Alfred Hitchcock knowingly went against the norms of filmmaking during the production of Rope, a move he later regarded as a mistake. Released in 1948, Rope was a suspense thriller that explored the immediate aftermath of a murder committed by two college students, just for the purpose of experiencing the feeling of taking a life.

The first of four collaborations between Alfred Hitchcock and James Stewart, Rope saw the legendary Hollywood star take on the role of the two murderers’ college professor, who is one of many guests at the party they hold to celebrate their evil act. Of course, no one is aware of the reason for the party when they arrive at the students’ apartment.

The high-stakes nature of having people in the same room as the ᴅᴇᴀᴅ body, the growing anxiety of one of the murderers, as well as the deepening tensions between the guests are a big part of what drives the suspense in the film. But another factor is the format, which is highly unconventional but designed to make the story more immersive.

Alfred Hitchcock Regretted That He “Abandoned Pure Cinema” When He Made Rope

Rope Was An Experimental Film

In addition to being the first James Stewart movie with Alfred Hitchcock, Rope is best known for its avoidance of traditional cutaways. Because the movie is made to take place in real time and never leaves the apartment shared by the two murderers, Rope doesn’t feature any scene changes and tells its story through extremely long takes.

Obviously, it’s an unorthodox method, but one that Hitchcock fully embraced at the time. He believed it was necessary in order to adapt the stage play the film was based on.

With a flowing camera, the film played in its own time, there were no dissolves, no time-lapses in it, it was continuous action. And I thought it also ought to have a continuous flow of camera narrative as well.

However, in taking this approach, Hitchcock felt he had no choice but to abandon “pure cinema.” As Hitchcock defines it, “pure cinema is complementary pieces of film put together, like notes of music make a melody.” And Hitchcock is right, if that’s what a movie is supposed to be, Rope most certainly defies those core concepts.

According to Hitchcock, filming a movie in this manner – “film a story in two hours that actually happens in two hours” – was something he had wanted to do for a long time, and it took until Rope for him to finally get his wish. A great deal of work from the cast and crew went into making Alfred Hitchcock’s plan for Rope a reality, but in the end, he wasn’t satisfied with the result.

As Hitchcock has since explained, he erred by abandoning “pure cinema” and breaking with his “own theories on the importance of cutting and montage for the visual narration of a story.” Hitchcock even went as far as to call his vision for Rope “nonsensical.”

Rear Window’s Success Proves The Lesson Alfred Hitchcock Learned From Rope

Rear Window Serves As An Evolution Of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope Vision

What came out of Alfred Hitchcock and James Stewart’s next collaboration goes to show that there was a lesson to be learned from Rope. Similar to Rope, Rear Window takes place exclusively in the main protagonist’s home, only showing what goes on inside the apartment and what the characters can see from his window.

What separates it from Rope is its willingness to feature cutaways and break up the action. Due to these changes, Alfred Hitchcock never saw Rear Window as a repeat of his defiance of “pure cinema” from Rope. As he recalled, “where Jimmy Stewart is thrown out of the window in the end, I just pH๏τographed that with feet, legs, arms, heads. Completely montage.”

As opposed to his thoughts on Rope, Hitchcock was of the opinion that Rear Window was the “most cinematic” film he had ever made. It employed a lot of what made Rope suspenseful – long takes and a sense of confinement – but was much less rigid in its approach to cuts, and was better for it.

Sources: The Hitchcock Zone, Hitchcock Master