Close Search Close

 

  • Comics
  • Theatre
  • Site News

Year Of The Month

Rope

Rope and experimental filmmaking.

Rope is an ‘experimental’ film that is widely agreed to not completely work. Usually people give one of a variety of reasons why they don’t completely care for it; most common is that the almost-one-take conceit and the various tricks done to achieve it are distracting, whilst others point to the crushed narrative, or that James Stewart’s performance is weak (which even Stewart himself would observe). I do think that Alfred Hitchcock’s deep understanding of story keeps it compelling watching; themes that exist independent of the absurd exercise in style, with the queer undertones and thoughts on nihilism.

I happen to enjoy films – as well as other artistic works – that push themselves to the point of unwatchability, particularly when they push down on one technique so hard that it becomes revealing about what the medium can do. There are three deliberate, visible cuts here – as opposed to an actor getting in the way of the camera for us – and none of them explain themselves, but all of them are motivated by the same thing: showing cause-and-effect. Hitchcock famously explained the Kuleshov effect through a man reacting with a smile to various things; this explains his use of editing here. A cut is a way of showing a reaction. And taking away those cuts for the majority of the film does increase tension quite a bit; for most of the film, we’re seeing cause-and-effect happen in the same frame; other times, we linger on the trunk containing the body, reminding us that the boys could be caught at any minute.

I think it particularly helps when the creator is as prolific as HItchcock was; I’ve seen people – including Every Frame A Painting co-creator Tony Zhou – observe that one way film culture is failing is not allowing creators to ‘fail’; that we as a culture demand perfection from every single entry in every single filmography. I can sympathize with why people do this (on the basis of not wanting to see things that suck) whilst very much being on Zhou’s side here. There’s two reasons: firstly, my approach to watching movies is fairly creative, even through its analysis.

More importantly, though, I prioritize the creator’s vision over my own as a viewer. The creator sets the parameters and I’ll follow them; you tell me we’re doing a romance, I’ll follow the romance. You tell me we’re doing a dumb comedy, I’ll judge you by that standard. You tell me we’re fucking about with what a movie can do with editing, I’ll go wherever you want. When I want to see something that perfectly fits my own perspective and goals, I’ll make it. There’s something churlish, boring, and limited to me about walking into a film with a list of demands it must fit; ideally, I’m here to learn something new, which requires surrendering my motivations for about two hours.