What do you think of Rope (1948)?

→ in
Tools    





Sure the film itself is a bit of a stunt (both the long shots and the fact it's done in real time), but thanks to the sure hands of Hitchcock, it's a well done stunt. I thought James Stewart excused himself nicely in a role that might have served as a predecessor for Columbo. And John Dahl and Farley Granger did fine as Leopold and Loeb, er Shaw and Morgan. A great deal of tension is wrung out of the film itself.

Like several others here, I think making Shaw and Morgan a gay couple was pretty bold for a film in the 1940s (although you could argue it was influenced by their real life counterparts). Brandon's smugness and coolness is contrasted by Philip's nervousness and guilty conscience. I guess what I'm saying is that these characters feel more realized than similar characters in other films.



I enjoyed it quite a bit. It's very experimental, but I think the long take and real time aspects of it worked to the film's advantage (in spite of the cuts between the long takes being distractingly noticeable) as they make it clear the body is still in the chest and was never moved. This helps the film remain suspenseful from start to finish.

I don't remember the two leads being a gay couple, but it's been years since I've seen it, so I may be misremembering.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd