Strangers on a Train

"My theory is that everyone is a potential murderer."

Tennis star Guy Haines (Granger) has a problem... his wife, Miriam Hains (Rogers) is a floozy, who won't sign divorce papers.  He is in love with Anne Morton (Roman), the daughter of a senator, and wants to start a respectable life with her.  On the train trip to talk sense into Miriam, he meets Bruno Anthony (Walker) who has an intriguing prospect: they exchange murders.  Bruno will get rid of Miriam, allowing Guy to marry Anne without a scandal.  Then Guy will kill Bruno's domineering father.

A few days later, Bruno goes to the Haines hometown and strangles Miriam, taking her glasses as a souvenir.  But Guy is not impressed or pleased, and he refuses to discuss his end of the bargain.  Soon Bruno is appearing everywhere: at Guy's practice tennis matches, at lunch with Anne's friends, at a dinner party hosted by Senator Morton (Carroll), and send maps and plans to Guy's apartment...


This is what good thrillers look like, Hollywood directors take note.

Definitely a peak in Hitchcock's filmography, this film has it all.  The story and premise have been done in countless films, but somehow it feels fresh here.  Then there are the memorable sequences, the little touches splayed throughout to remind the audience who is in charge.  From the opening shots, focusing on the shoes of the two men, it is clear that your eyes will be in for a treat!  Then there is carnival scene where Bruno follows Miriam... he is always just a few steps behind, and she is always look over her shoulder to make sure he can keep up and eventually catch her, and the way the murder is eventually shown - I'm not condoning the act, but the interesting way it was filmed... and countless other sequences that just work perfectly.

Overall the casting is also good.  Robert Walker and Farley Granger (from Hitchcock's Rope) standout in the lead roles... but they are practically upstaged by Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, as Anne's sister Barbara.  She has spunk and gets funny lines.  Too bad she did not continue acting.  The only sour note is Ruth Roman as Anne.  The character never really comes alive.  Maybe it is Roman's fault, maybe it is the character, maybe it is her chemistry with the rest of the cast... I don't know, but she just isn't on par with the rest.

A precursor to Hitchcock's famous films.... you won't be disappointed!

Strangers on a Train (1951) 101 minutes
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: Farley Granger as Guy Haines
Ruth Roman as Anne Morton
Robert Walker as Bruno Anthony
Leo G. Carroll as Senator Morton
Patricia Hitchcock as Barbara Morton
Kasey Rogers as Miriam Joyce Haines

Stage Fright

"Stop acting like a silly schoolgirl, the only murderer here is the orchestra leader!"

When the husband of famous theatre actress Charlotte Inwood (Dietrich) is murdered, the prime suspect is Charlotte's boyfriend, Jonathan Cooper (Todd).  However, Jonathan was only covering up the crime to protect Charlotte... and was discovered at the scene of the crime.  He hides from the police with the help of an old friend, Eve Gill (Wyman).  Eve realizes the only way to save Jonathan is to get Charlotte to confess.

With her father, Commodore Gill (Sim), watching Jonathan, Eve goes to the Inwood home to get close to Charlotte.  She pays the maid, Nellie (Walsh), to take a few days off, and poses as Nellie's cousin and temporary replacement, Doris.  Meanwhile, she stays with her clueless mother (Thorndike) and charms the head detective of the case, Wilfrid Smith (Wilding).  Soon she is fighting to keep two realities / personas from intersecting... and trying to keep Jonathan from seeing Charlotte.


A little known classic, but worth the search!  This film makes up for my lukewarm feelings about previous Hitchcock films (like The Paradine Case and Under Capricorn), and renews my confidence in future installments.  I love the theater setting, even though that means the scenery isn't as exciting as other films.  From the curtain opening during the beginning credits to the final curtain call, I was engaged and intrigued.  The characters were funny (intentionally and unintentionally) and the story moved at a good pace.

Jane Wyman, who in my mind will always be "Aunt Polly" from Pollyanna, carried the film well and was convincing in her dual roles of Eve and Doris.  And I was pleasantly surprised to see Michael Wilding, from Under Capricorn, embrace the role of the male romantic lead: charming and believable.  While I've never really been a Marlene Dietrich fan, she's alright but I don't love her, she was great as the icy bitch.  I have to say, it was incredibly difficult to keep a straight face while she was on stage singing... mostly because I kept picturing Madeleine Kahn in Blazing Saddles... but seriously, do people enjoy it when she sings?

Apparently people don't love Hitchcock's use of flashbacks in this film, as they are unreliable (no, that is not a spoiler).... but there are entire films centered around unreliable flashbacks / narrators.  I don't see the problem.  It makes the big reveal even more intriguing.

It may not be the easiest Hitchcock film to find, but definitely a worthwhile film.

Stage Fright (1950) 110 minutes
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: Jane Wyman as Eve Gill
Marlene Dietrich as Charlotte Inwood
Michael Wilding as Wilfrid "Ordinary" Smith
Richard Todd as Jonathan Cooper
Alastair Sim as Commodore Gill
Sybil Thorndike as Mrs. Gill
Kay Walsh as Nellie Goode

Under Capricorn

 Dear Mr. Hitchcock,

I love your films.... and with that in mind I have to ask, what the hell happened with Under Capricorn?

The story is interesting enough:  set in Australia in 1831, a time when prisoners were sent to the country to work off their debt to society and get a chance at a fresh start.  When the new Governor (Parker) arrives, he brings his cousin Charles Adare (Wilding), who is seeking his fortune.  His visit is off to a good start when he meets wealthy landowner Sam Flusky (Cotten) who offers a deal Charles can't refuse.  Their deal and awkward friendship leads to an invitation to the Flusky home and their intriguing secrets.  Henrietta Flusky (Bergman) is plagued by inner demons and too much alcohol, who gave up a life of privilege to follow Sam, the stable hand who murdered her brother and captured her heart.  Charles decides to help her gain confidence and take back her house from Milly (Leighton), the strict maid who rules the house with an iron fist.

It seems like the formula for success, and yet I was barely interested.  The cast and costumes and settings were good, but the story dragged on F-O-R-E-V-E-R.  Ingrid Bergman, as always, was amazing.  Especially her 10 minute monologue.

I could handle shorter scenes, with that exception.  Joseph Cotten was just creepy / menacing the entire time and I didn't particularly empathize.  And Michael Wilding and Margaret Leighton were good in the their roles.  He served as the focus for the first half of the film and was one of the more interesting characters.  She portrayed a strong women, who you wanted to hate...but couldn't.  And even though I figured out the twist somewhat early-ish in the film, it was interesting and worked.

I respect you were trying to be artistic and all that, but I think the plot and pacing could have been shortened and still captured all the important aspects of the story and great performances.

Sincerely,
A disgruntled fan

Under Capricorn (1949) 117 minutes
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: Ingrid Bergman as Lady Henrietta Flusky
Joseph Cotten as Sam Flusky
Michael Wilding as Charles Adare
Margaret Leighton as Milly
Cecil Parker as The Governor

Rope

"Nobody commits a murder just for the experiment of committing it. Nobody except us."

Roommates Brandon Shaw (Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Granger) plan and execute the "perfect murder:" strangling their friend David (Dick Hogan), in broad daylight, with no possible way to trace it back to them.  Afterwards, Brandon is exhilarated and smug, and Phillip is on the verge of a guilt-ridden nervous breakdown.

Later that evening they have a dinner party in the apartment, with David's father Mr. Kentley (Hardwicke), aunt Mrs. Atwater (Collier), best friend Kenneth (Dick), and fiance Janet (Chandler).  Also in attendance is their housekeeper Mrs. Wilson (Evanson) and their prep school teacher / mentor Rupert Cadell (Stewart).  They have David's body in a chest in the middle of the living room, and Brandon decides to serve the food from the chest: setting it up as a mock altar, complete with candlesticks.  Throughout the evening Brandon drops subtle hints about David's whereabouts, while Phillip avoids conversations and drinks heavily.  Only Rupert suspects something is wrong.


Anytime people talk about this film, the discussion is focused on the controversy of the film.  Based on the play with the same name, which is based on a real case (Leopold and Loeb), there are some things people can't seem to get over: the suggested homosexual relationship between the roommates (and their professor), the long takes, and the entire premise of the story.

I would prefer to talk about what you actually see on the screen, instead of all the surrounding "drama."  I could talk about Leopold and Loeb: their relationship and motivations, but you can find that information is any other review... and if  you see this film cold (with no other information) it wouldn't really matter anyway.

I love the concept behind this film: to film long continuous scenes that allow the audience to follow the characters through the rooms in the apartment without apparent cuts.  The action is confined to Brandon & Phillip's apartment, between the kitchen, dining room / hall, and living room.  The camera glides between rooms and peeks through open doorways.  How brilliant is that?  The set was constructed of moving pieces and cameras, all meticulously choreographed to allow the camera to film for long stretches without cutting away.  The sequences were filmed within 10 minutes, which was the maximum amount of time the camera could film.  Watching it, you can't help but admire the planning and vision to create such a story.  Another interesting visual touch is the chest, which appears in almost every scene, either the focal point or off to the side, it is always there.  The audience can't forget it, and the roommates can't either.

However, the awesomeness of the filming can't make up for the characters.  James Stewart is miscast (which he also believed) and makes the character awkward... the rest of the characters are interesting, but you never really identify with any of them.  I'm sure the actors are great, but I wasn't impressed here.

An interesting, lesser known classic.  Watch it to see how well Hitchcock's experiment with continuous shots, and his first stab at a color film!

Rope (1948) 80 minutes

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: James Stewart as Rupert Cadell
John Dall as Brandon Shaw
Farley Granger as Phillip Morgan
Cedric Hardwicke as Mr. Kentley
Constance Collier as Mrs. Atwater
Douglas Dick as Kenneth Lawrence
Edith Evanson as Mrs. Wilson
Joan Chandler as Janet Walker

The Paradine Case

"Well, nice people don't go murdering other nice people."

Successful lawyer, Anthony Keane (Peck), has a reputation for his sensational antics in the courtroom.  He is happily married and devoted to wife Gay (Todd).  But he forgets his vows when he meets his new client, Maddalena Paradine (Valli).  Maddalena is accused of poisoning her late husband, who was blind and much older.

Anthony believes she is innocent and becomes obsessed with saving her: spending extra time at the prison or going to her estate to find someone who will vouch for her character.  His attentions are noticed by the media and Gay.  When Anthony realizes how much it hurts Gay, he offers to drop the case, but she urges him to win the case... that way he will get over his crush, but if she dies, he will always wonder "what if she lived."


What a waste...  Tedious, long, s l o w - it didn't even feel like a Hitchcock film.  I kept waiting for the suspense to build, or the villain to emerge, or someone to die.... any glimmer of an interesting sequence, for the first time I was truly disappointed.  Mr. & Mrs. Smith wasn't great (I had high expectations), but it was better than this (I went in with a blank slate).  I have nothing against films with a slower pace, but this was just ridiculous.

I also understand that the material doesn't exactly lend itself to suspenseful chases or daring escapes; there is only so much you can do in a courtroom.  But maybe the problem isn't the story.  Maybe the problem is Gregory Peck... his acting isn't amazing in this (but I am willing to forgive him because of his performances in Roman Holiday, To Kill a Mockingbird, and The Guns of Navarone).  Honestly, the only character that I actually enjoyed was Joan Tetzel's Judy Flaquer: her father works with Anthony Keane and her best friend is Gay Keane.  She tells it like it is and seems to genuinely enjoy and understand the proceedings.

In addition, I wasn't really surprised by the plot "twists"... but I won't give away any secrets, in case you don't immediately figure them out.

I did enjoy some of the long shots within the courtroom.  When Latour is brought into the courtroom, the camera follows his movements, while focusing on Maddalena.  It works well and shows that even in a mostly sucky movie, Hitchcock could still knock your socks off!

Hitch didn't even like this film... and I can see why.  Underwhelming, especially after the triumph of the film he made immediately prior to this film, Notorious... But don't let me stop you from seeing it.

The Paradine Case (1947) 125 minutes
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: Gregory Peck as Anthony Keane
Ann Todd as Gay Keane
Charles Laughton as Judge Lord Thomas Horfield
Charles Coburn as Sir Simon Flaquer
Ethel Barrymore as Lady Sophie Horfield
Louis Jourdan as Andre Latour
Alida Valli as Mrs. Maddalena Anna Paradine
Leo G. Carroll as Sir Joseph (Counsel for the Prosecution)
Joan Tetzel as Judy Flaquer

Spellbound

"Good night and sweet dreams... which we'll analyze at breakfast."

Mental hospital Green Manors is undergoing change.  The director, Dr. Murchison (Carroll), suffered a nervous breakdown, and is replaced by famous psychoanalyst / writer Dr. Anthony Edwardes (Peck).  The male staff are underwhelmed, and expect an older man.  The only female psychoanalyst, Dr. Constance Petersen (Bergman), falls for the new director, who is equally smitten.

But Dr. Edwardes is not what he seems.  He has odd reactions to lines draw on a white background and to a patient (Norman Lloyd).  After one breakdown he tells Constance he isn't really Dr. Edwardes.  He has amnesia and leaves the hospital in the middle of the night to find answers, including his own identity (his initials are J.B.).  Some detectives arrive a few hours later with news of Dr. Edwardes death and to question J.B.  But his disappearance leaves the impression that he is the guilty party, and a man hunt begins: Constance to psychoanalyze the man she loves, and the police to arrest him.


I remember this movie as being better.  It wasn't bad, how could it be with a talented cast and director, but it wasn't as good as I remembered.  There is too much emphasis on "guilt complexes" and "childhood trauma" and other psychology terms.  I understand that this was big stuff when the film was made, but now it just seems dated.

Ingrid Bergman was wonderful, as usual...  Apparently, this was on of Gregory Peck's earliest films... and it shows.  He isn't as polished or convincing as he comes across in later films, granted, he doesn't get to do much besides speaking in a trance and collapsing, but I expected a little more.  He wasn't bad, just not great.  The stand out is Michael Chekhov as Constance's mentor Dr. Brulov.  He is funny has some of the best lines in the film (including the quote underneath the picture), and steals every scene he is in.

There are some interesting sequences, such as the surrealist dream, which was designed by Salvador Dali.  It is intriguing, and pays an homage to Un Chien Andalou (which was partially written by Dali) with the scissors cutting through the eyes in the curtain (reminiscent of the image of a razor blade cutting a woman's eye).  The other great scene is the ending and how it is staged.  I won't spoil the surprise, but it is pretty awesome: a bit of color at the end of a black and white film.

Decent.... take out all the psychology jargon and beef up the role of the villain, and it could stand up among the classic Hitchcock films.

Spellbound (1945) 111 minutes
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: Ingrid Bergman as Dr. Constance Petersen
Gregory Peck as Dr. Anthony Edwardes
Michael Chekhov as Dr. Alexander Brulov
Leo G. Carroll as Dr. Murchison
John Emery as Dr. Fleurot