Strangers On A Train: The Doubles Motif
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2018
- Hitchcock is famous for using motifs in his films, including birds, staircases, even blondes. In Strangers on a Train, he pulled out all the stops to incorporate doubles, crisscrosses, and intersections into the film.
- บันเทิง
![โกหกเธอทั้งนั้น (Pinocchio) - SERIOUS BACON [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P1HhTYwrR5A/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the first thing i notice in the film is their shoes that tells something about their character, one being straightforward and everyman like appearance and the other is bold and eccentric which already conveys or hints at their personality.
For such a classic movie, there are so few analysis videos.. To be fair I only found this through Netflix but I'm so glad I did.
Gee, I don't know why I waited so long to see this movie. It was a work of genius. It's too bad that one doesn't here about this Hitchcock movie more.
Bruno wears a tie with two crabs in the train. The Hitchcock cameo with the double bass is also a double stuff, both of them have similar color and shape. Great video, I like this film very much.
Hitchcock personally chose Bruno's tie with the 'strangling claws'.
@@poetcomic1 I did not know that; thanks for telling us.
Criss Cross!! Brilliant film.
Hitchcock personally chose Bruno's garish tie with its ominous pairs of lobster claws like strangling hands.
Not only are Barbara and Anne doubles, but they are also doppelgangers of Alma, Hitchcock's wife, as is the character of Midge from Vertigo.
In my opinion, the glasses shot from this film is Hitchcock’s best shot out of his entire body of work.
Yes but the glasses wouldn’t break landing on the grass
whatt...this is crazy, I just finished watching Strangers on a Train, then to look up a video essay on it finding that it was uploaded just recently....crazy
That’s a Hitchcock-level twist! Fair warning that next week’s episode looks like it may be about Bye Bye Birdie... just in case you’re looking for something to watch next weekend.
sweet...great video btw, you've earned my sub!
I just saw it yesterday but didn't realize the doubles thing. 🤔 Interesting!
I love ‘Strangers on a Train’. Thank you for this.
As an avid fan of Hitchcock films, I thoroughly enjoyed your excellent analysis of this classic.
Thanks and looking forward to more of your reviews of classic films.
Another Hitchcock film with the doubles motif is "Shadow of a Doubt" (1943), would love to hear your review of that one too, thanks.
Thanks. I'll take another look at Shadow of a Doubt.
LOVE THIS MOVIE
It's been 20 years since I've seen SOAT. I'll have to watch it again.
Excellent video. You can also see important similarities between the lighter and the glasses. Both of them function as a “gift”, Guy lends Anthony the lighter at the beginning, and Anthony gives Miriam’s glasses to Guy after he kills her. They also function as a way to know who the killer is, Anne realizes this because Miriam and Barbara both had glasses as you mentioned, and the police finally gets Anthony because he had the lighter, also taking into account that it used as a threat to Guy throughout the movie. It is important that these similarities between the two things start when they both fall together after Miriam is murdered. Thanks a lot, like and new subscription!
thats actually a good symbolism i never thought of that, Hitchcock films are 10x better than movies today. the 50's looked so good
@@Gencturk92 totally agree, any random movie from those times is much better than a good movie today, although there are exceptions. Good luck!
@@nicolarralde this was a really good film and very underrated, i've been a Hitchcock fan for long time but i never saw this before, my favorite films were rear window, psycho, dial m for murder but after watching strangers on a train 3 years ago its now up there on my list.
Rear window, dial m for murder and strangers on a train is brilliant, the 50's just looks so great it makes me want to live in those days. The way people are dressed, talking, people were polite, girls would talk to men I mean I dont know it looks like life was simple then
@@Gencturk92 I agree, Strangers on a Train is one of my favorite movies and an underrated Hitchcock movie. Things back then seemed to be nicer, but also think that we see this through movies!
There is actually a scene with a bird in the film, an imposing stone eagle on the foreground who watches over the tennis match near the film's climax. Amazing how Hitchcock repeats his motifs!
It is really good work, deserves more views.
I've seen this film so many times, and I Never thought about "doubles"... Oh no, is there something wrong with me?! Haha
Love the movie, love your video.
Can you watch the whole movie here?
Thanks for this! I just watched the movie and didn’t get much out of it, so this really helped me understand it. If I could add to this, I noticed a few wide shots with Bruno standing in shadow or in front of a dark background while Guy stood in the light. It’s interesting to see a whole movie framed around a motif like this, and hats off to you for picking up on all of this
Glad you liked it. To be fair, others have pointed out this motif as well. All I did was try to document the ones I could find.
In the "Birds" sequence, "Jimmy the Raven was up for a role but he was busy on a Capra film.
Here's one---the film features two key scenes which take place on a carousel : the first has Miriam, her two dates (!) and Bruno all aboard the merrygoround at the same time, and the second scene is the spectacular out of control whirl and ultimate crash.
Brilliant. Soo clever. Thank you.
Masterpiece of a movie, i was transfixed at the end with carousel scene wondering how they managed to simulate Guy hanging on the pole
Not sure about that (I thought he was just in the rubble), but I was more impressed by the ride operator crawling under the moving carousel. I’ve heard a few times that that was the guy who normally operated the carousel (not an actor or stuntman). Not sure if that’s true, but would be a great stunt for an amateur to have done.
@@AMillionMovies They had special effects back then that were very clever like back/rear projection. Obviously CGI came about in mid 1980s.
The sequence where Bruno murders Miriam at the funfair as seen through her dropped glasses on the grass was way ahead of its time. Hitchcock was always ahead of the game
This was very well done, thanks!
Great video, subscribed and looking forward to more content
Thanks!
The record store scene has these doubles: 2 women at the counter, including Miriam. Miriam wears glasses - 2 lenses add a 2nd element to her sight. When guy and Miriam enter the listening booth together, there are couples in the 2 other booths behind them with the men on the right. But when Guy and Miriam come in, she is on the right with the 2 other men, Then switches to the left when things change about the divorce. The man in the next booth is always visible to the left of Guy or Miriam. Oh, yeah - Miriam is pregnant - 2 people in 1 body. And we see Guy play at a tennis court 2x.
The scene where Bruno first follows Guy home and waits across the street is amazing for the use of shadows and light, Bruno trying to draw Guy behind the bars, out of the light and into the dark with him. Guy on a moral fence and trying not to go there, then realizing he is trapped. Criss-cross indeed.
Somewhere I have the photos of the Danbury ct locations where they shot this film. I took shots of the film with me. They match up well.
Some of the continuing motifs in Hitchcock films are merely places/things that the director enjoyed and probably found challanging as well as artistic, like trains. In "The Lady Vanishes" (my favorite), Hitch built a vast train model just because he wanted to. Is a great observation about 'doubles' in "Strangers on a Train". The almost obsession with these pairings does seem in fact a main point of the whole film. Maybe this is one reason why the Hitchcock film is so much more successful than Woody Allen's obvious homage in "Match Point," which seems kind-of lifeless in comparison.
Terrific analysis!!
nice job dude
I absolutely love, LoOoVe that your covering this, becuz it's one of my favorite scenes, ("criss cross, I kill your wife, you kill my father, criss cross")
And did you know they used that scene in an 80's movie called "throw moma from the train
~imobsessed~
Thanks for a great video. Moving forward, i would very much like to see a Billy Wilder movie analysis at your channel.
That’s a good idea. I’ve touched on The Apartment and Sunset Boulevard in other videos, but I haven’t done one solely about a Wilder film. Double Indemnity is one of my favorites, so that might be a good one to dig in to.
awesome video
Your snippet from Birds....shows the crows on playground equipment, and then, as Hedren realizes something's up, she begins to rise....and watch her collar line, like wings...
Just try counting all the doubles allusions on my friend Damon's TV serial "Lost" -- and the motif's a clue to the real plot! And now, thanks to your TH-cam, I just got 3 allusions "Lost" made to "Strangers on a Train": Charlie's trying to carry a big string instrument onto the airliner, a couple of characters being strangled after answering questions, and the whole "go back" motif with another flight. What it also makes me wonder now is whether the real plot included a "trade" of scams; I'd been considering this lately but thought it unlikely, but if "Lost" is pointing specifically to "Strangers on a Train", that gives that hypothesis additional credence.
Lost also alluded very heavily and cleverly to "North By Northwest" -- for instance, by compass heading 325 -- and to "Psycho". And to who knows how much other Hitchcockiana I missed?
Ordered this moviiie, finally.
Paterson has a similar use of doubles and mirrored structures. You should check it out if you haven't already.
I just discovered your channel and I'm on a marathon tonight of your videos with my wife.
Good stuff!
Thanks for watching. I appreciate it.
The night was moist.
This move is just two good!
Analyst has a math obsession.
Very good, Jeff! “Strangers on a Train” is probably my favorite Hitchcock movie, though I love them all. Plus I’m a huge tennis fan. I love all the doubles you picked up on. It’s a shame Guy wasn’t playing doubles in his tennis match. To add to your list 😊 Do you think Hitchcock intentionally used this motif? (It’s hard to imagine that it was unintentional.). Or was it an unconscious OCD episode? LOL
Kasey Rogers, Miriam in "Strangers On a Train" achieved fame, of a sort, as Larry Tate's wife, Louise, on "Bewitched."
Re birds in Strangers on a Train - you couldn't pull taffy that far without destroying it.
Wouldn't you say that a staircase was rather prominent in Psycho as well? (Arbogast).
Hitch also featured stairs in Psycho!
I wonder how many murders have happened based on the idea, "you do my murder, I do yours".
I don't really see these "doubles" as something that significant, just elements that happen to be there.
A Million Movies there was another movie based on this one, wasn’t there?? I remember some documentary saying this, but now I can’t remember what other movie it was! Do you know which movie was created off this one? I think it was with women who where the murderers...maybe it was a show on a series on tv...perhaps a tv murder mystery! I can’t remember! I really thought it was a movie though. Do you remember?? Thanks! Great channel! Will check out Arsnic & Old Lace on your channel! Love Cary Grant! 😊
There have been tons of TV shows and several movies that have borrowed this plot. “Throw Mamma from the Train” is one that comes to mind.
A Million Movies Oh heavens! Lol! I never saw that! Wow! Amazing the “borrowing” that goes on! Thank you! 😁
This movie even has a double, Throw Mama from the Train
You have a lot of free time.
I remember a French filmmaker analysing Hitchcock films, was it Truffault? He did a good breakdown. Speaking of doubles, I think that there was a Truffault film that was copied exactly by the maker of either A Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Last House on the Left. Maybe you'd like to compare the scenes?
Truffaut had a great relationship with Hitchcock. I’ll look for that other film.
When Guy says he could strangle her on the phone as the phone passes someone can be seen passing. I wonder if this is bruno.
Benny Hill has a sketch where a film director is being praised for the brilliant symbolism in his movies, like a dog running up to a character or switching from color to black and white. In each case he learns there is no symbolism. The dog just ran in front of the camera and they were out of money so they switched to cheaper stock.
Do you have any evidence that Hitchcock planned for neckties and cigarette lighters to mean these things or are you just seeing what you want to see?
It may be a bit of both, but Hitchcock did this sort of thing very often in his movies. I’m sure that much of it was intentional.
I think it may be a coincidence if it happens once, but it happens in all of his movies and a lot of times in this one. You also have to take into account that these things are related, they are not just things that are repeated, they have a purpose, for example they both look at the time and think about hands at the same moment, as shown and explained in the video. Also the whole purpose of repeating things in a movie (symmetry) is to show that they are not just a coincidence. Good luck!
Very clever to notice all the doubles but why was it done? What is the profound meaning of 'doubles' or is it just a directorial 'shtick'? Would the film have been just as meaningful without all the references to doubles? Thank you.
Possibly, but Hitchcock movies are filled with little extras that help convey a theme or reinforce a meaning. You can read his movies almost like literature that way.
@@AMillionMovies Thanks for the reply. I also enjoyed F. Granger in Hitchcock's "Rope".
@@sutherland9 i didn't like rope found it boring, but strangers on a train is brilliant, rear window and dial m for murder
@@AMillionMovies all movies usually have symbolism's or something, titanic does
Here's some thoughts re: whether Bruno and Guy are really mirror images: th-cam.com/video/jyyZrSLwjCA/w-d-xo.html
The Bruno/ Guy characters should be reversed. For some reason, the skinny guy seems to fit Bruno's personality. Or maybe it's just me? This movie was the inspiration for the movie Throw Mama from the Train.
Snoop and Puffy??
From a modern perspective, I really can't appreciate these details, I don't see how the double motif complements anything. I'm not criticizing, I just don't get it.
I totally get that. In some movies, they can feel too subtle or even too in your face, and it’s hard to see how they improve the movie. For me, they give me a better understanding of what the director is trying to communicate beyond the entertainment value of the movie.
Modern directors use them too. For example, Edgar Wright’s movies are loaded with them.
@@AMillionMovies I’m currently taking a cinema course in university, after a few lectures I’m starting to appreciate cinematography better from a more analytical prospective. This was one of the first films we watched and I think we didn’t get to talk a lot about when I wrote down this comment. I do now notice a lot more of the choices made by film directors. Thank you for the reply.
Why don't you show the damned movie?
Very interesting, but why did they do all this? With a few exceptions, the many extra twos don't add anything to the plot or impact -- do they? Mebbe they just did it to impress nerds like us.
Was Hitchcock aware of all this -- was it his doing, the core of his genius?
Hitchcock used lots of symbolism in his movies. There are a million decisions a director makes during a production, and I’d bet some of these were planned and others were just things that fell into place that continued his theme.
Check out the heavy (in some cases heavy-handed) visual symbolism on a single motif in the movie adaptation of "The Mothman Prophecies". (BTW, I got friendly with John Keel in his later years.) The motif was of dual red lights, and that symbolically encoded a contributing factor to why the Silver Bridge collapsed when it did: traffic lights stuck on red on both ends of the bridge. The book and the movie seemed to all be about mystical causes of the collapse, but there the movie was encoding something to say it wasn't so mysterious after all. (In fairness, Keel's book mentioned that too.) The structural weakness of the bridge has been well documented.
wtf
why doesn't guy just divorce his wife, she is running around on him, pregnant with another man's baby, etc?
Been a bit since I’ve seen it, but I think he asked her for the divorce when they were in the record store. I think she threatened to say the baby was his and that he was abandoning her.
Sir, you have missed the most obvious and most over-arching "doubles" throughout the whole movie: male/male, Guy and Bruno. There is an obvious homosexual subtext to the whole relationship between Guy and Bruno. Note how they meet by playing "footsies" with one another in the beginning of the movie. Guy has an obvious reluctance to be seen in public with Bruno. I could go on and on. The book, by Patricia Highsmith, is even more explicit about the homosexual subtext than the movie. The Supreme Court has ruled gay marriage Constitutional. You don't have to be reluctant at broaching a subject matter that was once deemed taboo. If I seem a little irritated it is because I am. Having aired my irritation, however, you did a very good analysis of the film. Thank you.
*Rolls eyes*
Definitely, wrote a paper on this film years ago, about the obvious homoeroticism and homosexual subtext in the film and the sexual tension between the two men.Back then, everything was subtext, nothing was stated or shown overty, but it was heavily implied and masterfully hinted at with symbols, storytelling and filming techniques, lines, etc. Hitchcock was especially masterful and making things clear while still being able to get past the censors. Every scene is masterfully crafted to say a thousand more words than what is said and shown. Take for example, the very first scene. Like you noticed, literally in that first scene they meet by playing footsies, with Bruno probably purposefully positioning his feet that way because he saw Guy walking towards his table...so right from the beginning there is that heavy subtext and clues. Bruno is openly gay, while Guy is more repressed about his attraction to other men. Bruno doesn't fit into society, partly because he is so eccentric but also because he doesn't hide or repress his homosexuality. Guy on the other hand, fits in to society like the boy-next-door, precisely because he chooses to deny and represses his homosexuality. Bruno from the beginning shows an obvious attraction towards Guy, and is openly flirtatious towards him. Bruno isn't just attracted or romantically interested in Guy, he's absolutely infatuated, enamored with and even becomes obsessed, and starts basically stalking him. Guy's feelings towards Bruno are conflicted, he wants him gone, but at the same time he cares about him, he thinks he's crazy, but at the same time he loves him. On one hand he's bewildered by this new relationship with this sometimes motionally abusive man that exhibits stalker-like behavior, and is clearly obsessed with him. On the other hand, he finds it exciting, intriguing, enthralling. He likes being the object of Bruno's desire, enjoys Bruno's pursuit of him, deep down he likes the fact that Bruno is obsessed with him, even though part of him is afraid of that obsession. Guy is effectively seduced, finds himself tangled in the web of Bruno's charm and guile, enamored with Bruno but also aware that he's caught in this bond with him and he can't escape it. There's the duality of the differences in the two men's personalities, but also how in some ways they were very similar. The murder scheme (a secret they share) is almost a metaphor for the even bigger secret they share: their homosexual relationship, and the struggles of being homosexual in the time period in which they lived (a common theme in Highsmith's stories).
Yeah, and what about the two lenses in the glasses? And the two men walking by at any given moment. The point is, if you're making a movie with two main characters you would have to flip back and forth to them unless they were together alot, which they weren't. I thought this was a very over rated film with great cinematogrophy and incredibly bad acting.
I don't understand Hitchcock's choice to use Farley Granger as a lead in two of his better stories. His terrible acting knock both Strangers' and Rope, down a peg, in comparison to some of his best.