Talk:Rope (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Okay, both the infobox and the IMDb say he was uncredited as producer, which contradicts the opening paragraph. Which is correct? sjorford (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Trivia Hitchcock's Cameo

Some people believe that Hitchcock has a cameo walking down the street at the beginning of Rope. AFAIK most Hitchcock scholars do not believe that is him. However, it is indisputable that he has a cameo by his caricature appearing in red neon outside the apartment window with the word Reduco appearing below it. There are several times that it can be spotted throughout the movie. There's a poor screenshot here http://www.daveyp.com/hitchcock/cameos/cameo43.html where it has been highlighted. A production drawing for the sign has survived and was featured in a gallery at a Hitchcock Film Retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City in April 1999. Hitchcock himself also mentioned the sign in a 1948 Popular Photography article reproduced in the book Hitchcock on Hitchcock: Selected Writings and Interviews edited by Sidney Gottlieb. His cameo is dicussed in two paragraphs on page 282, the most relevant part of which is where he states "The Hitchcock countenance will appear in a neon 'Reduco' sign on the side of a miniature building!" Schizombie 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just watched this and I studied the opening segment very closely and I've got to agree, I don't believe he's in that street shot at all.Lugnuts 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clearly indicated affair??

I dispute the statement in the first paragraph of the "Homoeroticism" section, "The film clearly indicates that the two murderers in the film were having an affair." While such an arrangement is certainly implied, it is certainly not clearly indicated. It is left vague, whether intentionally to escape censorship or as an accidental byproduct of those efforts. The viewer can take or leave it, although it certainly informs the performances. We all know now that the intent was to depict the characters as gay, but this doesn't really come out (no pun intended) on screen. Watch the film again: if Dall's performance were repeated today, mannerism for mannerism, the modern viewer would certainly agree that he's openly gay, but by the standards of the time he would simply be seen as "somewhat effete" (one can almost picture a 20-year-old George Sanders in the role); Granger's performance is not far removed from that in Strangers on a Train in which his character was demonstrably heterosexual; the relationship between the Dall and Granger characters appears to be that of an amoral manipulator and his high-strung, paranoid and easily led protege. The only thing clearly indicated is that they are long-time friends who don't get along terribly well who are bound together by their needs to manipulate/be manipulated. Is this meant as some ugly sterotype of a same-sex couple? If not, then it's not "clearly indicated" that they are one, but only implied by other aspects of the relationship and open to viewer interpretation -- it's one possible subtext, but not the only possible one. If no one disagrees, I want to change the wording of the sentence to reflect this. I'm not denying that the characters were gay -- we know a posteriori that that was the intent -- I'm disputing that it is an obvious or necessary interpretation of the film. Canonblack 21:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Schizombie 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Celluloid Closet is a 1995 documentary on the depiction of homosexuality in cinema from the silents to current (1995) times. Farley Granger, who is a homosexual, discusses this film along with Strangers on a Train. It's worth a viewing to hear his opinions on the subject of homosexuality in both films.

Philbertgray 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chain-smoking.

"Throughout the movie, Brandon and Rupert chain smoke."

This is pretty trivial, even for trivia. It is not telling you anything you can't see for yourself. Also, they do not literally "chain-smoke", that is, light each succeeding cigarette off the still-burning end of the preceding (although Captain Renault does just this in Casablanca) -- they just smoke a lot, like a lot of characters did in movies of this era. It's filler. Delete it.

[edit] $1.5 million budget

Is there a source for the film having a $1.5 million budget? Hitchcock was known as a very economic director, and I don't see him spending 1.5 million dollars on a one-room shoot. I've also read that the film cost only around $5,000. If the 1.5 million figure can't be confirmed, it should be deleted.

The camera they used was the first camera to shoot in color and it cost more then a house so it was way more then $5,000.

  • The budget figure is shown in IMDB as $1,500,000. Even in 1948 $5,000 dollars would barely cover the cost of a few prints of the film. Philbertgray 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a better picture

How stupid is it that the phrase "This was Hitchcock's first color film" is directly beside a black and white photo? Could someone get a color version of the same scene? --SeizureDog 22:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Replaced black and white shot with color shot from film Philbertgray 12:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I still see the old black-and-white photo, even when I refresh the page in an attempt to clear the old cache. Yet when I click on the thumbnail, it shows the full-size colour image. Is it just me? David L Rattigan 12:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm - I see the color thumbnail on the page and the larger picture when I click. Try emptying your Cache file and opening page again. you don't have any funny "cigarettes" laying around do you?  :-) Philbertgray 13:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I reloaded file under a new name. I saved it on my mac and may have saved it with a designation the mac accepts but PCs do not. Try it again. BTW I just threw out all of my funny "cigarettes" Philbertgray 13:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Can see it fine now. Don't have any funny cigarettes, but if you're offering... ;) David L Rattigan 13:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homoeroticism correct heading

I'm not sure homoertoicism is the correct heading for the section as it implies arousal based on homosexuality presented in film. It would seem to me "Homosexual subtext" or something along that line would be more appropriate, unless of course one gets off on "man on man" murder :-) Philbertgray 12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please clean up the mess in the fifth paragraph after the heading "Plot"? It should basically be deleted and replaced with a heading "Filming" as the text repeats. I'd do it myself but I'm not a very experienced editor and I don't want to make a mess of the layout. Steven J. Anderson 09:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it. Someone just check my work, please.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/p/Talk%7ERope_%28film%29_c963.html"