Completely missed supposed homosexual vibe

The movie was based on Leopold and Loeb. One of them - the psychopath - I forget which, had an IQ in the 180s, the other one, not far behind. They were homosexual lovers.

In May 1924, the sons of two of Chicago’s wealthiest and most illustrious families drove to the Harvard School for boys in Kenwood and kidnapped a young boy named Bobby Franks. Their plan was to carry out the “perfect murder”... a scheme so devious that only two men of superior intellect, such as their own, could accomplish. These two men were Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. They were the privileged heirs of well-known Chicago families who had embarked on a life of crime for fun and for the pure thrill of it. There were also a pair of sexual deviants who considered themselves to be brilliant -- a claim that would later lead to their downfall.

Before OJ, the case became known as "the trial of the century".

[deleted]

There are hints throughout, look for the portrait of Oscar Wilde on the wall by the front door.

I just watched this at the Genius of Hitchcock event in the cinema and was surprised by how unsubtle the homosexuality was in it.

You just got slow clapped.

Did not evne though abut it either myself. But i often miss it, as i am not really interested in homosexuality (they can do whatever they want for all i care) it doesnt stand out for me.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

I've had this discussion with my fiancee so many times - not just about this movie/book either, the Great Gatsby turned into a month long discussion about what I saw in the book verses what he saw in the book in terms of homosexuality playing a role in the bigger picture of the story.

I argue that we have to take into consideration the views on homosexuality at the time this movie was shot and how carefully nuanced storytellers had to be when trying to communicate the homosexuality of one (or more) of the characters as a piece of the overall story - it's very much there and Hitchcock knew exactly what he was saying without being explicit in saying it.

He argues back that I only see it because of modern sensibilities that cloud my opinions on same-sex, heterosexual relationships that occurred during a time when men and women lived out stereotypical gender roles - it's not there, Hitchcock wasn't saying it and I just see it because I can't fathom the idea of a close, same-sex relationship not being romantic in nature.

I really think it all boils down to interpretation. It's been clearly stated that the characters were homosexual, but some people just don't see it as being a piece of the story they were told, so it's not going to be a factor when they think back on what they saw/read.

Signed,
A horribly pretentious sounding girl on the internet :).

Rope was adapted from the play Leopold and Loeb by Patrick Hamilton. This play is based on factual accounts of the sick, and, evil actions of Leopold and Loeb.

When Arthur Laurents wrote the screenplay "Rope" from Hamilton's play - Hitchcock, Laurents, and others involved in the making of "Rope" wanted to make the characters homosexuals.

I do not know the motivation behind the need of making the characters in the movie "Rope" it (it is the word the makers of Rope used for homosexuals).

Regardless - homosexuals murderers or not I find Rope to be a very disturbing movie. More so, the factual actions of Leopold and Loeb are beyond disturbing.

When viewing Rope - I have never felt that it was important that the characters are homosexual or straight. Again, I'm not certain why it was important to the makers of Rope to make the characters homosexuals - perhaps they thought that the crime would be better understood if committed by homosexual social deviants. Instead of movie goers left wondering how such a crime could happen - movie goers could dismiss the grotesque violence as the consequence of a homosexual lifestyle. I don't know if the makers of Rope were trying to be grand by making a film that consisted of homosexuals.

Due to the fact that Rope is based on an actual horrific crime - the characters sexual orientation in Rope has never been important to me.

Homosexual or not - a young man is murdered by people he trusts - he is then placed in a storage bin and his father unknowingly eats from the bin where his dead child lays - straight or gay - this young man did not deserve this. Straight or gay - the two murderers are evil and their sexual orientation hasn't anything to do with this.

jssing,

I question why their sexual orientation is important - why it was important to the makers of Rope - why it is important to people that watch the movie.

This movie leaves me feeling terrible - not in a state of wondering if the characters are gay or not.

I first saw ROPE when I was nine years old and had no knowledge of homosexuality back then. Today, it is one of my all time favorite films and I believe Hitchcock's underrated masterpiece. I remember reading somewhere that there was speculation as to the sexuality of Leopold and Loeb back in the 1920s when the actual crime took place. I've never read the play by Patrick Hamilton but when you watch the film, it is quite obvious nowadays that Brendan and Phillip were meant to be homosexual lovers but that doesn't interest me or disinterest me. I've never had anything against gays and I think the film was incredibly ahead of it's time both for the dark subject matter of murdering a friend based on a philosophy learned in school and the killers being homosexual. ROPE is an excellent example of the relationship between sex and death in Hitchcock's work.