Strangers on a Train : I have some problems with this plot.

I have some problems with this plot.

"I sure admire people who do things" - Every time I watch this film I just love that line. It's so silly, such a non-line, but it's just so perfect.

That said this film is rather preposterous and Guy is the biggest idiot of a character in cinema history. If the cops question anyone at the Carnival, not one would be able to say they had seen what is surely at least a marginally famous face, Guy's. In his own home town no less. On the other hand Bruno breaks the strong man game and is wearing a suit unlike anyone else at the carnival which makes him memorable. At least three people saw him in the vicinity of Miriam that night. If they retrace her steps with her friends they would end up questioning the bus driver, the strong man game operator and the boat ride attendant who would all surely be able to identify Bruno. The boat ride attendant saw Bruno get on a boat behind Miriam minutes before she was murdered. When Bruno got off the boat and walked through the crowd at least one man looked directly at his face.

In turn, just because one drunk guy on the train can't remember Guy's (again, at least marginally famous) face, there was no other person working the train that night that could? Who did he buy a ticket from and when? Guy also knows what the man gave a lecture on. How would he know that, and what train the guy was on, if he hadn't spoken to him? Not to mention Guy's explanation is TOTALLY plausible. The cops timing explanation is not possible. They can't prove Guy was at the scene. The cop's theory can't logically work to implicate Guy.

The murder took place at 9:30 according to Bruno's watch. We then cut to Guy on the train looking at his watch. Let's assume that means it's also 9:30 for Guy. All they would have to do is compare the time of the murder with the time the train left Metcalf, got into and left Baltimore, and got into DC and it would immediately clear Guy.

There is no dispute that Guy was on the train at some point. If their conversation took place prior to Baltimore, that means Guy caught the train in NY and couldn't have been in Metcalf at the time of the murder and still made that train.

If he caught the train in Baltimore, that means he would have had to buy a ticket in Metcalf going to DC via Baltimore, then murder Miriam at 9:30 in Metcalf, then drive all the way to Baltimore to catch the train, then have the conversation with the professor. But we already saw Guy on the train at 9:30 talking to the professor so we know, if we entertain the cops theory that the conversation took place after Baltimore, that train left Baltimore before the murder was committed.

So when Bruno checks his watch at 9:30 and then we cut to Guy checking his watch on the train, we are not shown the time on Guys watch. So let's assume it was not 9:30 at the time Guy checks his watch and that strong indication by Hitchcock to suggest it was the same time was just to throw us off:
Let's say the time was later then 9:30. How would Guy have gotten to Baltimore? By car? So his car would be at the train station in Baltimore. Also Guy, in order to make his story work, would have had to buy a ticket in Metcalf, but not board the train until Baltimore. What does his ticket say? He'd surely have a ticket purchased in NY in order to make his alibi work.
How would you even beat the train to Baltimore in a car when you can't start until well after the train had left? You'd have to buy the ticket in NY, the train would have already left by the time he murdered Miriam, and then he still have to drive to Baltimore. That's non-sense.

Another thing, Ann lives in DC. Miriam was murdered in Metcalf. We see that Guy was on the train when Bruno murders Myriam, so how does Bruno get to DC before Guy? He's waiting for Guy at his pad when Guy gets there?

If Guy get's a lawyer as soon as Bruno lets on he killed Myriam, there is no way Guy doesn't get off. There is zero evidence they planned anything. It's their words against each other and if Bruno lets on there was a plan he basically admits to killing Miriam. At the very least if Guy is not 100% sure he's going to murder Bruno's father, he'd more likely take his chances right when the cops come to his door. But at the VERY least he'd get a defense attorney.
I can't see anyway Bruno has Guy compromised. Bruno is nothing but a deranged fan. The Senator is totally behind Guy with all his resources. Two seconds of the cops talking to Bruno's mother and they'd suspect Bruno too. But Guy does nothing but compromise himself in the most idiotic ways. He takes Miriam's glasses from Guy but doesn't ask for his lighter back? Seriously? At the end of the film due to Guy attempting to hide Bruno from everyone he basically implicates himself in conspiracy to commit murder and Bruno corroborates him. But NOW he gets off? Ridiculous. The cops have EVERY reason at that point to suspect Guy put Bruno up to the murder.

Bruno's plastic man arms when he fished the lighter out of the storm drain, cop's shooting indiscriminately into a carousel filled with kids, the carousel self destructing after the guy shuts it down. this is easily the most ridiculous Hitchcock film I have ever seen. It has some humorous moments and some great camera shots, but its way too silly to be one of his classics. Quite over rated in my opinion.

Re: I have some problems with this plot.

Short answer: I think you're reading too much into things. Some of the elements you mention are true or plausible, but I didn't even think about them as part of my "suspension of disbelief". I just try to follow the logic of the film, and not wonder too much if every little detail is completely realistic or completely airtight.

Long answer: that being said, let me just say what I think about the things you mention.
I'll number them by paragraph, I hope it makes sense.

1.

not one would be able to say they had seen what is surely at least a marginally famous face, Guy's () On the other hand Bruno () which makes him memorable. [etcetera]

I think you are overestimating the ease with which they would have found Bruno if he hadn't come back to the carnival. Yes, people saw him earlier, but they didn't know he would murder someone later, so there was no reason for them to remember every guy you see walking in a suit. Even today, people's memories are notoriously shady, even if people KNOW beforehand that they have to remember something. Also, to identify someone later, they would first have to FIND hime. He was not a famous recognizable person and he had no connection to the victim, so how would they trace him? Remember this was a time before security cameras or DNA research. And Bruno was a rich kid who didn't need a steady job, so he could easily keep off the radar if he wanted. This anyway is the logic Hitchcock was going for I think.

2.

just because one drunk guy on the train can't remember Guy[etcetera]

Like the cops say in the film, Guy knowing the professor or what he lectured on, is no proof he was on the train. Sure, someone else *might* remember Guy being on the train, but apparently nobody did. Like with #1 above: in a random situation there's no reason to clearly remember a face of a random person. And that he had a ticket or even if whoever sold it to him, remembered him buying it, would be no proof for an alibi, he could have hopped on the train later. I'm not 100% sure that the cops proving that Guy was actually at the scene was necessary. People have been sentenced before just because of circumstantial evidence. Sure, we learn in Law & Order that that's not enough, but I'm not 100% sure that this was the case for every criminal case in court as far back as 1951. Laws have also become much stricter, in favour of suspects I think. Just on a sidenote: this also includes unlawful gathering of evidence, those laws used to be much looser even a few decades ago.
Anyway, the logic the film is going for I think, is that because Guy had the motive AND if his lighter would have been found at the scene, this would have been enough to (probably) convict him.

3.

The murder took place at 9:30 according to Bruno's watch. [etcetera]

I'm not clear on this one, I have no immediate reply, also because I'm not 100% clear on the timetable (I only just watched the film for the first time).

4.
But I do wonder what you mean by:

There is no dispute that Guy was on the train at some point.

I think there IS a dispute: the cops do not consider it a proven fact. Just that he recognized the professor and maybe even had a ticket isn't enough for them. So my guess is, according to the cops the timetable doesn't even matter that much as long as nobody can positively say he was indeed on the train.

5.
See 3. and 4., the cops do not even consider it a proven fact that he was in the train, so I think this point doesn't even matter. It would have mattered IF he could prove he was on the train: THEN and only then would it matter WHEN he was on the train.

6.

If he caught the train in Baltimore, that means he would have had to buy a ticket in Metcalf.

See 3. and 4.
Also I'm not sure if he had a physical ticket (how did that work in 1951?) or if he still had this ticket. Similar to point #1: at that particular time Guy didn't know he had to prove or remember anything, so maybe if he even had a ticket, he threw it away before he knew it would become importaint.

7.

Another thing, Ann lives in DC. [etcetera]

Again; not really sure about the time table or travelling distances. Suspension of disbelief I guess. I mean, it's a thriller. Sometimes things just work for the plot. When Bruno was waiting in his dad's appartment and suddenly appeared from the dark, my first thought was not, by what means and how fast did he travel here. My first thought was: yes; classical thriller plot twist, this is a great thiller.

8.

So when Bruno checks his watch at 9:30 [etcetera]

It's their words against each other, true. But the point the film is trying to make, is one of them is much less plausible. "A random stranger murdered your wife without you even knowing? While you have a motive? Sure" And again, Bruno's attempt was to plant Guy's lighter, so then they would have motive + some proof of presence on the crime scene.

if Bruno lets on there was a plan he basically admits to killing Miriam.

Yes, and it became clear in the film that Bruno was crazy enough to not care about this. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he even explicitly said he would incriminate himself if this was necessary to bring Guy down.

8. (second half of your paragraph).

I can't see anyway Bruno has Guy compromised. [etcetera]

Yes, Bruno was deranged, but like many movie villains, he know how to act. Nobody knew officially he was insane, only his father suspects it and the viewer and Guy know it. But if he would go to trial, he would just behave formidably and be the random stranger with no proof against him.
I think Guy hadn't noticed yet that his lighter was missing.
At the end of the film, Guy gets off because the boat guy clearly recognizes Bruno PLUS the fact that he is holding Guy's lighter in his fist. Not in his pocket where it could have been planted, but in his clenched fist.

9.

Bruno's plastic man arms [etcetera]

Yeah, the rubber arms down the storm drain were a bit off a stretch, but again, just suspend your disbelief. They filmed it in such a way that it seemed to require rubber arms, which was a bit clumsy, but the point of the scene was just that he could barely reach it and recovered it just in time. If they had filmed it better, it wouldn't have been a point for you. It doesn't change anything about the credibility of the core of the plot, it was just a bit of suspense added during the 'ride', so I don't see a reason to take big offense with it.


cop's shooting indiscriminately into a carousel filled with kids, the carousel self destructing after the guy shuts it down


Yes, those two things were a bit crazy, but again, not really elementary to the core of the plot, were they?


this is easily the most ridiculous Hitchcock film I have ever seen.

Up until now I thought you brought up somewhat interesting points for the sake of argument. But this quote of yours is a big stretch I think and I must really disagree with it. I mean it's fun to discuss a film's plot details, but I don't see anything so seriously as to bring the film down in reputation.

Without suspension of disbelief, you can bring down any thriller (or action film, or any other film) because the details are incredible. Yeah, often times films do feature incredible details, that's also part of what makes the story exciting. An action hero dodging bullets or miraculously escaping also very incredible, but they have become so normal that we almost expect them, nobody I know takes serious offense at that stuff.

Also you have to see this film as if it was in 1951. Some things may have become clich now (like someone barely reaching a pivotal object with his arm) but they weren't when someone put them in a film for the first time.
Some things may be incredible now (like shooting at a merry-go-round full of children) because we immediately think of the risks and would this really happen in real life, and we reject it because it's politically incorrect. But they weren't unbelievable things to see in a film back then; people expected this kind of drama to be a in a film. And what's more, maybe they even marvelled at how they constructed the accident technically. Something which we wouldn't even flinch about now would be a wonderous achievement in film making when it was first done.

Does this mean the film aged badly? No, not in my opinion. That's like saying the Eifel tower is boring because it would be easy to build it nowadays. It's a monument, part of history, like Strangers on a Train is part of film history, even if you could pick the plot apart. The core of the story still stands: a lunatic planning a 'perfect murder' and dragging a random famous person that he met, with him against his will.

Greetings, RagingR2

Re: I have some problems with this plot.


I think you are overestimating the ease with which they would have found Bruno if he hadn't come back to the carnival.


My main point is really that Guy can't be placed at the scene. His alibi isn't really all that difficult to believe. Taken together, even with his motive, it becomes far more likely he's telling the truth about being on the train. And in fact when Bruno does show up at the carnival at the end of the film the boat ride operator recognizes him immediately. So if Guy outs Bruno to the cops, the ride operator can also then place him at the scene. Guy had every chance from the time Bruno meets him after the murder to clear himself and implicate Bruno but he blows it. He takes Myriam's glasses instead of getting his lighter back from Bruno. Arghgh!

Bruno was really my favorite part of the film. Robert Walker was stellar in his role. I will admit that Farley Granger annoys me to no end. In this and in Rope.

Suspension of disbelief to me is something along the lines of accepting that spaceships can fly easily at light speed, or that dinosaurs can be replicated on a mass scale on an island amusement park.
Following the flawed logic of a story/chain of events is not suspension of disbelief.

In any case, being a huge Hitchcock fan, and knowing this is considered one of his "classics", I find it over rated. That said, I re-watched NxNW the other day which is another Hitch film one might also say requires suspension of disbelief. I am fascinated how that film, for me, pulls it off while this one kind of annoys me.

Re: I have some problems with this plot.

You need to watch the film again and pay more attention to the details. Bruno explicitly reminds Guy that if the police arrest him, he will say they were in it together. Guy's problem is to establish that Bruno did it alone and that Bruno was his enemy, not his partner in crime.

Re: I have some problems with this plot.

I didn't miss that, it's just that it doesn't hold up well logically.
Bruno can say whatever he wants, it's his word against Guy's. And Guy hasn't committed his murder so there isn't really anyway to prove there was a conspiracy.
Guy doesn't have to establish anything. The prosecution does. Guy just needs to mount a convincing defense if it becomes necessary.

Re: I have some problems with this plot.

If Guy were brought to trial on a charge of complicity in a murder, the prosecution would be able easily to persuade the jury that he was guilty. He had the motive and Bruno did not. The two were seen together and Guy was seen and overheard threatening his wife in the shop. To a jury, the idea of Guy conspiring with Bruno to commit a murder would be far more plausible than the truth: Bruno, with no apparent motive, killed a woman he had never previously met. Any normal jury would believe Bruno's version and reject Guy's version.

Re: I have some problems with this plot.

While I think all that is true, it's worth remembering that for the plot to work, none of it actually has to be. It's only necessary that Guy believes it to be true. Sure, Guy could have been smarter, but he wasn't. He's just a jock. Plus, his head was spinning from the moment he hears his wife has been murdered.

Re: I have some problems with this plot.

Interesting discussion. Like many Hitchcock films, the details of the plot can be seen as absurd on closer examination in the rational light of day. However, during the viewing, we are so taken in under the spell of the drama that we either don't notice these implausibilities or are able to ignore them.

The one thing that bothered me while watching this, though: Bruno wishes to 'plant' the evidence several days (or more) after the crime had taken place. Hadn't the police, investigators, etc. already searched the scene? Was Bruno hoping the police might decide to go back in case they had missed anything, then stumble on the lighter, and presumably say, "hey, look this was here the whole time wonder why we missed it!". Not only that, but there had been many people at that exact location in the intervening time; many more than usual, so the carnival operator said, on account of the public's morbid interest in the murder scene.

I am of the opinion that Bruno did have Guy compromised initially. However by this stage, Bruno has become so vindictive and dangerous that Guy's best bet would be to cut his losses and inform the police: A deranged fan who has been stalking and harassing me lately has stolen my lighter, and he is now blackmailing me by threatening to plant it at the murder scene.

Re: I have some problems with this plot.

Most of the praise for this film is for the plot and the direction, which don't make a great movie by themselves. The trivia page, here, says that Raymond Chandler argued with Hitchcock about the proper emphasis in the film. Chandler wanted more character development; Hitch was interested in the visual impact. Certainly, some of the images and process shots are brilliant. The merry-go-round sequence, alone, makes this far more than just a good film. But I have to agree with Chandler. How much better would this have been with a cast full of compelling actors and well-developed characters.

The problem, if Chandler's position had been supported, is the actors. Walker alone has some imagination, though his character is far too creepy to like, and I've always felt that he could have been more subtle to greater effect. Tony Perkins is much scarier in Psycho. Granger is simply too mechanical and uninspired to be an interesting lead, to make me believe in him and pull for him. Maybe the problem is in the way his character was written, but I don't think so. Can you imagine how much greater this film would have been with James Stewart as the protagonist and if Haines had been the architect he was in the book and not a tennis player? Granger has no weight. I've never found this one of Hitchcock's masterpieces because it is such a glaring example of style over substance, and substance comes from character development driving a great plot. Compare Stranger's on a train to Vertigo, Rear Window, or The Birds and the difference is apparent.
Top