Introduction
Alfred Hitchcock has for long been associated with the production and directorship of world-renown films- remaining one of the most influential filmmakers of the 21st Century, more than 25 years after his demise. His movies, books, and essays elicit great admiration from readers and viewers all over the world, becoming a source of great inspiration for many as they wait for his next movie or book. His use of expressionism, as is exhibited in most of his films, depicts a clear combination of the individual characters’ aesthetic decisions as well as the specific, pre-determined resources. According to Fabe, Hitchcock maintains an experimental capacity for editing or montage to give a keen emotional, social, or political impression as he tells his narrative while paying close attention to the way photographic effects create a psychological expressiveness in the minds of the audience.
In the 1948 movie, Rope, highly acclaimed as “one of the most interesting experiments ever attempted by a major director working with big box-office names,” Hitchcock uses stylistic movements to depict the thoughts and feelings of his two major protagonists through the use of both spatial and formal methods. Throughout the movie, expressionism evades its mere simple definition, creating a central impulse as it tries to depict the emotional states of its characters, a distorted society, and a deformed reality.
Analysis
Alfred Hitchcock is looked upon as one of the all-time great directors, mainly remembered for a well-established system of suspense that most of the upcoming directors, in different eras, have closely tried to emulate. He has held noteworthy information from his audience that has over time captured their attention and allowed them to keenly connect with the film. In the movie “Rope,” Hitchcock was able to bring together two major human characteristics that are regarded as evil in the common society.
He introduces homoeroticism which is an extremely controversial subject matter, as was mainly in the 1940s, since those involved and were against homosexuality would refer to the act as “it’ and others would give it several symbolic names. There are two young men that are friends and they decided to share an apartment and, as time goes, their friendship matures and takes a different direction of homosexuality. American culture is clearly depicted in that, no matter how hard the society may despise the act, it has been in existence and all those willing practices it comfortably. The romantic relationship between “Dall and “Granger,” the two main characters, portray their social identity based on their appeal of attraction to each other despite them being of the same gender (Freedman and Millington 46). Dall and Grander hold themselves with great and exceptional regard. They considered themselves intellectually better in comparison to their former classmate David.
It is interesting that throughout the film, it is never explicitly shown whether or not Rupert or any one of the other characters is in fact a homosexual, or whether any of the other characters are aware of each others’ status. Here, Lawrence would argue that the characterization of a person is not in what they do in their homes but in the outward perception that others have of the said person. The sexuality of the characters is only known to themselves, indicating that, in most cases, people are not willing to reveal their deepest, personal secrets. Lawrence’s main claim throughout the essay is that the American male is typically unrevealing to others, and thus, “what is done in private becomes a true depiction of who you are” (Freedman and Millington 44). It raises questions that cannot be readily answered “repeatedly raising the question of manhood and issues concerned with masculine identity…with their accompanied double meanings and outright ambiguity” (Freedman and Millington 49).
After getting incite from their prep-school house “Stewart,” who from time to time would elaborate the “rational” concept of the “perfect murder” (Freedman and Millington 58). Stewart explains the intricate details of how murder can be changed from an act of violence to be a “work of art” that is used to express to the victim the superiority of the other person (Freedman and Millington 58). Though Stewart does not really advocate that his friends up and start committing murder, clearly indicated when he shoots in the air severally after finding the body of David in the huge antique wooden chest so as to attract the attention of the police, Dall and Grander use that as an inspiration and an excuse to commit murder with a rope. Rudely they call for a party to their house where they have the dead body of their friend, using the chest that the body is hidden in to serve the buffet. Additionally, they ignorantly invite members of the now-dead David’s family to the party, presumably to increase the tension in the room. In one instance, Brandon says that “I’ve always wished for more artistic talent….The power to kill can be just as exciting as the power to create” (Freedman and Millington 60).
The character of Jimmy Stewart as is depicted in the film serves to allegorize the character of the American male in a way that people are inherently bound to find out the truth about them. As the film opens, he discloses that it would be hypocritical of him to disapprove of anyone committing murder as he has himself already killed. Glibly, Rupert recommends murder as “an art; not one of the seven lively perhaps, but an art, nevertheless. And as such, the privilege of committing it should be reserved for those few who are really superior individuals” (Freedman and Millington 64). However, during the final minutes of the film as he undergoes some trying moments, he denounces what he had previously agreed with, assisting with the realization that although he was a soldier championing for the legality of murder, he now finds himself a “soldier who stands in opposition to Brandon and Philip” (Freedman and Millington 69). After the body of David is discovered he regrettably recoils saying to the two protagonists, “you’ve given my words a meaning I never dreamed of and you’ve tried to twist them into a cold and logical excuse for your ugly murder” (Freedman and Millington 70). After this discovery, Rupert is now disgusted both with himself, for his prior beliefs, and his students, saying to them “did you think you were God” (Freedman and Millington 70). This scene serves to allegorize the symbol of a character who is not aware of his own beliefs and values, not certain with what exactly they hold dear to their own hearts.
American hospitality is portrayed when Dall Grander invited his friends for a party though for all the wrong reasons. Their strong urge for superiority is highlighted richly in the movie where they made yet another stupid move still in the intent of showing they can, where they tied several books they rendered to the father of David with the same rope they had used to strangle his son with. Hitchcock’s film thus parallels the Nietzsche idea of committing murder simply for the sake of committing the act, with total disregard to the crime or the punishment thereafter.
Conclusion
Different American’s behaviors are well conveyed in this story as emphasizes the things that happen in society but yet they are denied that they could be happening especially in that heightened level. We saw display the movie display the attraction of men to other men a behavior that is socially unacceptable; there is also the killing merely for the thrill of it. A scenario where two young men consider themselves superior creatures that can do anything just because they can, also for their inner satisfaction.
Works Cited
Freedman, Jonathan and Millington, Richard H. Hitchcock’s America. London: Oxford University Press, 1999.