Andrew McDowe Unit 4 Essay

In the film Rope Alfred Hitchcock shows a brilliant display of cinematography by combining spacial awareness and with solid writing. In this essay we will look at how Hitchcock put together the film Rope first by the technical aspect then the storytelling by contrasting them with other forms of storytelling. We will look at a video game, a book and two films to better explain why Hitchcock's methodology is so effective. This essay will look at his strong points and why his style is so unique and will touch on some examples of what something should have and should avoid in storytelling. The films use of space is really interesting due the lengths of the total shots. There are around 10 shots in total in the whole film. This was a great achievement in film and shows a great deal of skill especially in contrast to modern films that will seldom risk taking long shots. The whole film was shot in a single room. This was a choice that was friendly on the budget but not on the content. Most film writers that have tried this in contemporary film have not done nearly as well, thinking back to a film like Phone booth where a large amount of the film is in a phone booth. Rope is set in an large apartment room with a collection of people each displaying different personalities. Because of the layout of the apartment, the camera crew had to show a keen initiative when filming because of the long takes and would have to move around the furniture in order to get the equipment around the room. This we can see in the film was a real success because you can't even notice the irregularities in the furnishings. The room that 90% of the film is shot in appears like a theatrical play. The things that bring this out the most are the way all of the actors will face the camera while talking to each other. The face that the takes are so long requires them to act like one would in theatre. Though this is very uncommon in modern film. This brings out a lot more character in the actors themselves because extended screen time allows them to immerse themselves in the character that they are playing. In turn, allowing the film to become more immersive. Although the film lasts 80 minutes and is supposed to be in "real time", the time frame it covers is actually longer - a little more than 100 minutes. This is accomplished by speeding up the action: the formal dinner lasts only 20 minutes, the sun sets too quickly and so on... ~ IMDb As the film is about 80 minuets in length but acts like a whole day is passing. Using the skyline as a natural clock the film uses the time of day to reflect the moods and attitudes that pass the actors by. While your so immersed in the story you don't question it. The films use of pacing is not immediately evident until you think back and realise that you were gripped by it from the very beginning. The opening scene, being the only scene that isnt shot in the apartment, is nice and slow. Broken by the unlikely scream of a man being murdered. As a side note it's one of the few mistakes the film stretched the belief of unbelief with because of the nature of asphyxiation a man screaming is about as much sense as laser sounds in space. Back to the subject at hand the scenes that pass almost have transitions in themselves but they are within the characters and their actions. One scene that jumps out at you early in the film is one that has a priceless technique that has been used in countless films. The scene in mind is the one where the kitchen door swings open and closed using what you can and cannot see to a very humorous and comical effect. This among other scenes shows how Hitchcock uses his power of suspense to have the audience playing to his tune. Suspense is one thing that Hitchcock has had a mastery of. Though it seems like the obvious this to expect be it in the kiss in a romantic film or the stab of a horror. From the escaping prisoner to the 1

Andrew McDowe heart condition suspense is one of the most important aspects of story telling. Not because it makes a good story rather that it keeps the interest of the viewer on whats going to happen next. Flow in a story is very important but that doesnt mean it has to run a linear course. The general rule is that what ever happens needs to flow from what has happened. Two examples of this would be when you look back at a story and this 'Wow I got from there to here?' And the 'I can see how this happened.' There are of course other reaction that are less satisfactory like the 'how did I get here?' This is similar to the first example however this is a negative version of it. An example of each would be that in the video game Crysis produced by Crytek and published by EA in 2007. The plot begins as your free-falling with a group of Spec Ops soldiers onto a mysterious island with orders to rescue a researcher from a rather unpleasant North Korean gentleman. Hours pass by and you find yourself fighting aliens with big futuristic laser weapons. Now that might seem a bit of a harsh shift but the story flows so well that there isn't really any point that stands out as a plot hole as the transition is so smooth that it almost seems inevitable and completely inescapable. This is how you can tell that the writing it solid. When the context is given and the atmosphere is set you shouldn't even notice the story devices while the story is progressing.

Image 1: Crysis Earlier

Image 2: Crysis Later

Unfortunately such a level of perfection is very rare and in most modern films the structure is decided from the film poster. Looking at Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol we can see that from the film posters that there will be a hero, namely Tom Cruise, who will struggle though a crisis both emotionally and physically and everything will turn out fine in the end. Surprisingly it wasn't a bad film but it was no fun because you knew the end before the beginning. In contrast to that structure of clich action films that we hold oh so dear looking at the plot Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin who purposely neglects the hero structure for a much more realistic (the irony of a fantasy novelist) by building a character up in the reader's heart only to have his head lopped of near the end of the first book. This is very uncommon because Ned Stark was the unofficial main character of the series. This is frustrating for the reader because even though there is no official notice that he is the main it is implied and after you grow to love him he is killed of and you think that you've been cheated but then you realise that you have no reason to be angry and that you've just been capture in a solid piece of writing without even noticing. A final contrast is in the film Blue Velvet where the ending is purposely altered to leave the audience with an empty feeling. This was where a plot device was used with the intention of getting the desired effect and not just a result of bad writing. Hitchcock chooses his endings almost sadistically and quite often leaving the suspense of the film 2

Andrew McDowe right up to and even past the ending. Alfred Hitchcock is the undisputed master of horror suspense and macabre comedy. ~ TCM Looking at the examples we just discussed, the plot of Rope is much easier to understand. When faced with the murderous duo we become attached to them even-though they, or at least one of them, is completely amoral. Later in the film another man named Rupert Cadell comes into the plot instantly shifting the genre from drama to film noire in a heartbeat. The interesting thing is that as a viewer you feel an air of hostility towards him even though he is not really a bad guy as such. Then later on in the film we see how the roles switch and the title of hero is given to him as the realisation of what has happened dawns on him and the audience and in unison we turn on the two who murdered the man at the beginning of the film. Then Hitchcock, in his painfully mastered fashion, leaves the ending open with a heavy heart knowing what would happen next. Or at least what should happen next. However, his obsession with telling a story without resorting to the usual methods of montage, and without cutting from one shot to another, results in a film of unusual, fascinating technical facility, whose chilliness almost perfectly suits the subject. ~ New York Times The frustration at the end of Hitchcock's films are planned well ahead and you really get that impending doom effect that was mentioned above in Crysis but somehow still left open as if anything could happen. This is the nature of Hitchcock's art. His mastery of film makes him more like a puppet master over an audience than a director and it shows in all of his work.

Image 1: Rope Film Still In conclusion we looked at how Hitchcock put together the film Rope then discussed his methods of storytelling by contrasting them with other forms of storytelling. We used a video game, a book and two other films to show how other people since Hitchcock have told stories. From there we can see that some of the more successful stories use a similar structured originality to Hitchcock and have defined how there is a difference to plot devices and plot holes. So now we know by looking at Hitchcock not how a story should look or sound but more how it should feel.

Andrew McDowe

Image list

Crysis Earlier - http://epicagames.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/crysis-2-character.jpg Accessed 02/03/2012 Crysis Later - http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/1192/Crysis-Warhead-Gameplay.jpg Accessed 02/03/2012 Rope Film Still http://2.bp.blogspot.com/Dv0yvtjG_oE/TZKOGEinlNI/AAAAAAAACT0/yMV8OYQrlrw/s1600/Rope+cast.jpg Accessed 02/03/2012

Bibliography IMDb Rope, Trivia - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040746/trivia Accessed 02/03/2012 TCM Rope, Jarrod McDonald, 7/13/08 http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/88638/Rope/userreviews.html Accessed 02/03/2012 New York Times Vincent Canby, June 3, 1984 http://www.nytimes.com/library/film/060384hitchrope-reflection.html Accessed 02/03/2012