Strangers on a Train is a Hitchcock film from the middle of his Hollywood era. It has one of Hitchcock’s craziest villains and one of the weirdest finales. Which with Hitchcock is really saying something. The premise is that two strangers meet on a train and one of them proposes that each commit a murder that benefits the other. The idea is since they’re perfect strangers they won’t be suspected in a murder associated with the stranger but not himself. The one proposing the deal is a very strange man named Bruno Anthony (played by Robert Walker) who hates his father. The other man is a relatively famous amateur tennis player named Guy Haines (played by Farley Granger) who has an unstable and unfaithful wife Miriam, that he’d like to divorce to marry Anne Morton, the daughter of a US Senator. But Miriam refuses to allow it because of the monetary benefits marriage provides. Guy doesn’t even know how to react to this outrageous proposal so he treats it jokingly and gets off the train at his stop. But he accidentally leaves his very expensive and monogrammed cigarette lighter on the train with Bruno. Guy may treat this proposition as a joke but Bruno certainly doesn’t. We get a scene with Bruno and his parents. Bruno and his mother are both lunatics but she seems relatively harmless. We hear his father state that he will have Bruno put away. This activates Bruno and he proceeds to murder Miriam at an amusement park. He stalks her and flirts with her and chokes the life out of her. Then he casually walks away.
Bruno goes immediately to Guy and announces that he has carried out his side of the bargain and expects Guy to kill Bruno’s father. When Guy threatens to call the police Bruno counters by saying both would be held responsible in the conspiracy. Most of the rest of the movie involves Bruno hounding Guy even within his circle of friends. And this is where you realize that Bruno is the most interesting character in the movie. His insanity does not prevent him from entertaining the minor characters at dinner parties and outside restaurants. He tells Anne’s father about his theory of interplanetary clairvoyance and he entertains an old lady socialite with his theories on murder. Unfortunately he gets carried away and almost chokes her to death at a dinner party. All in all he’s a very spirited fellow. But eventually all good things come to an end and when guy doesn’t come through with his “criss-cross” side of the murder bargain, Bruno decides to frame him for the original murder using the monogrammed lighter as evidence.
Several additional scenes advance the story to the climax and we return to the scene of the crime, the amusement park. A very bizarre and cinematically interesting scene with a carousel brings it to a head and Bruno and Guy and the police finally sort things out.
Even though Guy and his friends are the innocent victims, I never felt all that much sympathy for them. They don’t really evoke much interest. They’re all kind of flat. So, despite the fact that he’s a thoroughgoing psychopath, the movie is really the Bruno Anthony show. And as creepy as he is he definitely keeps my interest. I like this Hitchcock pretty well but I could see how it might not appeal to all tastes. Caveat emptor.
Continuing on with the British films I’ll review “The Thirty Nine Steps.” This is another espionage tale where the civilian protagonist is swept up in a confusing web of events that he must navigate or be left holding the bag in a murder manhunt. Our hero is a Canadian visiting London on a work assignment who meets up with a femme fatale at a London music hall and quickly gets drawn into her attempt to prevent a spy ring from stealing vital British military secrets. When she ends up in his apartment with a large knife protruding from her back he flees the scene to attempt to clear himself by finding and foiling the espionage ring.
The coincidences, unlikely events and sheer dumb luck that fills the story line makes the suspension of disbelief out of the question. But Hitchcock replaces it with humor, human interest and a twisting turning plot line that comes full circle and provides the payoff. Along the way you meet a varied cast of characters each lovingly fleshed out by the dialog and script. One of my favorites is a milkman delivering to the hero’s building the morning he’s trying to escape from the scene of the murder. He tries to recruit the milkman to help him escape the scene of the murder but the deliveryman flat out refuses to believe that there’s been a murder and he’s trying to elude the killers. When the protagonist relents and claims that he’s just spent the night with a married woman and is trying to elude her husband the milkman immediately falls in with the plan and agrees to help without further complaint. The fleeing man is obviously a brother in arms to the apparently philandering milkman. Quite a lot of dialog is lavished on this completely ancillary plot device but it’s just this attention to detail that makes the picture memorable and interesting. And there are several of these types of vignettes sprinkled in the picture. And there’s a sort of love story although it does involve being handcuffed to a fleeing murder suspect and being gagged and even choked at one point. But in Hitchcock love will find a way.
The final twist of the story as I mentioned, circles round to the beginning of the story and is quite clever although there were clues if you were paying attention earlier. All in all, it is a very well put together plot.
Once again, we have an earlier British Hitchcock that equals or even exceeds the quality of the Hollywood era “classics” that Hitchcock is famous for. With actors that are complete unknowns to an American audience and immersed in the unfamiliar and idiosyncratic milieu of 1930s Britain, Hitchcock constructs an interesting and highly entertaining story out of a totally improbable premise.
I will dial back my praise with one caveat. For the younger readers who have been saturated from birth with high definition picture and sound quality, it may be a little off-putting to see an old black and white movie from the 1930s. This is a restored film where the worst of the sound and visual damage has been repaired. But it’s picture quality is not even close to 2018 standards. For those viewers of an older vintage this warning is of course unnecessary.
This review is of the earlier British version of the film. Simply stated, in my opinion, it’s the better film. No disrespect to Jimmy Stewart or Doris Day but the 1950s version is not even close to the original. Once again Hitchcock gives us a tale of everyday people colliding with the world of spies. In this story there is an international plot to assassinate a foreign leader. And an English couple who accidentally become entangled in it are forced to choose between stopping the killing or getting their kidnapped daughter back alive.
The film opens up in the Swiss Alps where Bob and Jill Lawrence along with their young daughter Betty are involved in some sporting competitions. Jill is a competing in a skeet shooting match and sometime during the games they have befriended a French downhill skier named Louis Bernard. After the competitions they all attend a dinner and dance party. During the party Louis is fatally shot but he manages to tell the Lawrences that he has a secret message that must be given to the British Consulate. Bob finds the message in Louis’ room but before he can inform the consulate he receives a message telling him to say nothing if he ever wants to see his daughter Betty alive again. She’s been kidnapped.
So that’s the setup. And it takes the rest of the movie for Bob and Jill to figure out the message and find the spies without the help of the police. In between there are homicidal dentists, sun-worshipping churches and classical music performances at the Albert Hall and most importantly there is Peter Lorre as Abbott. He will be the only actor familiar to American viewers and he is definitely the highlight of the movie. Of course, he’s the head villain and the most interesting character in the film. Being Peter Lorre, he is palpably creepy but at the same time not completely unsympathetic as a character. His dealings with the Lawrences are strangely cordial, almost friendly, as if it’s all just an unfortunate business situation and there are no hard feelings. And he can inject a touch of humor into the film such as in a scene where Abbott has left the hideout and gone down to the street to talk to the police. When the gang hears a police whistle blowing they suspect the worst has occurred. Hearing footsteps approaching they pull their guns. When Lorre opens the door, he sees the guns and he puts his hands up and smiles playfully at his gang as if to say, “Well, you’ve got me. Now what?” It’s just a throwaway moment but it does provide a human touch to the character and gives an extra dimension to the scene.
The climax of the film is a protracted gun battle between the London police force and the spy ring. Hitchcock really went to town with this scene and the bad guys start off with a fusillade of lead that seemed more appropriate in a World War II machine gun battle. The merry mayhem goes on for a good little while and forces the police to raid a hunting store to obtain high powered rifles to compete with the weaponry the bad guys are sporting. I guess Hitchcock can be seen here to be one of the fathers of the action film.
What I especially liked about this film is the way Hitchcock adds in the little touches that aren’t central to the plot. During the gun battle the English police officers commandeer the surrounding buildings and watching them interact with the tenants and order them around in their own homes was very interesting not because it advanced the story or included characters that would be seen again but because it was humanly interesting.
I like the British Hitchcock films because I think they’re more grounded in the real world that he came from. The common people seem a little more real than his later attempts at bystanders and incidental characters as if they were based on real individuals he had known. Hitchcock is known for his crime films and these mundane bits don’t seem to belong in that genre but to the contrary, I think it’s the mundane but authentic elements in a story that make it feel real and that gives it impact. Otherwise it becomes just fantasy. Well anyway that’s my opinion.
Of all the films made by Alfred Hitchcock, the one that most closely aligns with the feel of Hollywood’s Golden Era is Notorious. The action of the characters and the look and feel of the scenes adheres to the conventions and formulas of that period’s filmmaking. And I mean this in a positive sense. The production values are excellent. The actors are the finest. The dialog and plot are very well done. A good case can be made that this is the best movie made in Hitchcock’s long and successful career as a filmmaker. The movie takes place in 1946. World War II had just ended and Nazis were still topical. Ingrid Bergman’s character, Alicia Huberman, is the daughter of a German spy recently convicted of espionage in the United States. She is a loyal American and agrees to help the U.S. government in the person of T. R. “Dev” Devlin played in his typically winning way by Cary Grant. Naturally they fall in love but the problem is the government wants Alicia to become romantically entangled with a German industrialist living in Rio de Janeiro named Alex Sebastian (played by the inimitable Claude Rains in his remarkably idiosyncratic way). She is supposed to find out what dastardly plots these escaped Nazis are planning. This of course leads to jealousy and spite in Devlin and pain and anger in Alicia. When circumstances force her to marry Sebastian to maintain the espionage this further poisons the relationship between our two star crossed lovers (are there any other kind?). The plot has twists and turns and uranium salts (which got Hitchcock in trouble with the real US Government) but throughout we root for the love story and hiss at the bad guys (in this case Nazis and the US Secret Service). The remarkable thing in this movie is that although Claude Rains is the evil Nazi you kind of sympathize with his character at certain turns. He is the unfortunate man in a house with two women, his new wife and his domineering mother. And he is haunted by the ubiquitous Cary Grant popping up everywhere and presumably a rival for his wife’s affections. Who wouldn’t want an atom bomb available under those difficult circumstances?
Hitchcock’s cinematic work began well before Hollywood’s Golden Era and in England. He continued to create popular and original thrillers well into the 1960s, long after the studio system had disappeared. Thus, Hitchcock is not defined by or limited to the Golden Era sensibilities. But Notorious without a doubt possesses the “classic” look of that era and definitely deserves its reputation as a masterpiece. Anyone interested in Hitchcock or the movies of the ‘30s and ‘40s should consider viewing this film.
Now put all that aside. Notorious is a great story. Hitchcock provides all kinds of suspense and intrigue. Everyone on both sides is hiding something from everyone, including themselves. So much deception even starts to trip up the deceivers and eventually it all starts to crumble. The ending is a collapse all around and a fitting finale. I highly recommend this movie and hope you’ll enjoy the performances not only by the three main characters but also from all those bit part Nazis doing their best to be wonderfully evil.
The trailer for this movie says it is fourteen years since the original Incredibles debuted. That must be true but because at that time I had neither children nor grandchildren of an age to watch it I missed its appearance altogether. Probably four or five years ago I read that it was probably the only Disney film of recent vintage without a truly ponderous social justice taint so I took it out and liked it. I watched it with the grandkids and they really liked it too. But when I saw the coming attractions for the sequel I was annoyed to find a bunch of blather about Mr. Incredible being relegated to Mr. Mom and Elasti-Girl (Mrs. Incredible) being the heroic superhero who earns the daily bread. And so, it was with a certain amount of trepidation that I took Camera Girl and the two older grandsons to the dying local movie palace to see the film.
Well, my fears were unnecessary. The movie is good. By the necessity of a sequel being somewhat derivative by its very nature Incredibles 2 may not rate as highly by some measures and to some audiences. I found it extremely enjoyable. Aside from any measures of technical or visual excellence the story line is meager as expected for this genre but acceptable, the main characters retain their original charm and the interactions between the family members defines the heart of the movie. It is a celebration of the traditional nuclear family. Mr. Incredible is a 1950s Dad. Elasti-Girl could be Donna Reed and the kids are the usual bundle of sibling rivalry, growing pains and mischief but whenever the chips are down the family pulls together to save the day and each other.
I’ll keep this short. If you have kids or grandkids bring them to this movie. And if you don’t, then go see it yourself. You’ll have a good time. My personal favorite scene in the movie is Mr. Incredible coming to terms with his kid’s “new math” homework. His anguished cry of, “Why would they change math?”, brought back such memories of exactly the same scene in my home that I probably laughed out loud in the theater like an idiot. Maybe there is still some hope for Disney. I mean I doubt it, but at least they didn’t alter the characters. They’re still who they were and still a lot of fun.
Spoiler alert. If you don’t want to know how this movie ends don’t read this. But just know that I don’t recommend this movie.
Last week was a birthday party for one of my grandsons. I was talking to my two older grandsons (13 and 10 years old) and told them I’d seen a commercial for The Incredibles Part 2. They told me it was already out so I told them I’d take them to see it Saturday. (May 19th). Well I checked the theater listings on Friday and it turns out The Incredibles doesn’t start playing until June. Not wanting to disappoint the kids I asked them if there was anything else out they wanted to see. Well, they said The Avengers. I’d brought them to see the first two and they were pretty good. But I’d heard that the third one (Civil War) was starting to get lefty preachy so I skipped it. So, I went to Infinity War with some trepidation. And I had good cause.
This movie is a hot mess. They threw everything and the kitchen sink into it. There’s all the Avenger characters, then they added in the Guardians of the Galaxy crew for good measure. Then there was someone called Doctor Strange and some stray characters with him. He seemed to be some kind of imitation Dr. Who – Time Lord character. Then they threw in the Black Panther characters. And just in case there was anyone who wanted more, they threw in Spiderman. All these various characters are working together to defeat Thanos. He’s collecting the Infinity Stones and if he gets all six of them he’ll be able to perform his plan which is to kill half of all the intelligent beings in the Universe. There’s all kinds of battles and fights and at the end Thanos wins and his power kills half of the world. You see half of the Avengers and the other super heroes evaporating into dust.
Now, what the hell kind of Super Hero movie is that to bring kids to? The good guys lose and half of everyone in the world dies. Of course, in the next movie they’ll bring them all back to life but what a depressing stupid mess! Thanks Marvel. Well I sure hope they don’t ruin the Incredibles too. Honestly, I’m starting to wonder if the only movies worth watching are from a generation ago. I’m going to start making a list of the movies that we watched as kids and renting or buying them so the grandkids have stuff worth watching.
Kubrick produced some very memorable films. All the ones I’ve seen are extremely idiosyncratic. Full Metal Jacket is definitely in the same mold. It tells the story of a group of U.S. Marines from boot camp to their participation in the Tet Offensive during the height of the Vietnam War.
In the opening scene the Drill Sargent played memorably by R. Lee Ermey berates and sometimes beats on the recruits to cow them and focus their attention on how serious their situation was. I won’t reveal the details of the boot camp section of the movie but suffice it to say that the consequences of the discipline prove to be as serious as the consequences of war itself.
After the boot camp scenes we go directly to Vietnam and meet up with the new Marines. One has ended up as a reporter with the military news service “Stars and Stripes.” He is bored and anxious to get into the field to see the real war. With the beginning of the Tet Offensive he gets his wish. He’s sent up country and meets up with one of his boot camp buddies and joins their patrol. Here he sees the real war with all the brutality and even criminality associated with a guerilla war. And here we meet the most interesting character of the movie, Animal Mother played by the inimitable Adam Baldwin. He’s the M60 machine gunner of the platoon wearing ammunitions belts like bandoliers across his chest and shooting an enormous number of rounds at anything that fired at him. When asked how the war should end he stated that the “smart guys” should bomb North Vietnam into surrendering. He’s brutal and completely uninterested in helping the South Vietnamese, only in killing the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese and anyone else who gives him trouble.
The final battle scenes show the patrol running into a sniper position. One of their men is hit in a forward position. The acting squad leader is worried that a large North Vietnamese force is ahead and doesn’t allow his men to retrieve the downed man even after the sniper continues to wound him with additional shots. Finally after seeing the wounded man hit several times, Animal Mother charges in. He manages to reach cover and determines that a lone sniper is at work. When the patrol reaches him they take further casualties including the acting squad leader. The final scenes show the ironic nature of this unconventional war and the effect it has on the Americans who have to navigate it. But as insane as their world has become, they still celebrate the fact that they’ve survived what so many have not.
Based on the tone of his earlier movie “Doctor Strangelove” I assume Kubrick was not a patriotic cheerleader of the Vietnam War but I would say he represented the war right down the middle. He showed the horror but he doesn’t have the men represented by only pacifists. They represent a cross-section of attitudes. They show a cross section of behaviors from humane to sadistic.
It’s been called a classic. I’d say Full Metal Jacket is a Kubrick style take on the Vietnam War. I have a brother-in-law who was in the Tet Offensive. I remember his description of what went on and it seems to jibe very closely to what Kubrick is showing. That speaks well of what Kubrick made. I think it’s a good movie and one of the few representations of that war that gets it right.
“It’s a Gift” and “The Man on the Flying Trapeze” are two of my favorite movies. I often tell Camera Girl that she reminds me of the wife in those movies. And she often throws things at me afterwards. Fields was a sort of genius in my opinion.
“No doubt exists that all women are crazy; it’s only a question of degree.”
W. C. Fields
The recent furor over the large audience for Roseanne Barr’s tv show and the rumor about Fox resurrecting Last Man Standing got me thinking about what it would be like if TV and the Movies produced a certain amount of product every year for troglodytes like me. And let me try to be precise. I don’t mean generic action or sci-fi shows where the eighty-pound magic girl kung-fu-fights her way through acres of white South African and Serbian villains. And I don’t mean family drama about blue collar guys who clean up after a hard day on the construction site and strut their stuff on the local drag-queen circuit.
So that’s what I don’t want. But what would I prefer? You know, it’s been so long since there was a choice other than weirdo-liberation of the week tv that I actually have to imagine what it would be. Well, for a start how about a tv family where Mom stays home with the kids and Dad goes to work? And how about a family where everyone is heterosexual or even better let’s just say normal? And how about the words gay, lesbian or trans never come up? And imagine if there are no disgruntled minorities aggrieved about the name of the school being Washington or Jefferson? And how about if no one forces the boys’ baseball team to add a girl to the squad for “fairness?” And imagine if we never have to hear about “Black Lives Matter” or “White Privilege?” Suppose gun control and hate speech are unknown ideas? And just to round things out, if we never mention Obama, Al Gore or Climate Change I’ll be happy.
You know what was a pretty good sit-com? “Home Improvement” was actually almost perfect. Innocuous comedy, family warmth and chemistry between the actors playing the family. What else do you need? And here’s a thought, when Tim Allen already has a popular family show on tv, why not try supporting the show instead of cancelling it when it’s near the top of the ratings for its viewing night? ABC, you are truly hopeless. Walt Disney must be spinning in his grave.
Now as for action-adventure, just have Americans blowing up foreigners and space aliens and pretty much I’m there. Did I mention I don’t need any sexual weirdos or racial politics? Good. Try to remember it and I’ll go see your movies.
But who am I kidding? Hollywood would rather go broke than support normal values. They have too many friends in the LGBTQ weirdo network to turn back now. So, this whole arc must be allowed to reach its inevitable conclusion. In a few more years when Hollywood has completely lost the normal people someone will start over with the things I mentioned above and low and behold the people will beat a path to their door. Hopefully that will put the last nail in the coffin of Hollyweird.
I remember as a kid seeing Winston Churchill’s funeral televised. I knew who he was from the old early morning presentation of Mike Wallace’s “Biography” series. I knew he was our ally during WW II and that he had rallied his country when the rest of Europe surrendered to the German military juggernaut. Later I read some of his speeches and read about his earlier history during WW I. But I didn’t imagine at this point that a good movie about his time as Prime Minister would come my way. I am happily surprised to have been mistaken.
I finally got a chance to watch “Darkest Hour” tonight. It has the look of a period piece and the feel of a film made from a stage play. There are set pieces and dialogs and very little filmed outside of buildings. I didn’t think Oldman was given a close resemblance to Churchill and the difficulty of understanding him when he is mumbling during certain scenes is considerable and I think purposeful. And there is a particular scene in a subway car that is completely fictional and that includes a Jamaican man in the scene who seems to have been added for the sake of diversity or inclusion that seems anachronistic.
Put all that aside. I thought it was a great evocation of the desperation of the time and the fateful choice of Churchill stepping into this darkest hour of British history. His flawed and idiosyncratic personality rubbed almost everyone the wrong way and his pugnacious courage was at odds with the war-weary British government in the post-WWI era. His relationship with Neville Chamberlain and King George VI are highlighted to show how he contrasted with those in government but the evolution of the war and the need for someone with the will to persevere in the face of Nazi blitzkrieg success becomes his inevitable platform from which to energize the Parliament and the people of England to take up the frightening struggle of all-out war.
Many of the scenes take place in underground bunkers where military and government teams are meeting and analyzing incoming war reports. There is a definite claustrophobic feel in much of this. And the frailty of Churchill’s age is highlighted when he seems overwhelmed by the infighting within his own war cabinet. But all of this only magnifies the achievement when he resolves on what will be his path forward and what must be done. The final speech in Parliament is stirring.