Noir de Noir #2 - Strangers on a Train (1951)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock Stars: Farley Granger, Robert Walker

Review:

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.

Rope (1948)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Stars: James Stewart, John Dall, Farley Granger


Review:

Remember the stupid villain in novels, movies, tv shows comics and animations, who did his bad deeds but thought it was too boring to totally cover it up, left some sort of evidence as a taunt or challenge to the good guy, and became the downfall of him? Well there is two of those in this movie, and we know that right from the start. But we cant really blame them because this movie probably the first to give the villains such stupid ideas. Another reason you cant blame them because this movie is so great that you accept their stupidity so that you can watch this film.

David got kill in 2 minutes after film starts, counting from the Universal trailer.

Brandon and Philip killed their schoolmate David in their house, and hid his body inside a chest, because they think they are superior and David is inferior, a convenient reason to have a killing spree for the audience in countless movies. To make things funnier, Brandon held a party to invite their friends in their house will David's body hidden, but the teacher Rupert, played by James Stewart, already felt fishy.

Brandon explains to Rupert what is that occation to have champagne with stupid reaons.

What makes this movie so great is the pacing and the imitation of the stars. Right after the opening credit we saw David got killed. This might be one of the fastest death in movies I have ever seen. Philip is freaked out and scared. Brandon look enjoyed and want to play it cool, but he also freaked since you see his hands shaking and stutters, and feel his tense. Along the way the guests tested their nerves, in which David slowly breaks down and the tension between Brandon and David grows.

Rupert spotted something not right.

James Stewart plays the clever detective role and picked out the strange things. He is more sober and less talkative than I have seen him in Read Window (1954). He also looked older too, probably to better match with the character. He stares and hestiates to remind us in such a natural way the mistakes Brandon and Philip had made. The final showdown between him and the murderers are also beautiful. He knew all the things by then but he had to play stupid, since he suspected Brandon had a gun in his pocket. But he could not back away since he wanted to know what happened to the victim and to expose their crime. The moral conflict effectively transcents to the audience by the acting.

Humanity lecture. Yes but no thanks.

My only complain of the movie is towards the end we got about 5 minutes of lecture on human equality, that nobody is to decide who is superior and all of that crap. By then it was probably referring to the Nazis, but now we have been fed of this so many times we are sick of it. Yes I got it and I agree, but I do not like to be lectured.

This is probably my second favourate Hitchcock movie, the first being North by Northwest (1959). Both are fast paced and intense, but I prefer the humour of the Cary Grant character just a little more. While I love other Hitchcock movie like Vertigo (1958),  I appreciate the simple set and plot and the drama Rope creates.