Rope: Movie Analysis

America has always been depicted as an amiable place to live in. More than often, foreigners would visualize America as the place where neighbors would greet each other in the morning and have their children play in the back yard with the family dog. However, as with most foreigners, this image was shattered by the adverse environment that surrounded them. One of the biggest mistakes that they failed to recognize was the murder of innocent civilians. These murders were almost always published on the front-page of every major newspaper. As such, Americans have always been interested in the death of others. This is true in the ninetieth and, more predominately, twentieth century. As tales of murders got colder and bloodier, Americans had an instinctive

thirst for the gory details and developed a curiosity for a look inside a killer’s mind. Nevertheless, they had no visualization of the killer’s deed.

Americans would read about it and try to imagine the crime scene as well as the actual killing. It was not until the twentieth century when Americans could visually see the criminal’s deed as well as the carnage carried out. One particular film, Rope, by the famous Alfred Hitchcock, attempts to derive from the status quo of murder film and, instead, focuses on the ideals that drove the murderer. The film is loosely based on the murder case of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, two young adults who murdered a teenager. The film revolves around three main characters, Brandon Shaw, Phillip Morgan, and Rupert Cadell. Rupert, being a philosopher of sorts, instills the idea of Friedrich Nietzsche’s übermensch upon Brandon and Phillip. Thus, this drives them to kill their former classmate, David. However, whereas the true crime story, written by Miriam deFord, focuses more on the actions committed by the perpetrators, the film primarily focuses on the psychological aspects of each character and the philosophy behind the killing. Rope shows the philosophy that drove the killers to their deed, in comparison to the story, which mainly depicts the killing

itself.
Throughout Hitchcock’s film, the philosophical idea of Übermensch is prevalent and openly discussed by the characters. Übermensch, according to philosopher Martin Heidegger, is “... humanity that surpassed itself,” (Cybulska). This idea is shown in the film when Rupert argues that murder would solve countless day-to-day problems (Rope). He goes on to state, “[Murder] should be reserved for those few who are really superior individuals” (Rope). This statement is what drives Brandon and Phillip to kill their classmate David. In their mind, they are the superior individuals, thus reserve the right to kill. Brandon admits this indirectly by stating, “ And the victims, inferior beings whose lives are unimportant anyways” (Rope). Furthermore, Brandon and Phillip are obsessed with the idea of committing the “perfect crime”, hence, proving their superiority. Brandon openly admits this when states, “Now the fun begins” (Rope). To him, the murder was only a trial, to see if he surpasses humanity and secures his title as superior, or übermensch. He believes that those with high intelligence and culture, such as himself, are superior to the common man. As such, he is no longer bound by rules or moral concepts bound to the common man (Rope). Brandon and Phillip profoundly believe that they have transcended beyond humanity and become superior to humans. Essentially, this pathological belief drove them to murder David, an inferior who deserved to die.
In comparison to film, the story vaguely mentions the ideals behind Leopold and Loeb’s killing, a sense of ideology is still shown in deFord’s book, Superman’s Crime: Loeb and Leopold.

In story, Leopold is shown to be a highly skilled academic as well as a follower of Nietzsche’s theory of the Superman (558). This devotion can be seen when he chooses to commit petty thefts with Loeb and, ultimately, when he participates the in murder of Bobby Franks. As the story progresses, it becomes clear that Leopold does not agree with the laws or moral bindings that the common man follows. DeFord mentions, “He built up a comforting picture of himself…a Superman who could do nothing wrong” (558). This ideology that Leopold believes in is mainly attributed to his horrendous upbringing as a child. In order to compensate for this, he chose to image himself as a superior being, someone that cannot be harmed nor be subject to the scrutiny of the normal man. Loeb, on the other hand, does not share the same ideological belief as Leopold. DeFord mentions Loeb as a kleptomaniac and as a “congenital criminal” (561). Unlike Leopold, Loeb does not have a sense of fulfillment, only the enjoyment of committing crimes for the fun of it. This is evident when deFord states, “Loeb was obsessed by the glories of crime…” (561). Loeb longed for the fame and limelight that crime brought him. Loeb does not believe, nor does he accept it, in Nietzsche’s theory. Loeb merely enjoys the life of crime and has no

motive to commit. It can be said that out of the two, Leopold has a philosophical motive to kill Bobby Frank, while Loeb only does it to attain stardom. Nevertheless, deFord does not fully expand on the idea of a philosophical belief or motive, only mentions it.