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.





 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.