Rope Review

Rope   

Director/Studio/Author: Alfred Hitchcock/Warner Brothers/Hume Cronyn

Original release date: 1948

DVD release date: June 20, 2006

Format, Genre and length: DVD/Psychological Thriller/80 minutes

Publisher/Industry Age Rating: NR

Overall Personal Rating: ★★★★★

Two young men, Philip (Farley Granger) and Brandon (John Dall) strangle a former classmate, David, because they can. They hide his body in a trunk in their apartment, on the same night that they are giving a dinner party—one that includes the victim’s parents. If this weren’t macabre enough, they decide to move the dinner from the dining table to the trunk, so that everyone is feasting off David’s grave.

Amongst the guests are David’s current girlfriend, Janet, and her former boyfriend, Kenneth, David’s father and his sister-in-law, and Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), former housemaster of the three youths.

Rope is Hitchcock’s take on Leopold and Loeb, the 1924 murder in which two wealthy, privileged young men kill a boy in order to commit the perfect crime. He didn’t reproduce the crime but rather the flavor of the crime, including their fascination with the theories of Fredrick Nietzsche.

In the film, Rupert unwittingly expounds on that theory, of the idea that the privileged few are allowed to get murder, which Brandon eagerly takes up and agrees with. When asked who should be the special few, Brandon replies himself, and Philip and maybe Rupert.

The film is told in typical Hitchcock suspenseful fashion, the audience often becoming privy to things that the characters don’t know. Such as when the housekeeper, Mrs. Wilson, begins to clear the meal from the trunk, including the two candelabra, while the others are engaged in conversation. The camera follows Mrs. Wilson in her seemingly mundane task,  made morbid only by the knowledge of what is in the trunk. The audience is held in suspense, wondering if she will open the trunk and see what is there.

The story flows from beginning to end without a moment of lag or boredom. Of the two young murderers, Brandon is the brash one with the devil may care attitude, while Philip has more of a conscience over what they’ve done. Philip is more fearful of being caught, while you get the impression, Brandon could talk his way out of anything, and probably has on more than one occasion.

I had heard of Rope a long time ago, but didn’t know anything about it, and made no effort to

watch it until I discovered that it was indeed based on Leopold and Loeb, and then it become a must-see for me. I’ve watched it twice already, and love it. Everything takes place in their apartment, as if it were a play. Not surprising, considering that Rope started as a play first.

What I find particularly fascinating is the pink elephant in the room that everyone is aware of and no one talks about. Namely, homosexuality. The clues are there. Philip and Brandon are obviously a couple and everyone treats them that way. They have one bedroom. They vacation together, as if it were only natural. Their interactions are of the intimate variety. Philip talks of being scared of Brandon, even when they were in prep school, and then admits it’s part of Brandon’s charm.

But not once in the film will you hear the subject mentioned in any way. Hitchcock pushed the envelope without appearing to do so. He was fascinated with the protagonists not because they were homosexuals, but because they were murdering homosexuals.

There is an extra on the DVD called Rope Unleashed that is well worth watching.

I can only think of two flaws off the top of my head. One is a continuity error, the other an error in casting.

There’s a scene where a tense Philip clutches his champagne glass too tightly and shatters it cutting his hand, bleeding well enough to need to bind it with his handkerchief. Yet, only a few minutes later, when David’s aunt takes his hand in order to read his future, both hands are unblemished.

James Stewart is, in my opinion, miscast as Rupert Cadell, the former housemaster. I didn’t realize, until I watched Rope Unleashed, that the character had an affair with one of the young men (my guess is Brandon), but you never get a feel for that. I love Jimmy Stewart, but I didn’t feel the connection there. He didn’t make me feel his guilt for teaching them Nietzsche to begin with.  Also, his role didn’t warrant his receiving top billing. Farley Granger and John Dall should have had that. If this had been made now, Jimmy would have received a mention at the end of the regular cast, such as And Jimmy Stewart as Rupert Cadell.

The action is all psychological as we get into the heads of the killers, and watch the

unsuspecting guests at their little affair. Waiting to see who, if anyone, will figure out what is wrong, especially when David never shows up for dinner. Of course, we the audience know why that is.

This is a great addition to Hitchcock’s legacy, and one I intend to watch over and over.

Compulsion (1959 film) Review

Compulsion   

Director/Studio/Author: Richard Fleischer/20^th Century Fox/Meyer Levin, Richard Murphy

Original theatrical release date: 1959

DVD release date: May 23, 2006

Format, Genre and length: DVD/Film Noir/103 minutes

Publisher/Industry Age Rating: NR

Overall Personal Rating: ★★★★★

Compulsion is the fictionalized account of the crime of the century—the kidnapping and murder of a young boy by two bored and wealthy young geniuses—which led to the trial of the century in which one of the most famous attorneys ever argued for their lives. This is the film version of that book, which came out in 1959, the year after Nathan Leopold (aka Judd Steiner) was paroled and released from prison.

Having recently acquired an interest in Leopold and Loeb, and having read and reviewed the book Compulsion, it seemed only natural that I should watch and review the film with a critical eye toward seeing how well the book was translated onto the screen. I must say it was done very well.

We first meet Judd Steiner (Dean Stockwell) and Artie Straus (Bradford Dillman) as they are

gallivanting about in Judd’s Stutz Bearcat and Artie tries to run down a drunken man who’s walking down the road. This sets the tone, not only for the film, but for their relationship. Judd grabs the wheel and averts the potential murder, so Artie tells him to drive (keep in mind, it is Judd’s car), and then orders him to run the bum down. Judd comes close, but at the last moment swerves, which angers Artie. To keep peace, Judd swears he’ll do anything Artie wants. Anything. And although we don’t know it yet, a murder is about to be born.

Martin Milner (later famed for his role in Adam 12, among other things) plays Sid Brooks (a fictional character, based on Meyer Levin), a fellow student at the university with Judd and Artie, and a fledgling reporter for the newspaper. Chance involves him in the case, and also his girl Ruth, who develops a relationship with Judd and later testifies at the trial.

This is a very faithful adaptation of the novel and captures the flavor of it very well. The cocksure attitude of the young geniuses who took the life of a young boy because they could, and to prove that such a thing could be done with great deliberation and no emotional involvement. We never see the victim, not even in the morgue, nor do we get a real sense of who he was. These things were not shown back then, too graphic. Today, I’m sure there would be a lot more gruesome scenes, but the film does not suffer for lack of them.

They came close to getting away with their crime, but a pair of eyeglasses was the crack in the facade that became the first clue, and that ultimately led to them. E.G. Marshall plays the prosecutor, Horn, who is determined to see these two boys hang for what they’ve done, despite their tender ages—18 and 19—and despite the fact that never has the state put to death anyone below the age of 21.

The boys’ very wealthy parents hire the best attorney they can find—Jonathan Wilk (Clarence

Darrow, in real life)—flawlessly played by Orson Welles. In a brilliant ploy, Wilk withdraws their plea of not guilty and changes it to guilty, with mitigating circumstances, thus eliminating the trial by jury. And despite the best efforts of the prosecutor, he does not plead insanity, as that would bring the jury back in. And as he explains to the boys’ parents, he’d rather plead for their lives before one man, the judge, than twelve, in the form of the jury.

Welles’ performance is riveting. Despite being very familiar with him as an actor, his persona disappears and he becomes Wilk/Darrow, and his very eloquent summation speech is some of his finest work. That is the hallmark of a great actor, when you stop seeing the man, and only see the character.

Although physically I thought the main characters were mis-cast, as Dean Stockwell resembled Artie more, and Bradford Dillman Judd, in terms of performance, they got the nuances of the characters down pat. Artie, the effervescent know-it-all who dominates Judd, and has to be in on everything, including “helping” the police with the case. The quieter, more introspective Judd, who allows Artie to control him.

What you won’t see in the movie that isin the book, and what is barely hinted at in the film (and you really need to be looking for it to catch it) is the true nature of the relationship between Judd and Artie, namely that they were lovers. Any mention of what the book presents has been excised, probably due to the sensibilities of the times. I don’t think it would have played well, and probably would have muddied the waters. Today? Another story altogether.

One comment on the opening music—although probably good for its time, now it sounded to me very 50ish and jarring, but perhaps that was the effect the composer was going for. It’s jazzy and discordant, so maybe that’s the right feel for two young men out of step with society.

Look for Richard Anderson (Six Million Dollar Man) as Judd’s bossy older brother Max. And a young Gavin MacLeod (Captain Steubing on the Love Boat) as Horn’s assistant.

Also on the DVD were the theatrical trailer and a teaser and two trailers from other Fox films—St. Valentine’s Day Massacre (Jason Robards Jr) and Murder Inc. (Stuart Whitman and Peter Falk).

One last comment on the film. As I said before, Judd was just beginning a relationship with Ruth Evans, who was Sid Brooks’ girl, and I think that goes a long way to show his innate humanity, as opposed to Artie and his black book, his love ’em and leave ’em philosophy. There is a very intense scene between Judd and Ruth in the film.

On the whole, I was very pleased with the film, and highly recommend it.

Compulsion Review

Compulsion  

Author: Meyer Levin

Publisher: Carroll and Graf Publishers

American release date: April 1996

Format/Genre/Length: Novel/Psychological Thriller/412 pages

Publisher/Industry Age Rating: NR

Overall Personal Rating: ★★★★★

At the time, it was touted as the crime of the century. In 1924, a child named Bobby Franks was kidnapped and held for ransom. His family was a wealthy one, and willing to pay what it would take to have Bobby returned unharmed. But even before the final ransom arrangements were made, Bobby was already dead. What was even more shocking was the identity of his killers—two young men, both geniuses, both born into privilege and wealth, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. Their story has been fictionalized and told in this novel by Meyer Levin.

In this retelling of their story, Leopold and Loeb become Judd Steiner and Artie Straus. They are both boy geniuses, and at the tender ages of seventeen and eighteen had already graduated from college. Compulsion is narrated by reporter Sid Silver, who is a fictionalized version of author Meyer Levin, who actually knew Leopold and Loeb. It begins with Sid accidentally being drawn into the case of the kidnapped boy, and follows the story through what was called the Trial of the Century,  when Steiner and Straus’s parents paid for the best legal defense money could buy, in the form of Jonathan Wilk (in real life, Clarence Darrow).

Prior to reading the novel, I’d known about the case for a long time, having an acute interest in murder, and especially in famous murders in history. But I’d never read much about it, and had thought it wasn’t a very interesting story.

How very wrong I was.

From the beginning of the novel, I found myself riveted by this tale. Levin brought to bear both his knowledge of the young men and his skills as a storyteller to weave a fascinating indepth psychological study of the two young men who killed Bobby Franks as nothing more than an intellectual exercise. We follow them as they make their ransom demands, despite the fact that Bobby is already dead, meticulously planning every step so that nothing can go wrong. When Bobby’s body is discovered before the ransom is delivered, things start to go wrong, but even so, they are sure that nobody can trace the crime back to them. Very cocksure they are. So much that Artie sticks his nose into the investigation, constantly demanding to know what’s going on.  And while Artie swaggers and postures, Judd begins an odd sort of relationship with Sid’s girlfriend.

Ultimately, Judd and Artie are caught and they confess and are put on trial, which is when the parents arrange for Wilk to defend them. Not to free them, but to fight for their lives. Everyone expects them to plead insanity, but Wilk doesn’t go that route. He doesn’t want to have a jury trial, calculates that he has a better chance of convincing one man—the judge—that these young men deserve to live, rather than twelve. If he declares them insane, then it automatically becomes a matter for the jury.

I was riveted from the start by their story. What was especially considered shocking at the time in which this took place was the relationship between Judd and Artie, who were not just best friends, but lovers. Homosexuality was far from accepted then and there. So much so that the boys were forced to hide their relationship in order to avoid the censure of their families as well as their friends, and society as a whole. One time they were caught together in flagrante, and the boy who caught them told, which was particularly hard on them. Their parents separated them. From that time, they made a pact between them concerning their relationship and knew they had to hide it.

At first, once the truth of their relationship came to light after the confession to the crime, everyone assumed that Judd was the mastermind, that he called the shots between them, but this was far from the case. Judd was the follower, Artie the leader. It was Artie that actually killed the boy, and not the first time he’d committed such a crime. That being the case, one has to wonder if these two had not become such fast friends, introduced by their families because each was a bit of a loner and they had a great deal in common, would Bobby Franks have been allowed to live a long and natural life?  We’ll never know.

I also have to wonder if Judd and Artie were not forced to hide their relationship, if they could have been open about it, and not subject to societal scorn and derisions, perhaps they could have channeled their energies into more productive outlets.

I was especially drawn to Judd, for he is undoubtedly the more sympathetic of the two boys. Left to his own devices, I don’t think he would have gotten into trouble. He was an avid birdwatcher, and actually discovered a species believed to be extinct. But the combination of these two boys, who were so advanced for their ages intellectually yet not so much emotionally, was a dangerous one. If it’s possible to fall in love with a fictional character, I fell for Judd/Nathan Leopold.

In school, both Judd and Artie studied Nietszche, and I can see where they came to embody his philosophy of the Superman—one who is so knowledgeable concerning life and people that he is above ordinary laws, because he knows what is best. I think Judd and Artie saw themselves in the same way. They bore no animosity toward Bobby Frank. In fact, it was dumb luck that he was chosen to be their victim.

There is so much depth to this novel. I loved it from beginning to end. Watching Jonathan Wilk/Clarence Darrow defend them was amazing. This was his last big case, and he went out with a bang.

The real Artie Straus/Richard Loeb was killed in prison in 1936. Judd/Nathan Leopold was paroled in 1958, and went on to marry and move to Puerto Rico, where he died in 1971. A visitor to his home remarked on the fact that there was a very prominent picture of Richard Loeb there. That speaks volumes to me.

The Hop Against Homophobia Continues - Last Day

 

Today's the last day of the Hop Against Homophobia, but of course, the struggle continues. There always seems to be something or someone that society is against, isn't there? As if people can't be happy unless they're unhappy about something or someone. It's like they need a focus for their hate, to draw attention from their own inadequacies. Gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage? Give me a break! Gay marriage has no effect on heterosexual marriages, any more than the reverse is true. Do you think gay people would blame straights for the failure of their marriages? Of course not, the notion is absurd. Why, you might as well blame other straight people. The truth is that marriage is what two people make of it. Success is not guaranteed - you have to work at it. That's all gay people want - the chance to work at their marriages and relationships. The same rights everyone should enjoy. What makes straight people special? Not a damn thing.

I have no doubt that one day gay marriage will be as accepted as straight, and people won't thinking anything of it, and generations to come will wonder what all the fuss is about, even as today's generation doesn't understand why there was ever a fuss about interracial marriage. Each generation is more understanding than the one before. But that does nothing for those gay people who would like to be married now, to live their own brand of happily ever after. Why should they have to wait for the tolerance of society? There's no earthly reason why they should.

If you haven't made the rounds yet, you can still do so by going here.  

I have recently been reading about an old murder case, one which was considered the Crime of the Century

in its time, followed by the Trial of the Century. Two young men from wealthy families, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, kidnapped and murdered Bobby Franks, not for the money but to commit the perfect crime. The only reason they weren't hung is because their parents, being very wealthy and influential in 1924 Chicago, hired the best attorney money could buy - Clarence Darrow. He pled their case before a judge, no jury, and got them life plus ninety-nine years.

I have become rather obsessed with this case of late, having recently read Compulsion, by Meyer Levin (which I'll review later). It's the fictionalized account of this crime, and is a fascinating psychological study. I especially was fascinated by Judd Steiner/Nathan Leopold. There are many complex reasons for why these young men did what they did, which I'll expound on in my review, including their Nietzschean beliefs. But the one I want to speculate on here concerns their relationship to one another - Leopold and Loeb.

They were lovers, yes. They were homosexual. Perhaps they were a combustive combination. Perhaps if they hadn't gotten together, this crime would never have been committed. I don't believe Nathan would have done it, not on his own. Although at first, he was perceived to be the ringleader in their relationship, the instigator, it was later realized that was not the case. Although Nathan appeared to be the stronger of the two, it was Loeb who called the shots.

But I have to wonder something. They went to great pains to conceal their relationship because of societal

pressures and censure. Just imagine if they had been free to be open and frank about who they were. Is it possible they could have channeled their energies into something more productive?


If you force people to subvert their natural instincts, aren't you doing more harm than good? Something to think about.






I think the important thing here is that people should be free to love. No one has the right to pass judgment on that, and no one should. Don't be afraid of love, embrace it.

Don't forget about my contest.  Three people will receive their choice from my back list, and one will get a $10 Amazon GC. You just have to follow my blog, leave an email address and answer this question - who is my most recent obsession?

Go forth and love, and be happy!

Until next time, take care!

♥ Julie