My Two Favorite Motion Pictures

2. Rope (1948)
The first color film directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and one of only two in which he served as producer, Rope is a flawlessly executed experiment in film-making. I’ve seen a lot of film “experiments”, and this stands out above all others in that it not only contains a narrative, but a spellbinding narrative at that.
But getting back to the experiment – the first thing I ever heard about this film was that it contained no cuts and, therefore, transpires in real time (i.e., during the 80 minutes it takes to watch the film, eighty minutes transpire in the lives of the characters). My initial reaction was: “Cool idea, but probably boring”. But I was wrong. Hitchcock experimented with long cuts (e.g., Under Capricorn) and confined sets (e.g., Lifeboat) on other occasions, but in Rope, he uses them both to perfection
For one thing, Rope does contain cuts, and part of the fun is spotting the cuts, especially before they happen (it’s fun to see how the furniture and characters have to line up for a cut to be “hidden”). For another thing, those 80 minutes take place during sunset, and the skyline out the apartment windows makes for a more interesting film in itself than some Oscar winners I’ve seen.
Then there’s the story. Only Hitchcock would have the bravado (back in ’48) to put such arrogance on film; wherein two college students kill a third just “to see what it feels like”. It’s the ultimate for-the-hell-of-it act, and these boys justify it by claiming their own superiority over the mass of humanity. That in itself isn’t very satisfying, but throughout the next 79 minutes, we are treated to all manner of rationalizations and arguments that supposedly led to that moment of homicide.
Jimmy Stewart stars in this film, and though he is only one-third of the unholy trinity here, he’s still just as great as always. Did he ever give a bad performance? I don’t think so. Even in so-so movies, he manages to shine above the mediocrity. Incidentally, he’s the only person to star in two films in my top ten. In Rope, he’s given the best roll and he gets many of the great lines, including the best one: “Did you think you were God, Brandon?” (It’s better in context.)
And what Hitchcock would be complete without dark humor? His cameo appearance, the double-entendre of snippets of conversations, the decision of where to serve dinner, even the binding used to fasten the stack of books – all keep a viewer raptly attentive.
In most motion pictures with suspense, the suspense tends to rise and fall in episodic fashion throughout the story, culminating in a grand bit of suspense called the “climax”. But Rope is, yet again, different in this regard; the suspense never falls. While this makes for an exhausting filmic experience, it is fun to feel the suspense mount higher and higher until at last a resolution (of which the viewer is never certain) occurs. With each viewing, I revel in the fun of watching the guests, like pawns, being manipulated by their hosts.
When it comes to well-made and enjoyable motion pictures, it is my opinion that Rope stands out as one of the best ever. Maybe even the best. Except for…

1. Psycho (1960)
At last I get to discuss what has been my favorite motion picture for the past 16 years. At the time I first viewed it, I realized that no film more fully enraptured, thrilled, excited and intriqued me quite like Psycho. Ever since, I have weighed all subsequent films against this one, and, though some have come close, I just can’t honestly rank any film higher. No other motion picture excels in absolutely every aspect. Psycho, in my opinion, is the most perfect film ever created, or, if you prefer: Psycho contains the least amount of stuff I did not like. Even the opening titles are brilliant!
This film stands in contrast to all others for not one, but several reasons. Allow me to delineate the outstanding features of Hitchcock’s pièce de résistance…
1. The entire story itself is totally changed from what it appears to be at the outset. I love when I can’t guess what’s gonna happen next, but this takes it to a whole new level. I’ve never seen a movie devote so much time to throwing a person off the main trail (except maybe The Sound of Music).
2. Symbolism! I love symbolism in motion pictures, and Psycho has it in full measure. From the opening credits chopping from name to name, to the hanging sickles in the hardware store, to the positioning of the hotel in relation to the house, to the changing color of Crane’s clothing, to the pictures on the wall, to the record on the record player, to the license plate number, to the avian references, to the names of the main characters…symbolism is everywhere here. Heck, Bates’ name alone carries two pieces of symbolism.
3. Dialogue. The often strange, stilted dialogue brings these characters to life. There are so many great lines that, after multiple viewings, serve as hilarious bits of foreshadowing: “We all go a little mad sometimes, haven’t you?”, “A son is a poor substitute for a lover”, “12 rooms, 12 vacancies”, “We’re always quickest to doubt people who have a reputation for being honest”, “Mother’s not quite herself today”, and so on…
4. The music. There are only a handful of movies in which I even notice the music (I’m excluding musicals here, obviously). Star Wars, Jaws, Vertigo, The Godfather and The Third Man are all examples of non-musicals in which the music is first rate. Psycho, with its screeching violins sans percussion, easily makes this list.
5. The acting. No one here does a bad job, and a few actors do so well, I wonder if they were born to play the part. Anthony Perkins is primary in this regard, but, to a lesser extent, so are Vera Miles, Martin Balsam and Mort Mills.
6. The camera work. I know I’ve droned on about the camera work in other films here, so let’s just say that Psycho’s is pretty darn good, too. My favorite pieces are probably the opening shot where the camera goes through the blinds, allowing us to peek in on the lovers, and the sweeping track up the stairs to the Bates’ house.
7. The calendar. It’s weird, I know, but I tend to get preoccupied with the flow of time in movies. Just the other day, I was commenting on the appearant time inconsistency in Mary Poppins. Not only is time given it’s due in this movie, it’s scrupulously attended to; the date at the outset cues us in to the appearance of Xmas decorations in the summer, and the wall calendar at the end shows us a passage of nine days – all logically accounted for.
8. The climax. While other movies have more sweeping climaxes, Psycho’s was totally unexpected. Other movies on this list, such as Return of the Jedi, Back to the Future, Rear Window, Ingen Numsil and The Princess Bride all have very satisfying climaxes, but in those cases, I probably could have guessed how it was going finish. The fun of those movies was just watching how the climax would play out. With Psycho, I had not idea what the climax would be, much less how it would play out. This was largely due to…
9. The twist. I love a film with a secret. Again, other movies reveal great secrets: The Usual Suspects, The Empire Strikes Back, Citizen Kane, Fight Club (to name a few) but in every one of those examples, the story is not fundamentally altered by the revelation, it’s more of a clever trick, leaving the viewer saying: “Oh, that’s so cool!” …and then rolling the credits. In Psycho, the twist’s revelation forces one to go back and rethink the entire film (okay, I guess Fight Club is sort of like that, but that movie didn’t have near as great a story).
10. The Denouement. Critics often lambaste Psycho’s denouement as unnecessary at best, stupid at worst. I find the therapist’s breakdown of his conversation with Bates to be most fascinating, particularly in how he so causally dismisses the money (that we had cared about so much!) and insists that it was Bates’ mother who told him the truth. But it gets even better: the film then cuts to Bates’ mother thanking the guard for the blanket, and then we hear her disdain for her dutiful son, and her assurance that she would not even hurt a fly (and, indeed, she doesn’t). Finally, in a triple-exposure, Bates wryly grins for the camera, as if he is coming for us next, which ever-so-briefly fades to a skull and then a chain pulling out his heart. Finally, the car in the swamp, which we realize was only there to dupe us.
Allow me, too, to mention one other thing. Although this does not affect the quality of the movie at all, I find it funny that Psycho originally was not rated, then was rated Approved, then M, then PG, and currently resides at R. I grew up in a religion where people believed all movies rated R were violent, immoral, foul piles of crap…and I had lots of fun asking them about this movie. Many who saw it in the sixties and seventies felt ashamed that they saw (what became) a rated-R movie. I would usually explain this to them following a conversation wherein we extolled the virtues of this wonderful bit of celluloid.
…Whew! All that I never even mentioned the infamous shower scene.
My list is constantly changing (in fact, I’ve altered it since I began posting here). This is just a snapshot of my motion picture preferences on this day. But Psycho? Psycho has withstood the test of time in my books. Though I am always on the lookout, I would be very surprised to find a film I consider superior. Surprised, but also delighted!

This entry was posted in Books, Film, and TV. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to My Two Favorite Motion Pictures

  1. Mike says:

    Finally the suspense is over… We all know the two best films ever to hit the big screen. Thanks for following through on the project. And thanks for being able to write about these films without giving away important parts. I have put Rope and Psycho on my Netflix list (have not ever seen either). Rope is due here tomorrow!

  2. James says:

    Hey, you’re welcome! Thanks for caring.
    Yeah, I hope I didn’t ruin too much for those who haven’t seen them yet.
    Speaking of, you haven’t seen either of these moveis before? Rope I can understand, but Psycho? Wow. I’m sure you’ll think I’ve over-rated Rope (everyone else does), but hopefully you’ll enjoy it anyways. Let me know what you think.

  3. Mike says:

    I may have seen Psycho before, but if I did I don’t remember much about it. This was my first time with Rope, it was very interesting, and I was surprised that it was in color. I liked the movie a lot, and enjoyed Jimmy Stewart as always. It was also cool how the camera went to a close-up of someone’s back to make the few cuts that were in the show. It looked like some hand-held camera action too which was another surprise.

  4. James says:

    Mike:
    Glad you enjoyed Rope. It was Hitchcock’s first color film. It is funny how the camera zeroed in on people’s back and on furniture to mask scene cuts. I forgot the hand-held camera aspect. That was considered taboo in the 1940s, as if the film wasn’t ‘professional’ enough if they didn’t use a tripod. Given the small, cramped sets for this film, I wonder if a hand-held camera was more a matter of convenience than artistic decision.

Comments are closed.