+1
I'd like to offer my impressions despite having not seen it for some years. Reading what you've written has brought a good deal of it back to me. Overall I'd say it was good and one of my preferred Hitchcock films, as I typically like his 1940's stuff the most.
Firstly, I find the long camera takes to be particularly pleasing - I don't view it as a novelty at all - and think they're particularly effective in giving the impression of a live stage production, placing a significant emphasis on the script throughout. I think the camera moves around at a nice pace among the characters without being particularly noticeable or odd in any way. I think it was done very well, though probably not the sort of thing you'd do for every film. A refreshing change from the usual I'd say.
Additionally, I simply have an appreciation for the technical challenge involved, such as the constant re-arranging of the sets and intricate camera work, as well as admiration for the actors for being professional and versatile enough to carry it off. Cinematographer Jack Cardiff reckoned it one of his greatest achievements when he was asked to use the same method for Hitchcock's Under Capricorn.
Secondly, I've always been impressed by the look of the colour cinematography. At least on my copy (which comes off a tape), everything seems really well balanced and pleasing to my eye, as opposed to the typical 1950's Technicolor which is typically much stronger and more heavily saturated which I tend not to like as much. Somehow I've tended to have the impression that '40s colour just looks better to me.
Getting to the script, I do find it refreshing to see Hitchcock doing something a bit quieter and slower paced than his usual heavy suspense and high drama style. Of course, this isn't the only one by far and I'm not knocking the classic style that he's famous for, other than I do tend to find it a bit repetitive and so appreciate when he does something a bit different.
What it lacks in drama I think it makes up for in controversy, and by that I refer to what I see as the very obvious homosexual context of the relationship between the characters of Brandon and Phillip. This is the main theme of the movie, subdued and never overt as it had to be for those times, but always there and presented as an element or related factor for many of the traits and actions committed, mostly by Brandon, such as: the psychopathic tendencies, excitement of violence, domination, manipulation, jealousy of other men, all culminating in the opening murder scene and the rest of the plot to play out. Furthermore the general aloofness and distrust towards women. This is all what I took the majority of the script to be about and shows once again Hitchcock exploring themes that his audiences might find unsettling, though I suspect that some elements may have been a little too subtle for many to pick up on.
Finally with the script, I simply see the James Stewart character, Rupert, as kind of the straight man in the setting - the one all of the audience is going to trust and observe with the other characters revolving around him. He's the central character, notwithstanding he doesn't really have that much of a role. I find that the script for his character at the end leaves a bit to be desired and that more could have been done. Then again, perhaps that was the intent.
Casting wise, no complaints. I think they all played their roles well and I don't think generally speaking other actors would have made much of a difference, due to the film being so heavily emphasised on the script.
Lastly, a question I'm asking myself now as I think about the film (as I said it's been a while since I've seen it), but is this one of those films with no music throughout except in the credits and what's supposed to be natural in the film, like pianos, records and such? I don't remember any music and Hitchcock was often known to like his dramatic scores. Interesting concept if so, one used by a reasonable number of films of that time, mostly b-grade noirs looking for realism, and kind of adds to that stage-like production again in being minimalist with the impression of a real life drama.
So yes, I enjoy the film and whilst I wouldn't rate it as one of his best, I do appreciate a lot of the very unique elements presented which set it apart from most other films. If I had to give it some kind of score, I'd probably go 4/5. And that's based on the kind of film they wanted to make, in the time and place where it was made, and perhaps what they could have done better. Thanks for making me think of it. Guess I'd better watch it soon and see just how wrong I've been about it all. . . cheers, lol.