Chapter 4: Experiment
“He is the only director I know of who knew absolutely everything that was going to be on the screen. He didn’t have to look through a viewfinder, he knew. This was probably the most difficult picture in that regard because: ‘Was the wall going to be moved to the right spot?’ [or] ‘Would the camera be in the right spot?’; but when it was all set up, he didn’t bother to look, he knew.”
-Arthur Laurents, screenwriter of Rope, on Hitchcock’s approach to filmmaking in the 1998 featurette “Rope Unleashed”.
Good Evening…
It is not a notion right off the top of one’s head to think of Alfred Hitchcock as an independent filmmaker. Our association with his work stems primarily from those familiar logos that do inspire a sense of prestige and quality in even the greatest cynic (whether those attributes are truly present or not). The legacy of Hitchcock is intertwined with the studio system no matter the free reign he was given, and it tends to be solely defined by the way we look at independent film in general. We have a broader definition of it nowadays with looking at it through budgets and not the actual formation of the project and the term “indie film” is used in several ways. Putting aside merited specifics on what is truly independent (self distribution is a whole discussion in and of itself) , a very easy understanding of how it works comes from the most commercial aspect: a film made through means outside the major studio system that is then picked up by a major studio after the creation. A negative pickup, if you will. When it comes to the Master of Suspense, there was a time when he sought to follow this notion rather than be tied to the constraints of the moguls. It is an example that proves to be a repeating tale throughout film history, usually retaining the unhappy outcome. Despite the failings at a business level, these treks into independent territory have produced some of the most beloved and intriguing classics that we continue to study to this day. Not the least of which is 1948’s ‘Rope’; one of the two films produced by Transatlantic Pictures, the production company created by Sidney Bernstein and Alfred Hitchcock.
Transatlantic Pictures was birthed out of Hitchcock’s desire to avoid experiences that he had suffered during his time under contract with David O. Selznick. His experience was one of frustration and artistic restriction at the hands of the domineering movie mogul who clashed him all to often during the making of films such as ‘Rebecca’ and ‘Spellbound’. His experience with Selznick left him wanting more control and voice in all aspects of production, not too dissimilar from the freedom he had in his early years in Britain. In those early years, he met and became friends with film entrepreneur Sidney Bernstein. Berstein’s story is one that is thoroughly intertwined with the early formation of British Cinema. Starting with the formation of a circuit of sixty or so theaters from property his family had owned; he went on to co-found the London Film Society in 1925 and formed Granada Theaters Ltd in 1930, which later became a large media conglomerate that existed on it’s own until a merger in 2004. Berstein met Hitchcock in 1925, just as Hitchcock was beginning his ascent into becoming the first unique voice in British cinema with his work at British Gaumont/Gainsbourough. Years later during World War II, Berstein brought Hitchcock back to Britain to help make documentary shorts for the Ministry of Information. The result of this collaboration was ‘German Concentration Camps Factual Survey’, the documentary that was to unveil the crimes and horrors of the Nazi Party for the British public. The film was shelved for years after one screening in September of 1945, but the teaming of Bernstein and Hitchcock was destined to continue. They had decided that once Hitchcock had finished his contract with Selznick, they would go into production for themselves, and Transatlantic Pictures was born. The goal of the company was to be able to produce films is both Hollywood and London, with offices set up in Bernstein’s Granada Theaters. They had secured the release of their productions with a distribution deal at Warner Brothers pictures, and choose something bold as their first venture: a film based off a play inspired by the Leopold-Loeb murder case in Chicago.
The formation, execution, and final results of ‘Rope’ as a film, breaks new ground in almost every aspect of its existence.
The story is based upon the 1929 stage play ‘Rope’s End’, written by Patrick Hamilton. Having wanted to attempt to film a stage play as a movie for some time, this particular play’s one room setting provided the perfect space to do so. The picture, as designed by Hitchcock was comprised of 10 unbroken shots ranging from 5 to 10 minutes a piece. The shots would end in places such as the back of a character or on a piece of furniture in order to create the illusion of the film being made in one single, continuous shot and perpetuating the feeling of real time. For the period especially, this was a gamble of technical acumen that seems perfectly fitted for the filmmaker who runs his ship on a strict and pre-planned basis on every outing. ‘Rope’ was no different, with the production having to have technical precision of the highest concentration to pull off it’s magic trick.
The picture deals with the aftermath of a murder committed by two young men, Phillip (Farley Granger) and Brandon (John Dall). They strangle their classmate David and have hidden him in a book chest in the living room of their apartment while they prepare for a party they are to hold with many people close to their victim. It is all part of their pursuit to commit the perfect murder, a notion and Nietzschean philosophy of superiority they learned from their prep school teacher, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart).
What follows in the 81 minutes of Rope is a ticking bomb under the table, worthy of Hitchcock’s usual modus operandi, stuck firmly in this one apartment. In order to execute this feat, Hitchcock does exactly what he wanted to do: he films a play. Utilizing rolling sets and a team of crewmen at the ready, they were able to keep up with the camera’s flow throughout each long take. Prop men were at the ready to move furniture in and out of the way with each camera move, sound men were constantly in motion to grab every actor at every moment they were within the camera’s eye, and the actors were strictly beholden to the various technical cues in order to be where they needed to be in each moment. During a press conference on the set, James Stewart was said to have remarked, “The really important thing being rehearsed here is the camera, not the actors!” Within the final result the true fluidity desired was not accomplished, with the editing together of each long shot coming up short from a perspective that seems to be multi-generational. Contemporary critics and modern critics seem to possess the same phrase, “The experiment doesn’t work.” On the surface level that may be so, but there seems to be a call for this film to be met on the terms of a new frontier. In the wake of a film like Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s ‘Birdman’, one can look at Rope as the promise being made that this form of filmmaking can be done and done well, regardless of how it is accomplished. The cutaways in each shot change is indeed obvious and distracting, but if you are drawn in by the story, it is possible that one can be willing to ignore the unseen Bulky Technicolor elephant in the room. The ultimate achievement of ‘Rope’ as a technical experiment ultimately lies in what happens in each shot, with certain moves cultivating the same effect that would be present in a typically shot Hitchcock picture. There is a moment during the party where the camera zeroes in on the chest where the body is being hidden while the guests are in the room (it had been set up as a buffet for the guests). As the camera sits on the chest, we see housekeeper Ms. Wilson (Edith Evanson), cleaning up the chest and putting away the decorations adorning it. We are treated in that moment to an ideal example of how Hitchcock draws out the suspense by playing on the audience’s anxiety of whether or not the body will be discovered.
It is a technique that Hitchcock has used throughout his career. Here’s Hitchcock to tell you all about it:
“There is a distinct difference between “suspense” and “surprise,” and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I’ll explain what I mean.
We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let’s suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, “Boom!” There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware that the bomb is going to explode at one o’clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: “You shouldn’t be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!”
In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.”
Rope may be one of the purest and most extreme examples how how that theory is played out. Hitchcock pulls this thread out for almost the entirety of the picture, keeping us on our toes for what feels like an eternity. One could argue that it’s drawn too long compared to individualized sequences in other pictures he had made prior and after ‘Rope’, and they would be justified in this perspective. After all, how long can you realistically expect an audience to be kept on their toes before the novelty gets tiresome? Yet from the perspective of this all being one giant experiment, it seems (at least to this “author’s” mind) that it proves successful thanks in part to the intrigue and due diligence that Granger and Dall give their characters and how we are hooked by their caper and its possible outcomes. Hitchcock is indeed pushing the audiences patience, and that is exactly part of this film experiments point.
Drawing out the film as he does is enhanced (albeit clunkily) by the execution of playing it out in real time. Accomplishing this goes beyond the confines of the apartments interior. Recalling the previous article on Rear Window and it’s meticulous detail in turning every single apartment into a living being, ‘Rope’ is the testing ground for this. Using a cyclorama for the view outside the apartment, Hitchcock instructed his team to light the buildings and exterior signage with their real-life lighting conditions. Combined with the overall adjustment for the cyclorama to go from day to night, Hitchcock provides a living breathing world outside to add depth to the world he is working with. It ultimately helps with the impact of the finale, where Cadell fires off the boys’ gun to get the police to come investigate. The nightlight exterior with glowing neon, combined with the sounds of people outside concerned all draws us in on the final shot of Cadell, Phillip, and Brandon waiting silently for their fates to unfold. This living, breathing world is further enhanced by Hitchcock’s first outing with Technicolor. It’s a great starter to what would be a deep commitment down the line to utilizing color in film in all the best possible ways. There’s a sense of things not being as “poppy” as they will be in future Hitchcock pictures, but ‘Ropes’ color palette add’s to the terror in it’s own way, with a slight wash-out in the palette helping to lend an air of frigidity to the whole proceedings, which naturally blend with the story of murder for the sake of murder.
Alas, despite the ambitions and positive executions of ‘Rope’, the film was received flatly. Taking in barely enough to cover the $2 million dollar price tag, it was almost immediately the beginning of the end for Transatlantic Pictures. The second blow came with the release of Hitchcock’s 1949 picture ‘Under Capricorn ‘ (which has a unique story to save for later), which was unable to even meet its budget at the box office. The final blow was when Warner Brothers assumed full control over the production of Hitchcock’s ‘Stage Fright’ (1950), thus sealing Transatlantic’s doom. The partnership dissolved, and this ambitious and creatively freeing idea was no more. Gone was the ability to avoid the studio moguls and their badgering. There are two consolations of this whole affair:
1) Hitchcock was about to enter his golden period with the studios, who gave him more free reign than even he could imagine.
And
2) We have a unique and fascinating film to further dissect called ‘Rope’.
————————————————————————————————-
Till the next article… Good Night…..
Oh, P.S.
I realize this article is lacking in the linked videos, so to make up for that, here is an excerpt from the famous Hitchcock/Truffaut interviews where they discuss ‘Rope’ and color in cinema.