And I thought it sucked balls. IMDb, while not exactly a legitimate source for film scholarship and criticism, lists Rope as one of the top 250 films. Ever. OK, so Hitchcock hardly cuts. But when he does it nearly always during a stupid and obvious dolly-in to a character's back. Ooo I hardly noticed that one, Alfred. Might as well have just had an obvious cut. Or turned the fricking lights off for a second.
That aside, I thought the scenario was a half-baked, incredibly contrived take on Crime and Punishment. Stewart was about the only actor who didn't annoy the hell out of me with over-the-top theatrical acting. The dialogue was generally just plain silly and melodramatic. Examples of Hitchcockian ingenuity were limited: a great moment where a character reveals the murder weapon just as a door swings open; the incredible 'real time' studio backdrop in which a sun goes down as the lights of "Manhatan" come on; the great blinking sign out the window that comes on just as the film hits its climax. But these were few and far between. Did any of y'all like this movie? I would love for someone to explain to me how this film could even compare to other Hitchcock classics (Rear Window is one of my favorite films ever) much less be considered a decent movie.
Leave it to Stewart to be the saving grace of a Hitchcock film. Isn't that melodrama (but in restrained quantities) what makes Hitchcock films so good? Maybe this is just a study into the excess that he learned to perfect. Why it's a top 250? I have no idea.
ReplyDelete