The idea of the murderer flirting with the victim was superb. And then helping the blind man to cross the road was saying " Miriam deserved to die, the blind man doesn't deserve it." Bruno has standards 😂
When Bruno played the sledgehammer and bell game, he looked at his hands, then looked at Miriam. At that point, he was already imagining his hands around her neck. I don't think he ever intended to flirt, it's just that Miriam saw it that way. Oh, that's one way to look at it. I thought Bruno helped the blind man because he was in a good mood (like a high after his kill).
"Strangers" has always been one of my favourite films since I first saw it as a kid. There is a ton of humour in the film. For instance, when Bruno remarks about his mother's painting: "That's father." And the mother responds: "I thought I was painting St. Francis." Something like that. Hitchcock didn't like modern art, and you often see sly reproaches of modern art in his films. It was clever to introduce Guy and Bruno at the beginning by following their shoes. Their shoes told us something about them. Bruno is wearing saddle shoes. Although they can be worn by both men and women, in the 1940s they were primarily associated with school-girls. This movie was made in the very early 1950s, so the implication was, I think, that Bruno was rather effeminate/homosexual. Other things in the movie hinted at this as well. There was a related in-joke, too. The actor who played Guy was in fact gay, whereas the actor who played Bruno was not. I used to live in D.C. for many years, and it's fun to see what it was like in the early 1950s when watching this film. Much nicer than it is today. The echo folk song the math professor is singing is called "Bill Grogan's Goat." I assume because it has a connection with trains and "Red Flags." The lyrics vary but go something like this: There was a man Now please take note There was a man who had a goat. He loved that goat Indeed he did He loved that goat Just like a kid. One day that goat Felt frisk and fine Ate three red shirts Right off the line. The man, he grabbed him by the back And tied him to The railroad track. Now, when that train Came into sight That goat grew pale And green with fright. He heaved a sigh As if in pain, Coughed up those shirts And flagged the train! The film is based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith. Highsmith was a novelist and short-story writer of psychological thrillers. She was also a lesbian. Her works often exhibit a gay subtext. At least twenty-eight films are based on her works. "Throw Mama from the Train" is a comedic take on "Strangers." Hitchcock bought the rights to "Strangers" for $8000, about $105,000 in today's money. At the time Highsmith had just graduated from college and was working in a comic store to make ends meet. "Strangers" was her breakthrough novel. Another film based on a Highsmith novel is "The Talented Mr Ripley." It's not in the same league as Hitchcock, but I do like it as well. The wonderful comedian Harry Enfield did a hilarious spoof of "Strangers:" th-cam.com/video/IPkCDqJOoWw/w-d-xo.html
Well, the scene also shows how Bruno views his father. Oh, is that what the shoes were trying to show? I didn't get that reference 😂 Wow, good for Patricia! 👏🏻👏🏻 Some other comments have mentioned The Talented Mr Ripley too. Guess I'll add that to my list! Thanks for sharing! 😊
Very well done movie, great reaction. Last week I discovered an earlier version of Sabatage , 1936, Hitchcock made back in England. It was streaming on Tubi. Also good. But I haven't seen the American version for a long time. Ann Hitchcock's character worked in the real estate office with Marion Crane at the beginning of Psycho. The girl who talks about taking seditives on her wedding day.
The Talented Mr Ripley was written by the same woman who wrote this (Patricia Highsmith), Raymond Chandler screenplaying this aside. Her many books are really something!
@@henryellow There have been multiple versions of the Ripley series. Purple Noon with Alain Delon. one with John Malkovich, the version with Matt Damon, as well as others. All highly recommended!
This film is based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, who also wrote the novel, _The Talented Mr. Ripley_ (part of the Ripliad). You may want to react to the film version. There is another book that uses the switching murder concept, to very different effect: _The Third Lady_ by Shizuko Natsuki.
I think that Robert Walker's performance as Bruno is one of the best pieces of acting in any Hitchcock movie (I'm not claiming this as an original opinion!). At first glance he seems a regular affable sort of person, yet he's deeply "off" in his thoughts and behavior; and Walker makes it all believable. But I also think that Farley Granger does very well here, his personal qualities of quietness or "softness" being just what is need to make Guy plausible -- someone who wouldn't tell Bruno to get lost immediately, but would instead allow Bruno to have his say, and in the end just say something noncommittal to get away, rather than reject the whole idea immediately. I've never thought that Bruno's central idea (which has been reused on film) was all that brilliant, though. Motive isn't everything in a murder case -- if you can be genuinely proved to have done it by reliable evidence, having no motive won't get you off the hook.
I suppose when Guy said, "Sure, Bruno, sure," Bruno took it as an agreement to go ahead with the plan. He didn't catch the sarcasm. It makes sense when you think about it, because Bruno is "wired differently" from others, so his brain might not be able to identify sarcasm. Naturally, evidence outweighs the motive. After all, when serial killers start their murder spree, no motive can be identified until the victims pile up. Still, police would always start by going after those with motive. Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊
I totally agree. Sadly he accidentally (or intentionally) overdosed and died right after this film, it's his last performance. What a loss! The first time I saw this film, I kept asking myself "Who IS this incredible actor?! Why don't I know him?"
@@TTM9691 It's his last complete performance, but he did make one more film, and died while shooting it. They had to borrow some rear-angle shots from Strangers on a Train to complete his role. What I find amazing is that none of Walker's previous acting was anything like this -- he was always cast in "average guy" parts, often young servicemen dealing with problems like boot camp, or falling in love while on leave. How on earth did Hitchcock know he'd be right for Bruno, with no evidence for it on film? (It's said that Hitch talked to the unhappy Walker at a party and thought he'd be right, but even if the story is true, I'm still amazed that such an encounter translates into casting for a major movie.)
That's sad news 😢 about his death. Well, most of the time a person only needs a chance or an opportunity to show their worth. He was given that chance by Hitchcock.
Try and get hold of a copy of the crime novel "The Moving Toyshop" by Edmund Crispin. Published in 1946 and set in Oxford England, the closing pages have exactly the same scene in a fairground, complete with run-away carousel and somebody crawling underneath it. As you see, the above film came out in 1951. Do you think Hitchcock "borrowed" the idea?
I noticed that most of his movies are based on books and stuff. It's mentioned that this movie is based on the 1950 novel "Strangers on a Train" by Patricia Highsmith.
You were wondering about the divorce situation in this movie. In the US, "No-fault" divorce laws, wherein either party can elect to dissolve their _legal_ marriage, without having to show wrong (for the most part) started being adopted by individual states in 1970. Today every state has laws permitting no-fault divorce, but before 1970, the party suing for divorce had to prove they had good cause for it (emotional cruelty, battering, cheating, etc.) and/or have the other party agree to the divorce. This "no-fault" concept exists in many countries, but I'm sure their are differences. This law paradigm (and the societal pressure that pre-existed in the US to mandate it) is the reason the numbers of divorces skyrocketted in the 1970s. My own parents divorced then, too; along with about forty percent of my grammar school classmate's families. That's the legal side, but obviously there's often a _religious_ body which officiated the marriage, and in traditional families, the divorce faces more hurdles to become "official" (annulled).
Although Guy obviously had cause, he would risk his girlfriend being named as co-respondent in a countersuit, which would be scandalous for the senator's family (although they do seem to be taking all the current scandal pretty well) and Guy's possible future political career.
I see, so the "no fault" divorce laws were adopted after 1970. I'm sorry about your parents. The fact that nearly half of your grammar schoolmates' parents did the same is very concerning. I wonder what happened that led to all these divorces. Thanks for clarifying the divorce laws 😊
Miriam was also a villain in this movie, second only to Bruno. If only DNA testing was available back then... But no matter what happens (even if it can be proven that the baby is not Guy's), the whole thing will still become a scandal. Anything can become a scandal when Guy pursues a political career.
One thing that bothers me about this movie is the ending carousel scene. I can't imagine it would ever be constructed with the ability to go dangerously fast, as you'd need a bigger motor which would cost too much.
Back then, I doubt there were any rides which could spin that fast. Haines was horizontally hanging on for dear life! 😂 Today, there are some amusement rides which spin that fast. But of course, the passengers are safely buckled in their positions.
go Even though I love this movie as an entertainment, the illogic of it drives me crazy, as it did Raymond Chandler who quit the film in the middle of development and hated Hitchcock. Warner Brothers kept his name on the credits for publicity, but very little of his contribution remains in the film. An illustration of what drives me nuts is the policeman shooting into a carousel full of people, the illogic of a carousel going fast enough to be dangerous, and the amorality of having it collapse without thinking of casualties besides Bruno. For example, what happened to the little boy and the man who climbed under the carousel? We are complicit in not giving them a second thought.
I thought the same thing regarding the policeman firing in a public place. The suspect wasn't even reported to be carrying a weapon. As for the carousel speed. It's clearly a Hollywood thing 😂
@@joebloggs396Dall was a hoot, for sure. However, wasn't his performance pretty much the same note (sociopath/psychopath)? I guess you could argue that his surprise to Rupert's reaction was a nod towards another note. I'll add that Dall had the better part and had the right face for that sort of part. It also just occurs to me (as I try to remember the movie) that Granger handled Philip's final crack-up quite well. I think both contributed to making Rope such a good movie.
@@anrun Dall had the better part, but apart from the suave confident murderer he could also turn nasty, such as when he slaps Philip or when he snarls to Rupert 'I hope you like what you see'. That nastiness underneath while largely hidden is as important as it is with Uncle Charlie. He also could get nervous around Rupert. The Phillip character was too weak for me from the start, though other parts of the film-making largely make up for it.
@@joebloggs396 Okay, that's fair. But I'd say that Philip finally losing it and going for the gun and fighting with Rupert were in the same vein. Rope was loosely based on the Leopold and Loeb case. Of those two, Loeb was clearly the more dominant figure. It was a natural choice for Rope to have one of the murderers be the dominant one and the other a weakling who was bullied into the crime.
Granger was born in my home town of San jose California.
Great review of a classic Alfred Hitchcock movie!
The idea of the murderer flirting with the victim was superb.
And then helping the blind man to cross the road was saying " Miriam deserved to die, the blind man doesn't deserve it." Bruno has standards 😂
When Bruno played the sledgehammer and bell game, he looked at his hands, then looked at Miriam. At that point, he was already imagining his hands around her neck. I don't think he ever intended to flirt, it's just that Miriam saw it that way.
Oh, that's one way to look at it. I thought Bruno helped the blind man because he was in a good mood (like a high after his kill).
"Strangers" has always been one of my favourite films since I first saw it as a kid. There is a ton of humour in the film. For instance, when Bruno remarks about his mother's painting: "That's father." And the mother responds: "I thought I was painting St. Francis." Something like that. Hitchcock didn't like modern art, and you often see sly reproaches of modern art in his films.
It was clever to introduce Guy and Bruno at the beginning by following their shoes. Their shoes told us something about them. Bruno is wearing saddle shoes. Although they can be worn by both men and women, in the 1940s they were primarily associated with school-girls. This movie was made in the very early 1950s, so the implication was, I think, that Bruno was rather effeminate/homosexual. Other things in the movie hinted at this as well. There was a related in-joke, too. The actor who played Guy was in fact gay, whereas the actor who played Bruno was not.
I used to live in D.C. for many years, and it's fun to see what it was like in the early 1950s when watching this film. Much nicer than it is today.
The echo folk song the math professor is singing is called "Bill Grogan's Goat." I assume because it has a connection with trains and "Red Flags." The lyrics vary but go something like this:
There was a man
Now please take note
There was a man
who had a goat.
He loved that goat
Indeed he did
He loved that goat
Just like a kid.
One day that goat
Felt frisk and fine
Ate three red shirts
Right off the line.
The man, he grabbed
him by the back
And tied him to
The railroad track.
Now, when that train
Came into sight
That goat grew pale
And green with fright.
He heaved a sigh
As if in pain,
Coughed up those shirts
And flagged the train!
The film is based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith. Highsmith was a novelist and short-story writer of psychological thrillers. She was also a lesbian. Her works often exhibit a gay subtext. At least twenty-eight films are based on her works. "Throw Mama from the Train" is a comedic take on "Strangers." Hitchcock bought the rights to "Strangers" for $8000, about $105,000 in today's money. At the time Highsmith had just graduated from college and was working in a comic store to make ends meet. "Strangers" was her breakthrough novel.
Another film based on a Highsmith novel is "The Talented Mr Ripley." It's not in the same league as Hitchcock, but I do like it as well.
The wonderful comedian Harry Enfield did a hilarious spoof of "Strangers:"
th-cam.com/video/IPkCDqJOoWw/w-d-xo.html
Well, the scene also shows how Bruno views his father.
Oh, is that what the shoes were trying to show? I didn't get that reference 😂
Wow, good for Patricia! 👏🏻👏🏻
Some other comments have mentioned The Talented Mr Ripley too. Guess I'll add that to my list!
Thanks for sharing! 😊
I was surprised you didn't recognize Farley Granger ("Guy") from ROPE.
Ah, I see. No wonder I thought of Rope when I was watching it. Can't believe I missed that 😂
Just looked up what I was trying to find the 1942 was called Saboteur. It's has some great iconic imagery.
Since it's by Hitchcock, I might have it on my list already. I'll double check 😊 thanks!
Very well done movie, great reaction. Last week I discovered an earlier version of Sabatage , 1936, Hitchcock made back in England. It was streaming on Tubi. Also good. But I haven't seen the American version for a long time.
Ann Hitchcock's character worked in the real estate office with Marion Crane at the beginning of Psycho. The girl who talks about taking seditives on her wedding day.
Sabotage (1936) is definitely better than Saboteur (1942) if you have to choose between the two.
Is that so?
An article mentioned that Saboteur is an Americanized remake of the 39 Steps. Whichever the case, I'll add Sabotage (1936) to my list 😊
The Talented Mr Ripley was written by the same woman who wrote this (Patricia Highsmith), Raymond Chandler screenplaying this aside. Her many books are really something!
Would you recommend the movie? The Talented Mr Ripley, I mean 😊
@@henryellow Been many years since I saw it - but I recall it being quite good. + Its a fairly popular movie, so worth a reaction I'd wager.
Awesome 👍🏻
Some other comments have mentioned it too, so I'll add it to my list. Thanks! 😊
@@henryellow There have been multiple versions of the Ripley series. Purple Noon with Alain Delon. one with John Malkovich, the version with Matt Damon, as well as others. All highly recommended!
This film is based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, who also wrote the novel, _The Talented Mr. Ripley_ (part of the Ripliad). You may want to react to the film version. There is another book that uses the switching murder concept, to very different effect: _The Third Lady_ by Shizuko Natsuki.
I'll add that to my list! 😊
I think that Robert Walker's performance as Bruno is one of the best pieces of acting in any Hitchcock movie (I'm not claiming this as an original opinion!). At first glance he seems a regular affable sort of person, yet he's deeply "off" in his thoughts and behavior; and Walker makes it all believable. But I also think that Farley Granger does very well here, his personal qualities of quietness or "softness" being just what is need to make Guy plausible -- someone who wouldn't tell Bruno to get lost immediately, but would instead allow Bruno to have his say, and in the end just say something noncommittal to get away, rather than reject the whole idea immediately.
I've never thought that Bruno's central idea (which has been reused on film) was all that brilliant, though. Motive isn't everything in a murder case -- if you can be genuinely proved to have done it by reliable evidence, having no motive won't get you off the hook.
I suppose when Guy said, "Sure, Bruno, sure," Bruno took it as an agreement to go ahead with the plan. He didn't catch the sarcasm. It makes sense when you think about it, because Bruno is "wired differently" from others, so his brain might not be able to identify sarcasm.
Naturally, evidence outweighs the motive. After all, when serial killers start their murder spree, no motive can be identified until the victims pile up. Still, police would always start by going after those with motive.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊
I totally agree. Sadly he accidentally (or intentionally) overdosed and died right after this film, it's his last performance. What a loss! The first time I saw this film, I kept asking myself "Who IS this incredible actor?! Why don't I know him?"
@@TTM9691 It's his last complete performance, but he did make one more film, and died while shooting it. They had to borrow some rear-angle shots from Strangers on a Train to complete his role. What I find amazing is that none of Walker's previous acting was anything like this -- he was always cast in "average guy" parts, often young servicemen dealing with problems like boot camp, or falling in love while on leave. How on earth did Hitchcock know he'd be right for Bruno, with no evidence for it on film? (It's said that Hitch talked to the unhappy Walker at a party and thought he'd be right, but even if the story is true, I'm still amazed that such an encounter translates into casting for a major movie.)
That's sad news 😢 about his death.
Well, most of the time a person only needs a chance or an opportunity to show their worth. He was given that chance by Hitchcock.
Try and get hold of a copy of the crime novel "The Moving Toyshop" by Edmund Crispin. Published in 1946 and set in Oxford England, the closing pages have exactly the same scene in a fairground, complete with run-away carousel and somebody crawling underneath it. As you see, the above film came out in 1951. Do you think Hitchcock "borrowed" the idea?
I noticed that most of his movies are based on books and stuff. It's mentioned that this movie is based on the 1950 novel "Strangers on a Train" by Patricia Highsmith.
You were wondering about the divorce situation in this movie. In the US, "No-fault" divorce laws, wherein either party can elect to dissolve their _legal_ marriage, without having to show wrong (for the most part) started being adopted by individual states in 1970. Today every state has laws permitting no-fault divorce, but before 1970, the party suing for divorce had to prove they had good cause for it (emotional cruelty, battering, cheating, etc.) and/or have the other party agree to the divorce. This "no-fault" concept exists in many countries, but I'm sure their are differences.
This law paradigm (and the societal pressure that pre-existed in the US to mandate it) is the reason the numbers of divorces skyrocketted in the 1970s. My own parents divorced then, too; along with about forty percent of my grammar school classmate's families.
That's the legal side, but obviously there's often a _religious_ body which officiated the marriage, and in traditional families, the divorce faces more hurdles to become "official" (annulled).
Although Guy obviously had cause, he would risk his girlfriend being named as co-respondent in a countersuit, which would be scandalous for the senator's family (although they do seem to be taking all the current scandal pretty well) and Guy's possible future political career.
I see, so the "no fault" divorce laws were adopted after 1970.
I'm sorry about your parents. The fact that nearly half of your grammar schoolmates' parents did the same is very concerning. I wonder what happened that led to all these divorces.
Thanks for clarifying the divorce laws 😊
Miriam was also a villain in this movie, second only to Bruno. If only DNA testing was available back then...
But no matter what happens (even if it can be proven that the baby is not Guy's), the whole thing will still become a scandal. Anything can become a scandal when Guy pursues a political career.
One thing that bothers me about this movie is the ending carousel scene. I can't imagine it would ever be constructed with the ability to go dangerously fast, as you'd need a bigger motor which would cost too much.
Back then, I doubt there were any rides which could spin that fast. Haines was horizontally hanging on for dear life! 😂
Today, there are some amusement rides which spin that fast. But of course, the passengers are safely buckled in their positions.
Yeah, there would have been a governor on the motor. But hey, it's the movies, and Hitch wanted a big finale, so artistic license won the day.
go
Even though I love this movie as an entertainment, the illogic of it drives me crazy, as it did Raymond Chandler who quit the film in the middle of development and hated Hitchcock. Warner Brothers kept his name on the credits for publicity, but very little of his contribution remains in the film. An illustration of what drives me nuts is the policeman shooting into a carousel full of people, the illogic of a carousel going fast enough to be dangerous, and the amorality of having it collapse without thinking of casualties besides Bruno. For example, what happened to the little boy and the man who climbed under the carousel? We are complicit in not giving them a second thought.
I thought the same thing regarding the policeman firing in a public place. The suspect wasn't even reported to be carrying a weapon.
As for the carousel speed. It's clearly a Hollywood thing 😂
@@henryellow An excuse for dandy special effects.
I’ve never seen Farley Granger in anything that would make me consider him a ‘good’ actor 🤦🏻♂
I thought he was fine in Rope.
@@anrun I thought he was too agitated the whole film, no room for development. John Dall was great however.
@@joebloggs396Dall was a hoot, for sure. However, wasn't his performance pretty much the same note (sociopath/psychopath)? I guess you could argue that his surprise to Rupert's reaction was a nod towards another note. I'll add that Dall had the better part and had the right face for that sort of part. It also just occurs to me (as I try to remember the movie) that Granger handled Philip's final crack-up quite well. I think both contributed to making Rope such a good movie.
@@anrun Dall had the better part, but apart from the suave confident murderer he could also turn nasty, such as when he slaps Philip or when he snarls to Rupert 'I hope you like what you see'. That nastiness underneath while largely hidden is as important as it is with Uncle Charlie. He also could get nervous around Rupert. The Phillip character was too weak for me from the start, though other parts of the film-making largely make up for it.
@@joebloggs396 Okay, that's fair. But I'd say that Philip finally losing it and going for the gun and fighting with Rupert were in the same vein. Rope was loosely based on the Leopold and Loeb case. Of those two, Loeb was clearly the more dominant figure. It was a natural choice for Rope to have one of the murderers be the dominant one and the other a weakling who was bullied into the crime.