In some ways "Rope" is a pivotal moment in Hitchcock movie career. It was the first colour movie, the first real-time format and it was the first movie for his own independent film-company Transatlantic Pictures. On paper non of those aspects should inevitably lead to any problems, but I dare say, that I believe Hitch worked best when he had some opposition in front of him, be that a film company he did not control or whatever. The obstacles honed his will to try and get around it and figure out artistic ways to get things across instead.
The plot is basically a version of the "can I get away with murder" idea. Two men strangle a third man, puts him in a chest in an apartment, just before visitors arrive at their planned dinner party. And the visitors are relatives and friends, who are unaware of what has just happened and their dead "friend" is lying in a chest right there in the living room.
The runtime of the movie is around the 80 minute mark which is about 8-10 rolls of film I believe. Each roll was shot in one uncut section and each section splice together by putting the camera into a black transition by closing up on the back of an actor and then sync the sounds together so it flowed. This is done pretty professionally, only once or twice does it feel a bit strange.
Hitchcock had done the "limited space" setup before in "Lifeboat" in 1944, and apparently had a desire to try this format again. So it is kind of double up on artificial limitations and it does become apparent that the thing does not work that well. It feels too much like a filmed stage play, which it basically also is, from 1929.
It was only when we reached Rear Window a few years later that he finally nailed the limited space setup to great effect. I think this is a real low point in Hitchcock's career. The plot is ridiculous, the acting is stiff and controlled, the dialogue is goofy and mostly uninteresting. it does touch upon a few philosophical aspects, like that of the Nietszchean Übermensch (we are only a few years after the war on fascism) and how "right and wrong don't apply to the intellectually superior), but it becomes only a mere appeal to intellectuality to give it some artificial depth. Stewarts character says "we are each of us a separate human being (..). With the right to live and work and think as individuals, but with an obligation to the society we live in". What the frigg is he talking about .. there are separate human beings and then there are also some "society" ? Where is that ? Even in the most "individualistic" ideals, streams of collectivism seems to roam, and is that not the real problem !!
This kind of pseudo philosophical lecturing is toe curling to me. Hitchcock always preferred to "show it" and not to "say it"... this film breaks completely with that concept, and I don't like it at all. There is no suspense at all, the acting can almost inevitably only be stiff and limited. The story and the plot don't seem to come together really, as I supposed it originally did in the play. There is no suspense, as the viewers know that there actually is a dead man in the chest, while it would have made more sense if they were unsure. The macabre setup just does have the air to it that is the usual Hitchcock touch. And then there are the supposed "homosexual undertones". I guess that it is there, by the fact that two men if not terribly gay looking, could be seen as such, and a few verbal humouristic references that could be interpreted as homoerotic in nature. Otherwise it is pretty far fetched in my opinion, even if scriptwriters and Hitchcock deliberately was going for that.
It cannot recommend this movie, apart from to the completist Hitchcock fans and serious cinephiles. I appreciate trying new ways out, but it was a misstep in this case.
4/10
