We’re back with another edition of Urban Legend: Fact or Fiction. In this chapter, we are going to take a look at the rumor that Alfred Hitchcock‘s 1948 psychological horror movie Rope was all filmed in one shot. Is it the real McCoy or just an exercise in skillful editing?
The Story Behind Rope
Rope pioneered the idea of a “one-shot film,” a movie recorded from start to finish in a single take. Or, like most cases, made to mimic this effect, and this is where Rope comes in.
Is it Real?
Normally we don’t do this part right off the bat, but there is such a huge elephant in the room in terms of plausibility we simply cannot ignore it. In 1948, movies were shot on film; the longest film reel you could get was 10-15 minutes. Rope has a runtime of an hour and 20 minutes, or 80 minutes in total. So at minimum the film has to have at least 7 cuts because of the limitations of the medium itself.
Now we can say myth busted and let’s all go home, or we could look at how and why this tale persists. Let’s start with why a one-shot film was and still is nearly impossible to pull off.
Why the One-Shot Film
Why do so many influential filmmakers like Hitchcock chase this goal? Well, bragging rights to start. Think about how many things have to come together to make a scene in a film work: acting, lighting, etc. Now imagine trying to get all of those components to work together perfectly for a continuous 80 or so minutes? Sounds impossible, right? Well, that’s because it pretty much is.
Most films, like Rope, are actually just a series of continuous long shots, which still aren’t always easy to pull off. However, to make the film feel like one continuous shot, directors will use masked cuts. For example, in Rope, the camera zooms in on a jacket or dark surface so closely that the whole frame becomes dark. Hitchcock did this intentionally towards the end of a reel of film. This also allowed for the reel to be changed and the action to continue without creating an obvious cut.
However, the movie also has at least 5 unmasked cuts (6 if you count opening credits) that do not use this technique. At the time, projectors needed reel changes every 20 minutes, and these edits sync up with these changes. Helping projectionist keep the reel changes in order. Given that these edits also change the camera setup, it does disrupt this illusion a bit. However, the fact that each is a it is a shot/reverse shot helps soften this a bit. As moviegoers, we unconsciously train ourselves to ignore cuts; as far as our brains are concerned, if it flows, it’s fine. And given that the movie only really has 5 noticeable cuts, it certainly flows.
The Viewer
Another reason directors strive for a one-shot film and longer shots is to keep the audience engaged with tension. With quick cuts, it can be harder to really focus on/relate to the action. Whereas longer scenes feel more like the viewer is in on the action since events are playing out in real time.
This is where Rope’s plot comes into play. The film is adapted from Patrick Hamilton’s 1929 stage play of the same name. And that is based on the real-life murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks in 1924 by Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. The duo was said to be inspired by the works of Friedrich Nietzsche to attempt to commit the “perfect murder.”
Rope centers on Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger), two college students who decide to murder their former prep school classmate David (Dick Hogan). In a bid to test their intellectual and moral superiority. But here is the thing: that’s how the film opens; David is strangled by a rope until dead. He is lifeless by 12-minutes in. That’s barely a thing for this kind of slow-burn thriller now, let alone in the 1940s.
And to add to that shock, the boys throw the body in a trunk before throwing a dinner party. In attendance are David’s girlfriend and father, as well as their former schoolmaster and mentor. The latter of which is played by Jimmy Stewart, and the boys cite the philosophy he showed them as the motivation for their crimes.
Audience & Accomplice
So as an audience, we have witnessed a murder. Then we proceed to watch his two killers bicker like a queer-coded old couple to plan a dinner party. Hitchcock’s use of long shots puts the audience into the real-time action taking place. Worse yeat went guests start arriving, we are effectively placed among the party guests. The only issue is, we know something that no one else does.
As you can imagine, it doesn’t take long for cracks to form in the resolve of two people egotistical enough to kill someone over classist reasons. Behavior that their guest interpret as odd makes perfect sense to us, and that dead body in the trunk is a perfect representation of the filmmaker’s famous quote about suspense.
The Boy’s a Time Bomb
“There is a distinct difference between “suspense” and “surprise,” and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I’ll explain what I mean.
We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let’s suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, “Boom!” There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table, and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o’clock, and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: ‘You shouldn’t be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you, and it is about to explode!’
In the first case, we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.”
The Body in Rope
We as the audience know David is dead and are now having to endure banal chit-chat when we know it will be found; it’s all a question of when. This is how Rope, mimicking a single shot, draws you in. Because showing the events in real time and moving the camera freely among the guests forces us to not only be accomplices to murder, but also unwilling party guests for the classiest elite. We honestly don’t know which is worse.
Of course everything falls apart in ways it would make no sense to spoil here, since if there is anything that could be considered an ‘underrated Hitchcock film it’s Rope. Join us next month for another edition of Urban Legend Fact or Fiction.
And just for the sake of continuity:
