Strangers on a Train (1951)

I had no idea that merry-go-rounds could be so terrifying!

Intro.

I am taking a slight break from the movie monster phase to talk about Hitchcock - which still seems appropriate for October and Halloween.  Do you ever find yourself watching those films that everyone seems to know, but not too many people today have actually seen?  I'm definitely guilty of a lot of those films - I've never seen the full length of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Citizen Kane but I know what happens in those films and why they are so key to film history.  (I know, I'm a terrible fangirl for not having seen those!)  I think Strangers on a Train is one of those films, which is why I'm glad it was recently featured on the TCM series, The Essentials. 

Overview

The premise of Strangers on a Train is exactly what it sounds like - two strangers meet on a train.  Guy Haines (Farley Granger) is a famous tennis player, not quite pro yet, who is approached by a very talkative fan, Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker).  Bruno seems to know a lot about Guy's life, including the fact that he wants to divorce his wife and marry his girlfriend, Anne Morton (Ruth Roman).  Bruno admits that he has family troubles of his own, namely his stern, disapproving but very wealthy father.  Pretty soon Bruno tells Guy his idea of a perfect murder - two strangers with no connections between them "swap murders".  "Everybody has someone they'd like to get rid of," Bruno says with all the charm of a snake.  For whatever reason, Guy disapproves but not too harshly, possibly to not upset this stranger who may decide to kill him instead.  Anyway, Guy gets off the train and confronts his pregnant wife.  She's decided not to go through with the divorce and to tell everyone that the baby she's carrying is Guy's (even though it isn't).  He's so furious, he calls Anne and says he's so angry that he could strangle his wife, Miriam (Kasey Rogers).  That's about all Bruno needs to know when he calls Guy to see how things went with his wife.  Bruno then tracks and finds Miriam at a local carnival, where he follows her for some time before getting her alone on an embankment by the river.  There he strangles her and slips away. He tells Guy what he's done and expects him to uphold his end of the "bargain".  Bruno's left nothing to chance either - if Guy goes to the police, Bruno can frame him as an accomplice.  Worse still, he has Guy's engraved cigarette lighter, which he plans on taking back to the crime scene.  A battle of wills begins between the two men as complications arise - first Guy's alibi, a man he took the train with during the murder, was too drunk to recall seeing him.  Then the police send a detective to shadow Guy 24/7, making any meetings between him and Bruno difficult and risky.  Bruno starts losing patience and comes out of hiding to start following Guy more closely.  He even invites himself to a big society party with Anne's family (her father is a Senator).  Her sister, Barbara (Patricia Hitchcock) recognizes Bruno after he almost strangles one of the guests and from there one last plan is hatched - Bruno must get back to the crime scene to leave the lighter and frame Guy irrefutably.  A mad chase and a terrifying merry-go-round ride bring this great thriller to a dizzying end.   

Highlights
As in so many Hitchcock films, the cinematography is outstanding.  I found out through TCM that the cinematographer was Robert Burkes, whom had worked with Hitchcock on something like 10 films.  The shots in this movie are so well crafted and again, there is more showing than telling.  I loved the tennis match that Bruno attends - he is the lone spectator whose head does not turn to follow the ball, but instead remains eerily fixated on Guy.  Also, when Bruno is following Miriam in the carnival, she watches him at the strongman game - he looks at his hands, looks at her, picks up the hammer and whacks the target so hard he hits the bell.  It's a testament to the strength in those hands and the look he gives both his hands and then her foreshadows the strangling that follows.  When he wins, he also looks at her and waggles his eyebrows - so creepy!  I mean, his stalking is bad enough, but that look just gave me chills.  She thinks it's flattering to have a man so interested in her (which, by the way, is so messed up! Stalking is NOT OKAY.) which is why she winds up alone with him in the dark struggling for life and losing.  That moment of the murder, we see the act as it is reflected in her glasses, which have fallen into the grass.  It's a beautiful shot and one I'm sure that has been imitated many times since.  The overall art direction is phenomenal and typically in the style of Hitchcock where ever shot tells a part of the story.  Look away for a minute and you've missed so much.

In addition to such fine camera work, we also have great performances by the cast.  In the intro from The Essentials series, they mention that the two lead actors were chosen partly because they had previously always been identified with "everyman" types of roles.  That in itself makes the film even more thrilling - these men are seen as regular guys like anyone in the audience.  Put Vincent Price in that role and forget it, the effect would be gone and the film wouldn't be nearly as good.*  It's what I've seen Hitchcock do in so many of his films.  He takes an everyday person and puts them in an out of the blue, terrifying situation that only escalates.  Think about Cary Grant's character in North by Northwest, or Jimmy Stewart in, well, in any of his Hitchcock films (wow, there were a lot.  perhaps because Jimmy Stewart defined the "everyman" type?).  As long as I'm talking about acting, both Ruth Roman and Patricia Hitchcock also give great performances and sort of help redeem the film from becoming anti-feminist thanks to Miriam.  (Really, Miriam?  If a guy is stalking you like that and won't even speak to you, run away!!!)


I think what I liked the most about this film is how it can be thrilling, suspenseful and downright creepy without anything out of the norm.  What I mean is, there are no vampires, no aliens, no voodoo zombies walking around (not that I don't also love and appreciate those films too).  The fear grows from something as simple and innocuous as two seemingly normal strangers meeting on a train. 

Review and Recommendation

Strangers on a Train reminded me of a pot of water boiling on the stove.  It took some time to get started and after a loud bang or two it slowly grows more fierce until it explodes (okay, so I may have left a pot on the stove once and forgotten about it till the scorched pan started making really odd noises).  The film grows on you, wearing down your patience just as it wears down the characters.  It's true, I thought it was a bit slow at times, but really it was only because all of the action was building, waiting to bubble up and over.  And the ending, well, that is well worth the trip.  Overall, fantastic cinematography, great concept, and good solid acting make this one film I can recommend to anyone.

A few end notes: 
* Don't get me wrong - I love Vincent Price.  He is a great actor in his own right, but his type-casting as the villain in so many horror films would have not helped Hitchcock's cause of the everyman.  If you'd like to see a Vincent Price horror film, I recommend House of Wax.  It was (and probably still is) my favorite horror film. 
 
Also, Alec Baldwin referred to Bruno as one of the top 5 creepiest villains of all classic films.  It makes me wonder who the other 4 are.  I'm sure that Max Cady from Cape Fear is on that list.  Mitchum's performance in that picture reminds me somewhat of Walker's portrayal of Bruno; I wonder if it was an influence.  Something tells me it probably was, as Strangers on a Train is such a standard classic for all film historians.