Strangers On A Train (Special Edition) (DVD)

Alfred Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train - excellent movie! I could leave it that but of course I won’t. I’d had this 2 disk special edition in my DVD collection for a while before I got around to watching it. I really should have watched it as soon as I bought it. Not that I need an excuse to watch it all over again. There is no law that says you have to wait any given period of time before you can watch a film that you enjoyed all over again!
.../>

Strangers on a Train was adapted from “Strangers on a Train” written by Patricia Highsmith (who also penned The Talented Mr Ripley) was used as the inspiration for the 80s film Throw Momma from the Train starring Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito. Not surprisingly (for me anyway) there has been a Bollywood remake of the film called Strangers. If you’ve seen Throw Momma from the Train you will know that the inspiration for the murders ... more

Alfred Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train - excellent movie! I could leave it that but of course I won’t. I’d had this 2 disk special edition in my DVD collection for a while before I got around to watching it. I really should have watched it as soon as I bought it. Not that I need an excuse to watch it all over again. There is no law that says you have to wait any given period of time before you can watch a film that you enjoyed all over again!

WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT?

Guy Haynes is travelling on a train and get into conversation with a stranger Bruno Anthony. Guy is a semi-professional tennis player and is somewhat flattered that Bruno recognises him. During their conversation Bruno brings up Guy’s soon to be (hopefully) ex-wife Miriam and current girlfriend Ann Morton who is the daughter of senator. Guy is not very interested in continuing this conversation but Bruno turns it around by saying wouldn’t it be clever if two people committed murders for each other and no one would ever suspect them. Bruce could kill Guy’s wife and Guy could kill Bruno’s father. Guy laughs this off thinking Bruno is joking and thinks no more of it until his wife is murdered and Bruno contacts him telling him he’s done his murder and now he has to do Bruno’s murder. Things turn a more sinister turn as Bruno ingratiates himself into Guy’s social circle and holds evidence which could have Guy arrested for his wife’s murder.

Does Guy kill Bruno’s father for him? Does Bruno keep the evidence against Guy? How is Guy going to get out of this scary situation he’s unwittingly got himself into?

BACKGROUND

Strangers on a Train was adapted from “Strangers on a Train” written by Patricia Highsmith (who also penned The Talented Mr Ripley) was used as the inspiration for the 80s film Throw Momma from the Train starring Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito. Not surprisingly (for me anyway) there has been a Bollywood remake of the film called Strangers. If you’ve seen Throw Momma from the Train you will know that the inspiration for the murders used in the film came from Danny DeVito’s character watching the Hitchcock film. In Highsmith’s novel the character of Guy Haines is an architect not a tennis player and he’s called Charles Anthony Bruno and there is quite a large difference in the plot which I won’t mention.

Strangers on a Train was released in 1951, directed by the very famous Alfred Hitchcock and released by Warner Bros.

ANALYSIS

The opening scenes of the film have you hooked in from the start where you see two men walking towards the train from outside the station, through the platform but you only see their shoes and smartly-trousered legs. Bruno wears rather flashy black and white shoes whilst Guy wears sensible black shoes. Their meeting on the train only happens when Guy sits down and crosses his legs and accidentally kicks Bruno’s foot and apologises which gives Bruno an opening to start a conversation. If Guy hadn’t kicked him, one wonders how Bruno would have started up the conversation but it’s obvious that he would have managed somehow. From the very start we see two very different characters in Guy and Bruno. Bruno is bubbly and chatty and flatters Guy’s ego, whereas Guy is initially flattered by the attention from a supposed fan but we see very quickly he clams up when Bruno starts making comments about Guy’s personal life. They are both very similar in build and well dressed although Guy comes across as more of a classic dresser with Bruno being flashier.

When you watch the initial scenes as a viewer and see how Bruno is with Guy and cites even the destination that Guy is heading for you get the idea that this was no accident them ending up in the same train carriage. Bruno, although very pleasant and seemingly intelligent, doesn’t seem to get that this guy could be dangerous, potentially some sort of stalker as he knows a bit too much about a random stranger that he just met accidentally on the train.

Something I found rather curious near the start of the film was when Guy stops off in his home town to see his detestable wife Miriam about the divorce and she tells him quite confidently that she’s not prepared to agree to the divorce. I found this rather odd because she was quite open about the fact that she was carrying someone else’s child and admitted that she would continue seeing other men and claim that the child was, in fact, her husband’s and there wasn’t a thing he could do about it. Maybe back in those days there was no way of proving you weren’t the father of a child through blood-tests but I thought it was a bit strange that Guy feels very dejected after his confrontation with her and just accepts that he won’t be getting a divorce. But maybe that’s just me thinking the story through a bit too much and looking for flaws. It was also very strange that Guy had an alibi for the time of the murder when he was on a train and chatting with another passenger who albeit was quite drunk and couldn’t remember seeing Guy but it all seems a bit convenient that his alibi was so blatantly rejected when he couldn’t have really got from the murder scene and onto the train to have met and conversed with this drunk passenger.

The scene where Bruno follows Guy’s wife Miriam out to a fairground and boards a boat on a small lake to follow her out to where he murders her was quite cleverly done. She is out for the evening with 2 young men, seemingly both her lovers but this is never really mentioned again; the fact that she was out gallivanting with two men whilst supposedly pregnant with her husband’s child. There was a scene near the end of the film which didn’t make sense relating to someone having recognising someone just before the murder scene. This was a plot flaw for me personally but I can’t discuss it in more detail as it would give away too much of the plot. Not a really big deal but it rankled.

When you see Bruno with his mother (the fabulous Marion Lorne who played Aunt Clara in the TV series Bewitched) you get the idea pretty quickly where his insanity comes from. She’s pretty much up there in cloud cuckoo land herself and one can see how Bruno dotes on her but also one wonders if his perceived insanity is hereditary. I found it particularly amusing when Ruth Roman’s character pays Bruno’s mother a visit. They have a rather bizarre conversation ending with Roman’s character completely baffled by this adorable but crazy little old lady who takes no notice of her accusations and bids her good day as if they’re just had a very pleasant conversation about the weather and in walks Bruno and another crazy conversation takes place, leaving her very distressed. The very beautiful and elegant Ruth Roman played her character with ease in the film. There were no histrionics (as one would imagine from a woman in a Hitchcock film generally) when she found out her fiancé was involved in something shady or that someone might be trying to frame him. She was calm and collected for the most part and remained dignified throughout.

What struck me as soon as I saw the character of Ann’s sister Barbara was that she looked very similar to Miriam. I thought this was going to be some complication for Guy but it turns out that Bruno starts having flashbacks about the murder he committed when he sees Barbara (who’s played by Patricia Hitchcock – the only daughter of Alfred Hitchcock). I wondered why the first thing I thought of when I saw the Barbara character on screen was how similar she looked to Miriam and then lo and behold Bruno thinks the same thing and yet Guy does not even seem to notice the resemblance. A rather noticeable plot flaw for me there...

The gorgeous Farley Granger was superb in the role of Guy. He was gay in real life and apparently he wasn’t the first choice for the role (William Holden was initially considered). Bruno’s obsession with Guy seems to be that of someone who has a crush on someone else so it was amusing that a gay man was playing a straight man and that a straight man playing a potentially gay man had a crush on the real life gay man who was playing the straight man! Did I confuse you with that sentence? Yes? Ok, good! Well anyway Granger gives off real good guy vibes from the start of the film, he plays it so well that you really sympathise with his character and even though he’s supposed to be an athlete with a beautiful woman who loves him who most guys would want to hate, you don’t feel like that about his character as he comes across as very amicable. A typical example of this is when he risks his own life to save a young boy’s life, you want to cheer for him! Although the entire film was in black and white you can see that Guy’s character has a sun tan. This was, I assume, to confirm that he was a real outdoors type guy, what with the semi-professional tennis and all that.

What can I say about Robert Walker apart from the fact that he was absolutely fantastic as the very clever but quite obviously unhinged Bruno Anthony? He made the role his own and from what I understand this was his most famous role (although I was sad to read that he died the same year the film was released). He is so straight-faced throughout all his madness that he almost seems sane and his justifications for what he’s done and tries to do seem almost acceptable as he explains it so well. Walker and Granger played really well against each other and I did feel they were the perfect casting for the roles.

One scene which I found really annoying was a tennis match towards the film’s climax which I felt dragged on for ages. I can’t stand tennis, I find it really boring and to sit through what felt like forever as the tension was building during a tennis match being played out was quite irritating. I felt the tennis scenes could have been cut by at least 50% and still kept the level of tension required for that part of the film. Also it was quite obvious watching these scenes that most of the audience for the match was fake, i.e. not real extras.

As with most Hitchcock films it was fun to watch out for Hitchcock’s special appearance in the film which is shown quite early on as he boards a train with some luggage including a double bass case.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE DVD EXTRAS THEN?

Being a two-disc special edition, there’s quite a host of extras available. On disc 1, of course, you have the full version of the film which was released to the public in 1951. Then you have a full version of the film again but with commentary from Peter Bogdanovich and various other crew members which was interesting enough to listen to but I have to admit I find it very difficult sitting through films listening to commentary from various people rather than watching the film itself no matter who they are or what fabulous things they might be saying.

On disc 2 you have a special preview version of the film which was only discovered in 1991 and not issued publicly until 1996. To be honest, I didn't notice any differences between the 1991 version and the original release version. There are also 4 separate featurettes:

• A Hitchcock Classic - 36 minute piece with filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich in which he seems to repeat quite a few things mentioned already in the commentary on disc 1. Then you have Bill Krohn discussing the book from which the film was adapted. It is mentioned how the film is somewhat more moralistic than the book in that the Guy Haines character doesn't get corrupted in the film the way he does in the book.
• The Hitchcocks on Hitch - an 11 minute piece which opens with Hitchcock's granddaughter Mary Stone talking of watching old home movies when her mother was a baby and toddler with Hitchcock being such a fun loving family man which was a side that the public never saw of him. She talks of Christmas ski holidays and their holiday retreat in Santa Cruz. Some lovely shots of the home are within this featurette. She also tells of a very sweet story of how Hitchcock bought this house in Bel-Air as a surprise gift for his wife as she fell in love with the house and how he bought her a handbag and in the handbag was a wallet with the key to the house that they lived in till the day they died. Patricia Hitchcock O'Connell also discusses family life, saying how her father never liked gourmet food.
• Strangers on a Train: The Victim's P.O.V. - a short piece - Kasey Rogers who played Guy's wife talks about how she got the part of Miriam and how Hitchcock sent her off to pick a pair of glasses of her choice to wear for the film and how 6 pairs of her choice were made 2 of which had such thick lenses that she could barely see out of them. I was quite amused when she spoke of Hitchcock making her shoot the murder scene seven times asking her to "float backwards" as her body collapses to the floor as she dies but that last part was filmed in a studio and 6 times she hit a cement floor which wasn't fun so by the 7th take she learnt how to "float"!
• Strangers on a Train: An Appreciation by M Night Shyamalan - a 12 minute piece in which the filmmaker says how this is one of his favourite Hitchcock films, how he's envious of the way Hitchcock does long dialogue setups, etc. He says how Bruno starting up a conversation with Guy by saying "Aren't you....?" has happened to him in the street. I found this amusing because I wouldn't recognise this Shyamalan chap if I bumped right into him in the street!

There was also a very short piece entitled Alfred Hitchcock’s Historical Meeting – a vintage newsreel which was rather boring as it had no sound and I don’t know who the meeting was with and there’s nothing to tell you what was so historical about it.

The film can be watched with speech in English, French or Italian and has subtitles available in English, French, Italian, Dutch, Bulgarian and Arabic.

I purchased my 2 disc special edition for just £4.99 from play.com which was a bargain compared to Amazon’s current price of £9.78 (prices correct at September 2009). I think I enjoyed the Hitchcock’s on Hitch piece most out of the DVD extras as it was nice to hear from his family members about how they remembered him and the home videos were quite touching to watch.

OVERALL RATING

Aside from any flaws I’ve mentioned I really did enjoy this film and would happily give it a strong 4.5 out of 5 stars. This is definitely one for my permanent DVD collection.

TECHNICAL

Director/Producer: Alfred Hitchcock
Release date: June 1951
Distributed by: Warner Bros
Screenplay: Raymond Chandler & Czenzi Ormonde
Film duration: 96 minutes
Cast: Farley Granger, Robert Walker, Ruth Roman, Patricia Hitchcock, Leo G Carroll
Certification: PG 

...less