I watched "Strangers on a Train" once before and remember, while certainly feeling entertained, not being particularly crazy about it back then. In revisiting the film as part of my Hitchcock marathon, expectations were high, considering its esteemed reputation for being one of the director's best works. Although my understanding of Hitchcock's cinematic language and appreciation of his visual inventiveness has grown since that first viewing, the overall impact of the film, unfortunately, still didn't resonate as strongly with me as it seems to do with almost everybody else.
As has been highlighted by many others, the movie boasts several brilliant set pieces that showcase Hitchcock's filmmaking brilliance. I think about the whole murder sequence, from the misdirection in the tunnel, using shadows and screams, to the actual deed being viewed through the lenses of the victim's broken glasses. Later, there's some intricate crosscutting between scenes of a tennis match and a character reaching for his lighter in the sewer, which elevates these ordinary activities to an almost unbearable level of suspense. The film's climax at the carnival is another testament to Hitch's ability to create high levels of tension from seemingly innocuous settings.
In "Strangers on a Train", rich-kid-with-daddy(-and-mommy)-issues (a Hitchcock trademark) Bruno Anthony approaches tennis pro Guy Haines with his theory for committing the "perfect murder" (another director trademark). One of the film's strengths lies in the performance of Robert Walker: he portrays Bruno Anthony as a charming, manipulative playboy who is gradually revealed to be a full-blown lunatic.
However, in my opinion, the narrative falls short in fully exploring the potential of the intriguing premise (the "murder swap"). Hitchcock's best works usually add some element of (moral or other) ambiguity, complex psychology or a plot twist that completely upends our perspective and the way we think of certain characters. "Strangers on a Train" doesn't have that additional layer of complication. The characters lack the depth and complexity that elevate Hitchcock's best works. Bruno Anthony is a psychopathic villain without any redeeming qualities (and a possible Oedipus complex). Guy Haines, in equally straightforward manner, is presented as an uncomplicated hero: he doesn't seriously consent with Bruno's plan for the murder swap, even though his wife is clearly shown to be a manipulative monster who cuckolds him. Guy is an upstanding citizen who just had the bad fortune of meeting the wrong stranger on the wrong train, his innocence never in doubt.
In the Hitchcock's pantheon, "Strangers on a Train" falls into the mid-tier for me. While I could better appreciate the technical finesse this time around, the film ultimately failed to really strike a chord with me beyond its visual bravura. The absence of extra intrigue, whether through engaging character development, interesting thematic elements, or unexpected plot twists, prevents it from being in the upper echelon of Hitchcock's work, occupied by classics like "Vertigo", "Psycho", "Rebecca", "Notorious", or the in many ways similar, but more richly layered, "Rope". Despite some captivating moments , "Strangers on a Train" remains a film where the technical brilliance outshines the narrative and thematic depth.
As has been highlighted by many others, the movie boasts several brilliant set pieces that showcase Hitchcock's filmmaking brilliance. I think about the whole murder sequence, from the misdirection in the tunnel, using shadows and screams, to the actual deed being viewed through the lenses of the victim's broken glasses. Later, there's some intricate crosscutting between scenes of a tennis match and a character reaching for his lighter in the sewer, which elevates these ordinary activities to an almost unbearable level of suspense. The film's climax at the carnival is another testament to Hitch's ability to create high levels of tension from seemingly innocuous settings.
In "Strangers on a Train", rich-kid-with-daddy(-and-mommy)-issues (a Hitchcock trademark) Bruno Anthony approaches tennis pro Guy Haines with his theory for committing the "perfect murder" (another director trademark). One of the film's strengths lies in the performance of Robert Walker: he portrays Bruno Anthony as a charming, manipulative playboy who is gradually revealed to be a full-blown lunatic.
However, in my opinion, the narrative falls short in fully exploring the potential of the intriguing premise (the "murder swap"). Hitchcock's best works usually add some element of (moral or other) ambiguity, complex psychology or a plot twist that completely upends our perspective and the way we think of certain characters. "Strangers on a Train" doesn't have that additional layer of complication. The characters lack the depth and complexity that elevate Hitchcock's best works. Bruno Anthony is a psychopathic villain without any redeeming qualities (and a possible Oedipus complex). Guy Haines, in equally straightforward manner, is presented as an uncomplicated hero: he doesn't seriously consent with Bruno's plan for the murder swap, even though his wife is clearly shown to be a manipulative monster who cuckolds him. Guy is an upstanding citizen who just had the bad fortune of meeting the wrong stranger on the wrong train, his innocence never in doubt.
In the Hitchcock's pantheon, "Strangers on a Train" falls into the mid-tier for me. While I could better appreciate the technical finesse this time around, the film ultimately failed to really strike a chord with me beyond its visual bravura. The absence of extra intrigue, whether through engaging character development, interesting thematic elements, or unexpected plot twists, prevents it from being in the upper echelon of Hitchcock's work, occupied by classics like "Vertigo", "Psycho", "Rebecca", "Notorious", or the in many ways similar, but more richly layered, "Rope". Despite some captivating moments , "Strangers on a Train" remains a film where the technical brilliance outshines the narrative and thematic depth.