JackFavell wrote:what an intricate write up, Maven! I like you talking about watching WATCHING. Perhaps this film will be available at some point for some of us who don't get the cable station. If so, I'll have to gear up for it. save it for a rainy day when I am feeling strong enough for some discomfort.
As you know, I love lesser known Hitchcock films like Waltzes from Vienna, Suspicion, The Paradine Case (now lost 131 minutes version), Under Capricorn, Stage Fright, Marnie, and Saboteur.
But I thought I should review Strangers on a Train. I feel that it is a little underrated.
I think Strangers on a Train is one of Hitchcock's best films. One of the things I have to disagree is the casting. I agree that Robert Walker is brilliant. But several people think Farley Granger and Ruth Roman are miscast in the film.
But I have to disagree. I thought Farley Granger and Ruth Roman were great. Alfred Hitchcock wanted a physically strong man like William Holden.
But I like Farley Granger better for this role, because he is more of a "physically" weak character (compared to Holden) and this gives the audience the feeling that he is unprotected. This also helps to make the villain look stronger.
Farley Granger's performance also gives an innocent touch to Guy Haines. This helps the audience to understand why he was deceived by a woman like Miriam.
Ruth Roman captures the inside fear of a woman beautifully. Her character "Anne Morton" is a loving and supportive character. But inside, she is filled with the frightening notion that Guy may have killed Miriam Haines.
In the beginning, Guy (Farley Granger) says through telephone to Anne Morton that he likes to strangle Miriam. And Miriam was strangled to death. One of the great things about Ruth Roman is we can read her fear through her face.
Anne Morton's love towards Guy becomes stronger especially when he visits Bruno and his mother to save Guy. She ends up crying with the frightening notion that Guy is in terrible danger and she feels that she is helpless despite her attempts to save him.
I like the teaming of Farley Granger and Ruth Roman, because of their ability to work together beautifully even in high degree of tension. They support each other strongly. They are very alike. To a great degree, We can connect pairing of Farley Granger/Ruth Roman to Hitchcock and his wife Alma. As you know, Hitchcock and Alma always worked together. Robert Walker is great as villain. I rate the film 10 out of 10.
If "Strangers" is underrated, I must be getting old. I remember when it was consistently listed as one of the director's best. I wholeheartedly agree. What's more, the dark, psychotic themes fit right in with the more colorful, cerebral films that have recently begun to receive high praise. VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW and the likes. STRANGERS ON A TRAIN is top notch Hitchcock any way you look at it!
Hello RedRiver,
With the exception of Robert Walker, I felt that Strangers on a Train (1951) was strongly criticized for performances from Farley Granger and Ruth Roman. Although it is considered as a great film, I felt that criticism of the performances made it look like an inferior film compared to other Hitchcock's best films. So I thought I should write about the film. I think Strangers on a Train (1951) is a great example that shows that you don't need big stars to make a successful film.
Anyway, I don't know if anyone knows this. Did you know that Alfred Hitchcock wanted to cast Anthony Perkins as Professor Armstrong in Torn Curtain? But Universal talked Hitchcock out of it and pushed him to cast Paul Newman. I thought Paul Newman was very dull.
With Topaz, I wish Hitchcock casted Louis Jourdan instead of Frederick Stafford for the leading role. It would have made the film better.
Konway----I didn't know about Hitch wanting Perkins for that role. He would have made it more interesting, at least. I agree Newman is not exciting and neither is the film. He and Julie have no chemistry.
I like your idea of Jourdan, too. Stafford is the weak link for me, I wanted to like him but found him cardboard.
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education." -- Will Rogers
MissG,
Here is the interview where Anthony Perkins reveals that Hitchcock wanted to put Perkins in Torn Curtain. I just want to tell you that the background music for this interview is too loud.
Anyway, Universal studio interferred and talked Hitchcock out of it. I thought the casting of Paul Newman was a disaster in Torn Curtain, because Hitchcock "had" to pay $750,000 dollars to Paul Newman. Hitchcock only had to pay $40,000 to Perkins for Norman Bates in Psycho. But what a performance from Perkins in Psycho (1960). With Newman, I thought his performance was very dull.
Paul Newman also interferred with the development of Torn Curtain. The lost "Hitchcockian" scene "Gromek's brother scene" was cut from the film due to Paul Newman's interference. Wolfgang Kieling (who played both Gromek and Gromek's brother) was very unhappy about the cutting of this scene. Wolfgang Kieling was no "big" star. But he was far better than Paul Newman in Torn Curtain. Hitchcock was also dissatisfied with Paul Newman's performance.
If Perkins played the leading role, then Hitchcock would have been able to put the ending he wanted for Torn Curtain. Hitchcock's ending would have made the film far more better. But it didn't happen.
Although Hitchcock had to pay $750,000 to Julie Andrews, still she didn't interfere like Paul Newman did. I think the pairing of Anthony Perkins and Julie Andrews would have been very interesting.
I thought I should post my review on Sabotage (1936). I have seen it several times.
Sabotage (1936)- "A Shock from Hitchcock!"
I loved this film. It had a strong impact on me when I watched it.
Although Hitchcock admits that putting "Boy with Bomb" Scenes in "Suspense" was a mistake, still I believe it gave a strong impact on the audience, because of losing someone you love and care about. This is because of the fact that the boy (Stevie) was such a likable character. He was innocent, funny, caring, kind, and supportive to his big sister Mrs. Verloc (Sylvia Sidney).
What is so powerful about this film is the "true" feeling of death.
The audience can completely feel the pain of Mrs. Verloc (Sylvia Sidney) when she finds out about the death of her little brother. This is one of those few moments where the audience share the feeling with a character in a film.
After the death of boy, we can feel the "death" of humor, innocence, happiness, and support. After the death of boy, we can feel how much Mrs. Verloc lost. When the boy dies, the spiritual existence of "Good" begins to die out. After Mrs. Verloc finds out the sad news, the innocence that existed within her is also gone forever.
I think the only thing that keeps the story going is the detective's love towards Mrs. Verloc. Like the audience, the detective (John Loder) liked the boy too. Just like the audience, the detective completely understands the miserable feeling of Mrs. Verloc. He wants Mrs. Verloc to survive, because he loves her. He knows that Mrs. Verloc is an innocent victim.
The film gives the depth of love, kindness, innocence, and all other good things through the destruction of an innocent young boy. Whenever I watch Mr. Verloc (Oskar Homolka) after the death of young boy, the famous line mentioned by James Stewart in Alfred Hitchcock's Rope comes up in my head. I made a variation of this line for Mr. Verloc. Here it is - "He (Mr. Verloc) has destroyed an innocent human being who could live and love as he never could. And never will again." Although it created a shock among critics about Boy with Bomb suspense scenes, still it is the kind of shock that can live in the hearts of many people for years and years to come! Wonderful Performances from Everyone. And A Wonderful Direction from Hitchcock. I rate the film 10 out of 10.
Your perceptive interpretation makes me want to reconsider this classic. Some of Hitchcock's British films are a little too subdued for me. Thoughtful, but not exciting. Your description is intriguing.
I liked Hitchcock's British films especially Sabotage (1936) and Waltzes from Vienna (1934), because of the interesting touches Hitchcock put in these films. The interesting thing is we can only identify them after repeated viewings. A Similar touch was used in Topaz. But due to the lack of time Hitchcock had, this idea wasn't elaborated in Topaz.
In Sabotage, we see Mrs. Verloc (Sylvia Sidney) and young brother Stevie making a toy boat. After the death of Stevie, there is a scene where Mr. Verloc (Oskar Homolka) accidentally hits the toy boat. We see the impact of young brother's support through that toy boat creation, because Steve helped Mrs. Verloc to make that toy boat. This is one of the moments where the audience is completely able to feel the sad feeling of Mrs. Verloc. This is because of the impact of shock that resulted from the "Boy with Bomb" Suspense scene.
In the beginning, Mr. Verloc (Oskar) is upset about the way the cabbage is cooked. Mrs. Verloc asks Stevie to go and next door to buy the cabbage. Near to the end of the film, Mr. Verloc complains about the cabbage again. But this time, there is no Stevie. We see Mrs. Verloc's sadness. This scene also shows the spiritual death of kindness, love, and support that she received from her younger brother.
.
I haven't read this whole thread yet, but I have seen The Girl and give a handful of kudoes to Cinemaven for her review of it. There are a few things I don't argue with, just enhance a little. Hitch and Alma's marriage was a planned thing for them - not by their parents, but by them for what 'kind' of marriage they would have. Alma was supposedly the brains behind the scene. Most of the really shocking scenes were her babies, and I'm pretty sure she didn't care a fig if he roamed, as long as he was discreet about it. As for working with Hitch again to do Marnie, the reasoning is right there in the little snip of dialog about Marnie being frigid. It would be really hard to even be the finest actress in the universe, and act frigid with Connery at his peak which he definitely was at that time. I watched The Girl twice in one week because the first time, I came in at what I thought was the middle, but actually only missed about 15 minutes. However, I wanted to be sure I understood some of the nuances by seeing it twice. I'm not sure who that little man was that played Hitch, but he seemed to have the character of the man right on spot. His obsession was not only with Tippi, although it was most obvious with her, but he had a 'thing' for all his blond leading ladies. (You may have noticed that all of Hitch's ladies are blond). Kim Novak has stories about him as does Vera Miles, and Grace Kelly did. The thing was, they all knew he could get the very best out of them, so they were willing to put up with his weird attitudes during filming. It was a long time ago, and I no longer have it, but I got a lot of this out of a magazine article in a Family Circle or Woman's Day, or something co-written by Alma. No matter how he acted, there is no denying that the man was a magician at directing.
.
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
I love what you wrote about Sabotage, Konway. I feel this is one of the most intensely emotional of Hitch's British films or among them all, mainly because of just what you eloquently pointed out about Stevie and his sister's reactions. That was lovely writing, really. I've always liked that film and it's my favorite after The Lady Vanishes from his British period. I like Lady just because it's fun and a pleasant watch, rather like To Catch a Thief would be later on.
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education." -- Will Rogers
YOUNG AND INNOCENT is a fine, and surprisingly obscure, British entry. But that one's more along the fast-moving, hold onto your hats line. 39 STEPS-ish!
Thanks, Miss G. Hitchcock wanted to use this idea of Sabotage again in Torn Curtain. But the studio disagreed with him. MissG, I highly recommend Hitchcock's Waltzes from Vienna if you haven't seen it. Its available for free now, because it is in public domain. Along with Sabotage, It is one of my favorite British films from Hitchcock.
Here is the link -
Although it is a 1933 film, still I was fascinated by the ideas and shots in this film. I wonder where Hitchcock's cameo is in Sabotage (1936).
RedRiver, I like Young and Innocent too. I love the car crash scene in the old mine.
I like Young and Innocent, too. His early English films often have a great deal of charm and I like pretty much all of them. I'm glad they are getting restored.
Waltzes in Vienna is next on my list to watch, thanks Konway.
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education." -- Will Rogers
MissG, I also want to point out that Hitchcock's Waltzes from Vienna is a musical. Not a thriller. But a very good one with interesting Hitchcock touches in it. Its Hitchcock's only musical film. When you mentioned about great deal of charm, it immediately reminded me of Stage Fright. After several years in America, Hitchcock decided to shoot Stage fright (1950) in England. I think it brings back the charm Hitchcock's british films had before he came to America.
With Young and Innocent, the novel it was based on was a whodunnit. Hitchcock wasn't into mystery, because the strength of mystery can lose its effect after its first viewing or repeated viewings. This is because Mystery has to do with keeping the information from the audience. After mystery is solved, the audience may not watch the film again, because they know what the mystery is all about. As you know, Hitchcock loved Suspense and is considered as the "Master of Suspense." Unlike Mystery, Suspense gives "information" to the audience. For Example, 2 men are playing cards on the table. But they don't know that there is a bomb under the table. But the audience knows that there is a bomb under the table. So the information is provided to the audience and they are in suspense.
So Hitchcock did "Young and Innocent" where the audience knows from the very beginning that Derrick De Marney (Robert) is innocent and he is on the run. We don't want him to be caught, because he will be punished for something he hasn't done. But in the end, we are relieved from tensions of Suspense because all the problems are solved. Due to this satisfaction, we have a tendency to watch the film again and again.
