Strangers on a Train:
Wacky murder misunderstandings
Today we have a classic film from one of the greatest directors of all time on the block. A classic tale of murder, suspense, and betrayal, the legendary Alfred Hitchcock’s 1951 Strangers on a Train is revered in the same manner as many other Hitchcock films. When a joke about murdering sources of ire between two strangers goes too far, the tale takes twists and turns as one stranger pressures another to do the deed. Dark and tense, the film is a classic staple of filmmaking in terms of shooting and story. While it is not without its flaws, it’s still an amazing film deserving of its praise.
The plot of Strangers on a Train is magnificent in its simplistic yet interesting idea. An up and coming amateur tennis player, Guy, meets a fan, Bruno, on a train before they discuss their troubles. While Guy’s wife refuses him a divorce despite her infidelity, Bruno’s father is overbearing and rage-inducing. While Bruno jokingly proposes they eliminate the other’s problem in a “crisscross,” Guy writes off the eager Bruno. Bruno, however, has other ideas. In a manner, I’d describe this idea for a plot the way I would The Purge: it’s an interesting idea for such a simple concept with such a great amount of room to give twists and turns. Unlike The Purge, however, this film follows through with interesting uses of the concept through use of its antagonist. The relentless Bruno is intelligent, focused, and terrifying to a degree. The ways he predicts Guy’s actions so confidently make him a constantly lurking presence, never truly away even when off-screen. He is likely the best element of the film’s story: A presence always seeming to be watching even if you can’t see him. However, the story is only part of what makes this movie so memorable.
If you were to ask me what the greatest innovation in human history is, I’d likely say the video camera. It may not be the most useful nor the item you want on a desert island, but it’s a very versatile thing. With it, we’re able to capture moments in time from our lives. We can look back over a decade and recognize how far we’ve come. At the same time, we can use the tool to alter reality and create a visual tale in ways that were never possible before. Strangers on a Train has one of those beautiful moments as Miriam, Guy’s wife, is strangled by Bruno in the reflection of her discarded glasses. The low angle combined with the enhanced image and Miriam’s graceful fall is beautiful and almost graceful. The moment is grim and poetic, an amazing contrast of emotions as the camera makes the illusion reality. This is what was so amazing about Hitchcock. The man had an eye for the innovative and impressive, considering new ways of filming and tricks to pull that most wouldn’t understand the appeal of. Even the image of trains in the background of shots and Bruno lurking far off in the distance use space so neatly, ultimately giving it a strong appeal. Combine that with a strong orchestral soundtrack and you have a recipe for one of the most legendary films of all time.
Despite all the good, there is still one major distraction in the otherwise glorious work that is Strangers on a Train. While I love the plot, the shooting style, and the music, the acting itself is so disappointing. Now, I feel it only right to note that the manner in which actors behave in film has changed greatly since the early days of the craft. The style of speech as well as the manner in which individuals move has become much less theatrical and more in tune with the realistic. However, I always keep this in mind when watching older films and yet Strangers on a Train remains mediocre at best when observing the acting style. When Guy speaks, I sometimes feel as though he’s reading the lines for the first time rather than truly living the experience. Anne and Senator Morton seem to ham it up for the camera, speaking with the enunciation of a first-time actor eager to impress but failing to know when they’re laying it on too thick. In fact, I dare say the only actor with a fair balance between the two extremes is, once again, he shining star that is Bruno. At first glance, Bruno seems to fall under the same category as the Mortons due to his tendency to come off as overly-creepy and eerie style of speech. Likewise, his tendency to lose his temper makes him feel a bit too ham-fisted in the beginning. But as the film goes on, Bruno’s character being demonstrated more and more, it becomes apparent that this style is all too right for Bruno. His psychopathic mood swings combined with his intense temper ultimately lend themselves to this style of acting, enhancing the character’s attributes rather than distracting from them. These disappointing performances, however, do not take away from the overall quality of the film.
Alfred Hitchcock is known as the “Master of Suspense” and this is proved throughout Strangers on a Train. With a compelling narrative, interesting characters, a great score, and beautiful shot composition, it’s easy to overlook less-than-stellar performances. Ultimately, I feel this film has earned its spot in the pantheons of the film world. Be ready to sit back for an hour and a half when you turn this film on, because it will not be easy to turn off. Happy viewing.