Skip to main content

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train
(1951)

(SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

It’s also a picture with more than enough written about it already. It may not be quite as universally feted as his peak populist productions like North by Northwest and Rear Window, but the level of analysis awarded Strangers on a Train sees it trailing only Psycho and Vertigo. The double theme, the homoerotic subtext, dark/light, success/failure. At its core, though, is selling the “criss-cross” premise of Patricia Highsmith’s novel (in which both parties fulfil their bargain). The playful, casual way in which Bruno Antony (Robert Walker) impresses himself upon tennis pro Guy Haines (Farley Granger) and walks away with what he has decided is permission to do away with the wife (Laura Elliott) who won’t grant Guy a divorce – in exchange for Guy murdering Bruno’s father – is both crucial and masterful on the director’s part. So much so, it inspired Danny De Vito’s comic riff in Throw Momma from the Train (where the only problem is that everyone, Anne Ramsey’s hilarious brutal momma aside, is too damn nice).

The casting of the leads is key, and like the earlier Shadow of a Doubt, the director’s choices are perfect. This deserves stressing, as Hitch had cause to complain (“As I see it, the flaws of Strangers on a Train were the ineffectiveness of the two main actors and the weakness of the final script”). It’s the kind of remark that even leads one to question his judgement (although, this was mid-60s, and past his peak). I could perhaps see his criticism of Granger, in terms of “the stronger the hero, the more effective the situation”, but I agree with Roger Ebert that Hitch’s preferred William Holden would have been all wrong. The key to Strangers on a Train’s effectiveness at the outset is that Guy is too amenable, too tolerant; we have to believe his “niceness” would give Bruno an “in”. And Granger, working with the director after a much nervier showing in Rope, conveys that perfectly. He’s handsome, successful, moral, but also quite shallow, with none of the charisma or edge of Bruno; he’s the perfect opposite, essentially.

As for Walker – who died the following year – any negatives at all are baffling. Pauline Kael noted of this “bizarre, malicious comedy”, that “Walker’s performance is what gives the movie much of its character and peculiar charm”. There’s enormous amusement to be had from the supporting cast – notably Pat Hitchcock as the younger sister of Guy’s would-be fiancé and Marion Lorne as the hilariously oblivious Mrs Antony – but Walker, suggestive of a combination of Robert Vaughn and Kevin Spacey, is devious, mischievous, superior, and quite, quite mad (we know just what a bad ’un he is when he bursts the little boy’s balloon).

Bruno represents yet another outing for Hitch’s mother fixation, but in this case showcasing the classic gay mummy’s boy stereotype: stern, domineering dad and mother who can see only his positives (the scene in which Ruth Roman’s Anne goes to plead with Mrs Antony and she dismisses her concerns is as chilling in its own way as anything Bruno actually does). And he, being a very clever fellow, lightly mocks her throughout (asked if he is taking his vitamins, he replies “I took a bottle yesterday, mother. A whole fifth”. Taking a look at her grotesque abstract artwork, he has a fit of infectiously hysterical laughter, seeing his father in it: “That’s the old boy, alright. That’s father”).

Certain suspense sequences are justly famous, but some of the most fun ones simply see Bruno up to his devious business. In particular, his inviting himself along to Senator Morton’s (Leo G Carroll) party and proceeding to announce his fascinations to anyone who will listen (leading to his passing out as he relives his murder of Miriam, the similarity to Pat Hitchcock’s Barbara overcoming him). He shows just how batshit crazy some of his notions are (“My idea for harnessing the life force. I’ll make atomic power look like the horse and buggy”) and chats up older women (more mother types) with his perfect murder gambit. Most uproariously, he interrogates a judge’s ethics in what was surely reflected one of the director’s pet views (“Tell me judge, after you sentence a man to the chair, isn’t it difficult to go out and eat your dinner after that?”)

Nevertheless, the moments we remember most are the suspense related ones: Bruno stalking Miriam at the amusement park before strangling her in the reflection of her fallen glasses, to the accompaniment of jaunty fairground music; revealing himself in Mr Antony’s bed when Guy enters to warn Bruno’s father; the brilliantly simple siding-with-the-villain suspense – how could Hitch criticise Sabotage’s climax then get behind this? – of his attempt to retrieve Guy’s lighter from the storm drain.

The latter sequence forms part of what Truffaut referred to as the director’s “bold manipulation of time, the way it’s contracted and dilated”. It’s notably paralleled in suspense with Guy’s tennis match (on this evidence, Hitch could have directed a whole sports movie… but only if there was a body somewhere on the court). There is a minor problem here – probably something Hitch was addressing in his disparagement of the screenplay – in that Guy is required to be suddenly very deductive in respect of the fate of his lighter, far beyond his natural capabilities. But it’s also put together with such panache by Hitch, it scarcely matters.

The insane merry go-round scene is both a marvellous piece of effects work (compare the integration of elements here with the kind of redundant pick-ups against a blue screen that would later become the bane of his colour work) and all-the-stops out in its escalation. Everything is going on, including a little guy crawling under the ride to turn it off. That it all kicks off due to a ridiculously trigger-happy cop – by any standards – is Hitch through and through.

Generally, he has great fun with the fairground, just as he did in Stage Fright, but here with added waiting and ratchetting up of tension. Hitch objected to several studio mandates, including Ruth Roman; she’s entirely forgettable, in contrast to the rest of the supporting cast (Jack Warner insisted, and Hitch made her life miserable). Elliot is really good as a quite awful gold-digger, a shrewd move as it makes Bruno’s act that bit less horrifying and thus spreads the culpability (we don’t like her anyway).

Hitchcock also objected to the studio-imposed ending. The final line was supposed to be “a very clever fellow”, which entirely makes sense, even if the release version’s finish still feels like a very typical Hitch piece. Albeit, by this point, we’re very used to him cutting to the chase and wasting no time with epilogues; we can tell it is off tonally. The preview version, included on the Blu-ray release, is neither fish nor fowl, cutting off sooner, but on the rather slack Miriam, relieved to hear Guy is fine (“He says he looks silly in his tennis clothes”). In either form, though, Strangers on a Train is a masterpiece.





 

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.