Rope (1948)

I wonder what would have happened if Hitchcock and Don Simpson got together?  
Not that Hitch only made movies that you could describe on one sentence but Rope is one of the more brief concepts to sell-there's a party and the hosts have killed the guest of honour and he's actually in a box under the nibbles. Even if the cynical were say 'And that's a movie?', they would concede they were curious to see how that sustains a feature length.
The good news that Rope is a great way to spend 80mins. It's all killer-no filler. I even think it could be longer by a little bit but I recognise that it's more potent in its short form.
The best surprise of Rope is that it's brilliantly written and-AND acted. It has the great whippet-fast, witty dialogue so indicative of the 30's and 40's; great pearls of stuff like this:-
'Brandon's spoken of you'
'Did he do me justice? '
'Do you deserve justice?'
And ⅔'s of those lines were delivered by James Stewart. I'm no great watcher of his films but he's great here as this deadpan blackly-comic scholar. You may remember Farley Granger from Strangers on a Train; here he plays the complete opposite character- a disturbed young man with nervous murderous intent. His partner and dominating force in the relationship is played by John Dall,  who confusingly has a somewhat striking resemblance to Jimmy Stewart but he's a great malevolent force of undercurrent evil in this piece. He's just bad to the bone.  Both these guys have just killed for the thrill of killing, just to say they could and no better reason and the Farley Granger character is as complicit but you get the feeling that he's being lead by the John Dall character, who thinks he's too clever to get caught but still wants to rub his actions in people's faces to the point of inviting their victims family to the party(!) Needless to say, Jimmy Stewart's Columbo routine throws a spanner on the works these guys's plans.
Another reason why Rope is recognised is because it'll go 10-15mins without cutting; all the action takes place on the same set but it's pedantic to say why when it does make cuts(purely for changing film reasons, I'm sure), they seem like the least subtle, most obvious cuts you'll ever see but that might just be me.
But like I say, Rope is the real deal. A classic film, in every sense and not particularly dated in many ways.
I know Don Simpson wouldn't have liked the name Rope, he would have found that too subtle and i know he wouldn't have suggested 'Box' but i'm sure he might have been vying for 'Chest', maybe...


I watched Rope (1948) on DVD, via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Going The Distance (2010)...

Strangers On A Train (1951)

I've not seen a lot of Hitchcock... 

but I've seen all the basic 'Hitchcock' - Psycho, The Birds, North By Northwest, Rear Window, et al.
I don't know why I've not endeavoured to watch Strangers On A Train before- I love the concept of strangers swapping prospective murr-derrs- seemingly the perfect crime. And I didn't realise it was based on the writing of Patricia Highsmith (The Talented Mr Ripley) so expectations are high…


The more you think about it, the more it does sound like an infallible plan- strangers swapping murders except we'd probably all rather die than talk to a stranger on a train. Or bus. Or plane.

But lets suspend disbelief- Bruno, a spoilt rich prig meets Guy, a semi-famous tennis player and strikes up conversation with him. Bruno seems quite blunt in his observations of and quite well-versed in Guy's private life via the papers but seems harmless enough until he shares his idea for the perfect murder. Bruno knows Guy's in a love with a senator's daughter and in the midst of a messy divorce, while Bruno would just rather be rid of his father. 
Guy agrees in theory that it's a good plan, if only to placate someone he'll never have to see again. 
But Bruno's already planning on how to off his new best friend's wife...

I'm afraid this will mostly be a tribute to the actor Robert Walker playing Bruno. I'll admit i love polymorphous bipolar sociopath dandys, but this guy is the poster boy- like Kenneth Tong-level sociopathy. He's just a great villain. The epitome of love-to-hate. He's like a foppish Wicked Witch of the West. They don't play his character as slowly deteriorating mentally through the course of events- we know he's unbalanced from 5mins in and everybody else knows after they've spoken to him. But he's allowed to continue because he's charming and looks perfectly normal. 
It kinda hard to think about the character without comparing him today's closest equivalent, Dexter. Not so much with Dexter (the character), but they both share this distinct asexuality like sex has been replaced by them by the fore-play of the cat-and-mouse games they play with their victims.
I mean we enjoy following him in the wonderful sprawling set-piece at a fairground, as he plans to kill Guy's wife but when he does get down to strangling her-it's just breathtakingly horrific. 
Another character i loved was Guy's prospective sister-in-law, Barbara. She has the plucky, screwball wit and naivety that you love of women in 40's and 50's movies. She just knows better than anyone else that there's something off about Bruno. She can just sense it. But then comes the best narrative choice, Bruno does begin to feel remorse for killing when he meets Barbara, who looks similar enough to Guy's wife...
The woman who plays Barbara, is just adorable and I just found out it was Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia!
Farley Granger, who plays Guy (and i say this with the best possible intent) is great at playing this great big doof. Guy's cute and sweet but he's really quite out of his depth, trying to deal with a Bruno; it's great seeing him struggle to vanquish this spikey well-kempt maniac. 
But in the end, it's great to see someone portray someone truly unhinged with poise in a 3 piece suit.

I watched Strangers On A Train (1951) on DVD via LoveFilm.

My 2011 in Movies will return with Teenage Paparazzo (2010)...