Completely missed supposed homosexual vibe

I'm surprised that there is any doubt that they are gay. Sure, the way the act around each other can be seen as just circumstantial evidence. But 1 key word in the movie, which spoken twice, gives it away without a doubt.

A couple people in here mentioned it but didn't really detail it. They live together in a 1 bedroom apartment. When the guests need to make a phone call Brandon says the phone is in "THE" bedroom. Not "my" bedroom or "Philips" bedroom, but "THE" bedroom. That 1 word says a lot. It says they are clearly gay, in a relationship, and everyone must know about it because nobody says a word about there being only 1 bedroom.

Janet even says something like "well that's cozy" when Brandon says the phone is in "THE" bedroom.

That's where Hitchcock was a master, that 1 simple word, seemingly missed by a lot of viewers, says a LOT.

Let's see, Lived with an adult friend when I was in my twenties.....We argued a lot and even went on a vacation together once.....Neither of us is homosexual......a lot of people, mostly gays, want there to be homosexual undertones in every movie.....If you went by Hollywood's figures on the amount of gays in the world, you would think that about a third go that direction when in reality its only about one to three percent.......

Watched the film this morning. I missed it as well, and I'm usually the one who sees things like this before anyone else. But I knew about it, my mum's boyfriend who recommended it and is a huge Hitchcock fan, he told me all about it. He knows that I'm obsessed with implied gayness in films ^_^

Wikipedia says Stewart's character was gay too, I didn't pick up a "gay vibe" with him.

Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours

Do you think that this could play today? Two gay men killing a classmate. I don't think this film would be made on a lot of levels today. The continuous long shots. The subject manner. The whole concept doesn't seem like it would play today. I think the only way you would have a gay man involve in a killing today would require him to be the victim.

I don't remember how I learned these two killers were gay. I don't think I figured it out on my own, but I certainly knew something was up with them and I think a lot of people were like me and they confused their reasons to kill someone with them being gay so much as it clouds the issue. Obvious we knew there was something wrong with them, deeply wrong with them and it clearly had nothing to do with them being gay. The first just covered the second. I most likely thought they were really good friends.

I got the feeling that the real reason Rupert returned after everyone had left was the hopes of a romantic interlude between the three of them.

Brandon was obviously the top.

I wish I could eat you so I could vomit you

Your post about missing the homosexual relationship in this film started a long discussion of the question, Is it really there or not?

There are two perfectly valid approaches to a question like that. One is to imagine that there is no information available about the filmmakers' intentions and enjoy theorizing about the film from internal evidence. The other is to learn more about the film by looking up the available information. The best, really, is a combination of the two: first make what we can of the film from internal evidence, and then see what the filmmakers had in mind. If it turns out to be different from what we theorized, it doesn't mean we're absolutely wrong. It just means we've done what literary critics and film critics do that makes their essays more interesting than mere reviews -- produced new meaning from the book or film in question.

As for the relationship between the two murderers in Rope, the filmmakers' intentions are a matter of record. In Donald Spoto's book The Dark Side of Genius (1983), we find this:

In late autumn of 1947, Hitchcock invited Hume Cronyn to work on a prose adaptation of the play. The story -- about homosexual lovers who murder a friend.... (p. 320)

The central characters of the story were presented none too subtly. According to Laurents:

We never discussed the homosexual element of the script, but Hitchcock knew what he wanted to be able to get away with. He was as intrigued by the varieties of sexual life and conduct as he was by the varieties of movie-making methods.... (p. 322)