Hitchcock is famous for using motifs in his films, including birds, staircases, even blondes. In Strangers on a Train, he pulled out all the stops to incorporate doubles, crisscrosses, and intersections into the film.
One of the first thing i notice in the film is their shoes that tells something about their character, one being straightforward and everyman like appearance and the other is bold and eccentric which already conveys or hints at their personality.
Bruno wears a tie with two crabs in the train. The Hitchcock cameo with the double bass is also a double stuff, both of them have similar color and shape. Great video, I like this film very much.
whatt...this is crazy, I just finished watching Strangers on a Train, then to look up a video essay on it finding that it was uploaded just recently....crazy
That’s a Hitchcock-level twist! Fair warning that next week’s episode looks like it may be about Bye Bye Birdie... just in case you’re looking for something to watch next weekend.
As an avid fan of Hitchcock films, I thoroughly enjoyed your excellent analysis of this classic. Thanks and looking forward to more of your reviews of classic films. Another Hitchcock film with the doubles motif is "Shadow of a Doubt" (1943), would love to hear your review of that one too, thanks.
Here's one---the film features two key scenes which take place on a carousel : the first has Miriam, her two dates (!) and Bruno all aboard the merrygoround at the same time, and the second scene is the spectacular out of control whirl and ultimate crash.
There is actually a scene with a bird in the film, an imposing stone eagle on the foreground who watches over the tennis match near the film's climax. Amazing how Hitchcock repeats his motifs!
Thanks for this! I just watched the movie and didn’t get much out of it, so this really helped me understand it. If I could add to this, I noticed a few wide shots with Bruno standing in shadow or in front of a dark background while Guy stood in the light. It’s interesting to see a whole movie framed around a motif like this, and hats off to you for picking up on all of this
Excellent video. You can also see important similarities between the lighter and the glasses. Both of them function as a “gift”, Guy lends Anthony the lighter at the beginning, and Anthony gives Miriam’s glasses to Guy after he kills her. They also function as a way to know who the killer is, Anne realizes this because Miriam and Barbara both had glasses as you mentioned, and the police finally gets Anthony because he had the lighter, also taking into account that it used as a threat to Guy throughout the movie. It is important that these similarities between the two things start when they both fall together after Miriam is murdered. Thanks a lot, like and new subscription!
@@nicolarralde this was a really good film and very underrated, i've been a Hitchcock fan for long time but i never saw this before, my favorite films were rear window, psycho, dial m for murder but after watching strangers on a train 3 years ago its now up there on my list. Rear window, dial m for murder and strangers on a train is brilliant, the 50's just looks so great it makes me want to live in those days. The way people are dressed, talking, people were polite, girls would talk to men I mean I dont know it looks like life was simple then
@@Gencturk92 I agree, Strangers on a Train is one of my favorite movies and an underrated Hitchcock movie. Things back then seemed to be nicer, but also think that we see this through movies!
It is really good work, deserves more views. I've seen this film so many times, and I Never thought about "doubles"... Oh no, is there something wrong with me?! Haha Love the movie, love your video.
Not sure about that (I thought he was just in the rubble), but I was more impressed by the ride operator crawling under the moving carousel. I’ve heard a few times that that was the guy who normally operated the carousel (not an actor or stuntman). Not sure if that’s true, but would be a great stunt for an amateur to have done.
The record store scene has these doubles: 2 women at the counter, including Miriam. Miriam wears glasses - 2 lenses add a 2nd element to her sight. When guy and Miriam enter the listening booth together, there are couples in the 2 other booths behind them with the men on the right. But when Guy and Miriam come in, she is on the right with the 2 other men, Then switches to the left when things change about the divorce. The man in the next booth is always visible to the left of Guy or Miriam. Oh, yeah - Miriam is pregnant - 2 people in 1 body. And we see Guy play at a tennis court 2x. The scene where Bruno first follows Guy home and waits across the street is amazing for the use of shadows and light, Bruno trying to draw Guy behind the bars, out of the light and into the dark with him. Guy on a moral fence and trying not to go there, then realizing he is trapped. Criss-cross indeed.
Some of the continuing motifs in Hitchcock films are merely places/things that the director enjoyed and probably found challanging as well as artistic, like trains. In "The Lady Vanishes" (my favorite), Hitch built a vast train model just because he wanted to. Is a great observation about 'doubles' in "Strangers on a Train". The almost obsession with these pairings does seem in fact a main point of the whole film. Maybe this is one reason why the Hitchcock film is so much more successful than Woody Allen's obvious homage in "Match Point," which seems kind-of lifeless in comparison.
The sequence where Bruno murders Miriam at the funfair as seen through her dropped glasses on the grass was way ahead of its time. Hitchcock was always ahead of the game
Your snippet from Birds....shows the crows on playground equipment, and then, as Hedren realizes something's up, she begins to rise....and watch her collar line, like wings...
That’s a good idea. I’ve touched on The Apartment and Sunset Boulevard in other videos, but I haven’t done one solely about a Wilder film. Double Indemnity is one of my favorites, so that might be a good one to dig in to.
Just try counting all the doubles allusions on my friend Damon's TV serial "Lost" -- and the motif's a clue to the real plot! And now, thanks to your RU-vid, I just got 3 allusions "Lost" made to "Strangers on a Train": Charlie's trying to carry a big string instrument onto the airliner, a couple of characters being strangled after answering questions, and the whole "go back" motif with another flight. What it also makes me wonder now is whether the real plot included a "trade" of scams; I'd been considering this lately but thought it unlikely, but if "Lost" is pointing specifically to "Strangers on a Train", that gives that hypothesis additional credence.
Lost also alluded very heavily and cleverly to "North By Northwest" -- for instance, by compass heading 325 -- and to "Psycho". And to who knows how much other Hitchcockiana I missed?
I absolutely love, LoOoVe that your covering this, becuz it's one of my favorite scenes, ("criss cross, I kill your wife, you kill my father, criss cross") And did you know they used that scene in an 80's movie called "throw moma from the train ~imobsessed~
Very good, Jeff! “Strangers on a Train” is probably my favorite Hitchcock movie, though I love them all. Plus I’m a huge tennis fan. I love all the doubles you picked up on. It’s a shame Guy wasn’t playing doubles in his tennis match. To add to your list 😊 Do you think Hitchcock intentionally used this motif? (It’s hard to imagine that it was unintentional.). Or was it an unconscious OCD episode? LOL
I remember a French filmmaker analysing Hitchcock films, was it Truffault? He did a good breakdown. Speaking of doubles, I think that there was a Truffault film that was copied exactly by the maker of either A Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Last House on the Left. Maybe you'd like to compare the scenes?
A Million Movies there was another movie based on this one, wasn’t there?? I remember some documentary saying this, but now I can’t remember what other movie it was! Do you know which movie was created off this one? I think it was with women who where the murderers...maybe it was a show on a series on tv...perhaps a tv murder mystery! I can’t remember! I really thought it was a movie though. Do you remember?? Thanks! Great channel! Will check out Arsnic & Old Lace on your channel! Love Cary Grant! 😊
Very clever to notice all the doubles but why was it done? What is the profound meaning of 'doubles' or is it just a directorial 'shtick'? Would the film have been just as meaningful without all the references to doubles? Thank you.
Possibly, but Hitchcock movies are filled with little extras that help convey a theme or reinforce a meaning. You can read his movies almost like literature that way.
Benny Hill has a sketch where a film director is being praised for the brilliant symbolism in his movies, like a dog running up to a character or switching from color to black and white. In each case he learns there is no symbolism. The dog just ran in front of the camera and they were out of money so they switched to cheaper stock. Do you have any evidence that Hitchcock planned for neckties and cigarette lighters to mean these things or are you just seeing what you want to see?
I think it may be a coincidence if it happens once, but it happens in all of his movies and a lot of times in this one. You also have to take into account that these things are related, they are not just things that are repeated, they have a purpose, for example they both look at the time and think about hands at the same moment, as shown and explained in the video. Also the whole purpose of repeating things in a movie (symmetry) is to show that they are not just a coincidence. Good luck!
Very interesting, but why did they do all this? With a few exceptions, the many extra twos don't add anything to the plot or impact -- do they? Mebbe they just did it to impress nerds like us. Was Hitchcock aware of all this -- was it his doing, the core of his genius?
Hitchcock used lots of symbolism in his movies. There are a million decisions a director makes during a production, and I’d bet some of these were planned and others were just things that fell into place that continued his theme.
Check out the heavy (in some cases heavy-handed) visual symbolism on a single motif in the movie adaptation of "The Mothman Prophecies". (BTW, I got friendly with John Keel in his later years.) The motif was of dual red lights, and that symbolically encoded a contributing factor to why the Silver Bridge collapsed when it did: traffic lights stuck on red on both ends of the bridge. The book and the movie seemed to all be about mystical causes of the collapse, but there the movie was encoding something to say it wasn't so mysterious after all. (In fairness, Keel's book mentioned that too.) The structural weakness of the bridge has been well documented.
From a modern perspective, I really can't appreciate these details, I don't see how the double motif complements anything. I'm not criticizing, I just don't get it.
I totally get that. In some movies, they can feel too subtle or even too in your face, and it’s hard to see how they improve the movie. For me, they give me a better understanding of what the director is trying to communicate beyond the entertainment value of the movie. Modern directors use them too. For example, Edgar Wright’s movies are loaded with them.
@@AMillionMovies I’m currently taking a cinema course in university, after a few lectures I’m starting to appreciate cinematography better from a more analytical prospective. This was one of the first films we watched and I think we didn’t get to talk a lot about when I wrote down this comment. I do now notice a lot more of the choices made by film directors. Thank you for the reply.
The Bruno/ Guy characters should be reversed. For some reason, the skinny guy seems to fit Bruno's personality. Or maybe it's just me? This movie was the inspiration for the movie Throw Mama from the Train.
Been a bit since I’ve seen it, but I think he asked her for the divorce when they were in the record store. I think she threatened to say the baby was his and that he was abandoning her.
Sir, you have missed the most obvious and most over-arching "doubles" throughout the whole movie: male/male, Guy and Bruno. There is an obvious homosexual subtext to the whole relationship between Guy and Bruno. Note how they meet by playing "footsies" with one another in the beginning of the movie. Guy has an obvious reluctance to be seen in public with Bruno. I could go on and on. The book, by Patricia Highsmith, is even more explicit about the homosexual subtext than the movie. The Supreme Court has ruled gay marriage Constitutional. You don't have to be reluctant at broaching a subject matter that was once deemed taboo. If I seem a little irritated it is because I am. Having aired my irritation, however, you did a very good analysis of the film. Thank you.
Definitely, wrote a paper on this film years ago, about the obvious homoeroticism and homosexual subtext in the film and the sexual tension between the two men.Back then, everything was subtext, nothing was stated or shown overty, but it was heavily implied and masterfully hinted at with symbols, storytelling and filming techniques, lines, etc. Hitchcock was especially masterful and making things clear while still being able to get past the censors. Every scene is masterfully crafted to say a thousand more words than what is said and shown. Take for example, the very first scene. Like you noticed, literally in that first scene they meet by playing footsies, with Bruno probably purposefully positioning his feet that way because he saw Guy walking towards his table...so right from the beginning there is that heavy subtext and clues. Bruno is openly gay, while Guy is more repressed about his attraction to other men. Bruno doesn't fit into society, partly because he is so eccentric but also because he doesn't hide or repress his homosexuality. Guy on the other hand, fits in to society like the boy-next-door, precisely because he chooses to deny and represses his homosexuality. Bruno from the beginning shows an obvious attraction towards Guy, and is openly flirtatious towards him. Bruno isn't just attracted or romantically interested in Guy, he's absolutely infatuated, enamored with and even becomes obsessed, and starts basically stalking him. Guy's feelings towards Bruno are conflicted, he wants him gone, but at the same time he cares about him, he thinks he's crazy, but at the same time he loves him. On one hand he's bewildered by this new relationship with this sometimes motionally abusive man that exhibits stalker-like behavior, and is clearly obsessed with him. On the other hand, he finds it exciting, intriguing, enthralling. He likes being the object of Bruno's desire, enjoys Bruno's pursuit of him, deep down he likes the fact that Bruno is obsessed with him, even though part of him is afraid of that obsession. Guy is effectively seduced, finds himself tangled in the web of Bruno's charm and guile, enamored with Bruno but also aware that he's caught in this bond with him and he can't escape it. There's the duality of the differences in the two men's personalities, but also how in some ways they were very similar. The murder scheme (a secret they share) is almost a metaphor for the even bigger secret they share: their homosexual relationship, and the struggles of being homosexual in the time period in which they lived (a common theme in Highsmith's stories).
Yeah, and what about the two lenses in the glasses? And the two men walking by at any given moment. The point is, if you're making a movie with two main characters you would have to flip back and forth to them unless they were together alot, which they weren't. I thought this was a very over rated film with great cinematogrophy and incredibly bad acting.
I don't understand Hitchcock's choice to use Farley Granger as a lead in two of his better stories. His terrible acting knock both Strangers' and Rope, down a peg, in comparison to some of his best.
