The Big Problem with the Criss-Cross Scheme
(aka ecarle.)
Many critics (including Pauline Kael) have praised Strangers on a Train for its "great" criss-cross murder scheme -- two strangers kill the other's "victim" so that nothing will trace back to the killer.
I think Kael wrote: "Its amazing that this scheme isn't used more often in real life."
Well, maybe yes, maybe no but...the whole PLOT of Strangers on a Train is what happens when (a) the murder actually takes place and (b) the "natural suspect" has no alibi.
Both parts of that equation are problematic. First of all, all signs point to Guy as the killer of his estranged, cheating, pregnant-by-another-man wife (especially when he wants to marry a Senator's daughter) so the police NATURALLY come to him.
But (b) is worse. Bruno's plan only works if Guy is seen by witnesses AWAY from the murder scene(this is how Ray Milland sets up HIS murder in Dial M for Murder -- he's at a stag party while his accomplice sets out to strangle his wife.)
Bruno didn't think through his plan.. He didn't make sure that Guy had an alibi and witnesses.
And I say: maybe Bruno NEVER INTENDED that.
Maybe Bruno -- deep down inside -- KNEW that if he killed Guy's victim, he WOULD implicate Guy...and force Guy to kill Bruno's father.
Its a "perfect crime" that goes wrong from the get-go. Criss-cross ain't so easy, after all.