The thought never entered my head. Not even an inkling. Then I watched "Rope Unleashed" and they discussed "it" as a big part of the movie.
shareI felt the same way. I think maybe the complete play had more hints. I find it interesting, though.
shareIt is a very big part of the movie, but it is there in the most nuanced ways that are noticeable as the film proceeds. I watched the film for the first time a few years ago on AMC and knew NOTHING of it at all. As I watched, I began to pick up on the gay vibe between Brandon and Phillip. I wondered if I was right or not, but I felt strongly that I wasn't misreading it. I came here for more information and, low and behold, there was a gay undertone to it after all. I eventually got the DVD and watched the documentary, learning more about the history and the play upon which it was based, which most definitely did feature a stronger gay plot. I think Hitchcock handled it beautifully, for it is all there and yet not directly addressed as if to offend the audiences of the day.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Yeah, that was lost on me, too. When I first saw it, I had already seen quite a share of old movies with vocabulary that would sound, uhm, "suspicious" nowadays, you know, like "I'm a gay person" (in the sense of cheerful) and even calling a man's friend "his boyfriend" (haven't heard that one too often, but was definitely not meant as an idication of a sexual relationship).
And I think a lot of people are thrown off that road due to Brendan (Brandon?) mentioning to Janet that he was her boyfriend at some point. Of course that doesn't have to mean much, but I think it lead some people away from the gay undertones.
[deleted]
Of course that doesn't have to mean much, but I think it lead some people away from the gay undertones. >>> Which, of course, was the intention. The homosexuality (referred to as "it" by the studio and the film writer) was played down as the subject matter was taboo in 1948. I think Hitchcock was rather masterful in how he handled it, slipping it by the masses but making it rather obvious to those with a keen eye. It's all in the small details. It was nothing overt that made me notice, but rather the intended nuances throughout the film. It was certainly nothing as silly as misunderstanding old movie vocabulary like some folks tend to do because they are unable to watch a film in the context of the era it was made.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
I noticed the gay vibe in the movie when Phillip and Brandon were alone at the dinner table.
sharethe gay vibe is there because they actors portraying them were both gay, not because it was intentional.
sharethe gay vibe is there because they actors portraying them were both gay, not because it was intentional. >>> When you watch the supplemental material from those involved in actually making the film, it is revealed that you don't know what you are talking about.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
[deleted]
Wait, hold on, that isn't true at all.
Oh, right, I forgot, this is the Internet.
I think the homosexual vibe was very subtly and masterfully incorporated, and made the film more intriguing for those who realized it. It's possible to miss it, and not make a big difference though. But signs were definitely purposefully placed.
The first sign that I noticed was when Philip says in the beginning how he could've killed Brandon instead, and accuses him of being selfish or something, followed by something on the lines of "But that's part of your charm" as he takes a glance at Brandon's lips. That shot of two of them staring at each other was taken for quite obvious display of homoerotic tension.
There are many hints dropped throughout the film, where we see that two of them live together, and they are planning a vacation together, without any mention of current girlfriends on either part. We also find out how one of them is an artist, and the other is very protective of him and his career. Small details like Brandon getting Philip a gig as a pianist was definitely to convey the nature of their relationship that is more than a conventional friendship.
And finally, what made it quite obvious for me, was the bond they had throughout the whole film. If Brandon simply wanted to test out his theory, and commit a perfect murder, he would've chosen someone more like himself, who could pull it off. But instead, he picks a sensitive friend who has a bit of a drinking problem. Someone like Brandon could have killed Philip as he was getting more and more nervous and unstable, sabotaging his entire plan. (He did think of resorting to murdering Rupert for that reason). Yet there is no sense of betrayal between them, and they stick together. I guess it's hard to try to describe how the hints were there. Since reading the above only, you can interpret it as simple acts of friendship. But it was the way those elements were introduced I suppose, that really gave it away.
When killers kill in pairs they don't choose someone like themselves. They chose someone who is a follower, who can be manipulated, which is what happened here.
share[deleted]
Further Leopold and Loeb seem to have had such a relationship. Just a spill-over with the connection, maybe?
shareHmm, here's an Australian review from 1949. Is the critic hinting at homosexuality, or am I reading too much into it?
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/130765794
John Dall gives a remarkable performance as a decadent young man - you don’t have to be very sophisticated to guess how decadent, who with another of the same type, but less bravado (Farley Granger), commits a murder for the thrill of it.
That's a great find, muzilon!
shareGreat link! I've posted it to External Reviews.
sharei didnt see the homosexual vibe
and after reading whats written here- i still dont see it
except the fact that they discussed it in the other rope unleashed thing
and if i noticed it i brushed it aside because it wasnt very important for the plot
which is why i dont understand why the 'vibe' thing is so important
It isn't important, but it is there and is of interest for those who care. Hitchcock was shrewd in how he did it so subtly, making a great film that doesn't rely on that one aspect in order to work.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
I own a copy of this movie and I did not notice the gay undertone. I thought it was more of the way people talked in those days. Also, keep in mind that many gay actors sometimes can't help but put their gay undertones in when they are acting. It's the only way they know how to act. If the writer says that the charactors where written as gay, then it should be there. If the director says, ok these are gay charactors and I want them to play straight male with gay undertones then this is what happened. But, if the director did not pay attention to this detail, then it may have just been that the actors sexual preference or the way they act, came through in the characters they played. This is just a great movie and looking for a gay undertone might take away from the intent of this film.
This aspect is very controversal from what I've read in the above posts. So, that in itself, brings more light or viewers to this film. I applaud that.
Another thought... Since this was filmed all in one shot, basically, sometimes you just have to let your actors act. If that is how they acted, it's hard to go back and say, "can you deliver that line without sounding gay". Maybe it was a casting error. But, I kinda don't think so since all of the actors in my opinion where excellent. Now... I think I'm over thinking this.
Exactly where in the film does it suggest these characters are homosexual? Nowhere. Or maybe its easier to discern if you are gay.
shareExactly where in the film does it suggest these characters are homosexual? >>> Something doesn't have to be spelled out for you in order for it to be present.
Or maybe its easier to discern if you are gay. >>> Maybe. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, I watched it for the first time several years ago on AMC and knew nothing about the film at all. I picked up on it, but I did wonder if perhaps I was projecting. Then I bought the DVD because I really liked the film, and low and behold that my feelings were confirmed by those involved with the making of the film. I don't think it was just a case of the typical acting style and mannerisms of the day. I've watched plenty of films from the past eras and not gotten the feeling I did while watching ROPE. I think there is more to it, but that Hitchcock made sure to bury it in subtlety due to the taboo nature of the subject matter. Had it been made any more obvious, it would have brought heat down on the production from the powers that be.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Exactly where in the film does it suggest these characters are homosexual? Nowhere. Or maybe its easier to discern if you are gay.
Two grown men who live together, are planning a vacation together and bicker with each other through the course of the movie sound a heck of a lot like a couple to me. I'm surprised at the people in here saying they didn't pick up on it.
I picked up on it and I'm a definite hetero female. It's in the way the dialogue is delivered between Brandon and Phillip. It's very subtle and meant to be. The fact that the men are gay has nothing to do with the fact that the two men and murderers.
In other words, gay men can commit murder but not all gay men are murderers.
It's entirely possible that I am missing the point of your message.
Somewhere, some time ago, I read that this was based upon the Leopold/Loeb case. That would almost demand that they were gay.
shareWell said!
shareI don't see how anyone can NOT see that they were a couple, I could tell pretty much from the start. Maybe I'm gay.
shareto the person who said both actors were gay, only John Dall was. Farley Granger (Philip) was bi. anyway i got a couple of those vibes especially at the start of the film in the opening conversation between the two. the dialogue is a little too intimate and they are a little too close. but i think it works with the subtlety rather than just outright stating it. i completely forgot about those things when the film rolled on. i never picked up on the gay subtext between Brandon and Rupert, mainly because James Steward doesn't play Rupert like that. i just took it as Brandon just being in awe of him. there are hints that Brandon is bi rather than gay since he does mention he had a previous relationship with Janet and their apartment does have more than one bedroom (he says the phone is in the "first bedroom"). but it's impressive the film managed to get this much subtext past the radar in the 1940s
I cheated and I lied and I left the cap off the toothpaste!
[deleted]
[deleted]
They could never make a movie like this these days. Homosexuals are no longer to be portrayed in a negative light unless you can somehow spin the story to suggest that they were psychopathic murderers because their straight fathers abused them as children or because of religious oppression. >>> Unfortunately, I think there is some truth in your words. The reality is that gay people reflect many types just like straight people...good people, kind people, mean people, liars, you name it. We do not have the market cornered on innocence, just as we are not all selfish and evil like some folks like to think. We're just human like the rest of you. I despise political correctness and think it is extremely insincere. But, PC gets mileage regardless and would definitely rear it's ugly head if this film were made today.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
[deleted]
I thought it was saying more about the corrupting influence of single sex boarding schools.
LeeAnn Rimes. No it doesn't.
Corrupting influence? Are you suggesting that single sex boarding schools turned people homosexual? Well that´s just silly then.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I dunno if you watch True Blood but Russell Edgington is both super-gay and a psychopathic murdering villain with absolutely no mention of parental (or any other form of) abuse. Then there was Alby on Big Love and Prince Jack on Kings who, while not utterly evil, were both nuanced villains. And Prison Break had T-Bag who was the trifecta - a bisexual racist pedophile created by an incestous bisexual pedophile father. In recent movies, Xerxes in 300 was a total queen and in 3:10 to Yuma a lot of people thought the Charlie Prince character was mighty homo-suspicious.
So, if there ever was a point in time when political correctness mandated that anybody gay be depicted as either good-guys or monsters created by abusive straights, I think it's well past us now.