Rope (1948)
Alfred Hitchcock
English
Following the idyllic establishment shot of a quiet little street in Manhattan, which sets up the film’s notion of commonplaceness of evil, Alfred Hitchcock’s wonderful Rope (1948) presents us with an image from a murder that gives away the identities of both the victim and the killers. What follows is not a de-dramatized whodunit, but a taut psychological examination of the gruesome act that transcends its immediate settings. One criticism of the film that I can’t agree with is that it is too theatrical. Surely, a filmmaker with such refined cinematic sensibility as Hitchcock can never be content with merely filming a play. In fact, one could say that Rope is a seminal film that clearly defines where theatre ends and where cinema begins. Hitchcock’s rigorous framing scheme elucidates perfectly how cinema can, indeed, be more restrictive than theatre and how the fact that there lies a whole world beyond the cinematic frame can be harnessed for maximum effect. Hitchcock’s manipulation of space and his direction of the actors keep highlighting his central themes and character relationships. The shots are extremely long and fluid, giving a real sense of “being there” (not in the way those horrible shaky cams do). And, of course, there is the profundity of the text itself. Arthur Laurents’ script (in whose formation Hitch surely must have had a hand, considering how thematically consistent Rope is with the director’s filmography), probes the darkest corners of the human soul, analyzing the fascist tendencies inherent in all of us, however removed it is from our consciousness.
April 5, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Apropos of the long takes and daring tracks ‘giving a real sense of “being there”,’ well, for me at least, the immersive, subjective “sense of being there” mise-en-scene is actually more apt when enacted via montage and this is regardless of kinesthetics and ‘space’ penetration—for instance, other artists, as diverse as Dryer and Resnais to Powell and Scorsese, are fond of concocting a healthy mix of kinesthetics (cam movement) and montage (editorial processes like cutting). The editorial and cinematographic correspondents of the human eye, at least in the way I look at things (i.e., actually LOOK at things), seems to be more anthropomorphically aligned with the enactments of montage because my vision–that of my eyes + my head (which is on a swivel but is rigorously calibrated–i.e., at the rapid, neural-firing dictate of my mind) + my body central–is more thoroughly represented with cuts than it is with a camera’s pan and track. An example that works for me is a film like “PI” (Aronofsky, 1998) or… the drugged-out sequence from “Goodfellas”… or the recent BEST PIC Winner at the Academy Awards (need I mention its title or explain its inclusion in this list?). Hitchcock, it seems to me, gives me a setting to identify with and a character/or characters to identify with and he does this all in the matter of one long take and in doing so he also, possibly inadvertently or maybe for the sake of the stunt, he ousts me from the immersion of the narrative–similar to what Brecht does with his theater (breaking the third wall) and what Godard later did. For me, the camera’s pan and track is immersive (or, maybe the better word is fantastic, or impressive). But is not immersive at all for me in the psychological, camera-as-anthropomorphic-apparatus respect… rather, it is more of a spatio-temporal centricity. When Hitch would do these courageous long takes, with carefully calibrated/choreographed movements, I don’t feel like the camera is getting me to identify with a character’s psychology… but I do feel like I get a self-conscious, self-reflexive, ostentatious sense of the spatial and temporal world the cinema occupies. Maybe I’ve just seen to much Tarr and Sokurov but I can’t look back to the elementary idea of a camera that endures in its shot being an anthropomorphic correspondent of the conscious psychologizing being. Your thoughts?
LikeLike
April 6, 2010 at 9:39 am
Thanks so much for the insightful, detailed comment, Cory. Much appreciated.
Cory, I completely agree with your opening comments. It is an intricate montage structure that provides the sense of being there, more than prolonged takes. In fact, the latter shatters the illusion if overdone. Hitchcock was an expert at montage, at disorienting space and manipulating information, even when he didn’t resort to continuity editing (Robin Wood discusses the influence of Eisenstein and Kuleshov on Hitch’s style in his book in detail). In Rope, he does cut. All his edits are perfectly placed for maximum tension. Like when he abruptly cuts to the Stewart listening. It certainly puts the viewer in distress, making us think: “Oh boy, he’s done for.”
As you sharply note, Hitchcock’s cinema itself is based on audience’s identification with his characters. I am surprised that you say that Hitchcock ousts you from the illusion here, in Rope, because I would think that Hitchcock was the director least comparable to Brecht or Godard, although in films like Rear Window he was partially self-reflexive. But I can also imagine someone getting disengaged from the film when the camera snakes into the adjacent rooms along with the characters.
But maybe Hitch’s intention was more literary than experiential here. May be his intention was not to give a sense of being there but, as his profile page at Senses of Cinema says, to illustrate the insularity of his two lead characters.
Either case, Hitchcock’s methods for audience identification were, clearly, more successful in subsequent films of the 50s that relied (relatively) heavily on montage than the shots.
Cheers!
LikeLike
April 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Wow! I thought I was supposed to get an email notification upon receiving a comment.. No worries.
I wish my earlier comment was more succinct (not to mention, executed with better grammar), but I’m glad you understood what I was trying to convey.
You are right about the meticulous editorial commentary and guidance of Hitchcock. And, adding to that, I can’t think of a single move Hitchcock has made that wasn’t a perfect calculation of visuals and the rhetoric of identification–whether a long take or a montage sequence, whether penetrating the spatial with decoupage or threading out the temporal with a marvelous tracking shot. The man is a genius!
Wood’s analysis of his work is great too.
Just curious, but what did you think of Scorsese’s “Keys to Reserva?”
PS. Don’t EVER stop doing this site of yours. It’s truly inspiring. I want to have a page of my own one day (when I get the time of course). What you’ve done here — the design and the content — is nothing short of excellent! Keep it up, sir.
LikeLike
April 10, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Thanks so much for your kind words, Cory. I assure you that I’d be the first reader of your blog, once you get it!
Haven’t seen Scorsese’s film unfortunately. But you’re spot on about Hitch. Genius. Haven’t seen many of his films though. Off to see LIFEBOAT now…
Cheers!
LikeLike
April 6, 2010 at 11:23 am
JAFB,
I can’t comment with the same insight as Cory but that second shot of the murder taking place really catches you off guard, garrotting any potential suspense as to what violence may occur.
For me it doesn’t have time to be shocking or intriguing. The film therefore took about half an hour to get my interest back.
As for theatricality I don’t mind if it’s like a filmed play as long as it’s a damn good play your filming – though there will always be ‘cinematic’ choices of angles, music, Close Ups etc.
LikeLike
April 6, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Yes, I guess a filmmaker has to see how different he can treat the text for maximum effect on a “film audience” .
As for the opening shot, I would say that the desired effect was to throw you off balance, shock you, make you detest the criminals at first and then, gradually, make you wish that they get away with it and be accomplices to the very same act.
Thanks for the comment, Stephen.
LikeLike
April 7, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I think I actually found it hard to believe that it was an actual ‘real’ murder taking place.
No build-up, no music. It felt like role-play or a rehearsal.
It certainly did throw me off balance.
Didn’t people have similar issues with the ‘theatricality’ of Glengarry Glen Ross? But when the characters are so well drawn and the acting so lively and lifelike you don’t care if the camera is sitting there doing nothing.
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 7:12 am
Well, Stephen, even I wouldn’t mind that if that is the most ‘efficient’ treatment of the scene. However, I would always prefer a director who aims big and engages his audience in a filmic way. I mean, the audience’s reaction to a play and a film is completely different after all. And I’m sure that, as far as a typical genre movie is concerned, even shot-reverse shot structure would work much better than a play-like two shot setup…
Cheers!
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 6:46 am
“One criticism of the film that I can’t agree with is that it is too theatrical. Surely, a filmmaker with such refined cinematic sensibility as Hitchcock can never be content with merely filming a play. In fact, one could say that Rope is a seminal film that clearly defines where theatre ends and where cinema begins.”
Well, JAFB, I couldn’t possibly agree with you more, but there is a never ending debate as to the theatricality in cinema, and just where the line is drawn. Should be deride the likes of TWELVE ANGRY MEN (Lumet), PYGMALION (Asquith) or several of James Whale’s film among a plethora of films that have long been the subject of such criticism. But theatre and drama are the essence of cinema in far more than th etraditional sense anyway, so this argument without some convincing specifications rarely works in my view. But yes, Hitch would never be overt anyway. ROPE is essentially an experimental work in a stylistic sense, with the single set and camera, and bears some similarities to REAR WINDOW. But behind the trimmings, as you well-present here the film probes the darkest recesses of the human soul.
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 7:22 am
I agree with you, Sam. But I sure do expect a director to give me something more than a filmed play because I’m sure that however strong the script is, a director could surely do better than film it head on with actors spouting their lines…
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 8:08 am
JAFB: I agree with you, and didn’t mean to imply that something that is completely un-cinematic should be embraced with no questions asked. I am saying rather, that there are more instances than I want to remember where films with theatrical underpinnings are unjustly dismissed, despite situations where teh acting and script were impeccable. There’s a fine line there.
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 9:12 am
I guess you’re right. Cinema being a very popular medium, one cannot question the validity and necessity of porting from theater or novel. And when the stuff is formidable, it becomes even more acceptable.
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 6:49 am
Incidentally, with the intimidating spectre of such renowned masterpieces of world cinema like LA DOLCE VITA, PSYCHO and L’AVENTURA looking over my shoulder, I proudly cast my vore for best film of 1960 for the shattering THE CLOUD-CAPPED STAR, a Bengali masterpiece.
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 7:23 am
Wow. I haven’t cast my vote. But if I did, it’ll most probably be for PSYCHO. That film keeps getting better with time…
Cheers!
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 8:06 am
JAFB: You do know that I am referring to the poll that is being offered at your site here right? And I also love PSYCHO too, as well as those two Italian masterpieces. it’s just such a hard decision to reach.
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 9:09 am
Yes, Sam. It seems to have been a watershed year for cinema, like 1972, 1994, 2007…
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm
The 1960s : Au Hasard Balthazar for me by a street.
Personally I do not care if something is ‘cinematic’ rather than ‘theatrical’. These terms need only apply to a medium rather than a method as such.
Do I enjoy it? That’s all that matters. If it’s on a Cinema Screen that’s cinematic enough for me.
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Oops, I thought you were talking about the whole decade.
I can’t think of a film I really like from 1960. I voted for l’Avventura but I’m not much of a fan – first 20 minutes great, the rest the same old superficial Italian shenanigans.
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Whoops! That’s a bold statement to make. Some may call it a difficult film, and some might even call it too ‘photographic’ for its own good, but there are those who worship it as one of the greatest ever. I, for one, think that Blow Up is a markedly superior film.
Cheers!
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm
The beginning has a suffocating and beautiful tension to it. Once they get onto the island it lost something (!)
The percentage of Italian films from the 60s that deal with affairs – as if by rote: a bit of lust, a bit of sulking, a bit of jealousy – is mind-boggling!
I think L’Avventura is a pretty banal story with un-fulfilled pretensions. It was particularly disappointing because the start promised so much.
LikeLike
April 8, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Well, it still remains a hot topic! The Berlin School seems to thrive on that. But none of the ones from that movement I’ve seen even come close.
LikeLike
April 11, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Hmmm… the cinema of 1960? Jerry Lewis’ “The Bellboy” comes to mind. Chabrol’s “Les Bonnes Femmes”… “The Cloud-Capped Star” (Ghatak), “Tirez sur la Pianiste” (Truffaut), “The False Student” (Masamura), “The Housemaid” (Ki-young)… Antonioni’s and Fellini’s magnificent opuses… “Psycho,” of course… but, probably, “Peeping Tom”… Perhaps because of its invigorating self-referentiality, medium and social commentary… or, perhaps, because it, and Akerman’s “La Captive”—among other female ‘gaze’ films—, are the primary points of reference for a paper I am writing for a Film Theory Class I am finishing at the University of Utah. Anyone here read Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasures of Narrative Cinema?”
LikeLike
April 11, 2010 at 2:55 pm
That’s a mighty impressive list, Cory. Haven’t read Mulvey’s book, but I’m excited to hear about your paper. All the very best!
LikeLike
April 11, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Well, to educate you on Mulvey’s 1975 thesis, if you were a female filmmaker–like Akerman, Varda, Bigelow, Peirce, Harron et al.–would you contest to the notion that the tryptich gaze of the cinema (comprising of: the profilmic level, the character/narrative level, and the spectatorial level) is inherently male? Mulvey and other theoreticians posit a patriarchal structure to the cinema that permeates the active-male-gaze – passive-“to-be-looked-at”-female-image model which is inextricable. For my paper I’m going to attempt a refutation of these ideas and my counter is primarily going to be a ‘rhetoric of identification’ position. I think it’s an apt topic considering last year’s great landmarks of women’s cinema: Martel’s “The Headless Woman,” Denis’ “35 Rhums,” and, of course, Bigelow’s “Hurt Locker.”
LikeLike
April 12, 2010 at 9:19 am
Terrific, Cory. I’ve always felt it was intuitive that the female and male gaze were essentially distinguishable. Although contemporary culture may dictate the amount of overlap between the two not necessarily exclusive perspectives, I would like to believe that there is always a difference at every level of filmmaking – be it writing or framing – between male and female directors. I’m not sure what the standards are for judging how “male” or “female” a gaze may be (because I think the definitions of male and the female seem to based on broad generalizations) though.
LikeLike
April 12, 2010 at 10:56 am
I see it the way you do but for Mulvey: “Film reflects, reveals and plays on the straight socially established interpreation of sexual difference, which controls images, erotic ways of looking and spectacle.” She delves deep into Lacanian (but, more aptly, Freudian) psychoanalysis–which, she posits, can be used as a “political weapon, demonstrating the way the unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form.” She offers the expected examples: Sternberg (and his fetishistic gaze for Deitrich) and Hitchcock. Since the original post is about Hitch, I’ll paraphrase (and quote some of) what she says about “Rear Window”–A metaphor for the cinema: Jeffries (James Stewart) is the audience and the events in the apartment block opposite correspond to the screen. “As he watches, an erotic dimension is added to his look, a central image to the drama. His girlfriend Lisa [Grace Kelly.. exquisite!] had been of little sexual interest to him, more or less a drag, so long as she remained on the spectator side. When she crosses the barrier between his room and the block opposite, their relationship is rebortn erotically…” Basically, for Mulvey, in the cinema woman is the image and man is the bearer of the look and the structure being active/male and passive/female.
I, on the other hand, think that there are counter examples (day and yesterday, modern and postmodern): the films of Jane Campion, Chantal Akerman (“La Captive”), Kimberly Peirce (“Boys Don’t Cry”), Agnes Varda (“Cleo from 5 to 7”), Maya Derren, Catherine Breillat, Claire Denis, Maya Angelou, Birgit Hein (“S & W”), Alice Guy Blache (whose “Cabbage Fairy” predates Meleies’ “L’Auberge Ensorcelee”)… There are SO many examples of the female gaze and yet, in 1975, Mulvey was calling for a woman’s cinema to come about. Personally, I also think that some of (most of the films of) Carl Theodor Dreyer should be on that abovementioned list–“Day of Wrath” and “Gertrud” especially).
LikeLike
April 13, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Wow. Mulvey makes a fine point there. But it seems to me that Hitch’s concerned more with the impotence of Jeffries to do anything than his excitement of watching Lisa. Also, considering that Hitchcock ahs also been a vehement critic of patriarchy in his films, it might also be that he punishes Jeffries precisely because of his non-commital nature.
Also, I feel that Mulvey is being too harsh and simplistic in stating that all film is structured on a patriarchal gaze. After all, haven’t we seen so many many films subverting gender norms? In fact, can’t a case be made for The Hurt Locker in which the uniformed, young, male soldiers are the romanticized objects of (an arguably) female gaze?!
Excellent list to counter Mulvey’s examle, Cory.
LikeLike
April 14, 2010 at 10:51 am
wow, I love how your blog actually TELLS you when you need to close up shop! My commentis going to be quite disproportionately
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
LikeLike
April 14, 2010 at 10:11 pm
LOL, You never notice that when you reply via mail. I’m already feeling like Scotty Ferguson!
LikeLike
April 14, 2010 at 11:17 pm
“It is my desire to intone the hymn of the male, the strong, the virile, active, VERTICAL composition!”
— Sergei Eisenstein
LikeLike
April 14, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Hahaha… Perfect. You really are into your thesis, aren’t you?!
LikeLike
April 15, 2010 at 9:51 am
Yeah, I suppose I am. It’s been pretty fun. Arduous but fun.
LikeLike