 | Director: Alfred Hitchcock Stars: Farley Granger, Robert Walker |
Checking through the Film Noir element checklist, Strangers on a Train got some ticks and got some crosses. A crime plot, check. Use of shadows and silhouettes, check. Narration, nope. Femme Fatale, nope. Bad ending, nope. So I would say it barely considered a Film Noir, but close.
A tennis player Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets a complete stranger fan of his, Bruno Anthony. Bruno is a very talkative person who knows no boundary, and talks about Guy's unhappy marriage situation. Guy was to marry another woman, but need to get a divorce first. Apparently Bruno is also very trustful to strangers, as he tells Guy about how much he wanted his father dead to succeed his wealth, and propose "What if I do your murder and you do mine?". In that case there would be no motive for the actual murderer, and perfect alibi for the suspect.
Guy's wasnt the material to kill anybody, but Bruno, being a rich spoiled brat, doesnt think it was such a big deal. He killed Guy's wife, and demands that Guy holds up the other end of the bargain. Guy refused and he stalked him, threatened him and enters his life. On the other hand the alibi for Guy when Bruno committed the murder was not such perfect, that his witness doesnt remember him. Now Guy has to fight for his own innocence.
The crime plot here is interesting, though not as clever as it sounds. Firstly is what happened in the movie. What if the other one does not follow the contract? What do have against him? Well in here Bruno got Guy's unique lighter, but he obtained it accidentally. If not so, what you gonna do then? Besides, wont the police suspects that the prime suspect hired a hitman or something, instead of straightly assuming that man who benefits the most is innocent?
There was a lot of usages in shadows and silhouettes in the movie. The presence of Bruno, who stalks Guy to pursuit him killing his father, is in an alternative sense a shadow of Guy. It usually sets up thrills and suspense, but I sort of distracted with the slightly comedic moments, like in the tennis scene which the whole is looking left and right tracking the tennis ball, while only Bruno is looking right at the audience. It shows how tennis is perceived in general American people and is a bit thrilling for Bruno to look at us.
However Bruno is a character that is too flamboyant to be scared of. He is laughing and joking and acts like a spoiled brat. Every scene when he and Guy is talking I feel the homosexual overtone, even more obvious than in Rope (1948). Despite he looks like at least 30 years old, he is a spoiled kid. With such clumsy and native character I cant sense any menace a villain should have.
Strangers on a Train (1951) can be classified as one of Hitchcock's earlier work, before he become fully a widely considered master. The visual style for some scenes just scream noir, but the tone and story does not back it up. It does remain an entertaining movie but not a significiant piece in the whole Hitchcock collection.
A tennis player Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets a complete stranger fan of his, Bruno Anthony. Bruno is a very talkative person who knows no boundary, and talks about Guy's unhappy marriage situation. Guy was to marry another woman, but need to get a divorce first. Apparently Bruno is also very trustful to strangers, as he tells Guy about how much he wanted his father dead to succeed his wealth, and propose "What if I do your murder and you do mine?". In that case there would be no motive for the actual murderer, and perfect alibi for the suspect.
Guy's wasnt the material to kill anybody, but Bruno, being a rich spoiled brat, doesnt think it was such a big deal. He killed Guy's wife, and demands that Guy holds up the other end of the bargain. Guy refused and he stalked him, threatened him and enters his life. On the other hand the alibi for Guy when Bruno committed the murder was not such perfect, that his witness doesnt remember him. Now Guy has to fight for his own innocence.
The crime plot here is interesting, though not as clever as it sounds. Firstly is what happened in the movie. What if the other one does not follow the contract? What do have against him? Well in here Bruno got Guy's unique lighter, but he obtained it accidentally. If not so, what you gonna do then? Besides, wont the police suspects that the prime suspect hired a hitman or something, instead of straightly assuming that man who benefits the most is innocent?
There was a lot of usages in shadows and silhouettes in the movie. The presence of Bruno, who stalks Guy to pursuit him killing his father, is in an alternative sense a shadow of Guy. It usually sets up thrills and suspense, but I sort of distracted with the slightly comedic moments, like in the tennis scene which the whole is looking left and right tracking the tennis ball, while only Bruno is looking right at the audience. It shows how tennis is perceived in general American people and is a bit thrilling for Bruno to look at us.
However Bruno is a character that is too flamboyant to be scared of. He is laughing and joking and acts like a spoiled brat. Every scene when he and Guy is talking I feel the homosexual overtone, even more obvious than in Rope (1948). Despite he looks like at least 30 years old, he is a spoiled kid. With such clumsy and native character I cant sense any menace a villain should have.
Strangers on a Train (1951) can be classified as one of Hitchcock's earlier work, before he become fully a widely considered master. The visual style for some scenes just scream noir, but the tone and story does not back it up. It does remain an entertaining movie but not a significiant piece in the whole Hitchcock collection.
No comments:
Post a Comment