MovieChat Forums > Rope (1948) Discussion > Fundamental flaws in ROPE (spoilers!)

Fundamental flaws in ROPE (spoilers!)

posted 8 years ago by Tilyou1
15 replies | jump to latest

The film makes strangely compelling watching (and even re-watching).

But the flaws are fundamental, among them:

-- why do the main characters boast they have committed the "perfect crime"? It is perfectly idiotic, with many possibilities for others to figure out that an invited guest actually arrived, or that it left later in a coffin-sized trunk.

-- even if killing "inferiors" was their motivation, or even what they thought was their motivation, their actions make no sense. All the characters acknowledge the victim was bright -- maybe the brightest among them. If anything, he was murdered out of jealousy for his superiority.

-- Rupert's sudden insight that murder is a bad idea is both bizarre and not believable. That speech by Stewart ("this is a nation of laws...") is perhaps the weakest in the entire film. And to the cops Rupert would be suspected of being involved.

-- the idea the crime was motivated partly to reestablish a relationship between Ken and Janet also makes no sense. The murderers don't seem to like either of them.

-- Brandon reminds Janet he dated her before she dated David or Ken. Did anyone believe that? Although at least that would have given Brandon a reason to knock off her current boyfriend.

Perhaps the movie is an illustration of how little plot and even character matter. Perhaps excellent acting and sometimes witty dialogue sometimes trump everything else. Well, almost.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

-- why do the main characters boast they have committed the "perfect crime"? It is perfectly idiotic, with many possibilities for others to figure out that an invited guest actually arrived, or that it left later in a coffin-sized trunk.

It's common in thriller for the killers to come up with a so-called "perfect crime", and then things start to go wrong (ex. Dial M For Murder). The killers think that they are so perfect and brilliant when in fact, they are anything BUT that. The plot Brandon and Philip came up with was a very poor one.

-- even if killing "inferiors" was their motivation, or even what they thought was their motivation, their actions make no sense. All the characters acknowledge the victim was bright -- maybe the brightest among them. If anything, he was murdered out of jealousy for his superiority.

Good point. He wouldn't have been a good candidate. I don't think they had any "inferiors" to choose from because they didn't know any. All the folks they knew were superior to them. They were two losers who killed out of jealousy.

-- Rupert's sudden insight that murder is a bad idea is both bizarre and not believable. That speech by Stewart ("this is a nation of laws...") is perhaps the weakest in the entire film. And to the cops Rupert would be suspected of being involved.

I think that Rupert was never serious about murder to begin with. He talked a lot, but it was just talk and nothing else. He had a very dark sense of humor, but he would never have acted on it. No reason for Rupert to be suspected. Brandon and Philip were the two killers.

-- the idea the crime was motivated partly to reestablish a relationship between Ken and Janet also makes no sense. The murderers don't seem to like either of them.

The murderers didn't like anyone except for themselves. Also, I don't think that they gave a hoot about whether or not Ken and Janet got back together. They just wanted to make life unpleasant for their guests. That's why they arranged it so that Ken and Janet would feel obligated to discuss their past issues. Ken and Janet handled the delicate situation with grace and dignity....which probably annoyed Brandon. I think he wanted to see more of a fight.

-- Brandon reminds Janet he dated her before she dated David or Ken. Did anyone believe that? Although at least that would have given Brandon a reason to knock off her current boyfriend.

It's possible that she dated him briefly, but soon saw that he was a creep and got rid of him. He was one evil jerk and she didn't want a guy like that. He probably turned on the charm when he first met her and she was in love (or so she thought).

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] rsgre 8 years ago

I agree that Rupert's speech at the end is weak and unconvincing. As one critic put it: "...realizing his ill chosen words had led to the murder, he shrugs off the blame with a curtain lecture on human values and summons the police...". Another critic, Robin Wood, a big Hitchcock fan, also questioned Rupert's sincerity and explanation at the end. If I came to a party and people were talking like that, I would leave, figuring they were all crazy !

RSGRE

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

The victim's father nearly left the party because of that sort of talk. The other guests gave up that topic of conversation once they saw that he was serious about leaving.

I disagree with the critics here. Couldn't they have figured out that Rupert had been BSing all these years with his theories?

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] Beau_Buffet 8 years ago

How to confuse movie flaws and characters flaws in one post. Bravo, well done.

[–] Tilyou1 8 years ago

The problem with Rope -- as a movie -- is the flaws I mentioned interfere with the suspension of disbelief (mine, anyway).

The scene where Rupert explains his sudden insight ("this is a nation of laws...") felt so phony it took me out of the movie. The problem is exacerbated by the fact it comes at the end -- when the suspension of belief should be at its strongest.

The problem is further exacerbated by the way the movie feels like a stage play -- and not in a good way. The gimmick of the long takes, the limited geography (mostly one room), the uniformly bright lighting also limit the degree to which it even feels like movie.

The comical reference to James Mason is another thing that takes the audience out of suspended disbelief. It's a bold reminder this is a *movie* and for the moment Rupert jokes about James Mason ("is he... good?") we are reminded this is movie and Rupert is James Stewart -- not a story to be lost in.

What really fascinates me is -- for all the things I consider flaws -- it's still a mesmerizing piece of work.

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

-- why do the main characters boast they have committed the "perfect crime"? It is perfectly idiotic, with many possibilities for others to figure out that an invited guest actually arrived, or that it left later in a coffin-sized trunk.

The perfect crime is the one where the criminal gets away with it. The party was a challenge, since they could be caught at any point. If they hadn't been, then it would've confirmed their status as the perfect criminals.

-- even if killing "inferiors" was their motivation, or even what they thought was their motivation, their actions make no sense. All the characters acknowledge the victim was bright -- maybe the brightest among them. If anything, he was murdered out of jealousy for his superiority.

Bright at what? Having the best grades? The killers felt being good at crime reflected more intelligence.

[–] RoseVioletDaisy 8 years ago

-- why do the main characters boast they have committed the "perfect crime"? It is perfectly idiotic, with many possibilities for others to figure out that an invited guest actually arrived, or that it left later in a coffin-sized trunk.

It is an idiotic plan. That they believe it's a perfect crime illustrates how arrogant they are and how little they understand how the world really works. They pretend to be supermen but they are anything but.

They intentionally risked getting caught for the thrill of getting away with it. Brandon is giddy at the prospect of outsmarting his guests, especially David's father, who he seems to have particular contempt for.

- even if killing "inferiors" was their motivation, or even what they thought was their motivation, their actions make no sense. All the characters acknowledge the victim was bright -- maybe the brightest among them. If anything, he was murdered out of jealousy for his superiority.

Projection. Brandon was obsessed with being superior to all but clearly felt that David was superior to him and without even trying. That jealousy is probably the real reason he killed him. He projected his feelings of inferiority onto David to justify killing him so he could pretend to be superior.

Rupert's sudden insight that murder is a bad idea is both bizarre and not believable. That speech by Stewart ("this is a nation of laws...") is perhaps the weakest in the entire film. And to the cops Rupert would be suspected of being involved.

I agree that the speech is weak but I don't think that Rupert had a sudden revelation that murder is wrong. He always knew it deep down and never expected his diatribes to be taken seriously as anything but intellectual exercises in school halls and at dinner parties. He liked to shock people and make them think but it was coldly theoretical for Rupert until he discovered that David was dead and that the plan for his murder began with one of his irresponsible musings.

[–] mdonln 7 years ago

RoseVioletDaisy says > Brandon was obsessed with being superior to all but clearly felt that David was superior to him and without even trying. That jealousy is probably the real reason he killed him.

This is what I thought while watching the movie too; especially after I heard that David's girlfriend once dated Brandon. He had his reasons for wanting David dead but he justified it using the inferior victim concept. He also used it to convince Philip to participate and to try to convince Rupert he had achieved something special.

I don't think that Rupert had a sudden revelation that murder is wrong. He always knew it deep down and never expected his diatribes to be taken seriously as anything but intellectual exercises in school halls and at dinner parties.

I agree. Rupert probably never imagined anyone would actually take him seriously. Being on this message board we have probably all commented on what a killer did wrong or what he should or could have done to cover up his crime. In most cases this is just a discussion about a movie plot. It's not an attempt to devise the 'perfect' crime or give would-be murderers ideas of what they should do. Hopefully no one actually takes what's said the wrong way but some weaker minds may do just that.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 7 years ago

Somehow, I don't think that Brandon was jealous that his ex-girlfriend was dating David. In fact, I don't think he really cared about that girl. He was a psycho, and all that he could think about was putting Rupert's theory into practice.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

[–] mdonln 7 years ago

MsELLERYqueen2 says > Somehow, I don't think that Brandon was jealous that his ex-girlfriend was dating David. In fact, I don't think he really cared about that girl. He was a psycho, and all that he could think about was putting Rupert's theory into practice.

Are you saying that because you read somewhere that Brandon and Philip were supposed to be gay? There was no sign of that in the movie so I don't accept it as valid.

Besides, I don't mean Brandon was jealous of David in the sense he wanted his ex-girlfriend back. In the conversation he had with her, he said she'd gone from him to Kenneth then from Kenneth to David. He added - because David had more money.

It's as if she was moving up in the world; trading in on boyfriend for a better one. Brandon may not have wanted her back for himself but he did make an attempt to push her back in Kenneth's direction. This isn't because he's a great guy trying to play matchmaker. I think it showed Brandon's negative feelings towards David.

David had things going for him that Brandon did not. I really believe he killed David because he felt inferior to him. By Rupert's theory, if he cast David as the inferior person, he could then exercise his 'right' to kill him off. As long as he could convince others of this and delude himself into thinking it, he wouldn't have to admit to himself that he was jealous and resentful of David.

Every time we hear about a so-called 'perfect' murder. The victim and the killer have absolutely no connection. If he was really just trying to pull off something like that he wouldn't have picked someone he clearly had issues with. There was definitely motive on his part.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 7 years ago

I think that Brandon and Philip might have been gay (or at least, bisexual). However, Brandon did date Janet (or whatever her name was), so I'll focus on that. (Any possible gay relationship isn't relevant here.)

Personally, I don't think he was really that resentful of her supposedly trading in one boyfriend for another. In fact, it's revealed in the film that Kenneth dumped HER, not the other way around. (Okay, Brandon didn't know that.) I think that Brandon was simply an evil guy who decided that David would be his victim. I mean, why didn't he pick Kenneth? Why not Janet? He could have picked David even for a simple reason like that his parents would be most likely to come to his party (and be in the same room as their dead son). Brandon wasn't exactly a logical thinker. He was an absolute psycho. I never really thought that the love triangle was a big factor in whom he chose to murder.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 6 years ago

There are tons of flaws. But its a 1948 film.

Art has flaws, all art.

[–] MIchiganJFrogg (-35) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] db20db (16209) 6 years ago

Probably the weakest, most implausible murder I've ever witnessed in a Hitchcock film, or any other film for that matter. Especially when compared to some of his others such as Frenzy and Torn Curtain where he goes to lengths to emphasize how difficult it is to murder someone when it's hands on, up close and personal. And then Rupert mentions near the end that David was known for being physically strong, which further reinforces that. What an absolutely disappointing way to begin a movie that has eluded me for a long time.

[–] KutWrite (1220) 5 years ago

You have several good points.

I think,though, the play, and this film from it, are meant to be critiques of movements active at the time (and today, though masked by political party veneer).

For one, the Eugenics movement held exactly the points Brandon and Philip espouse. Brandon of course represents the leadership and Philip the True Believers who unthinkingly follow.

The father and aunt represent the "old guard," comfortable in their position,and who even espouse some of the class separations of their offspring, but who bridle at the thought of actually implementing these for the "betterment" of "society."

Kenneth, Janet and David represent to me the "masses," the common people who learn to overlook or even accept the feigned superiority of those who would rule us unto death (e.g. the Draft).

Rupert I believe represents those who still cling to the fiction of "a nation of laws." A "nation" is just a gang turf which gets a pass on the morality and laws we mundanes must follow. It's run by psychos like Brandon who can realistically say "What laws?" That's why his speech rings hollow... it IS!

So for me, the play is effective. I don't take it to represent something that could happen in such a microcosm (though it could). I take it as representing what We, the People have been trained to accept as normal, but extrapolated a bit in practice. Just a bit.