Rope (1948)
Posted by J on September 30, 2008
Rope is the Reader’s Digest version of Crime and Punishment. It even knows this because it mentions
Dostoevsky’s famous, famously bloated novel. You see, there are two guys who want to commit a murder just for the thrill of it. They do incredibly stupid things–like have a dinner party ten minutes after murdering their victim, with the corpse inside a chest, which serves as the dinner table. They even tell stories about one another. “Hey,” one of them asks a guest, “did you know that Johnny used to strangle chickens back home on the farm?”
The point is that these two young men have been influenced by the high philosophy of the equally stupid. Privileged men, they say, have a right to kill. After all, “good” and “evil” are mere constructs. This is what Jimmy Stewart’s character, Rupert Cadell, has been espousing his whole life. He’s the teacher of these two murderers, and the intellectual catalyst for their dirty deeds. So Rope’s simple message is, bad ideas have bad consequences. Words of wisdom, grasshopper.
Cadell gets suspicious at the dinner party pretty quickly, in fact too quickly. He’s supposed to be an aloof professor who preaches amorality in the classroom, but when he gets to his New York dinner parties, he’s apparently on the lookout for subtle clues that point to lurking criminals. In order to reach its resolution, Rope needs to expose the murderers. But unlike Crime and Punishment, the murderers don’t deliberately turn themselves in. No, there’s no conscience for these fellows. Instead, it’s the professor who’s the hero, the one who converts in mid-movie from nihilist to moralist. We suppose the converted Cadell is what the American general public would like its professors to be: champions of truth, freedom-fighters for free speech and inquiry of mind, devotees to ancient wisdom and morality. Cadell’s conversion is a total fantasy–ever seen a Marxist or an atheist recant all he’s ever espoused at a dinner party?–but the fact that our storytellers even dream up this fantasy tells us something about who and what we value.
It’s obvious that the two murderers are homosexuals. These days, we’re all aware of the subtleties. Back then, in 1948, surely not everybody was. They could only make the movie with no obvious innuendo back then, which gives whiners today reason enough to complain about the days of Draconian censorship. Of course, censorship today is worse, in its own way. They couldn’t make this movie at all in 2008. Not unless they wanted to depict homosexuals as murdering nihilists who delight in strangling others for the pleasure of it. Nope, then everybody’s P.C. alert button would go off, like an armored knight walking through airport security.
In our opinion, Hitchcock got a little too cute with Rope. All the action takes place in a small apartment, and the movie’s shot so that it looks like one continuous shot. It probably wasn’t, but since it looks like that, our Hollywood-induced ADD kicked in. We’ve seen too many movies like Transformers and Armageddon, where there’s a cut every two seconds. Rope has seemingly no cuts in 80 minutes. Put a bunch of people in one room watching this movie, and you’ll have a roomful of fidgety maniacs in fifteen minutes. So get a straight-jacket and some tranquilizer before you press “Play.”
Entertainment: 5.5
Intelligence: 4
Morality: whatever
Polites said
Famously bloated?
J said
For those of us with Hollywood-induced ADD.
rational said
A review of Rope that doesn’t mention Leopold and Loeb??
Could you aim a _little_ higher, please.
The film is _not_ actually made one take. Anyone who knows anything about the film knows that the periodic movement of the camera into a wall or someone’s back are because of the limits of film (~15 minutes per take, I believe)
In response to your points in the review:
“Cadell’s conversion is a total fantasy–ever seen a Marxist or an atheist recant all he’s ever espoused at a dinner party?”
It’s likely that Cadell was an atheist, but not absolutely certain. He is, of course, definitely not a practising Christian.
I think it very unlikely that he was a Marxist. Marxism believes (foolishly) that all people are equal and that equality (of outcome) _must_ be the goal of human societies. Cadell most certainly does not believe that.
To take the film’s conceit seriously for a moment.
I think it is quite likely that at a teacher, whose teachings had effectively led 2 students to _murder_ one of their colleagues (and remember the victim was a student that Cadell had also taught)for “the experience”, would recant his views very quickly indeed.
“They couldn’t make this movie at all in 2008. Not unless they wanted to depict homosexuals as murdering nihilists who delight in strangling others for the pleasure of it. Nope, then everybody’s P.C. alert button would go off, like an armored knight walking through airport security.”
Did you by any chance mean “……….. Not _if_ they wanted to depict……….” instead of “unless”
(“Not _if_ they wanted to …..” is the only way I can make the paragraph make sense.)
To address your comments on the impossibility of the film being made now due to “P.C.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_(film)
(1992)
An overtly homosexually themed film telling the story of the Leopold and Loeb murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_by_Numbers
(2002)
A significant ($50million budget) Hollywood film with a significant international release, and a fairly major actress (Sandra Bullock) in the leading role. This film at least hints at the 2 murderers having a homosexual relationship.
[I really have to ask this:
Are you just trolling? How can you write like this? How can you throw in references to Dostoevsky, but (appear to) be ignorant of the Leopold and Loeb case?]
a Rationalist
(I wonder if you will put this response on your blog?)
J said
Rational, thanks for dropping by. I didn’t write about Leopold and Loeb because anybody can read that on Wikipedia or wherever else they write about movies these days. I also didn’t say Cahill is a Marxist or atheist; those were just examples. I also know that the film wasn’t made in one continuous shot, hence the phrase “looks like.”
So no, no trolling. I thought only comments could be classified as trollish?