Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
'Rope' (1948)
39 views
Skip to first unread message
calvin
May 21, 2012, 3:12:12 PM5/21/12
to
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.
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.
mikeos
May 22, 2012, 4:27:17 AM5/22/12
to
On 21/05/2012 20:12, calvin wrote:
>
> 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.
Do you agree that the Stewart character was also homosexual? After all
>
> 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.
he seems to have been a "good friend" of the protagonists, and would be
well aware of their sexual proclivities.
Kerrison
May 22, 2012, 5:25:58 AM5/22/12
to
he was miscast in that part. Someone like George Sanders would have
been much more convincing. However, Sanders wasn't a "star" in the way
James Stewart was, and a star name was needed for box office reasons.
Incidentally, did anyone notice the continuity gaffe where Granger
cuts his hand on a broken glass, yet a minute or so later, in the next
reel of film, there's no sign of that cut at all.
calvin
May 22, 2012, 9:40:13 AM5/22/12
to
their house counsellor (or something like that)
at school. Their friendship appeared to have
been based on shared intellectual and philosophical
interests. Two other of the young friends were
presented as heterosexual, interested in the same
woman
calvin
May 22, 2012, 9:42:15 AM5/22/12
to
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:25:58 AM UTC-4, Kerrison wrote:
> ...
there was not a scratch on them.
> ...
> Incidentally, did anyone notice the continuity gaffe where Granger
> cuts his hand on a broken glass, yet a minute or so later, in the next
> reel of film, there's no sign of that cut at all.
Yes, when the older woman had him show her his hands,
> cuts his hand on a broken glass, yet a minute or so later, in the next
> reel of film, there's no sign of that cut at all.
there was not a scratch on them.
moviePig
May 22, 2012, 11:27:54 AM5/22/12
to
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Madara0806
May 22, 2012, 12:26:20 PM5/22/12
to
dark and disturbing. It left a very sour taste. It made me want to see
COMPULSION and read about the actual Leopold and Loeb case, although I
haven't yet. I think my big problem was the way it fictionalized the
actual case. I'd rather see a dramatization of the actual characters
that tried to attempt an understanding of how they got to the place
where they thought they could get away with murder. How do you become
so arrogant that you'd take a boy's life just to prove you can get
away with it? I don't think ROPE addressed these issues. It just
turned the case into a theatrical melodrama. That doesn't add to our
understanding of human depravity.
Sorry, Hitch.
Overall, I think we're all better off reading Patricia Highsmith's
novel, "Strangers on a Train." As much as I like Robert Walker's
brilliant performance, Hitchcock's film really watered that one down,
too.
Message has been deleted
Kerrison
May 22, 2012, 12:01:28 PM5/22/12
to
part. So who else, besides him or George Sanders, would you have cast
instead of Stewart?
calvin
May 22, 2012, 1:12:35 PM5/22/12
to
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 12:26:20 PM UTC-4, Madara0806 wrote:
> I watched ROPE for the first time earlier this year. I found it very
> dark and disturbing. It left a very sour taste. It made me want to see
> COMPULSION and read about the actual Leopold and Loeb case, although I
> haven't yet. I think my big problem was the way it fictionalized the
> actual case. I'd rather see a dramatization of the actual characters
> that tried to attempt an understanding of how they got to the place
> where they thought they could get away with murder. How do you become
> so arrogant that you'd take a boy's life just to prove you can get
> away with it? I don't think ROPE addressed these issues. It just
> turned the case into a theatrical melodrama. That doesn't add to our
> understanding of human depravity.
> ...
> I watched ROPE for the first time earlier this year. I found it very
> dark and disturbing. It left a very sour taste. It made me want to see
> COMPULSION and read about the actual Leopold and Loeb case, although I
> haven't yet. I think my big problem was the way it fictionalized the
> actual case. I'd rather see a dramatization of the actual characters
> that tried to attempt an understanding of how they got to the place
> where they thought they could get away with murder. How do you become
> so arrogant that you'd take a boy's life just to prove you can get
> away with it? I don't think ROPE addressed these issues. It just
> turned the case into a theatrical melodrama. That doesn't add to our
> understanding of human depravity.
'Compulsion' (1959), which I re-watched a couple of years
ago, also fictionalized the actual case, though Dean Stockwell
as one of the two murderers and Orson Welles a their lawyer
were well worth seeing. I don't remember if it went further
toward answering your basic questions than 'Rope' did, however.
calvin
May 22, 2012, 1:19:24 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 1:12 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> 'Compulsion' (1959), which I re-watched a couple of years
> ago, also fictionalized the actual case, though Dean Stockwell
> as one of the two murderers and Orson Welles a their lawyer
> were well worth seeing. I don't remember if it went further
> toward answering your basic questions than 'Rope' did, however.
I neglected to mention that Orson Welles was playing the
> 'Compulsion' (1959), which I re-watched a couple of years
> ago, also fictionalized the actual case, though Dean Stockwell
> as one of the two murderers and Orson Welles a their lawyer
> were well worth seeing. I don't remember if it went further
> toward answering your basic questions than 'Rope' did, however.
well-known lawyer, Clarence Darrow, though having another
name for the character.
moviePig
May 22, 2012, 1:28:10 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 12:01 pm, Kerrison <kerrison126-spar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On May 22, 4:27 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 4:27 am, mikeos <mike...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 21/05/2012 20:12, calvin wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > Do you agree that the Stewart character was also homosexual? After all
> > > he seems to have been a "good friend" of the protagonists, and would be
> > > well aware of their sexual proclivities.
>
> > James Stewart couldn't be homosexual even in a prison kissing-booth...
>
> On May 22, 4:27 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 4:27 am, mikeos <mike...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 21/05/2012 20:12, calvin wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > Do you agree that the Stewart character was also homosexual? After all
> > > he seems to have been a "good friend" of the protagonists, and would be
> > > well aware of their sexual proclivities.
>
> > James Stewart couldn't be homosexual even in a prison kissing-booth...
>
> That makes me wonder if Clifton Webb might have been better in the
> part. So who else, besides him or George Sanders, would you have cast
> instead of Stewart?
Well, Spencer Tracy would play Clarence Darrow a few year later.
> part. So who else, besides him or George Sanders, would you have cast
> instead of Stewart?
David Matthews
May 22, 2012, 7:44:53 PM5/22/12
to
now THAT would have been interesting.
Dave M
Howard Brazee
May 22, 2012, 8:25:03 PM5/22/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:27:54 -0700 (PDT), moviePig
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> Do you agree that the Stewart character was also homosexual? After all
>> he seems to have been a "good friend" of the protagonists, and would be
>> well aware of their sexual proclivities.
>
>James Stewart couldn't be homosexual even in a prison kissing-booth...
Only in the movies, where stereotypes matter.
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> Do you agree that the Stewart character was also homosexual? After all
>> he seems to have been a "good friend" of the protagonists, and would be
>> well aware of their sexual proclivities.
>
>James Stewart couldn't be homosexual even in a prison kissing-booth...
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Message has been deleted
Madara0806
May 23, 2012, 12:11:04 PM5/23/12
to
On May 22, 9:39 pm, denni...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis M) wrote:
> In article <5kgnr7den2filrv0udh9n33h6iebk8v...@4ax.com>, Madara0806
> that was inspired by the L&L case, it was never intended to be a
> dramatization of it (much in the same way Psycho was based on a book about
> real life mass murderer Ed Gein).
True, but I didn't find it that entertaining, although I guess it was
suspenseful. It seemed more like an exercise than a real drama.
PSYCHO worked because the guy's split personality seemed so plausible.
Perkins really made that work. I mean, we watch that film over and
over again and we totally BELIEVE that Norman Bates has no clue what
the "mother" side of his personality is doing. Frankly, I don't know
if the psychology is sound or not, but it sure sounds good when Simon
Oakland explains it at the end. The two guys in ROPE never made it
plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. Whereas in STRANGERS
ON A TRAIN, we can believe that Bruno WOULD commit such a murder. It's
all a matter of making it plausible to me. Some things work for me,
some don't.
> In article <5kgnr7den2filrv0udh9n33h6iebk8v...@4ax.com>, Madara0806
>
> <madara0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I watched ROPE for the first time earlier this year. I found it very
> >dark and disturbing. It left a very sour taste. It made me want to see
> >COMPULSION and read about the actual Leopold and Loeb case, although I
> >haven't yet. I think my big problem was the way it fictionalized the
> >actual case. I'd rather see a dramatization of the actual characters
> >that tried to attempt an understanding of how they got to the place
> >where they thought they could get away with murder. How do you become
> >so arrogant that you'd take a boy's life just to prove you can get
> >away with it? I don't think ROPE addressed these issues. It just
> >turned the case into a theatrical melodrama. That doesn't add to our
> >understanding of human depravity.
>
> I think you're going off on it unjustly. Rope is suspenseful entertainment
> <madara0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I watched ROPE for the first time earlier this year. I found it very
> >dark and disturbing. It left a very sour taste. It made me want to see
> >COMPULSION and read about the actual Leopold and Loeb case, although I
> >haven't yet. I think my big problem was the way it fictionalized the
> >actual case. I'd rather see a dramatization of the actual characters
> >that tried to attempt an understanding of how they got to the place
> >where they thought they could get away with murder. How do you become
> >so arrogant that you'd take a boy's life just to prove you can get
> >away with it? I don't think ROPE addressed these issues. It just
> >turned the case into a theatrical melodrama. That doesn't add to our
> >understanding of human depravity.
>
> that was inspired by the L&L case, it was never intended to be a
> dramatization of it (much in the same way Psycho was based on a book about
> real life mass murderer Ed Gein).
True, but I didn't find it that entertaining, although I guess it was
suspenseful. It seemed more like an exercise than a real drama.
PSYCHO worked because the guy's split personality seemed so plausible.
Perkins really made that work. I mean, we watch that film over and
over again and we totally BELIEVE that Norman Bates has no clue what
the "mother" side of his personality is doing. Frankly, I don't know
if the psychology is sound or not, but it sure sounds good when Simon
Oakland explains it at the end. The two guys in ROPE never made it
plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. Whereas in STRANGERS
ON A TRAIN, we can believe that Bruno WOULD commit such a murder. It's
all a matter of making it plausible to me. Some things work for me,
some don't.
calvin
May 23, 2012, 2:24:03 PM5/23/12
to
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:11:04 PM UTC-4, Madara0806 wrote:
> ... The two guys in ROPE never made it
> plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. ...
I thought John Dall made it plausible that he would
do such a thing, but it was hard to believe that
Farley Granger would. The way I put it together
was that he was so relentlessly intimidated by John
Dall that he could be pushed into doing almost
anything. It's a stretch, but once the deed was done
I think the behavior of the two characters was very
well played, and they made a good story out of it.
> ... The two guys in ROPE never made it
> plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. ...
I thought John Dall made it plausible that he would
do such a thing, but it was hard to believe that
Farley Granger would. The way I put it together
was that he was so relentlessly intimidated by John
Dall that he could be pushed into doing almost
anything. It's a stretch, but once the deed was done
I think the behavior of the two characters was very
well played, and they made a good story out of it.
Howard Brazee
May 24, 2012, 9:13:48 AM5/24/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Madara0806
<madar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>PSYCHO worked because the guy's split personality seemed so plausible.
>Perkins really made that work. I mean, we watch that film over and
>over again and we totally BELIEVE that Norman Bates has no clue what
>the "mother" side of his personality is doing. Frankly, I don't know
>if the psychology is sound or not, but it sure sounds good when Simon
>Oakland explains it at the end. The two guys in ROPE never made it
>plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. Whereas in STRANGERS
>ON A TRAIN, we can believe that Bruno WOULD commit such a murder. It's
>all a matter of making it plausible to me. Some things work for me,
>some don't.
Way, way too many novels and movies make villains who aren't
<madar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>PSYCHO worked because the guy's split personality seemed so plausible.
>Perkins really made that work. I mean, we watch that film over and
>over again and we totally BELIEVE that Norman Bates has no clue what
>the "mother" side of his personality is doing. Frankly, I don't know
>if the psychology is sound or not, but it sure sounds good when Simon
>Oakland explains it at the end. The two guys in ROPE never made it
>plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. Whereas in STRANGERS
>ON A TRAIN, we can believe that Bruno WOULD commit such a murder. It's
>all a matter of making it plausible to me. Some things work for me,
>some don't.
believable. Even *real* people are characterized into being silly.
I want my villains to be believable - then the whole situation is more
real.
Besides making a better story, it is important that we understand, for
instance, how the Germans fell under the influence of the Nazis -
because we might be vulnerable to similar evils.
Wull
May 24, 2012, 9:45:35 AM5/24/12
to
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:8qcsr7t4aieo2k1em...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Madara0806
> <madar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>PSYCHO worked because the guy's split personality seemed so plausible.
>>Perkins really made that work. I mean, we watch that film over and
>>over again and we totally BELIEVE that Norman Bates has no clue what
>>the "mother" side of his personality is doing. Frankly, I don't know
>>if the psychology is sound or not, but it sure sounds good when Simon
>>Oakland explains it at the end. The two guys in ROPE never made it
>>plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. Whereas in STRANGERS
>>ON A TRAIN, we can believe that Bruno WOULD commit such a murder. It's
>>all a matter of making it plausible to me. Some things work for me,
>>some don't.
>
>
> Way, way too many novels and movies make villains who aren't
> believable. Even *real* people are characterized into being silly.
> I want my villains to be believable - then the whole situation is more
> real.
>
> Besides making a better story, it is important that we understand, for
> instance, how the Germans fell under the influence of the Nazis -
> because we might be vulnerable to similar evils.
How right you are HB. Today's atmosphere is a good example IMO.
> <madar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>PSYCHO worked because the guy's split personality seemed so plausible.
>>Perkins really made that work. I mean, we watch that film over and
>>over again and we totally BELIEVE that Norman Bates has no clue what
>>the "mother" side of his personality is doing. Frankly, I don't know
>>if the psychology is sound or not, but it sure sounds good when Simon
>>Oakland explains it at the end. The two guys in ROPE never made it
>>plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. Whereas in STRANGERS
>>ON A TRAIN, we can believe that Bruno WOULD commit such a murder. It's
>>all a matter of making it plausible to me. Some things work for me,
>>some don't.
>
>
> Way, way too many novels and movies make villains who aren't
> believable. Even *real* people are characterized into being silly.
> I want my villains to be believable - then the whole situation is more
> real.
>
> Besides making a better story, it is important that we understand, for
> instance, how the Germans fell under the influence of the Nazis -
> because we might be vulnerable to similar evils.
Wull
moviePig
May 24, 2012, 9:52:31 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 9:13 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Madara0806
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Madara0806
>
> <madara0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >PSYCHO worked because the guy's split personality seemed so plausible.
> >Perkins really made that work. I mean, we watch that film over and
> >over again and we totally BELIEVE that Norman Bates has no clue what
> >the "mother" side of his personality is doing. Frankly, I don't know
> >if the psychology is sound or not, but it sure sounds good when Simon
> >Oakland explains it at the end. The two guys in ROPE never made it
> >plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. Whereas in STRANGERS
> >ON A TRAIN, we can believe that Bruno WOULD commit such a murder. It's
> >all a matter of making it plausible to me. Some things work for me,
> >some don't.
>
> Way, way too many novels and movies make villains who aren't
> believable. Even *real* people are characterized into being silly.
> I want my villains to be believable - then the whole situation is more
> real.
>
> Besides making a better story, it is important that we understand, for
> instance, how the Germans fell under the influence of the Nazis -
> because we might be vulnerable to similar evils.
Note to writers: IF your story aspires to actual human drama,
> >PSYCHO worked because the guy's split personality seemed so plausible.
> >Perkins really made that work. I mean, we watch that film over and
> >over again and we totally BELIEVE that Norman Bates has no clue what
> >the "mother" side of his personality is doing. Frankly, I don't know
> >if the psychology is sound or not, but it sure sounds good when Simon
> >Oakland explains it at the end. The two guys in ROPE never made it
> >plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. Whereas in STRANGERS
> >ON A TRAIN, we can believe that Bruno WOULD commit such a murder. It's
> >all a matter of making it plausible to me. Some things work for me,
> >some don't.
>
> Way, way too many novels and movies make villains who aren't
> believable. Even *real* people are characterized into being silly.
> I want my villains to be believable - then the whole situation is more
> real.
>
> Besides making a better story, it is important that we understand, for
> instance, how the Germans fell under the influence of the Nazis -
> because we might be vulnerable to similar evils.
remember that no character ever believes himself evil...
calvin
May 24, 2012, 9:56:15 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 9:13 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Madara0806
> <madara0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >PSYCHO worked because the guy's split personality seemed so plausible.
> >Perkins really made that work. I mean, we watch that film over and
> >over again and we totally BELIEVE that Norman Bates has no clue what
> >the "mother" side of his personality is doing. Frankly, I don't know
> >if the psychology is sound or not, but it sure sounds good when Simon
> >Oakland explains it at the end. The two guys in ROPE never made it
> >plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. Whereas in STRANGERS
> >ON A TRAIN, we can believe that Bruno WOULD commit such a murder. It's
> >all a matter of making it plausible to me. Some things work for me,
> >some don't.
>
> Way, way too many novels and movies make villains who aren't
> believable. Even *real* people are characterized into being silly.
> I want my villains to be believable - then the whole situation is more
> real.
>
> Besides making a better story, it is important that we understand, for
> instance, how the Germans fell under the influence of the Nazis -
> because we might be vulnerable to similar evils.
What about the two Columbine teenagers? I don't know, but
> <madara0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >PSYCHO worked because the guy's split personality seemed so plausible.
> >Perkins really made that work. I mean, we watch that film over and
> >over again and we totally BELIEVE that Norman Bates has no clue what
> >the "mother" side of his personality is doing. Frankly, I don't know
> >if the psychology is sound or not, but it sure sounds good when Simon
> >Oakland explains it at the end. The two guys in ROPE never made it
> >plausible to me that they would DO such a thing. Whereas in STRANGERS
> >ON A TRAIN, we can believe that Bruno WOULD commit such a murder. It's
> >all a matter of making it plausible to me. Some things work for me,
> >some don't.
>
> Way, way too many novels and movies make villains who aren't
> believable. Even *real* people are characterized into being silly.
> I want my villains to be believable - then the whole situation is more
> real.
>
> Besides making a better story, it is important that we understand, for
> instance, how the Germans fell under the influence of the Nazis -
> because we might be vulnerable to similar evils.
guess that no one would have thought that either of them would
do such a thing. And also I'm guessing that the idea came from
one and the other one had to be talked into it. In a way, the
inexplicabliity of what the guys in 'Rope' did was in itself
realistic. (Though it may not have seemed as much so in 1948
as it might today.)
GM
May 25, 2012, 1:19:59 PM5/25/12
to
>
>
> What about the two Columbine teenagers? I don't know, but
> guess that no one would have thought that either of them would
> do such a thing. And also I'm guessing that the idea came from
> one and the other one had to be talked into it. In a way, the
> inexplicabliity of what the guys in 'Rope' did was in itself
> realistic. (Though it may not have seemed as much so in 1948
> as it might today.)
Why not? Leopold & Leob had just happened 20 years prior. Same
>
> What about the two Columbine teenagers? I don't know, but
> guess that no one would have thought that either of them would
> do such a thing. And also I'm guessing that the idea came from
> one and the other one had to be talked into it. In a way, the
> inexplicabliity of what the guys in 'Rope' did was in itself
> realistic. (Though it may not have seemed as much so in 1948
> as it might today.)
situation: the strong-willed psycho does the planning; the weak-willed
psycho who idolizes him follows along.
GM
May 25, 2012, 1:25:41 PM5/25/12
to
needs to be nosy. I thought it was really refreshing to see Stewart
shed his "Aw Shucks" persona to play someone who has a darker edge. I
think he's great in the film, as are the two leads and the film itself.
Message has been deleted
David Matthews
May 25, 2012, 8:28:55 PM5/25/12
to
>
> Commonly known, Hitch liked the icey blondes, but he didn't like the
> gay boys. Look what he turned poor, mincing Bruno into in "Strangers
> on a Train." Irony being, Farley Granger was the big old closet case
> at the time.
>
> greg
Both John Dall and Farley Granger were homosexuals. I'm quite sure
thar Hitch (who always had his ear to the ground regarding Hollywood
gossip) was well aware of that. Dall was a good actor - I thought he
wasa great in _Gun Crazy_.
Dave M
gggg gggg
May 17, 2023, 1:41:18 AM5/17/23
to
gggg gggg
Jun 18, 2023, 3:49:33 AM6/18/23
to
"7 Reasons Why Rope (1948) is a Perfect Movie"
0 new messages