Strangers on a Train (1951)

by James Wallace Harris, 9/13/23

Annie and I got together this afternoon to watch our second Alfred Hitchcock film together, Strangers on a Train. Of the four Hitchcock films I’ve seen this month, it’s the one I liked best by far. See my reactions to Notorious, Rebecca, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. I say reactions, because these essays aren’t reviews, they chronicle how I felt and come with spoilers.

I had some problems with Strangers on a Train, but this 1951 film showed Hitchcock had evolved creatively since Notorious in 1946. Visually, it was much more exciting, and the plot was far more believable — until the end. The acting felt deeper too.

Tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) is recognized by a fan, Bruno Antony (Robert Walker) on a train. Bruno comes on very friendly and forward, and admits he knows a lot about Guy because of what’s in the newspapers. Bruno knows Guy is married and wants a divorce so he can marry Anne Morton (Ruth Roman), a daughter of a senator. Eventually, Bruno tells him his theory of how to get away with murder. He offers to kill Guy’s wife if Guy will kill his father. He says each of them won’t be a suspect because neither will have a motive. Guy thinks Bruno is nuts and goes on his way.

But Bruno does kills Miriam Joyce Haines (Kasey Rogers) assuming he and Guy had a deal. The film hits high gear when Guy learns his wife has been murdered and Bruno starts pestering him to fulfill his part of the bargain.

This is a perfect setup for a Hitchcock film. It’s based on a 1950 novel of the same name by Patricia Highsmith, which has a significantly different plot. It’s a psychological thriller, and the reason the film Strangers on the Train is so good. Of the four Hitchcock films I’ve seen this month, two were based on successful novels, Rebecca, and Strangers on a Train. From my small sample, I assume Hitchcock creates his best work from a tightly plotted story. The two other films, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and Notorious felt like they were a succession of scenes that tied together a plot but weren’t tightly integrated into a seamless interconnected whole. The two films based on books were both brilliantly plotted.

Bruno is a realistic portrayal of a psychopath. His character is quite believable, living in his own fantasy reality. The idea of Bruno shanghaiing a sane person is fascinating, and believable. I wish Strangers on a Train had maintained that believability until the end. Unfortunately, the plot derails when Guy and Anne hatch a plot to catch Bruno planting evidence.

Hitchcock loves generating tension, but I thought the tension turned up too high at the end, and the action sped up too fast with it. The whole rushed tennis match didn’t work for me. And I thought the Merry-Go-Round scene was silly. The Merry-Go-Round went too fast to be believed, and seeing it crash to pieces hurt the whole experience. I figured Hitchcock wanted a BIG climax, but it was too big.

I wish the realistic pacing had stayed constant throughout. The film lost control of the characterization. Even the cinematography fell apart as the pacing increased. I have not read the Highsmith novel, but I might. From what it says on Wikipedia it’s a much different story.

After Annie and I finished with Strangers on a Train, we watched two little shorts about Hitchcock that were quite informative. I have a feeling that the more I learn about Hitchcock the more I’ll like his movies. I also expect to be more forgiving of his films when I rewatch them. There’s a chance that I need to learn how to watch Hitchcock.

Even though I’m complaining a lot about the Hitchcock films we’re watching, I ended up buying two collections of his films. This gives me twenty of his most famous films to study. Many of Hitchcock’s films are on YouTube. TCM showed several of them this week. And many are available for rent on Amazon Prime. The Blu-ray box set was exceptionally nice with its packaging and extras.

JWH