The late-night/early-morning spot for Cubs fans asks if Nate Pearson should be given a chance to start.
It’s a new year here at BCB After Dark: the hippest hangout for night owls, early risers, new parents and Cubs fans abroad. Come on in and warm up. There’s no cover charge this evening. We can take your coat for you. The hostess will lead you to a table. Bring your own beverage.
BCB After Dark is the place for you to talk baseball, music, movies, or anything else you need to get off your chest, as long as it is within the rules of the site. The late-nighters are encouraged to get the party started, but everyone else is invited to join in as you wake up the next morning and into the afternoon.
On New Year’s Eve, I asked you if you’d rather be gifted with a contract extension for Kyle Tucker or with Roki Sasaki signing with the Cubs. This vote was extremely close, which I guess means that I came up with a good question. But 51 percent of you would rather have an extension for Tucker.
Here’s the part where we listen to music and discuss movies as our BCB Winter Hitchcock Classic continues. But you’re free to skip ahead to the baseball talk. You won’t hurt my feelings.
To start the new year out right, here’s John Coltrane, Jimmy Garrison and Elvin Jones playing “Impressions.” I believe this is from 1963.
You voted in the BCB Winter Hitchcock Classic in a second-round matchup between The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) and Foreign Correspondent. You picked The Man Who Knew Too Much to move on to the next round.
Today we have a matchup between our 7-seed Rope and the 10-seed To Catch a Thief.
Rope (1948). Starring James Stewart, John Dall and Farley Granger.
Rope was Alfred Hitchcock’s first color film as well as his most experimental. In it, As it was an adaptation of a stage play, Hitchcock wanted to recreate the experience of watching a play on a stage with as few cuts as possible. Additionally, Rope holds a big place in the history of queer cinema, as gay subtext runs through the entire film as strongly as it could at a time when the mere mention of homosexuality on screen was forbidden by the Production Code.
Hitchcock approached Rope as an intellectual exercise. Was it possible to shoot an entire feature-length film in one take? The answer was “no,” at least in 1947 it was. The bulky Technicolor cameras of the era could only hold about ten minutes of film in them at one time. It was impossible to keep the camera rolling for 80 minutes straight. On top of that, when shown in theaters, there had to be a spot for a projectionist to move from one reel and one projector to another.
But could Hitchcock create the illusion of a single-take film? For the most part, Hitchcock tries to do that in Rope by strategically ending one roll of film with a shot covered up by an actor’s back or a piece of furniture and then starting the next again at the same place. It’s painfully obvious if you’re familiar with film editing techniques or you are just looking for it, but for an average audience member who is just watching a movie in a theater may not catch it or even care.
Hitchcock does do a couple of traditional cuts in the film, mostly as a kind of exclamation point to whatever had just happened on screen. But for the most part, Hitchcock tries to keep this “one shot” illusion going for as long as possible. And most of the shots do go on for seven-to-ten minutes without a break.
In one sense it’s funny that Hitchcock would try to do this, since one of his biggest strengths as a filmmaker was editing and using one shot to build on another. But he was also someone who loved the process of preparing to make a movie much more than he liked shooting the film itself. And in Rope, Hitchcock had huge problems to solve as to how to maneuver these giant Technicolor cameras through a set and around the actors without taking a break in the film. The walls on the set were all moveable and there were tracks and marks on the floor like dance steps so that the camera operators knew where they had to be at each moment in the film. Hitchcock had to rehearse the camera movements repeatedly so that they’d get them right—with nine minute takes, one error would waste a ton of film. Star Jimmy Stewart complained that the cameras got to rehearse but the actors never did.
Rope is the story of two men, Brandon (Dall) and Phillip (Granger) who murder a friend of theirs for the thrill of getting away with the perfect murder. Then in the kind of dark humor that Hitchcock loved, the two host a party where they serve food off of the credenza that serves as their friend’s temporary coffin.
The play that Rope was based on was inspired by the infamous Leopold and Loeb murder of Bobby Franks in 1924. That murder was lurid front page news throughout the country. Not only was it a thrill killing by two University of Chicago students designed to show their inherent superiority in the manner of Friedrich Nietzsche’s Übermensch concept, but Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were gay lovers, which gave the whole case a sexual perversion angle in line with the mores of the era.
Obviously Rope can’t make any reference to homosexuality in the film. Screenwriter Arthur Laurents said that no one even mentioned the word “homosexual” on the set, just referring to the angle as “it.” But audiences would have to be clueless to miss the gay relationship between Brandon and Phillip. And yes, Joseph Breen at the Production Office was clueless since he OK’d the script. He did edit out some things from the script that he thought indicated homosexuality, but they were really just innocuous English sayings like “My dear boy” that made their way over from the original play.
But while Hitchcock was obviously not gay, screenwriter Laurents was. Farley Granger was bisexual and while John Dall never revealed his sexuality during his lifetime, he is widely believed to have been gay. Granger said that while neither he nor Dall needed to talk about it, but they were definitely playing themselves as a couple. I know it seems odd that two gay murderers would represent a landmark moment in queer cinema, but in 1948, any sort of gay representation in Hollywood was remarkable. And while James Stewart may have gotten lead billing because of his fame, Dall and Granger are really the protagonists and leads of this film. It’s their relationship to each other and the murder that drive the plot. They both turn in terrific performances—Dall as the psychopathic and dominant Brandon and Granger as the weaker and more emotional Phillip.
Stewart, on the other hand, is out of place. Don’t get me wrong, he was a terrific actor and all, but he was wrong for the part of Rupert. For one, he was far too old to be hanging around with Brandon and Phillip. Secondly, Laurents revealed that Rupert was supposed to be gay as well—which gave him a reason to be there—but that no one for a second was ever going to believe that Jimmy Stewart was gay. Laurents said Stewart was very good playing detective, but that otherwise he was uncomfortable on screen. Granger also said he thought that Stewart was uncomfortable with the angle that his character, Rupert, was partially responsible for the murder. Stewart wasn’t used to playing villains, even if it were in a shade of grey and one who brings the two men to justice in the end. But obviously Hitchcock was happy with Stewart, since Rope was the first of four films he made with Stewart. And every one of them is in our top eight seeds.
So Rope operates on three levels. There’s the normal part of how are these two men that think they committed the perfect murder going to get caught that we’re familiar with from Columbo and other performances. That part works well enough. Then there is the entire experiment in film with as few cuts as possible that Hitchcock undertakes. Whether you think that works or is even necessary is up to you, but it’s certainly fun to watch unfold. It’s also Hitchcock’s first color film and even though the 1948 Technicolor film looks a little unnatural, it’s still a visual treat. Finally, there’s the role of Rope in queer representation from an era when it was all but absent in Hollywood cinema, and certainly almost never seen among characters who were the leads.
Here’s the trailer for Rope and it’s actually quite a treat. It has a scene that’s not in the movie—and it’s actually the only time we get to hear from Dick Hogan, who plays the murder victim David.
To Catch a Thief (1955). Starring Cary Grant, Grace Kelly and Jessie Royce Landis.
Here’s what I wrote about To Catch a Thief last time. I don’t have much more to say other than in a film with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, it’s easy to overlook Landis. But don’t. She’s terrific in this movie.
French new wave director François Truffaut said that when he listed Alfred Hitchcock as one of the greatest living directors and one of those that influenced him the most, American critics would tell him “He’s rich and successful, but his movies have no substance.” Truffaut conducted a series of interviews with Hitchcock that was turned into the book Hitchcock/Truffaut to try to refute that idea.
One film he wouldn’t have used to refute that statement is To Catch a Thief, which really doesn’t have much substance at all. Even Hitchcock told Truffaut “It was a lightweight story.” To Catch a Thief is the story of a reformed cat burglar/jewel thief who is being framed for a series of similar crimes. John Robie (Grant) must use all of his knowledge of jewel thievery to catch the actual thief and clear his name.
So if To Catch a Thief is a lightweight story, why is the film so well-liked? Because it’s got Cary Grant being Cary Grant, Grace Kelly being Grace Kelly and everyone in the film looking fabulous in some of costumer Edith Head’s most fashionable work. There’s also the glorious location shooting in the brilliant color of VistaVision in the south of France.
Hitchcock mostly hated shooting on location and most of To Catch a Thief was shot on sound stages in Hollywood. But there are several location shots in Nice, Cannes and other places on the French Riviera. (In fact, this is where Truffaut first met Hitchcock when he went to interview him as a journalist. There’s an amusing story about that in Hitchcock/Truffaut that Truffaut discovered that Hitchcock had embellished over the years into something a lot more humorous than it was.) The whole film looks glorious and certainly Grant and Kelly add to that beauty and sophistication.
Grant’s character, John Robie, also known as “The Cat,” was an infamous cat burglar who went to prison before the war. So basically, your stock “gentleman thief” from dozens of other films. Robie escaped prison during the German occupation of France and joined the Resistance. As a thank you for his efforts, he was pardoned after the war and has been living a quiet life in the South of France since them.
But when a series of jewel burglaries happen in the luxury hotels that follow the modus operandi of “The Cat,” everyone assumes that Robie is up to his old tricks. He convinces an insurance agent (John Williams) to give him the names of their rich and insured customers so that he can stake them out and catch this impersonator in the act.
One of these rich tourists with expensive jewels is the American Jessie Stevens (Landis), who is traveling Europe with her beautiful daughter Frances (Kelly), Robie pretends to be a rich American oilman to get close to them and Jessie tries to set up her daughter with Robie. Of course, a romance develops between John and Frances.
(Here’s where I have to draw attention to an unfortunate convention of Hollywood. Jessie Royce Landis was eight years older than Grant. Grace Kelly was 26 years younger than Grant. You would think this rich widow would be more interested in Robie for herself than her daughter. But that’s Hollywood for you. We should also at some point call attention to Hitchcock’s preference for icy, thin blondes as his leading women, but we’ll save that for another day.)
Eventually, Robie enlists the mother, daughter and the insurance agent into an elaborate scheme to catch the actual cat burglar, with the backdrop of costume balls and elaborate mansions.
If you haven’t seen To Catch a Thief, the reveal of the actual cat burglar becomes pretty apparent early in the film. I won’t spoil it, but it’s not exactly the most surprising twist of Hitchcock’s career.
But if any Hitchcock film can be considered a triumph of style over substance, it’s To Catch a Thief. And what style it has.
The trailer for To Catch a Thief. The trailer includes the fireworks scene, which reminds me to mention that Hitchcock was not subtle in his visual metaphors for sex.
The improvements in color technology from 1948 to 1955 are pretty obvious. The colors in To Catch a Thief are certainly still a little unnatural, but they’re much, much better. And To Catch a Thief is one great-looking film.
So now it’s time to vote.
Rope is available on Criterion and To Catch a Thief is on Paramount Plus and MGM+. Both films are available for rent. You have until Monday to vote.
Next up, Notorious takes on Shadow of a Doubt.
Welcome back to everyone who skips the music and movies.
There’s no doubt that the Cubs are looking for one more starting pitcher and yes, we’d all love it if that pitcher were Roki Sasaki. But let’s assume that’s it’s more likely than not that Sasaki doesn’t end up in Chicago. The only real top free agent pitcher left on the market is Jack Flaherty and I suppose he’s a possibility, but a lot of teams are interested in Flaherty and I haven’t seen him connected to the Cubs other than vaguely. There’s always the trade market, but Jesús Luzardo was traded to Philadelphia after a rumored deal to the Cubs fell apart and reportedly the Mariners want a ton for Luis Castillo.
One possibility that’s been getting mentioned in the comments in the possibility of moving Nate Pearson into the starting rotation. It’s not a ridiculous suggestion and The Athletic reported last month that the Cubs have at least discussed the possibility, but they are most likely going to keep him in the bullpen.
Still, Pearson came up through the Blue Jays system as a starting pitcher. He was the number-one prospect in Toronto’s system before the 2020 season and they wrote this about him:
If Pearson shows he can handle a starter’s workload, he can be a frontline arm with potential to be a No. 1 or 2 starter. He’s probably headed back to Triple-A to begin 2020, but he’s one of the Blue Jays’ five best starting pitchers right now and should be in Toronto by midseason.
Of course, you know that Pearson didn’t show he could handle a starter’s workload and was plagued with injuries through the 2020 to 2022 seasons. The Blue Jays moved him to the pen not because his pitch repertoire didn’t work as a starter, but rather because his body couldn’t handle the load.
On the other hand, that’s the same issue the White Sox had with Garrett Crochet and that’s why they moved him to the bullpen. As he got older and more experienced, they moved Crochet back to the starting rotation and he was one of the best starters in the American League last year. And Crochet brought back a lot more in trade from the Red Sox as a starter than he would have as a reliever. Good starters are just a lot more valuable than good relievers.
So do you think the Cubs should try Pearson as a starter? Of course, if he fails to become a good starter, the Cubs could always just move him back to the ‘pen. Assuming he doesn’t injure himself as a starter, which is the reason he moved to relief in the first place. But Pearson could get injured as a reliever too. In fact, he had already been moved to the bullpen in 2022 and that didn’t prevent him from getting hurt.
So should the Cubs try to move Nate Pearson to the starting rotation?
Thank you so much for stopping by this evening. It’s good to start out the new year right. Please stay warm out there. Please get home safely. Recycle any cans and bottles. Tip your waitstaff. And join Sara Sanchez tomorrow night for more BCB After Dark.