Overrated?


It's funny, but sometimes I wonder if it's true that people highly rate movies they're *supposed to* like.

I know that sounds like anti-elitism knee-jerking,... but I guess my main feeling is that people appear to be willing to make allowances for dated directing, acting, and technique in general.

I'll start with probably the most obvious issue in Strangers on a Train; the acting.

The acting here fell into a few categories.

It seems that when it came to old lady characters, Hitchcock went for something that was basically an upgraded Margaret Dumont thing; stage-style, classically executed hamminess. These ladies were masters of stage farce, and I could see that they were willing to step into dark areas at Hitchcock's behest--and that reflects a kind of admirable professionalism--but in the end you saw a screen acting style that I don't think has aged well.

Another acting issue was the occasional bad actor. Face it: Farley Granger, bless his heart, wouldn't be tolerated for a second in a contemporary movie; even if he had twice the good looks, he still wouldn't get a part. Modern casting is supremely picky. Casting directors sniff out the smallest margins of non-talent, precisely so the audience won't have to smell it. There are venues for pop fare with lousy acting, but it's reasonable to hold Hitchcock to a higher standard. Farley let's his character slip/go wooden often enough that it's obvious he wouldn't make the grade these days.

Another factor is that, for all of Hitchcock's reputation as a filmmaker who broke with convention in a way that could attract more discriminating audiences, I've recently noticed a set of stock elements in his films, and it grated me a little to see it here: A basically good-hearted, but compromised male hero, led to redemption by a beautiful, good-hearted gal. And these Hitchcock redeemer women are cast and directed pretty much the same; knockout beauties with eyes ready to go filmy at the least provocation.

Another stock element: Law enforcement issues are tidied up so easily it almost looks flippant.

All that said, there are still things to recommend Hitchcock, of course. But think about these issues. And please add some of your own!

reply

Of course there are aspects of Hitchcock's filmmaking style and Hollywood in general that haven't aged well.

The Mid-Atlantic accent that used to be so popular among actors is like an oddity...who can imagine going around affecting a lite British accent? The fact that conversation scenes sometimes seem to drag on interminably in older films is another thing that modern audiences aren't used to.

One thing that struck me about the actual filming techniques in Strangers On A Train was the frequent use of background projection instead of location shooting. I guess they wanted to shoot on a quiet set, but visually it's pretty distracting.

reply

One thing that struck me about the actual filming techniques in Strangers On A Train was the frequent use of background projection instead of location shooting. I guess they wanted to shoot on a quiet set, but visually it's pretty distracting.

That's a Hitchcock thing. He preferred sound stages to location shooting.

reply

No, definitely not overrated. I've seen practically every Hitchcock film (though I will not see Jamaica Inn!). This is an absolutely brilliant and unique film. The bizarre characterizations are only the tip of the iceberg. I think that Farley Granger's casting is a stroke of genius - his persona provides a bitter contrast to Robert Walker. The guy is not a bad actor - check him out in "Senso", where he plays an entirely different role quite effectively.

The cheapness and general cynicism remind me of "Ace In the Hole", "Blast of Silence", and "Odds Against Tomorrow", but the pacing generates so much tension that you feel as if Hitchcock is going to break your neck if he jerks the leash. And the ending? Really - who cares about the ending! Under any circumstance, it would be anti-climactic.

It's worth noting that the British version adds a few minutes that help to turn things nicely on their pointed little heads a bit further - try to check it out!

reply

Just curious as to why you refuse to see Jamaica Inn. I've never seen it, but just looked at the synopsis on Wikipedia.

reply

Probably because it was more of a Charles Laughton film rather than an Alfred Hitchcock film. Laughton was a producer on the film and used his position to interfere with aspects of the production for better or for worse. Even though the film was a commercial success, it wasn't terribly well received by the critics, the writer who wrote the original story, or Hitchcock himself.

reply

Hmm well I prefer to watch older films rather than the new (remakes and mediocre) stuff that Hollywood is pumping out. I find the old 'Hollywood' accent and acting more entertaining, but that's just me. I love the innocence of what these movies show, a simpler time. I loved this movie. I gave it an 8/10, which is pretty high for me because I'm so picky. But I can see where you are coming from. Everyone has an opinion, and I'm sure many agree more with you than me. I just have a strange taste when it comes to entertainment and films!

"Gee, I'm real sorry your mom blew up, Ricky."
Http://www.myspace.com/le_romantique

reply

Pardon me for intruding but I agree.


It is as if Hollywood these days thinks "Hey i have an idea! Let's put a lot of sex and a lot of blood and use the word "*beep*" a half a million times! That will make our remake of such and such old film noir movie COMPLETELY different."

Head of Hollywood studio: "Brilliant!!! Let's green light this!!!"

reply

While watching this film, I said wow this is a really good film. Then, I watched the last 20 minutes. I was COMPLETELY disappointed with the ending and the merry-go-round scene was stupid as all hell. Overrated yes.

"Kill him, so tears will flow through his household, not yours" Soviet anti-German poem, 1942

reply


Warner Bros gave Hitchcock a very low budget for Strangers on a Train, because Hitchcock's previous films like Rope, Under Capricorn, and Stage Fright were box office failures. Rope is now considered by many as one of Hitchcock's best films. Under Capricorn is now getting some attention from some people.

Strangers on a Train (1951) is a difficult film to explain. Each Hitchcock scene has a function. I thought Merry-go round was brilliant.

reply

Back in the day IMO you didn't need to high of a budget to make a brilliant film. Like you pointed out with Rope. This film had a lot of redeeming qualities but the ending killed the solid acting and cinematography.

"Kill him, so tears will flow through his household, not yours" Soviet anti-German poem, 1942

reply

A punch-out on a haywire merry-go-round? I couldn't think of a better ending.
Or was it the fast 'wrap-up' with the police that you thought stank?

reply

The Merry-Go-Round scene was a bit ahead of the times when it comes to cinematography. I didn't like the ending in general.

"Kill him, so tears will flow through his household, not yours" Soviet anti-German poem, 1942

reply

Actually the budget is very important. Hitchcock wanted William Holden for the leading role. He was a big star at that time. Due to low budget, Warner Bros decided to go for a star with much more less salary. So they suggested Hitchcock to cast Farley Granger. Hitchcock enjoyed working with Farley Granger in Rope (1948). So he casted him in Strangers on a Train (1951).

The ending has lots of philosophies and ideas. It should be noted that this is a Hitchcock film. Each scene has many functions.

For Example, Bruno Anthony is compared to a vampire in some of the scenes of this film.

reply

[deleted]


Some of things interested me are Edgar Allan Poe elements and how those elements are connected to characters in the film. Hitchcock puts symbolisms in his films. This film and Marnie are filled with Edgar Allan Poe references.

reply

Care to share some choice examples of the Poe references found in this film? I presume I´m not necessarily the only one ´round here for whom some of that stuff might ring a bell...


"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

SPOILERS

For Example, runaway Carousel. French Critics (Truffaut, Claude Chabrol and others) from Cahiers du Cinema noticed connections between runaway carousel and Edgar Allan Poe's A Descent into Maelstrom. In Poe's A Descent into Maelstrom, Old Man's ship was caught in the vortex. Old Man saw a hideous terror in Maelstrom. But in a moment of revelation, he saw that the Maelstrom is a beautiful creation and awesome creation. Old Man's fear turns into a huge fascination.

In runaway carousel, "Old" Man goes inside the carousel and stops machine. And the carousel crashes. When the carousel crashes, it fascinates the audience.

I also read in an article long time ago that there are connections between "Spectacles" in this film and "Vulture eye" in The Tell Tale Heart.

In 1961 interview, Hitchcock mentioned how much he was influenced by Poe's short stories. He started reading Poe's stories at the age of 16. Marnie (1964) is another film filled with Edgar Allan Poe references.

reply

I agree.
That scene is very good.
Nobody said a thing about the guy that got killed..because of that and the balloon scene I was expecting a darker Hitchcock. That was my only disappointment.

reply

I think the movie was a bit too simplistic, and Hitchcock could have done a better job making the movie more complex. Perhaps, being new in Hollywood, Hitchcock was trying too hard for the "mass appeal". Hitchcock certainly succeeded. This movie was a precursor for such big productions as "North By Northwest".

The thing I didn't like was the making of Farley Granger's character into too much of the "good guy". It would have been far more entertaining if his character appeared to be a "normal, likeable" man, but in reality sheltered a bitter, shallow, and vindictive man. He could have acted out his part of the "tacit agreement". Then, it would have been a morally much more complex thriller.

The ending especially "sold out". It was too contrived and obvious. First of all, the police shoot the carousel ride attendant on accident. The police fire into a crowd of children on a carousel. That's ridiculous. The ending was a happy one. Instead, it could have been much more ambiguous with the audience left thinking who was really the more "evil" of the two.

reply

Hitchcock wanted to end the film with Guy saying "Bruno Anthony, a clever fellow." But Warner Bros insisted Hitchcock to shoot the scene where Anne Morton (Ruth Roman) talks Guy (Farley Granger) on the phone and the ending in the train.

Police shooting to carousel has something to do with a real incident that happened in 1950.

reply

Yes, overrated; decent movie at best. Much like another Hitchcock classic, Vertigo, it was the ending that ruined the movie for me. I feel like the ending in both movies were written and executed without much thought. It could have been better.

reply

I looked at the IMDb score and couldn't agree at all. I gave it a 6. The ending was miserable, and the way the police sort of just went along for the ride with what seemed like zero investigation, just made little sense. Then, they don't let anyone search Bruno for the lighter?

reply

also some people rate it high bcus they really love it...i enjoy this even more than Vertigo and Psycho...my second favorite hitchcock film right behind Rear Window, which is one of my all time favorites

reply

Although it doesn't exaclty rank among my favorites, I was quite surprised to read this critic. First, the acting is really pretty good according to me, mostly the women, and the bad guy of course, whose caracter is extremely modern and disturbing by the way. The psychotic's mother was hilarous but still it worked. The main actor may not be the best, but not exactly bad either, not annoying anyway. The evil one is just amazing. I specially disagree about "modern casting" : plenty of modern films have really bad actors, often leading actors as well. No-one in this movie is exactly bad. Of course it's a movie from the 50's, you cannot expect them to behave as they would nowadays. About the accent I cannot even judge as I'm not english mother-tongue.
The part where the movie got me lost is starting from the tennis matchs. I'm not into tennis and the parallel between that supposedly furious match and the bad guy going the crime spot didn't work me, it was too impersonal. Still there are some things about the plot that didn't convince me. Why did he go with his gun to see the bad guy's father ? And, most of all, would you leave you gun to someone who's clearly a lunatic ? The police shooting in the middle of a crowd of children wasn't very realistic either. But the carousel scene was quite ahead of the times, it was tensed and nightmarish, I think it did work.

reply

Strangers on a Train is brilliant, not overrated. The acting was fantastic, the storyline was gripping and as usual there were many moments of suspense, twist and techniques which played on the audience's expectations. It kept me enthralled.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply

I have many of the same opinions as manuelcorbelli.

First of all, the parallel between the tennis match and the bad guy going to the crime spot didn't work for me either. Like one poster said, he could have easily tanked the match. It seemed that the "suspense" was a little fake.

I also wondered the same thing about the gun. Why take the gun to see the father? Continuing on the gun theme, why give the gun to a lunatic?

But I liked the merry-go-round scene. So many things going on at once! 1. The fight between Bruno and Guy on an out of control merry-go-ground. 2. The hysterical mothers who were concerned about their children. 3. The old man crawling underneath the dangerous and moving merry-go-round. Much better than the Mt. Rushmore scene, as an example, in North By Northwest.

reply

I think you make a lot of really good points. I disagree about Farley Granger though: I thought his acting was fine.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply