ROPE

REVIEWED BY CHARITY BISHOP

Our rating: 4 out of 5

Because of: thematic elements

Rated:

One of the most macabre films ever written was Hitchcock's Rope, based on a British stage play which in turn was created after a similar true-to-life murder. The premise is excessively morbid and yet the suspense builds throughout each scene as we observe the casual interaction of a group of people who have no idea they're in the same room as a corpse. The scheme is hatched in the mind of two former college students and best friends, Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger). They've set up and committed the perfect murder based on the theory that some men's lives are nothing more than commonplace, and therefore those with superiority in intelligence (themselves) have the perfect right to remove them from society. After strangling their victim, they dump him in a large oak trunk in the corner of the room.

Phillip feels pangs of remorse after what they've done, but Brandon delights in the thrill of tempting fate. This has all taken place little more than an hour before their dinner guests are to arrive. They've arranged for a small going-away party, since they're set to visit the countryside the following day; and also made it a celebration of their successful murder. The victim's father is invited, as is his girlfriend, former best friend, and college professor. Convincing the housekeeper that the living room is a much better place to serve guests, the young men transform the trunk into a buffet. The guests begin trickling in and Brandon starts dropping conclusive hints. Morbid forms of humor, word plays, gags here and there, knowing they're all too stupid to solve the mystery of the missing guest. The only one who seems to catch their train of thought is Rupert Cadell (Jimmy Stewart) their former professor and advocate for the cause of superiority.

Having learned his theories and acted on them, Rupert is curious but unwilling to believe his students would go so far as to actually kill someone. His sadistic anecdotes about how simple and easy murder can be, that it might be considered an art, fail to please the other guests. Brandon is even a little nervous, while Phillip is on the verge of a mental breakdown. Throughout the evening their guilt, as well as the sharp wit of a single man in the group, will eventually give the scheme away. Rope is an intelligent piece of  work but rings of morbid attempts at humor, and gruesome implications. The idea of eating off someone's coffin is both intellectually fascinating and revolting. The comparison between the two murders -- one self-assured, the other battling his conscience -- is intriguing to watch as it plays out. It might almost be considered an intellectual piece rather than a horror film, since it plays primarily off psychology. Are some men worth more than others? What must you give to society in order to be considered worthy of living?

Rupert is something of a puzzle and also the redeeming element in the film, which is played out as a stage play with a series of ten-minute reels (some of them are obvious changes, others not so noticeable). At first his ideals are undeniably sadistic, but when he discovers his students have acted on a novel concept of his teaching, he becomes horrified and completely does an about-face in his opinions. Watching him figure it out is worth the 90 minutes as he observes, listens, picks up on how nervous Phillips is, and ingests small seemingly unimportant details. The acting is quite good, but I wasn't overly fond of Jimmy in this role. It seemed out of character and uncomfortable for him; an irony when you consider Hitchcock used him again in two later films, Vertigo and Rear Window. There is an element of dark humor involved but more than anything it's a study of psychology. Did they subconsciously desire to be caught? They would have gotten away with it had not Brandon invited Rupert, the one man who they knew might catch on.

Actual content issues are almost nil but still bear mentioning. Murder is of course talked about in-depth on numerous occasions. The opening shot shows a man with a rope around his neck, just having been strangled. They put his body in the trunk and we never see it again. Phillip is so nervous he cuts his hand by breaking a crystal goblet. Two men struggle over a gun and it goes off. One of the guests is an "amateur astrologer," and talks about astrological signs (who's a Torres and who's not). She predicts a member of the party will soon be married, but her brother-in-law contradicts her, telling her he told her that just last week. ("The stars agree!" she replies happily.) She reads Phillip's palm and predicts his hands will make him famous. Discussion revolves around chicken strangling.

One other thing I might mention is the feature about making the film on the DVD goes into the homosexual element. Obviously in the finished product it's never noticeable or I would have picked up on it. The idea of two bachelors sharing a flat isn't overly suggestive (or wasn't in the 1950's) and the relationship to me appeared more a dark friendship than anything suggestive. Brandon also had a former girlfriend, which also makes the original scriptwriter's assumptions fall flat. As a movie itself, it's engaging. One of the finest moments is when the housekeeper is clearing off the trunk in order to put some books away. The audience is in suspense, wondering if she's going to discover the body, only half listening to the chatter in the rest of the room. It's not a film many people will enjoy, but if you're looking for a good crime annual, Rope is well worth checking out.

© www.charitysplace.com - all rights reserved.