This is my entry in the Master of Suspense Blogathon hosted by Classic Film and TV Corner
I think there is something wrong with me. But if there is, it's a good bet I'm not alone in the world.
In that I mean that I absolutely enjoy when a movie takes a despicable act of real life, and turning it into a dynamic tension filled drama on the big screen, without any apparent apologies from the makers for what they are perpetrating on the public. In the case of Rope it was the real story of the murder of a boy by two of his "friends". In 1924 two college students, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, had killed an associate of theirs, Bobby Franks.
For the time (the 1940's), it would seem that the basic background story would have been controversial to put to film. Not the murder itself... Everyone knows that murder was a subject that was always a useful and entertaining subject for film, dating back to the early days of cinema. (The Great Train Robbery from 1903 is sometimes credited as the first film to ever depict someone actually being killed on screen). And murder had happened countless times in films since then. So, by 1948 it wouldn't have been outlandish to see someone killed in a movie.
The part that was controversial, and the part the makers of Rope had to work around, was the homosexuality of the two main characters. In 1948 it was still taboo to come right out and say anyone was homosexual in a movie. This despite the fact that a character had been established as such elsewhere. (I am always intrigued by the fact that Joel Cairo, one of the villains of Dashiell Hammett's original novel version of The Maltese Falcon, is unabashedly designated as one, but when it came time to film the Humphrey Bogart version of the story the producers had to tread a very thin line when portraying him).
In Rope, the main characters are very much supposed to be lovers, but the Hays Code that was in effect at the time forbade anything that might outright establish this relationship. Again, this despite the fact that the characters they were based on, Leopold and Loeb, were indeed in that kind of relationship. Now, even though Hitchcock couldn't come right out and state that the two were gay, there were several scenes throughout that could hint at this relationship. But under no circumstances was it allowed that the audience could definitively say "yeah, those two are lovers". At least overtly.
There are hints, to be sure. At one point the two murderers are discussing the murder (at least that's what the implication of the scene is supposed to convey):
Phillip: "How did it feel... during it?"
Brandon: "I don't remember feeling very much of anything... until his body went limp and I knew it was over. I felt tremendously exhilarated. How did you feel?"
Hitchcock got away with quite a bit in that respect.
Arthur Laurentz, the screenplay writer. in an interview of a documentary, The Celluloid Closet, says :
"I don't think the censors at that time realized this was about gay people. They didn't have a clue what was and what wasn't, that's how it got by."
It is interesting to note that Cary Grant and Montgomery Clift were both considered for parts in the film, but both turned down the roles because they didn't want to play characters that may or may not be homosexuals, even though both had reputations within the Hollywood community as having an affinity for that kind of relationship. (The original character of Cadell had had a relationship with one of the boys prior to the events in the film in the original play, but that relationship was removed when Stewart took over the role).
There is another subtext that may or may not be all that obvious, at least to modern audiences. The characters of Brandon and Phillip feel that they are above the law because they consider themselves superior to the common man, on an intellectual level. Therefore they consider the act of murder at least condonable because their victim is less than superior. Thus Brandon and Phillip could almost be seen as mirrors of the Nazi ideology of a superior or "master race". I also think that there is some hint at the Russian red communistic ideal that replaced the aristocratic bourgeoisie with the intellectual bourgeoisie to them.
And in fact, during the denouement of the film, Stewart's Cadell attaches much of the Nazi ideology (via Nietzche's Man and Superman philosophy) to Brandon and Phillip:
"By what right do you dare say that there's a superior few to which you belong? By what right did you dare decide that, that boy in there was inferior and therefore could be killed? Did you think you were God, Brandon? Is that what you thought when you choked the life out of him? Is that what you thought when you served food from his grave? I don't know what you thought or what you are, but I know what you've done. You've murdered!"
Rope: (1948):
Where is Hitch?: In almost every Hitchcock movie Alfred Hitchcock managed to make an appearance. Since 99% of the film takes place inside Brandon and Phillip's apartment, Hitch's cameo came during the opening credits. You can see him walking on the sidewalk just outside the apartment building.
The movie itself opens with the murder, as Phillip (Farley Granger) does the dirty work of strangling David (Dick Hogan) as Brandon (John Dall) watches with undisguised glee.
The two hide the body, along with the rope in a trunk in the living room, and proceed to prepare for a dinner party they are going to host. Despite Phillip's objection Brandon insists that they convert the trunk into the serving table for the party. Brandon has a macabre sense of humor, to say the least.
In fact, not only are the guests to include David's parents and David's fiancee, Janet (Joan Chandler), but Brandon has also invited Kenneth (Douglas Dick). Kenneth was a former lover of Janet, but the two are no longer an item, since Janet left him for David. This, of course, creates a bit of an uncomfortable situation for Janet and Kenneth. But being the essence of a person who lacks the scruples of polite society, Brandon finds the situation enthusing.
Also invited, unbeknownst to Phillip, is their former schoolteacher, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart). It was because of some very controversial opinions of Cadell that Brandon and Phillip initiated their experiment with murder in the first place.
The situation gradually starts to come apart mainly because Phillip has regained some of his conscience and feels guilt as well as fear of exposure while Brandon continues to hold on to his intellectual superiority. It's not hard to tell which one is going to crack.
The whole coverup really starts to fall apart as Cadell realizes that David's continued absence is not because David, all of a sudden, has developed a change of approach to his usual habits. David would not have, by Cadell's, (as well as his fiancee's and his parents') way of thinking just not show up for a scheduled date. And Cadell realizes that the way to get at the truth is to work on the insecure Phillip.
Eventually the part breaks up, but Cadell, whose suspicions have forced him to reach a conclusion that the pair have committed some unorthodox actions comes back, under a ruse that he left his cigarette case behind. He confronts the two. The emotionally fragile Phillip eventually breaks, but the solid and "intellectually superior" Brandon holds onto his convictions; that some are just superior to others and have the right to do and act as they please.
Cadell is not without sin in the matter itself. Earlier in the movie he had carried on a conversation with the guests about the benefits of committing murder. Only Cadell is speaking only intellectually, he is only proposing his ideas for a philosophical discussion. The problem is that by proposing the ideas he has inadvertently given Brandon and Phillip a "justification" for their actions. And words, despite what some people might believe, can be just as damaging as actions.
"Brandon, till this very moment, this world and the people in it have always been dark and incomprehensible to me. I've tried to clear my way with logic and superior intellect. And you've thrown my own words right back in my face, Brandon. You were right, too. If nothing else, a man should stand by his words. But you've given my words a meaning that i never dreamed of! And you've tried to twist them into a cold, logical excuse for your ugly murder! Well, they never were that Brandon, and you cant make them that. There must of been something deep inside you from the very start that let you do this thing, but there's always been something deep inside me, that would never let me do it - and would never let me be a party to it now."
You know, for the most part I thought, like other reviewers I read, that Stewart was miscast in the role of Cadell. He never really came across as the cynical professor that the part seemed to indicate that he was. It is only in that final confrontation that I think Stewart really shines. Granger and Dahl. on the other hand, really came across as the characters whose roles they inhabited. Especially Dahl. I couldn't help but feel pity for Phillip because he seemed to be ripe for domination from Brandon, but Brandon was basically the essence of Machiavellian, and Dahl probably was the best available actor in Hollywood at the time to pull it off.
Rope was not a huge hit. It was Hitchcock's first film without a studio backing him (he had created Transatlantic Pictures for the sole purpose of producing films his way, and this was his first foray). It barely made back it's cost in terms of box office receipts. What may have had an effect on it's commercial viability may have been that whole "gay subtext", but I also think that what might have affected it's success is there is not much really going on in it. You get the murder in the first 2 minutes and then the rest of the film is just a bunch of people rambling on. It's essentially a stage play. And Hitchcock didn't help matters, in my opinion, by making every effort to hide the fact that it was a movie (making it intentionally look like a stage play, in other words).
Rope is no where near the worst of Hitchcock's output. (That would be Mr. and Mrs. Smith, in my opinion). But on the other hand, it's not one of his best either. The thing that really hampers the film in my opinion is the subpar cast of characters other than Granger and Dahl. Even Stewart really doesn't shine until the final 5 minutes of the film. To be fair the rest of the cast are just there as set decoration for the story, but none of them really make their characters seem like real people.
I think Rope is worth a watch, to be sure. But if I had a choice between it and a half dozen other Hitchcock films, (and you get to pick which ones those other five would be), I would probably choose at least 2 of the others in the choices over Rope.
Well folks, time to get this old Plymouth back to the garage. And despite the rumors floating around, there is no dead body in the trunk. Really.
Quiggy
