One of Hitchcock's more underrated features is taut and suspenseful, taking a simple setup and gripping it's audience based on their complicity in the crime. Hitchcock's teasing of lifting the chest makes everyone feel like they are about to be exposed which is a true stroke of genius, applying minimal takes to linger the camera on significant moments. Jimmy Stewart is also great as the probing professor.
Rope is Hitchcock at his most concise and clinical. It is a lean film, precisely structured in a way that the explosive denouement, although not unexpected, is no less a thrilling affair largely in part because of Stewart’s terrific performance. Hitchcock revisits the perfect murder angle that he explored only cursorily in Suspicion, but with Rope this preoccupation would become a mainstay of the Hitchcockian oeuvre.
I wish I was invited to a murder mystery dinner party hosted by Alfred Hitchcock, it would have been one to score off the epic bucket list of my life if I had a time machine. It's also fairly hilarious when Stewart does turn up and instantly suspects the 2 perpetrators like he's walked in and caught the faint whiff of foul play. So this is Hitchcock interactive 'Cluedo' and James Stewart playing Sherlock Holmes.
Creepy as hell. The acting was excellent by the entire cast, crammed together claustrophobically close to the body hidden amongst them. The long scenes, with (seemingly) seamless cuts are technically admirable, but for me it was the acting and the suspense that made it a really great thriller.
this is near perfect; to cast Raskolnikov's split personality as two actors was an excellent choice... the society's judgment is ultimate destination here (unlike in Dostoevsky) a perfect murder as a perfect creation artist as god a single shot with hidden black wholes
Metaphorically a tryst between murderers subliminally trying to get it noticed by their non-understanding friends in a time homosexuality was a secret. Made at the start of McCarthyism, it’s the perfect analogy for having to hide one’s nature from a close-minded world, always in fear it’s open and under everyone’s noses. A skeleton that will destroy them either internally if kept secret or their life if discovered.
Very peculiar. What strikes a modern viewer is the political satire on those with sufficient arrogance to think that supposed superiority translates into being able to do, literally, anything. Maybe intended to highlight the horrors of the 1930s but there are always highly privileged individuals who feel that the rules are for everyone else. A few have been spotted in and around Downing Street in recent times.
I understand and agree with Hitch's qualms about this film. It does not use the machinery of cinema as expressively as his best films do, and the language is too derivative of theatre. Farley Granger is also a weak protagonist. But there's a certain chilliness here, a certain cold perversion, that can only be seen in some of Hitch's masterpieces, such as Vertigo and The Birds.
The art lies not in the murder, but in the act of catching the murderer. Hitchcock blows the hinges off of the play's cage, and delights with a film that, while not reaching the exorbitant highs of his later work, signals everything one comes to expect and, above all else, love on one of his thrillers.