Compulsion

As was the case with Rope, I had never heard of Compulsion before viewing it. I therefore went in to the movie with no expectations and really no idea what spin it would put on the Leopold and Loeb murder. Like I talked about in one of my earlier blogs, I think that the most fascinating aspect of the Leopold and Loeb case is the relationship between the two killers. I was thus very interested in seeing how Rope portrayed Brandon and Phillip and how Compulsion would depict Judd and Artie. I thought that there was a noticeable and interesting difference in how the two killers were presented in each movie.

I thought that Compulsion painted a picture of Judd as much more dependent on Artie than Phillip was on Brandon in Rope. It was fascinating to see how much of a puppet Judd was to Artie’s crime. On multiple occasions Artie would ask, “Do I have to order you to do it?” implying that Judd is physically unable to reject a demand given by Artie, his “master.” This film placed a much more concerted effort to draw out themes of homosexuality, I thought. One scene in particular in which I saw blatant homosexual undertones was when Judd argues with max over Artie. Max expresses concern over Judd’s relationship with Artie, but Judd retorts that Artie is one of the most “brilliant” guys that he knows. The interaction between Judd and Max almost reminded me of a man sticking up for his husband or wife. It was a passionate debate between the two that I don’t believe would have taken place if Judd and Artie were just friends.

I found that Compulsion portrayed Artie as much crazier than Rope showed Brandon – both men clearly being the mastermind and the “dominator” of the plan and relationship. One scene in particular was when Artie is talking to the stuffed animal bear after they find out that Judd lost his glasses in the forest. He is holding a conversation with “teddy” and pretending that the toy is talking back to him. This interaction creates an air of intrigue around Artie – could he actually be crazy? These were many of the questions being asked of the two men, Leopold and Loeb, at the time of their actual trial, so I was impressed by how the film drew out these same questions from the audience.

I found Compulsion to be much more of an attempt to tell the story of the murder that was reported by the newspapers and trial than Rope. It is obvious that Rope is more of a commentary on the two boys’ mindsets and motives for committing the crime. Compulsion, however, dealt more with the investigation, trial, and inner workings of the judicial side of the process as well. Why do we think that Compulsion decided to analyze this portion of the murder as well? What effect does it create? I think that Compulsion’s decision to illustrate the trial process as well makes the boys’ fanatical notions seem even crazier. In the film, we are presented with many other characters who are normal, everyday people and who would never commit such atrocities as the boys have. This sets up a dichotomy between Judd and Artie and everyone else in the film, explicitly setting them aside as the “crazy” ones. In Rope, on the other hand, the only people the audience gets to meet are those at the dinner party. They are all either young, wealthy, and highly educated, or older, wealthy, and pretty well educated as well. Specifically, the audience meets Rupert, Brandon, and Phillip the most. Because all three of their identities are rather similar, the viewer does not get to meet the other “type” of person that it does in Compulsion.