MUBI

“Rope” may not be the greatest Hitchcock film, but it certainly is one of the most entertaining. It has been criticized in the past for coming off too much like a stage play [which is what the film is based on], but Hitchcock tried his darndest to bring a cinematic edge to the project.
Famous for being a ‘one-shot’ film, “Rope” actually consisted of about 10 long takes. Back in 1948, a reel of film was divided into two 10 minute minireels. Hitchcock experimented with long takes and cleverly edited the film to give the illusion of one continuous shot. It’s rather brilliant work for a film that’s now 63-years-old. What really impresses me about this film is that Alfred Hitchcock only considered “Rope” to be nothing more than a fun experiment in filmmaking, yet it is still far superior to most other films released at the time.
James Stewart is fantastic as always, but the two actors who play the murderers, John Dall and Farley Granger, steal the show. Their characters are based on the real life murderers Leopold & Loeb who killed a 14-year-old boy in 1924 thinking they were committing ‘the perfect crime’.
Leopold & Loeb were speculated to be homosexuals and screenwriter Arthur Laurents clearly wrote “Rope” with that in mind. The homosexual undertones are blatant and Brandon and Phillip are obviously written to be gay. “Rope” has been a key film and inspiration for the queer cinema movement since it was one of very few films pre-1960 to feature homosexual characters.
Hitchcock has many recognized masterpieces, but this is not usually considered one of his all-time best. Personally, I think it’s up there with “Psycho” and “Rear Window” as one of his finest films and in my opinion, it’s the epitome of the word ‘thriller’. (A)

Que Alfred Hitchcock é o mestre do suspense todo cinéfilo já sabe, afinal, são dele as conhecidas obras-primas Psicose (1960), Janela Indiscreta (1954) e Um Corpo que Cai (1958), filmes que o consagraram como diretor e, com todo o mérito, o elevaram ao status de gênio do cinema. No entanto, é um filme em especial, o mais experimental e o primeiro feito a cores pelo diretor, em que toda a sua genialidade e técnica são precisamente trabalhadas: Festim Diabólico, de 1948. Esqueça as [inesquecíveis] femmes fatales e as trilhas sonoras sinistras compostas pelo Bernard Herrmann e se deixe envolver por este que é um dos melhores e mais originais filmes de suspense já feito.

O longa, que se passa em um único espaço, um apartamento todo feito em estúdio, e com longos planos-sequência, mais precisamente 10 tomadas de oito minutos cada, nos torna cúmplices de um crime brutal: um jovem casal homossexual (e isso é sutilmente abordado), Brandon (John Dall) e Phillip (Farley Granger), com frieza e arrogância estrondosas, assassina seu amigo David por considerá-lo intelectualmente inferior e esconde o corpo numa arca na sala-de-estar. O crime, como o próprio Brandon enfatizou em cena, tinha tudo para ser perfeito, mas como se a justificativa mórbida para o assassinato não fosse o bastante, Brandon, com o apoio (relutante) do seu parceiro Phillip, após estrangular e esconder o corpo do rapaz na arca, decide comemorar o homicídio ali mesmo e, para isso, convida para participar do “diabólico festim” ninguém mais ninguém menos que os familiares do pobre David e um professor e espécie de mentor intelectual deles, Rupert, interpretado pelo sensacional James Stewart, que também se consagraria em diversos clássicos do mestre, como Janela Indiscreta, Um Corpo que Cai e O Homem Que Sabia Demais (1956).

A partir da efetivação do crime, é inevitável não se envolver nesta trama tão bem elaborada e carregada de momentos inesquecíveis de tensão absoluta, como numa cena em que a empregada, sem saber da existência do corpo, desfaz a mesa onde foi servida a comida, que foi preparada sobre a arca, enquanto todos ainda estão na festa, o que, para os espectadores, é uma aflição! O filme vai ganhando ritmo quando o Brandon, intencionalmente e numa forma de se auto-vangloriar por ter cometido o crime perfeito, deixa pistas do que aconteceu naquela fatídica tarde e o Phillip, fragilizado e atormentado, deixa transparecer toda a sua inquietação. Tudo isso foi um prato cheio para o professor Rupert, que dotado de uma inteligência e perspicácia incríveis, começa a suspeitar de que há algo estranho naquela festa. É interessante como o Hitchcock trabalha daí em diante e faz o espectador, numa das suas sacadas de mestre, acompanhar as suspeitas e impressões do Rupert até a derradeira cena final.

Bom lembrar, ainda, que o filme é muito técnico e as transições de uma tomada para outra são frutos de uma ideia genial do Hitchcock: utilizar cantos escuros, móveis e closes no paletó dos personagens e reiniciar a cena através da utilização do zoom out (naquela época, foi uma técnica brilhante e eficaz, no entanto, hoje, para os fissurados em efeitos especiais, pode soar um pouco grosseira). Até a passagem do dia para a noite que é vista pelas janelas é feita com maestria. Tudo é muito bem trabalhado, de forma a prender e envolver o espectador na trama.

Além do humor negro presente em algumas cenas, o filme ainda carrega interessantes reflexões morais, que têm seu ápice nos incríveis minutos finais. Uma obra essencial para os amantes da sétima arte.

My favorite Hitchcock and James Stewart pairing, it’s just an amazingly dark film about the art of killing. It’s a deep seeded dream that most people can relate to in some way, would you kill someone if you thought you could get away with it? Most people would and rightfully should say no, but to some it is a very real question. Two trust fund youths make it a nice little obstacle for their dinner party. It’s just a great movie in every way. The acting is perfect, which was necessary in getting these very odd characters to come off as believable and scary. I also love the idea of having the entire film take place in one room, it works so well and does wonders for the suspense element.

An amazing film. Why?

Five words: eighty-minute film in ten shots.

Before RUSSIAN ARK, there was…..ROPE!

Based off a stage play by Patrick Hamilton, the story is nonetheless based off the infamous Leopold and Loeb murder case, where two homosexual students decided, just to see if they could get away with it, to murder someone.
In their case, they randomly picked fourteen yeard old Bobby Franks. They were both eventually caught because of their own arrogance.

There is a similar plot to ROPE.

In Rope, two students, played by John Dall and Farley Granger, randomly strangle David, a fellow student, in their apartment for no discernible reason other than because they could. Brandon (John Dall) informs Phillip (Granger) that there is to be party in a few minutes and thus they must proceed with the rest of the plan: hide in the body in the chest, and still continue with the party as if nothing had ever happened.

Phillip is still reeling from shock, which Brandon remains smug and arrogant, clearly getting off on the whole thing. He even invites David’s father and aunt.

But things get interesting when Brandon decides to “improvise” by moving the dinner set-up onto the very chest where the body is hidden.

What happens for the rest of the film is somewhat of an interesting case of both great acting and amazing camera choreography that, despite the astoundingly long takes, still remains interesting.

The actual events that occur is a mixture of interesting philosophical debates between an insane killer who believes himself to be ultimately superior to all those below him, and a fellow teacher (James Stewart) that, at first, finds the idea titillating but ultimately rebukes his beliefs in such a world. There are moments of tension even though the film takes place in one apartment.

Throw in there the fact that the film was shot in Technicolor. Technicolor cameras were massive, like mini cars floating around in metal boxes to keep out the sound.

The fact the film is completely choreographed to movement as opposed to editing is downright mind-boggling.

It becomes more crazy when one learns that Hitchcock decided to reshoot a good a chunk of the latter half simply because he noticed that the artificial sunset that was occuring throughout the film looked wrong.
Yikes.

As before, the film is filmed in essentially ten shots. In any case, Hitchcock attempts to keep the feeling of real-time fresh by masking almost all of the cuts. He does this by usually moving into someone’s back, at which point the entire screen goes black and thus, a hidden cut occurs. The camera pulls back and here we go.

Instead of labeling the film a thriller, it’s more of a black comedy with moments of drama thrown in. Really, the entire party becomes downright farcical as people begin to wonder where David is (Brandon decided the coup-de-grace was to invite the vicitim himself) and the body is still in the chest they just ate on. Also, there is some tension between Granger and Dall, which can be interpreted as homoeroticism.

Take for example, the opening scene, right after the murder. Bradon lights up and gives a sigh of relief. And then he smiles.

Not only is the scene entirely creepy, but also rather sexual. Look at this way: lighting-up after a good night of smoking hot sex. Or maybe it’s because Dall was actually gay. And Granger was perhaps bi-sexual. And it is, after all, based off Leopold and Loeb, who were gay. In any case, the tension is there, regardless of subtely.

Stewart as the darkly funny professor of the two students is memorable, especially in his sudden dark turn at the end, where he delivers a great speech that has to be seen to be believed.

The film also has no soundtrack, except for music at the beginning and then the end. Everything is meant to simulate a feeling of someone peeking into one night, in one apartment. We are the witnessess, after all, and what else does Hitchcock enjoy than showing us the taboo and horrible?

ROPE is a great film. I say film, not play. Despite its feeling as a stage play, it really doesn’t turn out that way. Hitchcock has crafted an incredibly bold movie that runs on rails and the studio crane. Say what you want about the film, I still can’t get over that.

Hitchcock is officially crazy awesome.

Masterfully shot, but the script could have been a little less… inanely written. I can understand structuring dialogue to prove a point, in fact I expect it. But when the dialogue is as wooden as this, and James Stewart’s character’s transformation as stiff and sloppily thought out… could someone just explain his hypocrisy to me? He jumps from a maniacal “superhuman” believer to a sympathizer of all human life… change like that doesn’t happen overnight, much less the twenty minutes it takes him to do it in. I don’t know, just color me confused.
I love the idea of having a party where a corpse related to each of the attendees is hidden under their noses, and there are a lot of other good concepts in here. I just think the screenwriters built a character arc or two rather poorly.