A Length of Rope

Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 thriller Rope is one of his most curious films: the murder happens right at the beginning, so there's no whodunit aspect. The killers are obviously hiding something; their actions scream suspicion, although it's difficult to judge them as being anything but suspicious, since we know they did it. The biggest draw of the film is that Hitchcock attempted to make it seem as though Rope was filmed in one continuous, real-time shot, a trick that might have worked save for a handful of cuts and awkward shots that go into a close-up of a character's back, and then reverse out.

Awkward is actually a good word for Rope. The film doesn't work very well as a real thriller, and it's hard to buy nice-guy everyman Jimmy Stewart as a believer in the art of murder. Even the gimmick of the continuous shot falls a bit flat, making the whole film seem too stagey. To be fair, it was Hitchcock's intent to make the film seem more like a stage production than a typical Hollywood production, but this works slightly against the film's favor rather than for it.

It's a stiff film. You can definitely sense the tight choreography the actors had to perform in filming ten minute takes around an enormous, constantly moving camera and set. Stewart, as Rupert Cadell, is quite out of his element here, and his performance shows how uncomfortable he seemed with the role of the killers' former headmaster, who inadvertently sells them on the idea of murder. He plays the part more detective than anything, and his turn at the end when he finds what his teachings have brought about seems far too abrupt to be believable.

John Dall as Brandon, the braggart of the two killers, overplays his hand quite a bit here. Everything about him screams "HE DID IT," which is kind of the point. He clearly wants to show off his perfect murder; although he tries very hard to keep calm, he's positively giddy with excitement. However, it's difficult to watch the other characters seem so oblivious. Not to mention, the character is pretty much an asshole. He isn't likable in any respect, not even possessing the charm so many of the other characters attribute to him.

The film's real highlight is Farley Granger as Phillip, who is much more fidgety and visibly upset than Brandon. However, he seems far more sympathetic, as we get the impression that he's so enamored of Brandon that he's been somewhat unwillingly caught up in this murderous game, even though he is the one who commits the actual deed. Indeed, the characters of Brandon and Phillip are based upon Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, two University of Chicago students who murdered 14-year-old Bobby Franks in what they thought was the "perfect crime," and who were also lovers.

Rope tones down much of the homosexual subtext of the original stage play, mostly to keep the Motion Picture Production Code authorities at bay. although it's still clear that Phillip and Brandon have a relationship that goes beyond friendship. Also toned down, to the point of being non-existent, is the fact that Cadell is also gay. Indeed, upon hearing that his character is gay, Stewart was surprised, much to screenwriter Arthur Laurents' delight.

Something that was not to Laurents' delight, however, was the fact that Hitchcock made the decision to show the murder at the beginning of the film. The screenwriter had wanted much of the film's suspense to ride on the fact that the audience didn't know for sure if there was a body in the book-chest or not. It certainly would have given a far different tone to the film, and likely made the two killers far more intriguing characters, rather than them being just smug or pathetic.

Overall, Rope isn't the worst of Hitchcock's films, but it isn't one of his greatest either. It exists mostly as a curiosity, an exercise in form, with a few touches of his signature black humor throughout - the idea of celebrating a murder and serving a feast on the victim's coffin is darkly amusing - but overall, it's far too uneven to be considered a masterpiece.

Doubling Down: A KFC Adventure

Well, folks. Someone out there has to take one for the team, and why not me? Today's adventure is the Double Down from KFC.

I first heard about KFC's latest abomination a couple weeks ago, when they revealed that yes indeed they were legitimately going to be selling the sandwich made of two boneless chicken breast fillets, pepper jack cheese, two strips of bacon and something called the "Colonel's Sauce." Ew.

In retrospect, I should have gotten just the sandwich, if one can call it that, and not the combo meal, which includes a drink and potato wedges. My problem with many combo meals is that I eat the fries first, because I hate cold fries. Mistake! Big mistake! This slip-up almost done me in.

When I got home, I opened the box containing the abomination. There sat the Double Down, in a thin layer of grease. It looks like a dare. It smells like a dare. It tastes like the USA. Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is why you're fat. USA! USA! USA!

The sandwich itself is tasty and meaty. It could actually use a little more cheese, because the pepper jack provides a spiciness to the overall package. Also, and this goes without saying, there could be a little more bacon. Two tiny strips get lost in all that chicken. Four strips would probably be perfect. The "Colonel's Sauce" is a complete mystery, and should probably remain that way. I can't tell if it adds anything or not.

The first couple bites were "handheld," but the sandwich is rather large and greasy, so sadly I had to resort to a knife and fork method. This doesn't take anything away from the experience, aside from having to use less napkins/paper towels. Knife and fork = better for the environment. Also, you get a better-looking cross section of the thing.

About 3/4ths of the way through, I noticed a rumbling in my gut area, and had to pause to take an urgent bathroom break and have a personal double-down. After a walk around the apartment and a few more sips of Pepsi, it was back to the abomination.

All in all, it took about an hour to complete the Double Down, which is about what I expected. There was no way for me to plow into a sandwich of this magnitude. I feel pretty good about completing it, but that may be calling the putt early. If you don't hear from me tomorrow, call the authorities. I love you all, and it's been a wild ride.

Peace.

Now on blip.fm!

You can now find me on the Twitter-like music site blip.fm. My DJ profile is http://blip.fm/annadynamite.

In other news, I have a couple more reviews on Cult Reviews available to read. My page there is http://www.cultreviews.com/author/anna-mckibben/.

As usual, I am on alt.slack (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.slack/topics) as Rev. Anna Dynamite, and on IMDb as annamae3. I tend to stick to the Horror Boards there (http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000024/threads/).

Thoughts on the Saw franchise, thus far

I'm not normally one for film series, especially if they go for more than three entries. To me, it becomes tedious, like a trial, to have to sit through story after story after story. Just finish the damn thing already. Now, I know no one forces me to watch these movies, but I'm the type of person who, once I start something, I tend to want to finish it, even if it kills me.

No genre is better at milking a franchise for all it is worth than the horror genre. To date there are eleven Friday the 13th movies, eight Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and eight Halloween moves (counting the third installment, which broke from the Michael Myers canon, and not counting the apparent relaunch of the series by Rob Zombie). There are also more than enough in the Hellraiser cycle. Admittedly, these are series that I don't feel obligated to finish. The first and eighth Jason movies, the first and seventh Freddy movies, and the first two Michael Myers movies were good enough for me. Those series just keep finding ways to not kill off the bad guys, and it becomes very tiresome after a while.

On the flip side, though, the Saw franchise has found a way to break the mold of constantly reviving the same antagonist, by eventually replacing the antagonist with a new character. This leads to the logical conclusion that the Saw series MAY NEVER END. Good lord.

The first installment in the Saw series was a decent and somewhat innovative take on the crime thriller genre. Despite what people say after the fact, the twist ending is something that was quite surprising. I certainly did not expect Jigsaw to be the guy who was "dead" on the bathroom floor. Saw II had an equally interesting twist; it also continued the temporal manipulation concept from the first film. In the first film, some of what we think are flashbacks are actually events that occur concurrently with the bathroom scenes. Similarly, in Saw II, what we think are two plots happening at the same time are actually not.

The third installment is a let down, especially after how good the second one is. I had zero emotional attachment to the characters, particularly the main protagonist. I simply did not care, and only thought of it as a way to get to the fourth film. Saw IV shows marked improvement over the previous entry, but doesn't compare to the first two. Apparently there are two more installments slated, with Saw V being released this year. Part of me hopes that the fifth entry is at least as good as the fourth, and that by the sixth the story is wrapped up.

However, if by the time I die, we're on Saw XLV, I wouldn't be surprised. I would just be bored.