ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ต.ค. 2021
- This video is about Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 film ROPE. It has long been a favorite of mine, but sometimes the things said about it don't go deep enough, and so I made this video to discuss the concept of the "single shot" concept that dominates the film, as well as to delve into what exactly is the cameo of Hitchcock in the film, as well as some continuity errors that take place during the movie. It is all done with love, of course, because I LOVE this movie!
Leonard Leff Hitchcock and Selznick
www.amazon.com/gp/product/155...
Hitchcock Selznick and the End of Hollywood
• Hitchcock, Selznick an...
Hitchcock Cameos
• Every Hitchcock Cameo ...
• Every Alfred Hitchcock...
• All ALFRED HITCHCOCK C...
• Every Alfred Hitchcock...
the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/The_H... - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
The red neon sign is indeed the famous profile of Hitchcock drawn by Hitch himself. He started drawing it before 1948 when Rope was filmed.
13:45 It doesn't matter that Hitchcock's famous self caricature was used years later in his television show. He had been drawing that profile since at least 1938, a decade before making "Rope."
Best wishes from Vermont 🍁
Great video - very informative! Please make more like this (about Classic Hollywood)…I would definitely watch.
The Hitchcock cameo is in the opening credits. He is the man walking with the woman. He was a bit unrecognizable because he’d lost weight.
Thanks for your observations. I've been pointing this out for a while. I've always felt the direct cuts, not the masked ones, to have a narrative/suspense value as well particular the cut to Rupert after Phillip exclaims, 'That's a lie!' It's very telling and is the axis on which the story spins to its most significant POV, that of Rupert's.
Very well done, Steve! This has never been one of my favorite Hitchcock films, but you've presented aspects of it that I hadn't considered before. Now I'm going to have to rewatch the movie, and will do so with a new appreciation.
In the street scene, that is in fact Hitchcock walking with his assistant, Peggy Robertson. I finally met her years later when I was working at Universal and she was still with him (in the mid-1970s)!
I'll take your word for it -- i still find it incredible of Hitch to do it that way.
@@smelisi Why? Have you ever seen the opening of his least well-known film. THE WRONG MAN (1956) th-cam.com/video/itbJUTlP5yk/w-d-xo.html
@@smelisiI don't believe that is Hitch. He always made a cameo that you recognized as him. That man in the street could be anybody. Hitch didn't do his cameos that way. And he never did a cameo with anybody else.
Thanks for posting this and for listing all the cuts in the film. Every time I watch it, I tell myself to look for the cuts, but then get too engrossed in the film to notice them. And thanks for posting the map of the apartment. It gets kind of confusing sometimes.
There's another proposed cameo in the movie. There's a shot of Mr. Kentley with his back to the camera. He kind looks like Hitch would look with his back to the camera.
I like the idea of the talk of Notorious being the cameo. I'd noticed it before, but never really thought of it as a cameo.
I've been looking for information about the logo, but I can't find anything online. But I think that it was created long before the show. It may not have been as widely known before the show, but I think it was around. But don't take that as gospel, please.
Love this movie. Just think the strangling should have been more realistic. In reality, there would have been a furious struggle.
I'll tell ya, I can't make anything out of that neon sign.
Isn't the main continuity error that Phillip cuts his hand with the glass but when his hands are looked at later and he is told they will make him famous they look fine. That's the only one that most seem to notice.
Interesting -- I've never thought much about his cut hand at all as I've watched this movie (many times). It always seemed to me as he described it -- just a little cut. Easily blotted out and no worries after that. Just the fact that it never bothered me, even while crafting this, says that it's inconsequential, but I'll look next time. Thanks!
@@smelisi The blood was quite visible on the hand and the glass broke a lot. Even if a small cut in my opinion it's a more obvious incident that what you mention. Of course most may not think about it as it's not a major plot point.
The cut was still faint when Ms Atwater was looking at his hand but almost disappeared behind her thumb.
You overlooked THE PARADINE CASE (1947) which was Hitchcock's last collaboration with Selznick -- in fact Selznick wrote it...unfortunately! With UNDER CAPRICORN, these are my least favorite Hitchcocks.
ah well, nobody's perfect -- including Hitchcock, since I too dislike both of those