Rope / 1792 Sweet Wheat Bourbon

0:00 In 1948, director Alfred Hitchcock and star John Doll gave the world a pretentious drama about the dangers of unimpeded hubris. In 2023, we try again with a familiar brand and we'll see if Brad likes it. The film is rope. The whiskey is 1792 Sweet Wheat and we'll review them both. This is. The Film and Whiskey podcast. Welcome to the Film and Whiskey Podcast. For each week we review a classic movie and a glass of whiskey.

0:49 I'm Bob Book. I'm Reggie. And this week we are watching one of my absolute favorite Alfred Hitchcock films, 1940 Eight's Rope. Man, old man Brad, am I pumped to talk about this movie. I have wanted to talk about this movie with you for almost five years now and I just kind of knew we had to get through some other more important movies before we got to this one to 200 plus other more important. Movies. But we've arrived, man. We're at the 201st most important movie, and that is Alfred Hitchcock's Rope, the pinnacle that no one knew we were shooting for. I knew it all along, man. I planned this thing out as meticulously as their murder. Brad, I am super excited to talk about this movie today, not least of which because last week's episode Notorious ended up being a movie that neither of us were really like that hot on. You know?

1:43 We were decidedly cool on that movie. You even more so than me. And that was the first time. Watch for me. So I'm kind of glad we stuck it at the beginning of this Alfred Hitchcock retrospective, because these last four movies on the season are ones that I've all seen and I've all I've liked all of them, especially Rope. And let's be honest here man, part of what the appeal of this movie is, is that it is 80 minutes long. Dude, I absolutely love the 90 minute film. And if you if you sat down and said Brad, I have a spectacular movie for you that is also 10 minutes less than the world famed 90 minute film I am 100% in.

2:23 Yeah, the crazy thing about Notorious is like, that movie was only an hour and 40, right? Like, and that felt 8 times longer than this movie. Yeah, I love a good, economical film. You know, right up there with paths of Glory. This movie packs a punch in an hour and 20 minutes. Yeah, and the The thing is, it needed to be this short. Like if this was an hour and 37 minutes with you know 3 or 4 minutes of of credits, it would feel like it was 3 hours long. Like it is a slow moving film. It's it is meant to move slowly. The the pacing here is really deliberate and it needs to be and because of that it needed to be 80 minutes long. It it ends right when it needs to end, yeah. But part of that is the way that the movie is filmed. So you know the big gimmick of this movie, quote UN quote, is that it is designed to look like 1 continuous shot for essentially the whole movie.

3:19 You know, you can now as a viewer you can see some really well disguised cuts, but Hitchcock basically had this whole thing blocked out like a stage play so that they could take a real film. And as the whole thing spooled through, they had it timed out that I think they got like 12 minutes a shot. And so they would just film like 1 extended shot. The camera's constantly moving. And I actually think, Brad, if I was an actor, I would love working like this where you just kind of memorize your moves for 12 minutes and you've, you've knocked out, you know, 1/6 of the movie or whatever it is. Yeah, I mean, it still took them a long time to shoot. I know that they were on set for about 14 hours a day and the film ends up being 10 exact shots. Like there are 10s film reels.

4:06 I think it was anywhere from like 4 minutes from a shot to I think 11 minutes and some seconds was the longest shot. And yes, this was an an absolute bear to make in the sense that they don't have modern, you know, technology to help them make you know, Allah 1917, a one shot movie like Hitchcock is doing this way before anybody else was attempting anything that looked like a oneshot movie. Right before we jumped off of our last call. So we finished doing Notorious and I was trying to pick your brain a little bit about Rope. I didn't know if you had remembered that. I had mentioned this movie a few times on the podcast before and I have never heard you cut me off with such disdain the way you cut me off a couple days ago. You were like, dude.

4:59 I don't want to know anything. I'm sick and tired of your crap, Bob. Stop spoiling movies for me, Yes. But I what I was really trying to figure out was, did you remember that this was supposed to be a one take or a one shot movie, or was that like a pleasant surprise as you started watching? Honestly I like it didn't even click in my brain that it was one shot until about the 4th or 5th when he zooms in on a black you know, fabric or somebody's code or something like that and you're like oh I see what he's doing here. It's it's it's all one shot nice. And I I think it was a pleasant surprise in the fact that I knew this film was made in 194748 like like that's what makes it so impressive anymore. I I think we have been spoiled by a lot of movies who do it. You know, Children of Men comes to mind, but to see it done in 1948 is especially impressive.

5:56 I think that my original point though on spoiling movies still stands. Bob, don't spoil my movies. I don't want to spoil it, I just didn't know if you remembered that it was one shot or not, man. So OK, The funny thing though, I texted Bob like halfway through the movie and was like, dude, I'm not going to lie, I'm pretty sure I've seen this before. It was really funny. You were like, I don't know where, I don't know when, but I don't know whom. Yeah, that. And that's the thing. I'm still like racking my brain. The best thing I can come up with is that maybe I watched it in, like college. But you know what? Like this is like a perfect intro to philosophy. You know, you have an hour and a half, a 90 minute class and the professor's like, well, I didn't prepare anything.

6:42 Let's watch rope and talk about Nietzsche. And honestly, you could do a heck of a lot worse for your intro to philosophy class. Yeah, right. Before we move into our first segment, I want to go back to your statement about the 80 minute movie and why it's perfect for that format. Because this is based on a stage play of the same name from the late 1920s and that play apparently follows a three act structure. It's like a very standard play. I think it's really smart A to basically film it as a one act play instead of a three act play here. But also, you know, we've seen a lot of movies, Brad, that are adaptations of stage plays. And there's a lot of ways to visually try to give the impression of like you're just watching a filmed version of a play. And when this movie first starts out and you're just kind of like in their apartment and the camera is the 4th wall, you know, the camera like pushes in and pushes out a little bit, but it's kind of just moving on one axis. And I'm thinking like, oh man, I. Are people just going to wander in and out of frame like we're sitting in a fixed place in a theater, and then the first time the camera starts to actually move around the apartment, I'm like, oh, Hitchcock, you're you're really smart because everything you're doing here still gives me the impression that I'm watching a stage play.

7:58 But you make, like such great use of every single corner of this set. It's a really brilliant way of kind of having your cake and eating it too. Yeah, it makes you feel like you're not watching the play on opening night. You're actually like the director walking around on stage while they are practicing. Yeah, you know. It's a very fly on the wall kind of a thing, yeah. And like a few of the shots that really stood out to me, one of one shot that really stood out to me was when the camera kind of pan while it dollies to the right side of the stage if we're going to keep calling it a stage. And you see the shot of the trunk in the foreground, the hallway in the midground and the kitchen all the way in the background.

8:45 And I I think the the maid is like taking the candlesticks to the hallway. Like it's shots like that that were incredible. Also the one where the cameras in the hallway looking into the kitchen and I think not, not Brandon. Phillip is talking to somebody and Brandon is putting the rope away and and the door like swings open and you see him dropping it like things like that. Throughout the film I was like, oh, this is clever. Like this feels like a really advanced, intimate version of going to the theater. Well, we've kind of started talking about character names and and important props and set pieces, so it's probably time for us to tell film and Whiskey Nation what the heck this movie is actually about. And to do that, we're going to get to our segment, Brad explains.

9:33 Brad's going to give us the movie plots with only 60 seconds ticking on the clock, so let's go ahead and do your take with this little segment that we call. Brad explains. Brad Explains is the part of the podcast where Brad breaks down the plot of the movie that he has just seen, often for the first time. Now, this is not Brad's first time, Definitely not. But I don't know when the first time was. I was going to say what counted as like this is this is instance 1.5. It's not really your second time, but it's not quite your first time either. It's it's in beta testing. Yes, all right man. So you have one minute on the clock to break down and spoil the plot of this movie. And it really, it's kind of a spoiler proof movie because all of the stuff that you need to know happens in the first moments of the movie.

10:21 But go ahead, man, spoil this movie. 60 Seconds and Go Rope is a film about two young protagonists or antagonists. I don't know, Bob. What? How would you characterize? Antiheroes, man. Antiheroes Brandon and Phillip are definitely not gay lovers, no? Who have murdered their former classmates and throw they throw a dinner party for the father. Actually, I think the parents no, it's the father and his sisterinlaw because the mom can't come anyways. The family of the deceased as well as the girl who is in love with the deceased. And Brandon, the main character tries to manipulate everyone into understanding how brilliant he is while his compatriot coconspirator Philip is terrified that anyone will find out what happens.

11:14 Jimmy Stewart comes in and blows it all up and has a realization of his own. Boom. This movie is like a perfect Hitchcock movie. Because, you know, we've talked for, I don't know, 5-6, seven movies about Hitchcock now. Brad and all of his weird little psychosexual fetishes and all of the gallows humor and the really kind of gross ways that he finds humor in the the blackest of situations. And this one, man, I got to say to set the stage last night I went and saw this movie in a movie theater film and Whiskey Nation. We were supposed to kick off Hitchcock with this movie.

11:57 I asked Brad if we could reshuffle a little bit because I saw that this movie was playing at the Cleveland Cinematech, one of the best repertory theaters in the country. I had never been. And I love this movie. And I was like, dude, I want to see Rope in person. And Brad, before we get any further, I got to tell you, dude. There was probably, you know, I don't know, 3540 people at the showing last night. Like it was sold pretty well. This movie plays incredibly well with the crowd. Like, you wouldn't think it because it's almost 80 years old. There were like audible gasps in the audience at multiple points. It was so much fun. We should insert like a sound clip of like. You joke, but that's what it sounded like. It was really cool.

12:41 Believe it, man. Yeah. And that's we we don't often talk about the actual experience of going to the theater on this podcast, which is like a little bit sad, because at the end of the day, man, going to watch movies in theaters is a way different experience than streaming it on your phone, computer or television. Yeah, well, there, there is something important. Like for me it was Top Gun Maverick. That was like the first time in like 17 years that I felt like I was truly at the theaters again. But all all this to say, go, go watch movies in theaters, people. Well, and and you were making a point earlier about how clever a lot of the things in this movie feel.

13:25 And when you're watching it at home, you know, once in a while I'll give a movie like a little wry smile and I'm like, oh, Hitchcock, like you sly bastard, you know? Those moments when you're in a crowd, they become actively fun because people get the humor. They start laughing out loud. There's there's so many lines in this movie where someone's like, oh, where's David? I'm dying to see him. And then everyone goes, I see what you did, you know, And I just quickly say for me, I'm going to come down on the the place of, like, this movie's a little bit pretentious and it's stuff like that. It's the fact that he never gave up on those jokes that by the end of it I was like, come on Hitchcock. Like this script is a little, a little much for me. Oh dude, I wish you'd been there last night. I think your whole opinion would be slightly different. It sounds like you enjoyed the movie, though. I did, yeah.

14:18 My dad and I watched it together. He had never seen it before and he loves old movies and Hitchcock. And honestly, this is a complete aside. The movie opened and I knew it was in 1948, and I had to look to see if, like the they had made a special color version of this like they have with, you know, like It's a Wonderful Life and things like that. Because I was like, oh, I don't want to watch some crappy color remake of this film. And so I, like, legitimately paused it to look. And I was like, oh, this is Alfred Hitchcock's first color film. Well first of all. I'm very proud of you. And secondly, I no longer think you have any room to call anything pretentious like you stopped the movie and said no way I'm watching this bastardized version.

15:08 It's because of It's A Wonderful Life. Yeah, that's for like a top ten movie for me. The color version just doesn't cut it, man. All right, let's dive into talking about the movie itself so it kicks off immediately with the murder. Like the first thing you hear is a scream. The cameras outside this building and then it cuts inside and you see them with a rope around the victim's neck and he is dead. And they quite visceral, really visceral and quite the jolt, honestly. And one of the things I immediately noticed about this movie is that outside of the opening credits and I guess the closing credits, there's no music in the movie.

15:49 All the music is diegetic, like every once in a while Philip will play the piano and that's it. But this guy screams and he's murdered. And then it's just silent and you hear a clock ticking in the background. And I just first, First things first, man, the use of sound in this movie for 1948 is absolutely insane. Yeah, he he does a really beautiful job of kind of like what you said earlier. You truly are a fly on the wall for this movie. You you don't feel as if it is staged in the sense that like it it feels like a stage play, but it doesn't feel like you are a audience member watching a stage play.

16:31 It feels like you are truly there on stage as it's happening. It it, it feels incredibly immersive. Is that I guess what I'm trying to say? Yeah, Well, and again, like, it's things that we're used to seeing now, like a single shot movie or the camera kind of. Moving around inside a cramped space or the lack of music. But this movie is what Brad 75 years old this year. This is not the kind of thing you saw in studio movie making of the late 1940s. No, it's not. And I I think about other movies that we've watched in this realm in this era, you know, from the early 40s with like Casablanca or you know, Double Indemnity all the way into the 50s with some of the Billy Wilder things that we've watched. I just don't think that there's many movies quite like this. And I I think that if there's anything that remains similar, it is the sense of melodrama that I'm realizing really just exists.

17:31 Hardcore in the 40s especially, and like the way that they act has just this heir to it that you're like, Oh yeah, this is the 40s a 100%. But other than that, I think a lot of the camera techniques, the use of sound, as you said, diegetic sound, It really feels way ahead of its time. I think it's a good jumping off point to start talking about the performances in this movie. And the two main characters, the murderers Brandon and Phillip, are really the only people that you see for the first, you know, 15 minutes of the movie. And it took me a minute to remember that, like, Jimmy Stewart doesn't come into this movie until probably like 3035.

18:13 Minutes in, like it's it's really far into the movie. And I have to say, man, the performance by John Doll as Brandon, who is kind of the mastermind of the whole thing and certifiably insane. Like cold, calm, collected, like toying with people, manipulating clearly the mind of a serial killer. His performance is lights out good. Like I am seeing it on a big screen too. To your point about a lot of the people in this movie act as if they were actors in the 1940s and kind of ham it up. His performance is so naturalistic by by comparison, like little things like even just like scratching his nose in the middle of a take, Things you didn't see Hollywood actors doing.

18:58 I was blown away by his performance. Brad Yeah, I'm honestly curious if he was more of a stage actor in his career up until this point, because he feels like a stage actor so much more so than most of the other people in this film. I think that Phillip, played by Farley Granger, also has that vibe to him of of hamming it up a little bit in the way you would for a theater performance over a movie. And I think it kind of makes we don't have to get to him yet, but it makes Jimmy Stewart stand out a little bit because like Jimmy Stewart comes on on stage and he's just smooth as butter, man.

19:39 He like, like, I love the performance by John Doll. I think Farley Granger is great. I think that Jimmy Stewart is out of place here. And yet it it's almost like when you see Will Ferrell come on to the office and you're like, I know that Will Ferrell's not like Hollywood's greatest actor, but he's a way better actor than 92% of the other actors on this television show, you know? What? I mean, it's so funny you bring that up because like with John Doll, he doesn't seem like he's playing to the back row. Like his is much more like, I know there's a camera 5 inches from my face and I'm, I'm going to do it much more subtly.

20:20 Whereas Farley Granger, like by the end of the movie where he's like just absolutely toasted and he's he's just shouting like he said, you could have a drink, have a drink, man. Like there was audible laughs in my in my theater from that. And Jimmy Stewart, by contrast, is it's almost like a tale of two halves for him. Because when he comes in and he's got that really, like, biting wit and he's just kind of like nothing with people, It's a sight of Jimmy Stewart I've never seen. And it's like really, really charming, but in like a like an A hole kind of way. Like he seems like a jerk. Yeah. Yeah. And I really love that performance. And then at the end of the movie, you know, spoiler alert, Jimmy Stewart figures out what's going on and he has the two guys cornered.

21:09 And then he gives this big pompous speech about like, the goodness of man and Brad. It reminded me so much of, like the final speech of Henry Fonda in The Grapes of Wrath. It's so Tom Joad and it's it's this like moralizing speech that I don't feel like the movie really needed. Like, we understand what they're doing is wrong. We don't need Jimmy Stewart to have that character realization. And that and the way he delivers it is very much like, oh, this is Jimmy Stewart. This is why he took this role. It kind of sucks because I thought that what he was doing in the rest of the movie was so much better and so different than what I'm used to seeing with him.

21:51 Yeah, I I mean he turned into Mr. Smith goes to Washington, right? Like he's he is moralizing and giving a speech and I I think that's I'm with you in that that was just the funkiest part of the movie. But also like if you just cut that scene. And just showed me that, you know, on a random day that I I wasn't thinking about rope, I'd be like, oh, that's a great speech. Like he like, he knocks it out of the park. It just doesn't fit tonally with what's going on with his character as well as just the rest of the film. So I I've never read the script to the play that this is based on, but I was, you know, doing the next best thing and perusing Wikipedia today.

22:34 And they said that the the play remains kind of unresolved. Like, he has the realization that his twisted philosophy in teaching these boys about the ubermensch and Nietzschean philosophy is what led to this. But he doesn't have this, you know, standing on a soapbox moment where he says everything. I've believed my whole life is a lie and you've shown it to me and and you know, I think it's probably a better ending. I'm also not surprised that you had to have the moralistic ending in 1948. Yeah, and that's the hard part, is that we're all constrained by the era we live in.

23:14 And so could this movie have been better if he made it even like 10 years later, like even in 58, he probably could have gotten away with a more morally Gray ending. But it is the movie that we have and you can just take the 1st 80%. Of our 80 minute movie and say this is incredible. Getting back to John Doll and Farley Granger, I just have to say this. I think that John Doll in this film, I don't know what he looks like in other films because I've never seen it before. For some reason, I couldn't get it out of my head that he looks like a really young, thin Ben Affleck. You know, it's funny. I was like, I was going through people in my head that he's kind of a combo of and I'm like, oh, the top half of his face is kind of like John Krasinski.

24:02 But then the shape of his face reminds me of Jon Crier from 2 1/2 men. And then it was like, you know, but he's also much more dapper and much more sophisticated and suave. I can see the Ben Affleck thing mostly because of body language, like when Ben Affleck is purposely playing a douche, it's very similar to what he's doing. Yeah. Yes, I'm so glad that you saw that because I just spent the whole movie thinking, like, this has to be like Ben Affleck's grandfather or something. So the crazy thing is, you know, Farley Granger is not obviously the world's most famous movie star, but he goes on to collaborate with Hitchcock again in Strangers on a Train a few years after this, and it's a good movie and it's a good performance. I've just always wondered, like, why didn't you do this again with John Doll?

24:51 Because to me, not only is John Doll the better performance in this movie, he's far and away the better actor between the two. Yeah, I I think that Farley Granger does a really good job with what he is asked to do. I think that it's like a B to B plus performance and I I wouldn't even say that John Doll is that much better. I'd give him like a B plus to an A -. I I just think that. You get a solid performance from Farley for what he's asked to do and and what he's asked to do is basically descend into madness over guilt for what he's done. And I think he does a good job of it. So I I I think the performance isn't noteworthy, but I don't know. I'm saying a lot of things about nothing. Essentially Brad, before we get to break I, I feel like we need to still flush out a little bit like the contents of this movie. So they kill a guy and they have planned out this perfect crime based on their own Nietzschean philosophy. They believe themselves to be of superior intellect. And they think that they can not only get away with murder, but kind of flaunt their own superior intellect by inviting the family members and close friends of this guy over to the house.

26:06 And they stuff his body in a chest while while this dinner party is going on. And then John Doll's character says, I'm going to one up the gamesmanship here, Let's actually serve food off of the chest that this dead body is stuffed into. And not only that, how about I, I give his dad some books to take home with him and I'm going to use the rope that I killed his son with to tie the books up. There are so many like perverse touches to this movie and it's it's still crazy to me that just thematically they could get away with doing this in 1948. Yeah, it feels like a very dark film to have come out in the 40s and you know, post World War 2, everything's happy sunshine.

26:53 The amount of turns that it takes to get darker and darker as it goes, I think it might be what necessitates Jimmy Stewart's speech at the end to be like. And by the way, I Alfred Hitch, I mean Jimmy Stewart. I mean whatever Caddell, whatever his name is in the movie. Do not approve of this. It's bad, We the Most Picture Association of America. But at the end of the day, we all know what Hitchcock was really interested in. Like, that's what makes the Jimmy Stewart speech so weird, is that we we all know who Hitchcock is. Like. We might not have known in 1948, but we know that he's way more fascinated and interested in all the dark, perverse turns that he can take. The same way that Tarantino wants a movie to turn violent. Well, and and that's what makes it a perfect Hitchcock movie too, because you could hand this material to like David Fincher today, and you could make a really good David Fincher movie out of this.

27:52 It just wouldn't be funny. And like, I'm not to spoil my let's make it a double. I have a David Fincher movie in mind for this, but Hitchcock, he does the darkness really well, but he's also, at every point making you find the humor in it and making it fun and like just on its face. The movie is suspenseful because you don't know if these two murderers are going to get found out. And the fact that you even feel suspense kind of indicates a little bit that there's a part of you that is like not wanting them to get found out, because if you wanted to get found out, you'd just be cheering the whole time. So he puts you in a position where you're like subconsciously kind of rooting for the murderers.

28:37 And it's it's a very weird spot, but it's something that Hitchcock does so well. Yeah, well and he's he's playing like a rope, a dope, like people getting close to the the the cabinet, the chest and then getting further away and then closer and then getting away. And finally, the maid, like, halfway opens it and Brendan has to come over and like, push it down and be like, Nope, you have to come back tomorrow, maid. All right, man. Speaking of coming back in a little bit, let's press pause here. Let's drink this whiskey. I am not so much looking forward to this based on your review last week, but we've got 1792 Sweet Wheat to drink. What do you say we get to it, Brent? Let's get to it.

29:24 All right. So today we are trying again with 1792 as we get into their sweet wheat. Now this is an interesting bourbon Brad, in that it's not age stated, so we don't know exactly how old it is. You know I assume it's blended and that's why we're not getting an age statement on this. The mash bill is also not disclosed on this, but we know that it is a weeded bourbon. So this is kind of 1792, you know the Barton distilleries response to Weller to rebel. So I'm assuming that there is a very high proportion of wheat in this. At the same time, 1792 is known for being a high rye mash bill. So I actually don't know if this is like, oh, we've just swapped out the rye for wheat. I don't know if it's just like no, no, we're taking a high rye mash bill and just adding a touch more wheat. I have no idea really.

30:13 I guess is what I'm saying if this is actually comparable mash bill wise to Weller or if they've just kind of like touched it up a little bit with wheat? And and I'll also say this. There seems to be in the research I've done a 2015 release that they released, you know, regularly from then on, and it looks like they've had now an updated 2023 release. And I, because we have had this whiskey for long enough, I I can say with with certainty this would be whatever the 2015 edition was that they released for, you know, 6-7 years. This would be from that addition, and I think honestly So it's an annual release and I know that I'm assuming you're looking at the same tasting notes that I did when I was trying to look this up on Breaking Bourbon, because their most recent review is like the 2023 release. Apparently when this first started being released in 2015, it had an 8 year age statement and then at some point they dropped the age statement.

31:18 Maybe 2023 is when that dropped. I'm not entirely sure. But Brad, we are for sure drinking a prior to 2023 release on this bad boy. Yes. Yep. All right, man, we've we've given enough background on this. I think it's 91.2 proof. We have no idea how old it is. Let's dive in. What are you picking up on the nose? This one you get the cherries that you normally get on a wheat whiskey. For me, it turns into like a a dusty peanut and then. Overall though, from start to finish on the nose I I gave it a solid 10 to 15 minutes to try and let it air out before I drank it, but I just kept getting that nail Polish remover smell.

31:59 Wow. It's not terrible. It's not overwhelming, but it was just underlying everything else that I gave it a 6 1/2 out of 10 on the nose. I'm going to give it a 7 1/2, and it's mostly because I'm not getting a lot of the notes. I typically get unweeded bourbons, so I'm getting a lot of that dustiness. I'm getting a lot of oak. And then, like, the predominant note for me is leather. There's a ton of leather on this. There's a little bit of tobacco as well. It kind of reminds me of, like, some of the more oaky Woodford's that we've had. But it's it shouldn't really smell like that. You know what I mean? It should smell more like cherry cola, which is what we get with our weeded bourbons. And that's not to say that like, it has to smell a certain way.

32:43 It just makes me wonder, like, what exactly is the proportion of rye to wheat in this? Because I'm still picking up some of those things that the high rye mash bill from last week tipped me off to. So I'm going to give it a 7 1/2 on the nose and I'm going to take a sip while you give me your tasting score. Yeah, as I got into the pallet, it had some nice notes going on. I got cinnamon, there was cherry, there's vanilla. The peanuts kind of disappear for me a little bit. It has a pleasant flavor, but nothing really stood out to me. There wasn't a depth of of quality to this. It was decent. I give it a 7 out of 10 and this reminds me of some Buffalo Trace stuff. Honestly.

33:25 Like it it reminds me of almost like standard label Buffalo Trace. Not Even so much. Weller. Yeah, but then when I swallow it gets really char heavy, like it almost gets bitter because it's so burnt tasting. This is not what I anticipated at all. I'm not saying it's a bad whiskey. I'm not even saying that I don't like it necessarily. I would never use the words sweet or wheat to describe this whiskey at all. And it's unfortunate because as you know, the name of the product Brad is sweet wheat. So what to do here? I'm going to, I'm going to give it a 7 out of 10 because it's not bad, it just isn't what is advertised, yes.

34:09 Yeah, and the finish for me was like really short and sweet, dissipated quickly. I I like your note of something burnt. For me it almost tasted kind of like a a really strong artificial vanilla extract that had been like burnt a tiny bit. Just okay on the finish. I give it a six out of 10 here. Second sip, the sweetness comes out a little bit more. I do get a bit of like a brandied cherry towards the back and then that that char comes back again and it's almost more herbal this time too. It's good, it's fine. I just again, I I don't know that I would have picked this as a weeded bourbon if you just set it down in front of me. I actually like the finish better than I like the palette. I'm going to give it a 7.5 and that takes us to balance where I'm really confused on what to do because it's it's a pretty solid whiskey all the way across. And I will also say in its favor, there was nothing on the nose, pallet or finish that was different from each other, right?

35:09 Like, it's a very consistent whiskey. It just seems mislabeled to me. So, like, what What do I do with this? Like, it's really, if I didn't know the brand or the name of it, I'd probably give it a really high balance score. But knowing that it's called Sweet Wheat, I want to give it a really low balance score. What are you coming out to here? I gave it a six and a half like it, like the the flavors are there. They're consistent. It has a tiny bit of complexity from the nose through the finish, but overall the the the quality of character just isn't quite there on this one. So you know, a little below what I would consider a good score, I'm going to give it a 7 1/2 once again, just because it is a well above average whiskey on its own merits, right?

35:58 I just man, I don't know man. What will this run you in the state of Ohio, Brad? This is $38. However, it was saying when I looked at OHLQ that it's unavailable and you have to look at the retailer. And so I so I don't know if it's often available in Ohio, but if it is $38, well, MSRP on the the Breaking Bourbon review of this was $50.00. So I mean, let's call it. You want to call it 38, you want to call it 50. What should we do here? Let's just assume that people are getting well, No, because we're definitely drinking an older addition. Let's let's say $40.

36:39 All right, at 40 bucks, I don't think this is a bad whiskey at all. Like, if you set this down next to a bottle of Buffalo Trace, I'd probably prefer this. Especially like, you know it's priced in line with Weller Special Reserve. A little bit cheaper than Weller 107, which this doesn't hold the candle to. But I don't think it's a bad value at $40 and I do think this is a better whiskey than what we drank last week. I'm going to give it a 6 1/2 out of 10 on value. Yeah, I I actually don't think that this is a good value of $40 Bob. For for me the the quality just isn't there for this to be worth $40.

37:21 If this was a $30 whiskey, I think it's like a seven and a half eight out of 10 value like that like this is decent. It it's not bad whiskey, but for $40 I just feel like there are way, way more great values out there at this price range. For me to ever pay this, I'll give it a four out of 10 on value. All right, I'm coming out to a 36 out of 50. Brad, what are you at? I'm at a 30 out of 50. Once again, we're pretty far apart, although not 11 points apart like we were last week. So we're coming to an average of a 33 out of 50 or a 66 out of 100, which is below the mark where we typically start recommending a whiskey. I will say for myself, I'm not going to recommend buying a bottle.

38:09 I would recommend spending 5 to $7.00 on a pour of this at the bar. Like I I think it's a perfectly fine whiskey, and if this is like your preferred flavor palate, go for it. Yeah, I don't think I'm going to recommend this, Bob, man. We are striking out on 1792, dude. And you've been holding off on it for so long, just like rope. Yeah, luckily I have a higher opinion of rope than I do of 1792. Well, last question, did you get any tasting notes of rope in this I got? So much hemp, just all sorts of fabric hemp. It was pretty incredible.

38:50 All right, man. Well, what do you say we get back into talking about this movie, Brad? Let's get to him, man. All right, everybody. That was 1792 Sweet Wheat, a bourbon that was neither sweet nor wheatie. I was a liar. I love wheatie as a tasting. Wheatie Breakfast. the Champions, baby. That's what I that's what I'm going for. Hey, man, guess what? Guess what time it is? Oh, I don't know, Bob. What time is it? It's time for me to finally secure a 500 season and at our new game, 2 Facts in a Falsehood. Brad is going to try to stumpy ball to. All right And what is wrong?

39:38 2 facts in a falsehood. That's right, two facts in a falsehood, which I for some reason just called a new game. Multiple seasons old at this point. I was a little curious about that. I was like, man, I I feel like we came up with this in like season five maybe, you know, I'm, I'm just kind of in the mode where I'm like it's a new day, it's a new game, This is my moment now, you know? You're calling your shot. 2 Facts in a Falsehood is the part of the podcast where Brad presents three items to me as fact about the making of this movie, one of which is a complete lie, and it is my job to figure out which one is the lie. Brad, as I have mentioned I am hanging out at 15 and 13 on the season. I want to make sure that I hit sixteen wins, so that. You know the the balance will be achieved, right? But this is your chance.

40:27 It is really, really up in the air as of right now. It sure is. Man, I'm feeling pretty good right now. I think I'm on a three-game winning streak. Yeah, And they were like all with guests. That's supposed to be like my ace in the hole. They let me down repeatedly. Yeah. Trust your gut, man. I will go with my gut today. My gut is currently full of Japanese hibachi food, so I don't know what I'm listening to right now, but bro I we made we had lemon chicken orzo tonight, some fresh bread out of the oven. Man, that sounds good too. All right dude, hit me with your two facts and a falsehood Fact #1. The Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman film, of which Janet and Mrs. Atwater are struggling to remember, is Notorious from 1946, also directed I Don't Know If You Knew This Bob by Sir Alfred Hitchcock. Fact #2.

41:23 This was the only movie that Jimmy Stewart made with Hitchcock that he did not like he being Jimmy Stewart. Stewart later admitted that he felt he was miscast as the Professor and that he had originally recommended Vincent Price to Hitchcock for the role. Fact #3 Screenwriter Arthur Lorenz claimed that originally Hitchcock assured him that the opening of the movie would not show the murder, therefore creating doubt as to whether the two leading characters actually committed the crime and whether the trunk had a corpse inside or not. Oh, interesting. OK, Well, I mean, I'm pretty sure number one is true.

42:03 It made a lot of sense that that was what they were referring to. And it got a big laugh in my theater. So I'm. If if I'm wrong, then so was everyone else in my theater, because we all laughed at it. Cinematec. Yeah, cinephiles knew what they were talking about. So that means it's either two or three. I don't know that I remember hearing anything about Jimmy Stewart not liking this movie, but we've also established that it is kind of out of character. Not out of character, but like out of the typical realm of characters that he plays. So that typical for his ouvra, not for his ouvra. #3 is interesting just because I'd like, you would expect Hitchcock to show the murder.

42:44 But yeah, I think that makes it more of a mystery. And Hitchcock has gone on record so many times talking about, like, mystery is when you withhold information from the audience, and suspense is when you give it to them. So I'm going to trust my gut that Hitchcock wanted to give them the murder at the beginning of the movie, and I'm going to say two is the falsehood. Brad, wait a second. You just said that. Wouldn't that make #3? You said that he had been assured by Hitchcock that he would not show the murder, right? Right. And you're saying that Hitchcock would show the murder? Oh yeah, I'm just trying to make sure that your your brains fully.

43:27 Functioning. Yeah, man. Because at the end of the day, you know that you're going to be wrong. That's true. And it's going to be #1 because you dismissed it immediately. Oh, you're right. So wait, #3. You said that Hitchcock had assured the screenwriter that he would not show the murder, that he would not show the opening murder. All right, fine. Then I'm going to say 3 is the falsehood. Are Are you sure? I'm not sure because #2 sounds false too. I think they're both false. That's what I'm going to go with. That's what it is. I'm going to parlay this into two and three, both hitting on falsehood. Double or nothing, baby. So. So 3 is your answer. Three is my answer, Brad.

44:08 OK, you're wrong. It was 2. God. Bless you. Why did you do that to me? No, you tricky jerk. See, here's the thing though, when you said it, I was like, in my brain. I was like, wait, the logic Bob just used would actually make #3 the falsehood? So wait, he Hitchcock actually did tell the guy I'm not going to show the murder and then did it anyway? Yep. Good for him, man. That was the right choice. Oh, it totally was the right choice, I. Can't believe it. I should have known that you would have stopped me in my tracks when I was about to pull out the victory.

44:49 You you are one loss closer to not making it to 500. Dude, that was some John doll. Ubermensch trickiness. Right there. I don't like I I am your ubermensch, Bob. All right, Brad, let's get back into talking about the movie. And to talk about the movie, we kind of have to talk about the play a little bit more. The play was similar to like when you see a Law and Order episode and they always advertise it as ripped from the headlines and it's very clear that they did like a real life thing. This was based on perhaps the most famous crime outside of the Lindbergh baby of the early part of the 20th century, which was the murder of a young boy by Leopold and Loeb. It was a hugely famous court case, especially because Clarence Darrow was one of the attorneys for the defense. And they were they were lovers who were college students who had become convinced by this Nietzschean philosophy of the Ubermensch.

45:49 That they were above morality and could then plan the perfect murder. And not only that, but were justified in murdering this 14 year old boy. Obviously everything went to crap and they got caught and justice was served. In that case, can we just like, like, I know Jimmy Stewart gives the whole speech, but Can you imagine being so full of yourself that you're like, hey, you know that Bob book guy, he just is an inferior human being and I'm so far above him, you know that I should be able to murder him with impunity. I I.

46:30 Love that given the option to just construct A hypothetical person, you still choose to use me as an example of guy who deserves to be murdered. Yeah, I mean, I'm just. I'm just working out my innermost thoughts here on the podcast. Clearly. Well, one of the things I really love about the script in this movie, Brad, before it tips into this moralizing ending, is that when they try to explain to a rational person what is an ubermensch, how do you even know if you are one? There is like, he's just like, what do you mean if you, if you are one, you would know and I guess you're not one. Yep, you know, and I love that it. It highlights the absurdity of niete and philosophy from the getgo. And it doesn't.

47:15 The the great thing about the first half of the movie is that it doesn't beat the, you know, beat you over the head with it. It's like you watch Brandon struggle to articulate it in real time and then you understand, oh, this guy actually has no idea what he's talking about. Yeah, well, and it's, it's always been philosophy and a thought experiment to him. And one of the the acting moments that I love the most in this movie is immediately after they murder their friend, like Brandon comes close to breaking down. And like that moment right at the start of the movie sets you up for everything else where you've seen that he's not actually fully in on this.

48:00 And it plays off then the rest of the movie, as he's not trying to convince everyone else that he is, you know, not morally bound by any law. He's trying to convince himself. And I think that ties the entire movie together for me. Like, if Brandon right after killing him, was just kind of like, well, I'm glad I'm done with that. On to dinner. It it would not have played as well. But because there's this internal struggle, even for Brandon, who is so full of just BS, you realize that he's trying to convince himself. One of the things that. I think Hitchcock has a lot of fun with in this movie is trying to get around the censors of 1948 to show very obviously that the two main characters are gay.

48:47 Like they live together, They're very eligible bachelors, they're very dapper. It's like all of the stereotypical things that you would expect of them. But then it's also like, you know, they even have like the gay friend trying to set up as girlfriend. 100%, yeah. Like. But then also there's the little things that he does where it's like, oh, how did you actually get away with that? You know, to your point, right. When they murder the guy at the beginning, it's like a very obvious metaphor for them, like having a homosexual relationship. Like Brandon lets out a a moan and and kind of goes and then and then you watch him light a cigarette. Like it's it's very clearly a picture of like post coital stuff going on.

49:30 And one of the most interesting ways to think about this movie is like you could read this whole movie as a metaphor for these two guys being gay in 1948 and the body being them, you know, trapped in the closet and people finding out about it. And like, it's an, I mean, I'm not saying that's the way to read the movie, It's just an interesting way to think about it. And to also think about like how Hitchcock could portray those two characters because Leopold and Loeb publicly admitted after they got caught that they were in a homosexual relationship. So it's like it is an integral part of the story that he had to find creative ways to demonstrate. So what I hear you saying is that you, Bob book, are saying that all gay men consider themselves above any moral authority and consider themselves ubermensch. That that's what I hear you saying. I am not going to touch that one at all. Let's let's keep going here, man. All right, man.

50:29 I think maybe it's time for us to get to our final segment of the day, which we call, let's make it a double. Near the end of the episode. So thanks listening to the film and whiskey show. Let's ever know the film with this one, even if it's struggling. It's a final segment of the day. Now let's make it a double. Let's Make it a double is the part of the podcast where we pick a second movie to pair up with this one to make the perfect double feature. Brad, I had a lot of movies actually popping into my head as I watched this, you know? And I I mentioned earlier that there's not really much sound or much music in this movie. And the kind of haunting ending where you just hear sirens approaching. It reminded me a lot of the end of West Side Story, like after Tony gets shot and the music kind of drains out.

51:14 So I was like, oh, maybe West Side Story. I thought a lot about morally Gray endings, and it reminded me of Gone Baby Gone. The way we talked about the ending of that movie. I was thinking about that too. I think I'm going to come down on another Ben Affleck movie, though, and it's. One of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen, David Fincher's Gone Girl. A movie that is all about public perception in a missing persons case and twisted games that are being played with murder as the result. It is like the more I think about it, the more I realize Gone Girl is kind of David Fincher's rope. I think Rope is a much more fun movie, and I want to revisit it way more than I want to revisit Gone Girl, which is just deeply disturbing to me.

52:00 But I I think if you are predisposed to like these kind of movies you could do a lot worse than Gone Girl and Rope. I have two movies that are on my brain. The first one I'll I'll just this is your bonus extra one that you don't have to go watch. I think Clue would be a funny watch with this, that it's a murder mystery stage, obviously stage performance, that it's just one of the funniest movies and you need to watch it. You know what? You've mentioned Clue. Like 2. Yep, two out of the last three weeks, I think. I have never seen clue no. Never seen it bro. When we do another like I get to pick 15 movie season I I might put clue on there just so you have to watch it that.

52:46 Sounds fun, man. I've always wanted to, yeah. It's it's a it is the definition of camp. Love it, to say the least. The film I'm actually going to push us towards is another film where you have a mentor who pushes past moral and ethical boundaries to see where it takes him and where it takes his students. I think I'm going to pair this with Whiplash. Oh, that's a good one. I don't even like think about that. That's a great pick, man. I think Whiplash ends in a much better place, and yet still a morally great place in the sense that, like, whiplash is like a journey of ascent because of pressure and a certain type of philosophy. Rope is about a journey of descent towards, like, moral depravity.

53:40 Oh, interesting. And so I I think that they both have interesting ways they could play off of each other. But more people need to see Whiplash, so go watch Whiplash. Oh yeah. I actually think that both of them are journeys into descent. It's just that not everyone dies at the end of one of them. That's that's true. I guess that I guess the the journey of Ascent for Whiplash is more about how much are you willing to descend in order to ascend to greatness. Does that make sense? How? Much of your humanity can you lose? Will you sacrifice? All right man. So those are our our picks, Gone Girl and Whiplash, which might have come out the same calendar year or maybe one year apart, but we went ultra modern with our let's make it a double, which I really, really love and I think that bodes well for our final scores.

54:29 This is a movie that holds up extraordinarily well for a 75 year old film. I feel like we can talk about it in much more modern terms. I hate to say modern, but you know what I mean? Like. We can. We can put a more contemporary lens on this movie, and just the fact that we can do that, I think indicates how well made this film is. I truly hate Jimmy Stewart's speech at the end of this movie, and as I was sitting in this theater having one of the best theatrical experiences I've had in years, thinking to myself, this is a 10 out of 10. That speech alone made me want to lower this movie to a 9.5. I'm not going to do it because I still think that functionally this is a perfectly built machine of a movie. It's a 10 out of 10 for me, Brad, As I think about like what we're going to do at the end of the season when we're listing our favorites, this is going to be a tough movie to beat. It's like the little movie that could for me, and it's a 10 out of 10 for me and I guess to defend where you're at at a 10 out of 10.

55:32 I think that while his speech is terrible, the final like two or three minutes after the speech is also incredible. Like he shoots the gun to get people's attention and then they just sit there, all of them kind of feeling defeated. And you have like, you know, once again you have Phillip in the background kind of off to the left. You have Jimmy Stewart in the foreground and then Brandon kind of medium. But they're all like laid out sequentially and it just it's just great blocking for me at the overall. Watching this film, I appreciated it. I had fun with certain parts. The script was a little overbearing.

56:13 It felt a little too clever for itself. At moments. I I liked Brandon, but he just came across so schmoozy and pretentious and that I I struggled to appreciate even what he was trying to do. Overall, I really love this movie. I think it's incredibly well made. I'm at an 8 1/2 out of 10 Bob. 8.5 Brad Come on man. Final question. How much do you think Billy Zane based his Titanic performance on Brandon in this movie? That's an incredible question. And I think that it it has to be like I'm trying to think of any other movie with a more schmoozy condescending but. Just a just a true slimeball.

57:00 I love it, man. Yeah, it's so good. No, 100%. All right, so those are our scores on Rope. I would love to know what you think. Film and Whiskey Nation. Go watch this 80 minute movie. Like yeah, please, Seriously, please, please. If you've never watched any movie we've recommended you to, you can. You can stop your YouTube scrolling for 80 minutes and watch this movie. And then you can let us know what you think of it by finding us on all of our social medias Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok or YouTube at Film, Whiskey. And look at us just adding, adding names to that list. Bob, when are you going to throw threads in there? We have a threads account I have posted. No we won one time months ago.

57:46 Threads really shook up the world. More like thread. Oh man. Well, when you're done sending us a thread, join us on Discord, where we're actually talking about movies in Whiskey. You can find a link to our Discord at the end of every one of our show notes. And I have to say, Bob, we know that the stats on on our episodes are that most people stop listening, like the moment we give our scores. So let this be an example. If you're still listening, we can still be funny even when we're talking about our Instagram and and Threads page. We're so funny that I would dare to call us morally superior to everyone else.

58:27 Brad I Bob, I've been thinking it. I'm glad you. I'm glad. I'm glad you finally said it. Well, Speaking of movies where a character thinks they are morally superior and that everyone else sucks, we're pivoting to one of Hitchcock's most famous films where there's a The main character is morally superior to everyone. That's what I'm saying. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, 1940, three's shadow of a doubt. So we'll see you next week for that thriller. But until then, I'm Bob Book. I'm Brad G. And we'll see you next time.