I have some problems with this plot.

Short answer: I think you're reading too much into things. Some of the elements you mention are true or plausible, but I didn't even think about them as part of my "suspension of disbelief". I just try to follow the logic of the film, and not wonder too much if every little detail is completely realistic or completely airtight.

Long answer: that being said, let me just say what I think about the things you mention.
I'll number them by paragraph, I hope it makes sense.

1.

not one would be able to say they had seen what is surely at least a marginally famous face, Guy's (...) On the other hand Bruno (...) which makes him memorable. [etcetera]

I think you are overestimating the ease with which they would have found Bruno if he hadn't come back to the carnival. Yes, people saw him earlier, but they didn't know he would murder someone later, so there was no reason for them to remember every guy you see walking in a suit. Even today, people's memories are notoriously shady, even if people KNOW beforehand that they have to remember something. Also, to identify someone later, they would first have to FIND hime. He was not a famous recognizable person and he had no connection to the victim, so how would they trace him? Remember this was a time before security cameras or DNA research. And Bruno was a rich kid who didn't need a steady job, so he could easily keep off the radar if he wanted. This anyway is the logic Hitchcock was going for I think.

2.

...just because one drunk guy on the train can't remember Guy...[etcetera]

Like the cops say in the film, Guy knowing the professor or what he lectured on, is no proof he was on the train. Sure, someone else *might* remember Guy being on the train, but apparently nobody did. Like with #1 above: in a random situation there's no reason to clearly remember a face of a random person. And that he had a ticket or even if whoever sold it to him, remembered him buying it, would be no proof for an alibi, he could have hopped on the train later. I'm not 100% sure that the cops proving that Guy was actually at the scene was necessary. People have been sentenced before just because of circumstantial evidence. Sure, we learn in Law & Order that that's not enough, but I'm not 100% sure that this was the case for every criminal case in court as far back as 1951. Laws have also become much stricter, in favour of suspects I think. Just on a sidenote: this also includes unlawful gathering of evidence, those laws used to be much looser even a few decades ago.
Anyway, the logic the film is going for I think, is that because Guy had the motive AND if his lighter would have been found at the scene, this would have been enough to (probably) convict him.

3.

The murder took place at 9:30 according to Bruno's watch. [etcetera]

I'm not clear on this one, I have no immediate reply, also because I'm not 100% clear on the timetable (I only just watched the film for the first time).

4.
But I do wonder what you mean by:

There is no dispute that Guy was on the train at some point.

I think there IS a dispute: the cops do not consider it a proven fact. Just that he recognized the professor and maybe even had a ticket isn't enough for them. So my guess is, according to the cops the timetable doesn't even matter that much as long as nobody can positively say he was indeed on the train.

5.
See 3. and 4., the cops do not even consider it a proven fact that he was in the train, so I think this point doesn't even matter. It would have mattered IF he could prove he was on the train: THEN and only then would it matter WHEN he was on the train.

6.

If he caught the train in Baltimore, that means he would have had to buy a ticket in Metcalf.

See 3. and 4.
Also I'm not sure if he had a physical ticket (how did that work in 1951?) or if he still had this ticket. Similar to point #1: at that particular time Guy didn't know he had to prove or remember anything, so maybe if he even had a ticket, he threw it away before he knew it would become importaint.

7.

Another thing, Ann lives in DC. [etcetera]

Again; not really sure about the time table or travelling distances. Suspension of disbelief I guess. I mean, it's a thriller. Sometimes things just work for the plot. When Bruno was waiting in his dad's appartment and suddenly appeared from the dark, my first thought was not, by what means and how fast did he travel here. My first thought was: yes; classical thriller plot twist, this is a great thiller.

8.

So when Bruno checks his watch at 9:30 ... [etcetera]

It's their words against each other, true. But the point the film is trying to make, is one of them is much less plausible. "A random stranger murdered your wife without you even knowing? While you have a motive? Sure..." And again, Bruno's attempt was to plant Guy's lighter, so then they would have motive + some proof of presence on the crime scene.

...if Bruno lets on there was a plan he basically admits to killing Miriam.

Yes, and it became clear in the film that Bruno was crazy enough to not care about this. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he even explicitly said he would incriminate himself if this was necessary to bring Guy down.

8. (second half of your paragraph).

I can't see anyway Bruno has Guy compromised. [etcetera]

Yes, Bruno was deranged, but like many movie villains, he know how to act. Nobody knew officially he was insane, only his father suspects it and the viewer and Guy know it. But if he would go to trial, he would just behave formidably and be the random stranger with no proof against him.
I think Guy hadn't noticed yet that his lighter was missing.
At the end of the film, Guy gets off because the boat guy clearly recognizes Bruno PLUS the fact that he is holding Guy's lighter in his fist. Not in his pocket where it could have been planted, but in his clenched fist.

9.

Bruno's plastic man arms ... [etcetera]

Yeah, the rubber arms down the storm drain were a bit off a stretch, but again, just suspend your disbelief. They filmed it in such a way that it seemed to require rubber arms, which was a bit clumsy, but the point of the scene was just that he could barely reach it and recovered it just in time. If they had filmed it better, it wouldn't have been a point for you. It doesn't change anything about the credibility of the core of the plot, it was just a bit of suspense added during the 'ride', so I don't see a reason to take big offense with it.

cop's shooting indiscriminately into a carousel filled with kids, the carousel self destructing after the guy shuts it down

Yes, those two things were a bit crazy, but again, not really elementary to the core of the plot, were they?

this is easily the most ridiculous Hitchcock film I have ever seen.

Up until now I thought you brought up somewhat interesting points for the sake of argument. But this quote of yours is a big stretch I think and I must really disagree with it. I mean it's fun to discuss a film's plot details, but I don't see anything so seriously as to bring the film down in reputation.

Without suspension of disbelief, you can bring down any thriller (or action film, or any other film) because the details are incredible. Yeah, often times films do feature incredible details, that's also part of what makes the story exciting. An action hero dodging bullets or miraculously escaping... also very incredible, but they have become so normal that we almost expect them, nobody I know takes serious offense at that stuff.

Also you have to see this film as if it was in 1951. Some things may have become cliché now (like someone barely reaching a pivotal object with his arm) but they weren't when someone put them in a film for the first time.
Some things may be incredible now (like shooting at a merry-go-round full of children) because we immediately think of the risks and would this really happen in real life, and we reject it because it's politically incorrect. But they weren't unbelievable things to see in a film back then; people expected this kind of drama to be a in a film. And what's more, maybe they even marvelled at how they constructed the accident technically. Something which we wouldn't even flinch about now would be a wonderous achievement in film making when it was first done.

Does this mean the film aged badly? No, not in my opinion. That's like saying the Eifel tower is boring because it would be easy to build it nowadays. It's a monument, part of history, like Strangers on a Train is part of film history, even if you could pick the plot apart. The core of the story still stands: a lunatic planning a 'perfect murder' and dragging a random famous person that he met, with him against his will.

-- Greetings, RagingR2

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Most of the praise for this film is for the plot and the direction, which don't make a great movie by themselves. The trivia page, here, says that Raymond Chandler argued with Hitchcock about the proper emphasis in the film. Chandler wanted more character development; Hitch was interested in the visual impact. Certainly, some of the images and process shots are brilliant. The merry-go-round sequence, alone, makes this far more than just a good film. But I have to agree with Chandler. How much better would this have been with a cast full of compelling actors and well-developed characters.

The problem, if Chandler's position had been supported, is the actors. Walker alone has some imagination, though his character is far too creepy to like, and I've always felt that he could have been more subtle to greater effect. Tony Perkins is much scarier in Psycho. Granger is simply too mechanical and uninspired to be an interesting lead, to make me believe in him and pull for him. Maybe the problem is in the way his character was written, but I don't think so. Can you imagine how much greater this film would have been with James Stewart as the protagonist and if Haines had been the architect he was in the book and not a tennis player? Granger has no weight. I've never found this one of Hitchcock's masterpieces because it is such a glaring example of style over substance, and substance comes from character development driving a great plot. Compare Stranger's on a train to Vertigo, Rear Window, or The Birds and the difference is apparent.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

to your first point, don't forget that only we, the audience, are privvy to how conspicuously Bruno acted at the carnival and how many people potentially saw him - Guy doesn't know any of this. For all he knows Bruno blended in, did the deed and then got out of there without being spotted or suspected.
I think Bruno maybe gets in his head about how if he tells the truth, he could be charged as an accessory, in which case it wouldn't matter if there was enough evidence that Bruno was the one who actually carried out the murder.
It's beyond ridiculous though that Guy didn't have a lawyer represent him from the beginning, especially since he was considered a person of interest, to say the least.
I also found it crazy that the cops doubted his alibi because the drunk guy on the train couldn't remember him. It seemed like the emphasis was on Guy to prove that he didn't do it rather than for the authorities to prove that he did.
Reminds me of the part in another Hitchcock movie, Rear Window, when James Stewart is questioning his neighbour's story that his wife was out of town, saying "did anyone see her get on the train", to which his detective friend brilliantly replies "did anyone see him kill her".

reply share

add reply

formatting help