• Re: 'Rope' (1948)

    From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to calvin on Tue May 16 22:41:16 2023
    On Monday, May 21, 2012 at 12:12:12 PM UTC-7, calvin wrote:
    This was buried within another thread; reposted
    here with no changes:

    (SPOILER WARNING)

    I watched 'Rope' again today, and I don't understand
    why people seem to think that Hitchcock's 'gimmick'
    detracts from the movie. I always start by paying
    special attention to the the continuous 8 to 10 minute
    takes, but then get so caught up in the play that the
    gimmick is often forgotten, until it calls attention
    to itself again, as when the camera passes behind
    someone's back, which fills the frame for an instant,
    allowing an end to the take, and the beginning of the
    next one.

    In some cases, especially the one that I mentioned in
    the first post, a long take is extremely effective.
    While we listen to a conversation off screen, we
    watch the housekeeper working continuously, clearing
    off the chest, going back and forth, then bringing books
    from the dining room that she intends to put back into
    the chest. The people having the conversation aren't
    paying any attention to her, as she relentlessly
    approaches the critical moment. In high Hitchcock style,
    we are amused and willingly manipulated into hoping that
    the body is not discovered, at least not yet.

    The movie is quite effective in showing James Stewart's
    gradually growing suspicions that something is seriously
    wrong with this party. The two gay (not stated, but
    clearly presented) young men are very well played by a
    reptilian John Dall and emotional, paranoid Farley Granger.

    What's wrong with this movie is not the gimmick, but the
    hypocrisy of the James Stewart character in the end. He
    was not involved in the murder, but he had been very much
    intellectually complicit in the Nietzschian rationalizations
    that led to it. Earlier in the play he had expressed these
    views to a horrified Cedric Hardwicke. His words in the
    end express proper shame, but his manner is that of an all-
    American crime fighter doing justice for all.

    In spite of this flaw, though, 'Rope' is one of the better
    Hitchcock movies, and his difficult-to-film 'real time'
    takes add up to a fascinating and successful experiment,
    in my opinion.

    Am I the only one who was surprised that ROPE was in color?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to calvin on Sun Jun 18 00:49:30 2023
    On Monday, May 21, 2012 at 12:12:12 PM UTC-7, calvin wrote:
    This was buried within another thread; reposted
    here with no changes:

    (SPOILER WARNING)

    I watched 'Rope' again today, and I don't understand
    why people seem to think that Hitchcock's 'gimmick'
    detracts from the movie. I always start by paying
    special attention to the the continuous 8 to 10 minute
    takes, but then get so caught up in the play that the
    gimmick is often forgotten, until it calls attention
    to itself again, as when the camera passes behind
    someone's back, which fills the frame for an instant,
    allowing an end to the take, and the beginning of the
    next one.

    In some cases, especially the one that I mentioned in
    the first post, a long take is extremely effective.
    While we listen to a conversation off screen, we
    watch the housekeeper working continuously, clearing
    off the chest, going back and forth, then bringing books
    from the dining room that she intends to put back into
    the chest. The people having the conversation aren't
    paying any attention to her, as she relentlessly
    approaches the critical moment. In high Hitchcock style,
    we are amused and willingly manipulated into hoping that
    the body is not discovered, at least not yet.

    The movie is quite effective in showing James Stewart's
    gradually growing suspicions that something is seriously
    wrong with this party. The two gay (not stated, but
    clearly presented) young men are very well played by a
    reptilian John Dall and emotional, paranoid Farley Granger.

    What's wrong with this movie is not the gimmick, but the
    hypocrisy of the James Stewart character in the end. He
    was not involved in the murder, but he had been very much
    intellectually complicit in the Nietzschian rationalizations
    that led to it. Earlier in the play he had expressed these
    views to a horrified Cedric Hardwicke. His words in the
    end express proper shame, but his manner is that of an all-
    American crime fighter doing justice for all.

    In spite of this flaw, though, 'Rope' is one of the better
    Hitchcock movies, and his difficult-to-film 'real time'
    takes add up to a fascinating and successful experiment,
    in my opinion.

    (2023 Youtube upload):

    "7 Reasons Why Rope (1948) is a Perfect Movie"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)