Alfred Hitchcock can be the most famous director he once lived. His name is synonymous with the word "uncertainty", with some of the best pictures with the movement of all timeBut the recognized director was very controversial throughout his life. His horror masterpiece -dello "Psycho" was accused of being unnecessarily violent and sexually perverseBut his most controversial film can be a surprise to anyone who is not well acquainted with his long film.

The Hitchcock crime thriller in 1948 "Rope" was considered something with a smaller entrance before there was a critical recurrence over the last decade. It was predominantly known as the footnote for what Hitchcock's first technical film and its unconventional production is. Based on the true story Of the two students from Chicago, who similarly tried to get out of "perfect crime", Hitchcock decided to tell the story in real time, stitching a few long needed to appear film that never cut off the action. Perennial Favorite Hitchcock Jameseims Stewart Starswells like the boy's boyfriend's housing and "Morality's Voice", which the boys put on the test.

The film was incredibly controversial, even by Hitchcock standards. Face a lot of pressure from film censors during the production code era that conducted a cruel and arbitrary package of rules against something that is considered amoral, and when it is finally displayed in cinemas, Censorship boards in Seattle, Atlanta and Memphis Prohibit the film from being shown in their cities. The York Times reports that the "rope" has already played for a day at the Orpheum Theater in Seattle before censorships to ban future projections, while in Chicago, police "banned the picture on the grounds that it was not a" healthy "party. Stalling Hitchcock fans who today reveal the film. There are three basic reasons why, two visibly exposed to the film's moments and one hidden subversive in the subtext.

During this period of film history, the US Association of America had a great hand in shaping what the content was considered acceptable to show in the film. Despite his growth in the film industry, Hitchcock looked at these censors' just like everyone else, and historian Katie Reed details exactly how "rope" opposed these censorships in her piece Culture on the screen.

"Rope" opens with its two villains, Brandon Show (Don Dal) and Philip Morgan (Farlie Granger), stifling their former classmate David Kentley (Dick Hogan) to death in their home in an act of ordinary cruelty. It is an amazing brutal opening of film, even by the standards of Hitchcock, and film censors have opposed it immediately.

Hitchcock adapted the script from the play based on the story of Leopold and Lob, and the film censor Josephosef Brand quickly set aside the disturbing violence of the story and its "very specific but well -written speeches in which fundamentally moral values are denied. He also singled out parts where "the ten commandments were treated harshly and advised those pieces of dialogue to be extracted because they would be" a great offense for the audience on the go. ""

Hitchcock assured these censors that the film would not approve the killer's actions, but the censors still tried to force Hitchcock to remove the murder scene completely, including a moment when Brandon wiped out the glass prints, fearing that this could serve.

But what was cared for was even more intense by today's standards: alcohol. During the script, Philip drinks champagne to calm the nerves, and Brin asked "to keep to some extent necessary for the characterization or motivation of the plot". Even if the era of the ban ended a decade ago, the screening of alcohol in the film was still full, and Hitchcock was able to prove that the use of alcohol was absolutely necessary to tell his story.

But these concerns would be pale compared to the biggest taboo that Hitchcock would research, which proved to be her biggest lasting heritage.

Latmosing as a context all over the "rope" is the relationship between her two killers, Brandon and Philip. These two are more than just roommates, and the film strongly implies a homosexual relationship between them. This aspect of the film slipped despite the view of censorship for most of the film's production, as long as the letter sent by Brin explicitly banned Hitchcock from exploring this aspect of the characters:

"We also got a possible taste in part of the dialogue that there was a homosexual relationship between Brandon and Philip. This was intensified somewhere with the fact that there was some degree of similarity between these two characters and Leopold and Lob (the real killers who inspired the film) ...

Hitchcock played stupid for these homosexual shins, but behind the scenes, he did everything he could to strengthen them. He hired gay screenwriter Arthur Lawrence and Lawrence's Lubus, Farley Granger, in the lead role. Hitchcock was reportedly thrilled to "hid a secret gay loveee in his film", even if it led to an intense examination by his bosses in Warner Bros..

He was able to squeeze the "rope" through production, more or less intact, but the following controversies took their own life. Considering the film is malicious amoral, film censorships in conservative pockets across the country have refused to allow the film to be distributed, with several censors seeking to remove the stifling scene from the image.

Theujork Times notes that this "strange" censorship comes after the film was considered "moral unclean for adults" and that "there were no pronounced complaints expressed by religious groups", suggesting that these censorship was taken by themselves to ban the film. Looking back now, maybe these censorship gathered the subversive and feuding elements of the film, even if they couldn't put their finger on it, so they used the alleged violence of the film as a sacrificial lamb to justify censorship.

Fortunately, their repression attempt failed to prevent the film from playing elsewhere, and is now considered not only Experimental masterpiece -so of HitchcockBut how One of the greatest subversive focal films of all time. Since political repression of art returns to the mainstream, this is a promising reminder that censorship is not a competition for the artist's creative ingenuity.