Strangers on a Train (film)
Strangers on a Train is a 1951 American psychological thriller film noir produced and directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and based on the 1950 novel Strangers on a Train by Patricia Highsmith. It was shot in late 1950, and released by Warner Bros. on June 30, 1951, starring Farley Granger, Ruth Roman, and Robert Walker.
The story concerns two strangers who meet on a train, one of whom is a psychopath who suggests that they "exchange" murders so that neither will be caught. The film initially received mixed reviews, but has since been regarded much more favorably. In 2021, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[3]
Alfred Hitchcock's cameo appearance occurs 11 minutes into the film. He is seen carrying a double bass as he climbs onto a train.
Hitchcock said that correct casting saved him "a reel of storytelling time", since audiences would sense qualities in the actors that did not have to be spelled out.[4] Hitchcock said that he originally wanted William Holden for the Guy Haines role,[5][6] but Holden declined. "Holden would have been all wrong—too sturdy, too put off by Bruno", wrote critic Roger Ebert.[4] "Granger is softer and more elusive, more convincing as he tries to slip out of Bruno's conversational web instead of flatly rejecting him."[4]
Warner Bros. wanted their own stars, already under contract, cast wherever possible. In the casting of Anne Morton, Jack L. Warner got what he wanted when he assigned Ruth Roman to the project, over Hitchcock's objections.[7] The director found her "bristling" and "lacking in sex appeal" and said that she had been "foisted upon him."[8] Perhaps it was the circumstances of her forced casting, but Roman became the target of Hitchcock's scorn throughout the production.[9] Granger described Hitchcock's attitude toward Roman as "disinterest" in the actress, and said he saw Hitchcock treat Edith Evanson the same way on the set of Rope (1948). "He had to have one person in each film he could harass," Granger said.[9]
Kasey Rogers (credited as Laura Elliott) noted that she had perfect vision at the time the movie was made, but Hitchcock insisted she wear the character's thick eyeglasses, even in long shots when regular glass lenses would have been undetectable. Rogers was effectively blind with the glasses on and needed to be guided by the other actors.[10]
Production[edit]
Pre-production[edit]
Hitchcock secured the rights to the Patricia Highsmith novel for just $7,500 since it was her first novel. As usual, Hitchcock kept his name out of the negotiations to keep the purchase price low.[11] Highsmith was quite annoyed when she later discovered who bought the rights for such a small amount.[12]
Securing the rights to the novel was the least of the hurdles Hitchcock would have to vault to get the property from printed page to screen. He got a treatment that pleased him on the second attempt, from writer Whitfield Cook, who wove a homoerotic subtext into the story.[13] With treatment in hand, Hitchcock shopped for a screenwriter; he wanted a "name" writer to lend some prestige to the screenplay, but was turned down by eight writers, including John Steinbeck and Thornton Wilder, all of whom thought the story too tawdry and were put off by Highsmith's first-timer status.[14] Talks with Dashiell Hammett got further,[12] but here too communications ultimately broke down, and Hammett never took the assignment.[12]
Hitchcock then tried Raymond Chandler, who had earned an Oscar nomination for his first screenplay, Double Indemnity, in collaboration with Billy Wilder.[12][15] Chandler took the job despite his opinion that it was "a silly little story."[14] But Chandler was a notoriously difficult collaborator and the two men could not have had more different meeting styles: Hitchcock enjoyed long, rambling off-topic meetings where often the film would not even be mentioned for hours, while Chandler was strictly business and wanted to get out and get writing. He called the meetings "god-awful jabber sessions which seem to be an inevitable although painful part of the picture business."[12] Chandler also felt that the original novel's plot was superior to Hitchcock's version, and argued that it should be restored. He complained privately that Hitchcock was too ready “to sacrifice dramatic logic (insofar as it exists) for the sake of a camera effect.”[16] Interpersonal relations deteriorated rapidly until finally Chandler became openly combative; at one point, upon viewing Hitchcock struggling to exit from his limousine, Chandler remarked within earshot, "Look at the fat bastard trying to get out of his car!"[17] This would be their last collaboration. Chandler completed a first draft, then wrote a second, without hearing a single word back from Hitchcock; when finally he did get a communication from the director in late September, it was his dismissal from the project.[17]
Next, Hitchcock tried to hire Ben Hecht, but learned he was unavailable. Hecht suggested his assistant, Czenzi Ormonde, to write the screenplay.[17] Although Ormonde was without a formal screen credit, she did have two things in her favor: her recently published collection of short stories, Laughter From Downstairs, was attracting good notices from critics, and she was "a fair-haired beauty with long shimmering hair."[18]—always a plus with Hitchcock. With his new writer, he wanted to start from square one:
Reception[edit]
Critical reception[edit]
Upon its release in 1951, Strangers on a Train received mixed reviews. Variety praised it, writing: "Performance-wise, the cast comes through strongly. Granger is excellent as the harassed young man innocently involved in murder. Roman's role as a nice, understanding girl is a switch for her, and she makes it warmly effective. Walker's role has extreme color, and he projects it deftly."[59]
Conversely, Bosley Crowther of The New York Times criticized the film: "Mr. Hitchcock again is tossing a crazy murder story in the air and trying to con us into thinking that it will stand up without support. ... Perhaps there will be those in the audience who will likewise be terrified by the villain's darkly menacing warnings and by Mr. Hitchcock's sleekly melodramatic tricks. ... But, for all that, his basic premise of fear fired by menace is so thin and so utterly unconvincing that the story just does not stand."[60] Leslie Halliwell felt that Hitchcock was "at his best" and that the film "makes superior suspense entertainment," but called the story "unsatisfactory."[61]
In contrast, modern reviews have been overwhelmingly positive. On Rotten Tomatoes the film has an approval rating of 98% based on reviews from 52 critics, with an average rating of 8.80/10. The website's consensus reads, "A provocative premise and inventive set design lights the way for Hitchcock['s] diabolically entertaining masterpiece."[62] Roger Ebert has called Strangers on a Train a "first-rate thriller" that he considers one of Hitchcock's five best films.[6] He added the film in his Great Movies list.[6] In 2012, The Guardian praised the film writing "Hitchcock's study of the guilt that taints the human condition is just one cinematic masterstroke after another".[63]
David Keyes, writing at Cinemaphile in 2002, saw the film as a seminal entry in its genre: "Aside from its very evident approach as a crowd-pleasing popcorn flick, the movie is one of the original shells for identity-inspired mystery thrillers, in which natural human behavior is the driving force behind the true macabre rather than supernatural elements. Even classic endeavors like Fargo and A Simple Plan seem directly fueled by this concept..."[64]
Almar Haflidason was effusive about Strangers on a Train in 2001 at the BBC website: "Hitchcock's favourite device of an ordinary man caught in an ever-tightening web of fear plunges Guy into one of the director's most fiendishly effective movies. Ordinary Washington locations become sinister hunting grounds that mirror perfectly the creeping terror that slowly consumes Guy, as the lethally smooth Bruno relentlessly pursues him to a frenzied climax. Fast, exciting, and woven with wicked style, this is one of Hitchcock's most efficient and ruthlessly delicious thrillers."[65]
Patricia Highsmith's opinion of the film varied over time. She initially praised it, writing: "I am pleased in general. Especially with Bruno, who held the movie together as he did the book." Later in life, while still praising Robert Walker's performance as Bruno, she criticized the casting of Ruth Roman as Anne, Hitchcock's decision to turn Guy from an architect into a tennis player and the fact that Guy does not murder Bruno's father as he does in the novel.[66][67]
Legacy[edit]
Strangers on a Train was adapted for the radio program Lux Radio Theatre on two occasions: on December 3, 1951, with Ruth Roman, Frank Lovejoy and Ray Milland, and on April 12, 1954, with Virginia Mayo, Dana Andrews and Robert Cummings.[44]
BBC Radio 4's Afternoon Play broadcast on September 29, 2011, was Strangers on a Film by Stephen Wyatt, which gives an imagined account of a series of meetings between Hitchcock (Clive Swift) and Raymond Chandler (Patrick Stewart), as they unsuccessfully attempt to create the screenplay for Strangers on a Train.
The 1987 film Throw Momma from the Train by Danny DeVito was inspired by Strangers on a Train, which is also watched by DeVito's character in the film.[72][73]
A television film remake, Once You Meet a Stranger, was written and directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, and aired on CBS on September 25, 1996. The film switches the genders of the main characters from male to female, and stars Jacqueline Bisset and Theresa Russell.[74]
The 2022 Netflix original Do Revenge has a plot inspired by Strangers on a Train. In the film, two classmates conspire to take down the other's enemy as revenge.[75]
In 2021, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[3] In 2022, Time Out ranked the film at No. 75 on their list of "The 100 best thriller films of all time".[76]