Film Threat Back Talk

truepictures · 07-13-2005, 08:41 AM

I'm really becoming sleepless with my own review of Alfred Hitchcock's debut as an independent producer & director. I wish I did not get bored from it.

The film was shot all on one sound stage in 10-minute takes. The camera never leaves a continuous motion, so you continue to watch the characters from different angles, but you'll never see one single "cut" per se.

Anyway, the filming is brilliant and they worked very hard on it and it shows, but it was just too damn boring. It was the beginning of Hitchcock's rise into becoming the filmmaker whose name we utter today with great respect. But, I was really let down by this film. Mostly because of the fact that the movie was done in long shots.

The thing is, I even favor very long shots and no cuts - I even use the method in one of my shorts earlier. Sigh. It's frustrating me and maybe this should be a rant. But I'll let the mods decide on that one.

DonLewis · 07-13-2005, 01:24 PM

This may shock you TP, but there's more at work in ROPE than just long takes. Why not focus on the colors used as well as the lighting? How about the homosexual undercurrent running through the film (and many of Hitchcocks films)? It's a great, great movie...dig a little deeper.

truepictures · 07-13-2005, 04:02 PM

Yeah, I definitely noticed the homosexual themes. I also saw the colors used - and VERTIGO is my favorite movie to watch for the colors. It didn't zing me as hard as I wanted it to.

erbenz · 07-13-2005, 08:00 PM

I had an English class, and my teacher was talking about film techniques and how Hitchcock has experimented with that. She looked at her textbook and pointed at "Rope", saying that it would be very boring to have so few shots.

My first thought is "Bitch!"

But she also commented on how good she thought Sahara was... Go figure...

Seedy Edgewick · 07-13-2005, 10:55 PM

Maybe Hitch was going for that "filming a play" feel. The story's structure is exactly like a theatrical production: limited cast, single location, LOTS of expository dialogue, etc. It would explain the loong shots, filming in color, etc.

As a tangent, how come no one refers to "Murder by the Numbers" as a "remake" of "Rope"? They were both based on the same source material -- the Leopold and Loeb case. Other flicks based on common source material are labeled as such; why not this?

Terminal_Ny · 07-13-2005, 11:20 PM

"Rope" is my favorite Hitchcock film of all time solely because of the tension sparked by Hitchcock's mind games. The constant following around without cuts, people constantly trying to get to the book case, and the sheer commentary on elitism and how one class feels they're so superior they can get away with murder. Amazing movie.

Terminal_Ny · 07-14-2005, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erbenz

I had an English class, and my teacher was talking about film techniques and how Hitchcock has experimented with that. She looked at her textbook and pointed at "Rope", saying that it would be very boring to have so few shots.

My first thought is "Bitch!"

But she also commented on how good she thought Sahara was... Go figure...

It was not boring. It was just an experiment that never caught on. And an original experiment I might add. I think the experiment was to film without cuts. Each reel had a set of eight minute time integrals that Hitchcock thought would add to the tension. I thought it did it perfectly, because we never cut away to anyone, we were able to see people walk in and out of rooms and follow them to see if the jig was up. The experiment just never caught on, you have to give Hitchcock credit for trying something new.

truepictures · 07-14-2005, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terminal_Ny

It was not boring. It was just an experiment that never caught on. And an original experiment I might add. I think the experiment was to film without cuts. Each reel had a set of eight minute time integrals that Hitchcock thought would add to the tension. I thought it did it perfectly, because we never cut away to anyone, we were able to see people walk in and out of rooms and follow them to see if the jig was up. The experiment just never caught on, you have to give Hitchcock credit for trying something new.

It was actually 10-minute-takes. Yes, it was an experiment, no one is saying it wasn't. The filming is actually even brilliant, but tension is just as easily built with cuts.

Terminal_Ny · 07-14-2005, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truepictures

It was actually 10-minute-takes. Yes, it was an experiment, no one is saying it wasn't. The filming is actually even brilliant, but tension is just as easily built with cuts.

10 right. I never said no one said that. Just engaging myself in the coversation.

truepictures · 07-14-2005, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terminal_Ny

10 right. I never said no one said that. Just engaging myself in the coversation.

Word. NO worries! I was just adjusting your knowledge - since you mentioned 8. Anyway, it could have been 12 - 10 is just what the press material boasts.

Terminal_Ny · 07-14-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truepictures

Word. NO worries! I was just adjusting your knowledge - since you mentioned 8. Anyway, it could have been 12 - 10 is just what the press material boasts.

Kool.

I love this movie.

erbenz · 07-14-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terminal_Ny

It was not boring. It was just an experiment that never caught on. And an original experiment I might add. I think the experiment was to film without cuts. Each reel had a set of eight minute time integrals that Hitchcock thought would add to the tension. I thought it did it perfectly, because we never cut away to anyone, we were able to see people walk in and out of rooms and follow them to see if the jig was up. The experiment just never caught on, you have to give Hitchcock credit for trying something new.

I don't mind Hitchcock experimenting, it's more the fact that average Joe doesn't see the point of trying to be different.

Terminal_Ny · 07-14-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erbenz

I don't mind Hitchcock experimenting, it's more the fact that average Joe doesn't see the point of trying to be different.

That's true. I love it when directors experiment with other aspects of their craft instead of doing the same again and again. I love Hitchcock.

dawgzilla67 · 07-15-2005, 11:42 PM

Actually, there are a few cuts in Rope (besides the times when the camera zooms in on someone's back to allow for a reel change). You may not notice it, but shortly after James Stewart fires the gunshots out the window there is a cut to a new perspective. And there's the cut to the close up of the kid being strangled in the beginning of the film.

I'm with Terminal NY on this one ... even without the experiment, I think Rope is a good movie.

Reverend Ned · 07-16-2005, 01:30 PM

Rope is also important in that it was Hitchcock's first color movie. And as fantastic as the colors are in latter movies such as Vertigo, my personal favorite example of Alfred's mastery of color is The Truth About Harry. New England (and Shirley MacLaine) never looked more beautiful on film.