Strangers on a Train (1951)

Synopsis:

A professional tennis player (Farley Granger, They Live by Night) has a casual conversation with a kooky stranger (Robert Walker, Since You Went Away) on a train, and this seemingly innocent encounter leads to murder and blackmail. 

Reaction & Thoughts:

“My theory is that everyone is a potential murderer.”

At a time when Hollywood insiders began to wonder if he had lost his magic touch, director Alfred Hitchcock suddenly came up with one of his best movies, Strangers on a Train, proving that reports of his career demise were greatly exaggerated.

It’s based on Patricia Highsmith’s novel of the same name. I’ve always believed that success is 50% genes and 50% luck, and the obviously talented Hitchcock had the incredibly good fortune of finding Highsmith’s book at a crucial moment in his career. It’s as if Highsmith had written the story specifically for the British filmmaker.

“I’m very much concerned with dualism, and the good and evil that exists in everyone to some degree,” author Highsmith once said about her (first) book. Hitchcock could have said the exact same thing about any of his movies. Although the narrative and characters came from the Highsmith book, this is the quintessential Hitchcock thriller.

As it happens, Strangers on a Train is The Master of Suspense’s most incisive treatise on the duality of life — it’s yin and yang, Hitchcock’s style. The director expertly uses the tools of cinema to convey the idea that “everything in life has an equal opposite.” And like most Hitchcock thrillers, there is layer upon layer of fascinating ideas.

The script, credited to celebrated hard-boiled novelist Raymond Chandler (The Big Sleep and Farewell, My Lovely) and Czenzi Ormonde (Step Down to Terror), is incredibly precised from a structural point of view (every scene has a specific purpose), and the director imparts a near-expressionist touch to the images. I can’t emphasize enough how exciting it is to see so many good sequences in a relatively short film.

And, as the old saying goes, “a movie is only as good as its villain.” Robert Walker’s psychotic killer is one of Hitchcock’s (and cinema’s) most memorable villains. The fact that he is well-mannered and articulate makes his crimes all the more chilling. It’s a brilliant piece of casting. Even now, we tend to judge people by their appearances, so fair or not, it’s off-putting to see the urbane Walker behave badly.

Farley Granger is effective in the co-lead role. Although Hitch was disappointed that he couldn’t get his first choice, actor William Holden (Sunset Boulevard), the casting of Granger ended up creating a fascinating irony: a gay actor (Granger) plays a straight man, and a straight actor (Walker) plays a gay man. Anyhow, I really liked Granger’s performance. I also liked Hitch’s daughter, Pat, as an impertinent, talkative socialite. You may call it nepotism, but I thought she was great!

Conclusions & Final Thoughts:

Strangers on a Train exemplifies everything that’s great about The Master of Suspense’s cinema. In fact, I struggled to find any flaws. Maybe Ruth Roman’s (Beyond the Forest) performance as Farley Granger’s girlfriend could be considered a flaw. She is hardly the patrician beauty the role calls for. It isn’t a big deal, though. The conversation should revolve around how the movie gets so many things right — it is, in my opinion, one of Hitchcock’s better efforts. B&W, 101 minutes, Not Rated.

Hitch’s cameo

Theatrical Trailer: