Humanities

1/11/2018

For this week's Humanities forum, develop a motivated response to Rope inspired by the kind of sophisticated readings we saw in Doty and Savran. Your post should include at least one quotation from one of this week's texts and one form any other Humanities reading we've read from the beginning of the term until now. Consider "queering" psychoanalytic concepts that we've encountered such as death drive, narcissism, sadism-masochism, masquerade, the Oedipus complex, phantasy, the phallus, gaze, superego, or jouissance. Develop a provocative analysis of Rope, well-supported with evidence, that allows us to see the film AND the concept in a new light. Your post is due before class on Monday. To remember character names, always refer to IMDB. The Rope script (along with all Hitchcock scripts) is also easily accessible online.

To help motivate your response, you may consider the following quotation from Doty's "Queer Hitchcock" as a jumping off point (one of many in that essay):

"For the past two decades, most ideological analyses of Queer Hitchcock have taken Wood's middle road, which considers how the ambiguous coding of non -normative gender and sexuality in Hitchcock films frequently allows for readings that recognize the potential for homophobia (or a less specific queerphobia) along with the potential for readings of queer characters and narratives that might, for example, make a case for the attractive (queer) villain, or for a film such as Rope being more about how homophobic, heterosexist, patriarchal culture perverts Brandon and Phillip than it is about how queerness leads to psychopathology and murder" (Doty, 481).

Good luck on your posts! Please mio if you have any questions.

36 Comments

Meghan Rulli

1/11/2018 07:35:33 pm

According to Doty, “Sadomasochism presents the challenge of (1) separating representations of more positive consensual S/M role-playing from its more negative “power-struggle” forms” (p. 478). I believe that the theme of sadomasochism represented in Rope does indeed show the negative power struggle between Phillip and Brandon. In this case, Phillip is the masochist, and Brandon is the sadist. A scene that stood out to me, that represented the sadomasochist aspect of their relationship, was at the very beginning, when they finish killing David Kentley. The moments after they lock him away is a sexual connotation, the scene is almost identical to a post-sex scene; heavy breathing, short, awkward conversation, opening of the blinds and lights. The leather gloves and the rope that they use to kill David indicates BDSM. Phillip also says to Brandon after the murder “You frighten me… part of your charm I suppose”, suggesting again that their relationship is very interested in s/m.

The negative power-struggle that’s represented by the two using sadomasochism is represented throughout the entire movie. Phillip is in constant panic and is angry towards Brandon for hinting at the murder during the dinner party, and Brandon is almost getting pleasure from the fact that Philip is a nervous wreck. Brandon is evidently the one with more power in the relationship than Phillip. Brandon also likes to embarrass Phillip, as he knows he’s weak. We see this when he told the story about Phillip strangling a chicken, which can also be seen as Phillips resistance of being considered a sadist.

To quote Jessica Benjamin’s ‘The Bonds of Love’ “Submission...is often motivated by the fear of separation and abandonment; masochism reflects the inability to express one’s own desire and agency.” (p. 79). Phillip is submitting to Brandon’s devious actions during the dinner party, and perhaps because he’s afraid of being abandoned, to take the blame for the murder by himself. Phillip is constantly being interrupted or put down when he expresses his desires, his fears, his wishes to have never committed the murder in the first place, but Brandon never listens. Brandon, the sadist, never allows Philips, the masochist, desires to be heard.

Janet Walker is an interesting character when it comes to analyzing her using Joan Riviere’s “Womanliness as Masquerade.” In the essay, Riviere explains a situation that is very similar to that of Janet’s “ Her behavior on these occasions is also marked by an inappropriate feature: she becomes flippant and joking, so much so that it has caused comment and rebuke. She has to treat the situation of displaying her masculinity to men as a “game,” as something not real, as a “joke.” She cannot treat herself and her subject seriously, cannot seriously contemplate herself as on equal terms with men” (p. 4) In the scene where Janet arrives at the party, she says “Was that funny? I never know when I'm being funny. Whenever I try to be, I lay the bomb of all time.” She’s displaying her masculinity, which in this case is humor, as a joke. When she attempts to be funny, she “doesn’t seriously think” that she is.

Julia Prud'Homme

2/11/2018 10:32:27 am

(repost)
It is evident that Brandon and Phillip are in a sexual relationship. The scene where they murder David has extremely sexual connotations, and Phillip often says things like “you just astound me, like always” and it is clear that Brandon is the one with the most power in the relationship. I’d argue, however, that their sexuality is being repressed and that’s why it comes out as murder. Brandon always talks about murder as though it is a work of art, he even states, “I always wished I had more artistic talent. Well, murder can be art too (Doty 477).” As Doty explains in QUEER HITCHCOCK, Hitchcock followed Freud, and one of Freud’s concepts was that when we repress something, it comes out in other ways and often in art. In fact, Doty also presents us with a Hitchcock quote directed towards Charlotte Chandler which states, “I think too much sex while you are working goes against the work and that repressed sex is more constructive for the creative person.” And Doty continues to explain that when sexuality is repressed, it comes out in non-normative fashion. In this case, the repressed sexual relationship between Brandon and Phillip came out as a perfectly executed murder that gave them satisfaction, as you can see by the quick breath and extreme joy you could especially see on Brandon’s face post-murder. They finished their masterpiece art work, and that art work is all the unreleased sexual tension finally getting out. I’d also say that Brandon and Phillip’s relationship mimics Freud’s depiction of the narcissist (Brandon being the narcissist), because Phillip is attracted to Brandon because of his continuously cool demeanor, his inability to care about being caught and his utmost confidence that they will not be. He presents himself as unafraid, and Phillip, being as afraid as he is of being caught, is in a constant state of awe and attraction towards him. Phillip wants to be as unafraid as Brandon, just as we all want to be as unafraid as the narcissist. Brandon attracts him even more when he says just after the murder as they are about to get champagne, “You aren't frightened any more, are you? Neither of us can have fear. That's the difference between us and them.” He’s insinuating that Phillip can be a narcissist like him, can be that confident, which is all that Phillip wants, and Phillip is ready to do anything to be like him. In THE BONDS OF LOVE, Benjamin states “submission… is often motivated by the fear of separation and abandonment (Benjamin 79), and I’d argue that Phillip is so afraid to be alone with the murder and alone with his thoughts that he submits erotically and non-erotically to Brandon continuously. He lets Brandon invite Rupert, lets him use the chest as a table, and lets him use the rope. He lets Brandon do anything, to make sure the latter doesn’t abandon him.

Kelly Rosialda

3/11/2018 03:22:48 pm

Rope critiques society in an unfashioned matter through Brandon’s character. The audience is exposed to Brandon’s actions and thoughts that aren’t filtered by societal construct. He argues in the beginning of the film that murder should be a form of art. He compares killing to art because the act expresses the same creativity and provides similar satisfaction. Brandon also expresses a need for perfection. “David was the perfect victim for the perfect murder,” he states (Rope). Moreover, he classifies humans and accords privileges to “superiors” in an orderly matter. His desire for perfection,solely a mask is a justification to his own queerness. In fact, an article of the New York Times states: “Because we naturally want to look away from our ugliness. We paint over racist reality to make a beautiful delusion of self, of society” (Kendi para.23). Brandon gives out a performance, a party in order to hide and create an explanation for his actions. Throughout the night, he guides Rupert to his own way of thinking but inevitably fails because Rupert’s thoughts, although agreeing to certain of Brandon’s arguments, is a result of societal norms. His character represents the queerness and fascination towards death, possessed by everyone that we repress because of society’s construct. Rupert argues that murder can solve many problems found in all communities such as unemployment and poverty but rejects Brandon at the end of the film as his mind is filtered by moral norms imposed by society. He cites: “ It's not what I'm going to do, Brandon. It's what society is going to do. I don't know what that will be, but I can guess, and I can help” (Rope). The observable relationship, duality between the characters queerness towards death and living in a constructed community can be compared to the Ego’s relationship with the Id. Rupert’s Id is filtered by the ego as he still possesses moral construct in his actions and judgement. His malicious thoughts are only verbally expressed and are rejected once he has discovered David’s corpse. However, Brandon’s Ego has no control over the Id. In other words, as explained in the “Dissection of the Psychical Personality”: “often there arises between the Ego and the id the not precisely ideal situation of the rider [Ego] being obliged to guide the horse [Id] along the path by which itself want to go” (Freud 76). That being said, Brandon’s Id has a direct and full interaction with the external world. He believes and justifies his murder as being the right thing to do in hope that it will mask his queerness.

Angele Wen

3/11/2018 03:49:43 pm

As Patricia said, there is more than one queer relationship between the characters of ROPE. In fact, there is barely any relationship that follows the social norms in this film. Unlike my classmates, I would like to focus more on the concept of the separation of the mother with the child from Benjamin's BONDS OF LOVE. In this text, we read that boys often have a bigger difficulty in the process of “disidentification” with their mother (76). Sometimes, the separation can be so hard that the boy later becomes a sadist. We can easily relate this concept to Philip. He seems like he couldn't disidentify with his mother. A boy who successfully separates himself with his mother to become an other will be able to reverse “the power relationship so that the master now controls the other” (Benjamin 77). Philip has no control over the dead body of David, even though he was the one who strangled him. He is scared of it and is scared that Rupert discovers his horrible act. Philip is actually being controlled by David's corpse, which seems more like his sexual object, as said in Freud's “Three Essays on Sexuality”: “the object is readily conceivable as that which provides satisfaction (...) the sexual object can be another person, a body part, (...) and so on” (334). Philip thought killing David would provide him satisfaction, but did not consider the consequences of his action.

Philip had pleasure in killing David, but once he is dead, he becomes afraid. It's like a child who is attached to his childhood toy, but loses it. A child usually has a childhood toy around the age when they start to separate from their mother, as we discussed in class. For Philip, not being able to disidentify with his mother makes him attached to others so he can always have something or someone to rely on. It is his way to be dependant on other than his mother. Other than David's dead body, since the beginning of the film, we could already see his dependance on Brandon. Whenever Brandon is away, Philip would look for him and get stressed out. Both Brandon and the dead body had been his source of dependance.

Vanessa Amar

3/11/2018 06:08:55 pm

The relationship between Brandon and Philip suggests a homosexual one. As Meghan mentioned, the murder scene is a clear reference to post-sex scenes. The film treats the murder as if it were their relationship; the references and attitude towards the murder by both Brandon and Philip can be compared to how a closeted homosexual couple could view their sexual relationship. Philip is ashamed and prays no one finds out while Brandon flaunts it and is clearly exhilarated by it. At the end of the movie, Brandon and Philip are persecuted by Rupert for the murder of David, however it suggests a shaming of their relationship as well. Rupert ends his monologue by saying that “it's what society's going to do. I don’t know what that will be […] You're going to die, Brandon, both of you!” This attitude is comparable to one towards queer people at the time of the film’s release and still today, particularly in religious communities. In “Queer Hitchcock,” Doty states that Arthur Laurents, the screenwriter for ROPE, believed Hitchcock’s religious affiliation had a role in his view of queerness, stating that he was “a strong Catholic, he probably thought it was wrong” (476).

Philip’s opinion concerning the murder does not come out through words, but lack thereof. Throughout the movie he is incapable of truly saying what he means. In the very beginning, when asked how he felt about the murder, he dodged the question and changed the topic; in conversations with Rupert, Philip frequently became defensive and occasionally stuttered. His silence in these instances is what allowed Brandon to take control. According to Rose, “masochism reflects the inability to express one’s own desires and agency.” (79) In this case, Philip is a masochist through his lack of vocalization. This is also apparent during Rupert’s discourse at the end where Philip had not said a single word. He looked the most at peace and calm then at any other point of the movie. His opinion had finally been vocalized, what he has been wanted to say was voiced by Rupert. When Philip heard the sirens, he sat back down and calmly played the piano.

Julia Bifulco

4/11/2018 01:47:47 pm

Brandon and Phillip’s homosexual relationship in the film is represented by their murder of David Kentley. While Phillip is very ashamed of it and tries to hide any and all evidence as much as possible, Brandon views it with pride and tries to see how far he can go without letting the truth come out, much to Phillip’s dismay. Brandon takes charge at the dinner party and all but flaunts their crime, while his partner is forced to just watch and hope that nobody catches on. In THE BONDS OF LOVE, Benjamin defines submission as “motivated by the fear of separation and abandonment,” while masochism entails “the inability to express one’s own desire and agency” (Benjamin, 79). Phillip is submissive by letting Brandon, the masochist, tell everyone about the details of David’s murder even though he can’t explicitly talk about it. He lets Brandon talk out of fear that, if he stops him, Brandon will turn on him and leave, letting Phillip take full blame for the crime. Phillip is clearly the weaker, more delicate link in their partnership, and is therefore an easier interrogation target.

When Rupert questions him on David’s whereabouts, Phillip freezes up and freaks out. Rupert also asks about Phillip’s past experiences on the matter—the chicken-strangling incidence that Brandon brought up. Just like if Rupert was referencing a past relationship with another man, and not a past murder with another victim, Phillip does his best to deny that it ever happened, despite being visibly ashamed. At the end of the film, once Rupert’s found out about the murder, he tells Brandon and Phillip that he doesn’t know “what society’s going to do” to them because of their actions. On the surface, this is obviously about them being punished for murder, but Rupert also means that society will condemn them for being gay. This is backed up by Doty’s “Queer Hitchcock”, in which it is stated that the film is “about how homophobic, heterosexist, patriarchal culture perverts Brandon and Phillip” (Doty, 481).

Lyna Ikram Bayou

4/11/2018 02:00:28 pm

I have to say that I completely agree with Meghan when she argues that the opening scene of ROPE, where Brandon and Phillip talk right after killing their victim, is “almost identical to a post-sex scene”. The two characters, by the dialogues, by their nervousness and by the entire scene itself imply that there might be a homosexual relationship going on. Throughout the entire movie, the viewer can sense a certain sexual tension coming off the way Brandon and Phillip look at each other. In that same opening scene, Brandon says “we did do it in the day time”. Although “it” refers to the crime they committed minutes ago, that saying somehow has a sexual connotation, especially when related back to the other elements—that Meghan has listed before—that imply sexual intercourse or a homosexual relationship.

Also, David’s body buried in the chest, hidden from their entourage reminds me of an expression that’s often used regarding homosexuality: “coming out of the closet”. The chest could be considered as a symbol for the closet, meaning that the characters hiding their sexuality is symbolized using a dead body hidden in the chest. It wouldn’t be surprising considering the “ambiguous coding of non-normative gender and sexuality in Hitchcock films” (Doty 481). This implied homosexuality is one of the reasons why the characters can be perceived as “queer” characters: they defy the heteronormative behavior that is accepted and expected by society. Moreover, it is worth noting that both actors who played Brandon and Phillip (John Dall and Farley Granger, respectively) were gay. It makes the movie extremely controversial—and queer—for 1948 and “‘Hitchcock wanted to be able to get away with’ the ‘homosexual element of the script’” (Spoto, cited by Doty 476).

I think it can be argued that Brandon and Phillip are involved in a sadomasochist relationship, whether as friends or as lovers. As Jessica Benjamin put it, “masochism reflects the inability to express one’s own desire and agency” (79). Phillip, from the very starts, is unhappy with the situation they are in. They just murdered someone, and he hates the way Brandon plays with fire by inviting guests—the victim’s parents and girlfriend. Although he doesn’t approve of Brandon’s actions, he doesn’t do much. Phillip is frightened, yet amazed by Brandon, and complies to his desires. I believe this relates back to saying that all desire is desire of the other. Phillip puts himself in a position of submission where he allows Brandon to be in charge, although the latter’s attitude is hurting the former and might cause him trouble, because he enjoys it. Brandon, on the other hand, appears to enjoy seeing Phillip all panicked and in distress; he takes on the sadistic role in the relationship.

Another element that exposes the queerness of the film is the perversion implicated. Brandon is fascinated and loves the idea or murder. During his discussion with Mr. Kentley, he defends that murder should be accepted. He agrees with Rupert that murder is a privilege for superior beings and a way to get rid of “victims, inferior beings whose lives are unimportant anyway” (ROPE, 1948). Both characters make various jokes related to death and murder, even making Mr. Kentley disturbed by this “morbid humor”. This perversion, along with incest and sadomasochism are other forms of queerness that can be found in films. It goes against the norms of society and defies morality.

Cato Usher

4/11/2018 03:05:47 pm

Power dynamics play a major role in Alfred Hitchcock’s ROPE. The primary power dynamic of interest is the relationship between Brandon and Phillip. From the very first scene, we understand that both men are a part of a sadomasochistic relationship that is full of homosexual overtones. After killing David, the couple react in rather opposing ways, with Brandon exhilarated, opening the curtains and Phillip filled with remorse, worried about the eventual consequences. There is a very clear disparity of power displayed from this point on, with Brandon taking the role of the dominant one and Phillip the submissive. This power dynamic is expanded upon throughout the film with Brandon mockingly dismissing his partner’s fear, brandishing the rope and tying it around the stack of books, or embarrassing and provoking him in front of guests with the story about the chicken. In “Queer Hitchcock”, Alexander Doty asks “what kind or degree of abusive sadomasochism would mark ‘non-normativity’”, and later argues that ROPE does indeed clearly separate healthy sadomasochistic relationships from their “more pathological queer forms”, specifically in homosexual relationships (478).

This dynamic becomes even more complex, however, once Rupert comes into the picture. When speaking to his former instructor, Brandon becomes much less confident, dominant and all around powerful. In “Something Amiss”, Rose speaks on the ways we constantly adjust and adapt our behaviour in certain situations, defining the unconscious as “a ‘psychic wardrobe of potential identities’ from which […] I select who I will ‘be’”(394). This unconscious shift in behaviour is clear to the viewer every time Brandon and Rupert share a scene. Brandon has an inevitably self-destructive desire for a Rupert’s acknowledgement and appreciation, displayed in scenes such as the argument about murder where Brandon, excited that Rupert shares his views, goes on a psychopathic tirade about being above “traditional moral concepts” as men with significant cultural and intellectual superiority. Another example of his desire for approbation is the film’s very last scene, where Brandon pushes Rupert to describe the perfect murder, expecting him to “see the art in it”. When Rupert finally accuses Brandon and Phillip of the crime, Brandon tries to explain, saying that he of all people should understand.

Hannah Di Francesco

4/11/2018 03:23:30 pm

In Rope, Rupert acts as an embodiment of the gaze. He wants to know what happened and pushes to uncover the truth. He investigates the actions of the young men, because he knows they are acting differently than usual. As Doty said in QUEER HITCHCOCK: “they can create a more vaguely queer erotic atmosphere around characters and events” (479). As we learn from the past of the characters, Rupert brings out the worst in Brandon, he is the one who inspired the crime and made him think it would be ok. The fact that these characters have such a heavy past together queers their relationship and the obsession Rupert has with finding out what happened. The queerness also applies to the way Brandon wants Rupert’s approval and how he treats Phillip. Brandon asks his former professor how he would have executed the perfect murder so he can validate the way David was killed. He wants Rupert to be proud of what he accomplished, because he is the one who put the ideas in his head and encouraged the murder in his opinion. This is also why Rupert panics after, since this was never his intention. He always talked about murder but would have never acted upon what he said. Brandon and Phillip were so impressed and influenced by him that they took everything literally. They acted upon what their teacher was saying without even thinking about the consequences, they were so focused on the idea of the perfect murder that they did not even consider it killing someone. They considered it more of an experience and this is what validated their actions in their mind. Both Phillip and Brandon are denying the magnitude of what they have just done, Phillip less because he becomes anxious and aware of what he did over the course of the movie, but Brandon stays hidden in his world of denial and pleasing the ideas of his college professor. Like Kendi said in THE HEARTBEAT OF RACISM IS DENIAL: “This denial of racism is the heartbeat of racism.” (para. 11). What keeps Brandon going during the whole movie is the denial of the gravity of murder. His dream of the perfect murder is keeping him from seeing that he just took someone’s life and affected everyone around this person.

Larissa Szaniszlo-Luty

4/11/2018 04:12:59 pm

I completely agree with Vanessa’s critique of the movie ROPE, that the opening scene in which Philip and Brandon are shown to be strangling David is, in fact, a parallel to post-sex scenes and thus, a clear demonstration of their homosexual relationship. Adam Philips wrote that “a couple is a conspiracy in search of a crime [and] sex is often the closest they can get” (21). I believe that Brandon and Philip’s relationship is a perfect display of this claim. Adam Philips stated that every relationship desires a crime – something to hide – and in Hitchcock’s film, one could contend that they found the “crime” in both the murder of David, but as well as in their homosexual relationship; tying into the assertion that sexuality could be a crime in itself. In the film, Brandon appears to be invigorated after the death of David and is ready to flaunt their “perfect murder,” and thus their hidden relationship, by inviting guests to the house, which was to the great dismay of his partner. This excitement demonstrates that he assumes the control in their obviously sadomasochistic relationship and that his counterpart, Philip, plays the more submissive role. It is in this argument that I take issue with Vanessa’s statement, that Brandon gains control through Philip’s silence. Instead, I argue that Philip “fear[ed] separateness” and tried to keep Brandon’s attention through “compliance and self-denial,” which explains why he allowed his partner to get away with so much (Benjamin 78). I don’t think it was so much of the fact that his lack of a voice was what empowered Brandon but the reality that he feared being alone and would do just about anything to keep his ‘abuser’ near – which could actually be seen as a form of control, in itself. Philip acquired a sense of “pleasure in pain” and the fact that he expressed the ‘submissive’ side of himself shows a queerness to the character (Benjamin 80).

Idia Boncheva

4/11/2018 04:52:16 pm

Even in a queer movie that forefronts an exclusively male sexual relationship, Hitchcock keeps the traditional patriarchal gender roles and almost makes a parody out of these socially constructed traits. In fact, although the movie suggests a homosexual relationship between Brandon and Philip, the former remains a perfect representation of the toxic heterosexual male and the latter of a submissive and complexed female. For example, their post-murder pillow talk mirrors the stereotypical reaction of each gender; Brandon (the sadistic male) is proud of himself—he’s jubilating— and Philip (the masochistic female) is ashamed and worries about what will happen if someone finds out. As Cato and Meghan have said, Brandon constantly mocks Philip and almost enjoys seeing him lose his temper because it only further supports his dominant role in their relationship. What has failed to be mentioned, is the idea that this apparent sadism—the pleasure derived from dominance and seeing someone suffer— is due to the repression of his queer desires.
In BONDS OF LOVE, Benjamin theorizes that “the boy develops his gender and identity by means of establishing discontinuity and difference from the person to whom he is most attached” (75-76). In other words, the attain manhood, a child must disassociate himself from his mother, his primary caregiver. Furthermore, she affirms that “erotic domination represents an intensification of male anxiety and defense in relation to the mother”, so in this case, displaying his possession of the phallus in relation with Philip, and arrogantly parading his knowledge in front of his guests is a way of affirming his heterosexuality (77). Additionally, Adam Philips perfectly supports the idea that performed gender and sexuality is ephemeral and true desires will eventually resurface. He claims that “if you devote yourself to being different from your mother you will turn into her” (aphorism 32). When Brandon tries to draw a line between him and his mother, he only reinforces his true desires and deepens his suffering.

patricia brassard

4/11/2018 05:45:18 pm

I concur with my classmates when they say that Brandon and Phillip are in a homosexual relationship. However, I argue that there are more than 2 partners to this relationship. Brandon idolizes Rupert, to such an extent he commits murder to feel like he's making him proud. This dynamic between Rupert and Phillip presents itself as a dad-like relationship with a son that felt was lacking.

Lacking in this sense would be to be homosexual, considering, especially in 1948, all the negative connotation associated with homosexuality, and homophobia. But furthermore, this problematic dynamic of Brandon being ‘in love’/idealizing Rupert is strengthened throughout the movie as Brandon is cocky, confident, assertive with everyone, but Rupert. Brandon, when with Rupert, is insecure, nervous, and more (stereotypically) feminine. He pretends a lot to lie to himself and not have to acknowledge this difficult reality. I say the relationship is problematic because Brandon is in denial of his feelings for Rupert and it causes him to lash out and murder.

Firstly, Brandon is with Phillip, who doesn’t satisfy him sexually because in reality Brandon isn't a dom, but a sub. He merely covers this up with a mask of erotic domination that Jacqueline Rose says; ‘represents an intensification of male anxiety’(77). Brandon’s erotic domination can be associated to Brandon’s eliteness, his over-confidence, his rudeness, his patronizing way of speaking to Janet and Kenneth; all this points to the fact that he uses his power to mask himself. But furthermore, his way of belittling Phillip’s anxieties and the way he's rough and uncaring of Phillip’s fears. Also, the very suggestive camera angles often position Phillip and Brandon or Brandon and Rupert or Brandon, Phillip and Rupert in ways where if Phillip and Brandon are together, Brandon stands tall behind him, but if Rupert is with Brandon, Brandon’s posture isn’t as tall. Also when Rupert, Brandon and Phillip are together; Rupert is tall behind Brandon who is tall behind Phillip. Therefore, Brandon enjoys being with Phillip but would actually want to be with Rupert and Brandon would dominate Phillip but would prefer actually be dominated by Rupert.

Continuing on the fact that Brandon wants to please to Rupert like a son does a father; it is possible to deduct Brandon has some underlying issues with his father and struggled to move passed his oedipus complex (more similar to the electra complex however), and that’s why he yearns for his affection. Tyson qualifies these behaviors as being caused by an oedipal fixation; ‘a dysfunctional bond with a parent … that we don’t outgrow in adulthood and that doesn't allow us to develop mature relationships with our peers’(17). This is very apparent in Brandon as he kills David; neglects Phillip’s emotions; screams, in very childlike manner, at the diner table when talking about murder, lies to his friends. Brandon hates not being in control of the situation and feels a lot of anxiety towards being with Rupert, because his fear of abandonment (feels that if Rupert finds out who he truly is (gay) he will not love him anymore) is reactivated when in his presence. Jacqueline Rose explains what motivates Brandon’s submission in the face of his fear of abandonment when she says submission is ‘often motivated by the fear of separation and abandonment; masochism reflects the inability to expression’s own desire and agency’ which ties in with what I said earlier about Brandon being in denial of his feelings for Rupert (79).

Marilena Mignacca

4/11/2018 06:25:08 pm

In Rope, we can clearly see the Brandon is displayed as the masculine figure throughout the movie. He represents a more “tough guy” in the sense that after him and Phillip murder David, he keeps his calm, portrays a self-confidence and is proud of the deed he’s done calling it “an artistic talent”. You can also see it in his posture, as if he’s almost trying to display his muscles by standing up very straight with his chest out, not having anything to hide. Whereas Philip is shown more hunched over when he feels threatened and worried. All this to say, that Brandon is the person in the movie that “has the phallus”, he has a lot of power over Philip. As Savran points out in his “Taking It Like a Man”, about Rambo that “his enormous strength, self-confidence, and resilience, clearly mark him as a phallic male” (199). I think the Brandon portrays all three of these qualities and a scene where you can see this power being exerted is towards the end, where Rupert is about to come back upstairs and Brandon has Philip in a tight grip telling him “now look, I’m not going to get caught because of you or anyone else. No one is going to get in my way now”(Rope), as you can see Brandon is coming off very intimidating and a man of power. Brandon also exerts his power and masculinity throughout the whole movie in particular scenes while making jokes about Phillip left and right leaving Phillip in a very overpowered situation. However, Brandon’s being the “phallic male” becomes questioned when Rupert enters the room, and it might be because he was previously the boys’ college professor and had already been portrayed at one point as having all the power and as soon as he walks in the room, Phillip and Brandon both halt and shocked almost as if they’ve been caught by their teacher while they were smoking in the boys bathroom. Phillip immediately stops playing the piano and Brandon starts to stutter, at a lost for words and from that moment on, both Brandon and Rupert are almost in a competition for masculine power over each other. Rupert continues to interrogate both Phillip and Brandon, having an inkling of what might’ve happened, but even with this almost dreadful certainty, he continues to question and now becomes an enemy to Brandon and Phillip, and this duo has now become an uninvited trio. As it says in Phillip’s Monogamy "Coupledom is a sustained resistance to the intrusion of third parties. The couple needs to sustain the third parties in order to go on resisting them. The faithful keep an eye on the enemy, eye them up. After all, what would they do together if no one else was there? How would they know what to do? Two's company, but three's a couple.” (94)

Jenna Howor

4/11/2018 06:26:11 pm

The relationships between Brandon and Phillip, and Phillip and Rupert, demonstrate what Elizabeth Grosz outlined in her book, A FEMINIST INTRODUCTION TO LACAN. “What is apparent in the dynamic relationship between anaclitic and narcissistic lovers is the elevation of the latter to a superior, adored, idealized position” (Grosz 127). As some of my classmates have stated above, it is clear that there was some form of sexual relation between the three boys below the surface. One may observe how, between Rupert and Brandon, they play the narcissistic and anaclitic roles respectively. After Brandon and Philip murder David, Brandon attempts to subtly parade the deed in front of Rupert in an attempt to gain his affection and praise. The way that Brandon uses the chest that David’s body is in as a table, and keeps faintly hinting at the murder, depicts a sense of “suicidal recklessness” also known as ‘death drive’ (Zachar199). Clearly Brandon is enjoying the sense of danger and adrenaline from dangling what he has done in front of the faces of everyone at the party without them knowing it. The relationship between Phillip and Brandon again represents the anaclitic and narcissistic relationship respectively. One may understand that Phillip perhaps was not completely okay with the act that him and Brandon had committed. It is possible that because of his idolization for Brandon, that is what led him to take part in such an activity. Julia said that Brandon insinuated that Phillip could be a narcissist like him, however I believe that Phillip did not wish to be a narcissist but rather the object of Brandon’s desire and receive his love and admiration that he had been giving to Rupert. Another interesting angle of this movie, that can be explored, is the demonstration of both masochism and sadomasochism. As Meghan said, Phillip plays the role of the masochist while Brandon plays the role of the sadist. The “erotic domination” observable in the relationship between these two can serve to “break the encasement of the isolated self, to explode the numbness that comes of ‘false’ differentiation” (Benjamin 83). To understand what caused this sense of ‘false’ differentiation, it would be necessary to know more about the characters’ past.

The way that Phillip carries after the deed is done, especially when talking about the chicken that he strangled in the past, shows the audience that perhaps he is frightened of what he is capable of. The relationship between Phillip and Brandon may not only be seen as a sexual/romantic one but also an example of doubling. I say this in the sense that in strangling David, Brandon calls upon the ‘dark’ side of Phillip, the murderous side of him that strangled the chicken many years prior. It is fascinating to see how differently Brandon and Phillip acted after they had committed the murder; one was proud of what they had done and took pleasure out of the possibility of getting caught while the other was extremely shaken and terribly afraid of anyone having the slightest idea of what they had done. Another interesting thing that deserves to be called upon is the last scene when the three men sit in the living room while the police sirens echo in the background. It intrigues me how the three of them are all sitting so calmly considering two of them will likely be going to prison for murder. If Brandon’s nonchalant composure after the murder represents death drive, then it is a possibility that his calmness as the sirens are echoing is representative of his desires finally being satisfied and him being content about being punished for his actions.

Jenna Howor

6/11/2018 10:29:48 am

After discussing in class, i realize that my statement was wrong when i say that Brandon is the one that strangled David. To correct my statement I feel that perhaps when Phillip strangled David it awakened the dark, murderous side of himself that he had been repressing. When this side of himself resurfaces its possible he is frightened of his capabilities and that is one of the reasons why he is so stressed after the deed is done.

Jenna Howor

6/11/2018 11:48:14 am

My first reply included a typo, this is the correct reply to my original forum post: After discussing in class, I realize that my statement was wrong when I say that Brandon is the one that strangled David. To correct my statement I feel that perhaps when Phillip strangled David it awakened the dark, murderous side of himself that he had been repressing. When this side of himself resurfaces its possible he is frightened of his capabilities and that is one of the reasons why he is so stressed after the deed is done.

Kathleen Fabella

4/11/2018 07:16:50 pm

After murdering an innocent person, the natural instinct of a “normal” human being would be to hide as much as possible the crime scene and any clues that would lead the murder back to you. But that’s not the case of Brandon in the movie Rope directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
To further explain, the concept of death drive seem to be very present in the movie, especially in the character of Brandon. In Freud’s Psychoanalytic Criticism, he mentions that death drive is “[...] the self-destructive behavior he saw both in individuals, who seemed bent on destroying themselves psychologically if not physically” (p. 22). Since the beginning of the movie, Brandon made it seem like the murder of David was a performance worth noticing. By swinging around the rope he and Philip, his accomplice during the crime scene, used to kill the poor victim, by deciding to eat on the chest containing the dead body instead of the fancy kitchen table or by inviting Rupert to the dinner shows that Brandon was confident, or even maybe over-confident about the whole situation.

When we do wrong or immoral actions, we try to repress it or not think about it because we are so ashamed of it, “because we naturally want to look away from our ugliness” (“The Heartbeat of Racism is ideal, New York Times). Although, in the movie Rope, in the case of Brandon, it is the complete opposite of what the article in New York times proposes. The “ugliness” of Brandon, his desire to kill and how he feels after is something he acknowledges. It’s as if there is a desire to be punished, just like Jenna mentioned. Because Why would Brandon invite Rupert to the dinner party knowing that he tends to be very skeptic and suspects even the tiniest details? There can only be one reason: he wanted to show that he thought about everything so thoroughly, that his crime turned out to be perfect. But it also goes back to self-destruction. Instead of playing it safe and hiding the corpse in a more hidden place, he places it for all to see which could have resulted to him in jail.

Nonetheless, something interesting that I’ve noticed in the concept of death drive and the movie Rope is that death drive really puts emphasis on the world SELF in self destruction. To explain, in the aftermath of the murder, his accomplice Philip had difficulty keeping it together and trying really hard not letting the cat out of the bag. Brandon becomes angry and didn’t want Philip to ruin their cover “I’m not going to get caught because of you or anyone else”, he says. But that’s what I find very intriguing. It’s that Brandon becomes furious when Philip starts making a scene or acting too obvious around their guests when throughout the whole entire film, Brandon had basically put the dead body of David on a plate and was showing it off to everyone. No one else was allowed to destroy him, but himself.

Victoria Caputo

4/11/2018 07:50:35 pm

While my classmates have focused on the “queerness” of Phillip and Brandon’s implied homosexual relationship in ROPE, I would like to focus specifically on non normative gender and why Brandon can be read as a queer character. We, as the audience, get a sense of who Brandon is as a person from the very beginning of the film: a debonair, manipulative young man with a superiority complex. While at first glance, many would consider Phillip to be in the “female” position due to his submissiveness, I would like to argue that if we follow Lacan’s thoughts on the anaclitic and narcissistic postions, which Jenna touched on in her response, Brandon is the one who falls into the “female” position. The typically “masculine” anaclitic position is more active. The anaclitic lover is one that finds love in another, whereas the more “feminine” narcissistic lover passively wants to be loved. Brandon’s sense of superiority and lack of morality is shown throughout the entire film. He, much like the narcissistic lover, needs to admired. He flaunts his “perfect murder” because he wants recognition, he wants to be loved and appreciated. If he simply wanted to get away with the murder, he wouldn’t have served food to his guests on the chest his victim’s body was hidden in and he wouldn’t have wrapped his books with the murder weapon. Brandon isn’t as afraid to be caught as he is afraid that his murder won’t be recognized, that he won’t have everyone’s admiration and approval, specifically Rupert’s. Elizabeth Grosz’s description of Lacan’s narcissistic lover fits Brandon’s character perfectly: “The strength or degree of the other’s love for her is the measure of her own value and worth. Her aim is thus to catch, and keep, one or many lovers as a testimony of her value” (128). For Brandon, there is no point in committing the perfect murder if no one can love and appreciate him for it. He tries to justify his actions to Rupert in order to gain his approval, showing the audience how intense his delusions are for him to believe that David is inferior, and therefore worthy of death. “Denial is how the person defends his superior sense of self” (Kendi para 2). Brandon denies that killing David was wrong, because admitting that would remove him from the pedestal he put himself on. He wants to remain superior, worthy of killing anyone he deems fit. Brandon fitting into the mold of Lacan’s female narcissistic position suggests that he is in fact queer, and that he defies what is considered to be the typical male anaclitic position.

Emily Trankarov

4/11/2018 08:00:05 pm

Character placement in movies is rarely just coincidental or simply random, especially in a Hitchcock movie. Following this line of thought, why is it David’s aunt and not his mother who accompanies the father to the dinner party? Objectively speaking, her attendance doesn’t bring the plot’s narrative forward. It could’ve very well been herself at home sick or a maid there to inform Mr.Kentley of his son missing, not necessarily his wife. But no, she appears in the film taking the wife’s place. My classmates have outlined the queer face of Rope in terms of homosexuality, sadomasochism, gender roles, and more. I want to add that that list, subliminal/symbolical incestuous desire. Mrs.Atwater is the “Uncle Charlie” of Rope. In “Queer Hitchcock” we read, “Same sex and opposite sex incest turns out to be one of the most persistent forms of queer sexuality in Hitchcock films.”(Doty 13) Which then goes without saying that in a film filled to the brim with concealed sexual queerness, it wouldn’t be surprising that its famous director has also hinted towards incest. Mrs.Atwater’s presence and demeanour stand for what Doty would’ve potentially called incest-suggestiveness. The way she accompanies her brother and speaks consistently extremely fondly of her nephew, in an Alfred Hitchcock movie can’t be overlooked as being normal. “…the incest motif in Hitchcock films most generally takes the form of insinuating or suggesting incestuous desire rather than gesturing toward the physical act itself.”(Doty 13) In that sense, there is a potential love triangle formed between aunt and brother and aunt and nephew. The quasi-parent/child relationship between characters in films which is used to suggest incestuous relationships is furthermore accentuated by the aunt taking the place of Mr.Kentley’s wife and David’s “mother” for the evening. Along those lines, David becomes the object of incestuous desire which is being stuffed in a chest. Thus, demonstrating what Edmundson writes that,"If the incest wish informs every desire, then desire must be chastened time and again.” David represents that symbolical chastening. Ultimately, Rope undeniably embodies the essence of Queer Theory and as Jacqueline Rose writes in Responses to Psychoanalytic Practices Encountering Queer Theories, “…Queer theory once it enters the domain of psychoanalysis-can only be strengthened by engaging with the darker places of the psyche…” and incest is precisely that. So, I am compelled to see its discreet presence in Rope. It’s easy to overlook the signification of secondary characters in works of literature or in film, however they might just be as compelling to analyze.

Ameera Kabir

4/11/2018 08:36:33 pm

I do believe that Brandon and Philip are in a sexual relationship, but what I find most interesting about the film is not the relationship between Philip and Brandon, but Brandon’s clear admiration (or love) for his former mentor, Rupert. I do agree with Patricia that this relationship shares a father-son dynamic wherein the son is vying for his father’s attention, however I believe it more closely mirrors the relationship with the narcissist.

If for Philip, Brandon represents the idolized narcissistic figure, then Rupert represents this very same figure for Brandon. Before seeing Rupert on screen, the viewers hear about him from Brandon. He speaks of him very fondly and with admiration, nevertheless he claims that despite Rupert’s intellect, “he never could have acted [...] that's where [they are] superior”. The superiority Brandon feels is a facade which quickly crumbles the moment he and Rupert begin a conversation; he loses all his former charm and is almost timid. He remarks that this is reminiscent of when Brandon was schoolboy. He reverts back to how he was when he was a young boy who adored his older mentor, or when he had less power. Edmundson states that “when the narcissist [...] is one of us, the fascination is gone” (p.16), for this reason if Rupert were to join Brandon and Philip, he would have been on the same level as them and would no longer be in a position to be admired. On a related note, if Rupert were a part of their murder, then Brandon would no longer be able to win his recognition/approval, because he would have already been in on it from the beginning. There is nothing of value to be gained from this arrangement since it strips it of its prize.

Benjamin mentions in her article that “while all children identify with their first loved one, must dissolve this identification and define themselves as the different sex” (p.75), but in Brandon’s case, his first love might very well be Rupert. His nervous and excited manner could be seen as the behaviour of a boy in love. Rupert’s controversial (and perverse) opinions interest Brandon, and even Philip remembers the days when Brandon would sit by his “master’s knees” and listen to him speak. I imagine, for a young boy, this would have been the first time anyone had either challenged his way of thinking or acknowledged his own perversity, since he does, after all, agree with Ruperts beliefs (or what he thought were his true beliefs at the time) on murder. Marx details that “theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses”, and not only do Rupert’s ideas fascinate him, but they ignite in him a dangerous curiosity strong enough to want to fulfill them in order to gain his teacher’s favour.

Ameera Kabir

5/11/2018 05:38:42 pm

Typo: “boys must dissolve[...]” for the Benjamin quote

Chris Morgan Arseneau

4/11/2018 08:45:32 pm

The queerness in ROPE can be positioned as the embodiment of an unceasingly intense narcissistic and self-destructive drive.

Right from the beginning scene, viewers can establish that ROPE is full of sexual connotations, as Julia mentioned. I would like to add that these sexual connotations can also be viewed as homosexual or queer undertones. Alfred Hitchcock illustrates the opening scene in a manner which implies a sexual act. Much like sex, committing a murder by strangulation is an intimate act, as depicted in ROPE. If it weren’t for the rope wrapped around his neck, David could be seen as experiencing an orgasm. His eyes are shut, his head is tipped slightly backwards, and he’s gasping for air with his mouth ajar. I venture that the rope, in a sexual analysis of the scene, can be viewed as an object which satisfies a fetish of being choked. After killing David, Brandon says, “Until his body went limp, and I knew it was over,” when asked about what felt finest about the murder. However, Brandon’s words can be interpreted as a sexual statement about regarding the phallus and potency. A tremendous amount of tension is present between Brandon and Phillip following the murder they’ve committed. This tension, very much sexual in nature, can easily drive viewers to interpret the murder scene as a sexual one.

Alexander Doty mentions in his work that ROPE is “more about how homophobic, heterosexist, patriarchal culture perverts Brandon and Phillip than it is about how queerness leads to psychopathology and murder.” (481). For instance, Alfred Hitchcock’s ROPE discusses the queer narcissistic figure rather than how queer narcissism leads to murder. Brandon is very much a narcissistic figure in ROPE. He’s in love with his own self-image and his own fantasies. He has an entirely self-centered view towards sex as can be seen through the film’s sexual connotations. He seems to perceive his sexuality as a projection of his own sense of moral and physical superiority to others. Brandon appears to feel entitled and deserving of the perfection of his desires and fantasies regardless of reality. His sexuality expresses his narcissism in a sense that his sexuality is a manifestation (at least a physical one) of his narcissism.

Philip is depicted as a weak character, especially in comparison to Brandon. Brandon is depicted as rather confident and in control. Succeeding the murder, he’s the one who opens the curtains, lights a cigarette and tells Phillip what to do. Furthermore, the body language of both characters presents Phillip as the weaker of the two men. His hands are behind his back and he is clearly disturbed by the act he has just committed, while Brandon has his hands on his hips and is able to talk about other subjects with seemingly no afflictions in regards to what just occurred.

Rupert takes on the role of the anaclitic lover while Brandon takes on the role of the narcissistic one where “the elevation of the latter to a superior, adored, idealized position” (Grosz 127) occurs. After the murder of David, a kind of death drive materializes alongside Brandon's narcissism, which pulls him toward his own self-destruction. Brandon doesn’t want to get caught for murdering David, but he also wants Rupert to acknowledge what he has done. He seeks approval and admiration from his anaclitic lover. Brandon gains sexual pleasure from showcasing his masterpiece of a murder while not actually coming forth about it and revealing what he’s done.

Ruhullah Muhtat

4/11/2018 08:48:01 pm

The relationship between Brandon and Phillip is certainly interesting but I would like to focus on Mrs. Wilson character who is portrayed very much as a masochistic and submissive woman in relationship with Rupert. A glimpse of this sadomasochistic relationship is shown when Mrs. Wilson tells Rupert that she brought for him what is presumably his favourite meal. Mrs. Wilson really wants to be appreciated by him, therefore, by pleasing him with his favourite meal and controlling her “deepest anxiety (…) through “the discipline of service and obedience”” she manages to “enjoy the sadist’s(Rupert) attack” (Benjamin 79). This “attack” of Rupert happens when he tells her that he doesn’t like that meal anymore but then says he was joking. Mrs. Wilson then tells Rupert that he’s awful with a small. Nonetheless, she clearly succeeds at pleasing him because Rupert then confesses to Brandon that he might marry her.
Another interesting scene is when Rupert and Mrs. Wilson have a chat together while everyone else is busy with the books. She shares with Rupert her confusion on the dinner being served in the living room instead of the dinning room. She reveals all she knows about the matter. She tells everything Brandon has told her. The fact that she doesn’t hide any truth from Rupert is arguably part of her submissive behaviour even though she then tells him she would not reveal the reason of Brandon’s strange behaviour even if she knew it.
At the end of the party, Mrs. Wilson gives back Rupert’s hat in a foolish way. She laughs because she gave him the wrong one. This way of making a fool of herself is really similar to what Riviere talked about in “Womanliness as Masquerade” Mrs. Wilson “puts on the semblance of a rather uneducated, foolish and bewildered woman” to make sure she stays the desired object; the phallus for Rupert (3). It can also be interpreted as a way of making herself submissive to Rupert. In fact, the very act of giving Rupert’s hat is a way of showing him she is her “servant”.

Chloe Casarotto

4/11/2018 09:22:01 pm

Alfred Hitchcock has surprised and entranced the world with his dark and mysterious films. People are unable to pull their eyes away when watching his films, as they fear missing a beat, a detail or a surprise. One aspect that is apparent within all of his films is that of sexuality, which is a concept that is described in many ways. Arguably, Hitchcock has purposefully incorporated sexuality in his movies and placed necrophilia, scopophilia, incest, narcissism and much more into the description of sexuality. This is how Alexander Doty as well as David Sarvan define queer Hitchcock. Brandon can be seen as queer because he shows many sadomasochistic tendencies, which can be seen through the way he speaks and the way he acts around people. After commiting a murder, he does not console a worried Phillip, instead he is arguing and telling him off. He explains to Phillip that commiting the crime is a good things as they are getting rid of someone who is not needed and that they are now stronger than the normal person because only the strong can kill someone. This can be seen as sadomasochist because there is (Doty, 478) “some degree of mental, if not physical abuse.” where Philip is the victim to Brandon’s abuse. Brandon is sadistic in the sense that he enjoys seeing people worry and also enjoys watching Philip begin to worry and break under stress, fear and pressure. He enjoys watching his dinner guests become curious and worry about the whereabout of David, while they take food from the top of his grave and eat right beside his corpse. Although what he gains the most pleasure from is the fear and paranoia that his friend Philip holds in throughout the evening. While Philip is living with the fear of people finding out his secret as well as attempting the come to the realization that he killed someone his companion Brandon sits and laughs at him and essentially enjoys the fear and pain he helped place on Philips shoulders. We learn that Brandon is a sadist. For Brandon, this is his (Rose, 394) "drill of the normative” where his drill is watches people in pain, mentally and physically until they become exhausted and face releasing their secrets to the world. It has been said that he always enjoyed watching people break as well as almost reach the breaking point which is said by Philip when they speak about their days at prep school.

Jade Karakaly

4/11/2018 09:24:05 pm

Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope contains several sexual tensions between different characters that portrays the queerness of Alfred Hitchcock himself. In his writings, Doty explains that Hitchcock’s movies are full of non-normative sexual relationships and different notions of gender and sex: “There is also the experience of looking back at Hitchcock and his films from the vantage point of the early twenty-first century, with its considerably different notions of what falls within, and outside of, sex, gender and sexuality norms.” (Doty, 474). Doty talks about necrophilia, incest, sadomasochism, bestiality and pedophilia as being queer sexual practices. Although, it is true that these are in Hitchcock’s movies, I think that another type of sexual practice that creates sexual tensions between characters is the polyamory between Janet, David, Kenneth and Brandon.
To contextualise, Janet dated Brandon, and then Kenneth to end up with Kenneth’s best friend, David. This queer relationship is really forsaken even if it creates a strong sexual tension in the movie. Indeed, in the beginning of the movie, when Janet arrives at the party, we see a real connection between Brandon and Janet as he hugs her and holds her for more than twenty seconds and she compliments him on his smell even if they should be considered as an ex-couple and she is supposed to stay loyal to her actual partner. Another instance in the movie is when Brandon asks Kenneth to bring the champagne to Janet who’s in the bedroom that she had previously labeled as “cozy” and Kenneth accepts with joy, even if she is her ex and she is dating his best friend. Let’s not forget that these instances of sexual tensions between ex-partners are all happening in front of the temporary hideout of David’s body, the actual boyfriend of Janet. This concept brings back to Adam Phillip’s Monogamy, more particularly to his idea of the third party. “Coupledom is a sustained resistance to the intrusion of third parties, […], Two's company, but three's a couple.” (Phillips, 6). The presence of the third parties is strong in this movie as Brandon and Kenneth could be considered as the third parties of Janet’s couple with David. However, Janet doesn’t really refuse these intrusions of third parties and this is what creates this bizarre sexual tension between these ex-partners and this queer relationship between them.
Also, these omnipresent queer relationships and bizarre sexual tensions in Hitchcock’s movies such as the relationship between Janet, Brandon, Kenneth and David, “refuse to submit to our political demands.” (Rose, 393). Political demands are often what society is asking and they are often represented by normativity. In psychoanalysis as well as in Hitchcock’s movies, normativity, especially sexual normativity, is often forsaken and challenged with several tensions produced by the film director. These tensions are not naturally included in the movie, it is the viewer who creates this tension by interpreting the relationship in the movie and describing it with adjectives such as “queer” and “non-normative”. In the case of Rope, a queer relationship could be the one between David, a dead man, Janet, Brandon and Kenneth. In our world, it is queer because some sexual tensions between ex-partners especially when there is more than one ex-partner is something that don’t respect the political demands of society and the normativity of society that is supervised by the big Other.

Wendy Lopez Ponce

4/11/2018 09:47:59 pm

To further what Lyna expressed, on highlighting queerness through perversion in Alfred Hitchcock’s ROPE, we can clearly see it when approaching the scene of the murder and its immediate aftermath. For instance, when driven by perversion, we are driven by curiosity of doing, thinking or seeing what we shouldn’t or what we know is wrong and immoral. In ROPE, we see the concept of perversion through Phillip because it is noticeable since the beginning that he was regretful of the murder he committed and yet, although what caused him stress was getting caught, he was at ease with it. I believe that for Phillip what drives his perversion is Brandon himself, since he is the mastermind behind the “masterpiece”, the murder. We can clearly understand that even though he doesn’t completely agree with everything Brandon does, he is still accepting to follow which is why we can consider their relationship as perverse. This concept can be understood when Phillip says to Brandon “You frighten me you always have from the very first day in prep school, part of your charm I suppose”. He is aware that Brandon represents what’s wrong, but he still sees him in a positive way.

In “Queer Hitchcock” by Alexander Doty, Richard Allen implies that Hitchcock used the “dandy” as a way of showing a “perverse representation of sexuality, whether straight or queer” (483). This expresses that the implicit inclusion of homosexuality, in Hitchcock’s films, was made by putting “a feminine soul in a man’s body” (483) which therefore creates a queer relationship. This can be seen in the relationship between Brandon and Phillip. In their couple, we can associate the feminine traits to Phillip, due to his constant need of reassurance from Brandon, which makes him seem as weak and a follower. For the masculine side of the relationship we can associate it to Brandon since he seems to lead Phillip by telling him what he should do and how he should act, which is how gender normative roles were seen by society. By giving same sex characters the same roles heterosexual relationships have, it’s Hitchcock’s way of making the men’s relationship perverse since he knows it is against the norms to show homosexuality but his perversion towards it still appears implicitly through “dandyism” in his films.

Isabella Martino

4/11/2018 09:58:07 pm

I, along with the rest of my classmates, acknowledge that there is evidently a sexual relationship between Brandon and Phillip. However, similarly to Patricia, I am more intrigued by Brandon’s relationship with his former house master Rupert. In fact, I argue that the most prominent homosexual relationship in ROPE is not that between Brandon and Phillip but rather between Brandon and Rupert. In the beginning of the film, Brandon expresses his content in regards to the murder he has just committed. Furthermore, he quickly adds on, explaining how even Rupert would be impressed with the successfully executed murder. Although this might seem unimportant at first, Brandon’s comment illustrates his desire to please his former house master. His need to please Rupert, along with his submissive attitude (he is rather timid as well as more cautious with his words) both when talking to and about Rupert, not only showcases Brandon’s sense of inferiority to him, but implies that Rupert is the ‘man’ in the relationship. In addition to this, the weapon of choice chosen to murder David (The rope) indicates both Brandon’s sexual desire to be with Rupert as well as his desperation to attaining the phallus and appearing ‘masculine’ as a means to hide his homosexuality. Jacqueline Rose states that it is via an erotic mask that man creates for himself that showcases and “represents an intensification of male anxiety” (77). In Brandon’s case, choosing to kill David with the use of a rope acts as his erotic ‘mask’. The idea of being chocked and/or tied up are two actions that have very apparent sexual connotations; Brandon’s choice of weapon very clearly identifies his subconscious sexual desires, and his mention of Rupert right after committing the crime using the rope merely amplifies the viewer’s confirmation that it is Rupert he longs for. Additionally, Brandon is very adamant on not discarding of the murder weapon, he wishes to keep it around while they have guests over for dinner, as a form of hidden trophy. Not only does the rope represent the accomplishment of the murder, it symbolizes what Brandon believes both her and Rupert describe ‘being a man’. By keeping the rope, Brandon feels as though he is a ‘manly man’ and therefore is his way of ‘having the phallus’ – or at least his way of trying to attain it. We can see this throughout the entire dinner party, Brandon appears immensely confident and sure of himself when speaking to his guests. He is seen both by the viewers and the supporting characters as the host of the evening and thus ‘the man of the house’. However, at the end of the film, from the moment Rupert is seen with the murder weapon, Brandon’s attitude changes drastically. He automatically loses his ‘manliness’ and is seen almost begging Rupert, trying desperately to get him to understand why he has murdered David. Brandon expresses his concern to Rupert by saying: “you have to understand, you have to!” which obviously illustrates how his feeling of inferiority towards Rupert has resurfaced (ROPE). Interestingly, Savran explains how it is the qualities of “enormous strength, self-confidence, and resilience [that] clearly mark […] a phallic male”, three qualities that Rupert possesses at the end of ROPE – NOT Brandon (199). He is not persuaded by Brandon’s words and remains static on his opinion of what he has done. In sum, Rupert is evidently the phallic male in his relationship with Brandon who, without the possession of his rope, does not possess the phallus and remains submissive to Rupert.

David Boghen

4/11/2018 10:20:18 pm

In ROPE, the characters of Brandon and Phillip are greatly influenced by the teachings of Rupert, their housemaster in prep school. So much so that they take his idea that the moral concepts of good and evil don’t apply to superior beings such as themselves and act upon it, killing one of their friends. The relationship between Rupert and Brandon especially is an intriguing one, as Brandon seems to have internalized Rupert mantras and pushed them to their extreme. In some sense, Rupert seems to have infiltrated Brandon’s super-ego, a process reminiscent of what Freud called “identification”. He described it in “The Dissection of the Psychical Personality” as “the assimilation of one ego to another one, as a result of which the first ego behaves like the second in certain respects, imitates it and in a sense takes it up into itself” (63). However, this process is not as one-sided as one might think. When Rupert is confronted with the fact that Brandon and Phillip committed this murder because of him, he denies that he ever would have wanted it happen. While ROPE doesn’t have anything to do with the racism that Kendi says is fueled by denial in his article “The Heartbeat of Racism is Denial”, denial is a major theme in the relationship between Brandon and Rupert. He starts his article with the following: “When our reality is too ugly, we deny reality. It is too painful to look at. Reality is too hard to accept” (Kendi). It is clear that Rupert is horrified that they have committed murder, but he refuses to accept that he is to blame. He even says “There must have been something deep inside you from the very start that let you do this thing, but there's always been something deep inside me that would never let me do it” (Rope). However, all the evidence from the film shows that it was Rupert’s unconscious desire to go through with these ideas, with how strongly he stood up for them when he was arguing with Mr. Kentley. Since he was unable himself to commit the crime, he spread the idea to Brandon, hoping that he would satisfy this desire of his. Therefore, Brandon’s identification with Rupert was on some level forced upon him by Rupert so as to fulfill his repressed desire.

Sophie-Leprohon Watters

4/11/2018 10:56:07 pm

After reading and reflecting upon the posts above, the two that stood out the most to me were Kelly’s and Angèle’s. Kelly writes, “His [Rupert] character represents the queerness and fascination towards death”. Angèle then writes, “Philip is actually being controlled by David's corpse, which seems more like his sexual object’’. When the idea that death is fascinating and is considered to be a sexual object, it takes the form of necrophilia. Doty explains, “Should all non-normative sexuality practices be considered queer? Incest? Necrophilia?” (474). In this case, necrophilia does since it is a non-normative/ non-conforming way to express sexuality, the word “queer” doesn’t only apply to the LQBTQ+ community, not to associate necrophilia with the LGBTQ+ community, in regards to Hitchcock’s films. In this context, necrophilia doesn’t include sex between them and the corpse, but the sheer pleasure from killing someone and gazing over them afterwards indicating a sexual connotation. For both Brandon and Philip, this is a part of their sexuality they want no one to know about, they murder David at night to keep their acquaintances “in the dark”. There is a part of Brandon, however, that doesn’t want to keep this between him and his “partner” in crime. Bringing the focus on the corpse/ the source of their pleasure is Brandon’s way of freeing himself from his secret, he wants people to find out in order to be liberated. This is especially apparent when, in the end, Rupert discovers the truth. Brandon tries to validate their actions by saying, “Remember we said, we’ve always said you and I that moral concepts of good and evil and right and wrong don’t hold for the intellectually superior (...) I knew you’d understand because you have to, don’t you see, you have to” (Rope). He tries to prove why he his necrophilic/queer desires and actions and acceptable. This is his way of trying to include Rupert in his behaviour along with him and Philip.

In Philip’s case, he deals with his secret in a much different way than Brandon. He feels deeply ashamed and doesn’t try to prove his actions to be acceptable. By being so obviously unsettled throughout the entirety of the night, he wants people to find out. His fear doesn’t stem from being discovered, it stems from the notion that he will have to live with his guilt for the rest of his life. The reason behind wanting people to know what he’s done is motivated by his need to be punished. He repeatedly tries to get caught in order to feel liberated, unlike Brandon who’s liberation comes with exploring his queerness with other people. Philip resembles the boy who played the “Fort- Da’’ game. His guests leaving the home is like throwing the toy (“Fort’’), the satisfaction then comes with Rupert returning (“Da’’) and discovering their secret (‘Beyond The Pleasure Principle’, 15). Philip repeatedly makes obvious hints to his guests that something is off about the situation they are in. It’s almost as if he is taking the rope he and Brandon used for the murder to whip himself over and over again in the same way Freud’s grandson repeatedly threw his toy and retrieved it. He needs to be punished, making a connection to his death drive. Once everybody leaves and they think they weren’t caught, Philip isn’t relieved. He can only sit and take a breath when Rupert admits that he knows and then fires gunshots to alert the police. He can now find comfort in his official punishment.

Isabeli Pizzani

4/11/2018 11:10:51 pm

Philip and Brandon live in a repressive society, where they can’t openly express their sexuality. They see themselves as superior and think “civilisation is hypocrisy” (ROPE). In the disdain towards the homophobic culture, they reject the society where they live, as Kendi says “when our reality is too ugly, we deny reality. It is too painful to look at. Reality is too hard to accept” (Kendi, 1). It is hard for these men to accept the position where the society puts them as homosexual man. They believe their teacher’s, Rupert Cadell, view that murder is a privilege “reserved for those few who are really superior individuals” (ROPE). They murder their friend, David, a representation of their heteronormative society. “[A] good [American] usually die young on the battlefield” Brandon says after, killing their old friend (ROPE). The murder emphasizes on his victim’s ordinariness, what makes him “the perfect victim for the perfect murder” (ROPE). This murder allows Philip and Brandon to state their superiority over a hostile society. Also, “under the pressure of [their] repressions, [they] find reality generally quite unsatisfactory” so, Brandon and Philip discharge their repressed anger towards the people that don’t allow them to express their sexuality during the murder (Freud, 27). They want to present how perfect their crime was by showing it to their victim’s entourage in a dinner party. They create a strange atmosphere, almost wanting to be found guilty of their crime, inversing the power dynamics that is usually present on the society controlled by patriarchy and homophobic codes.

Ben Carson

4/11/2018 11:28:46 pm

It is made clear, from the opening interactions, that Brandon is the dominant one in his relationship. He occupies the “master” position in what Benjamin refers to in his text The Bonds of Love, as the “slave and master” in a relationship (74). Brandon is a sadist. You can come to this conclusion by looking at the way that he is around his partner Phillip. He talks down to him, disregards his feelings and walks all over him. Brandon is incredibly proud of accomplishing the murder, meanwhile Phillip immediately regrets it. Phillip is more timid, and shows more signs of femininity. Their relationship, although it is never blatantly stated, is a homosexual one. The murder that they commit can be compared to sexual relations. Sex is taboo, it is mostly not a public event, and it is more often done in the darkness than in the light of day, much like murder. One of Adam Phillips’s aphorisms from Monogamy, says “people have relationships not because they want to feel safe […] but because they want to find out what the danger is” (2). I find that this perfectly sums up the situation that Brandon and Phillip are in. They did not commit a murder because they wanted to kill David in particular for something he had done, but simply to prove that they could pull it off. Brandon has a theory that those who are “superior” intellectually should be able to murder those that are inferior. He is so proud of the fact that he has murdered someone, that he throws a party right after, where he serves food from directly above David’s body, almost solely to rub it in everyone’s face. Brandon invites Rupert, because he knows he’s the only one smart enough to figure out the murder, and because Rupert is the only person that could “dominate” Brandon, therefore he feels the need to prove his worth to Rupert.

Taïna Dushime

4/11/2018 11:32:48 pm

As my classmates have pointed out before, the relationship between Brandon and Phillip is very intriguing and obviously very sexualized in ROPE. Yet, the queer aspect of the movie I want to highlight is Janet Walker and her non-normative behavior.

Janet is an interesting character that gives off both feminine and mostly masculine vibes by the way she appears, talks and reacts in certain situations. On one side, she’s well-spoken, beautiful and elegant in the way she carries herself. In the movie, she also wears makeup and a pretty violet dress that shows off her trim figure. However, her masculinity takes over as we see more of her, which could suggest that she uses femininity as a masquerade. Joan Riviere explains this contradictory image in “Womanliness as Masquerade” when she writes that “women who wish for masculinity may put on a mask of womanliness to avert anxiety and the retribution feared from men” (p.1). Except, I would argue that Janet does not try to hide her masculinity and is even comfortable in showing it, especially in front of men. We often see how masculine she is in her way of handling things when it comes to her dignity and the people she cares about. For example, after she starts suspecting that Brandon might have something to do with David’s absence, she walks confidently towards him while saying “I’m going to find out once and for all”, which is a very typical sentence granted to men in heroic movies and stories. Also, every time she confronts him or any other man, she looks directly in their eyes and says exactly what she has on her mind without holding back.
Other characters also seem to acknowledge her manliness because of her refusal to accept “to offer recognition without expecting it in return” (THE BOUNDS OF LOVE, p.78). One example is when Brandon tells her “Some women are quite charming when they’re angry, Janet. Unfortunately, you’re not”. This shows how men often see soft-spoken women as adorable when they are angry or being assertive, but for the ones they see as not feminine enough or unafraid to claim respect, it makes them notice their manliness even more and not find it attractive at all. Also, the way she interacts with men in the movie is very interesting because she never seems inferior to them and especially never tries to make herself sound and look unintelligent. On the contrary, we often see her vividly participating in conversations with them. There’s actually a scene in which she’s sitting down while Brandon, Phillip and Kenneth are standing up around her and instead of feeling uncomfortable like some women would, she still looks directly at each of them, freely talks with them and they listen to what she’s saying. To say the least, Janet is a person because she acts in a way that goes against society’s gender expectations.

Taïna Dushime

4/11/2018 11:41:22 pm

In the last sentence, I forgot some words.
The full sentence is "To say the least, Janet is a queer person because she acts in a non-normative way that goes against society's gender expectations."

Avraham Cymbalist

5/11/2018 12:28:12 am

While analysing ROPE, I found that labelling Brandon and Phillip as homosexuals simply skims the surface and doesn’t allow for deeper investigation. Personally, I think that Hitchcock’s suggestion that these characters are gay is simply a way to distract the viewer from Brandon’s sadistic practices with masochistic undertones. Brandon states that he wants to invite all his guests over so he can get a sense of danger but what he really wants is to inflict pain upon all of his guests, even Phillip. Brandon uses Phillip’s obsession with power against him and manipulates Phillip to be the one that actually kills David. This way, Brandon can inflict all the pain without any sense of guilt since he didn’t actually kill anyone. All of the characters suffer in a different way, Phillip does so through overwhelming guilt that he stripped another human being of its live and having to sit through an evening with all the people who loved David the most. On top of all that, Phillip knows that David’s corpse is still in the room and he doesn’t want anyone to find out. Janet suffers from worrying about David and having someone making sexual advances on her the night that her fiance died. Kenneth suffers from being the man who is advancing on a woman who just lost her husband to be. Henri and Mrs. Atwater suffer from the loss of their beloved David and having to worry relentlessly about his whereabouts. Last but not least, Rupert suffers from feeling responsible for the crime. His words directly motivated two young men to murder their friend for sport because they thought he was an “inferior being”. This responsibility is perfectly portrayed in the poster for ROPE where we see Rupert holding the rope that choked David, meeting the audience’s gaze. While all this pain and suffering is being inflicted, Brandon is waltzing around the apartment with a huge smile on his face, clearly enjoying the pain of others. We can even see a sense of accomplishment in the final seconds of the movie when Brandon pours himself a drink. After all this, it is still up to us whether this is considered queer behavior, as Doty states “Sadomasochism presents the challenge of deciding what kind or degree of abusive sadomasochism would mark ‘non-normativity’.” (487). Now, instead of labelling Brandon and Phillip's relationship as homosexual, we must take into account Brandon’s sadistic doings and see if there is proof of sexual desire between Brandon and Phillip. To complicate things even more, we can suggest that Brandon becomes a hybritophile after seeing Phillip execute the murder.

Bridget Griffin

5/11/2018 06:32:56 am

I find Sophie’s exploration of necrophilia in ROPE very interesting, and wish to expand upon it, and to suggest that Brandon is not the only one expressing necrophilic interest. Everyone at the party, whether they are aware of it or not, expresses such interests: David’s whereabouts are a constant topic of discussion, yet he is but feet away, a rotting corpse. Brandon quite obviously wants David to be discussed: he invited all those closest to David, and his murder victim became the connecting factor between them all, a sort of big Other under which they can all communicate. He hides his work of art that is his crime in plain sight, and watches as those around him unknowingly become obsessed with it. Not only does the obsession that Brandon has with a dead body suggest necrophilic desire, the presentation involved suggests that he also wishes for all around him to feel the same desires. His treating of the murder as a work of art is also reminiscent of the malevolent gaze; in Leader’s STEALING THE MONA LISA, he describes the purpose of art as insuring that the eye is “kept busy, and, crucially perhaps, away from the artist.” (43). This can be applied in various ways in ROPE, for at first, the way that they dress up the chest, David’s coffin, seems to be in an effort to dissuade the guests to open the chest, but since both Brandon and Philip seem to at least partially wish getting found out, this whole murder can be seen as a distraction from something more.
The obvious thing to be distracting from are the potential sexual relations between Brandon and Philip, but what if disguising this act as an act of artful and perfect intelligence is actually meant to disguise the fact that they actually get a sense of sexual gratification from murder? As many of my classmates have said before me, the scene following the murder highly resembles a post-sex scene. Not only that, but Philip seems particularly affected. This can be read as Brandon and Philip having sexual relations, but that theory denies the absence of a third party. I think that the fact that Philip seems to undergo an enormous amount of shame after strangling David, along with his vehement denial of having ever strangled a chicken, indicate that he might experience some sort of sexual pleasure from the act that he doesn’t wish to experience. This would explain his chicken strangling denial, for after all, “When our reality is ugly, we deny reality.” (Kendi). Not only does the suggestion that Philip experiences pleasure from strangling chickens suggest necrophilia, but it also suggests beastiality, just as the strangling of David suggests homosexuality. The characters of this film are therefore queer in practically every possible way (not even to mention the sadomasochist relationship between Philip and Brandon aforementioned by many of my classmates) whether or not it was inadvertent (as is the case of the accidental necrophilic obsession of the partygoers).

Doha Ani

6/11/2018 08:20:29 pm

I think that the movie Rope displays more than just an analogy of a badly repressed homosexual relationship in a very patriarchal society. In the sense that we can understand that there is a certain unspoken attraction between Brandon and Philips because of the way they interact with each other but more than that there is always a power between the two. We can see that Brandon is the one who has the power because he is always controlling Philips actions and behaviors during the party by telling what to say and mostly what to not do and sometimes in a very virulent way. Philip while not being happy about Brandon’s behaviors still obeys him because like said Jacqueline Rose’s essay Domination and the Sexual Difference “Submission… is often motivated by the fear of separation and abandonment”. Meaning that Philip was afraid of being abandoned by his partner in crime, in both sense, so he took the more submissive role during the first part of the movie but near the end the movie he couldn’t keep the secret any longer and wanted to put and end to this. So, when Rupert came back the roles switched, Philp was leading the game since Brandon feared him revealing the murder, so he was trying to win his silence by pleasing him in the sense he would make him sit down and pour him some wine and tell him to put himself at ease. But as the time went on Philip became less and less patient and Brandon more and more stressed about Rupert finding out the truth. This type of dynamic means that the two characters can’t only be given the role of either the masochist or the sadist, like said in Doty’s text Queer Hitchcock the roles are not definitive “Since women in Hitchcock films are rarely complete masochists - they almost always fight back to some extent”. This quotes also applies to this movie although Philip is, obviously, not a woman but he is put in a more feminine position during the movie.

INSTRUCTIONS

Please respond in the Comments section. To see this section, just click the red "comments" line). To create a new response, use the "Leave a Reply" box.

Do not use the "reply" button under the previous user's comment. Add your comment as an entirely new one.

It is best to write your response in a document that you can save, and then paste it into the comments box.

Be sure to read all comments by your peers before writing your own, and to consider the ongoing discussion in your own comment.

Be original!

Humanities

Leave a Reply.

INSTRUCTIONS