Talk:Rope (film)

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / American This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance). New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Archives

1

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)[reply]

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!"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I agree.

Schizombie 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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? --

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

• • 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)[reply]

• • • 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)[reply]

• • • 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)[reply]

• • • • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sure it can be mentioned, see e.g. Ebert http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020419/REVIEWS/204190305/1023

talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]