Talk:Rope (film)

Uncredited producer

Okay, both the infobox and the IMDb say he was uncredited as producer, which contradicts the opening paragraph. Which is correct? sjorford (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Hitchcock's Cameo

Some people believe that Hitchcock has a cameo walking down the street at the beginning of Rope. AFAIK most Hitchcock scholars do not believe that is him. However, it is indisputable that he has a cameo by his caricature appearing in red neon outside the apartment window with the word Reduco appearing below it. There are several times that it can be spotted throughout the movie. There's a poor screenshot here http://www.daveyp.com/hitchcock/cameos/cameo43.html where it has been highlighted. A production drawing for the sign has survived and was featured in a gallery at a Hitchcock Film Retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City in April 1999. Hitchcock himself also mentioned the sign in a 1948 Popular Photography article reproduced in the book Hitchcock on Hitchcock: Selected Writings and Interviews edited by Sidney Gottlieb. His cameo is dicussed in two paragraphs on page 282, the most relevant part of which is where he states "The Hitchcock countenance will appear in a neon 'Reduco' sign on the side of a miniature building!" Schizombie 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just watched this and I studied the opening segment very closely and I've got to agree, I don't believe he's in that street shot at all.Lugnuts 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In Rope Unleashed (the making-of documentary included on the Rope DVD in The Hitchcock Collection) the film's screenwriter Arthur Laurents states that Hitchcock does have a cameo in the opening street scene in addition to the neon caricature. Unfortunately he doesn't say which of the pedestrians Hitchcock is playing. 80.175.95.69 12:07, 02 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.95.69 (talk)

I'd agree with the statement that it isn't Hitchcock in the open credits. I'm also not convinced that Laurents would have been present for a sequence that was probably shot by Lowell J. Farrell (assistant director). In the films preceeding and following "Rope", Hitchcock's cameos are fairly obvious, but "Rope" presented the same problem that "Lifeboat" did, due to the nature of the set. If Hitchcock had wanted to appear in the opening credit sequence, I'm he would have made it more obvious. Davepattern (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The link listed above is no longer usable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.116.185 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly indicated affair??

I dispute the statement in the first paragraph of the "Homoeroticism" section, "The film clearly indicates that the two murderers in the film were having an affair." While such an arrangement is certainly implied, it is certainly not clearly indicated. It is left vague, whether intentionally to escape censorship or as an accidental byproduct of those efforts. The viewer can take or leave it, although it certainly informs the performances. We all know now that the intent was to depict the characters as gay, but this doesn't really come out (no pun intended) on screen. Watch the film again: if Dall's performance were repeated today, mannerism for mannerism, the modern viewer would certainly agree that he's openly gay, but by the standards of the time he would simply be seen as "somewhat effete" (one can almost picture a 20-year-old George Sanders in the role); Granger's performance is not far removed from that in Strangers on a Train in which his character was demonstrably heterosexual; the relationship between the Dall and Granger characters appears to be that of an amoral manipulator and his high-strung, paranoid and easily led protege. The only thing clearly indicated is that they are long-time friends who don't get along terribly well who are bound together by their needs to manipulate/be manipulated. Is this meant as some ugly sterotype of a same-sex couple? If not, then it's not "clearly indicated" that they are one, but only implied by other aspects of the relationship and open to viewer interpretation -- it's one possible subtext, but not the only possible one. If no one disagrees, I want to change the wording of the sentence to reflect this. I'm not denying that the characters were gay -- we know a posteriori that that was the intent -- I'm disputing that it is an obvious or necessary interpretation of the film. Canonblack 21:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Schizombie 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I watched this film a few days ago, and the idea that they were homosexual lovers never crossed my mind. Although in retrospect it seems to be a logical conclusion, it certainly is not "clearly indicated". Changing the wording was very good. QuentinJamstar 00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Celluloid Closet is a 1995 documentary on the depiction of homosexuality in cinema from the silents to current (1995) times. Farley Granger, who is a homosexual, discusses this film along with Strangers on a Train. It's worth a viewing to hear his opinions on the subject of homosexuality in both films.

Philbertgray 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"...Philip’s role in the relationship is that of the female submissive archetype, while Brandon’s is that of the male." Granted, Philip is submissive and easily manipulated, but it is not necessary in homosexual relationships for one partner to have a "male" role and the other a "female" role any more than it is necessary in heterosexual relationships for the man to always be dominant. This line should be deleted or rephrased. Lmonteros 04:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chain-smoking.

"Throughout the movie, Brandon and Rupert chain smoke."

This is pretty trivial, even for trivia. It is not telling you anything you can't see for yourself. Also, they do not literally "chain-smoke", that is, light each succeeding cigarette off the still-burning end of the preceding (although Captain Renault does just this in Casablanca) -- they just smoke a lot, like a lot of characters did in movies of this era. It's filler. Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.59.24.199 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

$1.5 million budget

Is there a source for the film having a $1.5 million budget? Hitchcock was known as a very economic director, and I don't see him spending 1.5 million dollars on a one-room shoot. I've also read that the film cost only around $5,000. If the 1.5 million figure can't be confirmed, it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.154.72 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The camera they used was the first camera to shoot in color and it cost more then a house so it was way more then $5,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.97.58 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• The budget figure is shown in IMDB as $1,500,000. Even in 1948 $5,000 dollars would barely cover the cost of a few prints of the film. Philbertgray 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs a better picture

How stupid is it that the phrase "This was Hitchcock's first color film" is directly beside a black and white photo? Could someone get a color version of the same scene? --SeizureDog 22:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Replaced black and white shot with color shot from film Philbertgray 12:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I still see the old black-and-white photo, even when I refresh the page in an attempt to clear the old cache. Yet when I click on the thumbnail, it shows the full-size colour image. Is it just me? David L Rattigan 12:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Hmm - I see the color thumbnail on the page and the larger picture when I click. Try emptying your Cache file and opening page again. you don't have any funny "cigarettes" laying around do you?  :-) Philbertgray 13:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • I reloaded file under a new name. I saved it on my mac and may have saved it with a designation the mac accepts but PCs do not. Try it again. BTW I just threw out all of my funny "cigarettes" Philbertgray 13:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Can see it fine now. Don't have any funny cigarettes, but if you're offering... ;) David L Rattigan 13:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Homoeroticism correct heading

I'm not sure homoertoicism is the correct heading for the section as it implies arousal based on homosexuality presented in film. It would seem to me "Homosexual subtext" or something along that line would be more appropriate, unless of course one gets off on "man on man" murder :-) Philbertgray 12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated text

Could someone please clean up the mess in the fifth paragraph after the heading "Plot"? It should basically be deleted and replaced with a heading "Filming" as the text repeats. I'd do it myself but I'm not a very experienced editor and I don't want to make a mess of the layout. Steven J. Anderson 09:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it. Someone just check my work, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson (talk • contribs) 10:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Homoeroticism Citations

"Anal Rope" by D.A. Miller could provide necessary citations in the first part of the homoeroticism section. (I believe that it is a leading academic article on the subject.) I'll look into it, and implore others to do the same. sæ (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been a tendency to add unsourced material to this section. There's sources to support the view that the film has homoerotic elements, and what is in the article at the moment is sourced. However, it's problematic for editors' own views on what specifically is homoerotic to be added. If instead editors find sources stating what specifically could be said to be thus, then by all means add both the claim and the source. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't actually read the whole Miller essay, but it's a terrible source. Miller says there's nothing in the film that could establish the main characters are gay (more or less). He then bizarrely asserts that James Stewart's speech at the end is about homosexuality, with no evidence. It then degenerates into Critical Theory. [1]

The other citation, from the Times, just asserts that the two are gay. Miller quotes Truffaut saying the same thing, in order to motivate his "Why do people say this about 'Rope?'" section. I haven't read the Truffaut work, but Miller makes it sound like Truffaut just baldly asserts it like the Times critic does. I have a sinking suspicion that the Times critic says so because Truffaut did, and furthermore that Truffaut did only because Nathan Leopold was obviously gay (or at least, gay for Loeb).

In any case: There's no source for "There is a gay subtext." There's a source for "Lots of people say there's a gay subtext, although god knows why" although I'll work that up so it's more encyclopedic. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Script?

Does anyone know a place to find the script? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.100.8 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparent discrepency

There seems to be a discrepency between two statements in the "Filming" section regarding the length of the segments. Namely:

"Hitchcock filmed each scene in segments lasting up to eight minutes (the length of a reel of film at the time)"

and

"Another misconception is that all the shots last ten minutes. Actually, of the ten shots used for the film, only three approach or exceed the ten minute mark."

There is also a list of segments with durations which seems to support the segments lasting longer than 8 minutes, but I wonder if somebody more knowledgable could comment. Cheers TigerShark 18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two reel lengths mentioned. One is the length contained in a magazine for the film shoot. Since exposure to light would ruin the negative, and typically shots are never more than a few minutes, these are of smaller length than can actually fit on the reels that projectionists at the movie theater run. MMetro (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Murder by numbers

Is there any room for mention of the 2002 film Murder by Numbers, which appears to be a loose remake of Rope? Actually, now that I look at it, according to the wiki page on that film it is loosely based on the case of Leopold and Loeb, which the writer of Rope denies was a source but clearly bears a striking resemblance, so I'm not sure... maybe there is a source somewhere showing a link between the two films, i.e. that Rope was an inspiration for MBN? Just an idea. Omgplz (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be mentioned, see e.g. Ebert http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020419/REVIEWS/204190305/1023 Шизомби (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rope1.jpg

Image:Rope1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Murder for the sake of performing the act in Crime and Punishment?

"Suggestions have been made that Crime and Punishment and its protagonist Raskolnikov form a subtext to the film — whereby the film parallels the idea of murdering just for the sake of performing the act".

I am not sure this is correct. Raskolnikov's theory in Crime and Punishment is not "murdering for the sake of performing the act". He commits the murder for what he believes to be valuable reasons, among which are: making the world a better place ( I am quoting Cliffnotes.com: "The old pawnbroker is an evil person who is actually harming the poor people who come to her for pawning. According to Hegel, any harmful segment of society should be removed. Therefore, Raskolnikov reasons that by murdering the old pawnbroker, he will be removing a harmful “louse” from society." ) and achieving his own personal purposes ( Cliffnotes again: "If the ends are noble, the means can be justified. The old pawnbroker has a lot of money that will be “wasted” upon useless requiem services for her soul after her death. With that money, Raskolnikov will be able to complete his education and devote himself to the service of humanity, or he could distribute the money among needy and starving families, thus saving hundreds of people from ruin and destitution."). He therefore thinks the ubermensch should be allowed to perform an act like this and to put himself above common laws to achieve a valuable purpose.

This is the link to the cliffnotes essay: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Crime-and-Punishment-Critical-Essays-The-Ubermensch-or-Extraordinary-Man-Theories.id-67,pageNum-116.html

Is this wrong? I just wanted to point that out, I hope I am not wasting anybody's time. I am a newbie here and I do not know yet how to use links and references buttons.. I am sorry. Ashenlikelove (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not wasting anyone's time, certainly! Others will tell you that the talk page is for talk about the article, but this is a relevant point for the article. Be careful though in relying too heavily on Cliffnotes and similar - they can be shallow and often they miss the greater context. One of the great questions of Dostoevsky's novel (a good read btw, and short!) is just how much is self-justification (both societal benefit and personal benefit), how much an idle -- can't even call it curiosity, maybe ennui? -- to see if he can pull it off. That last would apply directly to Rope -- and Hitchcock certainly did reference the novel in the film. You have to remember that we have only Raskolnikov's own rationalisations for the action; and people do lie to themselves. Pages upon journal pages continue to be written on the topic.

(Yes, I know that this is a year after the previous post -- but it still might be seen.) - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.213 (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Novelization

According to several web sites the 1948 Dell novelization (credited to Hitchcock) was ghostwritten by a Don Ward, but I can't find a published source to provide a proper citation for that. Muzilon (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Previously unnoticed edit?

I think I may have spotted an eleventh edit in the film that isn't mentioned in the table in the "Long Takes" section. When Rupert (James Stewart) tells Brandon (John Dall) that he would have carried the body down the stairs, the camera pans over to the doorway. If you look at the picture closely you can see a slight jump-cut as Brandon walks into the frame saying "But you'd be seen." Muzilon (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Columbia or Harvard?

"Two brilliant young aesthetes, Brandon Shaw (Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Granger), strangle to death their former classmate from Columbia University..."

Columbia University?? Brandon sneers that David "was a Harvard undergraduate", and Janet later mentions Harvard as well. Muzilon (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thomas De Quincey

De Quincey is never mentioned in the movie, so have removed his name from the plot summary. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

A source on this page states that this movie has been edited to look like a single long shot. While we can argue that Den of Geek maybe be not the best source there's plenty of articles that state the same. In the middle of the page an editor, however and without sources, says that Rope has 4 visible cuts in the main body of the film. I added a new source, Poetics of Cinema by David Bordwell that states and only half of the shots have hidden cuts while there are 4 main transitions. Actually looking at the movie clearly shows that Bordwell is right and that this movie has, every 15-20 minutes, 4 undisguised cuts (and 1 at the very beginning). I edited the page to reflect the reality and my change has been reverted by @JesseRafe:that I'm pinging to invite him to look at Poetics of Cinema (from page 32 to 36) and/or to the movie. Here is the timestamps of the cuts for the blu ray 00:19:55; 00:34:24; 00:51:57; 01:09:51. Anyway, there has been already a similar discussion here Talk:One-shot_film#Rope --PedroPistolas (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen a discussion that Den of Geek was not reliable, but have seen it, as you state numerous other places, so that source could be replaced with another, but for 60 years this was considered an attempt at appearing to be single shot. Nobody is saying that it is a single take. Please find consensus to overturn a sourced datum in an article. Silence is not assent. JesseRafe (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What on earth made you proclaim This is OR!? The source PedroPistolas provided does say A long take ends with a blackout cut, then the following take ends with a visible cut. ... A viewer might mistake the shots linked by blackouts as all one take, but there was no effort to hide their neighbors, and it's a scholarly book from Routledge by David Bordwell, a "film theorist and film historian". You couldn't ask for a better source. Nardog (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty clear why. That user's edit summaries for weeks said akin to "this movie is edited to appear as a one shot is a myth easily disproved by just watching the film itself" is definitionally OR. Never identified the new source as a historian, just replacing the valid source with a different one that disputed it. JesseRafe (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

All the AFI source (still online btw) says about the technique is: Using an unprecedented technique, director Alfred Hitchcock shot the film entirely in uninterrupted 10 minute takes, the length of a reel of film. To mask the necessary breaks when the reel was changed, Hitchcock moved the camera in close on the back of a character until it filled the frame and then pulled away to begin the next shot. Notice it doesn't say he did that for all takes. It's just describing what he did between the takes he did disguise the cut between. Nowhere does it say the entire film was "edited so as to appear as a single shot". The sources don't contradict each other and the verification for the assertion that it was "edited so as to appear as a single shot" has failed. It wasn't added along with the statement anyway. Nardog (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please JesseRafe just watch the movie. Please it takes you just a couple of minutes to check every cut and realize that Bordwell, and others tbh, are right. Just a few minutes. You have the timestamps here and in the page itself (!) and I think the basic knowledge to recognize a reverse shot.

I tried to gather consensus but here and in the project no one answered. I only got answers in here and the agreement was that it does not appear as a single long shot.

P.s.: the AFI page is 404 for me so I guess it's a thing limited to Italy. PedroPistolas (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's just now at a different URL. Nardog (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @JesseRafe:, did you managed to watch the movie and/or read the source? Can I finally correct the entry now? PedroPistolas (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

JesseRafe has not reinstated the version he was reverting to since I pointed out the failed verification, which indicates he does not object to the current version. If you wish to make further changes to the article, I suggest you do so WP:BOLDly. Nardog (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)