Rope (1948)

The Master of Suspense weaves us a lackluster yawn of a film about two young socialites who murder a classmate of theirs, then stow the body in the middle of their living room in which they hold a dinner party. The synopsis caught my attention, but the execution was abysmally dull. With possibly only a couple of drops of suspense this is perhaps the weakest film by Alfred Hitchcock that I have yet to see.

A morality question is posed to the audience: Do the ethics of right and wrong apply to the intellectually superior? These two young men believe themselves to be in a class of men above others. They commit the perfect murder because their "inferior" classmate is inferior, then gloat about it by trying to perfect the crime by rubbing the noses of the man's friends and family in it, unbeknownst to them. So, is there a superior man, and is it justified to get rid of those who stall the progress of civilization?

I might have been more interested in the writer's answers to these questions had Hitchcock chosen a less insufferable cast. John Dall and Farley Granger play Brandon and Phillip, our two murderers and party hosts. Brandon is the mastermind of the operation, an unfeeling, smarmy mistake of a person whose smugness leads him to reckless behavior. Phillip is more of his lackey who immediately regrets his actions when the deed is done.

Dall is the most prominent blemish in the film. The script is adapted by Patrick Hamilton's play which continually describes Brandon as charming. Dall seemed to interpret this "charm" as sleaziness; no sophisticate in his right mind would waste his time with someone so cold, calculating and obviously manipulative as this guy. Smugness for him was not so much a state of being as it was a character trait adopted by the actor. I was aware I was watching a performance as I could read every thought on the actor's face. Dall didn't listen to his fellow actors and simply waited for his queues so he could belch out his lines and saunter to his next mark.

James Stewart is Rupert, whose relation to the boys I'm still unclear about--I think he might be a professor or headmaster of sorts. Rupert is a man of logic and philosophy whose calculating eye proves to be their inevitable downfall. I've never imagined Stewart as anything more than a bumbling oaf, possibly due to that funny speech thing he has, or maybe it's his physique. In any case, he should never be the suave, smart hero, and his pairing opposite Dall is an ugly train wreck. Stewart overacts like he does when he tries to be dramatic.

One notable contribution that this film made was its one shot take. I was so busy focusing on my dislike of Dall that I didn't realize that there wasn't a cut for almost half an hour. The film takes place in one room and its easy adaptability from the stage made it a perfect candidate for Hitchcock's trick. It certainly proved less distracting and more thoughtfully done than other films which would employ this in the future.

Despite the interesting premise and Hitchcock's flair for the unexpected, I found that even at a brisk 80 minutes there wasn't enough substance here to keep me interested. We spend all of our time waiting for someone to open the damn chest that the body is hidden in, while slugging through useless subplots that the fluff up the story. It's not funny, not very well acted and by the time the secret is outed I couldn't care less whether they got away with the crime or not. The only crime I cared about was that an hour and half of my time had been stolen.

1.5/4