Rope, directed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1948, is an experimental piece with only eleven shots from beginning to end. It has the nature of theater that every scene happens in the same room to compact dramatic sentiment, in an enclosed space as film proceeds. According to to Hitchcock's own reference of terror and suspense, he believes that suspense is more enjoyable than terror, actually, because it (suspense) is a continuing experience and attains a peak crescendo fashion; while terror, to be truly effective, must come all at once …more difficult to savor. (Hitchcock, 118) Contradict to his own statement, Rope unveils terror in a very gruesome scene at the beginning rather than in the middle, in a way is even more appreciated than starting with suspense. A double-terror is invoked simultaneously;the terrors resulted from identification with the criminals and disclosure of an astounding observation are generated, accompanied by rising of moral hazards. Unlike other works acquiring smooth transitions to invoke identification, the alliance with the protagonists in Rope appears urgently the passive spectators, attaining an effective viewing experience on the peak. The thread of double terror interweaves through the subsequent suspenses, which both extends the attachment of the spectators to be inseparable with the criminals. Such bonds, while accentuating moral debates, set every suspense as unbearable test readdressing discomfort, leaving the "nasty taste" (Wood, 67) in our mouths beyond screen.Unlike other works acquiring smooth transitions to invoke identification, the alliance with the protagonists in Rope appears urgently the passive spectators, attaining an effective viewing experience on the peak. The thread of double terror interweaves through the subsequent suspenses, which both extends the attachment of the spectators to be inseparable with the criminals. Such bonds, while accentuating moral debates, set every suspense as unbearable test readdressing discomfort, leaving the "nasty taste" (Wood, 67) in our mouths beyond screen.Unlike other works acquiring smooth transitions to invoke identification, the alliance with the protagonists in Rope appears urgently the passive spectators, attaining an effective viewing experience on the peak. The thread of double terror interweaves through the subsequent suspenses, which both extends the attachment of the spectators to be inseparable with the criminals. Such bonds, while accentuating moral debates, set every suspense as unbearable test readdressing discomfort, leaving the "nasty taste" (Wood, 67) in our mouths beyond screen.which both extends the attachment of the spectators to be inseparable with the criminals. Such bonds, while accentuating moral debates, set every suspense as unbearable test readdressing discomfort, leaving the "nasty taste" (Wood, 67) in our mouths beyond screen.which both extends the attachment of the spectators to be inseparable with the criminals. Such bonds, while accentuating moral debates, set every suspense as unbearable test readdressing discomfort, leaving the "nasty taste" (Wood, 67) in our mouths beyond screen.
Differing from the typical peaceful starting often seen in his other works, Hitchcock sets up a mise-en-scene of murder to initiate this piece. In this particular scene, two astounding aftermaths are disclosed in front of the spectators, leaving us to suffer the double terror resulted from. With overwhelming brutality, the film exposes the conspiracy in an implicit form to establish identification of witnesses, or even accomplices: the sudden and inclusive nature of this beginning occasion collapses on to the spectators as they are passively dragged into positions of cruciales and accomplices. Starting after the blackout, the camera tilts from street to a window with heavy grey witness curtain inside closed. The silence is penetrated by a sudden and unpredicted scream, like the explosive sound of a bomb,insinuates the happening of a crime. The subsequent shot connected is a frank and bold murder scene, in which two men, one in grey suit and the other in brown, strangling a man with a rope in front of a chest. This murder scene, shortly after the scream, seizes the viewers with catastrophic terror in such a documental manner. The camera position, with consistent front shots revealing physical violence, establishes the tone of relentless tension in the film: the murderers faces turn straight to the camera while they process the crime, transiting a lively cruelty and thrill to the viewers. Philip, the man in brown suit, concentrates on finishing the strangling: his eyes fix on the neck of his victim, with his face reflecting a great level of pressure. The man in black, Brandon, holds up the victim's chest from the back,skillfully checking the heartbeat of the victim. Not only does the terror put the spectators into the positions of firstwitnesses of the crime, but it also magnifies every single detail or evidence of the entire crime, including the grey bruises left on the murderer's neck and the place they hide the rope. Stronger discomfort flows beneath as the spectators witness Brandon suggesting putting the body into the wooden chest, by which displaying an obnoxious ambition of committing a perfect crime. Later, Brandon recites and dramatizes his belief of "the superior has the rights to kill." His association of the speech with the murder contributes an ostentatious justification to the crime. That the spectators, beyond being crucial witnesses, are lead to assimilate a seemingly deliberating yet haphazard fallacies from the criminal's point of view. These fallacies, as spurred out by Brandon, pique our attentions as interpretations of revealed theoretical motivation behind scene. As the spectators desperately look for any plausible solutions to wash away the intrusive burden of becoming witnesses, the rationales justifying criminal motivation , convincing yet linearly applicable in reality, easily become justifications of the real crime, shaking our moral boundaries and pushes our endurance further. Consequently, the spectators who swallow his words feel temporary relief from the anxiety, yet are swamped into point of view of accomplices . Trough terror is explicitly transmitted, the film develop an inseparable yet inflicted resonance in this climatic moment of physical and emotion tensity.pique our attentions as interpretations of revealed theoretical motivation behind scene. As the spectators desperately look for any plausible solutions to wash away the intrusive burden of becoming witnesses, the rationales justifying criminal motivation, convincing yet linearly applicable in reality, easily become justifications of the real crime, shaking our moral boundaries and pushes our endurance further. Consequently, the spectators who swallow his words feel temporary relief from the anxiety, yet are swamped into point of view of accomplices. Trough terror is explicitly transmitted, the film develop an inseparable yet inflicted resonance in this climatic moment of physical and emotion tensity.pique our attentions as interpretations of revealed theoretical motivation behind scene. As the spectators desperately look for any plausible solutions to wash away the intrusive burden of becoming witnesses, the rationales justifying criminal motivation, convincing yet linearly applicable in reality, easily become justifications of the real crime, shaking our moral boundaries and pushes our endurance further. Consequently, the spectators who swallow his words feel temporary relief from the anxiety, yet are swamped into point of view of accomplices. Trough terror is explicitly transmitted, the film develop an inseparable yet inflicted resonance in this climatic moment of physical and emotion tensity.As the spectators desperately look for any plausible solutions to wash away the intrusive burden of becoming witnesses, the rationales justifying criminal motivation, convincing yet linearly applicable in reality, easily become justifications of the real crime, shaking our moral boundaries and pushes our endurance further. Consequently, the spectators who swallow his words feel temporary relief from the anxiety, yet are swamped into point of view of accomplices. Trough terror is explicitly transmitted, the film develop an inseparable yet inflicted resonance in this climatic moment of physical and emotion tensity.As the spectators desperately look for any plausible solutions to wash away the intrusive burden of becoming witnesses, the rationales justifying criminal motivation, convincing yet linearly applicable in reality, easily become justifications of the real crime, shaking our moral boundaries and pushes our endurance further. Consequently, the spectators who swallow his words feel temporary relief from the anxiety, yet are swamped into point of view of accomplices. Trough terror is explicitly transmitted, the film develop an inseparable yet inflicted resonance in this climatic moment of physical and emotion tensity.Consequently, the spectators who swallow his words feel temporary relief from the anxiety, yet are swamped into point of view of accomplices. Trough terror is explicitly transmitted, the film develop an inseparable yet inflicted resonance in this climatic moment of physical and emotion tensity.Consequently, the spectators who swallow his words feel temporary relief from the anxiety, yet are swamped into point of view of accomplices. Trough terror is explicitly transmitted, the film develop an inseparable yet inflicted resonance in this climatic moment of physical and emotion tensity.
Eerily and relentlessly, the terror resulted from physical violence gradually leads to identifications which we are subjected to as accomplices. Another string of terror arises due to the dramatic tension between the two criminals; presented in a phenomenon of one's domination over the other, the interactions implicitly divulge an equivocal homosexual relationship. The interactions in the scene are treated as incidental vagueness instead of univocal express, which, still, rise anxious awareness to the spectators instantaneously. Philip, the man in brown suit, whose facial expressions are weak with less vigor , represents a feminine existence. After hiding the body into the chest, Philip puts both of his hands on the chest with a soft sigh of relief. When Brandon tends to open the curtain to shed the light in,Philip opposes strongly to abide his recovery from the shock, revealing his weak endurance. The camera tilts from left to right, then fixes on Brandon to display his behaviors; Brandon, the more active and conductive figure for camera to presume the next movement, is highlighted by his unflappable attire as an intruding even dominating figure as opposed to Philip's feminism. His hands putting on the chest of the victim as an indecent gesture of sexual assault, suggests as an connotation involving sexual attack to female. Another detail of him lighting up a cigarette after putting the body into the chest is viewed as movement commonly seen after reaching orgasm. The perplex juxtaposition of Brandon's manhood and Philip's tenderness suggests a homosexual tendency which is prohibited to be shown publicly on the big screen in 1950s.This "outrageous" relationship, while being directly recorded, stimulates another terror right after experiencing the terror of viewing the murder. The spectators now face variance of moral hazards of recognizing the relationship-the half unveiled forbidden homosexuality - that leads to further questions with hesitation : are we willing to identify with the murderers when two immoral incidents are correlated with them? Are we still morally conscious? The concerns tremble our expected views, mingling a nasty taste as the result of the natural reaction toward the moral concerns. For us as passive viewers having no control over what we attain, the unwillingness to be encapsulated in the point of view with two murderers endures along yet fail to obtain. Consequently, our own moral consciousness,battling with the irreversible effect of identification inflicted on us, intensify the nasty taste.
The double terror released at the beginning integrates the spectators with the destiny of the two murderers. Inheriting the function of double terror, a chain of suspenses is induced to tie the nasty taste further upon the spectators: suspenses are employed to continue the effect of identification as accomplices while magnifying the homosexual elements already existed. With such a hindrance, any attempt from other characters to probe any detail of the crime seems malicing to the spectators, which ironically, are those wishing to separate selves from the identifications but fail to do so . The manipulation of suspenses serves as consecutive tests to reinsure the spectators' strong alliance with the murderers, inflicting anxiety upon until the very end. In the next fifty minutes,we are left off with repressed conflicts expressed in arguments under the overt peace in the following dinner scenes. While Brandon attempts to stay calm, Philip is undergoing traumatic tortures resulted by any conversations involving the victim's name. The tilting shots often examine the trembling hands of Philip and calm facial expression of Brandon when someone rises up the topic of the victim or is about to open the chest, creating a disturbance of disconformity through the contrast of these two. This disconformity revealed lends ourselves to detect two distinct psychological fluctuations of the two criminals. The distinction of their psychological fluctuations cause consistent arguments in between, uncovering instability in addition to enlarging disagreement in their alliance, by which we, as their accomplices,feel the gradual losing-control of the situation. Despite the repressed conflicts, the camera keeps recalling the physical enchantment and intimacy through featuring their close whispers after a suspense is relieved. These traits shown on screen advance the “suppressed homosexual tensions” (Wood, 350) and conflicts dressed upon the crime, directing us to step more into their shoes with denser nasty taste.
The effect of suspenses proceeds, gluing the spectators with the protagonists to an unbearable level over fifty minutes. Hitchcock, being an acute investigator of his spectators' needs, pinpoints perspectives from another character-Rupert. As an independent and innocent character, Rupert's identity testifies his intentions as morally correct. That it is through portraying the final confrontation of Rupert revealing the nazi-nature of committing perfect crime; therefore, the system of morality is reconstructed, lightening us from the encapsulation of the nasty taste. The entire last scene is composited by several suspenses, starting from Rupert returning to the room pretending finding his fire lighter. The camera first takes the point of view of Brandon of him examining the intruder with hostility.When Rupert illustrates his assumption of where to hide the body under Brandon's request, the camera acutely follows where Rupert's eyes are moving toward: from hallway to living room, living room to kitchen, kitchen to coach, coach to chest. The camera position, for the first time, contains a concrete perspective from an outsider for those are willing to attach themselves with. The shape of a gun in Brandon's pocket, symbolizing approaching menace, forces Rupert's eye to move away from the chest--an unspeakable communication indicating the disclosure of the crime to both sides. Through these single angle scenes, the narrative focus finally shifts to Rupert, who serves as a conductive figure to reveal the ugly crime. The moment of him opening the chest, for us after being prepared so long by consecutive suspense,delivers exhaustion and desperation rather than relief: what will the consequence be? How to adjust our positions? Feeling desperately to be apart from the two murderers, we attach ourselves to Rupert, who starts to confront the thoughts of Brandon with compelling moral judgements. The 360 degree view resulted from camera spanning, corresponds with Rupert's movement, as he rapidly horns out harsh blame on the ridiculous motivation to Brandon's face; the intimidating power of convincement we perceive is not only conveyed in his words, but also compressed in distorted facial expressions of anger and disappointment. This double movement of camera projects a vivacious effect that Rupert is really criticizing the spectators,spilling our sin away by washing away our corrupted rationales while inevitably pinpointing our gullible and weak nature as passive spectators, for we surrender beneath the numbers of clues from Brandon to support his belief that "superiority beings have the rights to kill" without thoroughly rectifying them under conditions. Denouncing their sins as the former dorm keeper and the one started a conversation about perfect crime with Brandon back then, Rupert bursts out the most authorized rebuttals to this linear fallacy, in a sense that Hitchcock's conclusion of anti fascism is delivered to the spectators through this individual character. Experiencing the disturbing process of denial and reconstruction of morality, the spectators' identification with protagonists eventually fades ways as they are separated from the criminals.
Initiating with a brutal murder, Hitchcock achieves double terror from this special narrative structure, which strikingly seizes us, rising moral hazards haunting our hearts, as we identify ourselves as accomplices and observers. Subsequent suspenses continue to develop the identifications by which Hitchcock deepens an inseparable psychological resonance between the protagonists and the spectators; in that the nasty taste-the feeling of guilt and disturbance resulted from moral hazards-intensifies along the way. Suspense and terror, as suggested by Hitchcock in Rope, not only achieve the mechanism of visual pleasure , but also tighten up an artistry purpose to lead the spectators be aware of their own disconcerting moral sense and evil impulse. To further achieve a tangible approach of anti fascism,Hitchcock treats his spectators in such exhaustive suspenses that every viewer wishes to get out from. An individual innocent being, Rupert serves as an upright character who saves the spectators from the revolving and sick suspenses. His argument of "no one has the rights to kill " levitate our moral hazards from the plausible fallacies addressed by the criminal; the nasty taste resulted from, therefore, is somehow washed as the effect of identification finally fades away as we take Rupert's point of view at the end. Nevertheless, the underlying played trick by Hitchcock reaches outside of screen: the neglected nature of the nasty taste resulted from homosexuality, yet, never dies out since the topic has never been mentioned or confronted overtly in the film. For the spectators back in the 1950s,the nasty state continues to haunt them as opposed to the open-minded spectators today. This heavy piece Rope directed by Hitchcock, thus, is evaluated as an onerous piece to watch, as every viewer will eventually get his or her hands dirty with Brandon and Philip.
Work Cited
Rope (1948). PN 1997. R666 2000. Director: Hitchcock.
Wood, Robin, Hitchcock's Films Revisited,, Revised Edition, Columbia University press, New York, 2002
Alfred, Hitchcock, The Enjoyment of Fear, Hitchcock on Hitchcock, Berkeley, 1995
View more about Rope reviews
