but other than that this was a fairly good experience although it didn't have to be in color.

Taken to the logical conclusion

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 14 December 2005]

Alfred Hitchcock's Rope was his first film in color and the first film in color for James Stewart unless you count the last few minutes of Ice Follies of 1939. The part of Rupert Cadell, prep school teacher and house master and iconoclast was certainly the most unusual role Stewart had done up to that time.

The original play, Rope's End, was written by British author Patrick Hamilton and first presented on the West End in the twenties. It was americanized and updated by Hitchcock.

Because of the change in locale, I'm sure the film is not a true adaption of the original play. I'm wondering how much of a change was made for Stewart's character to fit the part.

Rope is one of the few films that actually begins in its first seconds with a murder. It opens with John Dall and Farley Granger murdering acquaintance Dick Hogan. We see the last gasp of breath coming out of Hogan as Dall strangles him with a piece of rope. They hide the body in a large cedar chest and then proceed with a small party for some friends of their's and the deceased.

Dall and Granger are based on Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. This killing was done for no reason except for some twisted kicks. And they credit Stewart with being the real author of the murder. It seems as though Stewart has some interesting Nietzchean ideas about some folks just not being bound by ordinary laws and conventions. He's told them as much in class and has an influence on these two that he can't imagine.

Stewart of course is invited to the party and bit by bit as the other guests wonder what might have happened to Hogan, Stewart suspects something is afoot. Especially with all the sly hints Dall keeps dropping. Two of the guests are Hogan's father and aunt played by Cedric Hardwicke and Constance Collier. Hardwicke is a gentle man with a sick wife at home and his concern for his son turns to a quiet, understated anxiety. For myself I think Hardwicke has the best performance in the film. When he leaves the party, your concern for how he and his wife will take the eventual news goes right with him.

Of course when everything is discovered by Stewart, he's in shock. He cannot believe that his offhanded quips about murder being justified for some superior people has been taken to its logical conclusion by Dall and Granger. A lot is registered in Stewart's voice and facial expressions, he knows that morally if not legally he's got to bear some responsibility here.

Rope being done by Hitchcock after World War II with the discovery of the Nazi death camps and that superman philosophy being put into real practice in the running of a country served as a timely reminder and a warning to those who would countenance such views. It's in fact a photographed stage play with all the action taking place in the Dall/Granger apartment. But the direction is smooth and the players are as capable a group as you'll find.

One shot to tell the whole story.

[Rikuisu · 7/10 · 26 March 2003]

Wonderful use of 'invisible' cuts to give the illusion of one take, going back to its original form of being a play. The acting also had a feeling of their being on stage, and so gave the impression of watching them act immediately before you, despite the camera movement. It is an interesting experience having the murder happen first, so we know 'whodunnut', but the suspense instead comes from the question, 'will they be found out?' Very entertaining performance by Phillip as he becomes more and more agitated by Brandon's flippant attitude to the murder.

Misconceived

[keith-moyes · 4/10 · 23 January 2008]

Rope is generally regarded as one of Hitchcock's failures, but many reviewers on this site have attempted to rescue its reputation. I find their arguments interesting but not convincing. There is too much wrong with this picture. The source material is weak, the screenplay is inadequate, the casting is hopeless and Hitchcock's technical experiment is misconceived.

I have never seen it, but Hamilton's play probably ran about two hours. Hitchcock has trimmed it to a brisk 75 minutes. However, this undermines his decision to 'preserve the unities', because the whole party scene is now unrealistically abbreviated. It also means that information is given in such a rush that very little of the sub-text is actually on screen.

The play is based on a classic 'folie a deux', where two people form a bond against the rest of the world and egg each other on to do something that neither would have done alone. In this case, the killers' antagonism is partly rooted in their sense of rejection and isolation as homosexuals in a censorious society.

It is also about a schoolteacher's moral crisis as he comes to realise that his cynically playful philosophical speculations have been taken seriously, with tragic results.

However, by beginning the story with the murder the actual relationship between Brandon and Phillip is never really explored and the homosexual undertones are so deeply buried as to be effectively non-existent. Instead, the relationship and its consequences have to be explained retrospectively though stolidly expository dialogue. Similarly, Rupert's background, character and former relationship with the killers is hardly touched on and he has barely expounded his cynical views when he is forced to recant them.

The focus of the story, therefore, shifts from the characters and their relationships to Rupert's suspicions about what has happened. Consequently, the suspense is mostly to do with whether the killers can get through the evening without anyone discovering the body in the trunk.

In short: the movie is interested in the inherent suspense of the situation, rather than in how that situation came about, or how it affects the people involved.

This would be OK, except that much of suspense lies in the verbal duels between Rupert and Brandon, but they are not very well written. The dialogue is generally very flat and prosaic. There is a lot of it, but it is strictly functional and there is scarcely a line that really sparkles with wit or menace. As a result we get no sense that Rupert is an aloof armchair philosopher who enjoys outraging convention with his wild free-thinking, or that Brandon is a clever, bitter psychopath. A psychopath, yes: but clever?

This is not helped by the casting.

Jimmy Stewart was a competent actor, but clearly miscast. He is too folksy to play a character like Rupert. We believe his shocked denunciation of Brandon at the end, but not his earlier pseudo-Nietzchean speculations. The part had been turned down by Cary Grant (who would also have been a disaster) and should probably have been offered to someone like Ray Milland, Frederick March, James Mason or George Sanders.

At 30, John Dall seems too old for Brandon. He comes across as arrogant and rather stupid. The screenplay saddles him with an irritating stutter which he uses throughout. He would have fared better if someone had simply told him to use it more sparingly (only when under pressure) but nobody did.

Farley Granger was a limited actor and it shows. He plays Phillip all on the same note and his continual panic is both wearing and implausible. We never believe in his relationship with Brandon because it has effectively broken down by the time the movie begins. How he came to acquiesce in Brandon's murder plan is a profound mystery. We can only speculate how things might have turned out if Montgomery Clift had accepted either of the two main parts.

Nobody else registers.

To make these performances work, despite the miscasting and the inadequacies of the screenplay, Hitchcock needed to spend a lot of time with the actors, but his attention was elsewhere.

This was not the first play he had shot. In the early Thirties, he had filmed Juno and the Paycock in a very conventional way. Here he wanted to do something different: to shoot it in 'real time' with a single camera and no editing. He could have elected to have his camera tracking up and down outside the set, shooting through the 'forth wall' and simply recording the actors, but that is not how he liked to work. At heart, Hitchcock always remained a silent movie maker. He liked to tell a story visually and manipulate the audience's response through his choice of lenses, camera angles, framing and lighting of shots, tracking, panning and editing.

In Rope he wanted to discard editing but retain everything else. This would have been feasible if he had access to a Steadicam, but he didn't. What he had instead was a massive Technicolor camera dollying through the set in eight or nine minute takes. This was a huge logistical challenge that occupied all of Hitchcock's attention and energy. He managed to achieve some striking and revealing set-ups, but the camera has to plod ponderously from one to the other so that the overall pacing is noticeably draggy.

Meanwhile, his actors are left struggling with their inappropriate and underwritten parts, trying to give engrossing performances while stepping over cables and watching an army of stage hands pull the set apart in front of Hitchcock's lumbering Technicolor juggernaut.

Rope usually gets a mention in any overview of Hitchcock's work on the basis that it is an interesting experiment. In fact, it is an uninteresting experiment. There are great Hitchcock pictures, good ones and not-so-good ones, but he only made a handful of boring movies.

Rope is one of them.

Fascinating Film; Hardly Gimmicky

[Cicero-4 · 12 December 1998]

Rope is one of the finer films that Hitchcock made. Philosophy, sociology and psychology are contained in equal parts. The plot is simple, the characters are complex and Hitchcock's treatment of the Leopold and Loeb parallel quite deft. The final soliloquy from Jimmy Stewart's character, Rupert, is not only one of the finest examples of Stewart's acting abilities but also of film-making.

On the subject of filmmaking - Hitchcock filmed this in as much of a single take as possible. I believe there are only five edits in the whole thing. I can wholeheartedly tell you that it was no gimmick on Hitchcock's part. The play's plot requires that a certain amount of tension be maintained. Tracking shots are used for this purpose and quite well in my opinion. Timing, position and prop movements alone are to force us to stand in awe of a logistical challenge. All the actors are played superbly. The dialogue is natural and flowing. The finest bit of timing involves a swinging kitchen door, the rope, and the fear of discovery.

In short, this is a fine film that cannot disappoint. Highly recommended and will be well worth your time.

The ultimate game of cat and mouse.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 9/10 · 19 August 2023]

Two men are convinced that they've commited the perfect murder, but to test out their theory, they hold a party straight after committing the deed, their mission to hold their nerve, and not give the game away.

The Master of Suspense serves up one of the best games or cat and mouse ever made, this is a tantalising thriller, for my money it's one of the best.

I make no secret of the fact that I love Hitchcock's catalogue of films, there are some truly glorious names on that list, Rope is definitely one of the best entries on that list.

The way this is shot is so unusual, the scenes are long and dialogue heavy, but so absorbing, the tension is incredible, you're just waiting for someone to crack, someone to slip up.

I'm always struck by how short this film is, it really does pass by at a flash, just about 75 minutes long.

James Stewart delivers once again, the whole cast are immaculate in their delivery.

Rope is without any doubt, a classic.

9/10.

Confined? Hardly

[skistorm · 9/10 · 7 March 2005]

This is an excellent film based on the principle of a one act play - don't know whether Hamilton's was or not. To criticise it for remaining within the apartment and lacking suspense strikes me as rather superficial.

It would be hard for the film to find a reason to leave the apartment (it doesn't need to) and the suspense isn't so much to do with the act of murder, but whether Jimmy Stewart's character will confirm or betray the amoral stance his protégés claim to have learnt from him.

The dialogue is rather stilted but no more and probably less so than much of the scripting of the time - indeed Stewart's own, initial, lightheartedness offers an instructive counterpoint to the formality of the rest of the cast and could be seen as deliberate as he is the only guest not to be fooled.

There is a plausible homosexual undercurrent here and I agree that there's certainly a huge amount of ambiguity but let's not forget the whole 'Janet' issue and Stewart's interest in the housekeeper. To boil the whole film down to an "are they/aren't they?" argument may be hugely fashionable but I think it would be a disservice to a full understanding of a rich film accessible from a variety if angles - you could just as easily go S&M with the rope or Marxist over the housekeeper.

A masterpiece whose very form defines the content ...

[ElMaruecan82 · 10/10 · 18 January 2012]

Every Hitchcock film invites for rich debates full of open interpretations and absolutely none can be intellectually or emotionally assimilated in one viewing. "Rope" is not an exception, although it's exceptional.

The movie is notorious for being one of the first to be shot in real time, featuring as few editing as possible to provide a sense of fluidity and continuity within the plot. The film is set like the very play it was adapted from, hence respects the unity of space, time and action with a remarkable precision. But beyond this technical achievement, "Rope" elevates itself to other cinematic levels, never is the experimental novelty used as an end but much more as a way to build a powerful psychological suspense. In other words, the editing serves the story and doesn't reduce it to an exercise in style.

The movie opens with a shocking scream immediately followed by the last breath of David Kentley (Dick Hogan), tightly held by Brandon (John Dall) while Philip (Farley Granger) strangles him. But regarding Hitch's refined cynicism, the real shocker comes with the aftermath: Brandon puts the corpse in an antique wooden chest in the middle of the house, and light a cigarette for relief while Philip doesn't look quite enthusiastic. Hitchcock was said to shoot murders as love scenes, and love scenes as murders, while the murder's aftermath clearly has some sexual undertones and a sort of 'we done it' effect, I think relying all the interactions between the two villains on that aspect is just ignoring what I consider to be the core of the film.

Endless threads have been posted about "Rope" homosexual undertones and while I understand this positively contributed to the movie's fame as the first to cover some controversial material, I don't think it plays a significant part to the plot in the very context of the film, regardless of all the peripheral elements that went probably unknown by movie viewers in 1948. This is why I feel like cheating by knowing that Brandon and Philip were a couple and that their admiration toward their ex-headmaster Rupert (James Stewart) confined to a more intimate form of appreciation, because it has nothing to do with the movie and Stewart's performance and it distracts from the real beauty of the character study which is Rupert's redemption. I'll get back to that.

Now, so many people focus on the Brandon-Philip duo and Rupert but there's a character in this film so unfairly overlooked: it's the murder itself. Through the body hidden in the chest, improvised as a dinner table when the guests come to the house: David's father, his aunt, his fiancé Janet and her ex Kenneth, they're all discussing about the reasons of David's absence and our knowledge makes the whole setting particularly disturbing and adds a level of poignancy and subtle sadness that doesn't get much attention. While Brandon amusingly leaves some hints of the murder, Philip drowns his sorrow in alcohol and from his tormented conscience, we feel the presence of the murder, and Rupert the headmaster will be our guide to the macabre discovery.

What makes the murder so cinematically fascinating is how fully cynical it is. Beyond the whole setting that makes the table look like a sordid altar, the reason behind the atrocious act IS the real groundbreaking thing about this film. Brandon 'the brain' and Philip 'the tool' did this to validate the very idea that some superior men have the right to decide who deserves to live and die among inferior human beings, believing in the idea of 'supermen'. These Nietzchean conceptions have been inculcated by Rupert who, during one of these discussions, materializes his theories about the triviality of killing. His words, spoken with a sort of calculated cynicism, rings in Brandon's heart as true words of wisdom while it shocks David's father who intelligently refers to Hitler.

The ambiguity, yet the fascinating aspect of the murder, is in the way it contradicts itself. Brandon kills to prove his control and superiority over David and all the others. He acts like a puppeteer that brings all of David's relatives in the house, playing the matchmaker between Janet and Kenneth. He's so confident that he deliberately leaves clues and hints, as if he unconsciously wanted to lead Rupert to the truth, what Philip foresees and tries to hide under many drinks of champagne. Rupert wants to provoke his mentor's admiration, for the student who finally made the words reality. And as the movie progresses, the secret is in danger of being unveiled especially in an endless shot where everyone discusses about David's absence while the maid is cleaning up the chest… but the twist doesn't happen here, not even in the genius part where Rupert puts the wrong hat and realize it features David's initials.

The twist is symbolical, as the most important development lies in Rupert's morality. His horrified reaction when he discovers the corpse is the pivotal point where he reconsider all the ideas he believed in. All his life toying with the ideas of supermen, inferior and superior, Rupert underestimated the extent of his charisma and the way he transmitted extremely dangerous ideas, his character's arc is achieved when he redeems himself by punishing the two killers and calling the police, after a passionately hateful speech, where part of the hatred seems to be aimed toward him. The movie ends silently with the three men waiting for the police to come, each one carrying a part of guilt, the one who held the victim, the one who strangled him, and maybe the most guilty of all, the one who communicated the hatred.

How pointless are all the debates about the sexual orientations when the film is so intellectually rich. The best in "Rope" is in the cold and sophisticated murder and its hideous but spectacular unmasking, while the rest is simply film-making at its best.

A Good Hitchcock Film From The 1940s

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 8 May 2007]

These "stage plays" made into movies usually bore me to death but this one was a notch above the tedious and too-talky Alfred Hitchcock films of the 1940s.

John Dall, who went on to "cult status" fame with "Gun Crazy" (a.k.a. "Deadly Is The Female) two years later, was the most interesting character in this film. He played "Brandon Shaw." His partner-in-crime, "Philip Morgan," played by Farley Granger, was the annoyingly-wimpy guy who cracked under the pressure. The biggest name actor in the movie is James Stewart but these other two guys are the main stars.

As people know, this is about two smug, college males who think they have pulled off the perfect crime because of their supposedly superior intellect and elitist attitude. It's based on a true-life event, famously labeled "The Leopold and Loeb Case." No sense going into more details since other reviewers have done that, and done it well.

Suffice to say, this is well-acted, has a good amount of black humor with the dialog and has people that are easy to root against. Two things that are different from normal film fare of the day: it's in "real time" and it's in color. Some criticize the famous director for using the real-time method, but I give him credit for trying something new and bold. That "gimmick" certainly has worked in the successful TV series, "24."

"Rope" is definitely worth a look if you've never seen it, just to see what happens to these arrogant punks. I found subsequent viewings less appealing as more and more of the characters in here (i.e. the old lady who preaches astrology, the annoying young woman, etc.) became unappealing. Stll, I think this is Sir Alfred's best work of the 1940s.

Experimental thriller from Hitchcock. Not really a successful experiment, either.... but interesting.

[barnabyrudge · 7/10 · 5 February 2006]

Alfred Hitchcock's first colour movie - and his first with James Stewart as leading man - comes in the shape of "Rope", a 1948 thriller that has ceaselessly generated debate and division since its release. The film is a highly experimental work which finds Hitchcock far more engrossed with technical possibilities than with his story and actors. Hitchcock ambitiously tries to make the entire film as if it is unfolding in real time, telling the story without any cuts in the action. In actuality, the film is divided into eight ten-minute takes (a movie camera could only hold 1000 feet of film at that time, which equates to ten minutes of footage), but at the end of each take the camera zooms in for a close-up of an object or a person's back, then zooms back out and continues to track the action, giving an impression of non-stop fluidity. The idea is interesting but not particularly cinematic, and there is a definite flavour of filmed-theatre hanging over this film that some viewers may find irritating.

College friends Shaw (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger) ruthlessly and motivelessly strangle another college buddy David (Dick Hogan). They commit this awful crime as a psychological exercise, chiefly to see if they can get away with it. The next phase in their twisted psychological game involves hiding the corpse in a trunk in their apartment, then proceeding to throw a party while the body is in the room. No ordinary party, mind you, but a party in which all the guests have an association with the victim. Among the guests are David's fiancée Janet (Joan Chandler), his father Mr. Kentley (Cedric Hardwicke), and a lecturer named Rupert Cadell (James Stewart) who formerly taught Shaw, Philip and David. As the party progresses, the murderous duo grow in confidence and they begin to slip clues into the conversation regarding what they have done. At one point, for instance, Mr. Kentley is given a pile of books bound together with the very rope used for the murder. Will the killers get away with their hideous crime, or will their tasteless audacity be their undoing?

"Rope" is exciting in some ways, though disturbingly much of the excitement comes from subconsciously rooting for the villains. Only when the film is over do we realise that Hitchcock has manipulatively made us a player in Shaw and Philip's horrifying game. Throughout the film, we have cleverly been made to become part of their game - we KNOW their dreadful secret, yet are helpless in alerting the characters who do not. As a result we unwittingly become the "third murderer", and consequently hope our secret is not uncovered. The film's theatrical nature is unusual, but it's hard to say if it improves the story. It certainly generates debate (e.g. is this a film of claustrophobic brilliance, or perpetual tedium??) and makes the film memorable, though not necessarily for all the right reasons. "Rope" is an important film from one of cinema's most important directors, in the sense that he is given an opportunity to experiment with the very principles of film story-telling. It might not be a hugely successful experiment, nor even an entertaining one, but it is at least interesting.

Masterpiece.

[breckham101 · 10/10 · 25 March 2012]

"Rope" is an Alfred Hitchcock film based off of a theatrical play and it shows tremendously. We follow the story of Brandon and Philip two men who have just committed murder on a friend they knew for the thrill. They go on to throw a party with the victim's relatives and friends, not knowing that the victim, David, is closer than they think. The camera-work in this film is brilliant, taking slow pans and wide shots building tension. The editing takes a less is more approach which makes it feel more like a play. The pacing is perfect for the movie's tone, along with the music as well. "Rope" is very well acted, and the script is genius. As the film progresses, we feel tension from conflicting emotions of what we want to happen. We want them to not murder again because, obviously murder is wrong, but we also don't want them to get caught. The film progresses as drama heightens as they believe their former College professor, named Rupert is onto them. It all leads up to an amazing climax, and great message of morality. This is my favorite Hitchcock film. My Verdict: 10/10: Brilliant

A Good But Lesser Hitchcock Film

[Mike_Yike · 7/10 · 13 March 2017]

The entire film takes place in a fancy New York City apartment where there is a small party with a handful of guests. In essence, the party is a kind of odd, coming-out party for two murderers who had just killed an acquaintance they believed to be "inferior" and therefore not worthy of his life. The movie is considered one of Hitchcock's lesser films, nevertheless, it is still very good.

If you are not accustomed to the movies of pre-1960, the first thing you will notice about Rope is that the strangulation of the murder victim in the first minute of the film is decidedly non-graphic and really kind of fakey in an overly tame sort of way. Contemporary film would have made the scene violent and explicit.

Another observation is that if the viewer gives it any thought, the two murderers really have no actual use for their crime, which was conceived to display their ability to commit the perfect crime. To whom do they boast of their crime? They speak of it, they are discovered and it fails to be a perfect crime. Minor technicalities, I guess.

I liked the performances of John Dahl and Farley Granger, particularly John Dahl. He is sophisticated, intelligent and smugly evil. Granger's performance is good too as the frightened accomplice. Jimmy Stewart is the older man whose intellect is admired by the murderers. I wonder if this movie paved the way for Stewart to play in a number of later Hitchcock films.

Anyway, I recommend the film for those who are interested in dialogue surrounding a curious but tense situation, with minimal physical action. If there is a desire for car chases or massive explosions, the viewer will be disappointed.

"A Horrible Film"

[istuart0 · 10/10 · 3 March 2004]

When I first saw this film, I was appalled at it. These two friends decide to kill a third friend just for the thrill of it. Not only that, they put the lad's still warm body in a trunk, serve a cold buffet from it and invite the poor boy's dad and aunt. I couldn't believe how ghastly the subject matter was. This is a horrible film, I thought.

But that is exactly what Hitch wants the viewer to think. Perhaps I'm too emotional but the portrayal of the lad's dad by Cecil Hardwicke was exemplary and had me feeling upset for him too. The callousness of Brandon, the way he lords it over the party cum wake, the way he manipulates his (patently obvious) boyfriend who genuinely regrets the whole business. I hate him to death!

If you have a strong conscience this is tough meat to digest but very, very worth it. 10/10

Fair-to-Middling Hitchcock film, but the DVD has great extras

[RBGatHome · 7/10 · 26 May 2003]

It is impossible not to admire anything Alfred Hitchcock did, and if you are a fan of Jimmy Stewart as well, "Rope" would seem to be a must-see. Unfortunately, the film is a flawed effort, worth taking the time to view if only to marvel at the camera angles Hitchcock used and the brilliance of the color cinematography -- this was Hitchcock's first use of technicolor.

What redeemed the film for me was the extra feature on the Universal Pictures DVD: "Rope Unleashed." This is worth the price of the DVD all by itself. It is a background documentary on the film, with numerous still photos of the production process. It is nothing less than awesome to see the size of the camera with which Joseph Valentine and his crew worked, and to imagine the effort required to plan and execute scenes that required that camera to move about. The documentary does a great job of describing the way in which Hitchcock pulled this off, beginning with the meticulous detail with which each scene was planned.

"Rope Unleashed" provides two other valuable insights to the movie as well. First, it describes how Hitchcock made the film into a personal directorial challenge, as he chose to shoot it as if one were watching a play, with 10-minute takes on the set. Second, we learn just why the movie itself is somewhat dissatisfying, as we hear how hampered Hitchcock was by Hollywood's homophobia in 1948 (a problem the playwright of the British original did not have to be as concerned about). It is also clear that Hitchcock and the studio's choice of Stewart as the "name" actor was most likely ill-chosen, since the views of that character simply do not fit with our conceptions of what Stewart should be like. This in turn forced the inclusion of the preachy monologue at the end of the film, when the former teacher renounces the beliefs that led to his students' tragic poor choices.

I give this a 7/10, though my vote is certainly biased upward by my love of both Hitchcock and Stewart. Were it not for that bias and the inclusion of "Rope Unleashed" I would probably knock the rating down to a 6, and that only because of the awesome achievement of cinematography.

The Ratings Can't Be True!

[damianphelps · 3/10 · 12 April 2021]

This is simply woeful.

The story is absurd, all elements of 'Rupert's' deductive reasoning are spurious at best.

The acting is sub par even from the brilliant James Stewart. The 'Philip' character appears to be channelling Captain Kirk (courtesy of a time machine) in an incredibly hammy and wooden performance.

I think viewers need to remove the rose coloured glasses of 'Hitchcock' and just watch it for the movie it is.

Hitchcock is clearly capable of greatness but this was not it!