American Cinematographer - February 1985 - 42

minutes. One made his shots from the top of a
building, another from an un¬
finished building on Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles,
and the other from Santa Monica pier.
The five reels were re-shot, using the photos
as color guides. At this time, Valentine was on the
sick list and Skall took charge. Nine days later the last
reel was completed.
Incidentally, Hitchcock was not entirely
convinced that his one-take approach was viable, al¬
though he had experimented with the idea in indi¬
vidual sequences of Spellbound (1945) Notorious
(1946) and The Paradine Case (1947). He spent sev¬
eral days shooting closeups of key dialogue scenes,
"just in case - ."
The street sounds, including the approach¬
ing police siren at the climax, were real. Nixing the
sound department's intention of utilizing library
sound effects, Hitchcock had microphones hung out¬
side a sixth story window while actors, autos and an

that the murder

ambulance performed to order. The effect is perfectly
realistic.
The original cost estimate of Rope was $1.4

pense

io5

New York office

million, including studio overhead charges. Neither
nor money were budgeted strictly because it was
impossible to anticipate what problems might arise.
The 28-day completion was well under the schedule
usually given important pictures, and the cost of
$200,000 above the estimate was hardly excessive.
There was a mimimum of post-production work.
The picture was released nationally on Sep¬

time

tember 25.
The movie

industry's own self-censorship
board, established by the studios to keep producers
from running afoul of local and state censors, rode
herd on the script and production, making certain

there was no direct allusion to the homosexuality of
the murderers (and the bestiality of one of them), and

scene was not unduly gruesome. The
picture received the Motion Picture Producers and
Distributors of America "purity seal," meaning it
was, ostensibly, "censor-proof." However:
The Chicago censors banned Rope in toto.
Authorities in Worcester, New Bedford, Spokane,
Seattle and Memphis followed suit. Chicago later re¬
lented, with the condition that exhibitors enforce an
"adults only" policy. Sioux City permitted exhibition
only after the murder scene was deleted. Womens'
organizations, the National Legion of Decency and
other influential groups denounced it.
Fortunately for Transatlantic, Rope received
generally high marks in the press, few reviewers re¬
marking dislike of either the theme or the technique.
A number even went overboard and proclaimed it "as
important as the invention of the closeup or of
sound." Life, selecting it as Movie of the Week, gave
the sensible opinion that the "radical innovation in
picture-making" was effective in maintaining sus¬

but that Hitchcock's effort

making his tech¬

nique unobtrusive was "not a wholly successful one."
On the other hand, the esteemed Thornton Delahanty, in Redbook, selected Rope as Movie of the
Month, gave it a rave review, commented upon the
"extremely effective" use of color "to dramatize the
mood" and made no mention whatever of the pho¬
tographic technique!
The public, undaunted by questions of tech¬
nique, liked the picture well enough to make it a
financial success. It put Transatlantic in a healthy fi¬
nancial condition and the company's future seemed
secure.

Hitchcock tried

modified version of the

Rope technique on their next production, Under
Capricorn, interspersing several long and complex
takes into

more conventionally arranged scenes, but
they interrupted the tempo of the otherwise exquisite
film and destroyed suspense. The usually imperturba¬
ble Ingrid Bergman became so angry while wading
through one nine-minute scene that she was still rav¬
ing on the set after the director had gone home.
Under Capricorn, which cost a great deal
more than Rope and brought in a great deal less, was
a

fiscal disaster which forced Hitchcock and Bern¬
to dissolve Transatlantic.
"I undertook Rope as a stunt; that's the only

stein

describe it," Hitchcock said 20 years later
book, Hitchcock by Francois Truffaut (Simon
& Schuster, 1967). "I really don't know how I came
to indulge in it
When I look back, I realize that it
was quite nonsensical because I was breaking with my
own theories on the importance of cutting and mon¬
way

can

in the

tage

for the visual narration of

referred

It is,

"a crazy

story." He also

idea."

nevertheless,

fascinating show and is

actually the only feature of its kind in the history of
films. Its uniqueness alone gives it a certain mono¬
lithic
done

blazed

American

Cinematographer

and it is doubtful that it could have been
well by other hands. In Rope, Hitchcock
trail which nobody yet has followed.
■

stature

March 1985

American Cinematographer - February 1985

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - February 1985