Did you think you were God, Brandon?

Fatima 2022-04-20 09:01:34

IMDB score 8.1. Very unhitchcockian Hitchcock movie.
One, on the source of inspiration. Based on the well-made play of the same name, the film is based on a true event - in 1924, two University of Chicago students, Leopold and Loeb, planned and murdered a 14-year-old boy together . This incident was a sensation at the time, because of their identities: they both came from wealthy Jewish families and were prodigies with extremely high IQs; Leopold claimed to speak 27 languages ​​and was proficient in ornithology; Loeb is the history of the University of Michigan. Youngest undergraduate graduate. They believe in Nietzsche's theory of the superman (übermensch), and they believe that they are the kind of people who are superior to others, so their motive for committing crimes is to practice the so-called "perfect crime". But it turns out that the two geniuses feel too good about themselves - Leopold loses his advanced glasses on the scene, and the result is directly locked. They were later sentenced to life imprisonment for being under the age of 21, and the lawyer's defense in court was thought-provoking: It is unfair to hang two 19-year-olds because of the philosophy they learned from school. This is actually the theme of the film.
Second, about the long lens. The film is 80 minutes long, and aside from the prelude at the beginning of the film, there are only 10 shots in the feature film, that is, the director only made nine cuts in the middle. It is said that the director actually wanted to take one shot to the end, but due to the limitation of the length of the film at that time (up to 10 minutes), he had to "wield a knife from the palace". However, his editing is very artistic: the odd-numbered cuts are made by pushing the camera from the back of a character and then pushed out, so that the connection is seamless; the even-numbered cuts are traditional scene cuts, because two volumes are finished in the cinema In any case, the film has to be manually changed after the film. Hitchcock's way of shooting was actually inspired by the original stage play, which was adapted into a TV series by the BBC, which made extensive use of long takes. A long shot is beautiful, but at the same time it means a lot of complicated moves, the tacit cooperation of staff in various departments (moving furniture and even walls at any time), and high requirements for actors. There is a tidbit that a photographer was crushed to his foot by a bulky machine during the shooting, but was carried away by someone covering his mouth to ensure that the shooting continued. This experimental film eventually made history under the name of the long shot, and then the digital camera was invented, and true one-shot films also appeared, such as the Russian film "Russian Ark" and the Colombian film "PVC-1".
Third, about color. This is Hitchcock's first color film, using the Technicolor dyeing method. Although this technology has been declining, Hitchcock, as a novice, has some unique insights. The most typical example is when he saw that the cameraman used too dim tones in the second half of the film, and resolutely asked for a reshoot, which made the actors who finally "survived" so many long shots complained. In addition, although the scene of this film is always confined to a small house, the New York skyline known as "the background of the largest studio system in history" is clearly visible. The white clouds made of fiberglass are constantly changing, and the light transitions from dusk to night, echoing the plot. The flickering police lights in the last shot are even more brilliant, reflecting the mixed emotions of the three protagonists while explaining the ending.
Fourth, on the same-sex theme. I didn't notice this when I watched the movie, because it was so obscure. But after reading the background information, I am basically sure that this statement is undoubtedly, otherwise it will not be from the parties from the source of the story (Leopold and Loeb, these two people are actually suspected), to the screenwriter of the film (Arthur Laurents), to the two leading actors of the film ( John Dall and Farley Granger), both gay (Laurents and Granger later became a couple). James Stewart, who worked with Hitchcock for the first time and only appeared in 1/3 of the film, is of course not gay, but his character is also implied to be gay, which according to Laurents may not even Stewart himself realizes arrive. Farley Granger, who plays Phillip, is actually bisexual, and he didn't officially come out in his autobiography until 2007. He also starred in Hitchcock's other film "Strangers on a Train" after filming this film, telling a story of exchange killing, and the interesting thing is that the two protagonists there are also considered gay. True or not, the film did get banned in some places because of its potential homosexuality, after all, it was the end of the first half of the last century when World War II was just over, the Hays Code was in vogue, sexual liberation and LGBT rights had yet to emerge.
5. About Hitchcock. This film can be said to be Hitchcock's "experimental film". In addition to the long shots and colors mentioned above, the stage play mode and the narrative technique of real time (that is, the time of the film playing is consistent with the length of the event) ), and explaining the murderer and the murder process as soon as they come up are also very different. However, some classic elements of Hitchcock can still be found in this film, such as closed spaces, such as David as MacGuffin and the whereabouts of the murder weapon (title), such as his own cameo. How easy is it to insert a cameo in a scene with only 8 actors (not including the passerby and strangled David)? But this is not difficult for Hitchcock, and it is claimed that there are two, but they are not easy to recognize: the first is the first passer-by who comes out after the end of the credits, walking side by side with a lady; the second is 55: The flashing red neon light in the background at 19 o'clock is said to be Hitchcock's silhouette shape - this is a bit far-fetched...

View more about Rope reviews

Extended Reading
  • Cheyanne 2022-03-27 09:01:04

    Staged and one-shot are inherently compatible with each other, Hitchcock is just trying to return to the essence, taking another big step towards what he calls "suspense" through coherent performances, scenes and character emotions. While some of the splicing techniques may seem stale or even clumsy now, you can imagine how shocking they were at the time. The lines and the psychology are inside and outside each other, subtle and true. John Doyle is so arrogant

  • Dee 2022-04-23 07:01:40

    From 19:30 to 21:15, in the "Only One Shot" film, Xi Fatt successfully conducted a movie shot experiment through the close-up of small objects and the lens switching of the same thing. Thank you. The clouds made of glass wool, the neon at the end, the exterior scenes of New York and the psychological warfare inside, great. To have a party next to the coffin, you have to have a high psychological quality to bear it. Grant, Bergman and Stewart are wonderfully framed together.

Rope quotes

  • Rupert Cadell: Brandon's spoken of you.

    Janet: Did he do me justice?

    Rupert Cadell: Do you deserve justice?

  • Brandon: The good Americans usually die young on the battlefield, don't they? Well, the Davids of this world merely occupy space, which is why he was the perfect victim for the perfect murder. Course he, uh, he was a Harvard undergraduate. That might make it justifiable homicide.