Added: 3 years ago
From: Elfaunolefaune
Views: 48,996
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (57)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • fat old women should solve the murder...James Stewart in the chest should be...

  • The exact title is simply "Rope". H. considered this movie a tryout of a technique. He was only half pleased with the results. Said he would never do it again. Want to recommend a book--Truffaut Interviewing Hitchcock, each principle movie gets a chapter. Lively reading, behind the scenes about how he did things.

  • Once upon a time, we went from I want to tell you sometihing to I want to show you something. Visual storytelling. Now I just say "it's on YouTube...check it out!" maybe I should say "chum" oh wait....that might get misheard as "chump"

  • Comment removed

  • I love James Stewarts entrance (lol)

  • noble movie, noble players,  noble scenario, noble director

    thank you alfred hitchcock..thank you

    Most of the films now silly

  • Where are the other parts of the movie?

  • "Its awfuly good to see you again!"

    "Why?"

    James Stewart makes this movie!

  • Comment removed

  • the old kentley is a dumbo- who the hell would want to meet mrs atwater?!

  • this has actually aged better than other more celebrated hitchcock films imho. wish it was in higher def - not really watchable like this.

  • Is every part of this movie uploaded with this user?

  • Farley Granger is extremely handsome in that brown suit. I always liked him and of course, Mr. Stewart. This is such a sad movie. Chicagoans who know their history were told about Leopold and Loeb by their parents and grandparents. Happened in the Hyde Park area. Always seemed surreal to me.....thanks for the post.

  • awsome movie i have the dvd watch it all the time just wish we didnt see the body untill the end it could of been is he or isnt he dead we could of guessed with some of the sayings they like these hands will make u famouse (not for playing muisc) great movie

  • @reijerkollie: no, it wasnt shot in one take, but there are no edits. just six reels of film. remarkable...

  • I thought this film was in one shot, im disappointed.

  • @Reijerkolle it would have been impossible with the technology of the day for it to have literally been one take.

    Remember, they were using film cameras. One standard reel of film just isn't long enough (in the end, this film used six reels, to give you an idea of how much a single reel can take).

    So, yes, every once in a while, you'll see the camera move behind objects, in order to hide where they necessarily had to stop the camera to change the reels.

  • @KlaxonCow done care man.

  • @Reijerkolle  no i think its made in 9 shots.. greets but thats also very small

  • "Aren't you ready for another?"

    "I will be..."

    *gulps*

    "I AM... thank you"

    Also, the joys of ambiguous dialogue. Priceless.

  • @mikeysa I think this is a dialogue driven movie. Hitchcock also was a director who was very precise. He wanted the actors to do what he said and be where he wanted them. I didn't mean that Hitchcock relied primarily on dialogue. He made great movies by setting a specific tone to his movies and creating specific moods. When I said dialogue driven, I meant that there were no car chases or things blowing up. You actually had to think to appreciate a movie like Rope. U had good points also. ;-)

  • This is soooooooooooo good. 

  • The actors in this film must have been under so much pressure not to make a mistake while filming those long takes. I've read that a cameraman's foot was broken when a dolly ran over it during filming, no time to shout cut, the crew just gagged him, dragged him off the set and carried on filming! Now that is professional filming :)

  • @CI5AgentSweeps -- LOL, the poor guy!

  • Extended 'takes' were murder for the actors. Hitchcock also used long takes on "Under Capricorn" ... then decided the experiment was over.

    Long 'takes' are too much like viewing a play on stage.

    Editing and cutting makes good, suspenceful cinema.

  • Comment removed

  • I think modern audiences are less thoughtful. They just want mindless action. Interesting charactrs and dialogue are right here. The sign of real talent. No props, Just a cast..

  • YOU, ARE. WONDERFUL. for uploading this!!! thank you!! and i love Jimmy Stewart he makes a great movie plus Phillip's giuilt rising makes the movie too. but the down fall is i think phillip and brandon is gay. . . . oh well only makes the movie more interesting!

  • Mr. Rupert Cadell! I must say he really reminds me of my Housemaster! Once again, Jimmy Stewart just being brilliant!

  • Love the way she calls everyone chum.

  • @7beers yeah i like that too...it must have been the "in thing" back then..a great film

  • These [strangler's] hands will bring you great fame.

  • @alexistarr -- YES!! I found that part to be very chilling.

  • Name of piece that Phillip plays?

  • Jimmy Stewart disliked this role, said it never felt right.

  • @skylur44 -- I heard that when it finally sunk in, he realized what a rather reprehensible character Rupert was, and that turned him off the role.

  • @rem2267 It's refreshing to see Jimmy Stewart playing a reprehensible character for a change. Actors often do some of their best work when playing against the type, like Robin Williams One Hour Photo and Insomnia, and Henry Fonda playing the evil Frank in Once Upon a Time in the West.

  • @alexistarr -- I definitely agree when it comes to going against type. One of my faves is 'Night Must Fall,' with Robert Montgomery. He was mesmerizing in that.

    I own 'One Hour Photo'. The dream scene w/the eyes - wow! Both of those are in my top 25 favorite films.

    I'm not a huge fan of Stewart, but he did play Rupert well. He was so smug and holier-than-thou in 'Rope' (but that was the point), that I loathed him. So yes, it worked for me, but Stewart was not happy with it in retrospect.

  • @rem2267 Rupert may have been reprehensible but he did redeem himself at the end. Still, not Stewart's cup of tea.

  • @skylur44 -- Yes, he acquitted himself at the end (somewhat), but I kinda felt that it was too little, too late. Every time I see 'Rope,' I still have an overwhelming desire to punch his face in. Please also see my response to alexistarr, which is related to this topic.

  • @rem2267 No, it is def not his sort of role, and he looks uncomfortable in that part, understandably. Hitchcock loved him because he was such an "every man" the ordinary joe who gets caught up in the drama around him.

  • I don't think people appreciate dialogue driven movies anymore.

  • Depends on the dialogue. 12 Angry Men was a dialogue driven movie with meaningful dialogue. This is a dialogue driven movie with lots of boring party talk.

  • @clintbonita They never did, movies are supposed to show not tell. Hitchcock is a firm believer dialogue took a lot out of film. Alexander Mackendrick likewise.. These old timers didn't like relying on dialogue and believed what the audience saw was the primary way to tell a story, dialogue being secondary.

  • @mikeysaa director who was very precise. He wanted the actors to do what he said and be where he wanted them. I didn't mean that Hitchcock relied primarily on dialogue. He made great movies by setting a specific tone to his movies and creating specific moods. When I said dialogue driven, I meant that there were no car chases or things blowing up. You actually had to think to appreciate a movie like Rope. U had good points also. ;-)

  • @clintbonita i guess it only depends on what kind of people. 

  • @clintbonita I was expecting a lot more robots and explosions.

  • @clintbonita tell that to the cult of quentin tarantino.

    you're missing a "good" somewhere in your statement.

  • slow down your internal clock, this is 1948, it was a most leisurely time.

  • Why was 1948 any more or less leisurely than any other time?!

  • I'm just stating it was diffrent from now, very slow-paced.

  • be patient a little bit stu.

  • LOL! And LOL at all the humorless stuffed shirts who negged and spammed this most excellent comment! (And BTW, I like the movie.)

  • @7beers-glad u got my drift.i like other things of hitchcock,like"rear window,"strangers on a train"+"sabotage. but i didnt like "rope."+its fine that you like it).ppl on this thread went nuts tellin me maybe"dirty harry"or"transformers 2"is whats up to my speed.they r most unMysterious.i like plenty of films,old,foreign,etc.i recently watched "the golem"+student of prague" on youtube+am about2finish watching"moscow doesnt believe in tears"dvd.i dont get along w/stuffy ppl.see"the golem."cheers.

  • I know. Telling someone to go watch Transformers is the catch-all response whenever you don't like one of their movies..... BTW, are you referring to the Golem made in Germany in the 1920s, or something like that? I saw it years ago. That's one mind-blowing film.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more