Walker is mesmerizing as the demented playboy. Without his pivotal portrayal this film would be barely one of Hitchcock's best. Because of Walker this film is the best of Hitchcock. Walker received no oscar nomination and no other formal critical acclaim or mention, which remains absolutely mind boggling.
share
Agreed. Excellent Performance from Robert Walker.
One of the things that made Robert Walker so happy about working with Hitchcock is that he found that he was Hitchcock's "first and only" choice for Bruno Anthony.
Everybody loved working with him in the film. Farley Granger loved working with Robert Walker. Robert Walker was very friendly. The sudden death of walker was a shock to Granger.
But he will be remembered among people through this film.
How does that square with the Trivia claim that 'Alfred Hitchcock originally wanted William Holden to play the part of Guy Haines'?
shareFarley Granger had at times hints, traces, of effeminacy; no big deal, but he did, and it worked in his favor as Guy Haines, helped make Strangers On A Train more credible, especially as to the gay subtext (that never gets "officially" mentioned, but which any reasonable sharp-eyed teenager can see). William Holden had none of that, and he was a very masculine actor, albeit not macho, or not in the usual ways (there were traces of that in Picnic, which is near a Guy Haines role for him). I think that Holden's rough, somewhat rugged complexion, meshed a bit with Robert Walker's rather"pocky" facial features, which reflected maybe vestiges of teenage acne. There wouldn't have been as strong a contrast between Holden and Walker than there was between Walker and the smoother faced Granger.
shareALFRED HITCHCOCK (Interviewed by Francois Truffaut): I must say that I wasn't too pleased with Farley Granger. He's a good actor, but I would have liked to see William Holden in the part, because he's stronger. In this kind of story, the stronger the hero, the more effective the situation.
TRUFFAUT: Robert Walker gives a rather poetic portrayal. He's undoubtedly more attractive. There is a distinct impression that you preferred the villain.
HITCHCOCK: Of course, no doubt about it.
One of the best performances ever!
Such a shame he died so young.
[deleted]
It's *beep* mind-boggling and a goddamned disgrace in cinema history. It needs to be rectified. You won't even see him lists of "all-time greatest villains," when he deserves a top five spot for how utterly new and unique a villain he portrayed. By now, of course, the part's been done to death. But Robert Walker is the original, and still the absolute best to have ever portrayed this type of character. It hasn't been done better by anyone since.
It actually pisses me off. Can you tell?
Better to pissed off than pissed on, I always say…
Unless, of course, you're into that kind of thing - which is solely your business (well, yours and whomever you pay to be the "pisser" to your "pissee"…).
______________________________________
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."
Yup. And it was his last film before his psychiatrist killed him. His son was great also as Charlie X.
shareYup.
----
Before Oscar nominations came out in 1961 for 1960 films, Anthony Perkins gave a print interview and opined on his chances: "I think I'm going to be nominated. Janet,, too."
He meant Janet Leigh. As it turned out, Janet Leigh WAS nominated(in the wrong category, Best Supporting Actress, and she lost, to Shirley Jones for Elmer Gantry.)
But Anthony Perkins not even getting NOMINATED for Norman Bates is one of the great Oscar mistakes(by the way, the MOVIE Psycho didn't get nominated for Best Picture, either.)
And yet: A full 9 years before Psycho -- in a more "innocent time," here is Robert Walker giving us an equally dynamic performance as a psychopath and taking over the entire movie(as Perkins would his) and...another Oscar boo-boo. As noted above, Walker's "psycho" performance pretty much set the stage for many psychos to come and unlike with Norman Bates, we KNOW he's the psycho from the get-go. In that way, Walker presages not so much Norman Bates as such later movie-long psychos as Max Cady in Cape Fear(Robert Mitchum, Robert DeNiro in the remake), Roat in Wait Until Dark(Alan Arkin), Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs(Anthony Hopkins) and, dare I say it, The Joker in Batman(Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger.)
How does Walker do it? He gets some great lines and some great Hitchcock camera angles, but he also has a great, sorta gay, sorta otherworldly voice and manner. He demonstrates great 'hetero" seduction skills luring Guy's ex wife to her strangling. He demonstrates great strength ringing the bell at the fairground(and pretty much winning the fight with Guy on the carousel before it collapses.) He's handsome and suave and crazy and goofy and cold..ever shifting. And evil...very evil in how he looks to pin everyting on Guy , right up to his last seconds alive. (Before his hand opens with the lighter in it.)
CONT
And it was his last film before his psychiatrist killed him.
---
Robert Walker's "against type" success in Strangers on a Train is loaded with tragic irony. After years of playing "the boyish good guy," he flips to villainy(see also: Anthony Perkins) and was set for a career where good guys AND bad were in his reach. Walker himself KNEW he was in a big hit and with a new career on the way.
But he had issues with drinking and medications and evidently a "Hollywood Dr. Feelgood" and others forcibly gave Walker a shot while he was already drunk...and probably killed him. At age 33. He didn't even finish the movie he was making -- My Son John -- his only film after Strangers on a Train. His "death scene" in "My Son John" was cobbled together with footage from Strangers on a Train.
---
His son was great also as Charlie X.
---
Robert Walker died at 33. His son with Jennifer Jones -- Robert Walker Jr. -- ended up being one of those "spitting image lookalikes" that people sometimes sire. (Like Jane Fonda from Henry Fonda.)
Robert Walker Jr. never had the star career his father had -- be shifted to being a Malibu art gallery owner, I think -- but he was in enough movies to make his own mark(The War Wagon with John Wayne, a bunch of hippie/biker movies), and the Star Trek(which cemented him in THAT eternal franchise) and he did something very special: he lived to the age of 79 and in interviews as an older man (on the Strangers on a Train DVD, for one) ...he showed us what Robert Walker SENIOR would have looked like had he lived to his 70s!
To fair, Robert Walker's brilliant,, charismatic turn as Bruno in SOAT was recognized by the critics of the day, and surely movie audiences as well, and it would have raised the actor's stock had he lived long enough the enjoy his newfound acclaim. His death prevented this, and only his death. Hollywood didn't know how to capitalize on this, yet the film is still a classic, but there's no way Hollywood have known "what to do next?".
A few years later another young actor, several years younger than Walker, appeared in a hit film and soon became a hot commodity, then starred in another, and after that, yet one more, and then, before either film was released, died in a car accident. James Dean became an overnight sensation, a superstar whose death cemented his posthumous fame seemingly forever.
The James Dean "sensation" was at the level of Elvis Presley's post-Ed Sullivan fame. Robert Walker wasn't as young or cute or sexy as Dean, and the gay vibes he gave off as Bruno Antony would not (likely) have made him a "sensation"; at best, a valuable player. Walker was in a position, career-wise, somewhat comparable to Anthony Perkins when he made Psycho. Both young men had enjoyed some success as up and coming stars, each with a sensitive or, if you must, vulnerable persona. Perkins did well enough post-Psycho, but that film defined his career as soon as it hit the theaters. One can only speculate about Robert Walker.
To fair, Robert Walker's brilliant,, charismatic turn as Bruno in SOAT was recognized by the critics of the day, and surely movie audiences as well, and it would have raised the actor's stock had he lived long enough the enjoy his newfound acclaim.
---
Hi, telegonus..ecarle/roger1 here.
Yes, I have read some microfiche articles from 1951 and it is pretty clear that Strangers on a Train was a hit, and Walker's turn as a villain was spectacularly against type(though he himself noted that he played ANOTHER villain the same year, in
a Western with Burt Lancaster called Vengeance Valley, which isn't nearly as famous as Strangers.)
I've read that Strangers on a Train came in as either "Number Two" or "Number Three" on the list of top 1951 box office. In the Truffaut book, the chapter on the movie is headed "Spectacular Comeback Via Strangers on a Train," and it WAS (the four Hitchcock movies before it underperformed, even Rope, which was banned in various places.)
So Robert Walker KNEW he was in a hit, KNEW he had given the performance of his lifetime to date(which didn't last muich longer) and indeed, was probably in line for a lot of good parts in the 50's at Warner Brothers and elsewhere.
He didn't even finish his next movie -- My Son John -- where he is a villain yet again(a Communist son to Helen Hayes). His death scene in that movie was cobbled together from footage of his death in Strangers on a Train! And my own father was an extra on that movie -- he played a member of a graduating class listening to a speech by Robert Walker -- who was already dead in real life, but he'd recorded the speech! I suppose if his character dies in My Son John, the CHARACTER had recorded the speech?
CONT
His death prevented this, and only his death.
--
It was a truly "crazy" death. Though he had had some mental problems(his wife Jennifer Jones left him for David O Selznick, and a rebound marriage to John Ford's daughter collapsed), he was on the mend. But the doc gave him a shot after he had been drinking...and it killed him. At 33.
But there was a twist: Robert Walker had a son by Jennifer Jones who revealed himself as a young actor in the 60s and 70's, to be a "dead ringer for dad," and almost with the same name: Robert Walker Jr. I recall him in the John Wayne Western The War Wagon(Wayne remarked on how much Jr looked like Senior) but he did a lot of hippie/biker movies too and a famous Star Trek episode.
Robert Walker Jr as an "old man"(60 or so) gave video interviews for the Strangers on a Train DVD and you can SEE it: what Robert Walker SENIOR would have looked like as an old man. (For the record, Senior was a bit more handsome and with a fuller face than his son.)
---
CONT
Hollywood didn't know how to capitalize on this, yet the film is still a classic, but there's no way Hollywood have known "what to do next?".
---
Well, I suppose one could play a "parlor game" with a bunch of 50's titles and find roles for Walker. Maybe a few more villains; maybe some comedies...
----
A few years later another young actor, several years younger than Walker, appeared in a hit film and soon became a hot commodity, then starred in another, and after that, yet one more, and then, before either film was released, died in a car accident. James Dean became an overnight sensation, a superstar whose death cemented his posthumous fame seemingly forever.
---
Yes, a BIT similar to the young taking of Robert Walker, but two of Dean's only three movies were released after his death. He arrived as a fully formed legend.
Walker had a long career as a "young soldier boy" type in the 40's, and is in some fine movies of that decade, including the very sweet romance "The Clock" with Judy Garland. He MIGHT have been able to return to romance after playing Bruno.
----
The James Dean "sensation" was at the level of Elvis Presley's post-Ed Sullivan fame. Robert Walker wasn't as young or cute or sexy as Dean, and the gay vibes he gave off as Bruno Antony would not (likely) have made him a "sensation"; at best, a valuable player.
---
About those gay vibes...they are definitely THERE, but he's quite the hetero ladykiller(in both ways) when he stalks and seduces Granger's wife at the fairgrounds. He's STRONG, too -- hits the bell on the test your strength meter(which makes him strong enough to be winning the fight on the carousel before it crashes.)
So who knows? Robert Walker might have done well in the 50's and 60s, perhaps segued to one of the many TV series of the era.
CONT
Walker was in a position, career-wise, somewhat comparable to Anthony Perkins when he made Psycho. Both young men had enjoyed some success as up and coming stars, each with a sensitive or, if you must, vulnerable persona.
---
YES to this comparison. Hitchcock pretty much pulled the same trick both times: casting a boyish, sympathetic "usually the good guy" actor as a psychotic villain. Of course, Bruno was more evil from the get-go, whereas Perkins' evil was only fully revealed at the end.
HERE's a parlor game I've sometimes played. Assuming a "time warp" in which the actors had their same box office power no matter what the year -- what if Anthony Perkins played Bruno? And what if Robert Walker(alive and younger) played Norman Bates?
I'm sure if those were the circumstances, Hitch would have cast Perkins as Bruno. I'm less sure if Walker could have done "rustic Norman," but he'd shown his stuff in Strangers.
Also, this: Perkins was Hitchcock's first(and only?) choice for Norman Bates, and Walker confirmed in an interview that he was Hitchcock's first choice for Bruno. So Hitchcock GOT the actors he wanted. Not so with the psychos in his other two psycho movies: Hitch wanted William Powell for Uncle Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt(Powell agreed but couldn't get loaned out); he got Joseph Cotten. Hitch wanted Michael Caine for Rusk in Frenzy; Caine said no and Hitch cast Caine lookalike/soundalike Barry Foster.
---
Perkins did well enough post-Psycho, but that film defined his career as soon as it hit the theaters. One can only speculate about Robert Walker.
--
Well, its weird. Perkins lived 30 more years after Psycho(dying "young" at 60) but always struggled against the role(and did all those sequels.) Walker died even younger...and rather died at the same time his greatest role was played! I still think Perkins got the better deal, more lifetime with struggles.
CONT
I also think this: Psycho didn't RUIN Perkins' career. It SAVED it. Without Psycho on his resume, Perkins' string of mainly-failed 50's dramas and comedies would have left him with no screen persona of any longevity. Perkins himself in 1960 said that he was ready to become 'purely a Broadway stage actor" before Psycho hit so big.
shareI've been away and round and about of late, EC, and delighted to see you back, whatever your screen monicker. My classic film viewing has been limited of late, due mostly to the local TV stations having gone digital-HD, although I still use an antenna and do not use cable, haven't for quite a few years now. Not a one of the digitals features classic Hollywood films exclusively, nor seems favorably inclined to draw classic film buff types to watch them, as younger viewers to a large extent steer clear if black and white films and TV shows, although many classic TV series of the 50s-60s are broadcast in black and white; and even shows that switched from one to the other, such as Andy Griffith's show, it gets a lot of air time, as does
The Honeymooners, which was all black and white, as well as the 60s Dick Van Dyke Show, ditto, get regular airings. So all is not lost. What I miss the most is the local PBS station, or rather stations, showing of classic movies of the 30-40s era, including even 50s sometimes. They had access to the Ted Turner library, and they used Turner's logo before showing those films. It was, for at least a quarter of a century, a treasure trove for people like me (us, I gather), with damn near the entire Warners and MGM pictures, mostly A level, shown on weekends, often in odd time slots, with occasional repeat airings of many old favorites, in the same week sometime.
That's been gone for at least a decade now, likely more, and I truly miss it, as it was my safety net for classic films. They didn't have most of the Paramount library, though they had some later films from the studio's backlog; and they showed many high quality Fox films, mostly from the post-1940 period, into the 50s, from The Grapes Of Wrath to at the very least All About Eve. Lots of Bette and Bogie pictures, too, 30s through 40s primarily, though their Warner package include two James Dean pictures, Rebel Without A Cause and Giant, but not, alas, Strangers On A Train.
I've been away and round and about of late, EC, and delighted to see you back, whatever your screen monicker.
---
Not only do I prefer ecarle, I've always enjoyed your conversion of that into "EC." It just feels better and fits better, but I can't get ecarle into here anymore except for about a paragraph off my phone. Oh, well. I'll always be EC to you, I hope.
--My classic film viewing has been limited of late, due mostly to the local TV stations having gone digital-HD, although I still use an antenna and do not use cable, haven't for quite a few years now.
---
I honor and respect your use of an antenna, telegonus. Particularly as it seems that every other means of watching movies or certain TV shows requires a lot of COST these days. Cable. Streaming. VARIOUS streaming channels.
Something really horrible is happening on the streaming channels. They are adding COMMERCIALS back into their classic movies. Oh, you can PAY more for no commercials but...I've found that some of my favorite movies are now on streaming but ONLY IF I watch with commercials. And I'm sad to say that sometimes, I do. ANYTHING to see an old favorite.
I feel we are going backwards. Movies with commericals. Movies "disappearing for years" as studios take them out of circulation.
I depend a great deal on my DVD collection of movies but...my DVDs often jam and need replacing and I'm worried taht someday -- DVDS will simply not be available.
---
CONT
Not a one of the digitals features classic Hollywood films exclusively, nor seems favorably inclined to draw classic film buff types to watch them, as younger viewers to a large extent steer clear if black and white films and TV shows, although many classic TV series of the 50s-60s are broadcast in black and white;
--
Yeah. One interesting thing is that streaming -- I am thinking of Amazon Prime -- DID bring back and white shows from the 50s and 60s. For awhile at least. But here's a downer: Amazon Prime USED TO show episodes of "Peter Gunn" WITHOUT commercials and now they have added commercials IN." And I'm talking about commercials that appear -- whether old TV show or old movie -- like with only three or four minutes of the movie LEFT.
-
CONT
What I miss the most is the local PBS station, or rather stations, showing of classic movies of the 30-40s era, including even 50s sometimes. They had access to the Ted Turner library, and they used Turner's logo before showing those films.
---
A precursor to Turner Classic Movies(with no commercials) and TBS (WOTH commercials?)
BTW, it took a trifecta of big deal movie directors (Spielberg, Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson) to "save" Turner Classic Movies. I guess they did, but the owners really feel that the "audience is fast disappearing" for movies made before 1970. Or 1980. Or 1990.
--
It was, for at least a quarter of a century, a treasure trove for people like me (us, I gather),
---
Yes, us
--
with damn near the entire Warners and MGM pictures, mostly A level, shown on weekends, often in odd time slots, with occasional repeat airings of many old favorites, in the same week sometime.
---
In the 60's as a kid in Los Angeles, I became aware that one local indpendent channel(Channel 11) played nothing but old MGM movies(espeically the musicals) and ANOTHER local independent channel (Channel 9 -- then KHJ, just like the radio station) played nothing but Warners movies.
Indeed, it was on Channel 9 that I first saw these Warners Hitchcock movies: Stage Fright, Strangers on a Train(the best of the Warners), I Confess, Dial M fo Murder, The Wrong Man.
I recall after seeing Strangers on a Train the first time on Channel 9, it came on about a year later and I actually brought some friends over to watch it with me -- I thought the berserk carousel climax was quite the exciting way to end a movie, and I wanted to share that.
Now Channel 11 and Channel 9 are long gone (well, they are still on the dial but not broadcasting that way) but the memories are very good. "Old movies" back when I was closer to the time of their making.
CONT
That's been gone for at least a decade now, likely more, and I truly miss it, as it was my safety net for classic films.
---
I fear for both of us -- and many others -- that "safety net for classic films" is fast going away. Its another "move backwards": we will have to rely on our MEMORIES of movies. (Which I used to do when they only came around once a year on TV or when movies like Rear Window and The Manchurian Candidate were taken out of circulation FOR YEARS.)
---
They didn't have most of the Paramount library, though they had some later films from the studio's backlog; and they showed many high quality Fox films, mostly from the post-1940 period, into the 50s, from The Grapes Of Wrath to at the very least All About Eve. Lots of Bette and Bogie pictures, too, 30s through 40s primarily, though their Warner package include two James Dean pictures, Rebel Without A Cause and Giant, but not, alas, Strangers On A Train.
---
No Strangers on a Train? I wonder why. The Max Streaming channel seems to have all the Hitchcock warners movies except Strangers on a Train and NOrth by Northwest(an MGM film -- HItchcock's only one for that studio -- now owned by Warners.) Its as if somebody decided that the two most exciting classics from that Warners/MGM period - need to be removed from circulation. I suppose they're going to "do something special" with them.
In any event, telegonus, lets' keep finding these movies where we can -- and strive to keep the memory of them...in our minds.
Indeed, EC, finding the classics by our own cleverness is the best way to go with this. YouTube and Archive.org both have lots of fans, and I gather that they get a lot of hits, in most senses of that word.
My growing fondness for classic TV is a nice way to find old movies that aren't really that old, and certainly not movies. Filmed in the style of the classics, with many shot on the wonderful still alive and kicking back lots of old Hollywood.
In their way, Perry Mason and Peter Gunn are chopped up movies, essentially first rate B's, allowing for the melodrama. Combat! is like a top of the line A picture, featuring a talented cast and guest players, and often amazingly well written stories, and not typical prime time fare.
Many if not most Combats eschew the easy irony of the most "vulnerable" new character of the week dying (a hero, of course); on Combat, a total jerk who cheats at cards not only survives but prospers. The only "typical" thing is that he's "brought down" by all the good guy regulars shunning him. "Big deal!", says the average viewer, "but he's still alive, and he still has his rank even though his dereliction of duty caused another man's death". There are no easy answers on this show.
Hitchcock's two shows made him a literal household name, and they also entertained the co-called average viewer, as to me they seem too subtle and sophisticated for prime time. But I guess not. For today, yes! For the Millennial viewers, they're too slow, too talky, too asexual, lack the requisite violence to please many if not most viewers.
The decline of the Old Guard classical education, practically a dinosaur now, is a major factor in this change of pace and love of speed and gimmicky effects. I see no way this is going to turn around. Even the elite, generally liberal Brandeis University is strongly considering discontinuing granting advanced degrees in English. They don't want to burden young people with an education there's almost no market for.
Indeed, EC, finding the classics by our own cleverness is the best way to go with this. YouTube and Archive.org both have lots of fans, and I gather that they get a lot of hits, in most senses of that word.
--
"Where there is a will, there's a way...but I will again here make a case for good old fashioned human memory...it really is amazing how our brains can "summon up scenes" from movies and...in my case...the time and place where I SAW a movie (if released in my lifetime) which is often linked TO the movie.
---
My growing fondness for classic TV is a nice way to find old movies that aren't really that old, and certainly not movies. Filmed in the style of the classics, with many shot on the wonderful still alive and kicking back lots of old Hollywood.
---
I've always rather mervelled at the way that series filmed on the Universal, Paramount, and MGM backlots would "re-use" the same exterior building and coupla streets, just "re-dress" them a little bit and allow US to use our imaginations to think that "this week, we're in a different place." MGM had a "European street with windmill" -- next to a fake "harbor" which was often used on The Man From UNCLE but redressed to give us Scotland at the beginning of the "major motion picture" Ice Station Zebra(1968.)
There are a couple of city blocks on the Universal backlot which were used ALL the time to frame episodes of Peter Gunn(Gunn's entire city was those three blocks) but I find that rather heartwarming. Those same blocks were used to stage Eastwood's "Do You Feel Lucky?" speech(the first one) in Dirty Harry(we are supposed to be in San Francisco, and the rest of the movie WAS filmed on location); dressed up real 1930's(at great expense) for The Sting...and can be just barely seen out the window of John Gavin's hardware store in Psycho. No matter -- "in our minds" we made them REAL.
CONT
In their way, Perry Mason and Peter Gunn are chopped up movies, essentially first rate B's, allowing for the melodrama.
---
It is harder to watch TV episodes today and think of them as "movies." And yet, all these writers had to come up with something like 30 different stories (seasons ran 35 episodes or more) per season and they WERE mini-movies and some WERE better than others(just as with there being great movies, there were great episdoes -- like "An Unlocked Window" on Hitchcock.)
I;ve watched a lot of Peter Gunns on Prime, and one forever stands out --"A Family Affair," in which Gunn and the revealed killer villain have a spectacular fight to the finish in a room filled with old-fashioned weaponry(swords, spears, axes, that thing you swing at the end of a chain.) Its like for that one episode, somebody popped the budget to stage that big fight to the death -- a classic, almost a movie unto itself(with stunt men doubling the main men, of course.)
CONT
Combat! is like a top of the line A picture, featuring a talented cast and guest players, and often amazingly well written stories, and not typical prime time fare.
---
I never really got into Combat as a kid in the 60s, but I know a lot of other kids(boys especially) did. In the 60s, there were a lot of fathers and grandfathers around who had "been in the war" (WWII or Korea) and these shows were more than just entertainment, I think. They were living memories.
I recall how while the show starred TWO guys -- Vic Morrow as the tough Sgt and Rick Jason as his handsome commander -- its Morrow who became the big star -- like all tough guy leads. Combat kept Morrow going as a TV and sometimes movie character guy right up until his horrible death on the set of a movie based on a 60s TV show: The Twilight Zone. (Morrow is very, very good as a suburban Little League coach who takes on laid back Walter Matthau in The Bad News Bears -- that's not quite the comedy people remember -- Morrow made that Little League combat zone REAL.)
Quentin Tarantino in his 1969-set movie "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" zeroed in on a "Combat" syndication ad on a bus stop bench -- and there is a deleted scene where Charles Manson hassles a guy at this house who has "Combat" on in the background. I guess this was QT's homage to Combat.
CONT
Many if not most Combats eschew the easy irony of the most "vulnerable" new character of the week dying (a hero, of course); on Combat, a total jerk who cheats at cards not only survives but prospers. The only "typical" thing is that he's "brought down" by all the good guy regulars shunning him. "Big deal!", says the average viewer, "but he's still alive, and he still has his rank even though his dereliction of duty caused another man's death". There are no easy answers on this show.
---
That is an interesting analysis, telegonus, of both what was "the usual" in such shows and how Combat eschwed the usual and went different places. Being shunned can be more real -- and punishing -- than losing rank. But not as bad as death, I guess.
CONT
Hitchcock's two shows made him a literal household name, and they also entertained the co-called average viewer, as to me they seem too subtle and sophisticated for prime time. But I guess not. For today, yes! For the Millennial viewers, they're too slow, too talky, too asexual, lack the requisite violence to please many if not most viewers.
---
I'm reminded that Hitchcock's series started in 1955 -- a "gray area"(literally) in TV history and those early episodes seem much more quaint versus the episodes to come some years later of The Twilight Zone(started in 1959; a 60s show); Boris Karloff's Thriller(1960?) and The Outer Limits(1964, created by "Psycho" screenwriter Joe Stefano)...Hitchcock's long run includes both the staid square 50s and the hipper 60s as backdrops.
I have these thoughts about Hitchcock's TV series:
ONE: The half hour episodes are pretty short and quick and often quaint(when not about gangsters) but once the show opened up to an hour(1962), the episodes felt more like MOVIES and -- given the big hit of Psycho as a movie (that looked like a TV episode, sometimes) in 1960, were perhaps a bit more violent and weird (but then The Twilight Zone drove some of that two -- "The Jar" on Hitchcock Hour felt right at home there.)
TWO: The half hours(first) and the hours(later) seemed to have a lot of episodes where wives killed husbands(Lamb to the Slaughter) or husbands killed wives(One More Mile to Go.) I've always picture the unhappy married couples of 1950s suburbia settling down together to watch Hitchcock spouses off each other -- a vicarious pleasure. Hah. An hour episode was about a tweedy hit man(Edward Andrews) being hired by SEVERAL spouses in a neighborhood to kill their others.
CONT
THREE: Hitchcock famously ended his top rated show in 1965 -it could have kept going. One of my guesses WHY is this: Hitchcock knew that color TV programming was about to be required and I'll bet he knew that early color on TV was pretty...lousy and washed out. Night Gallery never looked as classic as The Twlight Zone. I don't know if Hitchcock REALLY chose to drop his show over color, but I'm glad its only in black and white, anyway.
CONT
The decline of the Old Guard classical education, practically a dinosaur now, is a major factor in this change of pace and love of speed and gimmicky effects. I see no way this is going to turn around. Even the elite, generally liberal Brandeis University is strongly considering discontinuing granting advanced degrees in English. They don't want to burden young people with an education there's almost no market for.
---
Interesting. All very sad and the world changes before our eyes. There is such an accelaration away from the classics and literature, and yet I suppose(HOPE) that certain young scholars will be recruited if only to "keep the flame lit" in memory of these works.
Heck, even the popular "serious novel writing" of yesteryear seems to have ended. Books like Exodus and To Kill a Mockingbird.
There seems to be some agreement that while the movies have MAINLY gone to comix and effects, a few movies for adult sensibility are released each year and the huge tableau of cable/streaming TV shows still allow the occasional talent to shine.
So, here's to some hope.
But we will always have our classics -- novels, TV, movies.
They are just hard to find..