Okay - so it's not absolutely clear from your structure what your focus is: in broad terms you've picked up on the fact that Rope is 'queer coded' and that Hitchcock represents Philip and Brandon in different ways. My feeling is you don't have enough 'queer theory/gender theory' in your structure - that you're getting in the nuts and bolts of Rope before you've 'explained' the nuts and bolts of queer theory and the representation of homosexuality in cinema more generally. Both Philip and Brandon are examples of particular tropes - the sissy (Philip) and the sadist (Brandon) - or the 'submissive' and 'the dominant' or the 'bottom' or 'the top' and so it goes on. These tropes are themselves problematic/fascinating because they're actually expressive of prevailing ideas about gender - masculinity vs femininity - put more simply, the stereotypes used to codify gay men (and women) in Hollywood cinema derive from the stereotypes we culturally attribute to men and women. The other issue for me is that Rope can hardly be described as a contemporary example of culture, so I'd suggest you'd need to compare Rope with a more up-to-date representation of gay men to put your analysis into some kind of 'argument' - so what is your point in terms of looking at Rope? Is it a spotlight for shining on something else - do Philip and Brandon and Hitchcock's representation of 'queers' help you show that since 1948, attitudes to homosexuality on screen has improved/changed (or is it the same?).
In terms of the kind of research I think you need to undertake, take a look at Vincent's OGR (who has the opposite problem - 'too much' research).
You need to research the relationship between queer culture and gender theory (Judith Butler) and you also need to put Rope's representation of gay men (cultural/moral stereotypes) into some kind of broader context. You also need to identify your 'point' - proving that Hitchcock queer-coded his film to ensure we disliked his main characters is good point, but an obvious point - I'd say this to you... so what? What is your argument and why are you investigating this terrain for your reader?
OGR 01/03/2019
ReplyDeleteHi Sandy,
Okay - so it's not absolutely clear from your structure what your focus is: in broad terms you've picked up on the fact that Rope is 'queer coded' and that Hitchcock represents Philip and Brandon in different ways. My feeling is you don't have enough 'queer theory/gender theory' in your structure - that you're getting in the nuts and bolts of Rope before you've 'explained' the nuts and bolts of queer theory and the representation of homosexuality in cinema more generally. Both Philip and Brandon are examples of particular tropes - the sissy (Philip) and the sadist (Brandon) - or the 'submissive' and 'the dominant' or the 'bottom' or 'the top' and so it goes on. These tropes are themselves problematic/fascinating because they're actually expressive of prevailing ideas about gender - masculinity vs femininity - put more simply, the stereotypes used to codify gay men (and women) in Hollywood cinema derive from the stereotypes we culturally attribute to men and women. The other issue for me is that Rope can hardly be described as a contemporary example of culture, so I'd suggest you'd need to compare Rope with a more up-to-date representation of gay men to put your analysis into some kind of 'argument' - so what is your point in terms of looking at Rope? Is it a spotlight for shining on something else - do Philip and Brandon and Hitchcock's representation of 'queers' help you show that since 1948, attitudes to homosexuality on screen has improved/changed (or is it the same?).
In terms of the kind of research I think you need to undertake, take a look at Vincent's OGR (who has the opposite problem - 'too much' research).
https://vincent-lange.blogspot.com/2019/03/contexts-ogr.html
You need to research the relationship between queer culture and gender theory (Judith Butler) and you also need to put Rope's representation of gay men (cultural/moral stereotypes) into some kind of broader context. You also need to identify your 'point' - proving that Hitchcock queer-coded his film to ensure we disliked his main characters is good point, but an obvious point - I'd say this to you... so what? What is your argument and why are you investigating this terrain for your reader?